Almost everyone, honestly. Yes, people admitted that Google's search was better, but by then "search" was a dead market. Everything was "portals" and Yahoo, Lycos, Altavista, Excite and more all "dominated" that space. The press laughed off the idea of a "new search engine" at the time as a viable business -- especially Google which had no ads at the time.
The person who made the copy owns it, so it doesn't need to have been sold to him. The question is whether it was lawfully made. This is actually a very interesting question which has never really been answered.
For example, if you make a copy for time shifting purposes under Sony and fulfill the fair use requirements, that is lawfully made. Can you then sell it? While it might be relevant for the fair use analysis whether you planned to sell it at the time you made it, does it matter if you only decided to do so after it was made?
Even assuming the original broadcast was copyrighted (which might be a state issue that I don't want to wade into) it might be legal to sell this copy. Not to make more copies necessarily, but to sell the actual tape or whatever it is.
Yeah, after thinking this through... I think I'm back to this position that the first sale claim isn't so crazy. I've updated my update...
Wait what? I'm not on the NFL's side but how can the first sale doctrine apply to something this guy didn't buy in the first place? The NFL did not sell the tape to him. He made it. To this day it's not okay for people to sell their own recordings of broadcasts to other people.
That's a good point, actually... will add something to the post.
It seems to me you're seeing one half, the proposal, as a good thing, and attributing reactions to that (the licensing/format scheme), while ignoring the other half, the IP half, which is what it seems most people are reacting negatively to.
Fair enough. I just think that, in plenty of other contexts, this kind "feel free to use our stuff, and in exchange we'll help you do more and make some money" should be seen as a good thing. I'd love it if other shows/brands did the same thing.
Again, imaging being able to make money off your Star Wars fan film, if you just had to agree to kick back 20% to LucasFilm. That's kinda neat.
If Fine Bros aren't evil then why are they 1. deleting tweets that show them effectively commanding their subscribers to spam Ellen (pretty much a request for DDOS), 2. WHy have they issued DOZENS of takedowns for 'reaction' videos that bear no resemblance whatsoever to their format?
As I thought I've been pretty clear, I agree that those actions are horrible and I disagree with them entirely.
But that's *separate* from the issue of creating a system to encourage and support fan vids.
Also why threaten other channels that have reaction videos with legal action (again channels that bear no similarity to theirs)?
Again, a stupid action on their part, but different from the idea here.
People keep conflating the two -- and maybe that's to be expected giving how the Fine Bros. have responded in the past.
But the key thing: if there were people with a brand who had NOT had that sort of history, and they created a similar plan to help fans create, promote and make money from their fan videos, it could be kind of cool.
Mike, also we'd like you to post officially and state that FineBros (and their affiliates) are not partners and have never had anything to do with Techdirt (including Ads), as that would stop anyone from claiming your being paid to support them. Cheers.
Wow. Post one thing you disagree with and people automatically claim you're paid off. To be clear, until last week, I was only marginally aware of an entity called "the Fine Brothers" and had basically seen two or three of their "react" videos when they were virally passed around. That's the extent of my connection to them in their entirety.
As far as I know I've never spoken to them, anyone connected to them, anyone who's even watched their videos beyond the two or three that I've seen personally. I've certainly never done any kind of business deal with them. And really, if that's your first thought, you should perhaps calm down a bit.
It may be, but does it necessitate gaining a legal monopoly over broad and general sounding terms already in very common use across Youtube and other sites?
Nope. It does not necessitate that. But again, you're focused on something different: the decision to trademark, rather than what I'm pointing out, which is the underlying idea of making it easier for fans to make, promote and monitor "fan" versions of what they do.
Yes, I think over trademarking is a problem. And I think the Fine Bros are pushing it on that.
But that's *different* than the idea of supporting fan vids.
hey feel so entitled to their “format” that they think anything remotely similar to one of their “formats” is infringing on their intellectual property. They even threatened ELLEN for stealing their “format”. Ellen’s video is nothing like anything the Fine Bros do, she’s just showing kids on her show some old technology:
Yup. Agree that was stupid and wrong. But separate from their offer to help others do videos.
What makes me concerned is the way they've been doing damage control. Deleting whole swaths of comments, and getting videos that are "reacting" to their announcement taken down seems a bit dictator-like to me. It's possible the videos were dmca'd by another entity, but it seems unlikely.
Yup. On that I agree totally. But as for the original plan: that was actually a good idea. Reacting badly to people isn't helping though.
No, that's what you get when people don't understand DMCA, and don't fight for their rights. If the artists are paying this guy to dance to their music, then he has all the rights he needs.
This is almost certainly not true. In most cases, you'd actually need at least 3 separate licenses, which most likely are not controlled by the artist. You'd need to license the sound recording (probably held by the label), and then get a mechanical (probably controlled by HFA) and then also a synch license (probably from the publisher). In some rare cases an artist might control all three, but that's super rare.
But even so you're missing the point. Saying "just contest the takedown" pretends that doing so is easy and does not potentially put you at risk.
Big blockbusters still make money. What has indeed been decimated is smaller films, which depended on home video, and that is a sad loss.
The wealth of adult oriented but still reasonably budgeted fare, like the many classic thrillers of the 1990s ,have now been killed off by piracy. Now we have gigantic comic book films and no-money indies. These indies have budgets so small there isn't even an economically feasible way to spend much time refining the script - not unless you have rich parents.
If this were true, we'd be seeing a corresponding decline in movie releases -- but we're not. In fact, year by year the number of movies released goes up. 2015 was a huge leap from 2014, with well over 2000 films released, according to Nash Information Services.
There is no way to measure how many wonderful films would now be part of cultural history, but are not, because of piracy.
Why do you blame piracy? Again, the numbers show that the most pirated films are also the most successful films, suggesting that piracy isn't necessarily harming films. Meanwhile, services like Netflix have shown that people are absolutely willing to pay for movies. And things like Kickstarter are funding more and more films outside of the old studio system.
The market has changed in that the big studios no longer control all the gates, but there are a wealth of new films out there.
Please learn something about our business before commenting on it so "knowingly".
I might suggest the same for you. Thanks for commenting, though.