Warning: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /home/helpmekim2dhsefl3pwmseak8ismo2/wwwroot/wp-content/plugins/ad-injection/ad-injection.php on line 824 Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /home/helpmekim2dhsefl3pwmseak8ismo2/wwwroot/wp-content/plugins/ad-injection/ad-injection.php on line 831

Re-engraving QQ Music, relying on capital advantages to form legal exclusivity of copyright, encircling IP-related traffic with legal barriers, and finally suffocating competitors. I don’t have the energy to check the more than 50 film and television companies that have jointly published the initiative, but Yaoke, Xinli and Lemon should be directly invested by Tencent, and Huace, Noon, and Jiaxing are all Tencent’s drama supply. Quotient. (Hua Ce is a Chinese culture, and in a sense it is invested by Tencent) Tencent Video has spent 50 billion in content in the past three years. Last year it claimed to be 100 billion in the next three years. The increase in traffic purchases, whether it is a film and television production company or an artist brokerage company, I am afraid that they cannot raise any objections to Tencent’s “initiatives.” Therefore, there is a “spectacle” in this proposal: artists who have always encouraged fans to create a second time to stimulate traffic, this time a small 500 people actually stood up and asked to “clean up unauthorized second creations today” content. Idol and traffic stars require fans not to edit and distribute their own videos privately, and any secondary creation must obtain the authorization of the agency company. Is there a strong sense of disobedience? And this is not an obscure list. There are Xiao Zhan, Dili Rebayang, Zire Yiza, Liu Tao, and other artists of all types that I have known since the 1980s. The various nympho videos and up owners at station B ushered in a big cleaning, a night of long swords. It’s certainly not the artist and agency wanting to do this. These years, the amount of traffic is expensive, the cost of publicity is high, and how great and money-saving fans are to actively spread through Love Power. In fact, as long as the complete content of the series is not transmitted, the second creation of those few minutes, the film and television production company is also welcome: to get free popularity, to help sell the drama. But I still have to say goodbye to the enthusiastic fans in tears, because iQiyi, Tencent, Youku, Mango TV, and Migu Video are not allowed. It is said that it is a five-member family, but it is actually Tencent. Tencent is about to “approximately equal” to China’s Internet entertainment content. Those who get money from Tencent include the B station Pohu Huayi Kuaishou, look at the comics Huya Xiaoguo Luo Ji Bona, etc., etc., but I can’t count them. In the first quarter of this year alone, Tencent disclosed 103 investments with a financing amount of over 60 billion yuan, of which 38 were entertainment projects. By the way, Klei who developed “Famine”, mundfish of “Atomic Heart”, and Dontnod of “Life is Strange” were also voted by Tencent. The copyright of the work produced by film and television, the copyright of the artist held by the agency, the copyright of the powerful game itself, and the copyright of the online text for reading. Compared with physical products, the realization of entertainment content is more dependent on social traffic. Tencent, which has social traffic and financial advantages, is stronger than Ali in terms of buyer status, because it can be pushed across the board and realized quickly after changing hands. Relying on these two advantages, Tencent can quickly accumulate the copyright advantage of all content. With the deepening of copyright and patent protection in legal enforcement, as the largest owner of China’s Internet content copyright, Tencent is able to “rise out of thin air” at any time. In the future, please discuss these topics and content cautiously. Don’t be enthusiastic for a while and engage in secondary creations. Emoticons are also not acceptable, because you have not obtained the authorization of the copyright owner of the work. This approach is actually suffocating competitors related to the content ecology. (Don’t say that Tencent attaches great importance to copyright protection. I don’t look at old accounts. There is a WeChat official account that imitates me. I complained three times without success. It is almost impossible to report the plagiarism of the official account article I answered because it is not posted on the official account. Tencent in here doesn’t care.) How did Xiami die? Why does NetEase Cloud Music work hard to create a social atmosphere in the community? After all, it’s copyright. Content can arouse discussion and attention. This is the core value of content, and it is also the innate reason for the close integration of content and advertising industry. Tencent invests so much entertainment content, not because Tencent has any love for content, but because Tencent needs the related traffic driven by these content. Now that the layout is completed, and the harvesting period is gradually reached, it is natural to suddenly become enthusiastic about copyright protection and require restrictions on secondary creation on other platforms. “Obtain authorization”, I specifically authorized to my own platform, you hit me? What about fans and lovers of content? Come to my platform, come to me, you can create a second time, and you can open up discussions. As for my platform and community operations are terrible, the tone is terrible, it’s okay, no matter how bad you are, you have to come. Perfectly closed loop. Note that the above are all emotional complaints and personal conjectures without any factual judgments. They only express my worry about the excessive concentration of operators in the Internet content industry and abuse of market dominance. You see, Ali has already suffered the iron fist of the anti-monopoly law. I am worried that Tencent, the light of China’s game, will go astray into monopoly. Scared.jpg


