You Tube does invite people, under their terms and services, to place videos on their site so if Chrysler followed them You Tube has an obligation to keep them up.
The NFL issed a DCMA takedown notice on a video they didn't own the rights to. While You Tube did follow the rules one could say that Chrysler has grounds for an action against the NFL or at least the rights to get very, very pissed off at the NFL and the perfect right to tell them so as Chrysler owns the rights to the ad NOT the NFL.
While I wait for the usual AC's to show up to accuse the signatories of the letter to be pirates or wanting piracy to explode across the Web.
There's not a signatory to the letter who approves of things like piracy just as there's not a signatory to the letter who approves of the way in which SOPA and PIPA showed how so-called intellectual property (copyright and patents) are legislated and who actually gets involved in the early stages of legislation, usually the entertainment industry and them alone.
As for some of the unions in the entertainment industry they come so close at times to being yellow dog unions that I just don't listen to them anymore.
(And I'm a committed trade unionist, by the way. :)
Still, since Apple with their ad way back Super Bowl ads have become the pinnacle of advertising creativity, expense and placement costs.
Too often, the ads have been better than the game itself.
NBC, and other broadcasters, need to learn that there are some occasions where it's at least one of the ad's that's the star of the show. And that holds true for the Super Bowl. That said, they should be shown.
It's back up now. And it's a great ad. Not just for America as a country but for those who find themselves with their backs against the wall as individuals.
It's great.
Whatever bot or idiot at the NFL filed the takedown should be taken out and given a really good talking to about publicity and what the Internet and You Tube can do for them.
This time around the Internet and You Tube are probably saying really, really nasty things. Like here.
I'm not sure if they got paid or not. I don't care either. And yeah, in the 1970s this would have been called a sell out but those days are long gone with even the biggest acts in the world having corporate sponsors when they go on tour.
Even then, as sell outs go, this is a wonderful one. Up there with United Breaks Guitars!
I'm sitting here reading the responses and thinking, to myself, that as I have 10gig of RAM in my machines as I work on photo retouching and stuff in Photoshop or The GIMP I'd need licenses for the parts of the photo held in the RAM buffer while I work on the photo.
Probably even photos I took given the broad way the language is written unless slap a Creative Commons license on the picture before I start doing criminal things like making it smaller or clearing up some parts of it before I slap it somewhere on the Web.
Such fun!
Do the folks who wrote this understand anything about computers or the Internet at all? Or are they still stuck in a print and photocopy world?
If the slowdown in the legislation to emable ACTA is caused by misinformation that could be fatal. Nevertheless it stalls it and may get a better chance of getting the truth out about ACTA and the things that are really wrong with it as ACTA is studied.
Though, as Lobo Santo says we need to be prepared for a kind of "reverse astroturfing" by supporters of the proposed treaty. It won't be the first time that's happened, now will be the last. Sticking to the facts is by far the best way to kill this abomination off. Just as they killed off SOPA/PIPA (at least for now).
This is, at least, a start. And, to me a good one.
Remember this is the group that went spare over the possibility of songs being recorded on blank CDs and is partially responsible for the "content" tax we pay on blank rewriteable media in Canada.
They're moving in the right direction. Not completely but that takes time as these things always do.
The copyright crutch is still there, the middlemen -- the labels -- still seem to be there but the move away from SOPA/PIPA and litigation as a model is the right move. As others have pointed out there are other models already there instead of an ISP tax which goes to everyone who holds a music copyright be it songwriter or label.
Ninja's model looks good. Not great but good and a step or two along the path that SAC seems headed on. In some respects it must be kinda scary for them. They "safety" of the old way will disappear as a ne way of distribution and publicity take the place of labels and payola.
Perhaps the SAC actually heard and took to heart what Neil Young had to say about the Web having become the "new" radio where people find, share and talk about new music they've found.
Personally I want to see the songwriters, musicians, producers and studios paid. I don't care about the member companies of the RIAA. Their time is passing or already has passed. That will happen whether or not the corrupt forms of modern copyright continue to exist, is reformed or vanishes completely.
