4 ms·

At $8300 a month for http://decknetwork.net/ http://decknetwork.net/ advertising, it is compelling that this sort of content can both 1) have this kind of viral

by th0ma5 15y ago

At $8300 a month for http://decknetwork.net/ http://decknetwork.net/ advertising, it is compelling that this sort of content can both 1) have this kind of viral platform for current issues surrounding intellectual property as it is now and 2) allow you to support and/or be complicit in the ongoing battle.

roel_v 15y ago
I'm not getting it, what's the connection between that website and the post?
- th0ma5 15y ago
  That is the ad network for the site.
  - roel_v 15y ago
    OK so I'm dense I guess, but how does that relate to your two points? Is the OP more or less credible for using that ad network? I assume you feel less somehow?
    - th0ma5 15y ago
      No no no, Andy is amazing and does wonders for promoting the interesting and relevant out on the net every day ... I'm just trying to bring up the point that he has an art, he is paid for that art, and I think that's a subtly in a lot of fair use issues. Arguably the iconic nature of the photograph was at least in part, because of there being sponsorship of the site capitalized on. It's fair use, I'm sure, or at least it should be, I'm not a lawyer... the point I guess I'm making is what I posted which is to elaborate 1) that money is changing hands during these publishing acts 2) you can support this sort of fight or possibly be complicit if it is not deemed a fair use, and to me that's just a weird spot to be in, and I wonder what those lines are, or what they should be, or some way to codify fair use, or a way to codify that it shouldn't be codified, or some way to monetize the problem, and hence conversely a big part of that is that fair use should be incredibly clear in cases where there is no profit motive, but this is a sponsored site, so that specific aspect of my own inner debate doesn't apply, and really should it make a difference?
      - sorbus 15y ago
        Wait, so what does the ad network have to do with the fact that he's selling an album on a website with no advertisements?
        th0ma5 15y ago
        I see advertisements on his website, perhaps you run an adblocker or something? Specifically I see an ad for an upcoming conference. Plus the selling of it then I guess gets to the heart of the transaction point anyway, I thought the album was free.
        sorbus 15y ago
        He's selling the album on another website - there's a link towards the end of his post ( http://kindofbloop.com/ http://kindofbloop.com/ ). I admit that I do have an adblocker, but I still don't see how it's relevant that he has advertisements on his blog - unless you're saying that he's profiting off this blog post, and that that affects his opinion?
        th0ma5 15y ago
        Hrmmm... yes, but it doesn't affect his opinion, it merely exists, and should be considered related to the facts of his former threat of a case against him, or or should be a situation that is considered a subtle something ... anyway, someone already put my point much better than this, see elsewhere.
jonknee 15y ago
"The thirty-three ads each month are in rotation across all fifty-six sites and services." I'd imagine it's not an entirely even split either...
th0ma5 15y ago
Not sure why I'm being down voted, just trying to acknowledge that there is a flow of money surrounding this issue?
- leftnode 15y ago
  What are you not understanding? He's an influential blogger who has ads on his site and is writing about something that happened in his life. There's a flow of money around every Tech Crunch article that is posted here, yet I don't see the same comments.
  - th0ma5 15y ago
    Step 1. Challenge fair use Step... Step 2. Be challenged back .... Step 2a, keep covering the fight ... Step 3. Profit. I think Boing Boing has or still does this. I don't see Tech Crunch really doing this, they're more just like Fox in the matter and blurring the lines of the "challenge" as trying to assert opinion as fact, and they bemoaning that when challenged. I don't think my day is complete without seeing links from him, but I mean, this same thing happened with Danger Mouse, and that was really testing fair use, and I don't think was even trying to, but this was another copyright issue promoted by his site. So, I mean, I'm not commenting on the substance of the specific settlement, I'm talking about the whole issue the post is describing as to what went on. He promoted a derived work, often does, it was challenged, but didn't fight it but settled, and yes that's an issue that should concern us all because that's the current fight over copyright. Part of that fight includes was the value of the creative work directly the result of the success of the original material, without any value added or interpretation of new art, and I would say sure. I agree with the fight, and I agree that works like this should be cool to do. But you put your shoes on of the rights holder of the original, and I think it is very clear that a guy makes money, with essentially low-res photo of my client's property. Now, that's completely ignorant of the 8-bit technology social history hat tip, I know, but I guess I don't know how clearer to put it that I'm not coming out of left field with trying to provide some kind of subtle issue around the subject that I don't read very much about... has challenging fair use for community ideals become just another method of capitalization? Is that why the lawyers thought that their claims would be honored in court? Because that's the only thing I could barely think could be an issue for anyone. Anyway... was hoping to see at least some kind of critical analysis. Perhaps it is forth coming by someone who can articulate maybe what I'm after better. Andy rocks, tho, for sure.

