251–260 of 295 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be awesome if blockchain could solve the issue of rights management at the scale of media content. Tracking ownership of the individual parts (script, logos, video, etc) as well as the transfer of ownership of those parts.
The underlying data is unreliable. Throwing technology at it doesn't change that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Which is quite common (Scrubs for example has had to re-edit library music into most of it's episodes for most uses, instead of the original tracks).
What a pain in the ass. If you own the song, seems like you'd want to avoid leaving money on the table. I wonder how common relicensing is vs. editing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll be the guy this time: copyright violation is a different thing from stealing. I'm surprised after so long this meme is still going strong.
It's still going because that's the way people talk. You can actually "steal" an idea, even though it's not physically possible to remove the original from the person's mind. You can steal a kiss. You can steal second. Words mean what people use them to mean, and it's a perfectly acceptable use of the word "steal" to mean something like "adopted use of an artifact for the purpose of deriving a benefit rightfully belo…
You can argue that a person might have gone to see the movie if they hadn't downloaded it, but that's kind of a dumb argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who is stealing which money when I watch a video of a song on Youtube? Do you really think I would have bought all those songs if they were not available on Youtube?
If you are a content creator on youtube and I reupload your video and place ads on it, I am stealing ad revenue from you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's still going because that's the way people talk. You can actually "steal" an idea, even though it's not physically possible to remove the original from the person's mind. You can steal a kiss. You can steal second. Words mean what people use them to mean, and it's a perfectly acceptable use of the word "steal" to mean something like "adopted use of an artifact for the purpose of deriving a benefit rightfully belo…
The difference is that there is no loss. In the circumstances that you list there actually was something taken from someone, e.g time taken from something else, or I guess kissing someone you were not supposed to. You can argue that a person might have gone to see the movie if they hadn't downloaded it, but that's kind of a dumb argument.
In this thread, we recognize the existence of supply / demand.
It is exceptionally ignorant to claim that increasing the supply of a relatively scarce thing has no economic impact on the creator / owner.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By violating the copyright of the content you are stealing the creators money. I'm surprised the meme that copyright violation is "different" than stealing is still a meme. Yes, copyright violation is not "stealing", but the majority of the time the end result is "stealing" money from the content creators.
Who is stealing which money when I watch a video of a song on Youtube? Do you really think I would have bought all those songs if they were not available on Youtube?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference is that there is no loss. In the circumstances that you list there actually was something taken from someone, e.g time taken from something else, or I guess kissing someone you were not supposed to. You can argue that a person might have gone to see the movie if they hadn't downloaded it, but that's kind of a dumb argument.
>The difference is that there is no loss. In this thread, we recognize the existence of supply / demand. It is exceptionally ignorant to claim that increasing the supply of a relatively scarce thing has no economic impact on the creator / owner.
What I find really ignorant though, is you've decided that lowering demand is equivalent to theft. Does that mean competitors are "stealing" from one another.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who is stealing which money when I watch a video of a song on Youtube? Do you really think I would have bought all those songs if they were not available on Youtube?
Do you really think that supply / demand only applies to tangible goods? Do you really think that there would be no financial impact on Microsoft if they removed all of their license / activation technologies and relied on honor code?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Comparing PBS to the BBC doesn't make sense: PBS isn't publicly funded nor is it mandatory to donate to PBS.
Feels to me like a distinction without a difference. Public arts funding has always been something we want more of.