Comment: Huh? Mox sells these videos as his? LOL. really?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I've got a copy of (see in situ)

Huh? Mox sells these videos as his? LOL. really?

"Cowboys and Aliens" eh? Okay, we're not Siskel(RIP) and Ebert here, so, to each his own, but you SHOULD pawn off that 'movie'!!!

There are certainly a few things I could've done with $163million FRN's, but I didn't have the benefit of two Iron Man global multi-billion dollars-earning blockbusters to convince studios that it'd be okay to do another SciFi, but this time without the benefit of any real storyline or functioning dialog. lol.

As for your:

As for "Fair Use" - correct me if I'm wrong - but don't you have to still give credit to the originator?

Yes you do. And, Yes, he does "give credit to the originator", in the description box, of almost every single video that he posts.

The "label" over the broadcaster's logo is 'NOT' stealing.

Factually in practice, and legally speaking, that issue is somewhat convoluted: if you actually directly use their logo without changing it, as is, then 'broadcast it' on your YT page, that equally can be 'legally' interpreted as using others' stuff as your own, by the simple nature of using their stuff, on 'your' channel.

Think of it this way. If you own a bespoke/custom-autoshop, and your project is a Cadillac Escalade, but you remove the brand's logo, and put on your own custom shop's logo or one requested by your client instead, does it stop being a Cadillac?


But, I mean factually, there's no doubt that you just resold it, however re-designed, AS YOUR OWN, and not under Govt Motor's original Caddy logo.

So, did you just violate copyright or trademark?


No, again.

Well... actually it's more like "No," to no-ish. lol.

For the one poster who keeps harping about the 'logo over logo'-bit? The reason why you're still able to do it, is because ALL MSM shows and logos are considered 'known entities,' even IF not everyone may be aware of who Piers Morgan is, or who Sean Insanity maybe.

In copyrighting/patenting/trademarking, it all depends on how already 'public' your 'new' idea is, or may be.

Why is that important, you may inquire?

Because in IP, it's all about what is or is not already 'public' as to be considered 'unique enough,' however ridiculous that arbitrary-whim 'public policy' is, to be determined by some govt commissar.

More specifically of the car customizers, no matter how much you 'customize' it, people still know that it's a Cadillac, unless you completely redesign the front or rear fascia to look completely different.

And, even then, just as how you can easily recognize your own loved ones from their silhouettes, whether it be by stance, or body language, designs have their own 'stances' and/or proportions that are easily recognizable to those in-the-know.

So, if someone asked you to codify into formula just how exactly, mathematically, geometrically, line by line, you recognized your own loved ones, simply by their silhouettes? Can you truly universally recognizably formulate, a repeatable method in which you did just that, and codify it into a legislative form, that will be 100% fool-proof?

Because essentially, that's what IP 'laws' seek to use to justify their existence: the codification of the subjective human perception.

Worse, the codification of such into legislative form already presumes that it CAN be done, and IS being done.

That goes the same for all other creative business: painters have signature strokes, writers have signature cadence and speech patterns, designers have known color palette no matter how much they may deviate, computer coders have particular set of sequence that are easily recognizable among coders and hackers alike, body lines of a Giorgetto Giugiaro are instantly distinguishable from Marcello Gandini's even though they both worked at Bertone around the time that Gruppo Bertone carrozzeria designed the Countach; no matter how many times the fans of Giorgetto claim that he designed the Countach, it's absolutely undeniable that those are Gandini's lines, however subtly different they may seem to non-designers' eyes.

Why? Because all byproducts of creative ventures are results of what and how one particular person, or group of persons with similar intellectual wavelengths think, or perceive the world.

Actually, all that would apply the same for those who want to 'categorize' what kind of 'traits' a typical R3VOL holds dear. Sure, can be done. But under legislative penalty, can you truly write recognizing such traits into a 'law?'

Just like the ridiculous excuses given over the years, seeking to ban 'porn,' or any other arbitrary "lewd behavior/conduct," "you'll know one, when you see one," is not a proper basis for legislation or penalizing. Nor is leaving it to be determined via "community standards," which for any lovers of freedom who detest collectivist statist BS, such arbitrary, malleable basis for legislation should be an anathema to ALL elevation of human freedoms.

But, no matter how distinctly recognizable someone's creative work, or efforts, or traits may be, to those within the field, and without, the very act of recognizing manifestations of creativity, itself, at the end of the day, is a subjective one: no matter how many times humans try, you CANNOT legislate, regulate, or enforce subjective human behaviors, or perceptions.

And, "perceptions" are essentially what IP 'laws' seek to regulate.

Then again, recognizing insanity has never been the State's strong suit; they only love thriving in it: like ANY psychotic, they simply do not see themselves as one. LOL, go figure.

All of which simply illustrate just how insane it is that anyone would seek to legislate creativity, like all other facets of human condition that govt seek to butt its nose into things that it has absolutely zero understanding of.

This is why, it's a commonly accepted practice. And, like any specialized industries, these are just things that general public has hard time grasping, unless you've been involved in creating, inventing, engineering, reverse-engineering, or commercially manufacturing things for a living.

Please check out PBS's "Triumph of the Nerds," especially the following segment on how TX Instrument/Compaq specifically set out to 'commit a crime,' with the full intent of get away with it, and dan dan dan: profit off of copying someone else's designs, as their own!

If you 'get' that, this is WHY in the software world, lawsuits and counter lawsuits over IP has become so asinine: EVERYONE COPIED EACH OTHER, from the beginning. Just look at the current one between Apple and Samsung.

Also the 'challengers' know how precarious their positions are, because they attained it, essentially on the backs of others.

So if they can do it, they know that next garage/basement operation can easily become the next Microsoft, in the software world.

That, is why Bill Gates has been such a dick about suing everyone and kept a tight leash on 'his' app's licensing structure, because in reality, nothing MS has done, did, or is doing, is original work, PERIOD.

Take it from a guy who worked in the design industry: I used to be all for copyright/patents/IP, as I too know all too well the costs involved in creating and manifesting a new idea into a manufacturable reality.

But clearly, IP 'laws' are complete bunk, just like all other govt scams. In the end, it only produces govt approved corporatist monopolies of their choice.

That, was my last vestige of statism.

Though realizing it 'hurt,' but not as much as what it truly means in the long run: the pace of human evolution suffers.

But, I still believe no one has the right to produce an exact copy of your brand and simply copy the label, and sell a direct knock off as their own. Then again, even the most perfectly manufactured 'copy' is not truly a copy, as anything someone else makes resembling another design, by definition is NOT a 'copy.'

As far as the enforcement of these 'laws,' though as seen with Righthaven lawsuits, SOPA, PIPA, CISPA and TPP, the monopolists will never stop, but to me, realistically it's kinda like the almost 100yr old NYC law that say you cannot eat icecream while crossing street, because the good ol' govt loves you, wants to protect you, because you're too stupid to discern whether an oncoming traffic may ignore you and simply run you over... while you're munching on your icecream...and walking at the same time.

But, rarely is that 'law' enforced, so the people ignore it, and cops, too, ignore it, even under the current policestate.

Though tell that to the Oregon man just arrested, prosecuted and jailed under the 1920's 'law' forbidding the use of collected rain water.

So for those harping about logo, branding, fair use, etc. please familiarize yourselves before truly "knee-jerk" defending statist thugs, as if they give out medals to you, for being so 'principled'... about all the WRONG things.

You've been corrected.

You're welcome.o)

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul