tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10772329.post2293781004196520430..comments2023-10-19T04:28:39.042-07:00Comments on Infamy or Praise: A Round Tuit (2)Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03168693942822575264noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10772329.post-78657772374866700592009-09-10T17:56:09.353-07:002009-09-10T17:56:09.353-07:00Who is this SHG guy? Do I know him? Is he the one ...Who is this SHG guy? Do I know him? Is he the one who led the student crowd in a free speech demonstration in Barcelona last month?Dan Hullhttp://www.whataboutclients.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10772329.post-62917619896000730282009-09-10T07:58:52.462-07:002009-09-10T07:58:52.462-07:00Scott--
My comment about your RSS feed was akin t...Scott--<br /><br />My comment about your RSS feed was akin to an old fart lamenting the long-gone days when no one locked their doors at night. It's sad but true that times change and the ease with which content can be lifted and repurposed has caused such a change in the blogosphere. This means that those of us (meaning, for purposes of this conversation between you and I, just you) with content worth stealing need to take steps to protect that content beforehand, commit to "protecting" it afterward on a thief-by-thief basis, or resign themselves to involuntarily guest-blogging at sleazy, marketing-driven sites.<br /><br />I don't begrudge your earlier decision to abbreviate your posts in your feed; I understand it completely. While it's a minor inconvenience to click-through for full content, it's worth doing for sites which have full content worth reading. While I might be nostalgic for the days when sites like Simple Justice could leave their doors unlocked, I'm not so naive to believe that we can return to those days easily or soon.<br /><br />The bad players in the blogosphere have created a burden for some content providers; I see nothing wrong with asking readers to share some of that burden by clicking-through partial feeds, entering a captcha to comment, or providing a verifiable online identifier to participate in conversations.<br /><br />To insist that content creators bear the entire burden to chase down content thieves after the fact and to spend significant amounts of time deleting spam comments which could have been prevented with simple, minimally-inconvenient measures would deter some from creating content in the first place. That's a much higher cost for us all to pay.<br /><br />Keep creating and do what you will to protect your work; your readers may whine but we'll adjust.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03168693942822575264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10772329.post-89214611325555176532009-09-10T07:34:28.670-07:002009-09-10T07:34:28.670-07:00Dan--
It's clicheed but true that it takes tw...Dan--<br /><br />It's clicheed but true that it takes two to tango. Many relationships between inside and outside counsel are longstanding but not close ones. Just as outside counsel need to understand and promote a client's interests beyond the matter at hand, inside counsel need to allow them to do that. From concerns about cost, jealous guarding of "territory", or simple resistance to others' suggestions, too often we on the inside do not fully engage with our outside counsel. It's a two-way street, to borrow another cliche.<br /><br />It sounds very high-minded for me to suggest that firms need to do this and that to better serve their corporate clients, but it also takes a bit of longer-term thinking and regular soul-searching for inside counsel (myself included perhaps more than many) to not just expect greater engagement from our outside counsel but to truly enable and encourage it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03168693942822575264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10772329.post-27490511853921149392009-09-10T06:19:21.886-07:002009-09-10T06:19:21.886-07:00Colin, you've shamed me into returning my RSS ...Colin, you've shamed me into returning my RSS feed to full posts, despite the sleazy,scumbag scrapers out there who should all suffocate on geeklawyer's feces.<br /><br />And where did you ever find that picture of me on the phone? I have since removed the mustache and look much younger.shghttp://blog.simplejustice.usnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10772329.post-48583803488144301642009-09-09T22:28:13.836-07:002009-09-09T22:28:13.836-07:00Thanks, Colin...greetings from a hotel lobby in wa...Thanks, Colin...greetings from a hotel lobby in way northeast PA...some nice writing and coverage, sir. <br /><br />FYI, re: suggestions to GCs, note: all posts at WAC? presuppose no one-night stands (zero) and instead longstanding relationships with repeat large and generally publicly-traded clients: 8 years at the very least. <br /><br />Our firm's average is likely about 12 years, with some at 20 plus--which ANY firm can do if it wants. There is no other relationship to have, we think; it is doable by any good firm--not a luxury--and should be any biz law firm's default position. <br /><br />If you have that kind of relationship, you can--and are likely expected to--"suggest away" to the GC, early and often, like a big eager happy goddamn dog. Ya' know?Dan Hullhttp://www.whataboutclients.comnoreply@blogger.com