Tostie14’s Comments

• Sep 22nd, 2020 @ 7:34am

  Re: Re: There is a Monster Energy videogame

  on Ubisoft Bows To Monster Energy To Rename An Upcoming Game Horribly

  I agree with you that there really isn't any chance of market confusion. I just simply wanted to add a detail that refuted any argument that said that Monster Energy isn't in the video game business so therefore they shouldn't be allowed to bully.

• Sep 22nd, 2020 @ 7:05am

  There is a Monster Energy videogame

  on Ubisoft Bows To Monster Energy To Rename An Upcoming Game Horribly

  I'm certainly not in favor of Monster Energy's bullying tactics. However, I think it's worth pointing out there actually is a Monster Energy Supercross video game that has been published. Given that they do have a presence in this industry, it adds a little more legitimacy to their opposition to the trademark filing.

• Jan 27th, 2020 @ 7:54pm

  This. So much this.

  on You Don't Own What You Buy: The Tetris Edition

  I've been complaining for years that Amazon should not be allowed to have their buttons say purchase or buy now for digital goods but instead say rent or acquire a license. I realize it is semantics, but it is unethical for them to mislead buyers into thinking they own something that can disappear or lose access to at anytime. And I write this as a content creator that has had to switch publishers and distributors for one of my films and watched it disappear off platforms out of my control.

• Feb 4th, 2016 @ 12:09pm

  Re: Valid Copyright

  on Ridiculous Copyright Fight Still Keeping The Only Video Of The First Super Bowl Locked Up
  Better yet. If there wasn't a copyright notice appended to the original broadcast when it aired, then it should technically be in the public domain because of the (then) copyright formality requirements back in 1967
• Feb 28th, 2013 @ 12:42pm

  Re: Re: Re:

  on Is It 'Fair' That Baauer Gets The Proceeds From Harlem Shake Videos, Despite Having Little To Do With Meme Popularity?
  Yes, I meant the 14+14, and the extension is not an automatic renewal. This will help prevent orphan works and will bring back the original intent of inspiring others. I mean, you don't allow patents to be renewed for hundreds of years, so why should media be different?
• Feb 28th, 2013 @ 12:40pm

  Derivative Works

  on Is It 'Fair' That Baauer Gets The Proceeds From Harlem Shake Videos, Despite Having Little To Do With Meme Popularity?
  The framing at the end of this article about the eventual popularity of the original creation reminds me of Shepherd Fairey's use of a Getty photo that likely would never have been seen or used again, and he transformed it into a new artwork that became iconic (the "HOPE" poster). He shouldn't have lied about where he got the photo and/or deleted evidence, but clearly there wasn't a huge market for Getty for that specific photo PRIOR to Fairey's derivative work.
• Feb 28th, 2013 @ 10:30am

  Re:

  on Is It 'Fair' That Baauer Gets The Proceeds From Harlem Shake Videos, Despite Having Little To Do With Meme Popularity?
  So you're saying that things like The Hunger Games, Twilight, Gangnam Style, and other things that became cultural sensations within the last 20 years should be public domain? Then there would be no incentive to make any product that cost significant amounts of money as anybody could monetize it, which meant that those who financed it would rarely if ever see their money back.
  
  I'm fine with the original copyright terms (pre-Sonny Bono extensions) applying to all media, so that things like Mickey Mouse should now be in public domain.