"Apple and Cisco share iPhone name"

BBC News

Apple and Cisco have recently resolved the dispute over the ‘iPhone’ title. Although Cisco has had the name registered since 2000, something the company said Apple was aware of, the two corporations agreed to share.

Now there will be two ‘iPhones’?! The iPhone that Linksys, a branch of Cisco, is producing is a phone used for Internet telecommunication services. With services such as Skype and features including web browsers and access to music and videos, the Linksys iPhone is a convenient tool for people who utilize Internet phone systems and don't want the hassle of speaking into the microphone of their computer. It basically acts as a regular house line phone would, only you are communicating via the Internet and, thus, have access to other online features. Most are compatible with Macs and PCs and eliminate the costs of information calls (411) and phone bills all together.

The iPhone that Apple is planning to release in June is a cellphone with unbelievable capabilities. Behind the ridiculous graphics on a widescreen touchscreen, the phone offers new texting and voice mail features and Internet technologies.

Although the two phones have the same basic purpose, they are in different markets and, therefore, not competitors. I can see why Cisco would have taken a settlement being that Apple's iPhone would not be taking any of their profits or customer base, yet, I don't see why Apple took the name in the first place. They knew the 'iPhone' was already registered, and it's not like they couldn't have sold something like 'iTel' instead.

Interestingly enough, both products can be viewed online through the company homepages, and the domain name iphone.com actually belongs to an Internet phone company. I would be interested in whether or not the settlement touched on online marketing for these products and what trademark laws will be enforced in ecommerce.

"Email warnings deter Canadians from illegal file sharing"

CBC News

Apparently, Canada has solved the uncontrollable illegal downloading issue plaguing the media and software industries. According to their "notice and notice program", simply informing users they are downloading copyrighted material and asking them to remove it works...well, in Canada anyway. The program claims to have distributed "tens of thousands of e-mails" urging felons to "take immediate action to stop this infringing activity", to which they kindly oblige based on the fact that "no one has been prosecuted for copyright violation as a result of the notices".

Not only do I believe this system couldn't possibly be affective in Canada, but also maintain it would be a waste of time and money to try anywhere else. To start, the nature of the 'notice' is not something I feel that Americans, in particular, would be responsive to. The system we have now, which has been far from successful based on the fact that people continue to download copyrighted media, basically notifies offenders that they have downloaded copyrighted material and that action will be taken if it is not removed. If this hasn't worked, why would saying, 'please take down the video because it's not yours to post', be any more affective?

The article also mentions how people feel the program "really respects privacy and free speech" of users by notifying them and asking them to remove material rather than sharing their information with corporations who threaten to prosecute. Clearly these people are big supporters of rights and privacy, only after they steal from media and software companies.

Moreover, I think it's safe to say that most of the people using copyrighted material know its protected, or they wouldn't have had to use illegal software to over right the copyright protections to get the file in the first place. It's common sense that if you did not produce it, you don't own it and, therefore, can't use it without paying for it in some way (unless it was made by some average Joe who didn't copyright his stuff or a corporation specifying it's free, which is generally not the case). This in mind, the idea of informing people that they have downloaded something illegally is a mood point; they are already aware that they have broken the law.

All that aside, even if the 'notice and notice' program works, it's unlikely that it will be effective for long. It is only a matter of time before these emails are no longer threatening, and Canada will have to come up with a new way to politely appeal to the good nature of people stealing copyrighted material.

"Viacom Tells YouTube: Hands Off"

http://www.nytimes.com
By GERALDINE FABRIKANT and SAUL HANSELL

Published: February 3, 2007

Although I'm content with Google's obsession with providing free access to all information and media, I can see how companies like Viacom would be more than angry...

Google's perspective: like I said, they want to make it all free and readily available to the public. Their hopes are to crate some kind of deal with major media companies and gain rights to copyrighted programming. This would allow them to post video clips and the like onto YouTube, a free database of both published and homemade media, and largely profit from the number of advertisers wanting a piece of the mainstreamed site. Until then, Google is using the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in its defense, taking down copyrighted material at the owner's request.

Viacom's response: "We cannot continue to let them profit from our programming" said Viacom's chief executive after failed negotiations with Google. Apparently, Google doesn't share they profits from ads on the sites with the owners of the sites presently, and none of the offers they made to Viacom were worth seriously considering.

So...Google does not have the reputation of a deceptive, money hungry corporation, so I find it hard to believe that they did not present Viacom with a generous offer. I think the media companies need to consider that Google is an industry leader right now and is showing even more promise for the future. Moreover, I don't see why these companies wouldn't want their stuff on YouTube if they are paid for the media. It's free advertising for their shows and network (for the viewers who like what they watch and become regular viewers), and so long as Google is paying them, who cares that the public can get it for free. Most sites put their TV shows and such online anyway for viewers who missed out on the Thursday-night-at-9 episode.