This copyright exception does not exist in finland
If you’re going to tell me that Finland doesn’t have any book reviewers or game journalists or film critics at all, you’re more insane than I ever thought you were.
Instead of blatant copyright infringement with ripped off clips from the movies, we actually write text descriptions of the critique in magazines and newspapers.
Good for them. But text can’t duplicate the experience of seeing a clip from a movie. It’s one thing to write about how Jackie Chan did action comedy exceptionally well; it’s a whole different experience—and a far more engrossing one—to watch a demonstration of his skill at action comedy as the principles behind it are discussed in detail.
I’m sorry that your Copyreich beliefs don’t allow you to watch, share, or even enjoy things like that video. But that’s your problem.
if his preferred guests are bullshit peddlers then it's understandable that he would be hostile to those that would debunk them
The reason he’s happy to have bullshit peddlers on is simple: Controversy creates cash. (Hat-tip to wrestling promoter Eric Bischoff for that turn of phrase.)
Rogan knows the bullshit peddlers are controversial, regardless of whether he believes what they’re peddling. He knows people will tune into his podcast to hate-listen to the bullshit, to get angry about it, to disseminate it themselves with all kinds of debunkings and such. That’s exactly what he wants. The controversy generates more revenue for him, which makes him keep creating controversy. Rogan’s bullshittery is an ouroboros powered by greed and ignorance, and he won’t care about that until he loses either the money, the attention, or both.
So you're saying that software developers are not entitled compensation for their work?
They’re saying that you openly speculating on what your software can do—even and especially if it will never be able to do what you want it to do—doesn’t entitle you to an income. Claiming that Meshpage will stop all copyright infringement doesn’t entitle you to get paid any amount of money by any government, any of the oligarchs who really run the world, or anyone else in the world. The world doesn’t owe you shit; it was here first.
Someone downloading/buying your shit out of morbid curiosity doesn’t mean they’re an active user of your shit. And even if you did have users, critique of both your bullshit and you yourself is, was, and always will be both appropriate and 100% motherfucking legal.
Yes, yes, you want to kill Fair Use to stop any creative works that build on existing works from ever being able to be made. You hate other people being able to make new works because it means you actually have to compete instead of being able to force your shit on people.
We get it, you Nazi fuck. Try a different argument.
fair use is another name for "we did copyright infringement, but we consider it legal for some stupid reason"
And that reason is typically “criticism and critique”—you know, feedback, which is something you seem to hate. Fair Use exists to allow…well, “fair” uses of copyrighted material that would otherwise be considered infringement. It’s hard to discuss a book you’ve read without being able to actually quote from the book whenever necessary, after all.
(Not that a Nazi like you reads books…)
fair use is only considered after the activity has been declared copyright infringing
Yes, Fair Use is a defense, not a right. But lots of people have gone to court for the sake of defending Fair Use, which has helped outline some boundaries in regards to what kind of uses are “fair”.
fair use scope is very small -- usually 3 words can be copied from copyrighted work to get it accepted as fair use
It isn’t that small by a long shot; your wanting it to be that small doesn’t make it so.
users of copyrighted works cannot ever rely on fair use to save their ass in copyright infringement lawsuit
Rely on it? No. It isn’t some bulletproof defense for yoinking an entire book or movie or game off the Internet. But in regards to, say, using bits and pieces of a movie in a transformative review/critique of that movie—e.g., a CinemaSins video? Yes, that falls within the boundaries of Fair Use by sane (and non-Nazi) standards.
No, they’re saying you were better off without an account because you wouldn’t have a comment history to track because you wouldn’t have a profile page where we can look through every comment you’ve made under that profile and call out all your bullshit.
Young forced the issue. He's perfectly capable of pulling his music off without it turning into a national news event. He didn't.
