Psy Makes $8.1 Million By Ignoring Copyright Infringements Of Gangnam Style
from the selling-the-scarcity dept
A couple of months back, Mike wrote about how Psy's relaxed attitude to people infringing on his copyright helped turn Gangnam Style into one of the most successful cultural phenomena in recent years, and that includes becoming the most-viewed video on YouTube ever.
Ah yes, the maximalists will retort, this free-and-easy, laid-back approach is all very nice, but it doesn't put food on his table, does it? If you want to make a living from this stuff, you've got to enforce copyright to stop all those freeloaders ruining your business. Well, maybe not:
With one song, 34-year-old Park Jae-sang -- better known as PSY -- is set to become a millionaire from YouTube ads and iTunes downloads, underlining a shift in how money is being made in the music business. An even bigger dollop of cash will come from TV commercials.
The AP story quoted above goes on to give a detailed breakdown of where that money comes from. Interestingly, it's mostly from things not directly connected with either his music or video:
From just those sources, PSY and his camp will rake in at least $8.1 million this year, according to an analysis by The Associated Press of publicly available information and industry estimates.It is television commercials that are the big money spinner for the most successful of South Korea's K-pop stars. PSY has been popping up in TV commercials in South Korea for top brands such as Samsung Electronics and mobile carrier LG Uplus.
This is yet another great example of how artists can give away copies of their music and videos to build their reputations and then earn significant sums by selling associated scarcities -- in this case, appearances in TV commercials. Now, not every musician may want to take that route, but there are plenty of other ways of exploiting global successes like Gangnam Style -- none of which requires copyright to be enforced.
Chung Yu-seok, an analyst at Kyobo Securities, estimates PSY's commercial deals would amount to 5 billion won ($4.6 million) this year.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: business models, copyright, psy
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
In the end I recommended Gangnam Style or perhaps http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CayMeza487M because of their lack of interest in copyright over-enforcement. I just hope that policy continues to hold through next semester!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Thats not to say fair play to everyone in it but.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Considering the class being taught, it may not be so bad that the students have these problems while still in school - where they can get some help understanding how to combat improper takedowns and threatening letters.
Of course, they may need to look into their mandatory self-destructing eBooks from the previous semester, so it could be that they are out of luck anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: fogbugzd on Dec 10th, 2012 @ 9:18am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This a pretty standard type of exercise in a creative arts course.
Why put them on YouTube? Post them on Vimeo. Or on the school's internal network - it's not necessary to publish the results, is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: fogbugzd on Dec 10th, 2012 @ 9:18am
http://www.youtube.com/user/jaymegutierrez
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: fogbugzd on Dec 10th, 2012 @ 9:18am
http://www.youtube.com/user/jaymegutierrez
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But you have to think of the poor lawyers!
Because there is nothing more dangerous than a desperate lawyer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Careful! The thought police may brand you as immoral and a sociopath for that kind of thinking.
/s
What's the '/s' for? It's not sarcasm when it's true...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Copyright isn't a terrible thing - abusing it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Wow. WRONG.
Copyright does not enable making money from commercials. It has nothing to do with it. Endorsing a product is how he will make money, and that endorsement is what the advertiser will pay for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This is about the use of his music - not his personality specifically endorsing anything. Yes, he can make very good money for endorsing a product but if they were only to use his music, as it is, without any further action required by him (such as sitting for a commercial and recording any dialog or additional tracks), then what is his direct compensation?
I'm not saying he cannot gain additional wealth through indirect compensation (such as when your music is heard and people buy your CD or see you perform etc.).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is about the use of his music - not his personality specifically endorsing anything."
So what are you saying? In this case, he is free to both use his song/persona in a CM while retaining the copyright on his music ...without resorting to suing all his fans. He can have his cake and eat it.
Do you have tunnel vision, seeing copyright ownership solely as a tool for litigation and shutting down websites?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Huh?
Don't know where you got that from, buddy.
