Any record industry executive would have been weeping into his cornflakes today as he perused the newspapers. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) was reported everywhere as having handed victory in a battle to privacy activists and file-sharers by ruling that ISPs do not have to hand over subscriber details in file sharing or any other civil cases.

The problem is that these reports have missed the point. What the ECJ actually said was that national governments can, effectively, do what they like on the issue.

Therefore, if Spain wants to rule that file-sharer details can only be revealed in criminal cases, it can. However, if UK courts want to hold, as they do, that file-sharer details can be revealed in all cases, then that's fine too.

It all boils down to the slightly complicated question that the ECJ was asked. Telecoms firm Telefónica argued that Spanish law prevented it revealing user details except in criminal cases. Music rights-holders' group Promusicae, though, said that law was inconsistent with the EU directive protecting copyright.

The Spanish court asked the ECJ whether Spain was allowed to have a rule preventing disclosure in civil cases. The ECJ said that such a rule was okay. The ECJ did not say that all member States had to prevent disclosure in civil cases to protect privacy rights as has been reported.

The court, very even-handedly, said that the issue put two crucial rights in fundamental opposition: an internet user's right to privacy and a music producer's right to protect its copyright.

Each side in the argument had an entire EU directive on its side, and the ECJ was asked to choose between them. It didn't, instead telling EU nations that they could create their own laws provided they balanced the two rights properly.

Spain, then, was allowed to keep a law that said names can only be revealed in civil cases, as long as its law overall kept a proportional balance between the right to privacy and protection for copyright holders. And here's the nub of the issue, it is a criminal offence to host copyright-infringing material in Spain for profit or on a commercial scale, even if not for profit.

The music industry executive should be marginally happier now, but the one industry it could unsettle is the telecoms business. What practical effect will the ruling have in the hard world of commerce?

One potential effect is forum shopping.

UK music fans generally can't subscribe to ISPs in Spain, because Spanish ISPs don't lay cables along the streets of Britain or install kit in British telephone exchanges (and satellite broadband is an expensive solution for free downloads). But they might use a Spanish web host to store copyright-infringing files. Entire companies could relocate to countries that would not order names to be revealed in civil cases, to pick up this business, and countries that do reveal names, such as the UK, might find their ISP businesses suffering.

So what might be relief for the record industry executive might well become a headache for his counterpart in a telecoms firm. But probably only a minor headache.

While the press were salivating over story-of-the -summer Facebook and the gee-whiz news that its founder Mark Zuckerberg was being sued for allegedly stealing the whole idea from some college acquaintances, it went un-noticed that Facebook is itself suing - that's right, those same college acquaintances.

ConnectU was a startup social networking site whose founders say they employed Zuckerberg. Their suit claims he took their ideas and built Facebook out of them.

But in the background lies another suit, in which Facebook accuses ConnectU of hiring programmers to break into its system, read address books and send ConnectU marketing material to Facebook members' friends, apparently on behalf of those members.

The system was designed, says Facebook, to work with other sites as well as its own, but it said that some elements of it were specifically designed to evade detection by Facebook.

The case stumbled on a dispute over jurisdiction, but Judge Richard Seeborg, who will also oversee the high-profile case between Zuckerberg and ConnectU, said that the Californian court's reach could extend to some Washington-based defendants.

That ruling in itself could set a vital precedent for ecommerce cases.

Seeborg said that jurisdiction can be asserted over people who take action against a person or company even if they don't know that person's physical location.

That is a law change that could have wide ramifications, but in this dispute most people's eyes will be on just how heated and vicious the series of cases between ConnectU and trend-of-the-hour Facebook will get.

Google is facing yet another challenge to its advertising system, AdWords. The system has been challenged before by brand holders such as GEICO and American Blind & Wallpaper Factory (ABWF), but the latest is from one of the world's most famous companies, American Airlines.

The beef is simple in outline, but complex in detail. Google sells ads beside your internet searches which are related to whatever you typed into its search box. The problem is what happens when you type American Airlines or AA into that box.

AA wants only its ads to appear. Google sells the right to display ads next to that term to whoever buys the space. That is the conflict.

