This is daily column on Plagiarism Today where the site brings you three of the days biggest, most important copyright and plagiarism news links. If you want to offer your feedback on the column, use the contact form or just follow me on Twitter at @plagiarismtoday.
First off today, an article on Techcrunch over the weekend told us that maybe music executives aren’t as clueless as some people seem to think. According to the piece by Michael Arrington, he had a “Surprisingly candid lunch conversation last week with a big music label executive” and found out that the record labels are fully aware of what is happening to their business but that they are aware that they well have to alter their business models, but not until 2013.
According to the article, the math, predictions and other tools just say that there is too much money in the current model to engage in a shift of policies until at least 2011, probably 2013. CD sales, licensing deals, etc., though waning in their revenue potential, are still big income makers and will continue to be for the next few years at least.
What exactly will happen when and if the record labels change their business model is unclear.
What started as a gentleman’s disagreement between Hulu and Boxee has now degenerated into a game of Whac-A-Mole. Recently, Hulu asked Boxee, a service that makes it easy to get online video to your TV, to disable access to Hulu at the request of Hulu’s content partners. Boxee complied and the matter seemed resolved in a very gentlemanly way.
However, Boxee decided it wasn’t done. It then re-added support for Hulu, this time using Hulu’s RSS feeds, in turn prompting Hulu to block Boxee from accessing their content. Boxee, then, modified their side to ensure that Hulu continued to work on their service.
Why Boxee did this is unclear as is what, if any, action Hulu plans on taking.
Finally today, in a trademark story from my native South Carolina, real estate agency Re/Max has filed a trademark dispute lawsuit against Charleston, S.C.-based agency Rehava saying that their logo is too similar to their own, even though Rehava’s logo doesn’t use any of the same fonts, colors, images or anything else in common with the Re/Max logo.
Rehava says the challenge to their trademark filing is a form of “harassment” and that they intend to fight the challenge, even though it will likely be expensive.
That’s it for the three count today, we’ll be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.
Want the Full Story?
Tune in every Saturday morning for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Monday morning right here on Plagiarism Today.