"You rail agaist the permiision culture and then say he should have asked permission?"
Yes, because "permission culture" doesn't simply mean "you should have permission". There's a lot more to it that is criticised here, mostly the new crap that's been spread around in the last decade. If it was the normal licencing regime that's been in place for decades, you wouldn't hear it complained about so much.
Asking permission to use your song for professional advertising purposes and implied political support is one of those situations where even the most ardent anti-"permission culture" critic can see the reason why it's pragmatic.
"No right leaning politician would ever get permission"
...and there we have the problem. First off, those same politicians tend to be the same ones who decry even fair use for ordinary citizens, and are the ones most likely to cozy up to the corporations destroying consumer rights over fears that others are using work without permission. The hypocrisy is astounding.
Secondly, it's an indication of the "f**k you, I've got mine" attitude that's leading to all sorts of problems with American politics and political discourse in general. You shouldn't let their childish, selfish, destructive behaviour pass just because you now expect it.
I'm not sure how they're configured so I'm just guessing here, but...
Wouldn't the CC need some sort of instruction as to where on the screen to appear? If so, could moving the screen also move this position to a degree where they're no longer visible or the software is being given impossible parameters to display them (for example, an area is defined with a certain font size and it becomes impossible to display them at that size in the newly resized space)?
If so, that could cause the text to no longer be visible even if they're not literally obscured by the popup.
To be fair, his comment made sense in context anyway. The author had "blinkers" because he mentioned one and not another of the major advantages of streaming services? One that's irrelevant to the context of the article. Really?
In fact, I'd almost argue the the advertising thing is what's going to be driving further people to streaming with Hulu having recently added an option to pay extra to get rid of them. I know at least one person who swore never to use Hulu again who resubscribed because they introduced this feature (though to be fair his problem was technical issues with the ad streaming, no opposition to their existence). I wonder how many more people have been considering a switch now that the majority of shows won't have ads if you pay $5/month more.
You know, if you're going to depend on easily disproved lies, you might as well make you telling of them convincing.
"The free lunch is great until there is nobody left to pay for it, then the buffet closes."
Then why do your beloved industries keep turn down the people wishing to pay? It seems strange to whine about pirate services then refuse to offer content legally in the same markets, don't you think? Especially since you're the only one trying to hint at pirate services while the rest of us are talking about legal licensing.
"The internet can't handle it - it's already choking on Netflix."
Yet, the reasons why are unfathomable to you even as they're widely discussed on the site you obsessively attack. Hint: it's not "the internet" or Netflix that won't play ball to handler it. There's no straight technical or economic reason why it can't.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When in doubt, blame copyright
"Paul, as always, you miss the point"
No, you miss the point, but your ego and ignorance stop you from accepting reality.
"However, the costs related to archiving are high"
Then why not allow independent 3rd parties to do it when the major market for the material has passed? Why should a party with an interest in blocking, changing and destroying historical documents be able to do so? Because they were paid to document it originally? There's so many problems with this, but your deification of the destructive flawed nature of modern copyright makes you blind to the points people actually make.
"I made not suggest that they would pick and choose articles or content to share and what not to share."
By saying the a copyright holder would have complete control, that's exactly what you advocate. Again, you're so intent on an idealised reality, you ignore the flawed reality that actually exists. It's not my fault you're too ignorant, stupid or biased to understand this, but reality is what it is, and history is on the side of the points I make.
"So go away troll. You are much more useful when you just shut up."
Like, I've always said, I'll stop addressing your lies, childish name-calling and overall shite when you stop doing it. The ball is always in your corner. Start accepting reality and stop whining, that would be a good starting point.
You misunderstand the entire conversation, I think. There are demonstrable times where the studios have given up clear profit avenues in favour of control.
"Movies are cost intensive undertakings at the major studio level."
If you ignore investors, independent movies, etc., then sure.
"Regardless if one agrees with the accounting process or not actors, directors,writers and all associated with producing a film get paid."
Depends on the film, how creative the accountants are and whether the person in question was foolish enough to defer points. You don't have to look far for people getting screwed.
"Many involved in motion picture work are unionized and must be paid a set per hour rate."
...and get paid that set rate up front, regardless of whether their union film is a low budget movie that never makes a dime or a mega blockbuster that makes someone hundreds of millions. Those people are almost irrelevant to the overall conversation. If they're union, they get paid, that's the point of a union. The guys wasting time and money on the unwinnable mole whacking are not the same people.
Besides, your points here seem to address the cast and crew, not the studio level. The producer pretending that Empire Strikes Back never made enough of a profit to give royalties to cast members is thinking thing out a little differently than the guy who spent a few days in a stormtrooper outfit. That person is willing to give up a little of his obscene revenue to ensure that he keeps control.
