Perhaps Hollywood just doesn't live in the same world as the rest of us. And I don't mean just the studios, but the actors, directors, producers, and all the other behind-the-scenes folks who make the industry hum along.
See, for the rest of us (or so we are told by the Hollywood elites), labor unions are virtually required to have an adversarial relationship with the people cutting the checks. But SAG-AFTRA, DGA, and all the other unions that represent those workers seem to think Big Studio has their backs.
All Disney/ESPN seems to be upset about is putting ESPN into a "sports tier." But there's no indication here that ESPN isn't included in the base package.
Besides, if Verizon really wanted to bust the ESPN racket, they could just wait until the current contract is up, then simply *not offer* ESPN, cut prices by $7-8/month (or whatever they pay Disney for ESPN, maybe even keep an extra dollar or two to increase profits), and then perhaps partner with Sling TV to keep those customers connected ("better upgrade your internet package to get the best Sling TV experience!).
I sort of wonder if it should be copyrighted at all
Fair use completely aside here...
According to the letter of the law, it is almost certainly covered, but let's take a step back here.
Copyright does not cover ideas or facts, only the artistic contributions of the author/photographer/etc for the express purpose of encouraging more art.
But one has to ask, in this scenario, what artistic choices did Santana contribute? This was a spontaneous event. He didn't set up the camera angles, the lighting, or direct the participants. He was just in the right place at the wrong time.
Why does any spontaneous recording of a factual event, with no contribution from the recorder (other than the ability to push 'start') qualify for a purely economic right?
[Hell, if you want to get really anal about it, NC is a one-party consent state. If he didn't have consent to record people in public, maybe the recording itself is in a gray area. I think we could all agree that it shouldn't be, but if he wants to go legal with this, that opens up more potential liabilities than just for news stations.]
I don't see this as the same as a photographer getting just the right angle, or waiting for just the right framing or lighting conditions for their subject. If he had even done more narrating of the events than "Oh shit, oh shit" I'd be more sympathetic to his contributions.
Everything you see on that video is a practical necessity of making any recording of that factual event.
Fifth: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
The biggest problem with that "tradeoff" is that it implies that one will be increased with the decrease of the other. When it comes to encryption, Privacy == Security, and any harm to one necessarily harms the other.
But you can at least shine a light on it. Making it "illegal" only drive it underground where it becomes more entrenched and harder to educate.
I've long been in favor of letting any business serve any people they want, but with one important regulation: Any restrictions they want to implement have to be posted prominently on the front door. After all, if this is about business owners' beliefs, and they are proud enough of them to turn people away, they should be proud enough of them to show them to the world.
It may not change many minds, but forcing them to do something they don't believe in won't either. At least this way people can make informed decisions.
I've got an analog TV, and with a cheap converter box, I get some 30+ channels OTA. Most are not the type I'd watch on a daily (or even monthly) basis, but I'd say the same thing about cable.
Even on top of that, most broadcast networks have their current shows available online the day after they air (for a few weeks, at least), and all the options above include internet.
The whole analysis seems like a setup to make the marginal cost for cable seem smaller than it really is. With OTA + internet + Netflix, I pay about $50/month. No ESPN or HBO, which they seem to think is important, but if I really wanted them, I could add SlingTV and HBO Now for another $35 and get basically everything mentioned above for the lowest price.
But if a restaurant were to charge me a line item "fresh water" fee, I'd be a little worried. What about people who don't opt for the fee? Are they getting toilet water?
Does this imply Uber's standard service level is not safe?
I don't know that this rises to false advertising, but a little transparency about this fee would go a LONG way.
Liberty: You are free to agree with us. You are agreeing with us, right?! Equality: Everybody's rights will be trampled. Fraternity: Publicly shouting racist chants since before SAE was even founded.
Those other crimes certainly can cause fear as a result of the action, but the intent is usually personal gain.
Terrorism, as indicated by the word itself, is about the feelings of others (terror) more than the perp.
As an aside, there's not a reputable sports show on Earth who will intentionally show streakers or other trespassers in the field of play during a sporting event. They rightfully recognize that this would only encourage more of the same.
Murder is certainly more newsworthy, but isn't it about time the media starts asking itself if granting too much attention to those seeking attention is simply encouraging more of the same?
This sums up the thoughts I've been having lately, but couldn't put into words.
The proper response to "they hate our freedoms" is NOT to simply give up those same freedoms. They won.
Somebody was shot in Chicago every three hours last year. How many of those became international news for a week? The WHOLE POINT of terrorism is to spread fear, but it would be impossible without a willing media to help them at every step. Not only did they win, they used the western media and politics as their two most potent weapons.
The airwaves comment above is the best analogy for airspace. This isn't about limiting an unlimited medium (e.g. speech) it's about the safest way to allocate a limited resource. Likewise, the EPA or other departments would be expected to shut down any expression that caused great harm to listed public resources. Promoting a political cause by spray painting owls in a national park? Probably not protected by the 1st amendment.
