I'll keep this short....
We all know that TWIT appears to regularly violate other people's copyrights with its "Live Specials." In the same breath they'll bully users of it's own content even when compliant with their purported "Creative Content" licensing.
So today we had yet another "questionable" example of wanton abuse of someone else's copyright in the form of a a "TWIT Live Event" covering the Microsoft Surface announcement.
Now to be completely honest, Microsoft isn't as explicit about rebroadcasting of it's live events as Apple but I did find a general statement of use of the company's Intellectual Property (or IP) that extends to online content.
Specifically: (from the Microsoft website)
"Your use may not be obscene or pornographic, and you may not be disparaging, defamatory, or libelous to Microsoft, any of its products, or any other person or entity."
Laporte and Paul Thurrott repeatedly offered commentary during the "Live Event" that could be considered disparaging of the presenters especially Panos Panay.
"You may link to Microsoft content by using either a plain text link with words such as "This way to Microsoft.com" or by participating in an applicable Link Logo program. No other images may be used as a link to a Microsoft site."
Everybody else provided a hyperlink to the event. TWIT decided to embed it in their own content and context. If it were an Apple event there'd be no question how big a NO NO that is.
As for the actual event..
Surface tablets and a big all-in-one called "Surface Studio" that folds down into a desk with a big knob you can put on the screen...
Who cares...this article is about hypocrisy not another boring product launch from a company desperate to be relevant.
BTW, I'm referring to Microsoft but the observation could apply equally to TWIT...
At the end Leo wrapped up the "coverage" in his trademark style with a live read of a "Blue Apron" ad.
Nice of Microsoft to provide content for Leo's "reaction video" and Blue Apron to pay for it with an ad read.
Maybe the term "reaction video" is incorrect. Reaction videos usually don't violate commercial copyrights of whatever's being "reacted" to.