Probably because this is an arcade machine in a bar that doesn't pay AssCAP fees. It's probably more of a "fine, if you're a bar not paying our fees, then we'll find some other reason to make you pay. Hey, is that a Guitar Hero arcade machine over there?"
What if they did something similar to Rifftrax. Remove the audio and have the video just be of the lip syncing. Then, include a message that says "Play Song ... NOW", so the viewer's own (legally purchased, of course) version of the song is playing with a silent video playing along side it.
While not addressing any points made, just thought that would be an interesting way to side-skirt the issue entirely. I doubt the video would have gotten 2mil views that way, but seems a lot more interesting than just having someone lip sync to a song ... which seems rather boring to begin with.
It's not only an issue of semantics when the words carry different meanings and implications. Copyright & trademark refer to different things, have different sets of rules, and are very much different things. So, it's ultimately not just a matter of semantics, but the fundamental differences between completely different areas of law.
"I have to ask, really, if someone were to write a crawler for this site that takes all your articles and then makes an iphone app that allows ppl to view them with a different interface and with no mention of you at all, would you not be the least bit upset?"
The point is not whether or not Mike would be upset (he probably would be). The point is that Mike wouldn't sue, but would look to free market solutions to the problem instead of resorting to legal threats and courtroom solutions.
Except the hat was given away, not the logo. You just said so. So, should McDonald's be upset if you got a free hat and then sold it for $5 to a bald guy on a sunny day?
Politicians take an oath with their jobs, and with that is an understanding that they are working for their constituents. Taking bribes undermines this trust because they are working in someone's interest other than their constituents.
As a voter, I took no oath to not e-mail my representatives without being coerced. There is no promise, no oath, no vow. An e-mail to a representative is not a vote.
So, really, what you said made no sense as politicians taking bribes for their vote is fundamentally different than someone e-mailing their representative (which has no weight or power over anything, it's an opinion ... a politician voting on a law is so vastly different from an opinion that it shouldn't have to be said) for promise of fake money.
A bribe is a bribe, just like a rock is a rock ... but I can drop a pebble-sized rock and a mountain-sized rock on your foot, and you'll admit there is a huge difference between rocks.
That's not so much artistic photographic expression as it is journalistic photography.
The effort to create art does not dictate the value of the art. A photographer can click a button. But before that button is clicked, the frame of reference is composed, settings in the camera adjusted for desired photo quality for mood or presentation. Objects can be placed aesthetically or for meaning.
The difference in composition of a good photograph and a bad photograph is subtle yet substantial.
You can put batteries in a camera and click a button and get a picture, true, but that doesn't mean that's all there is to be a photographer.
I could be a painter by dumping a bucket of paint on a canvas ... 1 action. Done, I call it "Gravity".
I could write a novel in a day, doesn't mean it would be any good at all by anyone's definition.
A movie can be made with 2 button presses, "record" and then an hour and a half later "stop". In fact, there's an entire film movement (I forget the name) that considers this pure film making ... so edits, no cuts, no scripts.
You can oversimplify all these art works into 1 or 2 meaningless actions. But it's not the actions that dictate the end product, but how the actions come together, and how the audience reacts and perceives the value their life has been enriched by the artwork.
Alternatively, someone can spend their entire lives working on a novel ... and it sucks. Someone can spend years painting a portrait and it never looks like anything more enriching than a kindergarten picture. Someone can press 2 BILLION buttons for a movie, and get Waterworld.
"What is actually happening is that none of the news organizations making a whole lot of money by giving away stories for free."
The actual reality of the situation is that there are hundreds of independent newspapers all over the world giving away the news for free IN PRINT. And making enough money in the process to stay in business, even as the big newspapers charging for the privileged to advertise to people are failing.
So, charging for news = failure. Giving news away = successful.
Check out Metro International (http://www.metro.lu/) which has several dozen local editions of free print newspapers in major cities across the world. For a news organization that is only 14 years old that GIVES AWAY THE NEWS IN PRINT FOR FREE, Wikipedia has this to say about their distribution:
"As of October 2009, there were 56 daily editions in 18 countries in 15 languages across Europe, North & South America and Asia for an audience of more than 17 million daily readers and 37 million weekly readers." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_International
A multinational news organization servicing almost 40 million people ... with not a single one of those people paying a PENNY for the news.
There are hundreds of free newspapers running in the US in saturated paid newspaper markets. Boston with the Boston Metro & Weekly Dig ... Denver has the Denver Daily News and another free weekly paper and The Onion (while satirical news, they have a huge local arts & entertainment section for the Denver & Boulder area). Yet, both of those markets (Boston & Denver) have shown the paid newspapers are failing while ... the free ones are thriving.
So, I don't see why I need to ask the people running London Lite how they're doing when everyone else I see seems to be doing just dandy.
On the post: ASCAP Now Demanding License From Venues That Let People Play Guitar Hero
Re:
On the post: Vimeo Sued For Lip Dub Videos
While not addressing any points made, just thought that would be an interesting way to side-skirt the issue entirely. I doubt the video would have gotten 2mil views that way, but seems a lot more interesting than just having someone lip sync to a song ... which seems rather boring to begin with.
