So Mike explains how this new 'right' would benefit rich, famous artists at the expense of poor, unknown ones, and how this is a very bad thing, and you still feel the need to accuse Mike of favouring 'The Rich'.
"...people often forget how much of a struggle even a small woman can put up...
I was getting a bit pissed off with the guy doing the recording repeatedly exclaiming "she's just a girl!", even when he could see the officer was physically exhausted after he finally got her into the car. That matters how exactly?
"Anyone with first aid experience will tell you that if someone is screaming "I can't breath" they can breath just fine."
Actually I'd say that anyone who knows how to breath could tell you that. As soon as she screamed those words her credibility was out the window and I knew she was lying through her teeth about the 'injuries' she was supposedly suffering.
Thank you for summing up for everyone how utterly insane copyright law is. What Aereo is doing makes perfect sense for modern, tech-savvy TV consumers and customers. They're providing a service people want using modern internet and computer technology. The TV companies and lawmakers want to drag everyone back in time and use what is essentially an obsolete business and technology model, and they wonder why people are pushing back so hard. No matter how many legal victories they have, they are simply not going to win this war. People have always and will always want the best service that technology will allow them to have. If the big content providers don't provide that service (and it has to be a good service at a reasonable price) somebody else will.
"I hit the "reply" button every time. The VPN I'm using, which I must use since Mike is trying to censor me from disagreeing with him (gotta promote those pageviews, and having someone point out what a fool you are is bad for business!), doesn't thread things properly."
"His bit about the "length of the cord" has me in stitches. I think he actually thinks that's a legal standard!"
You look pretty stupid laughing at things you've imagined. Nobody has ever claimed this is a legal stand, only that it's common frickin' sense. One would hope the law would contain a strong element of that, but apparently not when you clowns are involved.
"The nutty system that Aereo uses, or pretends to, can't reasonably include an antenna, conversion circuits, controller, and internet connection for EACH subscriber."
So you're a technical expert now? You seem to imagine new knowledge and skill bases for yourself every day, and then straight away prove your ignorance to us.
"SO at some point it's BROADCASTING."
How is it broadcasting if one only computer is receiving. You know what the word 'broad' means right?
"Also, in a better write-up of this than found here at Techdirt, I was reminded that this system also time-shifts with a DVR effect, so it's BROADCASTING."
How is timeshifting in any way related to broadcasting? That makes as much sense as pointing at a car and calling it a watermelon.
"But leaving all the technical bits aside..."
Yeah, you really should...
"Aereo has ZERO content except what it takes from the producers and then gets income from that value."
It takes signals freely available to anyone and provides a useful service to it's customers. The customers can get the content for free if they want it. They're paying for the service, not the content.
"...it's a centralized corporation..."
Utterly meaningless statement.
"...and directly engages in unfair competition because puts zero money into paying for the product it sells."
First, that's not the definition of "unfair competition", and second, how is it unfair competition when there's nothing stopping the broadcasters providing exactly the same service themselves?
You may well be right. Lot's of cases are settled instead of being tested on their merits, because that's often the cheapest and easiest way to end the matter whether you're right or wrong. That's not a positive indictment of the BB's case, it's a negative indictment of the legal system. I'm sure people like you will gloat about such a settlement but you won't have proven a thing about the the legal issues. The BB's will simply end up looking like hypocritical bullies and GoldieBlox will carry on trying to sell products with a positive message. Hardly a win for anyone concerned.
"What everyone is forgetting is that GoldieBlox didn't create the video as a parody."
Nobody is forgetting that because that's not what has happened here. GoldieBlox's mission statement is "Building games for girls to inspire future engineers". The whole point of their products is to send a positive, empowering message to young girls. They have very deliberately selected a song that originally conveyed a demeaning view of girls and replaced the lyrics with a strong opposite message that directly reflects the company's purpose (and parodies the original). Of course this is being used to advertise products, but both the products and the song are intended to send the same message.
"If I have a car in my driveway and I have not driven it in 10 years, that doesn't mean that you have the right to take my car out of my driveway for your personal use. This is exactly what GoldieBlox has done."
Hmm, I thought people arguing in support of IP had figured out that making terrible analogies with physical objects always makes you look a bit clueless, but maybe not...
I've done that too, but more importantly I've used them to see if a game is worth buying. That's exactly the sort of thing game companies can benefit from (assuming they make good games of course), and Mike mentioned some of them do feel that way.
"Anyhoo, yet again, Mike complains that people can't just take the works of others and do whatever they wish with it."
No, Mike's never said or implied anything like that. Feel free to prove me wrong, but we all know you can't and won't.
"Mike's "support' of copyright means only that those who put the time and money into its production are fully entitled to do so, but not necessarily to get all the rewards from those investments: he wants that spread out among second-hand hacks."
It's like you set out to make yourself look ignorant... You've obviously never watched Let's Play videos and don't really understand what the adults are talking about. These videos are entirely beneficial to the game creators, providing FREE promotion and advertising, and making games more valuable to players. Similarly any music heard in these videos is clearly beneficial to the music's creators, putting their music in front of people who might not otherwise hear it. It's not like you go actively searching for songs by looking through Let's Play videos.
"The fact that GoldieBlox made no effort beyond the lyric changes is going to further the Beastie Boys case that the intent was to capitalize on the primary song - and take market share away from it - rather than do an artistic re-interpretation that would provide reasonable safeguard."
Can you explain how the GoldieBlox song could possibly take market share away from the Beastie Boys original? I genuinely want to hear you explain how this works, because I cannot imagine someone deciding to pay for one over the other. Also explain how BB have not befitted from a huge increase in interest in one of their early works.
"Basically, if they'd used a guitar instead of a little xylophone, it'd be a lot more transformative...also, if they hadn't used the thing almost throughout the commercial, that'd be different."
So playing the same tune on a different instrument is more transformative than writing an entirely new set of lyrics that purposefully flip the original song's message completely around. That's the most insane thing I've ever heard...
"As it stands, any musician who takes the stand is going to have a field day basically shredding the transformative nature of this work."
Any musician who writes lyrics is going to know that writing the lyrics required a lot more talent than simply playing a very simply tune on a different instrument.