anon pfp
anon
@superanon
disagree, it's just a vampire attack in both cases. possibly very worse, to different institutions. integrity is realizing any "memeing a cast with a clanker" is deliberate repackaging of someone else's expression as something that trades. any absence of consent, much less financial license, is super sus and scammy. possibly predatory, to different institutions. let's "double-click on this" in a couple of years to check if there was any sustainability.
4 replies
35 recasts
191 reactions
Matthew pfp
Matthew
@matthew
ehh i get the point but i disagree. by the same logic remixes would be entirely theft and don’t think that’s fair. that said if you quote or reply and launch a clanker, i do think fees should be auto split between you and the OP.
1 reply
12 recasts
111 reactions
anon pfp
anon
@superanon
remixes fall under the Fair Use doctrine, and everyone assumes that all this VC-funded atmosphere around Section 230 & feeds & ad money all just works as such. Trent Reznor to Johnny Cash singing "Hurt" is transformation, as is sampling & photoshopping & all that silly fun. no, what happened with "clanking off OP" is more like issuing a Bowie Bond as some third party that's a fan of David Bowie, with no other attributive quality to his production of his music https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebrity_bond (on top of its Moxie Fan Token that already existed) so, reasonably speaking, these situations automatically revert, wholly, to OP. anything less, without license or consent, would more resemble extortion. but idk, tho.
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions