With more and more revenue coming from things like deals with the record labels and partnerships with "channels" or other big players, does YouTube care if a bunch of small, independent creators get ground up in the gears of ContentID?
I'm not saying the creators don't have a right to be pissed, they're obviously being screwed over, I'm just saying I still haven't even seen any actual numbers that they matter financially to Google.
Reminds me. I was listening to the second beta episode of Cordkillers, and they were discussing the 2013 "most pirated" list. Once again, Game of Thrones was at the top, but a surprising entry (to the producers) was The Walking Dead. Why was this surprising? Because they actually made the show available for free via streaming on a website. And yet, even with them offering a free alternative, people pirated it.
The producer's takeaway? They said to them, this meant that no matter what, some people are just going to pirate. Honestly, that's probably a useful lesson if they take it to heart: No matter how much blood/sweat/tears/money you waste on trying to stop people, some people are just going to pirate your stuff anyway.
But, for me, this really should drive home the idea that for many people price is not the sole deciding factor for why they pirate something. The "pirate experience" is obviously somehow superior in some other way than simply being free.
Maybe they should concentrate on trying to figure out why that is.
It's completely the point. You can't say: "Warren Buffet flat out discredited anyone who says "super high taxes on the rich will make them want to leave". and then say that him not being representative is hardly the point.
Then why do they bitch about it so much? There are claims they pay the majority of all income taxation.
What super rich person do you see bitching about income taxes? People who are actually wealthy pay no tax. They have no income, therefore they have no problem with income tax going up, as it doesn't affect them, they've already made their money!
Punishment for destroying the world economy?
You're certainly not punishing the people responsible, as they don't pay income taxes!
250K per year taxable income is probably not small business.
Based on what? Your gut feeling? $250k year is well within the range of a successful small business. Heck, a $250k salary is upper middle-class in some ridiculously high cost of living areas of the US, like Silicon Valley. Have you never heard the phrase "six-digit poverty"? It's a real thing.
Warren Buffet does not represent the average "rich" individual. The super-rich don't pay income taxes, they don't have income. Any effort to punitively tax them is doomed to failure, as it'll always be cheaper to spend money on accounting tricks than pay a punitive tax. Just look at what just happened in France when they tried a "millionaire tax". People hopped across the border.
Meanwhile, a successful small business owner gets absolutely walloped in such a situation, as they actually have income, and they can't just move or use legal handwaving to make it disappear.
The US also experimented with it, and saw a dramatic (10-15%) reduction in the workforce. This reduction was primarily in housewives and high-school aged children, however, so it's arguable whether or not it was a bad thing.
It's a seductive solution to a complicated problem. I really don't think we can just wave a magic wand and say "Everyone gets money!" and expect it to just work out, though. That's not to say it won't ever work, just that it won't be easy, quick, or pain-free. And it's a non-starter when you start advocating a "modest proposal" like seizing all income over $250k or fixing prices.
So Target is saying windowing is bad and anti-consumer? Heck, I agree with them. I think Beyonce should have offered a physical CD at the same time she released online. I also think her album shouldn't have been an iTunes exclusive, but should have been available via all online music services.
I hope Target will apply this newly enlightened view to the movie studios holding back DVD releases and in their new involvement in the Ultraviolet consortium.
Re-doing the music for "Girls" can be done on an iPad, and should've been given a lot more effort to embody a transformative work.
Actually you're making a convincing argument that the Beastie Boys' recording of Girls doesn't deserve copyright protection, then, as they just did the same thing. They just played the sheet music and recorded it. Heck, by your own argument, that's no work at all. :)
Please help.... If i take all the transformer movies and split up the clips and create my own storyboard could i then make it my own and sell it to the cinemas?
You may not be able to sell it to Cinemas, but you could most definitely do such a thing and distribute it safely for the purpose of criticism. The Copyright Office holds up a remix video, Buffy vs. Edward: Twilight Remixed as an example of how a derivative work made up entirely of clips from existing works is transformative enough to be fair use.
That's not what happened. GoldieBlox re-tooled lyrics to suit their purpose - wholly commercial - and are hiding behind "fair use" as a woe-is-little-old-me defense that rightfully will get its teeth kicked in by the courts.
By which court, exactly? It sounds like you're suggesting the Beastie Boys go fetch their big brother to beat up GoldieBlox, without realizing GoldieBlox's big brother (the Supreme Court, in this case) is the current reigning MMA world champion...
You're entirely right a lower court can completely "misinterpret" (ie: ignore) existing law and precedent and find against GoldieBlox in this case, but courts make crazy decisions all the time. So GoldieBlox is doing the smart thing and heading this off at the pass--getting their day in court immediately instead of having a legal threat hung over their head. Considering they've got cases from the Supreme Court of the United States to back them up, I think they're justified in feeling confident about their chances...
I'm gonna paraphrase Rikuo here in my own response: You (Internet Zen Master) have every right to dislike this company's use of Beastie Boys music in their advertisements. You have every right to say you dislike it, to send them angry letters, to start a petition, to hand out pamphlets, whatever. You have the right to refuse to buy their products and call for a boycott.
But no one has the right to use the law to forbid them from doing it. And EVERYONE should be disappointed and disgusted by the attempted legal strong-arming that attempted to do that.
If the Boys and their record label don't appreciate the parody, they're welcome to state their case, and then it would be up to the public to decide who they want to support. But by bringing legal threats into this, they deserve any legal repercussions as well as the scorn and vilification coming their way.
Guess I'm a little sensitive to respecting the wishes of the artist after having several of my fellow artists getting their artwork stolen by hacks who repost it ON THE SAME SITE and claim it as their own work after removing the creator's signature, or reposting it on places like Tumblr without the artist's permission.
But, see, what you're describing there is plagiarism--a practice universally reviled.
I can't see how an intellectually honest person can compare a Constitutionally protected creative endeavor like parody to plagiarism...