![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Newswatch again
May. 8th, 2006 12:26 pmThe Apple iTunes Music Store's right to use the Apple name and logo was upheld today in the High Court. The BBC reported it as breaking news but had a reporter who didn't know what he was talking about making the report. I've duly complained to Newswatch about it - am I turning into a grumpy old man?
Sent to Newswatch:
In today's BBC News 24's reporting of the breaking story about the Apple Corp vs Apple Inc court case, the reporter said that the case was about "Apple Computers violating the copyright of Apple Corp". This is utterly untrue and is very bad preparation on behalf of the reporter concerned. The case was principally about contract law, a contract drawn up in response to the earlier 1990's case of trademark violation. It also covered elements of trademark law. In no way shape or form was this about copyright. There is significant public confusion between the rules of copyright and the rules of other forms of so-called "intellectual property" law and the BBC does no favours to the viewing public when it gets such basic things wrong. Had the case been reported as a "trademark" case rather than the substantive details which were primarily contract regarding trademarks, that would have been a suitable simplification, but there should have been no mention of copyright in the reporting whatsoever. The casual viewer might have been led to believe that the case somehow involved an allegation of the Apple iTunes Music store somehow violating Apple Corp's copyright on Beatles music recordings or compositions, which is not the case - the ITMS does not carry Beatles or other Apple Corp copyright material because of the trademark/contract dispute.
If a reporter got confused between football (soccer) and football (rugby) or football (american) or football (australian rules) I'm sure the reporter concerned would be very apologetic.
Sent to Newswatch:
In today's BBC News 24's reporting of the breaking story about the Apple Corp vs Apple Inc court case, the reporter said that the case was about "Apple Computers violating the copyright of Apple Corp". This is utterly untrue and is very bad preparation on behalf of the reporter concerned. The case was principally about contract law, a contract drawn up in response to the earlier 1990's case of trademark violation. It also covered elements of trademark law. In no way shape or form was this about copyright. There is significant public confusion between the rules of copyright and the rules of other forms of so-called "intellectual property" law and the BBC does no favours to the viewing public when it gets such basic things wrong. Had the case been reported as a "trademark" case rather than the substantive details which were primarily contract regarding trademarks, that would have been a suitable simplification, but there should have been no mention of copyright in the reporting whatsoever. The casual viewer might have been led to believe that the case somehow involved an allegation of the Apple iTunes Music store somehow violating Apple Corp's copyright on Beatles music recordings or compositions, which is not the case - the ITMS does not carry Beatles or other Apple Corp copyright material because of the trademark/contract dispute.
If a reporter got confused between football (soccer) and football (rugby) or football (american) or football (australian rules) I'm sure the reporter concerned would be very apologetic.
