<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: YouTube and copyright: the Platonic solution</title>
	<atom:link href="http://cultureby.com/2006/11/youtube_and_cop.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://cultureby.com/2006/11/youtube_and_cop.html</link>
	<description>This Blog Sits At the Intersection of Anthropology and Economics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 21:10:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Graham Hill</title>
		<link>http://cultureby.com/2006/11/youtube_and_cop.html/comment-page-1#comment-3780</link>
		<dc:creator>Graham Hill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Nov 2006 07:20:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=591#comment-3780</guid>
		<description>Grant
I think it is also about that old bugbear, &quot;control&quot;.
Companies want to control their creations as far as possible. Particularly, channels to market. Control is part of the comfortable illusion that management creates for itself through things like strategy away-days, marketing plans and budgetting.
It reminds me of the recent tussle between Tesco &amp; Asda and the makers of certain luxury goods. Both supermarkets sourced bona-fide grey imports from non-EU sources and sold them at much lower than MRP to the eager public. The luxury goods owners objected because they had no control over how their products went to market. The European Court supported the luxury goods owners. The supermarkets ignored the Court anyway.
If Tom Asacker is right (of course he is!) and all a brand is is a series of emotions and the associated feelings that a customer has about it, then heaven help the brand if the feelings it evokes are generated in response to heavy-handed attempts to control brands by marketers and lawyers.
Graham Hill
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Grant</p>
<p>I think it is also about that old bugbear, &#8220;control&#8221;.</p>
<p>Companies want to control their creations as far as possible. Particularly, channels to market. Control is part of the comfortable illusion that management creates for itself through things like strategy away-days, marketing plans and budgetting.</p>
<p>It reminds me of the recent tussle between Tesco &#038; Asda and the makers of certain luxury goods. Both supermarkets sourced bona-fide grey imports from non-EU sources and sold them at much lower than MRP to the eager public. The luxury goods owners objected because they had no control over how their products went to market. The European Court supported the luxury goods owners. The supermarkets ignored the Court anyway.</p>
<p>If Tom Asacker is right (of course he is!) and all a brand is is a series of emotions and the associated feelings that a customer has about it, then heaven help the brand if the feelings it evokes are generated in response to heavy-handed attempts to control brands by marketers and lawyers.</p>
<p>Graham Hill</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom Asacker</title>
		<link>http://cultureby.com/2006/11/youtube_and_cop.html/comment-page-1#comment-3779</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom Asacker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Nov 2006 08:33:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=591#comment-3779</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m not so sure about the argument, Grant.  If time and attention are, in fact, the scarce commodities today, who&#039;s to say whether audiences will gravitate towards the original, rather than continue to consume free, albeit lower quality, Cliff-Notes-type reproductions.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not so sure about the argument, Grant.  If time and attention are, in fact, the scarce commodities today, who&#8217;s to say whether audiences will gravitate towards the original, rather than continue to consume free, albeit lower quality, Cliff-Notes-type reproductions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rob Fields</title>
		<link>http://cultureby.com/2006/11/youtube_and_cop.html/comment-page-1#comment-3778</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob Fields</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Nov 2006 20:38:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=591#comment-3778</guid>
		<description>I think this really is, as you point out, an issue of diffusion.  As the marketplace fragments and subdivides even more, and mass media continues to show declining efficiencies, content producers will need partners to give them the reach and penetration they once enjoyed out of course.  And I think its even more critical when what&#039;s at stake is not just communications effectiveness, but cultural relevance.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think this really is, as you point out, an issue of diffusion.  As the marketplace fragments and subdivides even more, and mass media continues to show declining efficiencies, content producers will need partners to give them the reach and penetration they once enjoyed out of course.  And I think its even more critical when what&#8217;s at stake is not just communications effectiveness, but cultural relevance.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

