I found it somewhat interesting that they had to track down all the actors from Happy Days. You would think that there would be one single point of contact with whomever made the video, cause it's not like they were using the footage of the actors in a new way.
But honestly, I'm ok with it being only somewhat interesting. When you write as many posts as Mr. Chen does, they aren't all going to be bangers.
> You would think that there would be one single point of contact with whomever made the video, cause it's not like they were using the footage of the actors in a new way.
That depends. Licensing is a weird nuanced beast. The original video could have received a license to broadcast on something like MTV. MS didn't want to broadcast it, but distribute it. That's an entirely different thing in the licensing world. The fees also change depending on broadcast/distribute. The number of units would be considered and fees based accordingly.
I read the whole thing (all several paragraphs of it) and the answer is, indeed: Licensing.
It's approximately the least-interesting article I've read this year.
I found it somewhat interesting that they had to track down all the actors from Happy Days. You would think that there would be one single point of contact with whomever made the video, cause it's not like they were using the footage of the actors in a new way.
But honestly, I'm ok with it being only somewhat interesting. When you write as many posts as Mr. Chen does, they aren't all going to be bangers.
> You would think that there would be one single point of contact with whomever made the video, cause it's not like they were using the footage of the actors in a new way.
That depends. Licensing is a weird nuanced beast. The original video could have received a license to broadcast on something like MTV. MS didn't want to broadcast it, but distribute it. That's an entirely different thing in the licensing world. The fees also change depending on broadcast/distribute. The number of units would be considered and fees based accordingly.
There's a "footnote video" with slightly more details:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CowQzSVKr8c
Is there any way to make this submission even less interesting? Perhaps we can speculate about parts being written by AI. Did you see any em dashes?
It's just a journal style entry, its not bad that its boring, but its so bland. It will become LLM fodder I'm sure.
We all will. Ashes to ashes.