(entry last updated: 2002-09-13 18:44:44)
I’ve been barely able to keep up with things, so today’s posting is going to be a little terse – and I’m still going to be behind.
Donna and Ernie continue the post Lessig-Red-Herring discussion. I think I still stand by what I posted to Ernie’s comments: “I have to say that I think the only credible explanation for Larry’s position is that he’s doing what any good lawyer does when confronted with a losing battle – trying to find a compromise that will at least preserve something of his client’s interests. Certainly after hearing that Intel has gone over to the dark side with LaGrande, it’s hard not to be pessimistic.”
Update: Donna has posted her latest (and quite comprehensive) summary of the discussion to date at Copyfight. Well worth a review (even if it does include some of my comments <G>)
Napster gets another, albeit tawdry, potential lease on life. And I catch up from yesterday… Plus, an interesting report from the UK Commission on Intellectual Property Rights that’ll anger the SBA and others, as the TalkBacks to the ZDNet UK article posted below demonstrate.
(6 items listed below)
- Will TiVo dodge a bullet by partnering with Neilsen?
- The Register reports that a porn distributor wants to buy Napster from Bertelsmann.
- Dan Briklin discusses the folly of the RIAA strategy with respect to P2P
- Major league baseball’s foray into webcasting geta a looking over, with some interestings issues developing.
- Brad King introduces “squishy” DRM in Wired News. Almost a variant on this Lessig discussion that we’re having right now.
- ZDNet UK reports that The Commission on Intellectual Property Rights has a new report with some conclusions on the use of open source and the construction of IP legislation that will worry those who count on copy protection to maintain profitability. As the opening to the Executive Summary states:
There are few concerned with IP who will find that this report makes entirely comfortable reading….
Perhaps there is something about the era we live in that has encouraged blind adherence to dogma. This has affected many walks of life. It certainly has affected the whole area of intellectual property rights. On the one side, the developed world side, there exists a powerful lobby of those who believe that all IPRs are good for business, benefit the public at large and act as catalysts for technical progress. They believe and argue that, if IPRs are good, more IPRs must be better. On the other side, the developing world side, there exists a vociferous lobby of those who believe that IPRs are likely to cripple the development of local industry and technology, will harm the local population and benefit none but the developed world. They believe and argue that, if IPRs are bad, the fewer the better.
This is going to require some serious reading!!