Comments on: Viacom videos: $4.17 each

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 00:18:03 +0000

“It is also made plain in law that any holder that doesn’t enforce their claims, can lose those rights.”
No. That’s trademark law. That provision in trademark law allows for trademarks to be retained indefinitely. Copyrights and patents, on the other hand, have a set limit on their length of enforceability, and can be enforced or ignored at the holder’s discretion without fear of the loss of these rights.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 23:57:27 +0000

I didn’t. Obviously, it couldn’t be correct since whoever calculated the amount clearly thought of a number, quadrupled it, subtracted the date of his wife’s birthday, multiplied it buy 1,000 and then rounded it out to $1 billion. heh

Cheers!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 19:45:28 +0000

er, I doin’t think Jon seriously means the videos cost 4.17 each.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 19:02:57 +0000

“which of the two will be the most successful in getting you to part with your hard earned cash…”

At $4.17 A piece I wouldn’t buy from either (most people won’t). First of all if I want to watch T.V. I turn on the T.V. When there’s nothing on T.V. I go on the Internet. Then there’s the quality issue. Youtube videos are such awful quality they’re worth NOTHING. Naturally Viacom will want DRM. After my miserable experience with DRM on a legal WMA I downloaded I’ll NEVER tolerate that crap again, even if it’s free it’s not worth the limitations. It’s too much hassle.

If you pay for cable or satellite you’ve paid Viacom and should be allowed to watch low quality videos from Youtube for “free”.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 18:23:50 +0000

Were I Google and lost this, I would make sure and take care of Viacom. There would be nowhere on Google where Viacom’s products could be found in search. This would grant them the “rights” they are so suing for. Somehow when their competitors offerings are found but not their own, I believe they would have a serious change of heart about what is important.

It is well known (especially for the music cartels) that they are reluctant to make known just what is owned by whom. Since the copyright holder is the only one that knows for sure what belongs to them. It is also made plain in law that any holder that doesn’t enforce their claims, can lose those rights.

Google has made the offer to take down infringing material, provided the holder makes claim of infringement of a particular item. This is the holders responsibility in that protecting of the copyright (not Google) to make the claim since there is no accurate database on what is whose. Making the statement someone should know doesn’t make the knowledge available.

As has been demonstrated in the past, filters don’t work. Renaming an item, gets it around the filter. Other methods have pretty much proven to be snake oil and aren’t effective either. Without 100% guarantee that these filters will only get the holders material but not whatever else is out there, similarly named but not an infringement is a hold up the cartels have not satisfactorily addressed. Until it is, there is no way anyone can tell what is what in search or in filter database.

This is nothing less than posturing by the cartels in hopes of fishing a better deal. Since Google isn’t willing to give the walls of the store and leave the windows, the cartels are trying to put Google over the barrel in an attempt to heist the price. Again attempting extortion to get their way. Again trying to say it is the victim that should fix their problem.

More and more I like what I see coming out of the cartels less and less in business practices. I do hope they lose this case. But should it come to be that they win, I would make sure in Googles options that it would cost them more in the long run than they got out of it.