Revolver shoots itself in the foot: iPods, U2 and free speech.
22/06/05 23:34
PressWatch
Revolver shoots itself in the foot: iPods, U2 and free speech.
Last Friday's 'The Ticket' supplement in the Irish Times ( June 17th 2005) contained a column by Brain Boyd which attacked Apple for its treatment of Francis Hwang, and its general treatment in relation to intellectual property.
The first section looked at the case of Hwang who, according to Boyd, loaded songs onto his U2 iPod, modified the case of the iPod, and tried to sell it on eBay as an "extra special edition." There is a certain rebellious element in this story which makes us smile, but Boyd seems to miss the point, that loading an iPod and then flogging the songs to another user is illegal. After all, is Boyd suggesting that we can all load our music onto iPods before selling them? Or maybe loading ours PCs with software before putting them on the open market?
The problem with Boyd's article is that while we appreciate some of the sentiments he is expressing, what he seems to point to is the illegal distribution of music and an undermining of intellectual property. Apple relies on the goodwill of the five major record labels (as well as the independents) to be able to run the iTunes Music Stores.
The second part of Boyd's column points to Apple's recent court cases against rumour sites. Two sites ran articles revealing what Apple consider trade secrets. Boyd described the rumour site owners as "journalists", a term which is generous in the extreme. The two sites in question are rumour sites who rely on receiving information from Apple or other tech employees. The people who leak information to these sites are looking to heighten their own self importance, by somehow revealing what they know on internet sites. Freedom of speech is a fundamental part of any functioning democracy, but publishing company secrets about future products harms Apple. Boyd seems to be under the impression that some of these sites are written by excited Apple fans merely speculating about future Apple products. If it is the case and the "journalists" were simply lucky to guess about a new product, then they have no case to answer. However the accuracy and timing of the reports point to a leak from someone in the know, and as such is a possible breach of an employee's contract.
Apple's share of the PC market is in single digits; its publicity and marketing generally allows it to punch above its weight. Apple new products are normally covered in the mainstream media, and the "wow" factor from its product launches is a well protected aspect of its business. We don't see how Boyd can defend the actions of the rumour sites, if trade secrets are being passed to a web site which attempts to hide behind the mask of respectable "journalism."
Revolver shoots itself in the foot: iPods, U2 and free speech.
Last Friday's 'The Ticket' supplement in the Irish Times ( June 17th 2005) contained a column by Brain Boyd which attacked Apple for its treatment of Francis Hwang, and its general treatment in relation to intellectual property.
The first section looked at the case of Hwang who, according to Boyd, loaded songs onto his U2 iPod, modified the case of the iPod, and tried to sell it on eBay as an "extra special edition." There is a certain rebellious element in this story which makes us smile, but Boyd seems to miss the point, that loading an iPod and then flogging the songs to another user is illegal. After all, is Boyd suggesting that we can all load our music onto iPods before selling them? Or maybe loading ours PCs with software before putting them on the open market?
The problem with Boyd's article is that while we appreciate some of the sentiments he is expressing, what he seems to point to is the illegal distribution of music and an undermining of intellectual property. Apple relies on the goodwill of the five major record labels (as well as the independents) to be able to run the iTunes Music Stores.
The second part of Boyd's column points to Apple's recent court cases against rumour sites. Two sites ran articles revealing what Apple consider trade secrets. Boyd described the rumour site owners as "journalists", a term which is generous in the extreme. The two sites in question are rumour sites who rely on receiving information from Apple or other tech employees. The people who leak information to these sites are looking to heighten their own self importance, by somehow revealing what they know on internet sites. Freedom of speech is a fundamental part of any functioning democracy, but publishing company secrets about future products harms Apple. Boyd seems to be under the impression that some of these sites are written by excited Apple fans merely speculating about future Apple products. If it is the case and the "journalists" were simply lucky to guess about a new product, then they have no case to answer. However the accuracy and timing of the reports point to a leak from someone in the know, and as such is a possible breach of an employee's contract.
Apple's share of the PC market is in single digits; its publicity and marketing generally allows it to punch above its weight. Apple new products are normally covered in the mainstream media, and the "wow" factor from its product launches is a well protected aspect of its business. We don't see how Boyd can defend the actions of the rumour sites, if trade secrets are being passed to a web site which attempts to hide behind the mask of respectable "journalism."
blog comments powered by Disqus
