I disagree. If the IOC was truly the custodian of the spirit of peaceful international competition, it would not have awarded the games to China until its human rights record was much improved. The video is a commentary on this: it implies that awarding the games to China was *not* in keeping with the Olympic spirit.
That being said, I fail to see how this video would not be considered fair use of the copyright (not to mention that I also find it hard to believe that the rings are copyrighted, rather than trademarked.) I suppose it's not worth the video producers' time to fight it.
The joint development projects would be designed to cover non-competitive parts of an industry, with individual companies still focused on their own competitive business applications.
I think this shows a disturbing lack of understanding for a CEO of a fairly significant corporation. While it's true that businesses "compete" with other firms through the quality/features/etc. of their products, that is hardly the only area where an edge can be gained. Having more efficient processes, for example, is also key, and it is this area where companies gain value from their improvements to OSS. Thus these apparently "non-competitive" parts are anything but.
Precisely no one should be surprised that the CoS is engaging in this behaviour. What disturbs me is that EBay doesn't monitor the actions of its VeRO partners far more closely. Given the power that they bestow on them, EBay must put some type of oversight into place. Allowing their partners to excise auctions however they please without concern that they may overstep their bounds (and possibly lose their privileged status) is a horrendous feature of the program. As many have said, "I'm no lawyer", but in addition to the tortious nature of CoS's actions, I suspect that such lax oversight could find EBay guilty of negligence as well. Any thoughts?
Slashdot Mirror
This initiative is much too lame to warrant being called Omega.
I disagree. If the IOC was truly the custodian of the spirit of peaceful international competition, it would not have awarded the games to China until its human rights record was much improved. The video is a commentary on this: it implies that awarding the games to China was *not* in keeping with the Olympic spirit. That being said, I fail to see how this video would not be considered fair use of the copyright (not to mention that I also find it hard to believe that the rings are copyrighted, rather than trademarked.) I suppose it's not worth the video producers' time to fight it.
Precisely no one should be surprised that the CoS is engaging in this behaviour. What disturbs me is that EBay doesn't monitor the actions of its VeRO partners far more closely. Given the power that they bestow on them, EBay must put some type of oversight into place. Allowing their partners to excise auctions however they please without concern that they may overstep their bounds (and possibly lose their privileged status) is a horrendous feature of the program. As many have said, "I'm no lawyer", but in addition to the tortious nature of CoS's actions, I suspect that such lax oversight could find EBay guilty of negligence as well. Any thoughts?