mfryd

sdw2001 said:

j238 said:

Copyright infringement has gotten so rampant, when a proper claim is enforced, people react as if that's controversial. 

I find it hard to believe it’s copyright infringement.  And the claim wasn’t legal…it was with ScrewTube.  There is no legitimate basis for taking down. You’re talking about 20 rolled video that have no commercial value or negligible value to anyone.  

Can you elaborate on why you believe it is not copyright infringement?

Are you suggesting that the videos are not copyrighted, or that Apple is not the copyright owner?

Remember, copyright law gives the copyright owner the ability to place restrictions on the copying or reproducing of the protected work.  The copyright owner does not need a good reason to prohibit posting, nor does the decision need to be in the copyright owner’s best interest.  

Also keep in mind that infringement does not need to be for profit.

Suppose you were a photographer and created a mediocre photo (one with no commercial value).  You wanted the photo hung in your office, and you didn’t want any other copies out there.  It would be copyright infringement for someone else to post the image to a public website for all to enjoy.  Even though they are not depriving you of sales, nor are they making money on your work.  The law says that when it comes to posting, the copyright owner gets to decide, and their decision doesn’t have to be the most reasonable position possible.  There are a few “fair use” exceptions, but keep in mind that the common language definition of “fair use” may not match the legal meaning.

So please explain why you think someone publicly posting Apple’s copyrighted video to a website (including YouTube) does not constitute a clear violation of copyright?

It is not in Apple's best interest to have the videos available online.  Apple wants to people to use the latest hardware and software.  It does not help Apple to make it easy for people to make old computers more useful.

The bottom line is that the videos were the intellectual property of Apple.  As the copyright owner, Apple has the right to decide where, and if, the videos will be available.

bloggerblog said:

That’s could become a controversial move since Tesla is a public traded company and Twitter is his private company. So borrowing employees from a public company can get weird. 

There are many ways this could be structured.  

For instance, Twiter could hire Tesla to do the software development.  Twitter would pay Tesla, and Tesla employees would handle the work.   

I don't see anything "weird" with Tesla expanding the experience level of their in-house software developers by having them work on a different type of project for a few weeks.  Such a move might very well benefit Tesla in the long run, as their developers will gain experience in new areas, that might be applicable to Tesla's car business.  Furthermore, allowing their developers a break might allow them to come back in a few weeks with fresh perspectives on their Tesla projects.

On the other hand, one could make a case that it is not in the stockholder's best interests for Tesla to take on this sort of software engineering project.  That's a topic on which reasonable people can disagree.

marklark said:

Maybe they are saving a bit of licensing fees for ps and eps?

There are low cost and free PostScript interpreters available.  “Ghostscript” is one example.