I don't see a problem with Disney's action. Clearly they've nothing more than create a remix of Wilson's short work. I'm sure that will simply drive views and sales for her. In fact, she should be overjoyed that an advertising giant like Disney is throwing its weight behind her work.
Specifically... I was helping out as a studio cameraman in a little New Mexico independent TV station back in the mid '80s. I had to run a camera during a live interview with some woman explaining how evil D&D is. She had little lead figures of "demons", some plastic commercial dolls. She spent a great deal of time telling the interviewer and audience how gamers gather around the table to worships strange and evil gods, and how the game spells are real.
As an active gamer at the time, I had just a wee bit of trouble containing the laughter. Finally had to wait for camera cuts to reposition my cam as fast as possible, then get the hell away from it so I wouldn't make it shake.
She had very clearly never even talked to a gamer, much less seen a session. Yet she was an expert traveling the country to lecture and grant interviews about it.
For some reason I didn't get to run a camera for live work after that.
They/you can call it "5G", but the ITU hasn't defined 5G yet. If you've actually gone and spent Ä3.5bn on your own proprietary version of what you hope will be 5G in a few years, odds are you're really just going to build a multi-billion Euro network that can't talk to anything else. (That's generously assuming your "5G" is really a new system and not just "new capabilities are still being grouped under the current ITU-T 4G standards," in which case you'll still need to shell more billions.)
The survey was supposed conducted by or for a company that specializes in viral marketing. Last I checked, they finally released what they claim were the actual questions, but nothing on the methodology.
Maybe I'm not human then. [grin] The only time I assumed that I was being referenced in a work of fiction was a novel by someone who knows me... and the name was my own not-terribly-common name. Oh, and the author said it was me.*
--- * No, I didn't sue. I laughed. A lot. It was an inside joke regarding firearms preferences; pretty darned funny to those who know me.
Why would Gravano want people to think that's her? (Aside from the money that she isn't going to get anyway, that is.)
Oddly enough, I've had my own run-ins with folks who think I'm writing about them. A woman was apparently convinced that one of my characters was her. But she never said which one, leaving me to hope it wasnít the the pissed off lady with the .357 Magnum and a box of explosives.*
At least she didn't sue me.
----- * "Point of Honor", which those interested can find in The Anarchy Belt (freebie).
I'm most often in the "suspicious of government motives, but doubtful of conspiracy to the point of ridicule" camp, but my quick read of the proposal (I haven't gone through all 78 pages yet) suggests that what folks feared is exactly what the survey was going to do.
The three listed main goals of the study could be/are met without the newsroom interviews that were proposed.
1. "the access (or potential barriers) to CINs as identified by the FCC": The proposed news census would have done that,
2. "the media that makes up media ecologies...": Doesn't matter. The media is a black box; you ddon't need to know what's inside in order to observe the CIN "output" which they claim was their concern.
3. "the use of and interaction between media that makes media ecologies...": Reading further, you'll discover this translates into "Where do people get their news?" That question is answered through the news census and surveys of the users.
Nothing in those goals requires grilling media management or staff as proposed. To the extent that anyone is interested in the process of ensuring that outlets provide what the consumers want, that's marketing research conducted by the media so they can sell more advertising.
THIS is crap; and I can understand why people are worried about the big license grantor walking in and demanding access and answers:
Page 10, "Qualitative Analysis of Media Providers" is the tricky section, with the real kicker on page 11:
"The final component of this qualitative piece involves the execution of in-depth interviews with corporate management, local management, and support staff. We suggest a maximum of 56 media provider sites (radio and television stations) be surveyed. Within that maximum, interviews will be conducted within each market, stratified by market size. We propose that interviews be conducted at six sites in each of the selected small markets, ten sites in the selected medium markets, and 12 sites in large markets. Five interviews will be conducted at each media site. The selection of the type of staff to interview within each market shall be largely dependent on the number of properties within each market. The maximum number of interviews will be capped at 280."
And on page 12: "The purpose of these interviews is to ascertain the process by which stories are selected, station priorities (for content, production quality, and populations served), perceived station bias, perceived percent of news dedicated to each of the eight CINs, and perceived responsiveness to underserved populations. Due to the highly sensitive nature of information collected (particularly among reporters and anchors of television news stations), demographic information will not be reported. Additionally, confidentiality will be assured among all participants interviewed."
"While the police may not have been required to corroborate the CIís assertions, once they undertook this surveillance and observed no such criminal activity, this lack of corroboration should have been included in the warrant application."
JBT Translation: "Once you've got a snitch's story, don't bother investigating before you ask for a warrant."
"Help out a slow guy by explaining why "copyright infringement" by an individual isn't theft, while copyright infringement by a corporation is theft."
..and immediately started talking about "Copyright infringement by an individual", I just naturally assumed you were addressing my request. Silly me.
T"ry to clarify what you're" answering. "It'll be easier."
As for this: "It deprives them because if the copyrights have transferred, then those people have lost the rights to sell, modify, remix, re-record, etc. their own work."
Make up your mind. If copyright doesn't legally prevent individuals copying files, then it doesn't prevent creators copying their files. If an assigned copyright prevents a creator copying the files, then it prevents other nonholders of the copyright copying the files. Either copyright exists, or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways. Unless your meds have worn off.
Moreover, if the "copyright" itself -- not the work -- was stolen as you and MrWilson would have it, then the copyright reassignment by definition is invalid, and the invalid reassignment confers no privilege on the thief.
MrWilson wrote: "Musicians who have had their copyrights stolen by corporations are victims of theft." Which prompted me to ask: "Help out a slow guy by explaining why "copyright infringement" by an individual isn't theft, while copyright infringement by a corporation is theft."
Whereupon PaulT disingenuously pretends that I asked something else.
"Copyright" is a government created privilege that protects the fair chance of a creator to make a buck. Like it or not, and I figure you don't -- nor do I actually -- in our current system, "copyright" is a legal doctrine which assumes that unauthorized copying does deprive the copyright holder. Therefore, in the existing system, something "is lost".
If, as you assert, "copyright" does not protect against unauthorized copying, then "copyright" is an intangible that can't be taken physically. You are in the position of saying that the word "copyright" only means something when you want it to mean something, then accusing meof playin g games with semantics. Why not "Just use the words that apply"?
You'll note that in my examples I very specifically addressed whether copies or pysical originals were taken in each scenario. I wasn't speaking of a legal fiction, a government-provided privilege that protects the ownership of data being taken; I spoke of the data being taken of copied.
Back to my original question, paraphrased for the logic-impaired. Why is unauthorized copying by an individual not theft if the same act by a corporation is theft? How does MrWilson's "copyrights stolen by corporations" deprive the artists of the data/information/songs/books/etc they still have? How does a corporation steal a an intangible government-provided privilege; a forged contract assigning the rights to the company? That's a clear criminal violation -- fraud -- right there, as is a company defrauding others of money be lying and claiming to own a copyright it doesn't possess.
For Bog's sake, if the information is an intangible that isn't lessened, nor the creator deprived, by copying, then how is a gov-granted monopoly on that very data any more tangible lessened by "taking".