I'm trying to cut down on my poorly thought out and occasionally non-sensical drunken posts to sparksblog. So, I will drunkenly state my disorganized opinions in peter king ordered list format:
1. copyright law is good in theory, but implemented poorly 2. the ham-fisted actions of large companies with regard to copyright law is legal, but wrong 3. people circumventing copyright law to avoid paying for stuff is illegal, and wrong 4. people circumventing copyright law for legitimate purposes (personal backups, ripping dvds to a computer, etc) is illegal, but not wrong 4. The RIAA has nothing to do with the movie business. That's the MPAA. This has absolutely no bearing on any issue at hand 5. Since youtube is powered by user-uploaded video, it would be impossible for google to screen every video and research copyright ownership. When complaints are made, copyrighted videos are taken down. That is how things are supposed to work. It's up to copyright owners to defend their marks, since it is a tort, not a crime to violate copyright. 6. Calling it "gootube" makes you sound like a precocious 12 year old. 7. "99pct of whom are tiny and can't afford to protect themselves". First, the tiny ones are usually the ones dying for exposure at all. Second, how many youtube clips have you seen that didn't belong to fox, abc, nbc, cbs, a dead comedian, or comedy central? 8. "They feel they have the legal right to tell every person who makes a living based on their creative efforts that they have to do business the Gootube way and if you don't like it, sue us." That's ridiculous. It's more like "if you don't like the way we do business, then don't use us to do business." Google couldn't give one shit whether any particular content producer wants to be on youtube or not. No one puts a gun to anyone's head and says "put clips on youtube or die". 9. sparksblog links to youtube all the time. does sparksblog make sure that he has the right to do so? note: Ad Hominem Tu Quoque logical fallacy in play.
Cuban just seems irritated that the new trend with distributed technology is that the market for intellectual property is in the hands of the consumers, not the content distributors (note: NOT content creators.) Why he's irritated with that, I have no idea. It's much better that way for the "99%" of small time artists, since they can reach a huge audience for butt cheap instead of having to go through giant entertainment networks.
1. word 2. word 3. word 4. word 5. "It's up to copyright owners to defend their marks, since it is a tort, not a crime to violate copyright." That creates a burden on content owners that seems unfair to me. 6. meh 7. weak. cuban's numbers might be pulled out his ass, but the numbers aren't important anyway. 8. It isn't ridiculous at all. Everyone has to stand by any allow their material to be uploaded to Google and then fight them individually, right? That is the gootube model right? 9. might be something here.
don't necessarily disagree with your closing remarks.
2 comments:
I'm trying to cut down on my poorly thought out and occasionally non-sensical drunken posts to sparksblog. So, I will drunkenly state my disorganized opinions in peter king ordered list format:
1. copyright law is good in theory, but implemented poorly
2. the ham-fisted actions of large companies with regard to copyright law is legal, but wrong
3. people circumventing copyright law to avoid paying for stuff is illegal, and wrong
4. people circumventing copyright law for legitimate purposes (personal backups, ripping dvds to a computer, etc) is illegal, but not wrong
4. The RIAA has nothing to do with the movie business. That's the MPAA. This has absolutely no bearing on any issue at hand
5. Since youtube is powered by user-uploaded video, it would be impossible for google to screen every video and research copyright ownership. When complaints are made, copyrighted videos are taken down. That is how things are supposed to work. It's up to copyright owners to defend their marks, since it is a tort, not a crime to violate copyright.
6. Calling it "gootube" makes you sound like a precocious 12 year old.
7. "99pct of whom are tiny and can't afford to protect themselves". First, the tiny ones are usually the ones dying for exposure at all. Second, how many youtube clips have you seen that didn't belong to fox, abc, nbc, cbs, a dead comedian, or comedy central?
8. "They feel they have the legal right to tell every person who makes a living based on their creative efforts that they have to do business the Gootube way and if you don't like it, sue us." That's ridiculous. It's more like "if you don't like the way we do business, then don't use us to do business." Google couldn't give one shit whether any particular content producer wants to be on youtube or not. No one puts a gun to anyone's head and says "put clips on youtube or die".
9. sparksblog links to youtube all the time. does sparksblog make sure that he has the right to do so? note: Ad Hominem Tu Quoque logical fallacy in play.
Cuban just seems irritated that the new trend with distributed technology is that the market for intellectual property is in the hands of the consumers, not the content distributors (note: NOT content creators.) Why he's irritated with that, I have no idea. It's much better that way for the "99%" of small time artists, since they can reach a huge audience for butt cheap instead of having to go through giant entertainment networks.
1. word
2. word
3. word
4. word
5. "It's up to copyright owners to defend their marks, since it is a tort, not a crime to violate copyright." That creates a burden on content owners that seems unfair to me.
6. meh
7. weak. cuban's numbers might be pulled out his ass, but the numbers aren't important anyway.
8. It isn't ridiculous at all. Everyone has to stand by any allow their material to be uploaded to Google and then fight them individually, right? That is the gootube model right?
9. might be something here.
don't necessarily disagree with your closing remarks.
Post a Comment