by th0ma5 15y ago

roel_v 15y ago

I'm not getting it, what's the connection between that website and the post?

th0ma5 15y ago
That is the ad network for the site.
- roel_v 15y ago
  OK so I'm dense I guess, but how does that relate to your two points? Is the OP more or less credible for using that ad network? I assume you feel less somehow?
  - th0ma5 15y ago
    No no no, Andy is amazing and does wonders for promoting the interesting and relevant out on the net every day ... I'm just trying to bring up the point that he has an art, he is paid for that art, and I think that's a subtly in a lot of fair use issues. Arguably the iconic nature of the photograph was at least in part, because of there being sponsorship of the site capitalized on. It's fair use, I'm sure, or at least it should be, I'm not a lawyer... the point I guess I'm making is what I posted which is to elaborate 1) that money is changing hands during these publishing acts 2) you can support this sort of fight or possibly be complicit if it is not deemed a fair use, and to me that's just a weird spot to be in, and I wonder what those lines are, or what they should be, or some way to codify fair use, or a way to codify that it shouldn't be codified, or some way to monetize the problem, and hence conversely a big part of that is that fair use should be incredibly clear in cases where there is no profit motive, but this is a sponsored site, so that specific aspect of my own inner debate doesn't apply, and really should it make a difference?
    - sorbus 15y ago
      Wait, so what does the ad network have to do with the fact that he's selling an album on a website with no advertisements?
      - th0ma5 15y ago
        I see advertisements on his website, perhaps you run an adblocker or something? Specifically I see an ad for an upcoming conference. Plus the selling of it then I guess gets to the heart of the transaction point anyway, I thought the album was free.
        sorbus 15y ago
        He's selling the album on another website - there's a link towards the end of his post ( http://kindofbloop.com/ http://kindofbloop.com/ ). I admit that I do have an adblocker, but I still don't see how it's relevant that he has advertisements on his blog - unless you're saying that he's profiting off this blog post, and that that affects his opinion?
        th0ma5 15y ago
        Hrmmm... yes, but it doesn't affect his opinion, it merely exists, and should be considered related to the facts of his former threat of a case against him, or or should be a situation that is considered a subtle something ... anyway, someone already put my point much better than this, see elsewhere.

jonknee 15y ago

"The thirty-three ads each month are in rotation across all fifty-six sites and services." I'd imagine it's not an entirely even split either...

th0ma5 15y ago

Not sure why I'm being down voted, just trying to acknowledge that there is a flow of money surrounding this issue?

leftnode 15y ago
What are you not understanding? He's an influential blogger who has ads on his site and is writing about something that happened in his life. There's a flow of money around every Tech Crunch article that is posted here, yet I don't see the same comments.
- th0ma5 15y ago
  Step 1. Challenge fair use Step... Step 2. Be challenged back .... Step 2a, keep covering the fight ... Step 3. Profit. I think Boing Boing has or still does this. I don't see Tech Crunch really doing this, they're more just like Fox in the matter and blurring the lines of the "challenge" as trying to assert opinion as fact, and they bemoaning that when challenged. I don't think my day is complete without seeing links from him, but I mean, this same thing happened with Danger Mouse, and that was really testing fair use, and I don't think was even trying to, but this was another copyright issue promoted by his site. So, I mean, I'm not commenting on the substance of the specific settlement, I'm talking about the whole issue the post is describing as to what went on. He promoted a derived work, often does, it was challenged, but didn't fight it but settled, and yes that's an issue that should concern us all because that's the current fight over copyright. Part of that fight includes was the value of the creative work directly the result of the success of the original material, without any value added or interpretation of new art, and I would say sure. I agree with the fight, and I agree that works like this should be cool to do. But you put your shoes on of the rights holder of the original, and I think it is very clear that a guy makes money, with essentially low-res photo of my client's property. Now, that's completely ignorant of the 8-bit technology social history hat tip, I know, but I guess I don't know how clearer to put it that I'm not coming out of left field with trying to provide some kind of subtle issue around the subject that I don't read very much about... has challenging fair use for community ideals become just another method of capitalization? Is that why the lawyers thought that their claims would be honored in court? Because that's the only thing I could barely think could be an issue for anyone. Anyway... was hoping to see at least some kind of critical analysis. Perhaps it is forth coming by someone who can articulate maybe what I'm after better. Andy rocks, tho, for sure.