Yu Cike, Director of the Copyright Administration of the Central Propaganda Department, stated on April 25 that this year, the National Copyright Administration will actively respond to the voices of the rights holders in accordance with the central government’s deployment of comprehensively strengthening the protection of intellectual property rights, and support and protect the legitimate demands of the rights holders: The first is to continue to intensify the crackdown on infringements in the short video field, and resolutely rectify the infringements of short video platforms, as well as the unauthorized copying, performance, and dissemination of other people’s films, music, and other works by producers and operators of self-media and official accounts. The second is to promote short video platforms, self-media and public account operating companies to fully perform their main responsibilities, effectively strengthen the construction of the copyright system, improve the copyright complaint handling mechanism, and effectively perform the obligation of reporting on illegal and criminal clues and cooperating in investigations. The third is to encourage and support film copyright collective management organizations to strengthen their own construction, carry out collective management of film copyrights in accordance with the law, and play a good role in safeguarding the legal rights of rights holders and facilitating the legal use of users.

Because the big video platform was robbed of the market by short video clips, the capitalists behind were ready to move, and the joint voice short video clips involved infringement. How much does this have to do with us? Iron-striking audience, flowing water platform, when this platform is depressed, a new platform will naturally come on top. So we have to figure out what the interests of our people are involved in this matter. It is the quality of film and television resources, and our perception and experience. I took a look at the video platforms that came out to speak out. They are all leaders in the field of Internet entertainment. Penguin owns half of the Internet copyright. According to public information, Tencent’s copyright coverage of drama series Internet copyrights exceeds 50%; among domestic film Internet copyrights with a box office of more than 100 million yuan, Tencent’s copyright coverage rate is 82%, the highest in the industry. In other words, when it comes to editing and disseminating film and television resources in the future, I will deal with them most of the time. This involves a problem, that is, only after the copyright owner authorizes the editing of film and television resources and other operations are allowed. Will it sing black into white? For example, “Wang Mazi Going Up the Mountains to Feed the Cows” was a low-rated film in the past. When commenting on short video platforms, most of the main up editors said that this is a bad drama and is not recommended. When the short video clip was cleaned by the authorized storm, and when I watched it on the short video platform, I accidentally got to “Wang Mazi Going Up the Mountain”. At this time, everyone may have doubts: this was not a bad show in the past. Why is it that the narrator is now talking about a drama, and it must be the Oscar-winning film next year? Is my aesthetics declining or can’t keep up with the times? In other words, it is for the purpose of rushing kpi, for traffic, and using the means of “legalization” in the future to push bad dramas. I usually feel exhausted by 996 at work during the day. I want to watch some Scissorhands commentary when I come home at night, but I don’t know that I’m still working, contributing traffic and eyeballs to the marketing of bad dramas. I am very worried that the mythical dramas I will see in the future are all bad dramas in the past.


By zhiwo

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

Film and television copyright is easier to deal with than image copyright, but we must also pay attention to the issue of monopoly. Infringement of film and television copyrights operated by large capital must be punished, and the same must be done for infringement of film and television copyrights produced by ordinary people. For example, news media organizations should also pay attention to the acquisition and broadcasting of popular online videos and original music works. Many friends said that a copyright supermarket should be launched to provide copyright services. This is a good argument, but you must be wary of shoppers bullying customers. For example, getty, a large-scale image library in the United States, does the pictures he sells himself have copyrights? Visual China and getty are the same. Therefore, it will take time for this mess to be resolved. Finally, in terms of technology and procedures, if the copyright owner does not file a complaint, how can the platform intervene in supervision? How can such supervision be fair? I am not optimistic about this approach, but it may be necessary to experiment.