I just don't think copyright in and of itself is an evil thing that needs to be abolished. I think what many people do with it is ridiculous (such as suing everything that moves just because it looked at a picture they took and didn't pay them etc.).
I do think that content creators should be rewarded and I do think that copyright is supposed to be a mechanism to help facilitate that, but I certainly don't think that just because you create something means you have or should have absolute control over it in every way imaginable.
I'm just not on either of the bandwagons that seem to be present here around copyright (the 'it must go' or 'it must be strictly enforced' camps).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I suspect the biggest camp here is the "it's out of control and needs serious reform" camp.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Probably missed the /s, but I've just got to ask...
Keep in mind the reason he's getting paid for his appearance in a commercial is because he is famous and well known, something that has nothing to do copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Probably missed the /s, but I've just got to ask...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Probably missed the /s, but I've just got to ask...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Probably missed the /s, but I've just got to ask...
PSY can now make money from selling his fame, which he acquired by distributing his song freely throughout the internet. This was done in spite of copyright, and not because of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Probably missed the /s, but I've just got to ask...
I'm not a legal expert, but this seems to be a sort of Copyright, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Probably missed the /s, but I've just got to ask...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not seeing how this has anything to do with copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Bingo! You got the point of the article, although I don't think you understand what the article is saying at all. The fact that Psy is making millions from his video really does have nothing to do with copyright.
Let me back up and explain because I think you have fallen into the trap of believing that copyright is necessary to make money from music.
The article is pointing out that Psy made a lot of money by not filing a ton of DCMA notices or being a copyright bully. In fact, one of the secrets of his success seems to be that he encouraged people to copy, remix, adapt, and parody his work.
The recording industry fell into the trap of thinking that copyright was needed in order to make money from music. The RIAA companies would probably be making a lot more money today if they had not been so heavily invested in the idea that making money required draconian enforcement of copyright. They still waste a lot of political capital and economic resources trying to preserve this way of thinking.
Most of the regulars here at TD have absolutely no problem with people monetizing their work and making money from it. We just don't think that being a copyright bully is always necessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Directly perhaps not very much. The question is, would he have made more if those remixes had never been made?
The opinion here, and this is something that is pretty much impossible to empirically prove is that no he would not have made as much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Companies that try to shut down fan-art are cutting their own throats. They are alienating their own fans and ignoring some of the best publicity they could possibly have. Plus they spend money and corporate resources trying to track down their most loyal fans and turning them into ex-fans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Masnick's Law! Every non-major-label musical success story will be discounted as an outlier or exception that has no relevance to the market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because it is so wide-spread and generally seen as a 'good guy' by the public (who's growing increasingly weary of copyright trolls) so advertisers want him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 10th, 2012 @ 10:36am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Basically, *He* is the product, not the music, the music is just the advertisement of the real product.
And that is what music is nowadays for the artists. free ads, that foster their popularity and fanbase, letting them make money on concerts, merchandise and whatever they can think of *around* themselves and the music they play. Getting income directly from the music is mostly just icing on the cake now.
And nobody needs copyright for that, unless you invent a perfect cloning machine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And this is coming from someone who never heard or seen this person's hit video (until I saw a review of it). God I hate being sheltered sometimes...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Cory of PC on Dec 10th, 2012 @ 11:04am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Qkyt1wXNlI
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, but Mike...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yeah, but Mike...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yeah, but Mike...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yeah, but Mike...
so basically if you could find some random person that posted a song as catchy as gangnam style next year, and got lucky enough to get it viral, this entire string would repeat regardless of the popularity of the maker... you dont have to be popular to start it... it makes you popular
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And he wants to get more by weaseling out!
How's that news? Money, money, money! You all want to either get rich quick or absolve yourselves of stealing other people's work, so you keep buying Mike's snake oil notions.
But yet again, tell us HOW to get noticed and self-promote on teh internets. This is just another anomaly, CAN'T be applied to your notions. You need a formula. So long as you claim this is relevant, I want to know your everyday formula for succeeding -- with or without copyright!
