|
Mierenneuker posted:I remember having to go over to a friend's house so I could watch someone else play video games. Not really, the constant fear of getting a controller thrown at your head ensured that if you're going to poo poo talk, you had to bring your A game so the other kids in the room would take your side.
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 06:04 |
|
|
In 90s Japan they used to sell video tapes of people playing through games. It's a lonely culture.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
I think the Girl Scouts are diluting their brand to hell and back.    I've also seen ice cream, gum, and herbal tea.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
girl scouts cookies were never good anyway. Extending their brand to more crap makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
Glazier posted:This is blatantly unenforceable, at least in the United States, I'd like to see them try. Look at this guy who has no idea how copyright law works in the US. ArcMage posted:Is there case law on that? I mean, it seems right plain streaming of gameplay isn't transformative, but some streamers verge on literary analysis, or technical, which might have a sufficient original portion to be defended, maybe? Doesn't matter because youtubers can't afford to take big publishers to court. Gotta love our legal system  Also Fair Use law in this country has been completely eroded by rich content holders, the only thing it really protects these days is "parody" which covers Porn and South Park and that's about it. (because they have lawyers) Zaphod42 has a new favorite as of 07:21 on Apr 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 07:19
|
|
|
Recently Toei forced Youtube to delete every episode of DBZ Abridged, which was a bad move since a lot of people got into DBZ from watching it. I'm sure it killed a lot of their goodwill as well, especially since Team Fourstar has collaborated with a lot of offical DBZ projects, including Dragonball Xenoverse and Xenoverse 2. So good job, Toei, on killing an amazing source of free advertising because you're afraid someone will get their fill of screaming anime men from a parody Youtube account.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 09:57
|
|
|
 who is this even for
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:Also Fair Use law in this country has been completely eroded by rich content holders, the only thing it really protects these days is "parody" which covers Porn and South Park and that's about it. (because they have lawyers) That's extremely incorrect. However, Fair Use is an *affirmative* defense, which means you have to raise it to the court, which means it only kicks in after a lawsuit is threatened.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
Pastry of the Year posted:
Well it's scantron so this is an ad for a product that doesn't care about selling the product because educational institutions aren't just gonna stop using scantron
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
Screaming Idiot posted:Recently Toei forced Youtube to delete every episode of DBZ Abridged, which was a bad move since a lot of people got into DBZ from watching it. I'm sure it killed a lot of their goodwill as well, especially since Team Fourstar has collaborated with a lot of offical DBZ projects, including Dragonball Xenoverse and Xenoverse 2. Oh man that blows, DBZ Abridged was great. If they wanna get away with it though they'll have to go the RiffTrax route and just supply the audio. But that's a pain and yeah, Toei should just deal with it since all its gonna do is increase the value of their property, not decrease it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
If Toei were smart they'd cut a deal for like, an official dvd release or something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
It's probably the automated copyright system loving up like every other time. This happens a lot, they'll be back up within a few weeks. In the meantime everything is still up on their website.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:That's extremely incorrect. However, Fair Use is an *affirmative* defense, which means you have to raise it to the court, which means it only kicks in after a lawsuit is threatened. That's not entirely incorrect. Fair Use is definitely an affirmative defense, but what is being discussed is a company forcing customers to give up their right to publish a transformative work in a contract of adhesion (i.e. a EULA). Unethical and borderline illegal stuff shows up all the time in EULA's even though provisions like those in contracts of adhesion are rarely held up in court, due to the coercive and intentionally obtuse nature of most EULA's*. There's little legal precedent about this because the biggest thing that prevents most of these breaches and oversteps from becoming precedence in case law is the money issue, since fighting a court battle is expensive as all loving get out, even in slam-dunk cases. Bear in mind, access to justice is an entirely different argument I'd prefer not to get into from, "publisher destroying its primary source of free advertisement," but it speaks to how they can get away with something that feels illegal without a single real challenge, since it's in such a legal gray area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use posted:Although fair use ostensibly permits certain uses without liability, many content creators and publishers try to avoid a potential court battle by seeking a legally unnecessary license from copyright owners for any use of non-public domain material, even in situations where a fair use defense would likely succeed... Fair use rights take precedence over the author's interest. Thus the copyright holder cannot use a non-binding disclaimer, or notification, to revoke the right of fair use on works. However, binding agreements such as contracts or licence agreements may take precedence over fair use rights *Not my opinion or from my experience, copyright attorney Leonard French said it and I have little reason to doubt it
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
The Door Frame posted:That's not entirely incorrect. What I was addressing that towards was this bit: "Also Fair Use law in this country has been completely eroded by rich content holders, the only thing it really protects these days is "parody" which covers Porn and South Park and that's about it. (because they have lawyers) " Which is demonstrably incorrect, and there're a bunch of recent cases disproving it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:Look at this guy who has no idea how copyright law works in the US. Er, porn, South Park, and the entire YouTube video recut ecosystem, surely? Filing a DMCA protest isn't hard, and it's about like showing up in court for your speeding ticket, half the time they'll toss it just because you made the effort. Reviews and critique are hilariously well-protected under US law, and there are plenty of firms in the business of protecting the interests of freedom of speech against copyright on principle. e: While I understand that failing to exert a copyright does not make it alright to infringe, failing to exert a copyright does damage the holder's case should it go to court. ArcMage has a new favorite as of 02:53 on Apr 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:What I was addressing that towards was this bit: Oh, that babbling is complete horseshit, which you correctly called out. I ignored the actual written words in his post and was going by the indignant tone and frustration with IP law seeming to only protect people who can afford to bring a case to trial and fight any appeals. I see a lot of people who view companies abusing the DMCA in much the same way that most people view patent trolls. That anger is understandable, but it's not particularly helpful unless it's actually directed at the abusers in question It also doesn't help that the law as we know it now is the result of decades of lobbying efforts. Or that IP litigation has gotten so outrageous that it was "an investment" for Samsung to erect an outdoor ice skating rink in Texas. Or that copyright infringement can result in a longer prison sentence than drunkenly killing a family with your car. Or that the US will ignore national sovereignty and extradite copyright violators to US courts to face "justice"
