Up On the Roof…

I just read Google’s blog today and was surprised to learn that an Italian court convicted some Google employees that, according to the post, had nothing to do with an uploaded video and weren’t aware of its existence, until it was taken down.

The video depicted a bullying attack and the perpetrators we’re found and charged. So, if a person uploads anything that violates privacy law in Italy, the website that hosts the uploaded video, will face charges as well.

Its a ridiculous ruling by the Italian court. Why did they stop at Google? Why not take it further? Why not the camcorder manufacturer?
the tape company?
the battery that powered the thing?
the electric company that powered the PC that uploaded the video?
the ISP that allowed it to be uploaded in the first place?
the ISP that allowed it to be downloaded for replay? etc.

Another point, if Google hadn’t provided a platform for hosting the video, there’s the possibility that the authorities would not have found out about the original crime and the criminals would have gone unpunished?

I wonder what the thought process was behind the justice’s decision? Would it have been better to sweep negative events like this under the rug? Read more about it here.

I highly recommend iTunes U (University). If you’ve never heard about it its certainly worth a look. You can find it inside the iTunes Store. iTunes U is a repository of free online multimedia courses including K-12, under grad and graduate courses, not to mention a variety of higher learning in wide range of subjects.

Tonight I stumbled upon a trove of “old” television commercials. They’re there as part of Duke University’s AdViews. The collection, many from the golden age of advertising, have been digitized from 16mm film “…for use in research, teaching and private study” according to the page description.

I didn’t count (or watch) them all, but there seems to be well over a thousand available there now. Among my favorites are 249 different toilet tissue spots by Proctor and Gamble. If you were around in the 70′s you couldn’t help but watch Mr. Whipple and all of the fuss around squeezing the Charmin. Enjoy!

Last night I read a story on WSJ.com (may require subscription?) about the company, Monster Cables, and their practice of suing anyone who uses the word “Monster” in their business name or product.

In general, I lean toward a company’s right to protect the value of their name. I agree that If the name causes confusion in the marketplace, then that use should be contested.

However it seems Monster’s take on this is We used it first, anyone who wants to be a monster, pay up.

They’ve sued the Red Sox over names related to the “the Green Monster,” the TV show “Monster Garage,” but the one that was featured in the WSJ piece, and shows that this may be more of a revenue generator for them, was their lawsuit over the Rhode Island company Monster Mini Golf.
Read Full Post