For more than a decade, the Holy Grail for Internet marketers has been to find some way to improve their rankings in Google’s search algorithm. Now, thanks to Google’s new social search feature, anyone can grab hold of this once-elusive prize…just as long as they have a Google+ account.

If you’ve done a Google search recently, you’ve probably noticed the search engine’s nifty new feature. Just to the right (and sometimes indented below) your search results is a prominently featured panel featuring relevant social media listings related to your search.

A search for “sports”, for instance, might return a social listing for soccer star David Beckham; “politics” might yield a social link for Newt Gingrich, and “cooking” might get you the latest from celebrity chef Jamie Oliver. It’s a thoughtful and timely functionality, clearly developed in response to the increasing role that the Social Web plays in business, politics, and interpersonal communications.

But there is a tiny catch.

In every market touched by the Internet, traditional business models have had to adapt or die.  Especially where sellers had been able to make big markups based on information asymmetry and control of local distribution.  They were astounded when Internet-savvy consumers came in with their own data on quality, costs and prices.  And they agonized when new online competitors from faraway places emerged to challenge their local market dominance.

Market middlemen who cling to old ways are headed for the dustbin of business history.  Just consider a few examples:

• Online travel sites lifted the curtain on the mysterious world of booking airline seats and hotel rooms.  Travel agents who add real value for customers are soaring, but those who just book flights have crashed and burned.

• Optometrists used to make big bucks marking-up contact lenses to their patients.  But those markups disappeared in the blink of an eye once consumers could buy their lenses online. Optometrists who saw this coming focused on their services and helped patients find the best deals on lenses.

• Ticket brokers who believe they alone should control secondary markets for sports and concert seats are finding themselves on sidelines as ticket holders turn to the Internet to sell seats they can’t use.

• Real estate agents are finding fewer homeowners are still willing to pay a $30,000 commission to sell a $500,000 home, especially when Internet-savvy buyers do most of their own legwork using online real estate sites.

Now, the Internet is happening to auto dealers too.

Recently I finished reading the Harry Potter series of books and decided to sell them.  And a couple of months ago I was moving and sold my Star Wars DVDs.

In neither of these sales did I need the permission of J.K. Rowling or George Lucas.  They were my books and my DVDs to resell and not subject to the approval of the author.

The reason I did not need to get the author’s permission is because of the “first-sale doctrine” of the Copyright Act.

The first-sale doctrine basically allows you to resell something you bought without getting the author’s permission and without violating copyright law.

Yesterday we filed comments on the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) proposed changes to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA).  Our comments advises the FTC about changes that could discourage the developmenet of online services for kids.

So what is COPPA?  Well, COPPA regulates the online collection and use of information about a child (a child is anyone under 13).  While a noble goal, COPPA has unfortunately discouraged many services from developing appropriate content for kids.

That’s because COPPA exposes any online service for those under thirteen to potential legal liability.  As a result, many services forbid those under 13 from using their services. For example, YouTube forbids those under 13 from using its service.  Likewise, Pandora music service is only available to those over 13.

This past September, the FTC proposed changes to COPPA, expanding its scope and legal liability.  When we heard about the changes we worried about the effects.  CCOPPA current rules already discourage most online services from serving those under 13, so what will happen if the rules get tougher and the liability greater?  How many more sites will just avoid serving kids?

In August, Ireland’s Data Protection (DPC) Commissioner Billy Hawks made headlines by airing a laundry list of potential Facebook privacy violations, including the creation of “shadow profiles” and the collection of information about non-Facebook users.

At the same time, the Irish Commissioner declared that his planned audit of Facebook’s privacy practices was, “likely to be the most detailed, challenging and intensive audit ever undertaken by his office.”  The announcement was good for generating headlines, but as the results of his audit show, the alarming headlines were unjustified and, in some cases, wrong.

Fast-forward to today’s news about the audit findings where the Commissioner concluded that, “The audit has found a positive approach and commitment on the part of Facebook Ireland to respecting the privacy rights of its users.”

Well, that conclusion was unexpectedly un-alarming.

Just like last month’s FTC consent agreement, Facebook emerged from an engagement with government auditors without dramatic revelations of plots to build dossiers on every person on the planet.

Who would have thought going to see a Michael Buble concert would leave someone damp, cold, and disappointed.  But that is how one concert-goer felt after having his first experience with TicketMaster’s paperless tickets.

The TicketMaster paperless ticket scheme requires the purchaser of the ticket, not the holder, to provide a photo ID and the credit card used to buy the ticket.  For  years we have tried to protect fans from the hassle that comes with TicketMaster’s paperless tickets.  But despite our ongoing battle, paperless tickets are already hassling sports fans and concert-goers across the US.

Richard Darr is the latest victim of the paperless ticket when he received tickets to Michael Buble’s Nashville concert.  However, what should have been easy ultimately required Richard to get soaked in rain, make dozens of frantic phone calls, and drive to grab a friend’s credit card and photo ID — all in the minutes before the concert began.

In 2009, EPIC, a privacy group, filed a privacy complaint about Facebook with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).  This prompted the FTC to announce last month an agreement where Facebook must create a comprehensive privacy program, delete content after termination of a user account, and do comprehensive privacy audits every two years.  If Facebook fails to comply, it faces millions of dollars in fines.

Unfortunately, after obtaining privacy sanctions against Facebook, EPIC announced today that it considered the agreement a “FAIL” and launched a campaign to demand additional sanctions on Facebook.

I visited EPIC’s site to learn more about their new demands.  EPIC demands the FTC to “prevent Facebook from secretly tracking users across the web.”  That sounds scary, but EPIC never explains what it means by “secret tracking.” I found only one reference to tracking, secret or otherwise, buried in a 2010 EPIC complaint about Facebook’s cookies.  So I can only assume that by “secret tracking” EPIC means Facebook reading their cookies when users visit other sites.  But it wasn’t until I thought more about these Facebook cookies that I realized why EPIC hid their explanation of “secret tracking.”

We’re giving a polite “golf clap” for The Federal Trade Commission and Facebook on today’s announcement of a voluntary agreement designed to protect user privacy while allowing Facebook – and an entire ecosystem of online service providers – to continue innovating.

First off, it’s almost always better to get private industry and federal regulators to reach a mutual agreement on resolving complaints.  Far too often, the kneejerk response from regulators and elected officials is to call for new legislation.   And those new laws usually just restrain innovation by legitimate companies, while those intent on bad behavior ignore new laws just as they ignored the old laws.

It this case, the FTC and Facebook tackled a list of complaints that were raised by a small but media-savvy industry of professional privacy advocates.

In general, the 800 million users around the globe who joined Facebook do so in order to make their information more visible to public and to their network of friends.

Today’s Wall Street Journal features a full-page debate (p.B5) on whether retailers should be forced to collect sales tax for all states — even where the business has no physical presence.

The article includes a debate between Michael Mazerov, who wants force all online sellers to collect taxes for all states, versus my argument in favor of the present national standard established by the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings.

Take a few minutes to compare the arguments.  And if you agree that the physical presence rule is the best way to preserve e-commerce as an opportunity for small businesses, please vote in the WSJ online poll.  (this morning’s printed poll results came over the last several weeks — before this debate was published ).