avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • Sunday March 29, 2020, 1:47 am
  • Proudly celebrating 15 years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Author Topic: Recommended website:  (Read 2630 times)


  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 11,797
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Recommended website:
« on: February 01, 2012, 08:52 AM »

paidContent. It's been mentioned in a few forum posts by fellow DCers Josh and zrinding some time back.

But this is a website well worth checking out if you haven't yet done so. And also worth loading into your RSS reader to stay up on what they're reporting. (Feed URL link here.)

Refreshingly intelligent and rational discussion and reporting on "The economics of digital content."

Some especially good recent articles:

Barnes & Noble: We Will Not Carry Amazon Publishing Titles In Our Stores

What Broadcast And Cable Executives Still Don’t Understand About YouTube

What The Pundits Are Missing In The Megaupload Case This article is a must read because it addresses issues of criminal law and enforcement that have ramifications far beyond the Megauploads case (emphasis added):

The US charges against Dotcom, who was nabbed in a panic room clutching a sawed-off shotgun, are based on an indictment unsealed last week that accuses him and six others of criminal copyright and three other charges.

Contrary to many reports, those other charges are not about money-laundering and racketeering but instead about conspiracy to commit those crimes. The distinction is important because conspiracy charges are a key law enforcement tool for the federal government that, critically, do not require proving the underlying crime.

“It’s a huge engine for the government and one of its bread and butter statutes,” says Miriam Baer, a criminal law specialist at Brooklyn Law School.

Under federal law, a person is guilty of conspiracy if they agree with another person to commit an illegal act and then any person in the conspiracy does something to move the plan forward. This means that the conspiracy doesn’t have to be successful—only that someone performs an “overt act.”

Baer says this can be “particularly easy” to show because an overt act can be anything from a phone call to an email message. “There’s usually plenty of overt acts to choose from.”

The Likely Winners And Losers In The Over-The-Top TV Market

Great site all around. Make sure to pay it a visit, along with its two sister sites:

mocoNews -Unheathily Obsessed with Mobile Content


paidContent:UK - Covering UK's Digital Economy - and not only of interest to UK readers. Some very good stuff to be found there was well.

 8) :Thmbsup:

« Last Edit: February 01, 2012, 08:59 AM by 40hz »


  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,201
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Recommended website:
« Reply #1 on: February 02, 2012, 11:23 AM »
Nice!  I added it to my list.