5 months ago

I have always felt that Japan has done a good job in this regard. It has not only strengthened the crackdown on infringements, but also adopted an attitude of turning a blind eye to many second innovations, thus forming a “win-win” for the entire industry. Purely black or white, one size fits all, does not conform to the normal development of an industry. However, the current problem with platforms such as Tencent in China is that because their own traffic is easily taken away by short video platforms, and the profit “cake” is moved, they roar and show ugliness or even arouse public outrage. Any positive or negative adjectives are pale in front of interests. I wanted to write something by myself, but today I happened to see a comment from the subject’s own media, and I felt that it was in place, extracting the key parts. “Secondary creation of film and television series: illegal infringement should be “banned”, legal authorization should be “established”” Whether the secondary creation of film and television series is infringing depends on the specific circumstances. When it comes to the boycott of the stakeholders of the film and television drama, it is reasonable and expected. It is not to say that the second creation of all film and television dramas infringes copyright. Whether the second creation is infringing or not depends on the specific circumstances. It can be seen that the secondary creation content of many film and television dramas is mostly plot introduction + detailed guidance + personal opinion of the UP master. The length of quoted length and originality of the movie clips are all factors for judging whether the infringement is infringement. Article 22 of the New Copyright Law clearly stipulates 12 situations in which online works can be reasonably used. Among them, the second creation is related to-“In order to introduce, comment on a certain work or explain a certain issue, appropriately quote others in the work. Published works”. In this case, as long as it is “appropriate quotation”, there is no need to obtain the consent of the copyright owner and no payment is required. The “appropriate quotation” here usually refers to not simply copying, but quoting to meet the needs of creating new works. The new works created must be significantly different from the original works. Article 21 of the “Regulations for the Implementation of the Copyright Law” defines “appropriate quotation”. From the perspective of judicial practice, “the cited part shall not constitute the main or substantial part of the original work” is an important criterion. Many film review video content will also quote original footage, but it does not necessarily constitute infringement. Whether it constitutes an infringement depends on the specific circumstances. If it is regarded as infringement across the board, it may affect the exercise of the right of public opinion to justify criticism. However, many secondary creative works that simply edit, cut, and transport the original work are already “non-parody type of transformational use”, and it is difficult to be considered as “fair use”. On multiple platforms, many movies are edited and presented to the audience in the form of commentary. The “cut, cut, and move” type of secondary creation must abandon the “usage doctrine.” Not all secondary creations of film and television dramas involve infringement, but many secondary creations are almost simply “cut, cut, and move.” It’s hard not to let others know how to create this kind of secondary creation. In addition, the commentary video was “followed” shortly after the feature film was released. Some out-of-context editing undermined the connotation integrity of film and television dramas. Some up owners also used this to unlock traffic sharing, advertising revenue, attracting lessons, user rewards, and live streaming. Under all kinds of chaos in the realization of goods and other methods, it is inevitable that this will inevitably conflict with the interests of film and television drama producers and broadcasting platforms. For related up owners, strengthening the awareness of intellectual property rights and bidding farewell to the practice of “usage doctrine” is also the self-cultivation of up owners. The head-up master “Gu Amo” was sued before Yin Jian, and this boycott was also a reminder. “Watching the movie in a few minutes” was boycotted. May wish to explore a symbiosis and win-win copyright authorization model. In view of this, the two can fully explore cooperation and win-win cooperation methods and authorization models-from the media reports, many head UP owners also intend to obtain authorization from the copyright owner, but they are restricted. Due to the fragmentation of directing, production, production, and distribution, as well as the unclear ways to apply for authorization, it is difficult for ordinary creators to obtain authorization. At this time, it is also quite important to solve the problem of the “authorization acquisition dilemma”. In fact, whether it is the “willingness to discuss reasonable and sustainable development authorization schemes with short video platforms and public account producers and operators with an open mind” in the joint proposal of the film and television industry, or the voice of many up owners. It points to one point: the key to the problem lies in solving the authorization dilemma. In the final analysis, with regard to the boycott of film and television editing, it should be clarified: illegal infringement should be “banned”, and legal authorization should be “established.” To oppose infringement, we must also explore a win-win approach.