By zhiwo

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Notify of
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
7 months ago

It’s ironic. In the early years, everyone knew about plagiarism from Tencent. Plagiarism was Tencent’s biggest stain and original sin. He was scolded when he was fine. As a result, Tencent now learns to fight in battle, and it is no disadvantage for him to hold the big stick used to hit him. The goose has been awake a long time ago. If you want to talk about the rules, let’s play. Most of the copyrights are in his hands, so you can’t do whatever you want. The first class makes rules, the second class uses the rules, the third class knows that they are governed by the rules, and the fourth class does not feel that they are governed by the rules. By playing rules, individuals can never win institutions, small institutions cannot win large institutions, and latecomers cannot play the first. It is foreseeable that Douyin will lose a large amount of content, and a large number of up owners will be forced to transform at station B, and some favorite content will disappear from then on. Individual creators who want to produce related content can only go to the Weishi platform, which is neither easy to use nor fun, and after obtaining authorization, dance with shackles, and then share the benefits with him. With the strength of the Goose Factory Alliance, this is not a question of changing places to broadcast. As long as he wants, the Goose Factory Alliance can legally and compliantly plug every loophole in every platform. Do you think it’s ok to refuse the goose series and peach series web dramas from now on? Naive. The big deal is what you like, Tencent will buy it, and you can only watch it from him. For example, a few years ago, when I knew that Quanyou could watch “genuine” on Tencent Video, I knew that I had to master some network skills, otherwise many things would soon be lost. Some students want to say that this is not a monopoly? Sorry, I dare say that when you add up, no one understands monopoly better than goose, and no one understands antitrust better than goose. After all, which step can be taken on the road of monopoly is accurately calculated by the massive anti-monopoly experts hired by Goose, knowing better than me than you…

7 months ago

It reminds me of this news. College students give negative reviews to the book, and then the report of an authoritative person in the translation circle is reported to the school. The school immediately asks the student to apologize. Why apologize? The translation circle is too small, so small that you offend an authority figure, and other students in this school may find it difficult to mix in the translation circle in the future. Now the film and television industry is too. Upstream resources have been integrated, so many agency celebrities co-branded proposals. If the video platform wants to play those edited videos, the owner has to weigh it if it wants to protect it. You can scold me, but you won’t have to purchase content from me anymore. We won’t sell you anymore. If you don’t have upstream content, it’s like cutting off the video platform.

