This site is devoted to copyright and issues of 'intellectual property,' particularly the issue's analytical aspects. It also concerns itself with the gap between public perception and the true facts, and with the significant lag time between the coverage on more technical sites and the mainstream press. For site feed, see: To see the list of sites monitored to create this site, see:

Saturday, June 18, 2005

BnetD DMCA case.

Licensing grafitti?

DRM blocks iPod use. All's fair in love and (civil) war?

Seven of the top 10 digital music sites, moreover, remain unsanctioned by the record labels." A very basic point to go along with the assertion that all they're doing is driving it deeper underground and undermining rule-of-law. However, the data they used for "top 10" was the junky NPD Group data.

More idle threats? "Internet Service Providers won't get movie content licensed, unless they provide the indentifying information of their customers on demand."

More copyright abuse.

TV tuner gone. May spur modularity? Or will it just lead to cable providers providing their own boxes with more control? Probably the latter.

More DRM suckage.

Rent v. Buy?

Another DRM crack.

Google Scholar content will be fairly open.

"Oddly, Philips did not charge royalties on their cassette patent, allowing numerous other companies to use their design for free. This ensured the quick acceptance of it as a new form of media." Walt has a better explanation.

Amazon labeling copy protected CDs.

"The question, therefore, is whether defendant took from plaintiff's works so much of what is pleasing to the ears of lay listeners, who comprise the audience for whom such popular music is composed, that defendant wrongfully appropriated something which belongs to the plaintiff." The world would be a much better place if this test were applied more broadly.

The Canadian Press reports Videotron has agreed with the music industry's claim that putting songs into these networks is copyright infringement. They say it's strange for other companies to fight the court order, since many of them own entertainment networks and are part of groups that are losing money due to free file sharing."



Post a Comment

<< Home