I don't know. I myself would never bother to go to/purchase from a company that obviously is trying to cash in on a popular fad or topic. Much like those that try to cash in on popular hash-tags.
I figure if they need to go to that level of gimmick marketing, that their product isn't that good to begin with or is overpriced.
Psy might also realize that it's better to just ignore them, as they will not be around long, than to start any sort of conflict where that company will be getting lots of press coverage. Or, it could be just as he says. =P
Look at it another way, if I link to a fully legal version of some content online, let's say Disney decided to allow people to watch "A Christmas Carol" (2009) for free (I know, but just go with it). All the major news outlets pick up this story and post the link for all their readers. Later, after Christmas when the ghost of Walt leaves the current CEO alone, Disney then decides to cut the feed. Now, someone else redirects that link to a site that offers a non-authorized version of the same movie.
That link went to legal content in the beginning, but is now pointing to illegal content. Are you saying that all those News outlets should have known better and are now all liable for copyright infringement?
*I know that it would be hard for that link to be re-directed, but some guy at Disney or their PR department could be stupid enough to release the domain that hosted the link, allowing a 3rd party to be able to then register the domain and re-direct the link.
When asked by the Napolitano about whether people that actually understand network security thinks that she is an idiot, Post editor Mary Jordan answered "yes" and then quickly added, "I really don't want to go into that per se."
According to the accountants that Sony has borrowed from the movie industry, they are not making a profit and in fact may never, therefor they is no money to share with the actor. Also, they'll be deducting the lawsuit costs from his salary. =P
Every time I see people talk about this case and how users want their files, I can't help but think what would of happened if this was a Bank instead.
Imagine you have a Bank, that a lot of people had accounts in. The President of the bank is accused of fraud by the government, so the DOJ/FBI come in and take over the Bank. They freeze all accounts, lock up the building and say that no one is allowed in. You now have a landlord (Carpathia) that wants to be paid his rent or to be allowed to rent the building out to someone else or even just to have someone pay the utilities bill, but the justice system won't let them. You have the users that want access to their money but are told they can't because they might possibly have some money they obtained illegally mixed in. Somehow, I think the situation would have been handled a lot differently.
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Another great lesson from that book is the erosion of rights and freedoms. We already see things like terrorism, cyber, or "for the children" being used to justify giving up some freedoms for a false sense of security.
It's funny now that I look back on it. We used to question the teacher why we needed to read books like Animal Farm. My teacher said there will be a time in the future that I'd look back and understand how important the concepts of that story were. I'm still don't think I've found a use for trigonometry though. =P
The MPAA think they have a two way relationship with the public.
They shovel hot steaming piles of crap into boxes.
They expect the public to hand them back handfuls of money in return.
If people stop paying for the box of crap, they assume it's not the crap that is the problem but the people. So they then attempt to force the people, with the help of the government, to pay them. That way the public can enjoy their crap! =P