7 months ago

Don’t talk about copyright protection. If people don’t talk secretly, this is not copyright protection at all. This is the industry paraquat burned to the film and television industry. This is Tencent’s shop bullying customers, Tencent’s use of monopoly position, the next step Tencent is likely to start buying and selling. On the one hand, Tencent collects more than 80% of all kinds of film and television copyrights, and on the other hand, it does not allow non-Tencent-based editing and encourages Tencent-based editing. What is this called? This is called being a referee and kicking off the court again. Want to be Tencent’s opponent? See how people blow the black whistle to kill you. The video you edited does not satisfy Tencent, so prepare to receive the lawyer’s letter from Nanshan Pizza Hut. Why not let Tencent be satisfied? If you can’t let it make money, it will not be satisfied. Do you know “Shanghai Fortress”? There is a big bad movie. The reason why the consensus of bad movies can be formed so quickly is related to the spread of complaints from various film and television clips. People can decide not to watch this bad movie after just a few minutes of complaints. However, in the future, Tencent will invest in a bad film called “Fortress under the Sea”. No one dares to edit the Tucao, and they will receive the lawyer’s letter if they dare to edit the Tucao. How many people will be fooled into the movie theater because they can’t see the related complaints? This is the price, and the probability that bad movies will return or even make money is higher. When the audience wanted to vote with their feet, they didn’t have to vote. As for Tencent’s collection of money, it will be distributed to the original author. Don’t think too much. Tencent will only use its monopoly position to eat the home. Just look at the reading next door. The original author is only worthy of kneeling and drinking soup. The copyright of the book you write on the platform is not yours or reading, that is, Tencent. The book you write is not distributed at the starting point, but at the starting point. If you post it, watch the reading and eat meat and leave you a mouthful of soup. As for the IP and TV series adapted from the book you wrote, I am sorry that it has nothing to do with you, it is also Tencent’s. This is eating at home, so what is eating at home? The vast majority of IPs, scripts, film and television dramas, actors and even film and television companies, I am sorry that they are all Tencent. So as a TV drama director, do you have the right to choose and bargain? Unless you want your TV station to only broadcast news all day long, you can only let Tencent kill any TV series purchases. So, as a consumer, do you have the right to choose? Sorry, not anymore. Do you want to watch TV or watch movies? The above are all Tencent’s scripts + Tencent’s actors + Tencent’s dramas made by Tencent’s film and television company. Would you like to watch it? Pay the money. Do you want to listen to music? I’m sorry that most of the music copyrights belong to Tencent. Want to listen? Pay the money. Do you want to play games? Tencent eats chicken, Tencent the king… Someone once jokingly called Hong Kong’s alias Li Jiacheng, maybe in the future we will be able to witness the change of Chinese entertainment to Tencent Entertainment.

7 months ago

I think this should be a textbook-like monopoly. As a person who has always been unfamiliar with the so-called “genuine” concept, the thing I hate the most is not “I can’t see what I want to see without paying for it”, but “even if I am willing to spend it. can not see”. Editing of existing literary and artistic works. Secondary creations such as ghosts and animals are originally part of literary creation. You ban these, if you say infringement, then I have to ask: you don’t let me see ghosts, what do you let me see ? I don’t understand the legal issues, so I won’t talk nonsense. I can only ask our party to speak. As an ordinary user, I follow my common sense to raise a question: If reality really follows the number of paths he proposes, does it mean that the types of literary works that our ordinary users can access will happen? A cliff-like decline, in other words, the quality of life of our ordinary people will be seriously affected, and the total utility of our society will drop significantly? The development of the law cannot go against public order and good customs, and obviously goes against the total utility of society. I think it is impossible to pass. After forming a certain scale, large enterprises will naturally seek monopoly, which is beyond doubt. From an economic point of view, a monopolist can take advantage of the fact that consumers have no choice but to drastically change the supply curve. While seriously undermining the total utility of the society, it can earn a benefit far beyond the free market. We know that as far as traditional industries are concerned, the giant enterprises that control the lifeline of the national economy and are in a monopoly position are all state-owned enterprises. Even for state-owned enterprises, there will still be many criticized problems in monopoly, let alone private enterprises? In terms of film copyright, Tencent has a coverage rate of more than 80%, and a drama series coverage rate of more than 50%. This has long been a de facto monopoly and it is difficult to shake. An Internet company has formed a de facto monopoly in the industry, and then enters other fields with Yuwei, and can unite “over 500 artists” to form an “initiative”. The market power behind this is extremely astonishing. We know that today’s artists rarely have independent individuals, behind them are a family of agency companies. So, can such a large-scale joint operation of companies be regarded as a typical oligarchic collective action “cartel”? I think I can use the “Principles of Economics” textbook as an after-school exercise. Since the beginning of the establishment of the country, our country has been dominated by the state-owned economy. Perhaps it is not sensitive enough to such or other monopolistic behaviors emerging in the subsequent market economy, or lacks sufficient keen experience in dealing with it. I don’t know under what circumstances to do anti-monopoly, I don’t know. To what extent is appropriate. In addition, there is a “copyright sacred” halo who has been chanting and brainwashing the scriptures over the years, and I don’t even know how to deal with such problems. In comparison, some old capitalist countries that have been fighting with industrial oligarchs for hundreds of years have more experience in dealing with them, and they are more ruthless in dealing with them. But in short, if such a number of routes is not only used for self-interest, but also has clearly reduced people’s quality of life, then such a number of routes is obviously not feasible. In the past, there was a substantial monopoly of QQ music, and Tencent Youku iQiyi formed a buying price alliance to fight against “friend merchants” such as B Station Watermelon. It can be said that users have felt obvious loss of benefits and psychological discomfort; then continue. Going on this monopolized road and completely smashing them out, users and tens of thousands of secondary creators will really be furious. In short, I believe that any country, no matter what its ideology or economic policy is, must be mindful of things like “industry federations” and “business associations”. Once a monopoly is formed and industry barriers are formed, on the surface it is the small businesses that have not joined that will suffer, but the actual victims must be all users, in other words, the citizens. Thousands of words come together into one sentence: Does it matter?

