Don't you think it's wrong to copy someone's work and profit from it? If I copy but attribute your work, put on my blog and got even $10 for it while you posted it up for free, do you think that is fair for you? I feel like that was what steemit was originally design for - for creating new content, not sharing contents that someone else has done. Except for may be information that is censored otherwise, but movie trailers doesn't fall into that category does it?
Of course people are entitled for their own opinion, and that what flagging is for, so I guess that brings it back to @themarkymark's point. If it's fair call to copy other people's work and profit for it, it's fair call to be flagged for it as well, so don't whinge about it.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
There's nothing wrong with what he's doing. It's allowed on here. What else you want me to say? I am sure the movie industry doesn't care...it's just another avenue getting info out to movie goers. I am sure when they put that stuff out on Utube they know people are going to share it....that's why there's a share tab. You just can't write someone's stuff and attribute it to yourself. That's the rule, I didn't make it.
This argument is bogus. You are allowed to stab people too, but you only get in trouble after you do it. Does that make it right?
There is a big difference between sharing and profiting off other people's work.
I found these arguments as fruitless as planting stones. They just don't give a shit. They think that because the platform "allows it" that it's okay or that because it's "promoting" the work it's okay, or because copyright is bullshit that it's okay. They just use post hock reasoning to justify unprincipled, amoral and devious behavior. They know it's destructive to the network, but they don't care. As long as they get theirs. Content skimmers and plagiarists are just thieves and thieves don't care if they hurt others.
I have spent three years blogging and most the blog sites I've been on copy and paste news article for discussion, very few only use part of a article and link....I think most news site really don't care because the link is always required, it puts their name out...free advertising, if people like the article or several articles from the site they are more apt to start following the site. More followers more advertisers advertising.
I watched four movie trailers...(though I didn't want to...lol), one came with a warning at the end that said it was copyrighted and the trailer couldn't be use for blah, blah and so on, another just said Imax was a registered trademark of Imax, and the other two had nothing at the end. So I guess it's a mixed bag, if they don't label it copyrighted material I would image all is fair game. I have seen some things removed from Utube before that song artist have done that say this was removed for copyright reasons....and I've also seen where in news articles they've placed a video off utube in the article and you go to click on it and it will say the video was removed due to copyright.
That's all fine if you're sharing it on Facebook, the moment you start profiting from it, I guarantee if Hollywood saw it they would be all over it with lawyers.
Probably so, especially the ones that explicitly state at the end you can't do that....if caught he's looking at huge fines, maybe jail time...I don't know, having his fifteen minutes of fame being made an example of comes to mind also...I think that's what the record industry did, choose a couple particular people and splashed their cases across national headlines.