VIA Forum Topics
- All Comments on VIA
- General Discussion on VIA
- Investing in Dividend Paying Companies [view article]
- Spielberg and Co. Look to India for Next Move [view article]
- Why Online Video Business Is a Joke [view article]
- Where Is the Online Video Advertising Revenue Going? [view article]
- Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [view article]
- The Issue of Trust is with Google, Not Viacom [view article]
- Bollywood Coming of Age [view article]
- YouTube’s 4% Problem Is Really Part of The Solution [view article]
- Media Stocks: Beaten Down, Almost Buyable [view article]
- Judge Demands That YouTube Coughs Up IPs [view article]
- Google Should Deliver Its YouTube Data to Viacom in Paper Form [view article]
- Viacom's Lawsuit Could Mean YouTube's End Game [view article]
loading ...Recent VIA Articles
- Is Content Still King in the Digital Age?
- Why Online Video Business Is a Joke
- Paramount Pictures Is Feeling the Credit Crunch
- Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News
- Where Is the Online Video Advertising Revenue Going?
- The Issue of Trust is with Google, Not Viacom
- Investing in Dividend Paying Companies
- Google's Team Opens Up at Sun Valley Conference
- YouTube’s 4% Problem Is Really Part of The Solution
- Media Stocks: Beaten Down, Almost Buyable
- Full List of Articles »
The Issue of Trust is with Google, Not Viacom [view article]
I know you want privacy protected, but once a judge orders Google to hand something over, to not hand it over would be to violate the law. You shouldn't expect a company to violate the law to preserve your "trust." ReplyEdwards
Investing in Dividend Paying Companies [view article]
This analysis is further proof, if any were needed, of the wisdom of buying solid companies and planning to hold them for a long time. A refinement of the technique would have been to assume all stocks had DRIPS plans, and you opted for them, which would have been the best pre-retirement strategy.Mind you, not all of the DJIA stocks meet my personal quality criteria, so I would have been more selective. The same holds true today, for example GM. And there are other higher-quality stocks which are not on the DJIA list. Quality is the issue, and dividends are part of the definition of quality. Reply
Investing in Dividend Paying Companies [view article]
430% for 10years. Let's see isn't that 4% a year? What happens if you have reinvested your dividends thru a DRIP? If you had only selection critieria for picking a stock, companies that increase dividends over a long period of time (10 years or more). Google Dividend Aristocrats. ReplySpielberg and Co. Look to India for Next Move [view article]
Population is certainly rising not the values and product quality.......... ReplyBollywood Coming of Age [view article]
It is Mollywood now, remember Mumbai................... here plagiarism and copycats are plenty.............. ReplyInvesting in Dividend Paying Companies [view article]
Your analysis is worth noting. However, buying this new list near the bottom of the market will surely produce significant gains over the next ten years without any trading. ReplyInvesting in Dividend Paying Companies [view article]
Its funny to see some of those names up there. Its amazing how quick things change. Eastman Kodak for example used to be an icon but is now struggling. ReplyGrowth
Investor
Investing in Dividend Paying Companies [view article]
Interesting analysis. You might also reference one of Jeremy Siegel's research papers where he found out that buying the orginial 500 stocks of the S&P 500 back in 1957 and then doing absolutely nothing for 50 years would have also outperformed the S&P 500 index by 1 percentage point! ReplyYouTube’s 4% Problem Is Really Part of The Solution [view article]
1.6 B in acquisition costs, massive bandwidth and server costs (to support an audience it cannot monetize) and copyright lawsuit costs seems like a problem to me. ReplyYouTube’s 4% Problem Is Really Part of The Solution [view article]
I'm not sure if I agree. If I buy space on Hulu, I'm assured that I'm being represented in the context of a reasonably consistent environment. On YouTube, no matter how narrowly I target a buy, there's always going to be a pirated or otherwise undesirable clip nearby (or even being promoted on the same page).Even if they do sell 4%, that 4% isn't as valuable to me as it would be on a more thoughtfully run platform. Reply
Judge Demands That YouTube Coughs Up IPs [view article]
Enjoyed the article, Mathew ... "keep spreading the news"**********************...
Ding dong ... the witch is dead!
... or at least she is starting to melt!
Wow ... I would say this is very good news for the entire copyright industry. While potentially inconvenient to YouTube viewers, and understanding the importance of privacy protection in the complex world of the Internet these days, this decision by the judge in the Viacom v. Google/YouTube case in New York may be the best thing that has happened to the copyright industries in this country, and to our overall economy, in practically a decade.
I have been following this infringment case, and others like it, now for several years. I, for one, am sick and tired of the Google's of the world blaming their own customers for all of the infringing activity that occurs day in and day out over the Google sponsored networks. Who do you think gains the most financially from these obvious infringements - Google or the poor smuck in Louisville who does not have a clue what is right or wrong, let alone what is infringing and what is not?
In fact, if it is true that an individual typically adapts his or her production and viewing habits from what they see and are taught by the larger media, entertainment, Fortune 500, and technology companies in this country ("if this weren't legal, certainly mighty Google wouldn't encourage it as they do or run AdSense ads on the infringing sites, and Exxon/Mobile wouldn't be placing ads on the sites that are displaying the "shared" works, either") then who do we really have to blame for this chaos? You guessed it.
It is an unfortunate reality today that many of the copyright defense lawyers, and their publicly financed clients out to make the big bucks regardless of the rules, have made a mockery of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the DMCA), which was signed into law in 1998 by President Clinton. Like the music industry has learned in the school of hard knocks (aka "the real world"), it is virtually impossible today to hold the middlemen in these unlawful Internet distribution channels and networks accountable. So, what do the copyright companies have to do to protect their valuable property? Go directly after the often innocent "end users" who are often sucked into this game, more often unknowingly than not. It is shameful.
Perhaps this New York court decision will help to turn those tides.
Google enables widespread copyright infringement activity like no other company on this planet. Google subsidizes entire networks of infringers through it Adwords and AdSense marketing and advertising programs. Google facilitates willful copyright infringement. Google enables widespread copyright infringement. Day in and day out. Google causes enormous damages to legitimate copyright holders every second of every single day. Google has been doing this for years. They earn a substantial portion of their overall revenue and profits by sponsoring illegal activities over the Internet. And their operations outside the U.S. are far more egregious than the infringement activity we see referenced in this Viacom case, which is largely within our borders.
I, for one, have had enough. Baseless, if not ludicrous, excuses and piracy defense strategies, implemented by what used to be some of the finest copyright law firms in this country - "fair use", "safe harbor", "no harm", "unclean hands", "de minimus damage", "copyright misuse", "DMCA safeguards", "willful blindness", "laches", and on and on, can drag these cases on for years - haven't we seen it all?
What do the legal terms all mean in Google's true vernacular? How about this. "We are big. We are powerful. We can do anything we damn well please. Quit complaining, copyright owners, or we'll cut you off from all the online revenues streams, as well". Better yet, "... if you don't conform, we'll simply run some of this stuff from our operations in Brazil , Russia , India , and China (those BRICS have plenty of money), and let them beam the content back here to the states."
Aren't you tired of watching Google hide behind the skirt-tails of their customers. "They were the ones who loaded the illegal videos onto our system, not us." Or , better yet, "how were we to know that Bart Simpson and the Spice Girls weren't already in the 'Public Domain'?"
Is Google alone in this? Unfortunately, the answer is no. Microsoft, AOL, Yahoo, and others are moving as fast as they can to mimic and duplicate Google's cash cow system, whether the law is violated or not. Cash is the king. And copyrights from the creative industries are not the only victims. Haven't you seen lately, similar claims (and penalties) levied against these giant Internet companies for their advertising efforts to support, or even subsidize in many cases, the distribution of harmful pharmaceutical drugs and counterfeits over the Internet, sponsor illegal gambling and pornography web sites, and many others too numerous to mention. Billions and billions and billions of dollars every single month.
"What do you expect us to do, your honor. Try out every single drug our customers illegally deliver just because we provide the advertising revenues for them to survive?"
This kind of unlawful activity not only helps to destroy our economy, it breaks down the moral fiber of our society. What makes you think this young generation that has grown up witnessing these wide scale unlawful activities delivered to them (usually "free of charge") via the Internet, will be able to draw a distinction between the virtual world and the physical world where STEALING is concerned as they get older and have to put food on a table full of their own babies and elderly parents? The jury is still out on that one.
I applaud the nerve, and the intelligence, of the judge up there in New York who presides over this case between Google and Viacom. Maybe your recent ruling will cause all of these Internet parasites to wake up and see the error of their ways before it is too late for all of us.
As a pleasant footnote to copyright holders. Do you think the judge would have allowed the complete user logs of YouTube to be released in this case if the outcome of this case was not leaning in Viacom's direction? I certainly do not. This may, indeed, be one of the most important weeks in the history of protecting the original works of copyright owners in this country ... one of the few absolute rights that was guaranteed to all of us in our Constitution over 200 years ago.
Congratulations New York . Congratulations copyright holders. It must feel good to know you have some judges up that way have your best interests at heart in enforcing our critically important (and "endangered"... copyright laws and maintaining the delicate balance between managing and policing unbridled growth (i.e. "growth at ANY cost") over the Internet and maintaining our vital and long standing ethical, moral, and legal business practices going forward, while looking out for your best interests.
... which old witch ... the wicked witch!
George P. Riddick, III
Chairman/CEO
Imageline, Inc.
griddick@imageline2.co...
Reply
Judge Demands That YouTube Coughs Up IPs [view article]
The clearly IS a moron, and I would be very surprised if GOOG ends up turning over anything. ReplyGoogle Should Deliver Its YouTube Data to Viacom in Paper Form [view article]
So don' don't print it on paper. Use Microfiche. It would be just as cumbersome to digest the information and wouldn't cost near as much to produce. ReplyGoogle Should Deliver Its YouTube Data to Viacom in Paper Form [view article]
AWESOME IDEA !! ReplyThe Wind
Google Should Deliver Its YouTube Data to Viacom in Paper Form [view article]
At what point do we stop thinking about money and start thinking about responsibility? If the infringer is the peon posting an illegal bit on youtube, the peon should be punished. Why stop because there are so many? The penalties should be collected by the government and all those fines added to the tax collection, reducing the taxes of those of us who are NOT breaking the law. I'm not breaking the law and many others are not breaking it also. Why should WE pay when someone else does? Find the peons, string them up by their testicles and nipples and shake the fines from their pockets. Leave the rest of us alone. Reply