Dang, guys, all you do is keep repeating: "Anomaly x means Mike is right!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And he wants to get more by weaseling out!
And this right here proves our suspicions all along - ootb is a FAILED ARTIST who couldnt/didnt make it and now wants the world to pay for his lack of talent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And he wants to get more by weaseling out!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And he wants to get more by weaseling out!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And he wants to get more by weaseling out!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And he wants to get more by weaseling out!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And he wants to get more by weaseling out!
DO. IT. YOURSELF!
And it can't be called "self-promoting" if you're taking someone else's method.
... wait.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And he wants to get more by weaseling out!
What every good snake oil salesman needs is a shining star who is an example of what his 'snake oil' will do for you...
How many musicians would have signed with labels without seeing those anomalies they had created?
I'll pretend that you aren't the 'weasle' here and that you just really don't understand how the industry was built by creating anomalies that the rest of the 'lowly populace' could dream of becoming some day...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And he wants to get more by weaseling out!
Wow, out_of_the_asscrack, you really have it bad don't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And he wants to get more by weaseling out!
Don't jump to conclusions by using yourself as referential example...
"absolve yourselves of stealing other people's work"
No absolution needed for a crime not commited.
"You need a formula"
Nope, we don't. Industry does - where you need to streamline your production. But I doubt that nowadays we need an industrial organisation to spread arts.
And hey, if I had THE formula, I wouldn't tell you - you might STEAL it, you THIEF!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Easy Money
His song was able to become a hit, with no record company controling it and preventing "infringing uses" and he is able profit from it, instead of some record company "owning" most of his rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Easy Money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Misleading Premise
But, what is important here is that he made that choice. And, perhaps it shows the wisdom of making that choice. On the other hand, he's also lost a lot of the ability to control the use of his work - and he may not care about that. But, he ought to have the right to make that his choice.
If other musicians take the opposite approach, we very well may find that the free market shows us the right way to do this.
But, lets remember that the plural of "anecdote" is not "data." If we examine every musician (or a statistically significant sampling of musicians) and try and figure out whether just giving the music away is a smarter business move, or if PSY is a statistical outlier, we might come to a different answer. (Maybe not, but you have to do the work -- don't just be lazy and say "look! guy ignores copyright, gets money! The end!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Misleading Premise
More than anything, I'd say this whole 'Psy makes boatloads of money and gets insanely famous by ignoring copyright' is a great example, and direct refutation, of the claim that copyright is so important due to it being the only way for an artist to make money in an environment where copying is so easy.
Now, copyright may be important for other reasons, but the idea that it's needed for an artist to make money off of their works doesn't exactly hold up under scrutiny, as most of the time, if they aren't making money, it's due to some other reason(lack of availability, insane pricing, and horrible restrictions placed upon the buyer being probably the main three), with copyright infringement/piracy being a symptom of the problem, not the root cause.
Also, to counter your 'shows us the right way to do this' line, as has been stated over and over on this site, there is no one right way. What works for one artist may be disastrous for another, and vice versa. What's important is focusing on the core ideas of 'make people want to buy from you/give you money' and 'make it easy and convenient for them to do so'. How an artist goes about this differs between person to person, and again, what works for one might not work for another, meaning there is no 'magic pill/technique' for success.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Misleading Premise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Misleading Premise
That means I am not supporting anyone that support granted monopolies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Misleading Premise
And perhaps we can leave off the emotionally charged language such as "abandon their rights".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Misleading Premise
And perhaps we can leave off the emotionally charged language such as "abandon their rights"."
It's not just emotionally charged, it's a lie. This is a discussion about rightsholders asserting new rights, not giving up old ones. Psy didn't abandon anything. He (and his team) chose not to make certain claims and they directly benefited.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Misleading Premise
Popularity= money
Ignoring copyright infringements= Popularity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Misleading Premise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Misleading Premise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Misleading Premise
It's the laws I have a problem with, not the artists (generally). Why would you want us to trash artists rather than the law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How do you make a cent by IGNORING?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How do you make a cent by IGNORING?
