?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Overloading the Machine -- Day [entries|friends|calendar]
johnsu01

[ website | wjsullivan.net ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ calendar | livejournal calendar ]

NYT gets application removed from App Store [09 Jun 2010|08:28am]

Did the New York Times really just argue that it is a violation of their terms of service to sell an RSS reader that can access their news feed?

It sounds like they did, in a letter to Apple asking that such an application be removed from the App Store -- right after they themselves had reviewed the application positively and after Steve Jobs had given it a shout-out.

The app was later reinstated, without the NYT feed.

There is the added bit that the app used the NYT feed in its advertising. But... what RSS software wouldn't? And why isn't Google Reader + ads also a commercial use of the NYT feed? Or... Opera? Because they don't include the NYT feed by default?

Confused in Seattle,
John

(In other iPad news, there have been reports that people who appear Asian were asked strange questions when trying to buy iPads, as a result of an earlier Apple policy intended to discourage smuggling, because you know, that's what they do.)

post comment

The Glee of copyright law [09 Jun 2010|12:23pm]

Is a good point...

The absence of any mention of copyright law in Glee illustrates a painful tension in American culture. While copyright holders assert that copyright violators are “stealing” their “property,” people everywhere are remixing and recreating artistic works for the very same reasons the Glee kids do — to learn about themselves, to become better musicians, to build relationships with friends, and to pay homage to the artists who came before them. Glee’s protagonists — and the writers who created them — see so little wrong with this behavior that the word ‘copyright’ is never even uttered.

And I get all teary-eyed when I read things like this:

Current law favors copyright holders. But morally, there’s nothing wrong with singing your heart out. Remixing isn’t stealing, and copyright isn’t property. Copyright is a privilege — actually six specific privileges — granted by the government. Back in 1834, the Supreme Court decided in Wheaton v. Peters that copyrights weren’t “property” in the traditional sense of the word, but rather entitlements the government chose to create for instrumental reasons. The scope and nature of copyright protection are policy choices — choices that have grown to favor the interests of established, rent-seeking businesses instead of the public in general.

post comment

navigation
[ viewing | June 9th, 2010 ]
[ go | previous day|next day ]