Google VS Copyright

Google apparently had links to Belgian newspaper articles without permission. Brussles is asking for a rediculas amout of money each day it displayed the links. They are asking for $32,600 (per day)! Originally they were asking for close3 to $1 million euros per day, which turns out to be approximately $1,304,000 per day!
Copiepresse is the group that brought about this complaint containing all the copyright issues. Apparently they needed permission through yahoo to stop displaying the information. It is true though, how should google be able to display information that is not copyrighted? The company Google makes a profit off of every view to the site. They are basically taking something that isn't their's. But, at the same time, Google is one of the best search engines, and it would not be in a company's best interest to negotiate a deal with the rising web site. Bottom line, these two companies should settle outside of the courts, and I think it would be in the Belgian articles best interest to work something out. Google more than likely is bringing them profit, and without it, there could quite possibly be a decline in their sales and services.

Myspace VS Video Clips

To officially block unauthorize video clips and music from MySpace, the News Corporation is offering free software to companies to prevent this. With digital files, videos and music can be bloked through databases. To protect copyrights for individuals and companies, it has been difficult to maneuver around the fact that the internet is a free marketing tool to show what they can do.
This balancing act will never cease to exist. The internet and technology is always improving along side intelligence. No matter how hard companies attempt to block the illegal downloading of music and movies, individuals will do everything in their power to walk around the system.
This whole process is about people making money. People get paid to present free clips and songs, while at the same time, people trying to abolish uncopyrighted information are getting paid well. This process will never end, and if for whatever reason it did, hundreds of jobs would be lost along the way.

Apple VS The Beatles

"Lovely Rita meter maid. Nothing can come between us, When it gets dark I tow your heart away." Lovely Rita was the song playing for the introduction and demonstration of the new Apple iPhone. Not only that, the background display were former Beatle album covers. Many individuals have an appreciation for the group and/or their music, but there are there are many curves when it comes to downloading the music between two Apple Companies.
The maker of the iPod, is known as Apple Inc., yet it is also the guardian of Beatle music interests. Apple Inc just recently took up the rihts and trademarks of everything that relates to Apple. This includes Apple Corps Ltd, a company that was founded by the Beatles in the 60's.
Question is, because of the agreement, is iTunes going to allow licensing abilities for Beatle music downloading, and make it unavailable on other downloadable music services?
The original agreement was made by the former beatles (Yoko Ono took charge of John Lennon's part because of his untimely death), dead set on making sure Apple Corps did not use the apple logo in the music business. Things changed beginning in 2003 when Apple dropped "Computer" from their logo.
A judge ruded that all this being part of the Apple family, the company in all rights have the ability to make use of the logo. To me this is absolutely rediculas. If a large part of Apple name was founded by the Beatles, they sound have higher rights when it comes to decisions made within the company. If they do not wish to release their music and their art on certain levels then their word should be heard.