3 ms·
There are two other things here that I think are important: 1. He's charging for the application. That really moves this from a "Big content bullying little
by cube13 15y ago
There are two other things here that I think are important:
1. He's charging for the application. That really moves this from a "Big content bullying little guy" to "straight forward infringement".
2. As far as I can see, there's nothing that indicates that the application was not an official CBC app. An uneducated user could have bought the original version, thinking that it's an official app, and never knew that it was not.
- robgough 15y agoFrom the article the developer admits that in the first instance, he was a bit silly and shouldn't have used their radio. But for your first point, he's charging for a product. Something that can pick up internet radio streams. How is this different from a manufacturer of radio equipment charging to purchase their device. It would seem to me that including the ability to listen radio streams other than those of the CBC would mitigate any legal issues (though I fear he'd have to start again with a new app submitted to the app store, rather than an update to thsi one) and pre-load that with his beloved CBC stations as "suggested content".