5 months ago

Conclusion: There is only destruction but no construction. This question is divided into two parts, one is music and the other is film and television. I basically don’t touch on film and television. I am mainly engaged in video production of poetry, music and Hanfu. It is not a high-level work like “The Awakening Age”, which has no publicity and is worthy of continuous Amway promotion. I am too lazy to do it, and basically write. Write chase notes. As for music, because I am a music producer, I know a little bit about it. Some things have been said a hundred years ago. There should be a large and authoritative copyright supermarket (to add, the supermarket I am talking about is a store like Taobao Market, where the creators own copyright stores). Personal accounts can be used. I went to buy some material rights. I learned about music. There is “public broadcasting rights” music—this is what a Taiwanese music producer told me. I don’t know what to call it in mainland China, such as film and television dramas and videos. Some of the soundtracks used to enhance the atmosphere come from this kind of music. But the problem is that now these “public broadcasting rights” music is packaged and sold on Taobao, and I am not sure if these are infringements. Of course, I still have a solution to make music by myself. Anyway, I have the ability to make one for 800 yuan. A song, 400 yuan for a soundtrack, I don’t know how other people solve it… As for some music websites on the Internet that sell copyrights, you don’t know if there are any problems. After all, it’s not authoritative enough, but the short video The platform will also have some music libraries. If you are unsure of the authenticity of those websites, you can use the platform’s own music library as much as possible. In addition, I personally disagree with “The Awakening Age”. This work should be a cultural work, a propaganda position, and should be allowed to be used by the public. I believe that when Li Dazhao goes to Changxindian to promote socialism, he will not require workers to put all the work. After reading the works of Marxism-Leninism, I will not say that you and other workers need my authorization from Li Dazhao when you and other workers are working on socialism. In addition to film and television, the video material itself is also quite confusing, such as the non-film video materials sold in the Tmall flagship store. Some stores say that they have copyrights, but in reality, no one is clear. So again, the reasonable use of music and video materials should have an authoritative platform, including art design, which should become an important part of our country’s cultural infrastructure. Regarding music, I’m answering from a practical perspective. It’s useless to post a large section of articles in the comments, nor can I answer how to obtain non-infringing music. Anyway, I have channels to obtain non-infringing music. The “public broadcasting rights” music I said can be directly used in commercial film and television. As for the initial conclusion, if the creators cannot be given an effective channel to tell them from which channels they should legally and reasonably obtain genuine materials, this is only destruction, not construction. Finally, I advise people who are involved in the knowledge blind zone not to hold back. This is very simple. Where can I get authorization? How to obtain authorization? How do I know if the other party is really qualified for authorization? Failure to solve these three problems is all in vain. A comment just now is quite typical. I would like to respond to it. The point of that comment is simply and rudely that “it should always be told by others.” So, here comes the question. I have an original Hanfu music MV. Who do you think belongs to the copyright of this MV? Tell me useful? Poetry New Sing|”New Singing in the Garden” The video of Peony Pavilion Ming-made Hanfu Yu Xuexin. 982 play I can tell you clearly that there are many materials in it that the copyright does not belong to me, but I have the right to use it. If you come to ask me to authorize this production, I’m sorry, I’m really helpless, I’m too lazy to help you contact the copyright owners one by one, and there are some copyrights in it, you can’t find it, it’s my personal relationship. Such as Zhihu, the copyright owner of the text = the creator of the text, it is much simpler, the creator can choose whether to publish the permission publicly. The copyright owner of film and television may not necessarily be the creator. Even a small music MV producer like me does not own the copyright of all the materials in the work. In an industry that refuses to give the writers the signature, you can count on them to treat them well. Those of us creators? To be fair for us? Let’s put it this way, the 500 artists convened by Tencent are a fart. Without us writing stories and making music, they acted as ghosts, and our story, without their interpretation, can also be spread, so what about us creators? Is there really a way for us to freely trade copyright and authorize it reasonably? Anyway, the copyright of the novel is monopolized by the Dachang platform, not the kind of supermarket I mentioned in the Taobao bazaar. And our true upstream original creators generally cannot help but personally use it reasonably, and commercial use is rich and easy to negotiate, but the copyright owner will not think this way, and will not do it, so it will kill us original creators, as to whether it is fair use , We creators don’t have the slightest right to speak, do we really respect our creators? Do you know how some people in the originality circle maintained the monopoly copyright of these platforms last year? These shameless people say, ‘you don’t hand in the copyright for free, and you are free to cooperate in buying and selling, which will destroy the overall situation and cakes of the copyright owner. They are a group of shameless original creators. The reality is magical. The people who criticized me in the comments thought they were protecting creators like me, but in fact they helped the gangsters. There is only destruction, no construction-I, a true upstream creator who writes stories and makes music, has more say than Tencent 500 artists and tells the truth.

