About this weblog
Here we'll explore the nexus of legal rulings, Capitol Hill
policy-making, technical standards development, and technological
innovation that creates -- and will recreate -- the networked world as we
know it. Among the topics we'll touch on: intellectual property
conflicts, technical architecture and innovation, the evolution of
copyright, private vs. public interests in Net policy-making, lobbying
and the law, and more.
Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this weblog are those of the authors and not of their respective institutions.
What Does "Copyfight" Mean?
Copyfight, the Solo Years: April 2002-March 2004
1. Anonymous on July 10, 2006 5:01 PM writes...
Where's the article that was after "Tim B-L on Net Neutrality" and before this one??
Permalink to Comment2. Anonymous on July 11, 2006 10:36 AM writes...
I thought my comment wasn't showing up, but it is! But it still says zero! And I am still not seeing an earlier article. What the heck is going on here?!
Permalink to Comment3. Anonymous on July 12, 2006 12:47 PM writes...
"115
Non-dramatic music
Whatever that means
Can be forcibly licensed
On a per-copy scheme"
Well, that explains Muzak then! Elevator music gets compulsory licensing, so it's cheaper to use when you have a bunch elevators to install. (Or, these days, a 1-800 number that gets thirty thousand callers a day, for which you lease three (count 'em, three) telephone lines, hire one thickly accented foreigner to run from phone to ringing phone in the room where the extensions are, and therefore you need hold music. Lots and lots of hold music.)
Permalink to Comment