More Good News on .tv

professional domaineers starting to take notice... Article 1:

From Afternic.com (top 2 domain aftermarkets)

from "Domain Names in 2007" newsletter

In addition to retailing, the internet is coming on strong as a means for delivering media. I subscribe to three podcasts and wish that I had time to keep up with a few others. With more programming available online everyday, .tv is gaining popularity and value. This is one commercialized ccTLD that people understand. I am interested to see whether people begin using mobile devices for watching online programming and whether .tv or .mobi will benefit if mobile media goes mainstream.

Article 2:

From Domain Name Journal.com, the leading (only?) journal covering the domain industry. This is particularly notable since the editor has historically been a bit of a skeptic re: .tv

This is from their Predictions for 2007

“We will also see even more clearly the intersection of the domain name space and the media space,” Stahura said. “Take .tv for example. With the explosion of video content on the Internet, I think we will see the .tv top level domain grow the most compared to other TLDs.” Of course, Stahura now has a special interest in .tv since registry owner Verisign turned management of that extension over to eNom in the final quarter of 2006.

However, Stahura isn’t alone in predicting better things for .tv. Those who were at the T.R.A.F.F.I.C. East conference in Hollywood, Florida in October will remember keynote speaker Tom Gardner of the Motley Fool predicting .tv would be the sleeper hit of 2007 (a pronouncement greeted with stunned disbelief by his audience, but one that now seems prescient to some

vodka, vodka everywhere

in news that unites two of my interests, we learn today that vodka.com sold for $3.0 million to the Russian Standard vodka company, the largest vodka producer in the world. See their site at: www.vodka.com

I am certain this is worth more than $3M of incremental earnings for them over time since they are pretty unknown in the West...

NY Times forgets copyrights too

"Thanks to its ease of operation, YouTube allows pretty much anyone with a mild curiosity about opera or musical theater to expand his frame of reference without spending a dime, thanks to the compulsive generosity of members with a desire to exhibit their curatorial prowess...On the opera front the easiest place to start is by typing in the name of a favorite singer. The most popular are represented in depth. Unsurprisingly, Maria Callas clips number more than 100, including lots of interviews and late-career concert performances but also a scene from the Lisbon “Traviata” of 1958, immortalized by the playwright Terrence McNally."

The article proceeds to show embed eight (8) examples of YouTube content that definitely includes copyrighted or bootleg content.

Leaving aside the complete lack of curiosity about how the content got there (the word copyright does not appear in the article), I can't see how this does not expose the NY Times to liability also.

While I think You Tube is being disingenous in its use of DMCA at least it has theoretical protection; the NY Times does not have the same safe harbors available to it when it actively goes and selects copyrighted content to enhance its articles.

This anything goes attitude can't possible last. 2 years ago if someone writing an article for the NY times wanted to include full videos of performances in their articles, they would have definitely sought some type of permission from the rights holder. Nothing in DMCA changes those legal dynamics...

Full Article here

Mark Cuban v. You Tube, Part 500

Mark Cuban continues the only coherent copyright analysis of YouTube. In today's entry (see below), he includes a lawsuit by a videographer against Youtube. Two main points: If YouTube is living within the DMCA safe harbor laws, then it a) cannot receive a financial benefit from a video (yet there are banner ads above all videos) and b) if it is just a passive hoster of content, how can it claim a license to the content hosted on its site.

Perhaps Google can do magic - but to me this is / always has been clear as day. The lawsuit document I just read is also straighforward and coherent. As much as I like YouTube, there is no way they should win this lawsuit.

The LA Riots Videos vs Gootube - The Actual Filing

Nov 14, 2006 16:36:00 GMT

To say the stakes are huge would be an understatement. The filing references a very interesting point. If you are under the safe harbor rules, and merely a conduit to others hosting files, how in the world could you give yourself a license to those files ? In other words, Youtube owns what you just uploaded, and can do anything they want with it, without limitation, but at the same time under the DMCA they want to be considered only a conduit that falls under the safe harbors .They cant have it both ways. gonna be interesting !

Full article and court filing here