By ignoring the way people were making parodies of it, and not claiming copyright infringement, it's become quite popular to the point of annoying.
Thus, people who have no idea what this is, goes to look for the original, and if they like it, they give money.
Course, if you weren't a complete copyright apologist, you'd know that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How do you make a cent by IGNORING?
Had he only released his own video/song, and then demanded that no-one do anything with it other than watch/listen, odds are good he'd have had his 15-minutes of fame(if that), and then faded from the public's view quickly. By having so many people do mashups/remixes of the original, more and more people were made aware of the original, and thereby him, increasing his fame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How do you make a cent by IGNORING?
The Macarena didn't ignore copyright, and it was just as wildly successful and annoying.
Gangam Style exploded because most of the market is a bunch of idiots who will eat up auditory junk food like it is a tootsie roll handed out on Southwest Airlines.
I'm reasonably certain that if Alex Chilton's estate released all of his works to the public domain, that we wouldn't have an explosion of Alex Chilton's popularity. You'd just have a few less people buying it on iTunes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How do you make a cent by IGNORING?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How do you make a cent by IGNORING?
Were people trying to make mashups and remixes and getting sued for infringement?
Gangam Style exploded because most of the market is a bunch of idiots who will eat up auditory junk food like it is a tootsie roll handed out on Southwest Airlines.
I'm reasonably certain that if Alex Chilton's estate released all of his works to the public domain, that we wouldn't have an explosion of Alex Chilton's popularity. You'd just have a few less people buying it on iTunes.
I'm trying to figure out how this relates to the idea of making money without using copyright. Are you saying this only works for "bad" music? And that "good" music requires copyright to make money? Or something else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How do you make a cent by IGNORING?
Otherwise, you might have spotted the error for yourself.
Don't even try to pretend you were ninja'd - Marc John Randazza's post is a full half hour before yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How do you make a cent by IGNORING?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How do you make a cent by IGNORING?
I don't agree with your name-calling. I think it is childish when Mike and the EFF do it, and I don't think it is called for when refuting the anti-CR argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How do you make a cent by IGNORING?
I'm not a troll (unlike a certain someone), but I do consider myself a fan of Mike Masnick. He's earned my admiration and respect, as well as that of hundreds to thousands of other people. He writes multiple articles a day, on the happenings in the tech world and anything relating to it, while also helping develop new ideas for business. Mike, I take my hat off for you. Congratu-well-done.
What have you done, hasn't_got_a_clue? Unlike you, Mike has earned his fanboys. You haven't. You've done nothing at all but spew vitriol and garbage here since day one. Not once have I seen a single comment from you that contained a logical thought, or something that couldn't be easily refuted by us on the opposite side of the fence with just a second's thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How do you make a cent by IGNORING?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How do you make a cent by IGNORING?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Inaccurate article: It's not up to the artist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Inaccurate article: It's not up to the artist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
good guy psy
doesn't sue them.
what a guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great idea!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a different point of view
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The RIAA should Sue him
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I applaud Psy's ability to extract financial success w/o copyright enforcement, but...
It's great that some are highly creative and can get by without copyright laws, but it is overly idealistic to think that copyright law has no place in society, and that all the artists out there will just magically extract a living wage from their work without any protection in their labour.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I applaud Psy's ability to extract financial success w/o copyright enforcement, but...
A brilliant piece of work will earn no money if it languishes in obscurity. For new creative people in particular allowing a work to circulate on the net for free is a way of becoming known.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I applaud Psy's ability to extract financial success w/o copyright enforcement, but...
You seem to be under the impression that the purpose of copyright law is to make sure artists can make money. It is not. The purpose (in the US anyway) is to make sure artists create. If copyright is not necessary to get artists to create, then it has no place in our society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I applaud Psy's ability to extract financial success w/o copyright enforcement, but...
Are you people so naive to think that the copyright law exists for protecting the artist's interests? Maybe when it was first introduced, yes, maybe, but certainly not now.