And that was his right. Spotify could have chosen (and ultimately did choose) to remove Young’s music. It also could’ve chosen to yank Rogan’s podcast. It could have chosen to ignore Young and let his legal team have his music taken down, too. Young’s ultimatum was, at worst, a childish ploy—but it wasn’t a call for censorship.
the "forcing his music to remain associated with Spotify" is Young's choice
Except it wasn’t. Spotify voluntarily removed his music to avoid a legal battle that it likely would’ve lost. By ignoring Young and keeping his music on the service until a legal order/battle settled the situation, Spotify would’ve been violating Young’s right to have his speech disassociated from Spotify (and Rogan by proxy).
Young's ultimatum failed to achieve it's goal.
His music isn’t on Spotify any more, so I’d say his goal—disassociating his music with Rogan’s podcast—was achieved, even if the way it happened wasn’t the outcome he had in mind.
It was Young using his fans (and their ad revenue) as leverage against Spotify.
It wasn’t enough leverage, given the outcome. And even then, it was his right to tell Spotify “if I go, I’m taking my fans with me” even if some of his fans didn’t want to go with him. And if they didn’t jump ship, they still wouldn’t be censored because they can still criticize Young’s decision. Young’s decision to yank his music from Spotify was his alone to make, regardless of how his fans felt.
Under those conditions free speech can never be infringed by anyone
You’ve never heard of “prior restraint”, have you, Squidward?
Absolute totality of the inability to speak is not a requirement of infringement.
If you’re going to argue that someone has been censored, you’ll need to prove that they were prevented from speaking their mind on any platform. That typically happens through threats of violence (e.g., “post this and I’ll kill you”) or legal action (e.g., “post this and I’ll sue you”). Someone who is banned from Twitter for posting racial slurs has not been censored. Someone who has their music yanked off Spotify has not been censored.
I’m well damn aware that my definition of censorship is a bit stricter than most. All that means is I don’t use the word without restraint for situations where it doesn’t apply. And so far as I see it, nothing in this situation amounts to either censorship or an attempt at censoring others.
there is a difference from "Freedom of Speech as defined in the United States Bill of Rights" and "freedom of speech as a societal concept["]
Rendering his actions meaningless is effectively denying him the ability to speak.
Everything I say and do is meaningless. I’m still here speaking my mind. Try a better argument.
you seek to deny him the ability to engage in politics outright
No, he can engage in politics. What I want is for him to be seen as such a fringe crackpot that his political activity is effectively worthless. (Well, outside of modern American conservative politics, that is.) That wouldn’t deny him the ability to engage in politics—only the ability to be taken seriously. And no one is entitled to be taken seriously, including me or (especially) you.
you are just trying to take away the platform he and his fans already have
I couldn’t take it away if I actively tried. But even if I could: So what? They’re not entitled to that platform. Nobody is legally entitled to use Spotify as a platform—and that holds true for both musicians like Neil Young and podcasters like Joe Rogan.
you['re] fully within your rights to obligate others to take platforms away from them
I’ve never once said I have that right, and I’ll thank you not to shove words down my throat that didn’t first come from it.
The problem here is your desire to censor and ban political view points you dislike
If some dumbassed Republican politician wants to keep comparing mask mandates to the Holocaust, that is their legal right. But I have a legal right to call their opinion stupid and call them a jackass for expressing it. I also have a legal right to say that I hope Twitter ends up banning that kind of bullshit one day—because that wouldn’t be censorship. (The jackass can still go to Parler or Truth Social and bray all the live-long day.)
And I’d say similar things about a Democrat politcian who wants to abolish Section 230 because “think of the children”, lest you think this is entirely partisan bullshittery.
Trying to force a private enterprise to censor others is an attack on free speech.
If we were trying to force Spotify to yank Rogan off its service, you might have a point. But we’re not. So you don’t.
Boycotts are not censorship. Artists yanking their music from Spotify to protest the company’s support of Joe Rogan is not censorship. People saying “Spotify is being double-mint dumb for choosing Rogan over musicians” is not censorship. And Spotify choosing to dump Rogan for being more trouble than he’s worth wouldn’t be censorship, either—because Rogan could still publish his podcast on any other platform that would have him (or create his own platform and publish it there).