SAC, at least, has heard the audience, their fans and is working on something different. Let's give them credit for that, at least, then help them along by suggesting alternative lines of thought and, yes, busibess models.
Re: Re: Yes, you will notice the trend in Hollywood towards "safe" remakes and such tends to match up nicely with the advent of the internet, and specifically the arrival of Napster.
And when was the last time anyone saw hide nor hair of Napster?
I'm seriously trying to imagine this. A collection of Paramount/Viacom hacks in front of a collection of university students in a lecture theatre somewhere on campus trying to convince the students that file sharing is wrong, a theft of content and piracy and must, absolutely MUST be dealt with harshly.
Up to an including the loss of one or two constitutionally protected rights along the way as well as breaking the Internet and DNSSEC. Those who created the content must be paid!
Well, at least those who distributed the content must be paid even if no one else does.
All the while ignorning the snickers from the students as they send out live video from their phones who wait for the Q&A to ask why things like copyright and patents have terms that take them well beyond the anticipated end of our universes life.
Most kids wouldn't end up addicted to drugs anyway. There's no such thing as an instantly addictive drug which is an old wives tale at best.
Not to mention that the two most dangerous drugs and the most people are addicted to are perfectly legal. Nicotine and alcohol. Together they cause society more damage and cost than all the illegal drugs combined.
Prohibition doesn't work. If that wasn't learned in the 1920s it needs to be now. It leads to more or a role for organized crime, gang wars and fills prisons with users, for the most part, and not smugglers and high level distributors. Nor is it a deterrent, which is often the excuse for continuing prohibition.
As for the tendency of western countries to expand "criminal" behaviour and the United States in particular for jailing people who fall under those definitions it strikes me largely as political correctness gone wild. Since when was it illegal or harassment for 4 year olds to hug? What codswhallop!
As for turning prisons over to the private sector it's always struck me as somewhere between dumb and stupid. Worse, it ends up costing more than the state running them as there is a built in advantage to the private operators to lobby for stronger and more stern sentencing even though that's been repeatedly shown not to work.
Back to the "War on Drugs". It hasn't worked and never will. Though it's caused what are basically civil wars in Colombia and Mexico. Let's not forget gang wars in the larger cities in North America.
And it hasn't stopped anyone curious enough to try something to try it. As with alcohol in the 1920s the cost has been horrendous in cash, civil liberties and the erosion of rights (constitutional or otherwise). And you want to tell me it's worth it?
The fact that most kids aren't addicted to drugs isn't germane one way or another. Most kids aren't alcoholics either. Prohibition has nothing all to do with either fact.
When CD's first appeared the assumption was made that as 22kHz was near the high range humans can hear and distinguish that they could safely cut off the top end there. The testing, remember, was done with single tone frequency runs not by playing notes on an instrument. Pianos and guitars and harps were too imprecise for what they wanted.
Remember, though that I did say distinguish. As a whole musicians and singers can distinguish the side tones created by a note played at 22kHz well up into the 40kHz range. And that's where the observation that CD's sound "flat" or toneless comes from. The high frequency side tones are missing. Rather they were because they're back in there now.
Analogue is different than digital in that it creates side tones surrounding the note(s) being played or sung. Digital doesn't. Early CD recordings would drop the sidetones altogether.
Still, I'd agree with Neil if he thinks mp3's are crap. I prefer to think of them as sonic swamps what with all the compression and all.
As usual it will work itself out over time. FLAC is far better while WAV does some cut off at the high and low end to save bandwidth.
Given the IP walls built around content these days piracy may, indeed, be the only way to preserve much of our culture. Curiously most of the people doing the pirating blissfully unaware that that is what they're doing. They like something so they make a copy and store it away.
Quite honestly I can get far better entertainment for "free" watching children in a playground or adults at a craft fair and many other places and things than Hollywood provides most days.
On the post: The NFL Issues Takedown For Chrysler Super Bowl Commercial
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bots! Damn bots!
The NFL issed a DCMA takedown notice on a video they didn't own the rights to. While You Tube did follow the rules one could say that Chrysler has grounds for an action against the NFL or at least the rights to get very, very pissed off at the NFL and the perfect right to tell them so as Chrysler owns the rights to the ad NOT the NFL.