A US court ruled in one previous case that using trademarks as triggers was OK, but using those trademarks in the ads themselves was probably a no-no. That, said the judge, caused consumer confusion. We were just about to get blessed clarification on whose fault that would be when Google settled in secret with the other half of that case, GEICO.

Another case involving ABWF has had an initial hearing but will proceed to a full jury trial.

AA is clearly not happy with the outcome of the GEICO case, and has been pretty stiff in its pre-trial verbiage about Google's policies. It says its trademark policy is "manifestly deficient" and it wants a jury trial and punitive damages.

Google has not yet fought this battle with as large, as experienced and as deep-pocketed an opponent as AA. It has another possible adversary, though: Google Europe.

While Google allows US and Canadian trademarks to be bought as keywords, its rest-of-the-world policy allows no such thing. In Europe, it blocks the use of trademarks even behind the scenes as keywords.

"Google appears to have the ability to structure and configure its programming to stop this misuse of the Amercian Airlines marks because it has already implemented procedures with respect to European internet users," says the AA case.

So Google will have to defend in court a policy that its European arm does not practice against a battle-hardened business veteran from a cut-throat competitive and highly litigious industry. If Google hasn't grown up yet, it will soon.

Quietly, while no-one was looking, a minor scam on the outskirts of the law has turned into a major business, creating fast-dealing millionaires and causing the world's brand owners an almighty headache.

Typosquatting is now officially big business: it reportedly earns millions a year for scamsters and new research from Out-Law.com has found that every one of the world's 500 biggest companies is affected.
But why is the business such a raging success for squatters? One of the main reasons is the phenomenon of domain 'tasting'. As a well-meaning aid for people who made a mistake when registering a domain, internet registrar Icann introduced the ability for an address to be returned after five days at no cost.

Though a charming concession to those who might have second thoughts over an address, the practice could almost be designed as an aid to typosquatting. With domain costs resting at an incredible $6 a year, a site has to make less money than ever to turn a profit. What tasting does is allow squatters to find out exactly which sites will deliver the goods.

A typosquatter just has to register a name, monitor the income from ads and do a quick sum to see if it makes enough that it will make a profit over the course of a year. If it doesn't, it gets returned at no cost to the typosquatter.

It is the most incredibly accurate, focused market research opportunity, and it's free. It could be custom-designed to help people to exploit the world's biggest brands for their own profit.

Icann could do something about it, and perhaps it is time to do a cost-benefit analysis. Is any benefit in the grace period really balanced by the vast sums that brand owners say they are losing in the dilution of their brand investment? Isn't it time to change the rules, to force a restocking fee on bulk buyers? It certainly should be food for thought over at Icann.

A US court has just ruled that we must not hold credit card companies responsible for the piratical exploits of copyright-flouting scallywags.

As our transatlantic cousins would have it themselves: dude, duh!

The world of law is full of flawed logic and claims that stretch the imagination, the world of technology law being no exception.

When nudie picture firm Perfect 10 sought to hold Visa and Mastercard responsible for people stealing their photos it was a bad day for logic.

It got worse when one of the judges in Perfect 10's appeal against an initial rejection of its argument actually said he thought credit card firms should be responsible. The court, in California, sent Perfect 10 packing, but not before judge Alex Kozinski dissented with the majority verdict. "If cards don't process payment, pirates don't deliver booty."

"The credit cards, in fact, control distribution of the infringing material," he said. "It does not serve the interests of a free market, or a free society, to abet marauders who pilfer the property of law-abiding, tax-paying rights holders, and who turn consumers into recipients of stolen property."

Credit cards create a financial bridge between infringer and buyer, he said. The cider tap creates a financial bridge between students and penury, should they sue Strongbow because they only have enough cash for coleslaw and sausages at the end of term?

This drive to deal with a problem by suing everyone involved at any stage of a process when something bad happens is utterly lamentable.

That is not to say that credit card firms have no role in the prevention of crimes. When the US banned online gambling they did so by making it illegal for financial services firms, including credit card companies, to process online gambling transactions for US residents.

As an instrument for public policy they can be useful. But that doesn't mean that every time somebody charges for something they shouldn't, the credit card companies take a hit.

