Wednesday, June 28, 2006 at 2:53PM Why oh why, in the world of Digg, Rojo, del.icio.us, Newsvine, etc., would any media outlet persist in putting or moving material behind a pay and/or archive wall? I can think of no better way of assuring someone else, with a persistent link, will be the definitive source for the information reported.
[Update:] Further to the point.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006 at 2:32PM MommyCasters Gretchen Vogelzang and Paige Heninger answer my question (left via their audio-feedback line) about whether those who turn to their sponsor Dixie for a break from dishwashing drudgery are likely to wind up the subject of a future Al Gore documentary. The answer? No, they grilled Dixie on this point before agreeing to the sponsorship.
I'm really looking forward to meeting Paige and Gretchen at the Portable Media Expo, where Paige's husband Jeff (who happens to be a collegue of mine in our Falls Church office) will join Colette Vogele and me in conducting a session on legal considerations related to podcasting.
MommyCast Show #99 | digg story
[Tags: mommycast, dixie, georgia-pacific, environment, podcasting law, podcasting legal guide, podlaw]
Tuesday, June 27, 2006 at 4:01PM The AlwaysOn Network will hold its 3rd annual Innovation Summit at Stanford July 25-27. The conference features luminaries from the worlds of entertainment, social software, Web 2.0, and technology in general. AlwaysOn also includes bloggers on its press list — which is how I learned of this update.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006 at 3:28PM Been blogging from Digg today, can you tell? Come befriend me. Me likee v. 3.0.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006 at 3:16PM Matthew Neco, general counsel for StreamCast Networks (maker of the Morpheus P2P client), has a lengthy statement about the posture of the ongoing litigation in the wake of last summer's MGM v. Grokster ruling.
The Supreme Court, in establishing the active inducement theory of secondary copyright liability in the Grokster opinion, suggested some factors that a court might consider in weighing and balancing whether the plaintiffs can prove that StreamCast induced copyright infringement. The entertainment industry did not provide undisputed material facts that would prove StreamCast induced infringement. So we think the Trial Court should deny plaintiff's motion, the facts should go before a jury, and a jury should decide what facts are and are not true, and how significant those facts are.
StreamCast opposed a pending summary judgment motion in April.
Statement from Matthew A. Neco | digg story
[Tags: mgmvgrokster, copyright, secondary infringement, streamcast]