7 months ago

The face is gone, just grab it directly. Let me first post Wang Hailin’s point of view to everyone: If the money can’t make it to the filming party, if the talk is so good, it’s the creators who want to prostitute themselves. Short videos may not be impossible to cooperate. First of all, when the market does not support bad money driving out good money, the monopolistic group intends to directly change the rules, but competition will set aside the table. Of course, the short video platform may not be a good person, but it happens to stand on the side of justice. What do they want from Tencent? They don’t want to block film and television editing. They want to control film and television editing through legal means: turning film and television editing into a channel for the release and drainage of the film. For any criticism, huh, are you afraid to tell you directly? To put it simply, it is to force users to eat shit and say that it is for the good of the users, and it is to be the mother of the user. As for the more than 500 artists, how many celebrities and productions are produced by Tencent, iQiyi and Youku? How many independent screenwriters and directors are there? Isn’t this obvious? They are all grasshoppers in an interest chain. What can they say to their own platforms? What does it have to do with industry interests and public rights? You see, how come no one has jumped out of the film industry, which is also a long video platform? Because the film is very popular for the announcement of short videos, and the second creation after the release does not affect the interests of theaters and filmmakers, everyone is happy to see it succeed. And the TV station didn’t participate in it. Why didn’t you think CCTV took the lead? Why didn’t the mango come out? Because relatively speaking, the content of the TV station can be hit, and the second creation of short videos is really attracting traffic and active heat, so it is also happy to see the results. Then why can’t Tencent sit still? Because after nearly ten years of education, China’s traffic business has come to an end, and the traditional model of giving users money while eating shit does not work. The trend of thought triggered by Xiao Zhan of Tencent’s being boycotted by the entire network is becoming more and more unfavorable. The profit model of video sites such as Tencent: through low-cost idol dramas with reserve price + small fresh meat + love + dog blood, there is no way to cash out through traffic. Even with the recent fires, the audience is obviously picky about the plot. If there are any other stories in existing stories, they are still topped by mainstream public opinion. This year, domestic TV series and movies have seen the trend of quality improvement. What Tencent wants to do is to use the righteousness of copyright protection to stifle all the flames of progress.

