JumpTV Aims To Be Next iCraveTV - Without Lawsuits
Television & Movies9/17/2000; 6:42:04 PM 'Another Canadian company is planning to go where controversial Webcaster iCraveTV.com has gone before. But Montreal- based JumpTV.com figures it can retransmit off-the-air television signals via the Internet without being crushed by copyright lawsuits from the movie and broadcasting industries. 'Nearly 10 months after iCraveTV first announced plans to pipe television broadcasting through its Web site the way cable companies retransmit programming via their private networks, JumpTV is gearing up for a similar business, taking advantage of Internet- friendly broadcasting regulations in Canada.'The critical difference is that JumpTV.com is getting the applicable permissions. That makes all the difference.
LinkBack9/16/2000; 1:20:24 PM Murphy willing, LinkBack is back online and should stay there for the forseeable future.It's running within Radio Userland now, so I can run it at home without violating any Frontier licensing. (Cool!)The system has been reset and will take some time to flush out the 'old' links.
Personal Notes9/16/2000; 12:04:44 PM On a topic utterly unrelated to iRights...If you enjoy watching the Olympics and live in the US you likely detest what passes for Olympic coverage around here, which is usually about 50% sports, and 50% "While we own your eyes, we'd like you to [watch the premiere of this new show, watch this unutterably annoying and sappy "human interest" story, forget that anybody but the US is competing]. If you live in the Northern US, try to find out if you can get the Canadian Broadcasting Channel... I watched it yesterday, and instead of seeing NBC run a tease about a swimmer named Thorpe coming on 'tommorow' (Hype! Hype! Hype!), I watch a guy named Thorpe swim. I am seriously wondering if the CBC will be a day ahead for the entire games or not...Definately check it out if you want to see the Olympics and not an NBC produced pageant vaguely related to the Olympics.
Film evidence challenges BT's claim to hypertext patent
Patents9/16/2000; 11:56:06 AM 'BT's tight-fisted grasp on the patent for hyperlinks could be about to slacken following an intriguing posting on Nerd site, Slashdot.'Apparently, on December 9, 1968, Douglas C Engelbart and 17 researchers at the Augmentation Research Center, Stanford Research Institute, in Menlo Park, California presented a 90-minute live public demo in which hypertext was wheeled out for all to see.'Real Player video and a link to the Slashdot discussion is at the site.
All The World's A Bootleg
General IP Issues9/15/2000; 4:28:29 PM '... Several of the Nirvana songs on Napster were live recordings of extremely poor sound quality, the vocals barely audible through audience noise. I assumed that these were bootlegged recordings, which by definition are hard to come by. I labeled the files "bootleg-rare." And I added them to the CD as lagniappe. 'Napster allows each member of the "Napster community" to search other members' hard drives for particular songs. My live bootlegs attracted enormous, even rabid interest--they were uploaded by dozens of people, who in turn passed them on to many others. Each time I went on Napster and searched for Nirvana I saw them on other people's machines. Not only did this further add to my guilt, it made me wonder what I had on my machine. Bootlegs are always in demand, but why were these particular bootlegs so special? Investigating, I discovered to my chagrin that these recordings were not bootlegs at all but songs from a perfectly ordinary live album that had been ineptly converted to digital form by enthusiastic but technically unsophisticated Nirvana fans. I had inadvertently reinvented them as precious bootlegs and passed them on to Kurt Cobain aficionados hungry for any unheard notes from the master.'... Although today copyright is mainly treated as a means to reward creators--or castigated as a scam that lets big media companies lock up culture--it has a second, rarely mentioned function: affixing the form of works of art and science. ... The closest thing I can imagine to a solution is for musicians to fix their music in some tangible, immutable form that can only be played on special, authorized machines. I've even thought of a name for it: the "compact disc."'In the phrase "to fix their music in some tangible, immutable form that can only be played on special, authorized machines.", the "that can only be played on special, authorized machines" part is completely superfluous. Once the music is in tangible, immutable form, it's already as protected as it's going to be.I'm certainly not used to articles about Napster that don't make a moral point about the rightness or wrongness of use, it just makes a practical recommendation against using Napster because of quality control issues. I kept futilely hunting for the "Napster good" or "Napster bad" part... felt kinda wierd.
|<- Future Posts||Past Posts ->|