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
ArcMage posted:
That's trademarks: if you fail to defend your trademarks, you can lose them. That does not hold true for copyright law, you can enforce those as arbitrarily as you like. If you want to be able to extract more than statutory damages, you need to register them with the copyright office, but that's about it. I find your views intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 03:46
|
|
|
Captain Monkey posted:http://community.garadget.com/t/iphone-app-will-not-stay-open-just-flashes-when-trying-to-launch/1706 Link leads to nothing now 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
I think the original amazon review is gone too
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 04:29
|
|
|
Johnny Aztec posted:Link leads to nothing now Looks like they're backpedaling. http://community.garadget.com/t/official-statement-regarding-the-disconnected-customer-incident/1857/3
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 05:14
|
|
|
Because the 2016 election is the gift that never stops giving, Trump selected the congressman from a nearby district for his cabinet and now there's a new election to replace his seat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O259hYpxOXg Maybe I'm just introverted and anti-social, but this feels like he's invading my personal space. The camera gets closer, closer, then BAM quick cut and he's right on you. Then a close up of Montgomery Burns and end with a somewhat sinister "one of us." Moody is currently polling at 7%. So good marketing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 15:12
|
|
|
ArcMage posted:Er, porn, South Park, and the entire YouTube video recut ecosystem, surely? The catch is you have to identify yourself to fight a DMCA claim. Therefore, people can file illegitimate DMCA claims with the expectation that you'll either take down your stuff or make yourself subject to harassment. (Doing this is a felony for a number of reasons, but you'd have to get a lawyer to convince a judge you're worth the time.) The YouTube system is kind of a double-edged sword in that respect: it makes it easier to take stuff down, but it also makes it easier to fight it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:That's trademarks: if you fail to defend your trademarks, you can lose them. That does not hold true for copyright law, you can enforce those as arbitrarily as you like. If you want to be able to extract more than statutory damages, you need to register them with the copyright office, but that's about it. That was what I said; you don't lose them for failing to protect them, but the courts do not, historically, look kindly on attempted selective prosecution.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
ArcMage posted:That was what I said; you don't lose them for failing to protect them, but the courts do not, historically, look kindly on attempted selective prosecution. Well, generally, authors and studios and such have generally opted to turn a blind eye to things like fanfiction, online fan art, etc. and still successfully prosecute other infringement cases, so there's some leeway. J. K. Rowling tolerated an online "Harry Potter encyclopedia" thing for a while, but when the guy who compiled it tried to sell it in print, she sued and won.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 08:58
|
|
|
The teaser for Netflix' new Marvel show is set to a modernized remix of Nirvana's Come As You Are and I have no idea what target group they're even trying to hit with that anymore.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
Probably not a dumb move: If you can't see it, it says "Hey kids, this is advertising." in the top left corner. I couldn't find the ad-bar that led me there, but it also had it. Kind of refreshing. Those teeth are still nightmarish, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
Beachcomber posted:I think the Girl Scouts are diluting their brand to hell and back. The Bigelow Thin Mint Tea is really good though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 06:56
|
|
|
Not so much a "marketing" move but United is going to need some great loving marketers when poo poo like this happens on their planes: https://twitter.com/jaysedavid/status/851223662976004096 https://twitter.com/vonstrenginho/status/851407325319618560
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 14:59
|
|
|
Beachcomber posted:Probably not a dumb move: Its for global compliance, so dont get too positive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
The dude on that plane was screaming like a bitch. I bet he's a sovereign citizen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
  Chicago police! I always wondered how they choose who gets bumped from a flight. Do they go by check in time or something? Cause tossing someone that's already on and in their seat is kinda weird.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:The dude on that plane was screaming like a bitch. I bet he's a sovereign citizen. In the Schadenfreude thread the guy forced out is a doctor that has to see patients the next day. They gave his seat to a United employee.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
A doctor in the coach seats?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:A doctor in the coach seats? You dont stay rich by spending rich.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:A doctor in the coach seats? It's a pretty short flight from Chicago to Louisville. No need to spend extra.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
This is what I found about it through Twitter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
Beachcomber posted:Probably not a dumb move: What did you have with your corned beef?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AlamoNYC/status/851448491742285824
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
waggles posted:In the Schadenfreude thread the guy forced out is a doctor that has to see patients the next day. They gave his seat to a United employee. Yeah, but the United employees were flight crews that needed to get to another plane. I can see it being an issue if it was just an employee on a personal trip. That said, you keep raising the offer, you don't call police to drag passengers off the plane. Especially when they apparently had a way to fly you out 2 hours later rather than the next day like the original offer. And you pick the White guy to throw off. Not a minority, jeez United.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 06:04 |
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:Yeah, but the United employees were flight crews that needed to get to another plane. I can see it being an issue if it was just an employee on a personal trip. The passengers were randomly chosen, please don't make this a weird reverse racism thing for goony idiots to run with. The problem is they assaulted him. Getting violent with a non-violent person, no matter what they did, is wrong 100% of the time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 17:41
|
|