5 months ago

It can only be said that copyright protection is the general trend. One of the most recent hot spots is that video websites have joined forces to boycott video editing and cutting. Everyone understands the entanglement of interests behind it. Talk about this issue from a legal perspective. Unauthorized editing, cutting, and transportation do indeed infringe the copyright of the original film and television works, and may specifically infringe the original work’s information network dissemination right and the protection of the integrity of the work. Article 10 Copyright includes the following personal rights and property rights: (4) The right to protect the integrity of the work, that is, the right to protect the work from distortion and tampering; The right to the work can be obtained at the time and place chosen by it; most of these video clips have infringed the copyright of the original work. But seeing this voice, the first reaction is still very angry! I can’t watch “cuts” in the future. Who has time to watch those stinky long movies and TV shows? ? ? It has to be said that in the fast-paced era, the “cut segment to follow the drama” not only satisfies the curiosity of the plot, but also avoids spending a lot of time on the drama. I have just watched the editing of “Bright Sword” and “Kangxi Dynasty” recently. (Exposure age) Older friends should remember that about ten years ago, it was very simple to download MP3s of various songs, and software such as Kugou also supports downloading most of the music for free. But what is going on now, everyone knows, not only is it required to recharge members, even recharged members can’t download music to the local, and can only listen to it offline during the member’s validity period! Little netizens feel bitter!

5 months ago

I am not optimistic about the existing copyright protection regulations related to video and audio. Gao Zan gave an example of Japan, suggesting to learn Japanese copyright protection methods, establish an authoritative copyright agency, and solve the authorization dilemma. This is a compromise, but personally think this is not so important. Their copyright law can be enforced, the key is not to establish such an intermediary organization, but to their complete industrial chain, music, film and television related products have a certain proportion of quantity and quality, and most importantly, they cultivate art education since childhood. I have had the awareness of copyright protection since I was a child, and this is the most important thing. In the current domestic environment, the quantity and quality of audio and video products are not available, and bad movies and bad songs are prevalent. What’s more, we don’t have art education like that in Japan. We have cultivated the awareness of art protection since we were young. There is a lack of basic art education and related industries. In the case of low quality and poor quality, such a regulation will be introduced, not to mention the one-size-fits-all approach when our regulations are enforced. You are now asking a group of people without copyright protection awareness to pay for those bad movies and bad songs. You think it’s possible. ? It’s totally impossible. The solution of this problem requires multiple solutions. The film and television industry must produce excellent and quality works, and art education must be implemented. Even if there is no art education, at least children’s awareness of copyright protection must be cultivated from an early age. In terms of implementation, one size fits all should be avoided as much as possible. Under the circumstances that none of these have been established and perfected, such a regulation is directly promulgated, and the only good thing is for large capital enterprises. Even Gao Zan said that the establishment of intermediary institutions, who do you think will be established, needless to say, it must be a company represented by Tencent, making long money. It is very strange that I am personally excited to see people engaged in related industries. Doesn’t the reading incident give you any vigilance? It’s a bit harder to say. Now that the platform has mastered the film and television channels, you are the pigs raised on the platform. You should be killed if you are fat. Now the long video and short video are fighting, and the 500 artists who need to rely on Aiyuten are all It can be concluded that people in the music industry should also be wary of being a pawn, especially when the record era is over and you can only rely on platform channels to send songs. Who knows if you will become a pawn in a giant fight. The impact on the film and television industry is that there are fewer and fewer audiences and audiences. The works are either becoming more and more perfunctory and rotten, or they shift their positions to make niche works; the influence of laymen is that the up master of film and television editing is nothing more than Changing careers, or editing film and television works and foreign works from decades ago, there is another wave of nostalgia and touted foreign works. For ordinary audiences and ordinary listeners, they must pay or watch foreign works without listening. Or video sharing technology is becoming more and more private. The overall situation is getting worse and worse, and the good is not much better.

