Nope, every single automatized system always means Skynet.Dr.Awkward said:So technology and automation is supposed to solve problems and reduce costs, huh?
Nope, every single automatized system always means Skynet.Dr.Awkward said:So technology and automation is supposed to solve problems and reduce costs, huh?
Nevah! Torches and pitchforks are TRADITION! Have intrinsic value and conveyed message when used!shadowstriker86 said:You do know that bats, pipes and boston bashers would be WAY more effective? I mean granted torches will help to see and set them on fire....actually we can keep the torches lolFalloutJack said:Pitchforks! Torches and pitchforks! Get 'em here! Get 'em while they're hot!
(Come on, you know this is coming.)
Put me down for 6 of each. *digs debit card out of his wallet*FalloutJack said:Pitchforks! Torches and pitchforks! Get 'em here! Get 'em while they're hot!
(Come on, you know this is coming.)
This is sadly why YouTube will get away with all this BS. Currently there isn't anyone who is willing or able to compete.Living_Brain said:Goodbye YouTube, and hello Vimeo!
Hello? *voice echoes around the website*
Hold on, I see something.. over there *points to the left* is a lack of monetization... over that way *points right* are a bunch of bandwidth caps. And right in front of me... the 13 people currently using Vimeo.
Right, that's why Youtube dominates.
Blip is a popular alternative. The worst alternative is probably Veoh, who was pretty much already doing the exact same shit Youtube is doing now, but started years ago.GAunderrated said:This is sadly why YouTube will get away with all this BS. Currently there isn't anyone who is willing or able to compete.Living_Brain said:Goodbye YouTube, and hello Vimeo!
Hello? *voice echoes around the website*
Hold on, I see something.. over there *points to the left* is a lack of monetization... over that way *points right* are a bunch of bandwidth caps. And right in front of me... the 13 people currently using Vimeo.
Right, that's why Youtube dominates.
People just love throwing that line around, don't they.Pinky said:If you want to give away informal rights to your works you don't sign a contract which allows your publisher to chase copyright infringement on your behalf ... this was bound to happen sooner or later really, read your contracts people.
Sadly whenever I see people making claims like "read your contract" or some stuff like that they've actually not created videos on YouTube and seen how bad this system is. >.>MiracleOfSound said:And when Youtube allows third parties to claim any video they like, without having to prove they have the rights? You bet your ass they messed up.
Gavin's got a pretty applicable one already, with a few little tweaks to the lyrics:Diana Kingston-Gabai said:Can't wait to hear the song this will surely inspire...
Great ideas, which we all know won't happen because there are far too many people making far too much money who have WAAAY too much influence in ol DC than they should have (nothing more than the average joe is what they SHOULD have) that will NEVER allow copyright laws to change in any way that won't benefit them even more.Agayek said:This much I don't disagree with. My point was more that someone owning a copyright wasn't really so much of a problem as how that copyright is applied. I may have misinterpreted your original post.Gezzer said:You've got a point. While the definition of fair use could be better defined I also think some of the problem comes from how very valuable those copyrights are. We have a section of the economy where the buying and selling of both copyrights and patents are a big business, which really no longer benefits the originators. I think one of the reasons that fair use is so restricted and IP holders are so ruthless in their defense of their IPs is because of the high worth of those IPs in the marketplace. I think any reduction in the worth of those IPs for corporations without removing the ability of the originators to see good return for their efforts would go a long way to reduce this feeding frenzy like behavior where IP rights are concerned.
That said, there's a really easy fix to all the points you bring up: Make copyrights unsaleable. The copyright holder can still grant permission to other entities to use their copyright should they desire (and presumably for money) but the core license can not ever leave the ownership of the original creator. Thus, when the creator dies or the copyright expires, the copyright ceases to exist and the work in question enters the public domain.
This would immediately remove the constant fighting over IP ownership and, quite literally, make it impossible for companies to keep hoarding the stuff.
Yeah that was pretty confusing to be honest. I couldnt even figure out if Gav had actually lost money on it, or if it goes to him through his label or whatever Tunecore is.MorganL4 said:So let me get this straight...
Gav's publisher issued a copyright claim on Gav's music, in order to prevent people from taking advantage of Gav's work. But they forgot to tell Gav, and so he got accused of copyright infringement for posting his own work online.... Did I read the story correctly?