Just got sent this via email: “Mumford & Sons Warn Against ‘Unauthorized Lending’ of Their CD”
…it seems like Mumford & Sons really want people to hear their super-earnest brand of roots rock. They just don’t want anyone to loan their record to you.
Hidden in the fine print on the back of Babel is an odd provision that clearly states: “The copyright in this sound recording and artwork is owned by Mumford & Sons. Warning: all rights reserved. Unauthorized copying, reproduction, hiring, lending, public performance and broadcasting prohibited.” Most of that all seems legit, but “lending”? Since when can’t people let friends borrow their records?
I’ve heard some people enthuse about this band, and was thinking of picking up Babel if the Amazon haul can justify it (ahem). But I don’t like giving money to jerks. Are these people jerks?
It will be illegal, starting in two days.
The DMCA makes it legal to jailbreak an iPhone but not an iPad. The rule states that “telephone handsets” are allowed to make changes, but found that the definition of a ‘tablet’is “broad and ill-defined.” The Librarian ruled that because there’s no clear definition of what can be considered a tablet – according to the Librarian and manufacturers, an eReader, portable gaming device, or a laptop could conceivably be labeled a tablet – it did not provide an exemption for that class of device. One could easily point out that there is a considerable difference between an iPad, which is a tablet, and a MacBook, which is a laptop, but the Librarian found that there is enough gray area to warrant not offering an exemption that could then be widely applied to many form factors.
This pleases Apple, of course; they purely hate it when people stubbornly insist on actually using Apple products in non-Apple approved ways. Which is probably why the administration made sure that the new rules were as inflexible as possible.
And that’s pretty much it. …What? I didn’t vote for the guy.
Why is this a hard question?
(Via Hot Air Headlines) A very interesting discussion here and here about whether President Obama’s gift of an iPod with preloaded MP3s to the Queen of England is, in point of fact, legal under current copyright law. Short version: yes, but only because of diplomatic immunity on the one hand and sovereign immunity on the other. If we were talking about two private individuals… nobody apparently bloody knows, one way or the other.
On a personal note, I am forced to admit: I am waiting with some cruel joy to hearing an increasingly querulous tone come into the EFF‘s discussions of this particular administration. I shouldn’t: the EFF is one of the few critics of the last administration that I actually retain a basic respect for. But that’s going to be counterbalanced by the vicarious pleasure of watching them wake up from their unicorn dream.
Crossposted to RedState.
PS: Crass commercialism alert; if you like the site, by all means hit the tip jar. I got a laptop that needs replacing.