Reports suggest that Woolworth's UK web site was so deluged with orders for a Sharp LCD TV last week that it had to be temporarily closed. The reason for Woolies' amazing popularity? The TV was on sale for just £150, as opposed to its usual price tag of £1,500.

Unfortunately this wasn't a case of Christmas come early for online shoppers, but the simple result of a pricing error - someone misplaced a zero. Woolworths was quick to inform customers who managed to place orders before the glitch was spotted that they would not be fulfilling the order - well, not at £150 anyway.

Web site pricing errors are common - probably more common than most punters realise - although the more spectacular ones still manage to make the headlines. And in most cases once the error is spotted the site will be able to withdraw. But a word of caution - don't assume that this always the case.

Digilandmall.com, a major Singapore IT vendor, recently found itself having to go all the way to the Singapore High Court to avoid being in breach of a contract to deliver thousands of HP printers at less than 10 per cent of their usual sale price. It took months of agony and expense in the courts, and a convoluted legal argument, to get them off the hook. The reason? They hadn't put enough thought into their ecommerce process, and didn't have the right wording in their small print.

It's easy to design your ecommerce process to avoid pricing errors - Out-Law has a good article explaining how to do it.

So take five minutes to check that your site is compliant, and enjoy a Christmas sales rush for all the right reasons.

TalkSport Radio has been given a dressing down by the Advertising Standards Authority (the ASA) for a recent online campaign.

A TalkSport employee had been posting messages on a number of football-related message boards advertising a new phone-in show. The messages purported to be from a normal user of the message board, but were in fact adverts. The ASA found TalkSport in breach of the Committee of Advertising Practice code, and penalised TalkSport for misleading readers. The ASA were particularly miffed by the fact that the posts failed to state that they were advertisements.

TalkSport tried to argue that the posts were made by an errant employee of the station, and that the campaign was not sanctioned by TalkSport. The ASA had little sympathy for this argument - saying that proper controls should have been in place to prevent it happening.

The action taken by ASA reinforces the message that you need to apply the same principles when advertising on blogs and message boards as you do when advertising in other places. It comes as a timely reminder that although the medium may change, the rules do not.

The mainstream press was awash with stories recently of a supposed gaffe by off-licence Threshers. A 40 per cent discount coupon was sent by PDF to suppliers, with an invitation for them to share with family and friends. Stormhoek, a South African wine producer, put the coupon on their blog site, and within a matter of hours it had been lifted onto countless other blogs, and word spread like wildfire. The story was the most popular on the BBC news homepage at the time, and a number of newspapers, both broadsheet and tabloid, reported the story prominently that weekend.

Threshers appeared abashed in the press, but graciously acknowledged that they would be honouring the voucher.

Look a little deeper, however, and you quickly discover that all is not as it at first seems. All of the Thresher group stores offer a permanent '3 for 2' offer on all wine and Champagne. To be able to offer this Threshers do a couple of things, all of which are fairly well known in the trade. This includes sharing the discounted cost of the free bottle with their suppliers, but more importantly means they inflate their in-store prices. If you want to buy one bottle of wine or Champagne you are, quite frankly, better going elsewhere.

Looking at the maths in a bit more detail, if you buy three bottles of the same wine or Champagne from Threshers you are effectively getting 33 per cent off the price of each. It would take a careful analysis of prices across the market to be able to say definitively, but it is probably not unrealistic to expect that each bottle is accordingly marked up by a figure not significantly short of this.

Returning then to the 40 per cent discount, the voucher makes it clear that it does not apply in conjunction with the '3 for 2' offer. Therefore, the discount on the single bottle price is only slightly more than the discount offered under the '3 for 2' offer. Threshers undoubtedly loses a little more off of its bottom line, but in a month when every retailer slashes its prices on booze just to get people through the door, Threshers has won better publicity than it could have paid for.

All of which begs the question - just how much of a gaffe was the 'leak' of the Threshers voucher? The Stormhoek blog is a popular one, and Stormhoek is an important supplier of Threshers. We may just have witnessed the most skilfully orchestrated viral marketing campaign in memory.