Denying Spotify the right to freedom of association / speech.
If Spotify had refused to both dump Young’s music and Rogan, wouldn’t that have refused Young’s right of association by way of forcing his music to remain associated with Spotify (and Rogan by proxy)?
Young also censored his fans. By assuming that all of his fans would fully support such an undertaking by him, and thereby firmly painting all of his fans that listen to his music on Spotify as having an anti-Rogan political stance to Spotify.
I don’t think he gave a shit about his fans in that regard. He didn’t have to, either. This situation was about his music being associated with Spotify; whether his fans would follow his music to a new platform and/or boycott Spotify was ultimately irrelevant.
In addition to painting all of Rogan's fans as pro-Rogan supporters who would leave if Rogan was banned.
All of them? No. But an overwhelming majority? I can believe it.
Thus we have three censored groups borne from one censor.
Except no one was censored. Young was (and still is) free to keep his music off Spotify; he had (and still has) that right. Both his fans and Rogan’s fans were (and still are) free to tell him he was stupid for doing so; he couldn’t (and still can’t) stop either group, let alone both of them, from doing that. And Spotify was (and still is) free to keep associating with Rogan despite the criticism from Young, Young’s fanbase, and Rogan’s detractors. And if Spotify chooses to stop associating with Rogan at some point, that doesn’t invalidate any of those positions.
You cannot prevent just one side from speaking.
If you can show me which “side” was barred from speaking—and I mean completely and utterly prevented from saying anything on any platform by either threats or actions meant to suppress any and all expression—you might have a point here.
If you start making these requirements, you're effectively saying "Shut up and let us speak for you."
I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but no one here is calling for Spotify to be legally barred from carrying Rogan’s podcast or for Rogan’s podcast to be regulated in re: what speech can and can’t be on it. Anyone who has called for such things to happen is a jackass who can be ignored.
you are having a moral panic moment and demanding others take action to appease you
I’m pretty sure Young would’ve had his music yanked from Spotify by his legal team or whatever if Spotify hadn’t taken his music off the service first. And besides, something tells me Young is plenty “appeased” with not having his music on Spotify if that means his music isn’t indirectly associated with Joe Rogan’s podcast.
The same can be said of the US government and any mainstream media outlet. You don't see any meaningful changes there now do you?
You can’t expect institutional changes to happen overnight.
He doesn't have to. That's the flip side of free speech.
All actions have consequences. Even victory has its price.
The power of being able to speak one’s mind carries with it a responsibility not to be reckless with one’s words. This is partly why we have laws against defamation and fraud. But it’s also why we teach kids about bullying: Words can do damage that isn’t perceptible in the way you can see a black eye on a kid who’s been punched. It’s why we teach kids that lying is wrong, too.
Joe Rogan has a podcast with a hefty listener base; a not-zero number of people in that group treat his word (and the words of his guests) practically as the gospel truth. In that regard, Rogan has a responsibility—social, not legal—to be careful with the information he presents, the guests he chooses to platform, and how he talks about what those guests say. If he platforms someone with little-to-no scientific credibility because he thinks they’re “interesting” and lets them spew unscientific garbage without pushing back, that is the height of irresponsibility.
If someone wants to listen to Joe Rogan’s podcast, that is their right. I won’t deny them that. But I am free to use my free speech to express my opinion of those people and the podcast they adore. I’m also free to use my free speech to criticize Spotify for continuing to carry and promote his podcast.
And I’m also 100% completely free to tell you that you can either pay me to shut up or fuck all the way off. Calling me a “censor” isn’t going to make me go quiet.
You flag posts with facts because you don’t like the facts? That’s censorship.
Moderation is a platform/service owner or operator saying “we don’t do that here”. Personal discretion is an individual telling themselves “I won’t do that here”. Editorial discretion is an editor saying “we won’t print that here”, either to themselves or to a writer. Censorship is someone saying “you won’t do that anywhere” alongside threats or actions meant to suppress speech.
