With ICANN's decision to add new categories of names to top level domain names, organisations are already embarking on the process to register their brand. Regsitering a name won't come cheap though. Yet another example of the internet well and truly being commodified, Canon will pay $185,000 for the privilege. Perhaps the media attention in being first will be worth the outlay.
Whilst being amusing, this article also raises interesting points around what level of responsibility internet sites and information providers must take for the accuracy and quality of the information they provide.
I'm not certain how this fits into the RC internet filtering, but by requiring artists to lodge a $500 application for expert appraisal to certify an image 'art' as opposed to any old image that is subject to child pornography laws, you implicity RC everything else.
"I think Google is gearing up to be potentially quite a formidable competitor to existing telcos and ISPs, given their moves into the infrastructure level," Warren Chaisatien, research director and principal analyst at Australian firm Telsyte, said.
First they're making phones, now they're putting in the pipes.
"The media collaborated with itself and it was one big swirling newsroom on Twitter," said Guzman. "We ended up using tweets as starting points. And Twitter did end up breaking a bunch of stuff."
we often accept news from other blogs as immediately trustworthy, while a Wikipedia article such as this one, which is transparent in its creation, its sourcing and its transmutation over time, we dismiss as flawed from conception.
Traditional media get bits of breaking news wrong all the time, but we accept that as part of the game. To vilify Wikipedia for the same errors sets unequal standards and besides, you'll likely never see the same level of transparency in traditional media about where it went wrong.
I know this is a piece of fluff, but it raises some questions for me:
1. Was Twitter the only medium through which this event was advertised? Could there not have been other ways to advertise the cancellation of the signing?
2. Is private Twitter usage able to be publically regulated? If so, to what extent?
3. To what extent is the shopping mall responsible? OHS and Fire codes would have mandated the number of people allowed in an area - should they not have made provision for that?
4. Was the failure to tweet reckless endangerment on the part of the manager, or have the law enforcement agencies taken social networking and used it to increase the level of responsibility a person owes to the general public (at least in this instance)?
I'm not saying that the manager is in the right, I'm just wary of the level of importance placed on one aspect of this event. Has the way we operate changed to such an extent as to warrant this sort of police interference?
The article looks at the growing global trend for net regulation. Our interest is where Australia, as a result of our drafted internet filtering system, fits in this global picture of regulation. Reporters Without Borders has drawn up lists which groups nations in terms of their level of regulation. Appropriately as a democracy Australia is not listed under "Enemies of the Internet" which names China, North Korea, Egypt and Cuba. Yet disconcertingly we are given the label of "Under Surveillance" which lists us alongside Turkey, Russia, South Korea and the UAE.
Great Larvatus Prodeo post over the weekend, written for Electronic Frontiers Australia about the internet filter. Quite long, but here is a key quote:
"The Internet ... is part of that secular movement towards the democratisation of social relations; and of knowledge. It's precisely because the Internet affords so much promise for those who wish to decide their destinies in common, to learn, to form an informed judgement and habit of thought that its freedom from state interference is so important at the level of principle."
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2010/04/16/left-reasons-to-oppose-the-net-filter-nocleanfeed/
Founder of the infamous Australian Whirlpool Forums Simon Hackett outlines five points about the impending government ISP level filter. Interesting as it highlights the gap between the governments ideals for online family security and the realpolitik for control.
Steve Jobs announces that Apple has no intention of supporting Flash sites through iphones and ipads in the future. Claiming that Flash has too many bugs, drains batteries too quickly and is too oriented to PCs. Apple has not intimated that they will offer an alternative solution. Do we believe these reasons, or are there more politics at play here? I'm inclined to think there is something more. Granted Apple does make every attempt to provide its users with a high level of reliability and useability which Flash obviously undermines. Clearly such standards are what differentiates the quality levels of Apple from Mac.
The power is with the market then. Will users opt for other devices that do support Flash, or will the Apple brand keep its power despite not supporting the major software brand used to build interactive sites?
Interestingly, although Flash is not recognised officially as a 'standard' HTML5 does support certain Flash features. Adobe has commented that it is committed to improving its Flash product.
An article on how the increasing flow of internet traffic could potentially lead to a form of 'gatekeeping' of users by providers. It has always been perceived that there was network neutrality as providers charged a flat rate for unlimited internet access. However, the article argues that this is not the case as there has aways been some form of management of traffic so that an acceptable level of service is maintained. An extreme example is the court case between BitTorrent users and the provider Comcast. Comcast blocked this service as it was effecting service. This was challenged by users who initially won. However in a challenge by Comcast, Washington found in their favour as it found that the Federal Communications Commission could not decide how Comcast should manage its network. Another interesting point made is the potential for service providers to charge content providers who attract a large amount of traffic.This way good service is guarenteed, through essentially sharing the burden of cost. Obviously this is fiercely opposed by businesses. Clearly this all has the potential to change the relationship between users, content providers and service providers.
A step back- looking at censorship in Australia under the Rudd government.
Going back to when the ISP filtering laws were first proposed David Marr observes an underlining level of conservatism in Australia in particular light of the governments pursuit of censorship. He looks at the governments approach to undesired content on the internet by reflecting back on the Bill Henson case.
This article is actually looking at the question of whether there is even a cybersecurity threat. It demonstrates that even within government bodies in the US there is no consensus about the level of current threat.
Article although from earlier this year is an interesting comment from Lessig in which he praises Google for the Book Settlement allowing the public more access than fair use, but which he speaks out against in the level of control control the settlement which allows different types of licensing on word/quote/page basis.
Potentially it could be a permissions nightmare for people who would like to use excerpts from the books.
SEDO (Search Engine for Domain Offers) has partnered with VeriSign (the operator of the valuable .com and .net gTLDs, amongst other network inrastructure) to conduct a .TV auction between 1 April - 8 April 2010. Having a semiotic association with rich media content and a memorable quality, it seems likely the auction will attract bids from brand names already harnessing rich media content and looking to capitalise on new revenue streams that the expansion of gTLDs offers.
Reserves will be around $5000 for each auctioned name ( a list of all names can be found at http://sedo.com/search/searchresult.php4?auctionevent=tvPremium&tracked=&partnerid=&language=us ) causing some annoyance amongst those who have already made costly .TV purchases in excess of the reserved price.
Opponents of expanding gTLDs have largely based their arguments on the additional cost to business in performing defensive registration on their brands. What is defensive registration? Basically it's an action taken to protect a trademark (in the case of domain names, to protect a word or phrase which identifies the goods or services of a party).
This study investigates how valid the defense registration argument, backed by organsiations such as Microsoft, actually is. It assesses the amount of defensive registration already undertaken in varying gTLDs for the top Fortune 100 companies. The conclusion: 'If past behavior is predictive of future actions, we will see a minimal amount of defensive registration activity in new gTLDs by brand owners, and new gTLDs will be largely ignored by cybersquatters.'
The European Parliament overwhelmingly voted to explicitly oppose any law or global agreement which would entail ISPs to punish customers for breaches of copyright. They have also demanded that documents surrounding the secret worldwide negotiations, which Australia is also involved in, be released publicly.
With mandatory filtering legislation looming in Australia, Google makes its point about why this is a bad idea. And while their argument doesn't include any ground breaking points, it is a good summary of reasons against the legislation.