Remember the lawsuit against the little girl in Finland for downloading one album? That's the result of copyright enforcement, not artist motivation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not really
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: not really
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Psy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On top of that , taking the phenomenon of the year and the historically most viewed video on youtube ( a very rare event) as a guideline for everyone else is a bit of a stretch . Beyonce just signed a 50 millions dollars deal with Pepsi, is it because she didn't file DMCAs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So Copyright is dead?
And lets just assume we scrap these archaic copyright laws for good - why would youtube pay Psy his share of the advertising revenue? Why would Itunes pay him his cut of sales either? After all Music is an intangible freely distributable commodity whilst Youtube/Apple have electricity and server bills to pay.
For that matter, if Samsung, LG etc want him in an advert why not just use clips from his video rather than pay him a ton of money?
I like a dodgy download as much as the next man, but lets not pretend that the Psy model is a blueprint that would work for the vast majority of musicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So Copyright is dead?
This is called Masnick's Law. In the face of any non-major-label musical success, somebody will say "Sure, this can work for X, but it will never work for Y." In the next story someone will say "Yeah this works for serious niche musicians, but the stuff that's really popular now, the novelty hits, it won't work for them." It's sort of a perfect solution fallacy, because nobody is claiming any solution will work for everyone.
And lets just assume we scrap these archaic copyright laws for good - why would youtube pay Psy his share of the advertising revenue?
Perhaps if people know YouTube pays artists, and say Vimeo doesn't, they'll go to YT rather than Vimeo. People like supporting artists that they like. Or perhaps Youtube doesn't pay because of copyright, I haven't heard any statement on them about it.
For that matter, if Samsung, LG etc want him in an advert why not just use clips from his video rather than pay him a ton of money?
Because then he isn't saying "I love my LG phone".
I like a dodgy download as much as the next man, but lets not pretend that the Psy model is a blueprint that would work for the vast majority of musicians.
And let's not pretend anyone said it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So Copyright is dead?
Because it's true. Psy became popular because his video went viral and people did parodies of it - that wouldn't work for anything other than comedic novelty songs.
>Or perhaps Youtube doesn't pay because of copyright
Youtube have a system called "Content-Match" - which identifies copyrighted work - even if it's a live performance or a parody. The rights holder gets the option of blocking the video, keeping an eye on the stats or making money off the advertising revenue. Psy like many artists has taken the 3rd option.
I've uploaded dozens of live performances of bands which have been content matched and the rights holder has always chosen to monetize rather than block/take down so what Psy is doing is nothing new.
>And let's not pretend anyone said it is.
"Now, not every musician may want to take that route"
sounds to me like the article is suggesting that it's an option artists are choosing not to take rather than it simply not being feasible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So Copyright is dead?
And it completely misses the point. There are many business models; this is not held out as the one that everyone should use.
Youtube have a system called "Content-Match" - which identifies copyrighted work
It doesn't use copyright to do so.
sounds to me like the article is suggesting that it's an option artists are choosing not to take rather than it simply not being feasible.
Point to where someone said "the Psy model is a blueprint that would work for the vast majority of musicians."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
annoyed!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: annoyed!
I have no idea, perhaps you could tell us what you think is wrong. Do people like the "wrong" things?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oops!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Many companies forget
- Free publicity is almost always good, even if it's bad publicity (Even for BP). People will remember your name.
- Arch-type product that names it's own niche. Look at photocopying. Everyone refereed to photocopying as Xeroxing. Why sue people\businesses for using the products IP when they are spreading and hard coding your market product into the public's brain. You can't buy that, it can only be earned!
- Give the customer what they want and they will come back for more. The number one golden rule!
Legislating your business model is not only wrong, it's anti-competitive. I am surprised that Hollywood hasn't been charged for this yet!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.freehotmusic.org/index.php/en/jokes/37-graphicals-jokes/143-gangnam-style-funny- moments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Content Management
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Makes sense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Internet reputation is everything nowadays
[ link to this | view in chronology ]