The IPKat has read on The Register about the steps taken at the University of Washington to bring Napster to the students who live at its halls of residence. The University’s Director of Client Services and Learning Technologies for Computing & Communications has expressed his regret that a standard free market in online music services couldn’t operate in this situation. However, he points to the fact that file-sharing by students has been turned into a major legal issue with individual students being sued and universities standing as the middlemen between student-users and copyright owners.
Yes - we know the formats aren't open and lock people in to paying subscription fees if they want to retain access to their music. It's very important to universities that the recorded record of human history remain accessible to students, teachers, and researchers - and remain accessible for the long run…And yes - we know Napster doesn't work with Macs and iPods. We continue to try to talk to Apple and others about what kind of service they might offer to university students. And don't think that Napster and the others wouldn't love to have their services work on Macs and iPods, if Apple would open up its DRM schemas.
The IPKat thinks that it’s right that universities should police their computer systems (within reason) but he’s not sure that locking students into a single legal file-sharing programme is the way to go.
UNIVERSITY DEAL WITH NAPSTER
Reviewed by Anonymous
on
Sunday, August 28, 2005
Rating:
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html