Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Mar 2019 @ 6:54pm
Sub Rosa Reasons
Isn't this just an underhanded way for the government to try to define who is and who is not a journalist? Accepting that it is the activity rather than the person or organization or method of distribution seems really hard for those with the thirst for power and control.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Mar 2019 @ 9:13am
Re: Re: How narrow can he get?
That Nevada law may not be inclusive enough to be constitutional, per the US Constitution that is. I don't know if it has been tested at the Federal level at all. Since the US certainly seems to have embraced technology in the progress of news distribution in the past, there is no reason to believe that it won't embrace technology advances in the future.
There are of course reasons for those who crave power and control to want less feedback from those not constrained by compromised corporate entities. That doesn't mean we should allow or accept those reasons.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 26 Mar 2019 @ 7:14pm
Re:
Unless the Parliament comes to it's senses and declares the vote null and does a do over, the actual vote is recorded. The next test for the MEP's is the upcoming election. There are two things to watch there, the first is which MEP's lose their seats (compared with how they voted) and the second is what job they get after getting kicked out of office.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 26 Mar 2019 @ 6:44pm
Re:
Since I don't do social media I am more concerned with other kinds of sites, news sites for example, that now allow comments, but won't be able to in the future. I don't do Reddit either, but I understand that they have some issues with some posting infringing content there.
The Mastadon concept is intriguing, I looked into it briefly when it was first mentioned. How that might apply to, well lets consider Techdirt, just as an example, is not entirely clear. Another site that is well known would be YouTube. How might the Mastadon concept apply to that?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 26 Mar 2019 @ 6:36pm
How narrow can he get?
Given that the judge's definition doesn't take TV, Cable, or Radio broadcasters into account, I wonder how he feels about articles that appear on dead tree media's websites but never make the print edition?
The 1st Amendment talks about 'the press' and some argue that means people with printing presses and not journalism in general. That argument left when broadcasting came into being (and was given the protections), first with radio, then with TV, and later with cable. That this judge doesn't understand that it is the activity, rather than the technology involved in distribution tells us how antiquated his thought process is, or that he has some relationship with Lance Gilman that he would rather not be disclosed.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 26 Mar 2019 @ 6:17pm
Re: Re: Re:
I don't know enough about how this stuff works, but I have wondered since the first mention of running out of IPv4 numbers why they didn't just add a couple more sets to the end of the current structure. Ex: xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.yyy.zzz.nnn or something (enough for 30 or 40 numbers for everyone on the planet at the end of this century or something). The changeover might have been a little painful, but a little pain for a short time that gets a long term, or maybe even a permanent solutions seems like a small price to pay.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 26 Mar 2019 @ 6:07pm
Measurement
It will be interesting to watch some of the internet analytics sites as this progresses. Will torrenting go up or down? Will VPN usage go up or down. With a VPN one won't be able to determine the country of origin, but the rate of torrents is probably still recognizable. Maybe there will be no impact, which will show that this entire effort was not worth their time.
Then we should watch box office, book sales, vinyl record, DVD, CD sales, both before and after these actions, especially independents. I wouldn't look for a quick change, as each country still needs to implement a local law, and that will take time. However, once those laws are in place I suspect marketplace changes might happen quickly, and build, one way or another over time.
There is also that small chance that the EU Counsel will deny this, and maybe a smaller chance that down the road some EU court nullifies it all together.
What won't be easily measured is the loss of an individuals ability to post comments, like this one, anywhere in the EU. This won't be because there is anything wrong with such comments (though those that thirst for power and control hate the ability) but that sites that have up till now allowed such comments in the EU will be forced to stop due to the now outrageous burdens place upon them.
Then there is still the possibility that some new protocol or implementation (such as Mike's idea about protocols rather than platforms, something I am still trying to get my head around how little old me might interact with such a system) or something not yet thought of yet will come along and make the kinds of controls authoritarian's have wet dreams about not just impracticable, but impossible.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 26 Mar 2019 @ 10:51am
Disrespect and the lack of law
I am not going to hold my breath or anything, but one day one of our advanced courts will come out and say 'contempt of cop isn't a crime, just stop trying to find ways of justifying it'.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 5:08pm
Re: German politicians for sale. Price: Support for gas pipeline
There is more to that story since electric cars are on the verge of becoming ubiquitous and cheap oil won't do much to slow that down. Now if the quid pro quo was for something in the renewable energy line, I could see how that might make some sense. But, since it is for cheap legacy oil when that will be out of fashion not too far into the future, there has to be something boiling beneath the surface, and it stinks...badly.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 7:59am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For the purpose of this post, let's assume I am a resident of the EU (I'm not) Let's also assume that I wrote this post (I did). I then try to post it to some website within the EU. The upload filters deny my upload for whatever reason (it could be that someone else claims my post or it could be that the filter merely made a mistake). How am I to prove that I am the original author of this post? What effort is reasonable for me to go through to prove I wrote this post? Why should I have to go to any effort to prove I wrote this post?
To me, it appears that Article 13 would require that I should have to go through some kind of shenanigans to prove I wrote this post and did not copy any part of it from anyone else thereby depriving them of some income. Income I am not looking for, nor getting. The fact is, Article 13 assumes guilt, not innocence. While innocent until proven guilty is more of an American concept, and I don't think it exists as a matter of law in the EU (I could be wrong about that) it is still a despicable point of view. Especially when the act isn't criminal in nature.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 24 Mar 2019 @ 6:52am
Re:
Wait! It is possible that the AC is right. There might be some way for Blondie and other over-the-hill artist's where they might be able to leverage their legacy gatekeepers into increasing the cash flow to the artist through Articles 11 and 13 or 17 (as some are now calling it for some reason I cannot fathom as the explanation came without proof). Like maybe agreeing to not sue the shit out of them for withholding royalties due.
Without knowing the details of their contracts or of ongoing negotiations, we might not know about such 'opportunities'. There may be other opportunities as well, but none of them would benefit anyone other than the over-the-hill artist's and/or the legacy gatekeepers, in their struggle to claw back the money wasted when they were rich and foresaw unending income possibilities that...ended. That goes for both the gatekeepers and the over-the-hill artists who no longer do live shows.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 21 Mar 2019 @ 7:39pm
Just wondering, what is the statute of limitations on perjury?
Is there some point system in the FBI or DoJ that gets some perquisites for convictions? If not, the why do they do these things? If there is, why isn't it public?
They work for us, via the Executive branch, but they still work for us. They are sworn to uphold the Constitution, and when they testify in court they swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help their god (something I have a hard time with as my god is not necessarily their god, nor do I classify my god as a god, but that doesn't mean I wont swear to tell the truth).
So anything that isn't the truth is actual perjury. That they perform hand-waving and obfuscation does not make it the truth. Why then, when these types of things come up are not the perpetrators of the inaccuracies (being kind here) brought to justice (again being kind as they are not only perjurers bur failed in their sworn duties as law enforcement officers who did not enforce the law by conjuring evidence) they have failed in their duty?
If is a statue of limitations issue, then that limitation should be removed when it is related to any law enforcement officer and their sworn testimony. They should be liable for their statements, forever. In addition, the court should be required to find that perjury happened and the relevant parties charged, whether they are still engaged in the relevant occupation or not, and if deceased, charged and convicted in absentia. There is no good reason to let the perpetrators of evidence creation go without severe penalties.
There is no such thing as qualified immunity. That is merely a court made up construct that should be shut down by the legislative branch. Not that I expect it, but then the legislative branch frequently disappoints their constituents.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 21 Mar 2019 @ 6:57pm
Confused about confusion when confusing confusing is pertinent
Confusion is inherent in a corporate entity that is looking for confusion, when there is no possibility for confusion in the public. That the corporate entity is confused about confusion isn't the issue. The issue is that the corporate entity is claiming confusion, but is seriously confused about what confusion is, when it comes to a court of law.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 21 Mar 2019 @ 8:36am
Re:
But, but, but, what does that do to their (ISP's talking out of their assholes) claims of needed network management? Will this degrade the Netflix experience? Will it shut out other streaming services because the network cannot actually withstand the volumes? Or will everything work out hunky dory and put lie to the claims for network management needs?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 20 Mar 2019 @ 8:02am
Re: Re: Hmm...
Even better is the colleges' consideration that a law enforcement officer (at whatever level) might be a better judge of an artistic expression, and as to whether it might or might not be obscene, was actually a rational decision. I would be very concerned about having my kids exposed to such an environment.
On the post: Stupid Law Making Assaulting Journalists A Federal Crime Revived By Congress
Sub Rosa Reasons
Isn't this just an underhanded way for the government to try to define who is and who is not a journalist? Accepting that it is the activity rather than the person or organization or method of distribution seems really hard for those with the thirst for power and control.
On the post: Nevada Judge Says Online News Publications Aren't Protected By The State's Journalist Shield Law
Re: Re: How narrow can he get?
That Nevada law may not be inclusive enough to be constitutional, per the US Constitution that is. I don't know if it has been tested at the Federal level at all. Since the US certainly seems to have embraced technology in the progress of news distribution in the past, there is no reason to believe that it won't embrace technology advances in the future.
There are of course reasons for those who crave power and control to want less feedback from those not constrained by compromised corporate entities. That doesn't mean we should allow or accept those reasons.
On the post: Enough MEPs Say They Mistakenly Voted For Articles 11 & 13 That The Vote Should Have Flipped; EU Parliament Says Too Bad
Re:
Unless the Parliament comes to it's senses and declares the vote null and does a do over, the actual vote is recorded. The next test for the MEP's is the upcoming election. There are two things to watch there, the first is which MEP's lose their seats (compared with how they voted) and the second is what job they get after getting kicked out of office.
On the post: Enough MEPs Say They Mistakenly Voted For Articles 11 & 13 That The Vote Should Have Flipped; EU Parliament Says Too Bad
Re:
Since I don't do social media I am more concerned with other kinds of sites, news sites for example, that now allow comments, but won't be able to in the future. I don't do Reddit either, but I understand that they have some issues with some posting infringing content there.
The Mastadon concept is intriguing, I looked into it briefly when it was first mentioned. How that might apply to, well lets consider Techdirt, just as an example, is not entirely clear. Another site that is well known would be YouTube. How might the Mastadon concept apply to that?
On the post: Enough MEPs Say They Mistakenly Voted For Articles 11 & 13 That The Vote Should Have Flipped; EU Parliament Says Too Bad
Re: Blocking won't work
That is true from a user standpoint, but not from a platform perspective.
On the post: Nevada Judge Says Online News Publications Aren't Protected By The State's Journalist Shield Law
How narrow can he get?
Given that the judge's definition doesn't take TV, Cable, or Radio broadcasters into account, I wonder how he feels about articles that appear on dead tree media's websites but never make the print edition?
The 1st Amendment talks about 'the press' and some argue that means people with printing presses and not journalism in general. That argument left when broadcasting came into being (and was given the protections), first with radio, then with TV, and later with cable. That this judge doesn't understand that it is the activity, rather than the technology involved in distribution tells us how antiquated his thought process is, or that he has some relationship with Lance Gilman that he would rather not be disclosed.
On the post: Enough MEPs Say They Mistakenly Voted For Articles 11 & 13 That The Vote Should Have Flipped; EU Parliament Says Too Bad
Re: Re: Re:
I don't know enough about how this stuff works, but I have wondered since the first mention of running out of IPv4 numbers why they didn't just add a couple more sets to the end of the current structure. Ex: xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.yyy.zzz.nnn or something (enough for 30 or 40 numbers for everyone on the planet at the end of this century or something). The changeover might have been a little painful, but a little pain for a short time that gets a long term, or maybe even a permanent solutions seems like a small price to pay.
On the post: Enough MEPs Say They Mistakenly Voted For Articles 11 & 13 That The Vote Should Have Flipped; EU Parliament Says Too Bad
Measurement
It will be interesting to watch some of the internet analytics sites as this progresses. Will torrenting go up or down? Will VPN usage go up or down. With a VPN one won't be able to determine the country of origin, but the rate of torrents is probably still recognizable. Maybe there will be no impact, which will show that this entire effort was not worth their time.
