Vivid may play in the online entertainment marketplace, under the name “Vivid Entertainment”
Espn also plays in the online entertainment marketplace, under the name “ESPN”
The difference with Espn is that;
one, the name is made up,
two, it’s the name they trade with,
three, they use a “name” not an adjective
If your point was the case, I fail to see why Vivid entertainment has not gone after the following companies/people for also using “vivid” in some of there names:
vivid Sydney - vividsydney.com
vividwireless - www.vividwireless.com.au (maybe vivid did branch out into this )
vivid group - www.vividgroup.com.au
Vivid publishing - www.vividpublishing.com.au/
vivid – the Japanese band
vivid – the album by living colour
Vivid imaginations - a uk toy company (not those kind of toys ;) )
Vivid – a centre for the production and exhibition of media art
"A real host would allow you to upload files, and would serve those files when someone requests them, and nothing more"
"just giving you storage and a net connection that you can work with"
so a site hosting a torrent file (loaded by a user) is protected under your discription?
You could be right that it might be a small market (compared to other places with a population of 21 million /sarc) but I haven't seen the local TV/movie mobs complaining about their losses in "this" small market
Wait, didn’t he "link" to an exposed classified document? is that the same as "posting" classified information?
from what I’m understanding he didn't make the document available, just the same as Google is not held responsible for making the document available by also linking to the document.
Talent scout : We saw your youtube videos and we'd like you to sign up with us
Kid : mum, should i?
Mum : i don't know this deal doesn't seam fair
Talent scout : sign with us kid, or you'll be going to gaol(jail)
MAC, I think your example of using a software in that scenario starts simular but falls away from this issues raised/concerned within the article
As per your scenario I can see where your coming from;
I made/designed/created something(in your case a widget) and now someone was obtained it without compensation and has packaged it with other ideas/equipment that you
a) Hadn’t thought of.
b) Had thought of but couldn’t/hadn’t implemented.
c) Had thought of and is currently working on releasing it.
And then option d) Had thought of it and already has a released version competing in the market place.
Now as you go down thought the options you will find that people become more irate about this violation (often called theft) is generally because of the more money they potentially lost. What they don’t see (or turn a blind eye to)is that as you go further now the list the original something (widget) now has a larger marketplace to be used in or even demand for more or possibly improved versions to replace it. You can sue them or you can approach them and try to strike up a licensing\subscription\product pricing deal with them (you know offer them first access to upgrades or quicker/better support of the product).
Now if your just chasing the “entitled” money the first approach of suing them seams the best way to obtain the cash, but the second approach is a much more sustainable long term approach.
The issue I get from the article is not that they didn’t purchase the music but that there was conflicting beliefs on the terms set up in the original licensing agreement.
Overcast, I think your on the right track, but I believe they are applying a basic high school algebra trick.
Lets start values of one “download” equals one “lost sale”, we have an equation something like this;
X = 1 & Y = 1 where X is the downloads and Y is the lost sale both being in a qty of 1
Therefore we can assume X = Y = 1 or more simply X = Y (hands up if lost you yet)
Now lets start the maths magic machine of the MPAA (patent pending)
(multiply both sides by Y )
XY = Y^2
(subtract both sides by –X^2)
XY – X^2 = Y^2 – X^2
(now Factorise)
X ( Y - X ) = ( Y + X )( Y - X )
(Divide by the common factor of ( Y – X ) )
X = Y + X
Substitute values for X & Y
1 = 1 + 1
Thus
1 = 2 or
one download = one lost sale + one download
now using the proof above we substitute one download with its value and
we then get
one download = one lost sale + (one lost sale + (one lost sale + (one lost sale + (one lost sale + (one lost sale + (…etc))))))
Now this has a fundamental flaw but looks logical, but I dare say they are using this
On the post: Mythbusters Crew Accidentally Fire Cannonball Through Suburban Neighborhood... Quickly Start Deleting Tweets Of The Evidence
Re: Re: The myth they need to test
On the post: First Grader Investigated For Sexual Harassment For Kicking A Bully In His Private Parts
Re: Re:
On the post: Porn Giant Vivid to Take Legal Action Over HTC Vivid Name
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Espn also plays in the online entertainment marketplace, under the name “ESPN”
The difference with Espn is that;
one, the name is made up,
two, it’s the name they trade with,
three, they use a “name” not an adjective
If your point was the case, I fail to see why Vivid entertainment has not gone after the following companies/people for also using “vivid” in some of there names:
vivid Sydney - vividsydney.com
vividwireless - www.vividwireless.com.au (maybe vivid did branch out into this )
vivid group - www.vividgroup.com.au
Vivid publishing - www.vividpublishing.com.au/
vivid – the Japanese band
vivid – the album by living colour
Vivid imaginations - a uk toy company (not those kind of toys ;) )
Vivid – a centre for the production and exhibition of media art
On the post: Sen. Joe Lieberman Asks Google For A 'Report Blog As Terrorist' Button
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here's actual censorship, plus the danger of Google,
On the post: RIAA Admits It Wants DMCA Overhaul; Blames Judges For 'Wrong' Interpretation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"just giving you storage and a net connection that you can work with"
so a site hosting a torrent file (loaded by a user) is protected under your discription?