5 months ago

This is actually a matter of dividing the cake. The huge market derived from film and television content such as video transfer numbers and short videos is occupied by a group of people who do not have copyrights. Copyright is the key protection object of national laws and regulations. Major platforms, major companies, and artists are all related people. With such a huge market, it is impossible for these people to sit idly by. From the perspective of the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television, this group of video numbers is not easy to manage. It is produced by itself but can be moved and edited out of management. Because copyright management is the top priority of the radio and television, but the video port number is used to get out of the radio and television management. From the perspective of Tencents, they all have video websites under their own, and the copyrights that they spend money to buy, the inexplicable traffic goes to Douyin. At the same time, in the short video field, Tencent and Douyin are rivals. Two short video products under Tencent have been beaten by Douyin. The video that you bought by yourself is taken by your opponent to attract traffic. This is the enemy. For artists, all kinds of small videos related to their own content are disseminated by others, they are harassed, and they are also profitable. This is a double-edged sword in itself, but if you can control the dissemination of these content, then whether it is Spread or benefit, you are the beneficiaries. This is the day that will come sooner or later, but now the key is how to grasp the scale. How to separate video handling and film review videos, and how to use them in the process of dissemination in music, are all problems. In the past two years, video handling accounts have begun to attract a lot of fans on Douyin. Accounts such as “Poison Tongue Movie” and “Xiaoxia Said Movie” have enjoyed more than tens of millions of fans, usually millions. Under the wave, almost all movie transfer accounts have been affected. However, content copyright is a dead hole after all. If you carry other people’s things to make a profit, you never produce it yourself, and legally there is no room for victory. Since the beginning of the year, all theatrical movies, Internet majors, and TV series have begun to use the video porter number for publicity and distribution, and many old TV series have also been turned out by the video number, attracting a wave of attention again. This market is huge and growing. It has become a buffer zone between short videos and long dramas. It is impossible for this area to be in a vacuum. Now the card holders obtain huge benefits for themselves through copyright means, and this is a commercial method. Maybe this will be the catastrophe of the big V of Douyin film critics. It is also an opportunity for some big ones, but it is also the best channel for some film and television works to be announced. At present, such as “Xiaoxia Said Movies” and “Vicious Tongue Movies” have produced tens of millions of large sizes, and they are currently occupying the best position. Many movie announcements choose these tens of millions of large sizes. They upgrade their content by themselves, and they will do in the future. Things. The market is changing. Radio and television’s attention is beginning to focus on the short video field. TV is declining. I don’t know how the market will change tomorrow. However, these vibrato players need to find a way to survive tomorrow. The final problem is copyright.

