I'm in two minds. On one hand, I can understand Viacom wanting to protect its "property". On the other hand, music video are ads for the artists and they should be happy about some free advertisments. Also, why did Viacom not sue YouTube before they were bought by Google? Because they knew there wasn't much to get? Now where Google owns YouTube, there's a lot of money make. This practice reminds me of patent trolls, who only start enforcing their "intellectual property" once a product is established and successful, in other words: As soon as there's money to be made.
Not licenced content on YouTube is nothing new. The discussions about it have been going on way before Google took over YouTube and if Viacom claims they weren't aware of it until now, they're lying.
Considering this, I hope the case gets thrown out of court, setting a signal to others to make their claims when they become aware of the violation of their rights and not when it starts getting worth claiming.
What do you mean "now the terrorists have won"? They have won a long time ago. Look around yourself. Whereever you look, there's fear of terror attacks, everybody's paranoid, governments are cutting our civil rights down slice after slice, We're all treated like potential criminals, soon we have fingerprints and DNA-sequences in our passports, our every move is monitored, our phone calls and emails are logged, governments are spying on their own people, huge databases containing all vital information about us are set up, financial transactions are monitored, if you wanna travel into the US, even special meal requests for the flight are reported and when you get there, you get finger printed like a common criminal rather than treated like a guest.
Sorry mate, the terrorists have achieved what they wanted. Our governments are just too ignorant to realise it.
I'm not so sure if you are right. Looking at all the cases I am aware of, it is the opposite. It's usually the servers that are ported to Linux but everybody is scared to slap a Linux desktop onto somebody's desk. After years of "force feeding", people are used to Windows and Office. If you take that away from them, they get cranky. It doesn't matter that Vista looks kompletely different to XP or 2K. They will get used to it. But if the machine doesn't say anything about "Windows" when it boots, people wil refuse to use it, complain about things not being where they want them to be and whatnot. Same goes for Office. With some exceptions, most people could use OOo without a problem but since it doesn't display "Microsoft Office" during startup, they will whinge and whine that they can't find this or that. If MS changes the Menu layout, it doesn't matter. People will get used to it simply because it is MS Office. It doens't mean OOo is bad but people know MS Office and they are willing to learn to use a new version. If they have to use OOo, they are not willing to learn because it is a different product and they're afraid to "learn something new".
I've seen it at my workplace. I don't buy MS Office unless it ships with a new PC. If we are getting machines without MS Office, I install OOo on the box and the first thing people do is complain that there's no Office on it. When I show them OOo, they all get this weird look on their face and over the next few weeks, I get hassled that this wasn't as it is supposed to be and that isn't and so on. Only after they realise that I will not buy MS Office no matter how much they whinge, they start to warm up to OOo a bit and after a few weeks, they aren't even aware anymore that they use a different office package. People are scared of change and it is that fear we need to take away. If we can achieve that, they door is open for Linux Desktops.
Better still:
Rap: "Something sad has happened and I want to kill a cop"
Rap: "Something good has happened and I want to kill a cop"
Rap: "Something phantastic has happened and I want to kill a cop"
Rap: "Nothing has happened and I want to kill a cop"...
*SCNR*
The only part of this article worth pointing out (that I didn't really read) is that Microsoft is one of the few companies with the cash to fight back. But instead, they're selling the limitation of rights on their OS as a feature. MS is not fearing the music/movie industry. MS doesn't really fear anybody. They don't have to because they have enough money to buy anybody who threatens them, including governments.
So why is MS packing all these "goodies" into Vista? Because they are a big player in the DRM market and they want to sell their stuff to the music/movie industry. What better way to promote your products than to show that if ppl are using your DRM systems, they get the best protection because the OS used by most people is tailored around the DRM systems.
MS is just as big a player in the lobbying game as the others and they are just as interested in cutting your rights down as the others. So why the heck should they act differently?
Yes and no. Generally, I think it is a good thing, that the "underdog" can win for a change. My problem with the ruling is though, that the name Giersch owns is not "G-Mail" as stated in the article but "G-Mail...und die Post geht richtig ab" (sorry, really hard to translate if it's supposed to make sense). While "G-Mail" and "Gmail" may be easily confused, I don't think there's any real danger to confuse "G-Mail...und die Post geht richtig ab" with "Gmail".
I have only one word for this: BRAVO!
My question is though: Would you think this way if you were living in the States at this point in time or is it the fact that you see things from a distance, that makes you feel this way?
This reply is a generic one to all posts in this subthread, not to the starter of it.
Considering that pretty much everybody who posted seems to agree that it is all about power and control, don't you think it is time to pull your fingers out and stand up for your rights? By "you" I mean the American people. Why the American people? Because the whole world looks at America and what's done there, will be done everwhere else...well almost everywhere. America calls for the "War on Terror", the whole world is fighting their "War on Terror". America introduces total surveillance, the rest of the world introduces total surveillance. America eliminates civil rights, the rest of the world eliminates civil rights. Why the hell shouldn't it work the other way round? If America stands up against their so called representatives, I'm pretty sure the rest of the world will do the same.
