Via Universal Hub, Dan Rowinski notices something fascinating buried in the ICANN TLD requests:
Adam at UH talks a bit more about the business model:
And like Fenway bricks, the Globe will seek to sell personalized domains to Bostonians, who, being proud of their city, will rush to buy them. But non-locals need not fret – the Globe says it’ll sell a .boston address to anybody who wants one, such as people who want the world to know they’re moving to Boston or just enjoy the city.
Journalism be saved!
Answering questions like, “Why does George Lucas’s copyright last so long?”
via Mental Floss
Oh, this is just glorious Rob Reid.
This actually makes sense: Google was absolved of responsibility for comments posted in a Blogger blog that were allegedly defamatory of a British politician. In an interesting development, as the Guardian piece notes the political candidate “brought no proceedings against either the original blogger or individual commenters.”
I get it. Sue the guy with deep pockets. But accusing the host for comments they didn’t prevent is a horrifically slippery slope.
There’s no precedent being set here, but it’s another piece of the puzzle as we look to define and separate the roles of host of content, publishers of content, creators of content and commenters of content…when each of those actions create additional assets of their own.
Wonkbook is on the trail of some of the claims about the cost of piracy to the economy, but buried within the post is one of my favorite arguments. Brad Pulmer writes:
Part of the difficulty here is that it’s not always easy to tally up the true costs of piracy. For instance, if a person illegally downloads a movie or song that he never would’ve downloaded otherwise, then it’s not clear what the losses are (the benefits, by contrast, are much clearer).
That point of availability beyond the market, to me, is always fascinating. Just something I’m thinking about during this debate.
That’s what Knight Foundation says: