TVEyes blindsided: Fox News defeats search engine in copyright spat

Re: Ten minutes??

TL;DR

Re: Ten minutes??

Last time I was over there I couldn't help but marvel at the epics that were the drug adverts...

10 seconds of "do you have these symptoms? Our new drug might be able to help"

30 seconds of "oh... by the way... it might cause this, that, the other ... or even kill you"

10 seconds of "ask your doctor about it" (presuming that the previous 30 seconds hasn't put you off)

10 seconds of "oh... if you can't afford it we might be able to help with that too..."

That was pretty much the template for every single one...

Re: Ten minutes??

"I remember back in my youth that commercials were ONE minute long, and we could take breaks from TV watching to use the facilities. Now we have five second intros to YouTube videos that are all pretty short."

You're probably right that modern attention spans have shrunk horribly. However, I don't think that's the issue here.

It's more likely that they've found a five second non-skippable (but barely worth skipping anyway) advert that shows the product is more likely to be effective than a one-minute advert that's going to get skipped five seconds into the setup. (Or if the latter was non-skippable, is likely to be killed via the impatient user reloading it, or simply ignoring it in another tab until it's over).

Also, you seem to forget that- even in the TV days- ad breaks were never designed for your convenience, to "take breaks from TV watching to use the facilities"... even if many people *did* use them for that purpose!

Re: Fair Use

I'm not familiar with TVEye nor am I a lawyer, but if the company was providing full transcripts of the videos then they should have claimed a Federal exemption for providing Disability Services for the deaf & hard of hearing.

You can make a transcription of an audio feed so that the D&HoH folks can gain access to the material, you just can't deprive the IP owner of their ability to profit from their IP content.

It's the same part of the law that allows libraries to make a transcription of visual only media for use by the Blind & visually impaired.

If a book, magazine, or newspaper has an image then the library can transcribe it so us B&VI folks can have access to the same information (whatever the picture was about) as all you Sighted folks.

The library isn't depriving the IP owner of their ability to profit from their IP content, merely offering the content in an Accessible form.

If TVEyes were doing something similar, or at least claimed to be doing something similar, then things might have gone differently... at least right up to the point where the judge realized they were talkin' out their arses & tossed the case.

Again, I am not a lawyer & am not familiar with how TVEyes did things, so this is just my One-Fiftieth of a Dollar...

Re: EFF WTF?

Unless you support the destruction of copyright all together, I suppose.

Re: a collection of facts isn’t “copyrightable.”

I don't think "Murdoch's organ" is anyone's business besides his. And Jerry Hall's.

(And anyone who wants to print a sleazy, privacy-invading, demeaning story about it in some gutter rag, because if anyone deserves a taste of their own medicine after years of doing it to others, it's that sociopathic piece of excrement).