7 months ago

Intellectual property rights must of course be protected, but this is very interesting for Tencent. Do they just want to “protect intellectual property rights”? This time, the Tencent-led film and television website united more than 500 artists to boycott short video clips. It was nothing more than creating a cartel on the Internet platform. From then on, you have to go to those websites to watch the drama, and you have to do it for Eliminate the nausea generated during watching a drama and recharge. Tencent itself does not produce videos, but is only a platform for the release and operation of film and television works. They just enjoy the monopoly of broadcasting videos under the banner of protecting intellectual property rights. In the final analysis, this is not even a copyright issue, but short video platforms and traditional video sites are inherently contradictory and conflicting, and they are really positive competitors without any disputes. At present, the trend of charging for film and television works and strengthening the protection of intellectual property rights is inevitable. With the development of society, it is completely reasonable and reasonable. In Europe, Netflix is ​​the only one, and short video clips and private download resources are regarded as illegal. One of my British classmates was discovered and criticized by the apartment for downloading Transformers with seeds in the student apartment… And an ordinary Netflix family account (which can be connected to up to four devices) costs 18 euros (equivalent to RMB 140) per month Yuan). It can be said that “watching drama”, which is regarded as a form of entertainment for the poor in China, is about to be squeezed out the last drop of milk by the capital. Similarly, there are Doudizhu and playing chess. In recent years, online entertainment methods have begun to change towards the need to pay. In fact, a dominant one in Europe and the United States has the advantage of a dominant one, that is, although you feel painful when you spend 140 yuan a month, but because Netflix is ​​very rich in resources and has everything, you can’t escape the law of true fragrance in the end. But the cartel of this major video website in my country is very intriguing: it “divides the cake” among the major factories, and everyone holds a portion of the resources. I hope that users will not only buy Tencent members, but also share iQiyi with Youku also bought it. I bought a member of NetEase Cloud because I liked listening to songs, but there were no Jay Chou songs in it, so I had to buy an annual member of QQ Music. This is the reason. The current Tencent Video membership price is 15 yuan per month, which seems acceptable. But this is a number determined on the premise that short video clips “posed a threat”. In other words, as long as the short video editing competitor is completely kicked out, once the cartel is established, then the membership price will inevitably rise, and the monkey version of Netflix will be born. In these monkey versions of Netflix, there is actually no one that can be played. There is an important lesson in the theory of industrial organization. When there are competitors in the market, even if their competitiveness is weak or only in a “potential” state, they can still have a certain impact on the pricing of major market occupants. I personally don’t like watching short video clips, but I still support their existence because they lowered the price of cartels and benefited the masses in disguise. For some new dramas and hot dramas, there is no blame for boycotting and managing short videos, because this involves the core interests of artists and film and television companies. But for some old dramas that are more than ten or twenty years old, shouldn’t it be a one-size-fits-all approach, and the broadcasting rights should always be held in the hands of those big companies? The “copyright protection” story of visual China touch porcelain seems to be echoing in our ears. And these 500 artists, do they all agree to prohibit the spread of their works in the form of short video clips across the board? These 500 artists who “came out of the nest” are behind Tencent’s powerful mobilization ability (I have to say that Tencent still has two brushes). Controlling the content of the literary and artistic world, and then leading its values, the potential of this kind of capital deserves our vigilance.

7 months ago

The second bomb of the price of genuine. In my answer to a pirated game, I clearly stated that the players and the cracking team have common interests, and the players support the genuine version up to the level of d encryption. What players have to do is to support the bandits and use the deterrent power of piracy to force genuine manufacturers to make games with good quality and low price. As a result, the answer was chased by a group of people, and they said that the self-respect of the bandit was a derogatory term, and the words were full of the superiority of the genuine man, as if the piracy had been done to death, the genuine manufacturer would not ban second-hand games. Some people even made it clear that the original is mainly to meet his spiritual needs for paying, and I can see the dog staying. Learn to find resources on your own is a necessary skill, if you refuse to raise your own self-respect, then you should be a big soldier with tattoos on your face.