Now show me how flagging a post is the same thing as censorship.
Joe Rogan has every legal right to publish his podcast, to say whatever he wants on his podcast, and to let anyone else say whatever they want to say on his podcast. I would not dare say otherwise; that way lies madness.
That said: I can and will say that Joe Rogan is an irresponsible dipshit who gives a platform to lies and mis- and disinformation. I can and will say that Spotify paid $100 million to associate itself with Rogan—and, whether Spotify likes it or not, the speech of Rogan and his guests. Spotify’s management can do something about Rogan’s podcast if they feel said podcast is damaging the reputation of Spotify. Letting him continue his irresponsible bullshit damns Spotify as much as it damns Rogan himself.
Spotify can boot his podcast off the service and it wouldn’t be an infringement of his First Amendment rights. Other platforms can refuse to host the podcast and it still wouldn’t infringe on Rogan’s right to free speech. No one is legally, morally, or ethically obligated to give him a platform. If he wants a platform when all the reputable platform providers have told him to fuck off, he can build one himself.
I don’t want Rogan’s podcast banned from existing. I want it to be so obscure as to be meaningless—to be so maligned as a podcast for fringe crackpots that it stops playing a role in national politics. It’s sad that more people believe an MMA commentator with no medical background whatsoever over credible scientists with combined decades of experience in the field of biology and virology. That you apparently see no problem with that is…telling.
Why is it disappointing that Spotify exercised its first amendment right to publish the content they choose to?
Publishing content, in and of itself, is not the issue here. The issue lies with the decision from Spotify to keep Joe Rogan’s podcast on the Spotify service (and Rogan on Spotify’s ostensible payroll). Given the myriad issues people have with said podcast, Spotify choosing to platform Rogan and alienating both potential customers and musicians is, at best, a disappointing decision.
All paid DLC is still a microtransaction; whether you can live with paying for full-on content like the extra fighters/stages/music in Smash Ultimate is a personal matter.
They might try it in Japan, but not in the United States. Even Disney doesn’t seem to have the testicular fortitude to fight for another copyright term extension, and Steamboat Willie falls into the public domain in…
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
If you’re going to tell me that Finland doesn’t have any book reviewers or game journalists or film critics at all, you’re more insane than I ever thought you were.
Good for them. But text can’t duplicate the experience of seeing a clip from a movie. It’s one thing to write about how Jackie Chan did action comedy exceptionally well; it’s a whole different experience—and a far more engrossing one—to watch a demonstration of his skill at action comedy as the principles behind it are discussed in detail.
I’m sorry that your Copyreich beliefs don’t allow you to watch, share, or even enjoy things like that video. But that’s your problem.
On the post: How Our Convoluted Copyright Regime Explains Why Spotify Chose Joe Rogan Over Neil Young
The reason he’s happy to have bullshit peddlers on is simple: Controversy creates cash. (Hat-tip to wrestling promoter Eric Bischoff for that turn of phrase.)
Rogan knows the bullshit peddlers are controversial, regardless of whether he believes what they’re peddling. He knows people will tune into his podcast to hate-listen to the bullshit, to get angry about it, to disseminate it themselves with all kinds of debunkings and such. That’s exactly what he wants. The controversy generates more revenue for him, which makes him keep creating controversy. Rogan’s bullshittery is an ouroboros powered by greed and ignorance, and he won’t care about that until he loses either the money, the attention, or both.
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
They’re saying that you openly speculating on what your software can do—even and especially if it will never be able to do what you want it to do—doesn’t entitle you to an income. Claiming that Meshpage will stop all copyright infringement doesn’t entitle you to get paid any amount of money by any government, any of the oligarchs who really run the world, or anyone else in the world. The world doesn’t owe you shit; it was here first.