With that said, this should be one of those cases mentioned in the post where a complete ban would be OK, but discriminatory access may not be. Set up clear, focused, rules that keep people safe, then get out of the way.
Not near airports. Not above a certain altitude. Not over private property without permission. That sort of thing.
Has the MPAA started a war with the Yellow Pages for publishing the addresses of pawn shops that might sell counterfeit movies?
It's no wonder the entertainment industry is decades behind in terms of innovation. They're still viewing the web through the paradigm of the 80's and 90's when CompuServe or AOL was the gateway, directory, ISP and one-stop shop of connected computing for the majority of people online. Only now, they've put Google in that role.
Cuba, stuck in the past, may actually be more up-to-date than Hollywood, AND have a better chance now of building on that lead.
OK, so the bar for trademark is even lower than copyright. It doesn't have to be unique or copyrightable. Just uniquely used in commerce to differentiate the brand. I'm generally very against the expansion of IP, but I'm not seeing how this particular image shouldn't be eligible.
And yes, there's the issue of trademark vs copyright, but a copyrighted image used in commerce is the basis of trademark, so in some cases, they can be closely related. If this image is eligible for copyright, then it probably should be eligible for trademark.
For the famous Obama 'Change' poster, many here agreed that it was a transformative work (the original photographer didn't even recognize it at first). So heavy photoshopping can over-ride the original copyright as fair use.
Does that mean the photoshopper gets the copyright on the new, heavily edited, work? Does it go into the public domain? Does the original artist retain some rights over it, if the uses of the edited version fail the fair use standards?
And in this case, does the original work being in the public domain change any of those answers? The source material for most of Disney's older works are in the public domain, but their specific expressions are protected. Would that not apply here as well? If the changes were deemed to be transformative, then this specific expression could be re-copyrighted, no?
On the post: Richard Dreyfuss Takes Disney To Court Over Its Refusal To Allow An Outside Auditor To Examine Its Accounting Methods
Excuse me if this gets political
See, for the rest of us (or so we are told by the Hollywood elites), labor unions are virtually required to have an adversarial relationship with the people cutting the checks. But SAG-AFTRA, DGA, and all the other unions that represent those workers seem to think Big Studio has their backs.
It's like they have a massive blind spot to just how much Hollywood Accounting is screwing them over, and has been for decades. All they see is a giant © ... and then ignore the knife in their back.
On the post: Verizon Responds To Internet Video Competition With More Flexible Cable TV Packages, ESPN Immediately Whines
Re: Verizon will lose this one.
All Disney/ESPN seems to be upset about is putting ESPN into a "sports tier." But there's no indication here that ESPN isn't included in the base package.
Besides, if Verizon really wanted to bust the ESPN racket, they could just wait until the current contract is up, then simply *not offer* ESPN, cut prices by $7-8/month (or whatever they pay Disney for ESPN, maybe even keep an extra dollar or two to increase profits), and then perhaps partner with Sling TV to keep those customers connected ("better upgrade your internet package to get the best Sling TV experience!).
On the post: Guy Who Took Walter Scott Shooting Video Now Demanding To Be Paid; Everyone Gets Confused About Fair Use
I sort of wonder if it should be copyrighted at all
According to the letter of the law, it is almost certainly covered, but let's take a step back here.
Copyright does not cover ideas or facts, only the artistic contributions of the author/photographer/etc for the express purpose of encouraging more art.
But one has to ask, in this scenario, what artistic choices did Santana contribute? This was a spontaneous event. He didn't set up the camera angles, the lighting, or direct the participants. He was just in the right place at the wrong time.
Why does any spontaneous recording of a factual event, with no contribution from the recorder (other than the ability to push 'start') qualify for a purely economic right?
[Hell, if you want to get really anal about it, NC is a one-party consent state. If he didn't have consent to record people in public, maybe the recording itself is in a gray area. I think we could all agree that it shouldn't be, but if he wants to go legal with this, that opens up more potential liabilities than just for news stations.]
I don't see this as the same as a photographer getting just the right angle, or waiting for just the right framing or lighting conditions for their subject. If he had even done more narrating of the events than "Oh shit, oh shit" I'd be more sympathetic to his contributions.
Everything you see on that video is a practical necessity of making any recording of that factual event.
On the post: TSA Agents Outwitted By Cory Doctorow's Unlocked, 'TSA-Safe' Suitcase
Re: Re: How about an impenetrable cable tie?
On the post: New Mexico Passes Law Saying Law Enforcement Can't Steal Your Property Without A Criminal Conviction
Re: Federal Law...
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
On the post: White House Floats Idea Of Crypto Backdoor... If The Key Is Broken Into Multiple Pieces
Re: Security vs Privacy
On the post: White House Floats Idea Of Crypto Backdoor... If The Key Is Broken Into Multiple Pieces
Four pieces
What could go wrong?!
