July 26, 2005

Unified EFI; DRM By Any Other Name…. [4:33 pm]

The Slashdot discussion, UEFI Formed to Replace BIOS, on the formation of the Unified EFI Forum, is largely focused on the presumption that the use of this BIOS replacement technology, instead of OpenFirmware, is all about jamming DRM/Trusted Computing down everyone’s throat.

permalink to just this entry

Spitzer Gets A Payola Settlement [7:40 am]

Paying a Price [pdf]

When executives at Sony BMG needed to drum up support in 2002 for Jennifer Lopez’s album “This Is Me … Then,” they called the program director of a San Diego radio station and offered her a 32-inch plasma TV in exchange for adding the artist’s songs to her play list.

Sony BMG Music Entertainment knew such payola, or “pay-for-play,” was improper. Nonetheless, the company asked the programmer to provide a fictitious contest winner’s name and Social Security number to cover up her involvement.

[...] The alleged exchange was disclosed in a treasure trove of e-mails, BlackBerry messages and other documents made public Monday by New York Atty. Gen. Eliot Spitzer. That electronic paper trail led the second-largest music company to a $10-million settlement.

[...] Sony BMG, home to such artists as Tony Bennett and the Dixie Chicks, promised Monday not to pay radio stations in exchange for airplay. The company issued a formal statement acknowledging that “various employees pursued some radio promotion practices on behalf of the company that were wrong and improper.” The company also fired an executive vice president of promotions at one of its labels.

Related: the current fortunes of a distinctly non-payola radio format - Jack lures fans by not saying much [pdf]

permalink to just this entry

Dvorak: Fundamentally Foolish or Purposely Obtuse? [7:29 am]

Having dealt with John Dvorak before, I can’t believe he really is as purposely obtuse as he makes himself out to be in his July 18th column — Creative Commons Humbug. I can’t imagine that he’s failed to see just how hard it is to get “fair use,” given that “fair use” is something that only exists as a courtroom decision. For example:

Before Creative Commons I could always ask to reuse or mirror something. And that has not changed. And I could always use excerpts for commercial or noncommercial purposes. It’s called fair use. I can still do that, but Creative Commons seems to hint that with its license means that I cannot.

What??! Talk about missing the point — maybe he should try to read just a little about the topic, before asking to be spoon-fed by others.

permalink to just this entry

I’m Back! [7:15 am]

Sorry - lots of catching up to do — been away a week with some odd server interactions, possibly between my RSS reader and the OS, so I don’t have much of an archive to work through.

permalink to just this entry

July 2005
S M T W T F S
« Jun   Aug »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  
posts

0.313 || Powered by WordPress