5 months ago

This time, the long video platform coerced the producer to put pressure on the short video platform to increase its legitimacy and voice. Compared with short videos infringing copyright, the producers should hate the overlord clause of the long video platform, but their lives are held in the hands of the long video platform, and they dare not speak up. The rectification and reform of the Central Propaganda Department will definitely be implemented, but there is still a lot of room for mediation on how to make changes and how hard they are. The “Copyright Law” stipulates that there are 12 reasonable forms for the use of film and television works. Among them, the description related to the secondary creation is “to introduce, comment on a certain work or explain a certain issue, appropriately quote other people’s published works in the work. .” How to define “appropriate citation”? It is rather vague, so the “Implementation Regulations of the Copyright Law” explains this, “Appropriate quotation means that it does not affect the normal use of the original work, and does not unreasonably damage the legitimate rights and interests of the original copyright owner.” How to define “unreasonable damage” ? Still vague, so the court has formulated several reference factors in judicial practice: 1 Whether the original work has been publicly published. 2 The purpose of citing the work of others. (Whether it is commercially available) 3 The range and ratio of the quoted content 4 Will it adversely affect the normal use or market sales of the original work? The second one is the most important, this one has nothing to run. But don’t panic, regardless of the employment level, the prosperity of culture and art, and the stimulation of social creativity, the relevant departments will not prohibit the creation of film and television works across the board. In terms of employment, in order to ensure employment, the state now even encourages the stall economy. What’s more, the employment scale and industrial echelon (dubbing, editing, copywriting) of the second creation of film and television works far exceed the major items of stalls. In terms of culture, the second creation of film and television works does have problems such as inferior content, misunderstanding, and homogeneity. But it has also greatly enriched our needs for social networking, entertainment, and information acquisition. The influx of hot money in the past 12 years has resulted in a large number of crude junk and mediocre works in the film market. Most people cannot distinguish a work by rating (Navy, fake data) or movie trailer (deceptive marketing). Whether it is worth spending time and money to watch, and the film and television commentary just screened for us and provided more basic information, that is, it satisfies our purpose of acquiring information and keeping up with the topic of the times, and making full use of fragmented time. After watching the film and television commentary, whether the audience chooses to watch the original film depends largely on the quality of the film and television work. In other words, bad films are afraid of the publicity effect caused by film and television commentary. For good works, film and television commentary is free and high-quality publicity. (So ​​the survival of the navy depends mainly on Zhongyong Duan’s works) On the contrary, Article 4 will not have much impact on the second creation of film and television works. What is “normal use”? As long as your film and television commentary does not become a market substitute for the original work, it will not cause damage or infringement identified by the Copyright Law. In other words, a bad movie is a bad movie. If you make a mockery or complain about it, you will have to say one thing, and it does not constitute infringement. Going back to the second point, part of the profit distribution should be unavoidable. Regarding how to distribute the profit and how large it is, the relevant departments need to mediate between the long and short videos. After the long-term and short-term video platforms have negotiated, will the profit part be borne by the platform or the UP owner, or how much is borne by both parties, and how to bear it? You need the platform to handle it yourself. If the platform transfers too much profit to the UP owner, UP will also vote with its feet, so don’t worry too much. Finally, irresponsibly speculate about the content of the rectification. The first is definitely to avoid key plots, core content, and a large number of references when citing film and television works for the second creation. The second is to make rigid regulations on the typology of the second creation of film and television, such as film reviews, “The Tenth Screening Room”, “Ten Sentence Film Critic”, etc., briefly introduce the film, but reveal the specific details. Professional analysis, similar to the “CINE Marathon” at Station B, and the “Shadow Hunting Girl” series at Stations A and B, analyze the structure, characterization, and dialogue analysis of the movie from a professional perspective to the audience, without revealing the core plot. The category of film and television inventory, which stands for “The TOP of Movies”, is similar to a movie talk show. It relies on a huge amount of film material to create diversified creations around different themes, which not only provides the audience with diversified choices, but also does not affect the look and feel of the original film. For pure storytelling, it may be necessary to make certain adjustments to the content of the first rectification, which is very likely to affect the quality and then the income. But it will also relieve the current situation of mixed fish and dragons and garbage film and television marketing accounts to a certain extent.