On the post: The Many Killers Of The Film Industry: Volume One
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You forget the rest
They then watch the first 10min, realise what they downloaded is shit, and click delete.
On the post: Bad Move By Google: Hiding Search Referral Info... Unless You're An Advertiser
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: State Government In Australia Seeks To Issue $12k Fines If You Insult Its Gaming Minister Michael O'Brien
Re: Re:
On the post: Mainstream Press Account In Australia Makes The Case For Why 'Piracy' Is Not The Problem
Re: Re:
On the post: Mainstream Press Account In Australia Makes The Case For Why 'Piracy' Is Not The Problem
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Decimation
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2011-06-03/
On the post: State Department Pulls Top Secret Security Clearance From Diplomat Who Linked To Publicly Available Info
Re: Re: Re: Who's head is in the sand?
from what I’m understanding he didn't make the document available, just the same as Google is not held responsible for making the document available by also linking to the document.
On the post: Universal Music Keeps Trying To Claim Zoe Keating's Royalty Checks, Despite Having Nothing To Do With Her
an idea
On the post: Free Justin Bieber: Do We Really Want Congress To Make Bieber A Felon?
Re:
Talent scout : We saw your youtube videos and we'd like you to sign up with us
Kid : mum, should i?
Mum : i don't know this deal doesn't seam fair
Talent scout : sign with us kid, or you'll be going to gaol(jail)
On the post: Beyonce May Get Sued For Copyright Infringement Because Of The Way She Danced
Re: Re:
On the post: BMI Says Club Is Too Sexy For Standard Fees, Voids Check, Sues For Non-Payment
Re: Copyright...
As per your scenario I can see where your coming from;
I made/designed/created something(in your case a widget) and now someone was obtained it without compensation and has packaged it with other ideas/equipment that you
a) Hadn’t thought of.
b) Had thought of but couldn’t/hadn’t implemented.
c) Had thought of and is currently working on releasing it.
And then option d) Had thought of it and already has a released version competing in the market place.
Now as you go down thought the options you will find that people become more irate about this violation (often called theft) is generally because of the more money they potentially lost. What they don’t see (or turn a blind eye to)is that as you go further now the list the original something (widget) now has a larger marketplace to be used in or even demand for more or possibly improved versions to replace it. You can sue them or you can approach them and try to strike up a licensing\subscription\product pricing deal with them (you know offer them first access to upgrades or quicker/better support of the product).
Now if your just chasing the “entitled” money the first approach of suing them seams the best way to obtain the cash, but the second approach is a much more sustainable long term approach.
The issue I get from the article is not that they didn’t purchase the music but that there was conflicting beliefs on the terms set up in the original licensing agreement.
On the post: BMI Says Club Is Too Sexy For Standard Fees, Voids Check, Sues For Non-Payment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: PETA Jumps The Dolphin-Free Shark; Opens Own Porn Site
Re:
(previously know as baby goat porn)
On the post: Guy Accused Of Being Part Of Anonymous Banned By Court From Using His Real Name Online
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: MPAA's Bogus 'Piracy' Numbers Mean It Thinks Downloaders Would Buy 200 More DVDs Per Year
Re:
Lets start values of one “download” equals one “lost sale”, we have an equation something like this;
X = 1 & Y = 1 where X is the downloads and Y is the lost sale both being in a qty of 1
Therefore we can assume X = Y = 1 or more simply X = Y (hands up if lost you yet)
Now lets start the maths magic machine of the MPAA (patent pending)
(multiply both sides by Y )
XY = Y^2
(subtract both sides by –X^2)
XY – X^2 = Y^2 – X^2
(now Factorise)
X ( Y - X ) = ( Y + X )( Y - X )
(Divide by the common factor of ( Y – X ) )
X = Y + X
Substitute values for X & Y
1 = 1 + 1
Thus
1 = 2 or
one download = one lost sale + one download
now using the proof above we substitute one download with its value and
we then get
one download = one lost sale + (one lost sale + (one lost sale + (one lost sale + (one lost sale + (one lost sale + (…etc))))))
Now this has a fundamental flaw but looks logical, but I dare say they are using this
On the post: Some Old Guy Can't Come Up With Any New Ideas; So He Says There Are No New Ideas & It's Twitter's Fault
Re: Re: I agree with Neal.
Next >>