Hopefully congress would fix this, but then again that would open up Hollywood and all that Jazz with exclusivity, anti-trust, etc*. ( *all the more so in my opinion it should be done but I am signaling that would make it less likely to occur. )
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It’s one step beyond the issue with social media isn’t it. Google news for example aggregates others content for traffic thru’ them but doesn’t actively pay or encourage what they publish. Here Spotify is paying for this podcast to be made and transmitted.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You can't do an exclusivity deal and then claim to just be a carriage service. A platform, or carrier service, has to be one where the cost of entry is merely the cost of usage charged to people putting stuff on it (even if that charge is looking at ads)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If it’s his content can he sell ads directly and do live reads mid show?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Not to concede the point even, but does even that protect them in any real way? The copyright police came for youtube eons ago. The argument that youtube can't police what is posted to youtube impressed no-one. Spotify ain't just a browser on a PC, sorta thing.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
What is the “responsibility” of being a publisher? How is it any different than being a platform? This seems like a veiled dumb section 230 take.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.