Show your politicians, that enoug is enough. Stand up and go to the streets. Sitting behind a computer screen whinging doesn't help. Get out there and show them that they are supposed to represent the people and not the big corporations. Show them that they are your servants and not the other way round. Show them that you are sick and tired of how the rest of the world thinks about America. Show them that the reason for the terror against America is not the terrorists but the foreign politics of America. The terrorists are just a consequence. Show them that in a democracy, it can not be that the candidate that accumulates the majority of votes loses (sorry guys but your electoral system is a bit...let's say odd). Show them that you are no longer willing to play their game. Show them that you are sick of being watched where ever you go, have your emails read, have your mail opened, have your phone calls screened and have every single detail of ALL your communication archived. It is none of their business who you are talking to and what you are saying. It is none of their business where you go to and what websites you are visiting. You are supposed to live in the land of the free! As long as you just sit there and do nothing, things will only get worse. If you kick the arses of your politicians, our pollies will realise that if they don't watch it, they will get their arses kicked as well.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm in two minds. On one hand, I can understand Viacom wanting to protect its "property". On the other hand, music video are ads for the artists and they should be happy about some free advertisments. Also, why did Viacom not sue YouTube before they were bought by Google? Because they knew there wasn't much to get? Now where Google owns YouTube, there's a lot of money make. This practice reminds me of patent trolls, who only start enforcing their "intellectual property" once a product is established and successful, in other words: As soon as there's money to be made.
Not licenced content on YouTube is nothing new. The discussions about it have been going on way before Google took over YouTube and if Viacom claims they weren't aware of it until now, they're lying.
Considering this, I hope the case gets thrown out of court, setting a signal to others to make their claims when they become aware of the violation of their rights and not when it starts getting worth claiming.
What do you mean "now the terrorists have won"? They have won a long time ago. Look around yourself. Whereever you look, there's fear of terror attacks, everybody's paranoid, governments are cutting our civil rights down slice after slice, We're all treated like potential criminals, soon we have fingerprints and DNA-sequences in our passports, our every move is monitored, our phone calls and emails are logged, governments are spying on their own people, huge databases containing all vital information about us are set up, financial transactions are monitored, if you wanna travel into the US, even special meal requests for the flight are reported and when you get there, you get finger printed like a common criminal rather than treated like a guest. Sorry mate, the terrorists have achieved what they wanted. Our governments are just too ignorant to realise it.
I'm not so sure if you are right. Looking at all the cases I am aware of, it is the opposite. It's usually the servers that are ported to Linux but everybody is scared to slap a Linux desktop onto somebody's desk. After years of "force feeding", people are used to Windows and Office. If you take that away from them, they get cranky. It doesn't matter that Vista looks kompletely different to XP or 2K. They will get used to it. But if the machine doesn't say anything about "Windows" when it boots, people wil refuse to use it, complain about things not being where they want them to be and whatnot. Same goes for Office. With some exceptions, most people could use OOo without a problem but since it doesn't display "Microsoft Office" during startup, they will whinge and whine that they can't find this or that. If MS changes the Menu layout, it doesn't matter. People will get used to it simply because it is MS Office. It doens't mean OOo is bad but people know MS Office and they are willing to learn to use a new version. If they have to use OOo, they are not willing to learn because it is a different product and they're afraid to "learn something new". I've seen it at my workplace. I don't buy MS Office unless it ships with a new PC. If we are getting machines without MS Office, I install OOo on the box and the first thing people do is complain that there's no Office on it. When I show them OOo, they all get this weird look on their face and over the next few weeks, I get hassled that this wasn't as it is supposed to be and that isn't and so on. Only after they realise that I will not buy MS Office no matter how much they whinge, they start to warm up to OOo a bit and after a few weeks, they aren't even aware anymore that they use a different office package. People are scared of change and it is that fear we need to take away. If we can achieve that, they door is open for Linux Desktops.
Better still: Rap: "Something sad has happened and I want to kill a cop" Rap: "Something good has happened and I want to kill a cop" Rap: "Something phantastic has happened and I want to kill a cop" Rap: "Nothing has happened and I want to kill a cop" ...
*SCNR*
Yes and no. Generally, I think it is a good thing, that the "underdog" can win for a change. My problem with the ruling is though, that the name Giersch owns is not "G-Mail" as stated in the article but "G-Mail...und die Post geht richtig ab" (sorry, really hard to translate if it's supposed to make sense). While "G-Mail" and "Gmail" may be easily confused, I don't think there's any real danger to confuse "G-Mail...und die Post geht richtig ab" with "Gmail".
I have only one word for this: BRAVO! My question is though: Would you think this way if you were living in the States at this point in time or is it the fact that you see things from a distance, that makes you feel this way?
This reply is a generic one to all posts in this subthread, not to the starter of it.
Considering that pretty much everybody who posted seems to agree that it is all about power and control, don't you think it is time to pull your fingers out and stand up for your rights? By "you" I mean the American people. Why the American people? Because the whole world looks at America and what's done there, will be done everwhere else...well almost everywhere. America calls for the "War on Terror", the whole world is fighting their "War on Terror". America introduces total surveillance, the rest of the world introduces total surveillance. America eliminates civil rights, the rest of the world eliminates civil rights. Why the hell shouldn't it work the other way round? If America stands up against their so called representatives, I'm pretty sure the rest of the world will do the same.
Show your politicians, that enoug is enough. Stand up and go to the streets. Sitting behind a computer screen whinging doesn't help. Get out there and show them that they are supposed to represent the people and not the big corporations. Show them that they are your servants and not the other way round. Show them that you are sick and tired of how the rest of the world thinks about America. Show them that the reason for the terror against America is not the terrorists but the foreign politics of America. The terrorists are just a consequence. Show them that in a democracy, it can not be that the candidate that accumulates the majority of votes loses (sorry guys but your electoral system is a bit...let's say odd). Show them that you are no longer willing to play their game. Show them that you are sick of being watched where ever you go, have your emails read, have your mail opened, have your phone calls screened and have every single detail of ALL your communication archived. It is none of their business who you are talking to and what you are saying. It is none of their business where you go to and what websites you are visiting. You are supposed to live in the land of the free! As long as you just sit there and do nothing, things will only get worse. If you kick the arses of your politicians, our pollies will realise that if they don't watch it, they will get their arses kicked as well.