|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 09:33 PM EDT |
Product placement.
I had the video for You've Got Mail for at
least five years, before I
knew
that AOL "sponsored" it via product placement,
and saw it as an advertising
vehicle. It would never have convinced me to use
any AOL service.
That isn't the only time that product placement
advertising has been totally
wasted on me.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DieterWasDriving on Saturday, May 26 2012 @ 10:57 AM EDT |
You'll not that the broadcasters aren't concerned about modifying the original
program in this case.
They claim it's a copyright violation if anyone doesn't watch their broadcast in
its entirety, but they are free to arbitrarily modify the works owned by
others.
I'm guessing that the initial claim will be based on a compilation copyright,
but once they get into court it will quickly be found wanting and be an argument
about the details of license terms.
Something you might not realize is which way the money now flows. The
broadcasters saw the cable companies getting rich "simply stringing
wire", so they convinced the FCC to set up a structure where the carriers
negotiate with the channels over the rates. You would expect that a broadcaster
which pays for an expensive tower, transmitter and electricity (e.g. a 5MW UHF
station) would pay to expand the audience they reach. But instead Dish, and
almost all cable operators, are now paying the broadcasters to carry their
channels.
I think this will be a pretty significant barrier to overcome. Their compilation
copyright theory is weak because of the stance they take on being completely
free to modify content they license. And their contract arguments are very weak
because they are being paid -- their previous greed in wanting to be paid for
carriers to spread what they would previously broadcast for free is coming back
to bite them.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