7 months ago

Let me make my point clear first: 1. I firmly support the protection of the legal copyright rights of the IP party. 2. I firmly resist IP exclusivity. 1. I still have that point of view. No matter how ugly you think the original video content is, no matter how worthless you think the original video content is, no matter how much value you think you have added through re-editing and how many users you have spread, it is not your infringement. reason. 2. The state should clearly prohibit the practice of exclusive IP authorization, which seriously damages the rights and interests of users. It is a very obvious practice that hinders the healthy development of the industry due to monopoly. Here is a sentence, it is not to say that the user has benefited or that it is a legal and healthy practice. For example, someone once developed a software by himself that cracked Baidu Cloud could be downloaded at unlimited speed and was free for users to use. Has the user benefited, benefited, but can the industry develop healthily because of this? It will not, but will harm the development of the industry. In the end, this person was arrested and sentenced. The software was written by his own labor, but it was Baidu’s server that provided the download, not his own. If he wrote the software by himself and set up the server for everyone to download, there would be nothing wrong with it. On the other hand, the reason why he can download unlimited speed for free is because Baidu has resisted the huge server and bandwidth cost. For the same reason, editing up can provide a lot of entertainment resources for everyone for free, and behind it is the original production party that carries the huge ip cost and production cost. Such examples abound. I’m not a god of medicine. The reason why a male protagonist can sell unprofitable generic drugs to extend the lives of patients is that pharmaceutical companies have invested huge amounts of trial and error in early R&D and marketing. If there is no medicine, The road paved by the enterprise depends on a group of male protagonists. Can he give others medicine? Therefore, the national solution is to include drugs in medical insurance as much as possible or find ways to reduce the price of drugs, and will never allow the legalization of smuggling of generic drugs, absolutely not. I think the original video content party and the editing up party are not mutually exclusive. The two parties should have a common value space and can cooperate with each other. If there is no original video content party, it is impossible to have an editing up party. Otherwise, the latter will just shoot it directly. What else does it need to edit? On the other hand, the editing party can also serve the different needs of users very well, create additional attention and traffic value, and ip extension value, which objectively enriches the diversity of culture and entertainment. This can be a win-win situation. It is hoped that relevant national parties can come out and give clear guidance: 1. Protect IP copyright, no doubt; 2. No party can monopolize the market with exclusive IP.

7 months ago

This is a gray rhino: the risk of coming sooner or later I am fine. I often watch all kinds of film and television commentaries. The ups of all kinds of film and television areas at station b are all concerned. These explanations have an “obvious” legal risk, that is, copyright issues. I suspect that the “quick look” in this proposal may include part of the “movie commentary.” This is a problem that will be encountered sooner or later. There are guidance documents in this regard, and the answer below is answered. If a one-size-fits-all approach is adopted, for station b, the film and television area will be up a lot. This is also what the millions of Cao workers live in. For us white prostitution parties (urging to change the party), it must be very uncomfortable. In the short term, Mr. Rui may find Mr. Ma. Anyway, station b also took investment from Tencent. I don’t know if I can open it online. Most of the videos on station b were created twice. To say that it is ugly is a frenzied temptation on the edge of the law. In the long run, I sincerely hope that the country can give legal guidance and establish a legal boundary for fan videos/commentary videos/secondary creations, etc. Although Mr. Luo is a criminal law teacher, Mr. Rui, you can use him to find a legal leader to see how to promote relevant legislation.

7 months ago

I opened this proposal, it was skewed, and it was written in two big characters “monopoly”. Do you really want to borrow this great sword from the copyright to be your own Shangfang sword? Those who follow me prosper and those who rebel against me perish? Let me translate. Unauthorized use of fragments is not allowed: I authorize if it is beneficial to me, I will sue you for copyright infringement if it is not good for me. Don’t “randomly” release the relevant tidbits, on-site materials, and Reuters videos of the shooting: If you take a handsome photo of an actor/Meitu to help me out, it’s not a random shoot. If you take a black photo of my small fresh meat and affect my income, I’m sorry, you infringed the copyright. Excessive copyright protection has become a moat for capitalists. There is no doubt that it is a devastating blow to the vitality of the Chinese Internet. Individual creators will drastically reduce the quality of their production due to no materials available, and the cost of video production will increase sharply, thus losing their ability to fight monopolistic companies. If you want to live, you must join the so-called “sustainable development empowerment alliance.” When the proposal comes true, I am afraid that this picture will not be able to use the copyrighted sword to control the production side, thereby controlling public opinion. It’s not good for the audience, and it’s not good for the most creative small and medium creators. It is only good for the so-called “social groups” in power and the big capitalists who want to feed their shit and make money. If you really do this, the creativity of the Chinese Internet is over.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x