From the Sun's site: "The credit card will be charged a one-time fee of 99 cents to activate the account."
Cheaper than Something Awful's forum. And honestly, I think SA had the right idea. It works. It would be nearly impossible to maintain a community that vast and that hyperactive for so long unless there was some kind of standard of quality. And what better standard than having members literally put their money where their mouth is?
Of course, the catch is that you need to be on the same philosophical page as your members, and you need to be able to communicate your intentions in a way that they'll accept this hoop in the interests of quality management. Will that happen here? I don't know. It's an easy thing to screw up.
Looks like the only innovation here is in managing to correlate what this guy figured out with a BS patent. Hey! Maybe someone should patent THAT concept and then cite BMI for infringement!
I propose U.S. Patent #LOL: a system comprised of 1) a lookup table (be it a programmable database maintained on a massive server or a handwritten list on a stained napkin I stole from a diner) containing responses to otherwise benign ideas or original research 2) methods to equate said ideas or research with previously existing patents 3) a means by which said responses can be sent to the responsible party, and/or anyone linked to the responsible party, in the form of a takedown notice or cease-and-desist order. And 4) any other stuff related to this system which I haven't thought of yet.
You're not seeing the difference because your analogy is wrong. It is correct that using a tidal wave from another movie in your own as a replacement for creating said tidal wave yourself should require payment to whomever created the first movie. BUT
If you create a video montage wherein you cut together found footage from existing work, including that same tidal wave, that's transformative and you're good to go.
Similarly, it's bad form to rip the drumbeat from another song in lieu of hiring your own drummer. BUT sampling music in a way that changes the intent is also transformative. Or at least it's supposed to be.
What's obnoxious about it is Larrikin isn't even the content producer. It's just the publisher who most recently acquired the copyright to that folk song. So they're not even protecting the rights of any artist at this point, just some faceless company.
I'm all for making sure the wars are funded properly and our troops have everything they need to be effective and safe, but 600 mill is like a drop in the ocean when it comes to war funding. Unless America is literally going broke, there's no reason in the world to cannibalize completely unrelated budgetary allocations like this. This seems more like the kind of thing you'd do only because you want to make sure those funds don't go where they were originally intended. If David Obey was into Poprocks, he'd be shifting the money to a Federal Candy fund.
I was going to say the exact same thing. The self-conscious right wing would shoot the proposition down, and it would never happen. Or it would happen in the most neutered way possible.
God forbid we ever have any useful public service ever.
From the article: "(...) an increase in the number of "anonymous" commenters on the site coming from IP addresses used by a few law firms that have connections to ASCAP."
LOL @ the anonymous commenters who are basically confirming this
This is the most clear-headed approach. You don't even need a lawyer to deal with this kind of kangaroo bullshit. Just threaten them back. They have nothing, so they'll run away.
"However, what I found really telling about the whole thing isn't the "poor choice of words," but how the industry appears to have this total double standard on the issue."
Well I think part of that comes from the fact that "Hollywood" isn't actually a single entity, or even a collection of like-minded people. It's a collection of very random people whose job is to create something incredibly subjective. So when they're portrayed as a single entity by, well, basically everyone (including themselves, often by those members who aren't aware they're part of the group or how the group works, though sometimes it's a self-aware misrepresentation), then yeah, they look like they're full of double-standards. Because they're actually full of people who fundamentally disagree with each other, but are too passive-aggressive to ever admit it. :p
On the post: Newspaper Wants You To Pay To Comment
Cheaper than Something Awful's forum. And honestly, I think SA had the right idea. It works. It would be nearly impossible to maintain a community that vast and that hyperactive for so long unless there was some kind of standard of quality. And what better standard than having members literally put their money where their mouth is?
Of course, the catch is that you need to be on the same philosophical page as your members, and you need to be able to communicate your intentions in a way that they'll accept this hoop in the interests of quality management. Will that happen here? I don't know. It's an easy thing to screw up.
On the post: Best Buy Says Creator Of iPhone/Evo Video Can Keep His Job; Guy Says He'd Rather Not
Re: Re: BUT!!!!!!!
On the post: Describing How To Create A Software Program Now Puts You At Risk Of Contributory Patent Infringement?
I propose U.S. Patent #LOL: a system comprised of 1) a lookup table (be it a programmable database maintained on a massive server or a handwritten list on a stained napkin I stole from a diner) containing responses to otherwise benign ideas or original research 2) methods to equate said ideas or research with previously existing patents 3) a means by which said responses can be sent to the responsible party, and/or anyone linked to the responsible party, in the form of a takedown notice or cease-and-desist order. And 4) any other stuff related to this system which I haven't thought of yet.
On the post: Snoop Dogg Sued By Famed Jazz Artist For Sampling
Re: Re:
http://theblackcommenter.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/race-card.jpg
is my favorite.
On the post: Snoop Dogg Sued By Famed Jazz Artist For Sampling
Re: Re: Re: What's the difference?
If you create a video montage wherein you cut together found footage from existing work, including that same tidal wave, that's transformative and you're good to go.
Similarly, it's bad form to rip the drumbeat from another song in lieu of hiring your own drummer. BUT sampling music in a way that changes the intent is also transformative. Or at least it's supposed to be.
Hopefully that clears things up.
On the post: Men At Work Ordered To Pay 5% Of Earnings On 'Down Under' Over Copyright Claim
Re: Travesty?
On the post: White House: Here's $795M For Broadband; Congress: Wait, We Want $602M Of That For War
Re:
On the post: If The Public Library Was Invented Today, Would The Gov't Call It Organized Crime And Shut It Down?
Re: wouldn't they label it socialist?
God forbid we ever have any useful public service ever.
On the post: Louis Vuitton Strikes Again: Shuts Down Art Exhibit That Commented On LV Trademarks
Re:
On the post: Administration Went From Supporting Copyright Exceptions For The Blind... To Working To Block Them
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: A Week After Feds Approve Movie Derivatives Market, Congress Bans It
Re: They've killed off a potential business model too!
On the post: ASCAP Claiming That Creative Commons Must Be Stopped; Apparently They Don't Actually Believe In Artist Freedom
On the post: Didn't Take Long: Lots Of People Getting Sued By US Copyright Group Claim Innocence
Re: Calm down now
On the post: Ashton Kutcher, Lionsgate Play Up 'Pirating' Own Film As Part Of Promotion Stunt
Well I think part of that comes from the fact that "Hollywood" isn't actually a single entity, or even a collection of like-minded people. It's a collection of very random people whose job is to create something incredibly subjective. So when they're portrayed as a single entity by, well, basically everyone (including themselves, often by those members who aren't aware they're part of the group or how the group works, though sometimes it's a self-aware misrepresentation), then yeah, they look like they're full of double-standards. Because they're actually full of people who fundamentally disagree with each other, but are too passive-aggressive to ever admit it. :p
Next >>