On the post: Movie Studios Jump In Late: Sue LimeWire And Demand Cash From Dead Site
Re:
On the post: 70 Groups Tell Congress To Put The Brakes On Any Further Efforts To Expand Intellectual Property
Re:
On the post: 70 Groups Tell Congress To Put The Brakes On Any Further Efforts To Expand Intellectual Property
There's not a signatory to the letter who approves of things like piracy just as there's not a signatory to the letter who approves of the way in which SOPA and PIPA showed how so-called intellectual property (copyright and patents) are legislated and who actually gets involved in the early stages of legislation, usually the entertainment industry and them alone.
As for some of the unions in the entertainment industry they come so close at times to being yellow dog unions that I just don't listen to them anymore.
(And I'm a committed trade unionist, by the way. :)
On the post: Tom Brady Watched Last Year's Super Bowl Via Illegal Stream... And Probably Had A Better Experience Than Anyone Watching NBC's Official Stream
Re: Re: Yeah, it kind of sucked
Too often, the ads have been better than the game itself.
NBC, and other broadcasters, need to learn that there are some occasions where it's at least one of the ad's that's the star of the show. And that holds true for the Super Bowl. That said, they should be shown.
On the post: The NFL Issues Takedown For Chrysler Super Bowl Commercial
Stupidity
It's great.
Whatever bot or idiot at the NFL filed the takedown should be taken out and given a really good talking to about publicity and what the Internet and You Tube can do for them.
This time around the Internet and You Tube are probably saying really, really nasty things. Like here.
On the post: The NFL Issues Takedown For Chrysler Super Bowl Commercial
Re: Bots! Damn bots!
Absurdity works on many levels you know :)
On the post: OK Go Shows, Once Again, How Content Is Advertising... And How There Are Many Revenue Streams For Musicians
Re:
Even then, as sell outs go, this is a wonderful one. Up there with United Breaks Guitars!
On the post: OK Go Shows, Once Again, How Content Is Advertising... And How There Are Many Revenue Streams For Musicians
Just a wonderful performance, a good song and a great idea all wrapped up into one. No wonder EMI had no idea what to do with it (or the band)!
18 thumbs up!
On the post: The Real Goal Of Regulating Buffer Copies? So Hollywood Can Put A Tollbooth On Innovation
Probably even photos I took given the broad way the language is written unless slap a Creative Commons license on the picture before I start doing criminal things like making it smaller or clearing up some parts of it before I slap it somewhere on the Web.
Such fun!
Do the folks who wrote this understand anything about computers or the Internet at all? Or are they still stuck in a print and photocopy world?
On the post: The Real Goal Of Regulating Buffer Copies? So Hollywood Can Put A Tollbooth On Innovation
Re:
What you can't get in the light of day try to get in the dark. Kinda like the places mushrooms are grown. And the poop they're grown in.
On the post: Czech Government Suspends ACTA Ratification
Though, as Lobo Santo says we need to be prepared for a kind of "reverse astroturfing" by supporters of the proposed treaty. It won't be the first time that's happened, now will be the last. Sticking to the facts is by far the best way to kill this abomination off. Just as they killed off SOPA/PIPA (at least for now).
On the post: Canadian Songwriters Want To Embrace File Sharing, But Do They Have The Right Approach?
Remember this is the group that went spare over the possibility of songs being recorded on blank CDs and is partially responsible for the "content" tax we pay on blank rewriteable media in Canada.
They're moving in the right direction. Not completely but that takes time as these things always do.
The copyright crutch is still there, the middlemen -- the labels -- still seem to be there but the move away from SOPA/PIPA and litigation as a model is the right move. As others have pointed out there are other models already there instead of an ISP tax which goes to everyone who holds a music copyright be it songwriter or label.
Ninja's model looks good. Not great but good and a step or two along the path that SAC seems headed on. In some respects it must be kinda scary for them. They "safety" of the old way will disappear as a ne way of distribution and publicity take the place of labels and payola.
Perhaps the SAC actually heard and took to heart what Neil Young had to say about the Web having become the "new" radio where people find, share and talk about new music they've found.
Personally I want to see the songwriters, musicians, producers and studios paid. I don't care about the member companies of the RIAA. Their time is passing or already has passed. That will happen whether or not the corrupt forms of modern copyright continue to exist, is reformed or vanishes completely.
SAC, at least, has heard the audience, their fans and is working on something different. Let's give them credit for that, at least, then help them along by suggesting alternative lines of thought and, yes, busibess models.
On the post: We're Living In the Most Creative Time In History
Re: Re: Yes, you will notice the trend in Hollywood towards "safe" remakes and such tends to match up nicely with the advent of the internet, and specifically the arrival of Napster.
On the post: Tom The Dancing Bug Takes On Insanity Of Copyright Extension And Disproportionate Punishment
Re: Re: Re: People feel strongly about things they know nothing about
There is no left or right here...there's just HOLLYWOOD and that is all that counts. Well, that and their billions.
They do seem to have a lot of money to throw around for companies that are in such trouble, don't you think?
On the post: Paramount Wants To Talk To Students About How They're All Thieves & Then Ask For Ideas On What To Do
Up to an including the loss of one or two constitutionally protected rights along the way as well as breaking the Internet and DNSSEC. Those who created the content must be paid!
Well, at least those who distributed the content must be paid even if no one else does.
All the while ignorning the snickers from the students as they send out live video from their phones who wait for the Q&A to ask why things like copyright and patents have terms that take them well beyond the anticipated end of our universes life.
It would be fun!
On the post: One Nation, Under Guard
Re:
Not to mention that the two most dangerous drugs and the most people are addicted to are perfectly legal. Nicotine and alcohol. Together they cause society more damage and cost than all the illegal drugs combined.
Prohibition doesn't work. If that wasn't learned in the 1920s it needs to be now. It leads to more or a role for organized crime, gang wars and fills prisons with users, for the most part, and not smugglers and high level distributors. Nor is it a deterrent, which is often the excuse for continuing prohibition.
As for the tendency of western countries to expand "criminal" behaviour and the United States in particular for jailing people who fall under those definitions it strikes me largely as political correctness gone wild. Since when was it illegal or harassment for 4 year olds to hug? What codswhallop!
As for turning prisons over to the private sector it's always struck me as somewhere between dumb and stupid. Worse, it ends up costing more than the state running them as there is a built in advantage to the private operators to lobby for stronger and more stern sentencing even though that's been repeatedly shown not to work.
Back to the "War on Drugs". It hasn't worked and never will. Though it's caused what are basically civil wars in Colombia and Mexico. Let's not forget gang wars in the larger cities in North America.
And it hasn't stopped anyone curious enough to try something to try it. As with alcohol in the 1920s the cost has been horrendous in cash, civil liberties and the erosion of rights (constitutional or otherwise). And you want to tell me it's worth it?
The fact that most kids aren't addicted to drugs isn't germane one way or another. Most kids aren't alcoholics either. Prohibition has nothing all to do with either fact.
On the post: Neil Young: Piracy Is The New Radio (But The Quality Sucks)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Remember, though that I did say distinguish. As a whole musicians and singers can distinguish the side tones created by a note played at 22kHz well up into the 40kHz range. And that's where the observation that CD's sound "flat" or toneless comes from. The high frequency side tones are missing. Rather they were because they're back in there now.
Analogue is different than digital in that it creates side tones surrounding the note(s) being played or sung. Digital doesn't. Early CD recordings would drop the sidetones altogether.
Still, I'd agree with Neil if he thinks mp3's are crap. I prefer to think of them as sonic swamps what with all the compression and all.
As usual it will work itself out over time. FLAC is far better while WAV does some cut off at the high and low end to save bandwidth.
On the post: Why Piracy Is Indispensable For The Survival Of Our Culture
Re: Re:
On the post: Why Piracy Is Indispensable For The Survival Of Our Culture
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Example:
Quite honestly I can get far better entertainment for "free" watching children in a playground or adults at a craft fair and many other places and things than Hollywood provides most days.
Next >>