On the post: Let's Get Ready To Ruuuuuuuuumble... About The Difference Between A Copyright And A Trademark
Re: Just Arguing Semantics
On the post: Piracy Destroying Hollywood Right To Yet Another Record Year At The Box Office... In A Recession
Re:
On the post: Astroturf Health Insurance Lobbying Group Paying Social Gamers To Oppose Health Reform
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Creator's Dilemma On Others Making Money Off Your Content
Re:
The point is not whether or not Mike would be upset (he probably would be). The point is that Mike wouldn't sue, but would look to free market solutions to the problem instead of resorting to legal threats and courtroom solutions.
On the post: The Creator's Dilemma On Others Making Money Off Your Content
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Creator's Dilemma On Others Making Money Off Your Content
On the post: The Creator's Dilemma On Others Making Money Off Your Content
Re: Better yet...
On the post: Astroturf Health Insurance Lobbying Group Paying Social Gamers To Oppose Health Reform
Re: Re: Mutually exclusive
As a voter, I took no oath to not e-mail my representatives without being coerced. There is no promise, no oath, no vow. An e-mail to a representative is not a vote.
So, really, what you said made no sense as politicians taking bribes for their vote is fundamentally different than someone e-mailing their representative (which has no weight or power over anything, it's an opinion ... a politician voting on a law is so vastly different from an opinion that it shouldn't have to be said) for promise of fake money.
A bribe is a bribe, just like a rock is a rock ... but I can drop a pebble-sized rock and a mountain-sized rock on your foot, and you'll admit there is a huge difference between rocks.
On the post: Astroturf Health Insurance Lobbying Group Paying Social Gamers To Oppose Health Reform
Re:
I don't think you understand what the word "facts" means.
Government bureaucracy increases costs and overhead while lowering the bar for quality of service through reduced competition. That's a "fact", too.
On the post: More Creative Fiction In Warner Music Royalty Statements
Re: Interest
On the post: Wait, I Thought Piracy Had Killed Any Chance Of Zombieland 2?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Shooting Victim Sues Google Over Search Results On His Name
Google has money. And it makes perfect 100% sense in the Legal System of the Entitled.
On the post: Photographer Compares Microstock Sites To Pollution And Drug Dealing
Re:
The effort to create art does not dictate the value of the art. A photographer can click a button. But before that button is clicked, the frame of reference is composed, settings in the camera adjusted for desired photo quality for mood or presentation. Objects can be placed aesthetically or for meaning.
The difference in composition of a good photograph and a bad photograph is subtle yet substantial.
You can put batteries in a camera and click a button and get a picture, true, but that doesn't mean that's all there is to be a photographer.
I could be a painter by dumping a bucket of paint on a canvas ... 1 action. Done, I call it "Gravity".
I could write a novel in a day, doesn't mean it would be any good at all by anyone's definition.
A movie can be made with 2 button presses, "record" and then an hour and a half later "stop". In fact, there's an entire film movement (I forget the name) that considers this pure film making ... so edits, no cuts, no scripts.
You can oversimplify all these art works into 1 or 2 meaningless actions. But it's not the actions that dictate the end product, but how the actions come together, and how the audience reacts and perceives the value their life has been enriched by the artwork.
Alternatively, someone can spend their entire lives working on a novel ... and it sucks. Someone can spend years painting a portrait and it never looks like anything more enriching than a kindergarten picture. Someone can press 2 BILLION buttons for a movie, and get Waterworld.
On the post: If Google Visitors Are Worthless, It's Only Because Newspaper Execs Don't Know What They're Doing
Re: Re: Re:
The actual reality of the situation is that there are hundreds of independent newspapers all over the world giving away the news for free IN PRINT. And making enough money in the process to stay in business, even as the big newspapers charging for the privileged to advertise to people are failing.
So, charging for news = failure. Giving news away = successful.
Check out Metro International (http://www.metro.lu/) which has several dozen local editions of free print newspapers in major cities across the world. For a news organization that is only 14 years old that GIVES AWAY THE NEWS IN PRINT FOR FREE, Wikipedia has this to say about their distribution:
"As of October 2009, there were 56 daily editions in 18 countries in 15 languages across Europe, North & South America and Asia for an audience of more than 17 million daily readers and 37 million weekly readers."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_International
A multinational news organization servicing almost 40 million people ... with not a single one of those people paying a PENNY for the news.
On the post: If Movie Piracy Is Really A Problem, It's Hollywood's Fault
Re: sort of like this:
On the post: Dear Rupert: You Don't Succeed By Making Life More Difficult For Users
Re: All part of the master plan
Everything. :)
On the post: In Going Free, London Evening Standard Doubles Circulation While Slashing Costs
Re: Re: Re:
So, I don't see why I need to ask the people running London Lite how they're doing when everyone else I see seems to be doing just dandy.
On the post: Label Exec Arrested For Not Using Twitter To Disperse Crowd At Mall To See Singer
Re:
Next >>