Am I missing something here? Are Dell going to stop selling monitors because they can display copyrighted material? This sounds crazy, other desks display CITP/MSEX images don't they?
Bad analogy. Dell wouldn't be a target of a lawsuit just because an end-user uses their product illicitly. However, if Dell were to be the one to use the intellectual property without consent from the owner of said property then they would be a legitimate target for a lawsuit.
Bad analogy. Dell wouldn't be a target of a lawsuit just because an end-user uses their product illicitly. However, if Dell were to be the one to use the intellectual property without consent from the owner of said property then they would be a legitimate target for a lawsuit.
I'm not wearing my ETC hat when I say this, because I could be wrong:
It's my understanding that another company owns IP that prevents ETC from importing thumbnails from media servers at this time. It's not the actual content, but the protocol used in passing thumbnails from Media Server to consoles that's protected.
Fair enough, a bore, but fair enough. It'd be good if any licensing issue could be agreed with the license holders at some point though. Chamsys, Avolites, Martin and Compulite consoles can display thumbnails and my poor old Congo Jr can't.
"Bad analogy. Dell wouldn't be a target of a lawsuit just because an end-user uses their product illicitly. However, if Dell were to be the one to use the intellectual property without consent from the owner of said property then they would be a legitimate target for a lawsuit."
Well it was a ropey "off the cuff" analogy but that doesn't quite demolish it anyway - ETC wouldn't be "using" the intellectual property anymore than than a display is "using" the intellectual property by displaying it. They are both merely displaying images passed to them - and with thumbnails it's arguably a "fair use" situation anyway. Adobe go further and "facilitate" the manipulation and saving of images with Photoshop that may be subject to copyright, does that make them liable? Of course not. ETC wouldn't be rebranding/profiting/claiming copyright/copying anyway. But it's all rendered moot by Kevin's info.
Pete
[edited by: peteg at 3:28 PM (GMT -6) on Mon, Dec 20 2010]
