71–80 of 100 posts
Would've been great if the author had contacted Elise to discuss the article. Of course content should be used legally, but IFLS has grown so quickly that I think it's fair to defend Elise as having made an honest mistake, or simply not considering the issue until now. Instead, Alex comes off as overly bitter, utterly failing to advance the cause of a "mutually beneficial relationship" . Presumably in the pursuit of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd say the truth is somewhere in between. Closer to a comedian using another comedian's joke.
Is that because even though the show is free performer gets 2% of the popcorn viewers choose to buy? Original authors of the jokes either don't earn any money with them or do it similar way that the "joke thief" does. Only they are not that popular as he is. I think reposting is much less of an offence then one proffessional comediant using joke of another one without proper attribution.
Would've been great if the author had contacted Elise to discuss the article. Of course content should be used legally, but IFLS has grown so quickly that I think it's fair to defend Elise as having made an honest mistake, or simply not considering the issue until now. Instead, Alex comes off as overly bitter, utterly failing to advance the cause of a "mutually beneficial relationship" . Presumably in the pursuit of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Considering she's working on a TV deal, I bet not many. Plus it doesn't matter who is larger, wrong is wrong.
Except it's not wrong. Unless you'd like to shut down half of the internet because it's wrong until it streightens up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except it's not wrong. Unless you'd like to shut down half of the internet because it's wrong until it streightens up.
Cool, let's just rsync the whole internet to itself and enjoy the race to the bottom
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that because even though the show is free performer gets 2% of the popcorn viewers choose to buy? Original authors of the jokes either don't earn any money with them or do it similar way that the "joke thief" does. Only they are not that popular as he is. I think reposting is much less of an offence then one proffessional comediant using joke of another one without proper attribution.
"Stealing" jokes is very much frowned upon, but at least in performing arts, much relies on delivery. The same is not true for static arts, where poor attribution ranges from forgery to plagiarism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Stealing" jokes is very much frowned upon, but at least in performing arts, much relies on delivery. The same is not true for static arts, where poor attribution ranges from forgery to plagiarism.
IFLS delivery is unique for this content.
Good point, though. Delivery of embedded content is often ignored.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think we should relax about the idea that most people post inaccurate facts when they're cheering science. The absolute only good thing about this is that it fights fire with fire: that is, it uses tribalism to fight tribalism. But that's all it is. Atheistic religiosity is still religiosity, and it's a problem whether or not magical woo is involved. It's the same kind of thing when people think that calling out…
"Atheistic religiosity is still religiosity" A lack of belief in God is not a belief in a God. Your example is ignorant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IFLS delivery is unique for this content.
That's true, but it's not as significant a difference as interpretative art. The original still dominates. Good point, though. Delivery of embedded content is often ignored.
Nor do they love science. Most of the things they post are not accurate. The picture of the universe and a synapse for example springs to mind. They are just a "Like" farm. They use their tracking of likes to mine relationships so you can get personalized spam that appears that it came from your friends.
I think we should relax about the idea that most people post inaccurate facts when they're cheering science. What they're doing is cheering for the idea of science. It's similar to people cheering at a basketball game. They're not basketball players, so most of what they have to say about the topic is going to be wrong. But they're still rooting for you, and this is a good and powerful thing.