"I'm guessing that Fox/Glee either doesn't know how stupid this makes them look or they believe that any publicity is good publicity."
What exactly do you predict this publicity will do to Glee? Are its fans going to walk out on it? Will the Cyber Police come and take its producers away?
It will someday show up in some Congressional testimony as an anecdote "proving" that the media companies are not actually interested in artist's rights. It won't be logical, but such is the way of Congressional hearings.
I wouldn't be surprised this does get walked back over the next couple of weeks, or if the practice ends despite its legality, and I bet it won't be any fan outrage, but internal RIAA-based pressure. This is not an anecdote they want floating around where it can be easily verified.
> It won't be logical, but such is the way of Congressional hearings.
When such statements are made routinely about an organization, it's time to move on to another one. (Roman Senate as precedent. I'm sure there are many others.)
The Roman Empire went on for a long time after it had become a parody of itself. In fact, it went on for a long time after it became a dysfunctional meta-parody of the earlier dictatorial rubber-stamp-legislature parody of itself. It's just that competent individuals kept appearing and propping it up enough for it to keep going.
If there's anything absurd, it's the notion of a historical individual being able to find a non-dysfunctional part of the world to move to. However, we now have the Internet and air travel.
"What exactly do you predict this publicity will do to Glee?"
Nothing. However what it will do is add another link in the rights / copyright / fair use discussion. So far that discussion has been dominated by the music labels putting it all on "bad actors" (snarky comment we call them "customers") who abuse copyrights willy-nilly and destroy their value. Pandora has been pushing the mandatory licensing conversation along with respect to "Internet Streaming which is not broadcasting." by pointing out some pretty arbitrary language there.
To date, the labels and media outlets, have had a lot of unwarranted credibility given them in the halls of Congress and this helps chip away at that credibility in a tangible way. But for it to actually chip away at it, it has to surface high enough into the general discourse of things that congressional representatives will have heard about it.
I think it would be worth a call/write in campaign to the biggest commercial advertisers on Glee that you don't feel that supporting their show is appropriate for their "family values" image to support a show with such unscrupulous management.
Comments
"I'm guessing that Fox/Glee either doesn't know how stupid this makes them look or they believe that any publicity is good publicity."
What exactly do you predict this publicity will do to Glee? Are its fans going to walk out on it? Will the Cyber Police come and take its producers away?
It will someday show up in some Congressional testimony as an anecdote "proving" that the media companies are not actually interested in artist's rights. It won't be logical, but such is the way of Congressional hearings.
I wouldn't be surprised this does get walked back over the next couple of weeks, or if the practice ends despite its legality, and I bet it won't be any fan outrage, but internal RIAA-based pressure. This is not an anecdote they want floating around where it can be easily verified.
> It won't be logical, but such is the way of Congressional hearings.
When such statements are made routinely about an organization, it's time to move on to another one. (Roman Senate as precedent. I'm sure there are many others.)
Don't be absurd. Mark Twain was making jokes about Congress over a century ago, and he certainly wasn't the first.
The Roman Empire went on for a long time after it had become a parody of itself. In fact, it went on for a long time after it became a dysfunctional meta-parody of the earlier dictatorial rubber-stamp-legislature parody of itself. It's just that competent individuals kept appearing and propping it up enough for it to keep going.
If there's anything absurd, it's the notion of a historical individual being able to find a non-dysfunctional part of the world to move to. However, we now have the Internet and air travel.
"What exactly do you predict this publicity will do to Glee?"
Nothing. However what it will do is add another link in the rights / copyright / fair use discussion. So far that discussion has been dominated by the music labels putting it all on "bad actors" (snarky comment we call them "customers") who abuse copyrights willy-nilly and destroy their value. Pandora has been pushing the mandatory licensing conversation along with respect to "Internet Streaming which is not broadcasting." by pointing out some pretty arbitrary language there.
To date, the labels and media outlets, have had a lot of unwarranted credibility given them in the halls of Congress and this helps chip away at that credibility in a tangible way. But for it to actually chip away at it, it has to surface high enough into the general discourse of things that congressional representatives will have heard about it.
I think it would be worth a call/write in campaign to the biggest commercial advertisers on Glee that you don't feel that supporting their show is appropriate for their "family values" image to support a show with such unscrupulous management.