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
Someone downloading/buying your shit out of morbid curiosity doesn’t mean they’re an active user of your shit. And even if you did have users, critique of both your bullshit and you yourself is, was, and always will be both appropriate and 100% motherfucking legal.
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
Yes, yes, you want to kill Fair Use to stop any creative works that build on existing works from ever being able to be made. You hate other people being able to make new works because it means you actually have to compete instead of being able to force your shit on people.
We get it, you Nazi fuck. Try a different argument.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Shiva Ayyadurai? 🙃
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
And that reason is typically “criticism and critique”—you know, feedback, which is something you seem to hate. Fair Use exists to allow…well, “fair” uses of copyrighted material that would otherwise be considered infringement. It’s hard to discuss a book you’ve read without being able to actually quote from the book whenever necessary, after all.
(Not that a Nazi like you reads books…)
Yes, Fair Use is a defense, not a right. But lots of people have gone to court for the sake of defending Fair Use, which has helped outline some boundaries in regards to what kind of uses are “fair”.
It isn’t that small by a long shot; your wanting it to be that small doesn’t make it so.
Rely on it? No. It isn’t some bulletproof defense for yoinking an entire book or movie or game off the Internet. But in regards to, say, using bits and pieces of a movie in a transformative review/critique of that movie—e.g., a CinemaSins video? Yes, that falls within the boundaries of Fair Use by sane (and non-Nazi) standards.
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
No, they’re saying you were better off without an account because you wouldn’t have a comment history to track because you wouldn’t have a profile page where we can look through every comment you’ve made under that profile and call out all your bullshit.
You dumbass.
On the post: How Our Convoluted Copyright Regime Explains Why Spotify Chose Joe Rogan Over Neil Young
And that was his right. Spotify could have chosen (and ultimately did choose) to remove Young’s music. It also could’ve chosen to yank Rogan’s podcast. It could have chosen to ignore Young and let his legal team have his music taken down, too. Young’s ultimatum was, at worst, a childish ploy—but it wasn’t a call for censorship.
Except it wasn’t. Spotify voluntarily removed his music to avoid a legal battle that it likely would’ve lost. By ignoring Young and keeping his music on the service until a legal order/battle settled the situation, Spotify would’ve been violating Young’s right to have his speech disassociated from Spotify (and Rogan by proxy).
His music isn’t on Spotify any more, so I’d say his goal—disassociating his music with Rogan’s podcast—was achieved, even if the way it happened wasn’t the outcome he had in mind.
It wasn’t enough leverage, given the outcome. And even then, it was his right to tell Spotify “if I go, I’m taking my fans with me” even if some of his fans didn’t want to go with him. And if they didn’t jump ship, they still wouldn’t be censored because they can still criticize Young’s decision. Young’s decision to yank his music from Spotify was his alone to make, regardless of how his fans felt.
You’ve never heard of “prior restraint”, have you, Squidward?
If you’re going to argue that someone has been censored, you’ll need to prove that they were prevented from speaking their mind on any platform. That typically happens through threats of violence (e.g., “post this and I’ll kill you”) or legal action (e.g., “post this and I’ll sue you”). Someone who is banned from Twitter for posting racial slurs has not been censored. Someone who has their music yanked off Spotify has not been censored.
I’m well damn aware that my definition of censorship is a bit stricter than most. All that means is I don’t use the word without restraint for situations where it doesn’t apply. And so far as I see it, nothing in this situation amounts to either censorship or an attempt at censoring others.
Yes, there is.
Yes, I am.
On the post: How Our Convoluted Copyright Regime Explains Why Spotify Chose Joe Rogan Over Neil Young
Everything I say and do is meaningless. I’m still here speaking my mind. Try a better argument.
No, he can engage in politics. What I want is for him to be seen as such a fringe crackpot that his political activity is effectively worthless. (Well, outside of modern American conservative politics, that is.) That wouldn’t deny him the ability to engage in politics—only the ability to be taken seriously. And no one is entitled to be taken seriously, including me or (especially) you.
