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. Steve S on May 31, 2007 2:53 PM writes...
Yea, its like DRM light, half the annoyance with all the same great stupidity.
I guess that's why eMusic, Amie Street and Grooveshark are still a bit more interesting on the DRM-Free front.
Permalink to Comment2. Crosbie Fitch on June 1, 2007 3:51 AM writes...
Actually, it would be good to credit the promoter of an artist and distributor/manufacturer of copies, so really, having the manufacturer's name in the copies they make is laudable. Apple would normally be praised for taking pains to ensure credit accrues correctly. If anything they should make it easy for the entire family to copy the music they like for their friends, and at the same time label their copies with "Timmy Stanton made me", etc.
It is only copyright in its prohibition of unauthorised promotion that makes recognition of the vital role of the fan in bringing their favourite artists to a larger audience's attention worrying.
At the very least, Apple should have put a CC license on these DRM free copies to demonstrate that they won't prosecute people for copying them.
Unfortunately, Apple hasn't put its customer's interests first and will no doubt be surprised to find that the tail it's holding belongs to an awakening tiger. Time to let go.
Permalink to Comment