The American Revolution occurred in that nebulous time in the middle. Parliament had the majority of the power, but the Monarchy wasn't quite the de-clawed kitten it is today. For instance, it was King George who made the deal with parliament to sign over the profits from the royal lands for the annual stipend they get now. What more, the king remained a powerful symbol in both England and the then American Colonies; in part because the King/Queen HAD been so powerful within recent cultural memory.Vault Citizen said:Did King George really have much say over how the colonies were run? I thought that all came under the part of British history were the monarchy had already lost a lot of the power it once had and a lot of the day to day governing was done by what would become known as the Prime Minister (for those unfamiliar with British history we didn't just decide to have a a Prime Minister one day, the role sort of developed over time and the early prime ministers are described as such retroactively rather than through some announcement at the time)
This is totally off topic, but I think there's a couple points to be made there. The people claiming that they shouldn't be in it for the money have a point insofar as nobody should really be doing anything just for money. Sadly that's not how capitalism works, and as such everyone has to make money in some way or face death. It's called "wage slavery" amongst the more politically incendiary circles. It's harsh, and I think we'll start to see that change as we slowly realize the limitations of that particular model. I don't think it's fair to call them small minded so much as to ask if they've thought it through all the way.MB202 said:I cannot share this video enough times... The best part about the video was when Bob went on a mini-rant about how people think artists shouldn't care about money. For Heaven's Gate, I can't tell you how many times I see fans flipping their lid over the very idea that a creative party is trying in some way, shape, or form to get money, or trying to make a living off of what they enjoy doing. It's ridiculous, absolutely asinine, and shows just how small-minded most fans of these kinds of things on YouTube and the like are!
Less so. Copyright law gives exclusive production rights to the creator of the art for a set period of time (Life of the author + 70 years I think). Even if the book becomes as famous and popular as the Bible, the creator maintains ownership until the time period is up. It's similar to Patent Law in this respect.shirkbot said:I'm not sure the companies are refusing to adapt so much as I think copyright law is encouraging and/or compelling bad behavior. I mean, in trademark law if your trademark becomes so ubiquitous that everyone uses it even for generic products, then you quickly lose your trademark. I get the sense copyright law is somewhat similar in this regard. The fact that Youtube has consigned this job to unthinking robots is only putting pressure on an already outdated system and making the cracks more visible. It's a good idea, but the law has not kept up with the times. It's just too lengthy and inflexible to cope with the way the internet deals with content.
I think GIV was the mad one, George I was German(so presumably he spoke only in German).Hutzpah Chicken said:Being a "Let's Play"er myself, I try to understand the copyright laws. I only have around 10 views overall, so making money through views is a looooong way off. I do agree from an economics standpoint that copyright laws are important. They protect people's creations and also create incentives for others to create. The matter will be resolved through a compromise, no doubt, but life is a series of trial and error.
I can't remember if it was George III who only spoke German and confused a tree for the King of Prussia or if that was George II?
It's mostly symbolic at that point, but an analysis of criticism of British colonial policy at the time made an effort to distinguish between the symbolic king and the actually powerful parliament (a) because it's easier to claim tyranny against a single individual rather than group in terms of propaganda and (b) because moderate factions within the colonies that were frustrated but not quite to the point of revolt would have preferred simply having a small amount of representation in the parliament so they got their say, and attacking the people who could make that decision isn't the best way of achieving that.Vault Citizen said:Did King George really have much say over how the colonies were run? I thought that all came under the part of British history were the monarchy had already lost a lot of the power it once had and a lot of the day to day governing was done by what would become known as the Prime Minister (for those unfamiliar with British history we didn't just decide to have a a Prime Minister one day, the role sort of developed over time and the early prime ministers are described as such retroactively rather than through some announcement at the time)
You trying to put all the blame on Youtubers is funny,what rules have they blatantly broken?You know what?Maybe everyone should start paying royalties for everything they use including computers,clothes,and cars,because that's the kind of retarded logic you are supporting right now.medv4380 said:The YouTubers are King George in this situation.
They Copyright Laws didn't just stop being enforced by the RIAA, and others.
YouTubers were blatantly violating the Laws, and their Networks were attempting to abuse Fair Use laws that are really intended for Non-Profit uses. Yea, criticism can be profitable, but not paying the royalties on a clip of AC/DC music slipped into a GTA V review is breaking the rules. The blatant violation of the rules, the refusal to negotiate licencing, and the failure of the youtube networks to actually pay the royalties is what got the networks bot free scanning taken away.