I couldn’t take it away if I actively tried. But even if I could: So what? They’re not entitled to that platform. Nobody is legally entitled to use Spotify as a platform—and that holds true for both musicians like Neil Young and podcasters like Joe Rogan.
I’ve never once said I have that right, and I’ll thank you not to shove words down my throat that didn’t first come from it.
If some dumbassed Republican politician wants to keep comparing mask mandates to the Holocaust, that is their legal right. But I have a legal right to call their opinion stupid and call them a jackass for expressing it. I also have a legal right to say that I hope Twitter ends up banning that kind of bullshit one day—because that wouldn’t be censorship. (The jackass can still go to Parler or Truth Social and bray all the live-long day.)
And I’d say similar things about a Democrat politcian who wants to abolish Section 230 because “think of the children”, lest you think this is entirely partisan bullshittery.
On the post: How Our Convoluted Copyright Regime Explains Why Spotify Chose Joe Rogan Over Neil Young
If we were trying to force Spotify to yank Rogan off its service, you might have a point. But we’re not. So you don’t.
Boycotts are not censorship. Artists yanking their music from Spotify to protest the company’s support of Joe Rogan is not censorship. People saying “Spotify is being double-mint dumb for choosing Rogan over musicians” is not censorship. And Spotify choosing to dump Rogan for being more trouble than he’s worth wouldn’t be censorship, either—because Rogan could still publish his podcast on any other platform that would have him (or create his own platform and publish it there).
If Spotify had refused to both dump Young’s music and Rogan, wouldn’t that have refused Young’s right of association by way of forcing his music to remain associated with Spotify (and Rogan by proxy)?
I don’t think he gave a shit about his fans in that regard. He didn’t have to, either. This situation was about his music being associated with Spotify; whether his fans would follow his music to a new platform and/or boycott Spotify was ultimately irrelevant.
All of them? No. But an overwhelming majority? I can believe it.
Except no one was censored. Young was (and still is) free to keep his music off Spotify; he had (and still has) that right. Both his fans and Rogan’s fans were (and still are) free to tell him he was stupid for doing so; he couldn’t (and still can’t) stop either group, let alone both of them, from doing that. And Spotify was (and still is) free to keep associating with Rogan despite the criticism from Young, Young’s fanbase, and Rogan’s detractors. And if Spotify chooses to stop associating with Rogan at some point, that doesn’t invalidate any of those positions.
If you can show me which “side” was barred from speaking—and I mean completely and utterly prevented from saying anything on any platform by either threats or actions meant to suppress any and all expression—you might have a point here.
I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but no one here is calling for Spotify to be legally barred from carrying Rogan’s podcast or for Rogan’s podcast to be regulated in re: what speech can and can’t be on it. Anyone who has called for such things to happen is a jackass who can be ignored.
On the post: How Our Convoluted Copyright Regime Explains Why Spotify Chose Joe Rogan Over Neil Young
Opinions rooted in facts and reasonably sound logic. Whether I agree with those opinions is irrelevant so long as they’re at least based on facts.
On the post: How Our Convoluted Copyright Regime Explains Why Spotify Chose Joe Rogan Over Neil Young
I’m pretty sure Young would’ve had his music yanked from Spotify by his legal team or whatever if Spotify hadn’t taken his music off the service first. And besides, something tells me Young is plenty “appeased” with not having his music on Spotify if that means his music isn’t indirectly associated with Joe Rogan’s podcast.
On the post: How Our Convoluted Copyright Regime Explains Why Spotify Chose Joe Rogan Over Neil Young
You can’t expect institutional changes to happen overnight.
All actions have consequences. Even victory has its price.
The power of being able to speak one’s mind carries with it a responsibility not to be reckless with one’s words. This is partly why we have laws against defamation and fraud. But it’s also why we teach kids about bullying: Words can do damage that isn’t perceptible in the way you can see a black eye on a kid who’s been punched. It’s why we teach kids that lying is wrong, too.