5 months ago

Today, I happened to read English in 2001, and when I saw this question, I remembered a few words inside. Here is a troubled business that keeps hiring employees whose attitudes vastly annoy the customers. Then it sponsors lots of symposiums and a credibility project dedicated to wondering why customers are annoyed and fleeing in large numbers. But it never seems to get around to noticing the cultural and class biases that so many former buyers are complaining about. This industry continues to hire employees who will annoy most users. Subsequently, various seminars and credibility surveys were carried out to study why users were annoyed and why users were lost on a large scale. But I never took time to pay attention to the prejudices of culture and class, and these prejudices are exactly what those users once complained about. Deep Sea’s answer evoked my desire to refute, only to refute from the standpoint of Erjian. 1. I don’t know what “fair use” is. If anyone knows, please explain. 2. The producer of the film and television company is okay. But these problems absolutely exist in the broadcasting platform, monopoly and vvip. This seems to be a consensus, but I do not agree that the second cut is an infringement. Therefore, there is no such thing as “thinking that someone else has stolen my eraser, so I can steal his pencil.” 3. I haven’t watched this clip, but I see that the way to make money through the second cut is basically creative incentives and user charging. But from these two sources, I think what they hope to give is the thoroughness of the creativity/interpretation of the second cut. In other words, if this second clip/narration does not exist, the money does not exist. I can’t understand what you said, “The original film that the main creative team has worked so hard to create, and the scissors hands take it directly to make money”. It’s not that you made this work, and the money you make related to this work is yours. By the way, due to the monopoly issue you mentioned earlier, the copyright is actually bought out. Even if everyone supports the original work, the money is still in the pocket of the platform. Also, from my experience of watching “It’s Your Turn” that year, those who watched this kind of commentary conservatively estimated that they also contributed to the number of hits on both sides. 4. Agree 5. I know what you want to imply, it is nothing more than the country’s fault, there is nothing I dare not say. But in fact I do not agree. The state advocates copyright protection. This is a positive and active advocacy. This is no problem. Protecting copyright is by no means a mistake, I believe everyone thinks so. However, there are some things that not everyone can say. Just like, the laborer said that I want 996, which is totally fine, it is a personal effort and struggle. But Jack Ma couldn’t. When he said this to Ali, who was behind him, it was a naked expression of squeeze. why? Because they are the vested interests of this advocacy. Similarly, any single creator advocates copyright protection, there is no problem. However, these statements of Tencent are nothing more than to ensure that it and its “partner platform” can occupy a complete market. what does that mean? For film and television creators, there is no promotion method other than their promotion channels. For the audience, apart from the “good” things we show you, there is no way of purification in the field of film and television drama. Haven’t you noticed that the water injection in recent dramas is very serious? Because, anyway, if you watch it at 1.5 times speed, you won’t be protesting. This is not what “capital + leeks” is. This is not a deliberate pursuit of profound expression, but a fact. 6. Reasonable editing. Everyone knows which drama it comes from after watching the clip. Similarly, it is reasonable to quote my answer. It is also reasonable to edit other people’s edited works, provided that the source is noted. 7. I am opposed to Tencent’s support for copyright, because I know what he wants to do. Even if I open a membership, I will never oppose the existence of piracy. Piracy still exists, so they will not negotiate on several platforms, raise prices together, and VIP together. The dispute between genuine and piracy should always exist. ps: Without prejudice to the interests of creators, almost all the money is in the pocket of the platform.

5 months ago

Infringement and non-infringement must be decided by the masses of the people. Capitalists should not be allowed to lead the market. Is the current film and television market a capital market? Do Marvel movies promote capitalist values? Is the smuggled goods contained in the anti-Japanese drama, even the People’s Daily can’t stand it, and should stand up for criticism? The capitalists are crying and crying for copyright protection, then what? Turning his head, I sent Guo Jingming and others to feed you Oli to Jia Zhangke. Has the capital market touted the director who made films for the people? In the era of lack of copyright awareness and widespread piracy, is there a lack of excellent works? What now? Isn’t it disgusting to see Tuo Tuo Ollie?

5 months ago

several questions. 1. Simply intercepting short videos of movie and TV series paragraphs is definitely not compliant. 2. Movies are the most TOP, Muyu Shuixin, and Uncle Niu said that movies are not compliant. (Or is it interpreting that the individual movies are not compliant, and the inventory of the character collections are compliant again?) (Or are they basically compliant?) 3. Does the explanation of Japanese TV dramas, Korean TV dramas and American TV dramas that do not have copyrights in China mean that they are unattended? 4. The capital Fangyang Studio, which many people worry about, specifically authorizes some workshops to give bad film platforms. 5. Many people worry about the breeding of a new unreasonable but legal gray industrial chain. 6. In the case of violations, whether law enforcement depends on whether the copyright owner is Willing to investigate 7. Whether there is a time limit for film and television commentary, such as commenting on a film that has been online for more than ten years and 20 years and commenting on a film that has been online for more than ten days and 20 days, will definitely have different impacts8, if there is no large number of spoilers involved, in the early stage of the film’s release , Can you subjectively comment on the quality of the movie (which will affect the number of broadcasts, box office, etc.) 9, then 8, if it violates the rules, according to 6, can it be considered that the copyright owner is in charge of the power of life and death, which is about equal to controlling public opinion?

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x