Google has successfully defended itself from a 2007 lawsuit filed by Viacom, alleging that Google's ouTube operation was guilty of copyright infringment by allowing users to post 160,000 unauthorized clips on YouTube, and that those clips had been viewed 1.5 billion times.
Viacom, the parent company of MTV, Comedy Central, and Paramount Pictures, filed the $1 billion lawsuit in March 2007. Google argued it was protected under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, the law that protects Internet service providers from the illegal sharing of copyrighted material among their users, if the service providers agree to take down offending material when notified by copyright holders.
The court granted Google's motion for summary judgment, meaning that YouTube is protected by the safe harbor of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act against claims of copyright infringement. The decision follows established judicial consensus that online services like YouTube are protected when they work cooperatively with copyright holders to help them manage their rights online.
Not surprisingly, Google General Counsel Kent Walker says the ruling is a victory for consumers.
link
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Google Wins Copyright Suit Over YouTube Video
Labels:
YouTube

160,000 Androids A Day
Google's Andy Rubin says 160,000 Android devices are being activated every day, up from 100,000 a day in May. Apps in the Android Market also are up to 68,000 or so.
Labels:
Android,
Android Market

Droid X Released by Verizon and Motorola
Verizon Wireless and Motorola have launched the Droid X, featuring a 1GHz processor; 4.3-inch screen, 3G Mobile HotSpot capabilities, dual-flash, 8-megapixel camera, HD camcorder and access to Android Market, which now has more than 65,000 applications.
DROID X by Motorola will be available at www.verizonwireless.com and in Verizon Wireless Communications Stores beginning July 15 for $199.99 after a $100 mail-in rebate with a new two-year customer agreement.
Labels:
Droid X,
Motorola,
Verizon Wireless

GOAL!!!! USA Advances to Final 16 Round at World Cup

iPhone, Evo, Droid Incredible, Nexus One: Which Has Best Total Cost of Ownership
The iPhone makes the most economic sense of leading smartphones if you opt for a minimum voice/data/text plan, says BillShrink.
The catch is, BillShrink’s research has found that that average data usage per person has risen a dramatic 3.5 times over the last 15 months. If higher usage means a user cannot buy the iPhone minimum data plan, then a Nexus One on a T-Mobile USA unlimited plan offers the lower total cost of ownership.
The catch is, BillShrink’s research has found that that average data usage per person has risen a dramatic 3.5 times over the last 15 months. If higher usage means a user cannot buy the iPhone minimum data plan, then a Nexus One on a T-Mobile USA unlimited plan offers the lower total cost of ownership.
Labels:
Droid Incredible,
Evo,
iPhone,
Nexus One

Google and Music Industry: Distributor or Competitor?
BPI, Britain’s biggest recording-industry association, has sent a cease-and-desist notice to Google regarding links to copyright-infringed music files. Meanwhile, there are strong indications Google is getting ready to launch its own music service aimed at Android handsets.
Google is going to have to decide whether it really wants to be a music distribution partner or a competitor, essentially.
Google is going to have to decide whether it really wants to be a music distribution partner or a competitor, essentially.

Unbundling, Wholesale Might Not be a Good Thing for Broadband
Almost without exception, owners of broadband access infrastructure are opposed to unbundling requirements (wholesale). Almost without exception, competitors who do not own facilities are in favor of such requirements.
Blair Levin, former executive director of the Omnibus Broadband Initiative at the Federal Communications Commission and now Aspen Institute fellow, appears to have said that "due to the uncertainty of unbundling; providers will not be able to produce enough capital to support a business."
Levin was a top advisor to FCC Chairman Reed Hundt, when the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was created and passed, and is quite familiar with the market impact of wholesale access policies.
It might go too far to say Levin prefers wholesale to other mechanisms. Under different circumstances, he might approve. But given the reliance on the competitors one has got, rather than the competitors one might wish for, he seems to have realistically concluded that, in the United States, at this time, the approach has to rely on continued investment by the competitors actually in the market and able to make facilities investments.
In other words, given the capital intesity of ubiquitous broadband deployments, the uncertainty around the business case and the prevailing constellation of commercial and governmental forces, it likely is unreasonable to expect more than a couple, perhaps a few, facilities-based contestants in the fixed-line space or the wireless space, though there may be more room for competitors in the wireless space.
Given those economic realities, policies that discourage continual investment by the few players able to compete on a facilities-based basis almost dictates a policy that does not impose wholesale or unbundling requirements that choke off investment.
It might not be the best of all possible worlds, but that is not the world we have been given.
link
Blair Levin, former executive director of the Omnibus Broadband Initiative at the Federal Communications Commission and now Aspen Institute fellow, appears to have said that "due to the uncertainty of unbundling; providers will not be able to produce enough capital to support a business."
Levin was a top advisor to FCC Chairman Reed Hundt, when the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was created and passed, and is quite familiar with the market impact of wholesale access policies.
It might go too far to say Levin prefers wholesale to other mechanisms. Under different circumstances, he might approve. But given the reliance on the competitors one has got, rather than the competitors one might wish for, he seems to have realistically concluded that, in the United States, at this time, the approach has to rely on continued investment by the competitors actually in the market and able to make facilities investments.
In other words, given the capital intesity of ubiquitous broadband deployments, the uncertainty around the business case and the prevailing constellation of commercial and governmental forces, it likely is unreasonable to expect more than a couple, perhaps a few, facilities-based contestants in the fixed-line space or the wireless space, though there may be more room for competitors in the wireless space.
Given those economic realities, policies that discourage continual investment by the few players able to compete on a facilities-based basis almost dictates a policy that does not impose wholesale or unbundling requirements that choke off investment.
It might not be the best of all possible worlds, but that is not the world we have been given.
link
Labels:
unbundling,
wholesale

Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
When Robotaxis Will Displace Auto Rentals
Inevitably, people are going to wonder when, and under what circumstances, robotaxis are going to displace auto rentals, just as there was s...
-
We have all repeatedly seen comparisons of equity value of hyperscale app providers compared to the value of connectivity providers, which s...
-
It really is surprising how often a Pareto distribution--the “80/20 rule--appears in business life, or in life, generally. Basically, the...
-
One recurring issue with forecasts of multi-access edge computing is that it is easier to make predictions about cost than revenue and infra...