Joe Rogan has a podcast with a hefty listener base; a not-zero number of people in that group treat his word (and the words of his guests) practically as the gospel truth. In that regard, Rogan has a responsibility—social, not legal—to be careful with the information he presents, the guests he chooses to platform, and how he talks about what those guests say. If he platforms someone with little-to-no scientific credibility because he thinks they’re “interesting” and lets them spew unscientific garbage without pushing back, that is the height of irresponsibility.
If someone wants to listen to Joe Rogan’s podcast, that is their right. I won’t deny them that. But I am free to use my free speech to express my opinion of those people and the podcast they adore. I’m also free to use my free speech to criticize Spotify for continuing to carry and promote his podcast.
And I’m also 100% completely free to tell you that you can either pay me to shut up or fuck all the way off. Calling me a “censor” isn’t going to make me go quiet.
On the post: How Our Convoluted Copyright Regime Explains Why Spotify Chose Joe Rogan Over Neil Young
Moderation is a platform/service owner or operator saying “we don’t do that here”. Personal discretion is an individual telling themselves “I won’t do that here”. Editorial discretion is an editor saying “we won’t print that here”, either to themselves or to a writer. Censorship is someone saying “you won’t do that anywhere” alongside threats or actions meant to suppress speech.
Now show me how flagging a post is the same thing as censorship.
On the post: How Our Convoluted Copyright Regime Explains Why Spotify Chose Joe Rogan Over Neil Young
Just a reminder: Your ass is not a credible source of information.
On the post: How Our Convoluted Copyright Regime Explains Why Spotify Chose Joe Rogan Over Neil Young
Correct.
Incorrect.
Joe Rogan has every legal right to publish his podcast, to say whatever he wants on his podcast, and to let anyone else say whatever they want to say on his podcast. I would not dare say otherwise; that way lies madness.
That said: I can and will say that Joe Rogan is an irresponsible dipshit who gives a platform to lies and mis- and disinformation. I can and will say that Spotify paid $100 million to associate itself with Rogan—and, whether Spotify likes it or not, the speech of Rogan and his guests. Spotify’s management can do something about Rogan’s podcast if they feel said podcast is damaging the reputation of Spotify. Letting him continue his irresponsible bullshit damns Spotify as much as it damns Rogan himself.
Spotify can boot his podcast off the service and it wouldn’t be an infringement of his First Amendment rights. Other platforms can refuse to host the podcast and it still wouldn’t infringe on Rogan’s right to free speech. No one is legally, morally, or ethically obligated to give him a platform. If he wants a platform when all the reputable platform providers have told him to fuck off, he can build one himself.
I don’t want Rogan’s podcast banned from existing. I want it to be so obscure as to be meaningless—to be so maligned as a podcast for fringe crackpots that it stops playing a role in national politics. It’s sad that more people believe an MMA commentator with no medical background whatsoever over credible scientists with combined decades of experience in the field of biology and virology. That you apparently see no problem with that is…telling.
On the post: How Our Convoluted Copyright Regime Explains Why Spotify Chose Joe Rogan Over Neil Young
Publishing content, in and of itself, is not the issue here. The issue lies with the decision from Spotify to keep Joe Rogan’s podcast on the Spotify service (and Rogan on Spotify’s ostensible payroll). Given the myriad issues people have with said podcast, Spotify choosing to platform Rogan and alienating both potential customers and musicians is, at best, a disappointing decision.
On the post: Nintendo Is Beginning To Look Like The Disney Of The Video Game Industry
All paid DLC is still a microtransaction; whether you can live with paying for full-on content like the extra fighters/stages/music in Smash Ultimate is a personal matter.
On the post: Nintendo Is Beginning To Look Like The Disney Of The Video Game Industry
They might try it in Japan, but not in the United States. Even Disney doesn’t seem to have the testicular fortitude to fight for another copyright term extension, and Steamboat Willie falls into the public domain in…
[checks notes]
…682 days as of the time of this post.
Next >>