I think it was more a case of:
"Hey, that guy's getting us a lot of free attention and marketing. What the (bleep) are we paying the marketing department for?
So, it's either fire the marketing department for not coming up with a better sales promotion or fire Anthony for making the marketing department look bad."
Guess which one they went with?
Since we don't know the details of the settlement, here's my theory:
Netflix makes CYOA popular with the Black Mirror series.
CYOA feels wronged because they think Netflix didn't get permission to use their idea.
Neither side wants to create any official court precedent, so...
I'd be willing to bet Netflix starts making some officially-licensed CYOA movies or TV series, which is fun for viewers and a cut (of something) goes back to CYOA.
Is the entire ballot illegal or just the vote for president?
Because if the entire ballot is illegal, then all the votes for Republicans candidates have to be thrown out also.
Instead of complaining about how EA put ads into the games, why don't people boycott the advertisers who paid EA to run their ads like this? Obviously, someone in some marketing department thought it was a good idea to pay EA to run ads like this, so many people need to tell them how wrong they are. This might make more a difference than promising to never buy another EA game again... until the next must-play game comes out.
I love when people say sites like Facebook and Twitter have to accept anything that people say because they're a public business. What makes them any different from other private companies that offers a public space?
For example, suppose you go to the Magic Kingdom park in the middle of Walt Disney World. We can argue that this is a very public place (never mind that you have to pay to get in), so can people say whatever they want?
What if someone acted as bad in the theme park as they act on Twitter: calling people names, hounding people, and so on. Do they expect to be able to get away with it or would security throw them out... and then would they claim they have the first amendment right to say what they want... while on private property?
Honestly, if people acted as racist in Disney World as they act on Twitter, I'd expect Disney to ban them for life!
We all know the whole "censoring conservative voices" is nonsense, but has anyone actually tested this idea? You know, by sending out tweets talking about true conservative points, such as:
The government should balance it's budget.
Government shouldn't tell businesses what to do since the free market will sort it out.
Reduce the size of government, which goes back to point #2 about not needing government regulators.
Has anyone ever been kicked off of Twitter for talking about a balanced budget or fiscal responsibility? No? Then there is no bias against conservatives- it's bias against hate speech.
How soon will it be until we get a "G" arms race?
AT&T announces it'll soon have 6G.
Verizon responds that it's working on 7G.
T-Mobile will soon come out with 8G, because 8 is more than 6.
Then after everyone buys 4G phones that show "8G" on the display, will we realize that we're still getting 4G service and all this "G" marketing is nonsense.
I knew it!
It seems like every time I read a story here about copyright, it leads to another story about copyright. Then I've lost half my day reading informative articles! Then I start thinking about these issues!
How dare they make me addicted to learning things!
So they're suing Netflix because Netflix is the US distributor, rather than suing the director or producer or studio?
I guess it's a little more convenient to sue the distributor than the people who actually make the "questionable material".
But like other posters are saying, did anyone in the Texas "justice system" even watch the movie? Or more to the point, did they only watch for the "naughty bits" instead of seeing those bits as part of a larger story that shows the experiences of preteen girls?
Sadly, it would not surprise me if this lawsuit got traction and the prosecutor was able to convince a jury that "these kinds of movies" are being shown "to your children!!!" on Netflix.
I still wonder if the Republican's plans would have gotten this far if the Democrats had pushed back.
It still infuriates me that NOT ONE SINGLE POLITICIAN ever disagrees with Trump. He can say the most outrageous thing, such as how COVID-19 isn't very dangerous and people won't die, and NOT ONE Democrat will stand up and say he's wrong. Then NOT ONE Republican will disown him and say that's not what the Republican party stands for.
Okay, in all fairness, maybe there are 1 or 2 politicians who will speak up against Trump, but what about the rest of them? You mean there's NO ONE in all of Congress who wants to make a name for himself (or herself) for standing up against Trump?
And where's the media when this happens? You rarely hear about the media making an issue over Trump lying. But they themselves don't have to take a side (though that's a complicit agreement with Trump), but they need to report on all the politicians standing against Trump. Oh, right- see above- there are no politicians standing against Trump.
So no wonder Trump continues to lie: there's no one to tell him to stop and there's no one to hold him accountable.
I can maybe, sort-of see the confusion:
Little Billy: Grandma, please get me that 'monster' video game.
Grandma goes to the store: Hmm, is that "Ubisoft's Gods & Monsters" or "Monster Energy Supercross"? I don't know.
Then she brings home the Disney's Monsters, Inc video game.
