From Apple's perspective, I wonder if the lack of contracto arose because it may have appeared that CDBaby was trying to profit from the iTunes deal by charging all their artists $40 to be included in the upload.
We know that is not the case with hindsight (although $40 to rip a CD - Really?) but from where Apple stood - they saw a guy break a confidentiality notice (through a mistake or miscommunication) and then start charging. I could see why Jobs might be a little pissed off with that not being in charge of all the facts.
As soon as CDBaby offered to return the $40 they were in.
Miscommunication or lack of communication on one or both sides makes this look worse than it probably needed to be.
Damn, Apple and their secrecy leads to so many problems, they really need to improve the balance between total control and customer/partner satisfaction.
Not sure about this, it sounds a little alarmist. There is no doubt that companies don't *have* to stamp on every use of their trademarked property.
What is not called out is that this behaviour is really nothing to do with misunderstanding the law but is very much to do with protecting the commercial agreements (and hence the profits) they already have in place.
The way a lot of companies react to fan-made products is different to the way they react to fan art. Fan-made products are perceived (note I said *perceived*) to be competing with officially approved products and I wonder how often the commercial agreements for merchandising include a clause about protecting that monopoly.
In short, I suspect that they don't misunderstand trademark law, they deliberately wield it against commercially available fan-made products to maintain high-value contracts with merchandisers.
Not accurate. The article specifically says "he would not identify the pub concerned, because its owner” a pubco that is a client of The Cloud's", so the implication is that the pub uses The Cloud's service
But by definition it would then not be free. So something in this story does not add up.
I still think this stands a fear mongering story even if the overall discussion about UK law is valid. I'm pretty sure the Cloud is protected from being sued so whichever you look at it, there are contradictions.
It also isn't a marathon if the first runner sat on his backside on the start line saying;
"I've got a great idea how to run this marathon but I'm too unfit to do it. However because I have patented my marathon running idea, no one else can attempt the marathon by putting one foot in front of the other."
Mike, your article claims that this is about abuse of trademark. Some people have pointed out that it actually looks like a market branding exercise (good or bad, it makes no difference to the discussion at hand).
Sometimes, the perception of extreme bias you create around copyright and trademark undermines the thoughtful, intelligent *important* stuff that you often share with us.