zlacker

While I could see an issue with music rights, the commercial rights seem doable. I can't imagine them having a massive objection to "we'll show your commercial again for free."

Trying to set it up now seems nearly impossible, but if they planned for it then it may have been possible.

>>boombo+(OP)
Many older commercials, even some from as recenlty as the 90s, would be considered offensive (or worse) by today's standards.

>>SoftTa+w4
true. there are collections of videos on youtube called "Commercials from $DECADE That Would Be Offensive Today" that are an amusing watch.

>>SoftTa+w4
I suspect people enjoy being offended.

>>SoftTa+w4
That's because the 90s were "peak freedom". I think partly because people were more "live and let live" and partly because social media did not exist yet, which is IMHO one of the causes of the current atmosphere of permanent outrage.

>>mytail+vL
It was "peak freedom" in the sense of "freedom from consequence." The people who were targeted by the casual bigotry and homophobia of the time certainly weren't more "live and let live," they simply didn't have an outlet like social media to express their discontent at a scale that society could notice.

>>krapp+OM
Here we go... QED.

>>Walter+xK
They do now that (pretending to) being offended offers a form of social currency. Had René Descartes been alive today he could have used Offendi, ergo sum as his first principle and not been far off the mark.

>>the_th+Fw1
I think Descartes would have found the "offended at others being offended" niche a bit crowded today. Might have had to set his sights a bit higher than 'cancel culture'.