I've come to realize that all Republicans are evil and they come in two flavors:
1) Very evil: those that kiss Trump's butt and actively encourage corruption and fascism, like Mitch McConnell.
2) Simply evil: those that go along with the corruption but don't speak out because the political party is more important than morals.
It's very telling that none of the "mainstream media" (for lack of a better word) ever talks about how Republican members in the Senate or House condemn what Trump is doing. Nope- they're more interested in making sure Republicans/ Trump's base votes for them in the next election.
What's the old expression, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing".
So we have an entire political party of good men and women who are doing nothing.
Yes, I know it's fun to make a video dancing to a popular song, but at this point, it's too much of a risk. We need to encourage people to stop using other people's content, especially songs from big publishers.
You can argue that the video is fair use or transformative or that it's doing good by raising money for charity, but since it wasn't approved by Sony, they're going to issue a takedown.
So, again, don't use any content by Sony or you're risking a takedown or other actions.
What happens if other countries start thinking the same as the US and China? Could Russia demand a cut of Facebook or Google go to a Russian company? Could Iran demand a cut of Twitter go to an Iranian company?
After all, it's only fair.
"but we won't know that until his tax returns are shown."
What is the police always say: if you're innocent then you have nothing to hide.
Then what explains Trump's refusal to show his taxes?
1) He's not as rich as he claims, which would be a blow to his ego.
2) He has a lot of illegal/ shady investments from foreign countries, which could land him in jail.
Like with so many things, if Trump really though his taxes were great, he'd be showing them off to the world. You know, like all the evidence that he wasn't guilty of all the impeachment charges... which the Senate didn't even bother listening to.
First, did Disney try to get the likeness for Evel Knievel for Toy Story 4? Was it like getting the likeness for Barbie and the company said no, only for Disney to change the character to get around copyrights? (In that case, Barbie was removed from the original Toy Story and they used Bo Peep instead.)
And when was this lawsuit filed? If it was recently, why are they only suing now, when the movie was released last year? Did it really take this long for the case to bubble up and come to people's attention?
Or did they wait until sales of DVD's started to rack up and then they sued?
Isn't the real reason the Trump administration wants to ban TikTok is because Trump got it into his head that TikyTok users somehow organized to register thousands of people for his Tulsa, OK rally, but then didn't show up?
The low attendance wasn't caused by the virus pandemic or people losing interest in his rally- it's because TikTok users followed the instructions of one person... and that person wasn't Trump.
I get a newsletter from the Small Business Development Center in Florida which talks resources for small businesses during the COVID pandemic. Every so often, there are links to surveys that they'll pass along to lawmakers and there are stories about other small businesses that are doing well during the pandemic.
I have a GMail account and almost every single one of their newsletters is put into my Spam folder and labeled as a phishing attempt! Really? A newsletter that helps small business from a government agency? Really?
And even clicking "not spam" doesn't seem to help since the next newsletter is still labeled as a phishing attempt!
So, yes, there's something going on with Google's filters. Maybe they think every mention of COVID-19 is somehow misinformation or phishing.
And I apologize if mentioning COVID-19 this innocently causes Google to say this entire page is bad.
On the post: Inconceivable: TikToker Who Made Paint Mixing Very, Very Cool... Is Fired From Sherwin-Williams For Doing So
Re: '... Wait, where did that sales spike go?'
I think it was more a case of:
"Hey, that guy's getting us a lot of free attention and marketing. What the (bleep) are we paying the marketing department for?
So, it's either fire the marketing department for not coming up with a better sales promotion or fire Anthony for making the marketing department look bad."
Guess which one they went with?
On the post: Disappointing: Netflix Decides To Settle With Chooseco LLC Over 'Bandersnatch' Lawsuit
Since we don't know the details of the settlement, here's my theory:
Netflix makes CYOA popular with the Black Mirror series.
CYOA feels wronged because they think Netflix didn't get permission to use their idea.
Neither side wants to create any official court precedent, so...
I'd be willing to bet Netflix starts making some officially-licensed CYOA movies or TV series, which is fun for viewers and a cut (of something) goes back to CYOA.
On the post: Trumpland Apparently Just Forgot About Its Manufactured TikTok Hysteria
Re: Trumpist beliefs.
Is the entire ballot illegal or just the vote for president?
Because if the entire ballot is illegal, then all the votes for Republicans candidates have to be thrown out also.
