There's a good tech blog called Dead 2.0 written by someone who goes by the name "Skeptic". Nik Cubrilovic did some digging and apparently discovered Dead 2.0's identity. Now, the question is whether the rest of the world needs to know Dead 2.0's identity. Personally, it doesn't matter because he writes with insight, intelligence and wise-ass humour - and that's good enough for me. Of course, if he started to viciously attack people, that would be another story because I believe you need to stand up behind words like that. (hmm: it seems I'm somewhat conflicted). But as long as Dead 2.0 keeps doing what he's doing, he's good with me. One other point: Nik does a good job highlighting how you can easily find information about people online.
Update: Mathew Ingram has a post on how Michael Arrington is none too pleased with Dead 2.0 or TechCrush, which was launched recently to look at companies reviewed by TechCrunch six months later. This may just be a hunch but I think Skeptic's cover is going to be blow fairly soon (Arrington says Skeptic is a VP at a start-up that has been covered by TechCrunch and CrunchGear). There's just too many people sniffing around that it won't be long before someone comes up with the a "Dead 2.0 scoop". Then what happens? Does the unmasked Skeptic continue to write his blog or will writing in the open mean he can't be as objective as he wants given he works within the Web 2.0 community? If push comes to shove (start-up equity/job vs. blog), he may have to give up Dead 2.0, which would be a shame.

My column in today's National Post looks at how copyright is about to become the hot issue within the red-hot video-sharing market. As Mark Cuban recently argued, video-sharing services such as YouTube have thrived on free hosting and unfettered access to lots of unlicensed music and videos. Well, the copyright infringement party is over as illustrated by YouTube's licensing agreement with Warner-Brothers Music earlier this week. So what does this mean for video-sharing services who will have to play by the copyright rules? What does it mean for content owners? Read the column to find out.

Update: The New York Post has a story suggesting YouTube won't sell out unless it gets an offer of at least $1.5-billion - a staggering amount for a company with lots of users but little revenue and a copyright challenge.

Alarm.com has caught the attention of a few folks by signing a deal to bundle its wireless alarm service with SunRocket's VoIP service. Some people such as Garrett Smith are suggesting VoIP players could thrive/survive by offering service bundles (including video) rather than being pure voice plays. In theory, it seems like a practical idea given bundles are apparently all the rage with consumers - even though carriers and cablecos seem far less enthusiastic these days about offering deep discounts to customers who purchase bundles. In practice, however, I don't think it really matters much from a competitive angle if VoIP players such as Vonage and SunRocket get into the bundle business. Why? Because any bundle Vonage, for example, could offer would easily be matched by the carriers and/or cablecos, which have deeper relationships with consumers. That said, VoIP service providers have little to lose by offering other Web-based products if it generates revenue. Why stop at security? If they really want to emerge as more than one-trick ponies, why not offer video, anti-virus and anti-spam protection and entertainment services? The bottom line is that at the end of the day, Vonage, SunRocket, et al can offer all the services want but it won't matter unless they also offer competitive prices, high-quality services and great customer service as well.