Comments on: The legal relevance of being a ‘blog': a ‘pretty straightforward’ definition?

By: Nick Holmes (@nickholmes)

Nick Holmes (@nickholmes) — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 10:12:47 +0000

I agree that singling out bloggers for special treatment is unnecessary and just complicates matters. The question comes down to whether news is your business or part your large business. http://www.binarylaw.co.uk/2013/04/24/we-are-all-micro-publishers-now/

By: End of the day round-up | Legal Cheek

End of the day round-up | Legal Cheek — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 16:56:02 +0000

[…] The legal relevance of being a "blog": a "pretty straightforward" definition? [Meeja Law] […]

By: jtownend

jtownend — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 14:02:27 +0000

Thank you for this!

By: Patrick Smith (@psmith)

Patrick Smith (@psmith) — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 13:07:12 +0000

DMCS is effectively redefining what a microbusiness is: http://www.themediabriefing.com/article/2013-04-22/UK-press-regulation-exempts-blogs-fails-understand–digital-landscape#comment-873196806

Rather than use the widely accepted EU threshold of £578k in annual revenue, they’ve chosen – from out of the blue – £2 million a year. It’s very hard to describe a business as micro if they are earning £1.99 million in sales every 12 months.

By: jtownend

jtownend — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 11:14:27 +0000

I don’t think it’s supposed to capture blogging academic researchers, although it could be reassuring to have access to the arbitration service (depending on the set-up of the new regulator – eg. joining fee). Until now, I didn’t really see the point of trying to define a ‘blog’ anymore than I find it very useful to define ‘citizen journalism’, and thought the term would be become increasingly redundant. But it’s no longer just a question for academic conferences about the future of journalism!

By: Lucy Series

Lucy Series — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:57:05 +0000

Hmmm… up until ‘do you have 10 employees or more’ I could definitely answer yes to each of these…’Probably not’ isn’t terribly reassuring.