|
|
Posted by ptravel on 08/31/07 03:02
On Aug 30, 3:24 pm, Larry in AZ <usen...@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com>
wrote:
> Waiving the right to remain silent, "PTravel" <ptra...@travelersvideo.com>
> said:
>
> > "Larry in AZ" <usen...@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote in message
> >news:Xns999C6BE40BBFFthefrogprince@69.28.173.184...
> >> Waiving the right to remain silent, useful_in...@yahoo.com said:
>
> >>> Story viahttp://Muvy.org
>
> >> My guess is that Viacom routinely complains about any of their stuff
> >> appearing on YouTube without regard for content or origination. In
> >> other words, they run on automatic.
>
> >> You probably have a case, but it'll cost you...
>
> > First of all, it's not the poster who was complaining about the Viacom
> > situation. The poster is a spammer just trying to draw hits to his
> > website.
>
> That occurred to me, Paul, but I let it go for the sake of the discussion.
This guy has been spamming the ng for a while now. This is one of the
few ngs left on Usenet that has value, so I get a little touchy when I
see abused by that guy.
>
> > Second, I was curious so I looked at the videos that were involved. The
> > person complaining does appear to have a basis for alleging infringement
> > by Viacom. And Viacom does appear to have a basis for alleging
> > infringement as well.
>
> Yep - I assumed that too. Viacom's wraparounds would be their property.
Exactly. It would be an interesting law suit -- probably the first
time I can think of in which both the plaintiff and the counter-claim
plaintiff would win on the same cause of action. :)
>
> --
> Larry Jandro
> Video Engineering & Equipment Rentals
> Scottsdale, Arizona, USA
> [Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to reply]
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|