So that we're not the only single blog in the known universe and beyond who misses the chance to comment on the FTC's boneheaded guidelines requiring bloggers, celebs, reviewers and others -- basically anyone who you might read online -- to disclose any "material relationship" with companies they review.

I tend to look at everything in terms of Pros and Cons. Here's the list I came up with.

The bad

• The FTC has passed an over-reaching regulation which is unenforceable at best, and is a violation of free speech at worst.

The good

• The FTC has passed an over-reaching regulation which is unenforceable at best, and is a violation of free speech at worst.

There are about a million better things the FTC could be doing with its time. Even if you wanted to narrow the to-do list to just Internet related issues, the list is still enormous. How about click-fraud? Noni Juice? Teeth Whiteners? Loose 200 pounds in 37 seconds? And all those hot single girls who are looking for a man like you -- and happen to be conspicuously located in teh same city as what geo-location returns for the IP of your upstream router?

There's a significant amount of misunderstanding of how Internet publishing works in this regulation, but this is the moment where I find the clue train leaves the station with absolutely no-one aboard. AdAge reports that Richard Cleland, assistant director- division of advertising practices at the FTC interprets the regulation to include, "posts on review sites such as Yelp or online stores such as Amazon."

Does that mean when I drop a review on Urban Spoon of my favorite eatery -- who happen to throw me a freebie every once in a while for being a loyal customer -- the FTC will sick it's blogger enforcement team on me? When they figure out exactly how to enforce this, call me.

Until then I'll be driving the Windows 7 box graphics wrapped Porsche Cayman that Microsoft sent me. *

* Kidding. But Ballmer, if you're interested, drop me an email and I'll send you my address

For what it's worth, take the jump to read my quick diatribe on Weblogs, Inc gimmies policy -- which is likely the strictest in existence among blog networks.

For some time there's been skepticism surrounding the questionable business model of BurnLounge, the Web music retailer meets multi-level marketing scheme. Now it would appear the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has been keeping a close eye on the online retailer too. In court documents filed against BurnLounge last week the FTC has accused the Web retailer of running an illegal investment scheme naming, amongst others, BurnLounge CEO, Alex Arnold, and former American Football player Rob DeBoer, one of BurnLounge's most prominent retailers.

According to news reports, the FTC has asked to examine BurnLounge's books in order to determine if more money is made from recruiting new members than from actually selling music. We're betting the FTC won't have too many late nights sorting that mystery out.

For some time BurnLounge has been an outsider in the online music industry, despite high profile supporters such as Justin Timberlake, Shaquille O'Neill and Public Enemy's Professor Griff the underlying business model when it came to selling music didn't match up with its impressive celebrity endorsements. BurnLounge music stores priced songs at a similar level to iTunes, yet in the beginning those songs couldn't even be played on iPods.

BurnLounge's supporters were vocal on forums with their claims of a transformative business model, but most of the time came off sounding like they had been drinking too much digital music Kool Aid. Ultimately BurnLounge is most disappointing because it took a great idea like syndicating music sales to music fans and turned it into a cynical marketing scheme for the benefit of very few.