News: Couple of Quick Updates
Honestly, its been a pretty slow week for internet tech news... maybe if I was into the ongoing Blackberry patent war... but the only interest that particular issue holds for me is as an example of an increasingly confusing area of software patent legislation.
However, amidst a sea of mediocrity, there were a couple of interesting takes on tech law. First, professor Tim Wu's commentary in ZDNet News on the value of neutrality and the misguided actions of recent companies is definitely worth reading. In it, he argues the well known Sony DRM fiasco and BellSouth's attempts at regulating bandwidth are short-sighted, and fail due to the demands of the market.
I wish he would have pressed the issue further and explored possible compromises between the demands of the market and the protectionist tendencies of such companies, because as it stands its unclear how a company like Sony can reconcile the copy-related attributes of a CD that consumers want with piracy concerns. Basically, service companies like Google, Yahoo, or iTunes are more than happy to keep everything neutral and free: they just want people to come in the door. But in doing this, they're leveraging the goods offered by BellSouth (bandwith) and Sony (protected content). Wu's right that the ability to copy a CD has now become accepted as part of the value of that CD- but to what extent? There's no way to test how much of a tradeoff consumers are willing to take, so Sony strives in both directions- towards protectionism with DRM, and towards neutrality with the Sony/Playlouder agreement. They need to find a compromise for CD's that gives consumers what they want and offers protection from piracy, and Wu gives no guidance on how that's done, instead, he wrongfully compares companies that play different roles in the market. I want to know what he has to say about the next stab at copy protection, the 'walled garden' approach.
Given the next wave of RIAA lawsuits that's a'comin, I hope the companies start to embrace neutrality a bit more, and the analysts understand that what works for Google doesn't necessarily work for everyone.
Second, the cease-and-desist letter sent out to PearlLyrics offers up another entertaining attempt of a big company threatening a small company with a lot of smoke and noise. Fred von Lohmann of the EFF responds with some legal jargon of his own. It's an issue that harks back to the ongoing problems with cease-and-desist letters that I wrote about last week based on the Brennan Law Report. In the end, Warner/Chapell, the company that sent the letter, backed off, and somewhat apologized. Woo-hoo.
However, amidst a sea of mediocrity, there were a couple of interesting takes on tech law. First, professor Tim Wu's commentary in ZDNet News on the value of neutrality and the misguided actions of recent companies is definitely worth reading. In it, he argues the well known Sony DRM fiasco and BellSouth's attempts at regulating bandwidth are short-sighted, and fail due to the demands of the market.
I wish he would have pressed the issue further and explored possible compromises between the demands of the market and the protectionist tendencies of such companies, because as it stands its unclear how a company like Sony can reconcile the copy-related attributes of a CD that consumers want with piracy concerns. Basically, service companies like Google, Yahoo, or iTunes are more than happy to keep everything neutral and free: they just want people to come in the door. But in doing this, they're leveraging the goods offered by BellSouth (bandwith) and Sony (protected content). Wu's right that the ability to copy a CD has now become accepted as part of the value of that CD- but to what extent? There's no way to test how much of a tradeoff consumers are willing to take, so Sony strives in both directions- towards protectionism with DRM, and towards neutrality with the Sony/Playlouder agreement. They need to find a compromise for CD's that gives consumers what they want and offers protection from piracy, and Wu gives no guidance on how that's done, instead, he wrongfully compares companies that play different roles in the market. I want to know what he has to say about the next stab at copy protection, the 'walled garden' approach.
Given the next wave of RIAA lawsuits that's a'comin, I hope the companies start to embrace neutrality a bit more, and the analysts understand that what works for Google doesn't necessarily work for everyone.
Second, the cease-and-desist letter sent out to PearlLyrics offers up another entertaining attempt of a big company threatening a small company with a lot of smoke and noise. Fred von Lohmann of the EFF responds with some legal jargon of his own. It's an issue that harks back to the ongoing problems with cease-and-desist letters that I wrote about last week based on the Brennan Law Report. In the end, Warner/Chapell, the company that sent the letter, backed off, and somewhat apologized. Woo-hoo.
posted by chector1020 @ 11:03 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home