On the post: 2K Sports Could Have Avoided Its Un-Skippable Ads Backlash If The Ads Were Better Content
Go after the advertisers
Instead of complaining about how EA put ads into the games, why don't people boycott the advertisers who paid EA to run their ads like this? Obviously, someone in some marketing department thought it was a good idea to pay EA to run ads like this, so many people need to tell them how wrong they are. This might make more a difference than promising to never buy another EA game again... until the next must-play game comes out.
On the post: Zuckerberg And Facebook Throw The Open Internet Under The Bus; Support Section 230 Reform
A private company offering a public space
I love when people say sites like Facebook and Twitter have to accept anything that people say because they're a public business. What makes them any different from other private companies that offers a public space?
For example, suppose you go to the Magic Kingdom park in the middle of Walt Disney World. We can argue that this is a very public place (never mind that you have to pay to get in), so can people say whatever they want?
What if someone acted as bad in the theme park as they act on Twitter: calling people names, hounding people, and so on. Do they expect to be able to get away with it or would security throw them out... and then would they claim they have the first amendment right to say what they want... while on private property?
Honestly, if people acted as racist in Disney World as they act on Twitter, I'd expect Disney to ban them for life!
On the post: Jeffrey Toobin's Zoom Dick Incident Is The Perfect Example Of Why We Need Section 230
Re: Now the tool is to blame?
I was just about to say this.
If Zoom is somehow responsible for the user's actions, then we need to keep going up the service chain:
On the post: Trumpist Republicans Latest Freakout A Total Self-Own, As They Reveal They Don't Read What They Tweet
We all know the whole "censoring conservative voices" is nonsense, but has anyone actually tested this idea? You know, by sending out tweets talking about true conservative points, such as:
Has anyone ever been kicked off of Twitter for talking about a balanced budget or fiscal responsibility? No? Then there is no bias against conservatives- it's bias against hate speech.
On the post: We're Already Hyping 6G When 5G Hasn't Even Finished Disappointing Us Yet
A new G arms race
How soon will it be until we get a "G" arms race?
AT&T announces it'll soon have 6G.
Verizon responds that it's working on 7G.
T-Mobile will soon come out with 8G, because 8 is more than 6.
Then after everyone buys 4G phones that show "8G" on the display, will we realize that we're still getting 4G service and all this "G" marketing is nonsense.
On the post: The Social Dilemma Manipulates You With Misinformation As It Tries To Warn You Of Manipulation By Misinformation
Re: What about addiction to techdirt...
I knew it!
It seems like every time I read a story here about copyright, it leads to another story about copyright. Then I've lost half my day reading informative articles! Then I start thinking about these issues!
How dare they make me addicted to learning things!
On the post: Texas Grand Jury Indicts Netflix For 'Lewd Exhibition' Of Children In Its Movie 'Cuties'
Suing Netflix certainly is convenient
So they're suing Netflix because Netflix is the US distributor, rather than suing the director or producer or studio?
I guess it's a little more convenient to sue the distributor than the people who actually make the "questionable material".
But like other posters are saying, did anyone in the Texas "justice system" even watch the movie? Or more to the point, did they only watch for the "naughty bits" instead of seeing those bits as part of a larger story that shows the experiences of preteen girls?
Sadly, it would not surprise me if this lawsuit got traction and the prosecutor was able to convince a jury that "these kinds of movies" are being shown "to your children!!!" on Netflix.
On the post: Take-Two Going To Trial Over Yet Another Tattoo Artist Claiming Copyright On Athlete Bodies
Re: paypal login
Why, yes, I think I will click on a link to a fake PayPal site. Nothing fishy here.
On the post: New Study: Once Again, The Mainstream Media Is A Bigger Problem In Spreading Disinformation Than Social Media
Re: A brief reminder:
Excellent points.
I still wonder if the Republican's plans would have gotten this far if the Democrats had pushed back.
It still infuriates me that NOT ONE SINGLE POLITICIAN ever disagrees with Trump. He can say the most outrageous thing, such as how COVID-19 isn't very dangerous and people won't die, and NOT ONE Democrat will stand up and say he's wrong. Then NOT ONE Republican will disown him and say that's not what the Republican party stands for.
Okay, in all fairness, maybe there are 1 or 2 politicians who will speak up against Trump, but what about the rest of them? You mean there's NO ONE in all of Congress who wants to make a name for himself (or herself) for standing up against Trump?
And where's the media when this happens? You rarely hear about the media making an issue over Trump lying. But they themselves don't have to take a side (though that's a complicit agreement with Trump), but they need to report on all the politicians standing against Trump. Oh, right- see above- there are no politicians standing against Trump.
So no wonder Trump continues to lie: there's no one to tell him to stop and there's no one to hold him accountable.
