This will certainly be fun when someone's random celebrity shot from the streets of LA gets used as an ad and a publicity rights lawsuit filed. That's sort of the point raised by non-user Wil Wheaton in his blog. He doesn't use the service, but does he now have to worry about how people around him use it? Of course, he also admits he's not likely "big" enough for it to be a concern for him, but that he knows people for whom it will be.
Should be fun to watch corporate IP grab run headlong into entertainment IP grab... lol
You think it was bad in the media? You should see what it's like "on the ground". I live within 15 miles of the school and had to disconnect for a good portion of the weekend. The rampant speculation, fear mongering and general bad information was hard to deal with. So many people spouting so much crap.
I'm just glad my kids were able to handle a rational discussion of what happened and aren't falling into the general atmosphere of panic that seems to be surrounding the area. Heck, just this morning schools in another town were put on lockdown because of a "stranger walking with a rifle". Turned out to be an umbrella. Imagine that - a guy carrying an umbrella on a rainy day...
It's obvious most of the people posting that drivel were NOT looking to protect creative work, but instead trying to prevent the use of their personal info for marketing purposes. They used copyright because they are starting to realize just how massive and scary weapon it has become. In their panic over the fear that Facebook might do something "evil", they jumped on a bandwagon. Too bad it was full of crap... lol
Kay: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.
This is a point that we keep making and they keep ignoring. Most movie studios won't stop to consider it either. If you put some real numbers behind it, it's even more obvious though:
- Price for 1 adult ticket at local movie house = $13
- Snacks because I'm not a sneak and buy there = $7.50
- Gas to and fro = $1 (I live close by)
So, for ~2 hours of entertainment + ~10 hours of conversations with friends, I have to spend $21.50. Of course, I could spend just $19.99 in the Blizzard store and get the WoW Battle Chest and a full month of game time which would yield dozens of hours of entertainment along with dozens of hours of conversation with friends. Hmm... which is the better deal? Even better, if I wasn't all that interested in the movie, I can wait until it comes out on TV and watch it for free.
So why again does a $100 million movie budget count?
The deeper point here that gets lost in the lack of merit in this suit is that if the copyright maximalists succeed, this will become a very common occurrence. For every suit the entertainment conglomerates file, they'll be defending a dozen as more and more people subscribe to their version of "copyright". Makes you wonder if they'll go screaming to Congress to get the changes backed out at that point. I doubt it, but you never know.
Good luck getting ANY publicly traded company to look beyond next quarters financial statements. With a fear of "shareholder lawsuits", HFT systems and a shareholder preference for short term profits over long term investment, it's doubtful any company would be willing to risk a long-term approach to growth.
If you think about it though, Philip Morris might be right - their customers might just be idiots. After all, despite decards of research showing that smoking leads to increased health problems, they continue to attract new customers. Only a complete moron would do that....
While the naming of the furniture was probably fine, part of the lawsuit also dealt with the marketing used by the furniture company and their references to movies Clint had been in. One example claimed in the suit was:
"When you're invited into a person's home, you get to see the good, the bad and the ugly. When visitors come to your home, the Clint 47'' Entertainment Center makes your family room alone look like you live in a perfect world of a million dollar baby"
I think the combination of the two (name + movie references) was the heart of the problem.
So now, I think what we need to do is get the politicians to realize that the common carriers have not held up their end of the bargain and need to repay that $1T+. Just think of how big a dent that could make in the deficit... and how much people would want to reelect a politician that helped make that dent.
/never happen, I know.
//Still fun to think about..
I'm not a fan of paying for e-books either, but felt this was worth rewarding the business for the effort to (a) put together a decent collection (b) make it easy to buy and (c) provide DRM free versions that I can load on my device of choice at the time I choose to read them.
While I have no clue if I will like all of the books, I do know that there are at least 4 authors that I have enjoyed in the past. The best part is that you get to see AND decide how your money gets allocated. To be honest, this had the feel of a well run offering and I was happy about my purchase before I'd even received the files.
Mike, Mike, Mike... you're such a realist, always trying to look at the bigger picture. Of course, in doing so, you completely misread the quote. Let me "enhance" it down for you:
"Today's news not only further establishes the value of copyright as a tool to hinder innovation and progress while generating new sources of legal fees, but also points to the importance of working with rightsholders when undertaking mass digitization unless you WANT to get sued, of course. Collaboration is key when it comes to copyright because if you don't collaborate voluntarily, we'll just get the courts to force you."
You know, this could go either way. On the one hand, we've got Antisec potentially sitting on a ton of additional information which could cause no small amount of embarassment to the FBI. On the other hand, this reply from the press office could just be a ploy to intentionally get them to release more in the hopes that Antisec slips up and shows their hand too early.
And yet, with the ramp up in security, we still get stories like this (warning:auto-play video w/ article) showing up. I mean seriously - a passport that has been expired for a year and the woman was allowed to saunter on through security, likely just because her face matched her id. Yeah - real secure there... lol