DISQUS

I agree -- Motrin stepped in something foul. Check this post: http://shakethesalt.com/2008/11/moms-speak-out-...

As you posted previously, EA is a prime example with their Tiger Woods "Jesus Shot" video response. With all these communication tools available, companies would be foolish to just ignore stuff like this. Besides, if they respond to the criticism, at the very least it says they're listening. (Or are at least taking the time to create the illusion of listening)

Have you checked out Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw? Most of his videos are on http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zer.... Other examples of people in this sort of business include the Angry Video Game Nerd. They're both smart producers with short clips and they're able to make a living off their video talents as well.

I've love to think that companies actually started to use the real power of the 'net to market to the right people for once. I mean, it'd be nice to actually see information for stuff I care about over the crap the I don't. How about advertising with a rating system included, sort of like YouTube? Except I'd want a category for the actual product as well as the ad itself. So if I think the ad is hilarious but the product doesn't interest me, I could give the ad a thumbs up but the product a thumbs down. Not only would I be more likely to see stuff I'd care about, advertisers would get that critical feedback they need. And maybe stop producing ads that suck.

I think you're just the man for the job, Mathew. There's no guarantees that a smart, qualified person will automatically make things a success as history shows, but I think you improve the odds significantly.

Google's success is mind-boggling. Giant ads in the stream would be useless though; http://zaggededge.com/?p=85 touches on it. We're basically trained to ignore ads, and the more obnoxious they become the more we train ourselves to ignore them or avoid sites where they appear if we can. I think there could be a way to make money but they're going to need to get really creative. Perhaps a sort of system where the consumer can easily tweet about things they like, done honestly but also offers some sort of incentive to make people bother to do it. People use social networks to achieve some sort of fame, maybe piggyback on their efforts.

Nice to hear for a change.

That's sort of the question I have to wonder myself. It's one thing if someone grabs a hold of your picture and manipulates it without your permission, but it's another entirely if you're the one who posted it yourself. I mean, they have public service message ads that say "Think Before You Post", maybe adults should be paying more attention to them.

It's also all in your attitude. Mr. Bowl could easily have turned it around -- something like dressing in a snappy suit, with a caption like "That was 30 years ago. I've since sold 783,000 12-volt sex robots, and am the leader in the sex robot industry". Reminds me of the Star Wars kid.

Thanks for the post, gonna have to try that sucker out.

Legally aside, it's tactically unsound to quash what is basically fandom.

One thing that comes to mind is size. If someone was to publish a lexicon of what was a little known work, I doubt the author would be upset, and more likely would just be happy for the attention. But once something is well known enough, I guess diminishing returns on awareness kicks into play and it starts screaming copyright infringement like it's Golum and someone has “my precious”. Check that; if you're looking at fame and fortune in terms of size it looks more like a giant or dragon bellowing outrage that some little squirt just swiped a tiny piece of your horde.

Even if you do prove that it is theft, you still look petty.