On the post: Would It Have Been Better To Let The Indiana Religious Freedom Law Stand And Let The Internet And Free Market Work?
You can't legislate bigotry away.
I've long been in favor of letting any business serve any people they want, but with one important regulation: Any restrictions they want to implement have to be posted prominently on the front door. After all, if this is about business owners' beliefs, and they are proud enough of them to turn people away, they should be proud enough of them to show them to the world.
It may not change many minds, but forcing them to do something they don't believe in won't either. At least this way people can make informed decisions.
On the post: When Analyzing Cord Cutting Options, Most TV Analysts Continue To Pretend Piracy Simply Doesn't Exist
Re: Re: What's missing
Even on top of that, most broadcast networks have their current shows available online the day after they air (for a few weeks, at least), and all the options above include internet.
The whole analysis seems like a setup to make the marginal cost for cable seem smaller than it really is. With OTA + internet + Netflix, I pay about $50/month. No ESPN or HBO, which they seem to think is important, but if I really wanted them, I could add SlingTV and HBO Now for another $35 and get basically everything mentioned above for the lowest price.
On the post: California Taxi Companies Team Up To Sue Uber For 'False Advertising'
Uber sounds fine and all....
Does this imply Uber's standard service level is not safe?
I don't know that this rises to false advertising, but a little transparency about this fee would go a LONG way.
On the post: French Government Starts Blocking Websites With Views The Gov't Doesn't Like
Equality: Everybody's rights will be trampled.
Fraternity: Publicly shouting racist chants since before SAE was even founded.
On the post: Battle For Home Appliance Market Share Becomes Actual Battle, With Execs Vandalizing Machines And Indictments Handed Down
Re: ...
On the post: When We Call Criminal Acts 'Terrorism' We Destroy Our Rights And Sacrifice Our Principles
Re: Re: Thank you
Terrorism, as indicated by the word itself, is about the feelings of others (terror) more than the perp.
As an aside, there's not a reputable sports show on Earth who will intentionally show streakers or other trespassers in the field of play during a sporting event. They rightfully recognize that this would only encourage more of the same.
Murder is certainly more newsworthy, but isn't it about time the media starts asking itself if granting too much attention to those seeking attention is simply encouraging more of the same?
On the post: When We Call Criminal Acts 'Terrorism' We Destroy Our Rights And Sacrifice Our Principles
Thank you
The proper response to "they hate our freedoms" is NOT to simply give up those same freedoms. They won.
Somebody was shot in Chicago every three hours last year. How many of those became international news for a week? The WHOLE POINT of terrorism is to spread fear, but it would be impossible without a willing media to help them at every step. Not only did they win, they used the western media and politics as their two most potent weapons.
On the post: Could The FAA's Drone Policies Violate The First Amendment?
Limited resources
With that said, this should be one of those cases mentioned in the post where a complete ban would be OK, but discriminatory access may not be. Set up clear, focused, rules that keep people safe, then get out of the way.
Not near airports. Not above a certain altitude. Not over private property without permission. That sort of thing.
On the post: More Evidence Revealed Of Hollywood's Chummy Relationship With State Attorney General... Even As He Plays Dumb
What did Google do?
It's no wonder the entertainment industry is decades behind in terms of innovation. They're still viewing the web through the paradigm of the 80's and 90's when CompuServe or AOL was the gateway, directory, ISP and one-stop shop of connected computing for the majority of people online. Only now, they've put Google in that role.
Cuba, stuck in the past, may actually be more up-to-date than Hollywood, AND have a better chance now of building on that lead.
On the post: Cleveland Police Union Rep: Citizens Think They Understand The Law? Ridiculous!
To be fair...
On the post: Public Domain Monkey Selfie Now In A Trademark Application, Using Photoshopped Gap Images [Updated!]
Re: Re: Re: It's an interesting question
It doesn't have to be unique or copyrightable. Just uniquely used in commerce to differentiate the brand.
I'm generally very against the expansion of IP, but I'm not seeing how this particular image shouldn't be eligible.
On the post: Public Domain Monkey Selfie Now In A Trademark Application, Using Photoshopped Gap Images [Updated!]
Re: It's an interesting question
On the post: Public Domain Monkey Selfie Now In A Trademark Application, Using Photoshopped Gap Images [Updated!]
It's an interesting question
Does that mean the photoshopper gets the copyright on the new, heavily edited, work? Does it go into the public domain? Does the original artist retain some rights over it, if the uses of the edited version fail the fair use standards?
And in this case, does the original work being in the public domain change any of those answers? The source material for most of Disney's older works are in the public domain, but their specific expressions are protected. Would that not apply here as well? If the changes were deemed to be transformative, then this specific expression could be re-copyrighted, no?
Next >>