The Pope Pod
p2p news / p2pnet: There’s no denying that Apple, which may soon be on the wrong end of a monopolization suit under the US federal Sherman Antitrust Act, is The One when it comes to marketing.
George W. uses an iPod when he isn’t falling off his bike.
The DRM-bound music player and its customer-funded online feed unit, iTunes, are being greased into some US schools where they’re being touted as essential educational equipment.
And now Vatican Radio employees have given Pope Benedict XVI an iPod nano, “loaded with special Vatican Radio programming and classical music,” says the Catholic News Service.
“Once the pope, who is also a pianist, gets the hang of the device’s trademark click wheel, he will be able to listen to a special 20-minute feature produced by the radio’s English program that highlights Mozart’s life and music to commemorate the 250th anniversary of his birth,” says the story, adding:
“The pope also can relive the historical papal transition of April 2005. On the player, the radio’s German program included a mix of news and interviews done during the death of Pope John Paul II, the conclave and the election of Pope Benedict.”
And it didn’t cost Steve a dime.
Also See:
wrong end – Apple monopolization claim, February 21, 2006
bike – George W. Bush’s bike adventure, July 7, 2005
Catholic News Service – Vatican Radio employees present pope with specially loaded iPod nano, March 3, 2006
March 7th, 2006 at 10:21 am
The Pope could now become copyright infringer anytime, if posseing infringing copies is an infringing action.
This is because anything that is recorded likely has some unknown owner that could make a claim anytime. The Pope may not realize this but new editions of public domain works have minor changes included and are then claimed by the changers.
Anyway, tried to do a copyright status search lately for any work? Impossible.
BTW, I have not seen anything that makes possesion of infringing copies of any work illegal. As we all know, RIAA claims that copying is stealing, but their position and the courts’s position on POSSESION is unknow.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com