Because by definition in order to make money you are abusing a market inefficiency. If you use this inefficiency, you're effectively shrinking the inefficiency to closer to nothing every time its used.
Yup, amazon has been all about acquisitions and broadening their horizons lately. When they acquired twitch, they had regulations put in place first test if things would stick. Then twitch was acquired after. Seems they're probably doing the same with Stripe.
Except he wasn't charging them to see it. He had a huge neon sign in the background that he was being paid to have in his house, and they got to see the mona lisa for free. If they happened to see the neon beer sign as well, then awesome.
Right, intent matters, so if host-homeboy knows he can profit then he's in on the graft. Your logic reminds me of people who try to defend themselves in court without any legal background.
The outcome of your hypothesis, legally speaking, is that the person thinking they're winning is going to lose their fucking house as an accessory. Game, set, match IP infringement.
