Why is there such a fuss about this? Apparently there would not be an issue if the names and trademarks in question were not already owned by other parties. the injured parties are suffering the stealing of their images and names for the profit and "fun" of persons who have not at least requested permission from the true owners, for their usage- who of you would not mind their trademarked names or images used for purposes other than the recognizability and profit of their brand and companies? seems kinda dumb to have an argument that says google is within their right to sell the usage of trademarks that were created paid for and owned by the companies they represent. Google does not own the names and trademarks of other companies they sell and should not allow anyone other than the rightful owners to use them- you know copyright and trademark infringement? DUH! The analogies are stupid! Do I have the right to used Sprint's trademark to further my business or to profit? How is it that so many are allowing the boundaries of ownership versus theft to become blurred? Simply put again, google does not own the properties they sell under the representation of advertising, and they should require that interested parties own the information publicized on their servers. I see a crippling or regulation of the keyword business coming. One good thing out of this argument may the that copyright laws are once again the debate to be resolved.
I don't have the time to read the 200-odd comments posted before me on this topic, I do hope there is at least 1 in there that expresses this but, just in case no one hit this nail: A major corporation (viacom) stupidity struggles in some arcane batlle over copyrighted material? There are established venues for income, that all local yocals have invested in for decades- to the delight of compnies like Viacom (though they are few and far between). Screen capture anyone? Why is it still not widely understood that if it appears onscreen it will be recorded to other medium, or even, if it is heard it can as well be uncontrollably, albeit at reduced professional quality, recoreded? I rarley hear these sentiments! Wow. Insofar as Viacom on this topic is concerned, Isn't this (the internet) simply an important marketing/sales vessel, to be treated and utilized as such? I can almost hear them in the Monday morning meetings: "so, what do we do with this internet thing?" Unreal, in today's "Digital Age". Maybe I am the fool, and all the ruckus is just more marketing....
Slashdot Mirror
Why is there such a fuss about this? Apparently there would not be an issue if the names and trademarks in question were not already owned by other parties. the injured parties are suffering the stealing of their images and names for the profit and "fun" of persons who have not at least requested permission from the true owners, for their usage- who of you would not mind their trademarked names or images used for purposes other than the recognizability and profit of their brand and companies? seems kinda dumb to have an argument that says google is within their right to sell the usage of trademarks that were created paid for and owned by the companies they represent. Google does not own the names and trademarks of other companies they sell and should not allow anyone other than the rightful owners to use them- you know copyright and trademark infringement? DUH! The analogies are stupid! Do I have the right to used Sprint's trademark to further my business or to profit? How is it that so many are allowing the boundaries of ownership versus theft to become blurred? Simply put again, google does not own the properties they sell under the representation of advertising, and they should require that interested parties own the information publicized on their servers. I see a crippling or regulation of the keyword business coming. One good thing out of this argument may the that copyright laws are once again the debate to be resolved.
I don't have the time to read the 200-odd comments posted before me on this topic, I do hope there is at least 1 in there that expresses this but, just in case no one hit this nail: A major corporation (viacom) stupidity struggles in some arcane batlle over copyrighted material? There are established venues for income, that all local yocals have invested in for decades- to the delight of compnies like Viacom (though they are few and far between). Screen capture anyone? Why is it still not widely understood that if it appears onscreen it will be recorded to other medium, or even, if it is heard it can as well be uncontrollably, albeit at reduced professional quality, recoreded? I rarley hear these sentiments! Wow. Insofar as Viacom on this topic is concerned, Isn't this (the internet) simply an important marketing/sales vessel, to be treated and utilized as such? I can almost hear them in the Monday morning meetings: "so, what do we do with this internet thing?" Unreal, in today's "Digital Age". Maybe I am the fool, and all the ruckus is just more marketing....