"Until there becomes a true choice to cable (and no, Fios isn't any different) you have no point."
Erm, you kind of answered your own question there. People care because there is no real choice in many parts of the US, and so they can't vote with their wallet if they're stuck. If they're not stuck, these companies have been involved in things that affect us all, from the net neutrality debate to content availability on non-cable platforms. That's not even to mention the taxpayer money that gets fed to them.
While those who have escaped may be glad to be free, the actions of these companies still affect them indirectly, and so they take interest. Even if the interest takes the form of mocking them while they're sinking in the quicksand we tried to tell them was there a decade ago.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When in doubt, blame copyright
..and if they choose not to they can literally lock away history. If the copyright holder ceases to exist before releasing it, it's unavailable legally to anyone thanks to the lack of orphan work provisions? If no public archive exists and the original is destroyed or irrevocably altered, that information ceases to exists and tough shit?
Hopefully sane, honest people can understand the many problems there are with depending on the good will of a benevolent for-profit venture. Not fools such as the person above who places profit above all else, but others.
"From everything I can tell, pretty much every modern newspaper auto archives their stuff, with many of them having archives back nearly 20 years already."
Oh, and I'll add - yes that's true. But you miss the point, as ever.
The problem is not just the existence of an archive, it's the completeness and access to that archive. Under your system, we not only have to trust that the newspaper will continue to exist and continue to retain those archives. We not only have to trust that the archive is offered to the public at reasonable terms. We also have to trust that the archive will never be edited at a later point to remove something embarrassing to the copyright holder or a donor. If they have the only available archive, censorship of history become somewhat trivial.
Sorry "one of my copyright holder gods has it so everything's OK" misses the point completely. As usual, because you're a disingenuous fool with no interest in the actual arguments being made.
"One of the great thing about you Paul is that you are consistent."
Yes, just as you consistently lie, distort and deflect. Which is why I challenge you on those. Don't like it? Stop doing those things.
"The thing is, going forward that is pretty much already taken care of"
Except, you advocate a copyright system where no such thing is possible, legally anyway. At the very least, you advocate an archiving system where only the data pre-approved by a biased corporation make it into an archive for later generations. That's a horrific proposition.
"So your solution is to deny a copyright holder their rights"
No, I expect them to hold up their end of the bargain with the public, not retroactively change copyright so that the public never gets what is theirs.
Also, where the record of facts or a corporation's right to profit are at odds, I will take facts. If my solution protects the rights of accurate historical archives and the public's right to that knowledge, but loses Murdoch some pocket change, I see that as a fair deal.
"See, the problem here is that you are looking at a 50 or 70 year old problem, and using it to try to make rules for current times. It's just out of touch."
The problem still exists, and will never go away so long as maximalists like yourself wish to reduce the rights of everyone else so someone can profit at the expense of history itself.
"How you draw a conclusion like that just shows how hard you are trying to be a prick about stuff, rather than enter into a discussion."
No, it means I read your posts.
"Welcome to the black hole again, the only "whatever" who will answer you is the fake one that so badly trolled you the other day. Damn, you are a sucker!"
Run away then you childish fool. I'll see you next time you lie, distort or deflect. I doubt I'll be waiting long.
Well, that's one way of looking at it, and you can say that copyright is a defacto contract between the public and the copyright holder. But, I'd still hold that infringing copyright with no payment to the owner, and breaching a contract for a service you're paying for are two very different things.
My point is - we're already dealing with people who insist on equating piracy with theft even though they are totally different concepts. No need to muddy the waters by lumping in paying customers as well.
I think he was referring to the "wall of text" style rather than the content, which can make things difficult to read for some people. Paragraph breaks may seem unnecessary when you're writing, but I find it helps with readability.
A better analogy might be sharing a newspaper. While it's a physical item, it may be "consumed" by many people, many times over. Be that several people in one house, left on a table at work or in a dorm common rooms for others to read or left in a waiting room or other public area where any number of unrelated people can read the same copy.
Rather than whining that every one of those people should have been buying their own copy and coming up with way to force that, the newspaper industry realised that this was reducing their upfront printing costs - and expanding the number of eyeballs for classified and other advertising. They also recognised the brand awareness it creates - most of those people would not depend solely on the free copy and they would most likely buy the paper they were familiar with from the freebies over a less familiar competitor.
Of course, that model is now dated, but when the business realities of the time dictated that was the best model, they generally accepted it and worked with it rather than forcing sales that may not be possible.
Because those same sources are used to traffic in legitimate content, and the "solutions" you offer are not only ineffective but have severe consequences against actual free speech in other places. You may not intend the half-assed attacks to have this effect, but they will.