On the post: Ubisoft Bows To Monster Energy To Rename An Upcoming Game Horribly
Re: There is a Monster Energy videogame
I can maybe, sort-of see the confusion:
Little Billy: Grandma, please get me that 'monster' video game.
Grandma goes to the store: Hmm, is that "Ubisoft's Gods & Monsters" or "Monster Energy Supercross"? I don't know.
Then she brings home the Disney's Monsters, Inc video game.
On the post: The TikTok 'Deal' Was A Grift From The Start: Accomplishes None Of The Stated Goals; Just Helps Trump & Friends
Re:
I've come to realize that all Republicans are evil and they come in two flavors:
1) Very evil: those that kiss Trump's butt and actively encourage corruption and fascism, like Mitch McConnell.
2) Simply evil: those that go along with the corruption but don't speak out because the political party is more important than morals.
It's very telling that none of the "mainstream media" (for lack of a better word) ever talks about how Republican members in the Senate or House condemn what Trump is doing. Nope- they're more interested in making sure Republicans/ Trump's base votes for them in the next election.
What's the old expression, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing".
So we have an entire political party of good men and women who are doing nothing.
On the post: It's September 21st And Demi Abejuyigbe Has Another Great September 21st Video For Charity, Marred By Copyright Takedowns
Just stop using other people's content
Yes, I know it's fun to make a video dancing to a popular song, but at this point, it's too much of a risk. We need to encourage people to stop using other people's content, especially songs from big publishers.
You can argue that the video is fair use or transformative or that it's doing good by raising money for charity, but since it wasn't approved by Sony, they're going to issue a takedown.
So, again, don't use any content by Sony or you're risking a takedown or other actions.
On the post: Blowback Time: China Says TikTok Deal Is A Model For How It Should Deal With US Companies In China
What about other countries?
What happens if other countries start thinking the same as the US and China? Could Russia demand a cut of Facebook or Google go to a Russian company? Could Iran demand a cut of Twitter go to an Iranian company?
After all, it's only fair.
On the post: Blowback Time: China Says TikTok Deal Is A Model For How It Should Deal With US Companies In China
Re: Re:
"but we won't know that until his tax returns are shown."
What is the police always say: if you're innocent then you have nothing to hide.
Then what explains Trump's refusal to show his taxes?
1) He's not as rich as he claims, which would be a blow to his ego.
2) He has a lot of illegal/ shady investments from foreign countries, which could land him in jail.
Like with so many things, if Trump really though his taxes were great, he'd be showing them off to the world. You know, like all the evidence that he wasn't guilty of all the impeachment charges... which the Senate didn't even bother listening to.
On the post: Company Owning 'Evel Knievel' Rights Sues Disney Over 'Toy Story 4' Amalgam Parody Character
A few points
First, did Disney try to get the likeness for Evel Knievel for Toy Story 4? Was it like getting the likeness for Barbie and the company said no, only for Disney to change the character to get around copyrights? (In that case, Barbie was removed from the original Toy Story and they used Bo Peep instead.)
And when was this lawsuit filed? If it was recently, why are they only suing now, when the movie was released last year? Did it really take this long for the case to bubble up and come to people's attention?
Or did they wait until sales of DVD's started to rack up and then they sued?
On the post: The Idea That Banning TikTok Thwarts Chinese Intelligence In Any Way Is Ridiculous
The real reason
Isn't the real reason the Trump administration wants to ban TikTok is because Trump got it into his head that TikyTok users somehow organized to register thousands of people for his Tulsa, OK rally, but then didn't show up?
The low attendance wasn't caused by the virus pandemic or people losing interest in his rally- it's because TikTok users followed the instructions of one person... and that person wasn't Trump.
On the post: Why Are There Currently No Ads On Techdirt? Apparently Google Thinks We're Dangerous
More false phishing flags
I get a newsletter from the Small Business Development Center in Florida which talks resources for small businesses during the COVID pandemic. Every so often, there are links to surveys that they'll pass along to lawmakers and there are stories about other small businesses that are doing well during the pandemic.
I have a GMail account and almost every single one of their newsletters is put into my Spam folder and labeled as a phishing attempt! Really? A newsletter that helps small business from a government agency? Really?
And even clicking "not spam" doesn't seem to help since the next newsletter is still labeled as a phishing attempt!
So, yes, there's something going on with Google's filters. Maybe they think every mention of COVID-19 is somehow misinformation or phishing.
And I apologize if mentioning COVID-19 this innocently causes Google to say this entire page is bad.
Next >>