Then we should watch box office, book sales, vinyl record, DVD, CD sales, both before and after these actions, especially independents. I wouldn't look for a quick change, as each country still needs to implement a local law, and that will take time. However, once those laws are in place I suspect marketplace changes might happen quickly, and build, one way or another over time.
There is also that small chance that the EU Counsel will deny this, and maybe a smaller chance that down the road some EU court nullifies it all together.
What won't be easily measured is the loss of an individuals ability to post comments, like this one, anywhere in the EU. This won't be because there is anything wrong with such comments (though those that thirst for power and control hate the ability) but that sites that have up till now allowed such comments in the EU will be forced to stop due to the now outrageous burdens place upon them.
Then there is still the possibility that some new protocol or implementation (such as Mike's idea about protocols rather than platforms, something I am still trying to get my head around how little old me might interact with such a system) or something not yet thought of yet will come along and make the kinds of controls authoritarian's have wet dreams about not just impracticable, but impossible.
On the post: Enough MEPs Say They Mistakenly Voted For Articles 11 & 13 That The Vote Should Have Flipped; EU Parliament Says Too Bad
Re: Re:
Well, one of those things made him blind, and the other drove him off the road.
On the post: Sixth Circuit Affirms First Amendment Protections For Flipping Off Cops
Disrespect and the lack of law
I am not going to hold my breath or anything, but one day one of our advanced courts will come out and say 'contempt of cop isn't a crime, just stop trying to find ways of justifying it'.
On the post: New Report: Germany Caved To France On Copyright In A Deal For Russian Gas
Re: German politicians for sale. Price: Support for gas pipeline
There is more to that story since electric cars are on the verge of becoming ubiquitous and cheap oil won't do much to slow that down. Now if the quid pro quo was for something in the renewable energy line, I could see how that might make some sense. But, since it is for cheap legacy oil when that will be out of fashion not too far into the future, there has to be something boiling beneath the surface, and it stinks...badly.
On the post: Huge Protests Across Europe Protest Article 13; Politician Lies And Claims They Were Paid To Be There
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For the purpose of this post, let's assume I am a resident of the EU (I'm not) Let's also assume that I wrote this post (I did). I then try to post it to some website within the EU. The upload filters deny my upload for whatever reason (it could be that someone else claims my post or it could be that the filter merely made a mistake). How am I to prove that I am the original author of this post? What effort is reasonable for me to go through to prove I wrote this post? Why should I have to go to any effort to prove I wrote this post?
To me, it appears that Article 13 would require that I should have to go through some kind of shenanigans to prove I wrote this post and did not copy any part of it from anyone else thereby depriving them of some income. Income I am not looking for, nor getting. The fact is, Article 13 assumes guilt, not innocence. While innocent until proven guilty is more of an American concept, and I don't think it exists as a matter of law in the EU (I could be wrong about that) it is still a despicable point of view. Especially when the act isn't criminal in nature.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re:
You forget the use of straw in the stalls. Wasn't Hercules once tasked with mucking them out?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: If that's the standard you want to use...
In other words, they want to kill any culture they don't control, past, present, and future.
On the post: Sites Warn EU Users Of Just How Bad Article 13 Will Be
Re:
Wait! It is possible that the AC is right. There might be some way for Blondie and other over-the-hill artist's where they might be able to leverage their legacy gatekeepers into increasing the cash flow to the artist through Articles 11 and 13 or 17 (as some are now calling it for some reason I cannot fathom as the explanation came without proof). Like maybe agreeing to not sue the shit out of them for withholding royalties due.
Without knowing the details of their contracts or of ongoing negotiations, we might not know about such 'opportunities'. There may be other opportunities as well, but none of them would benefit anyone other than the over-the-hill artist's and/or the legacy gatekeepers, in their struggle to claw back the money wasted when they were rich and foresaw unending income possibilities that...ended. That goes for both the gatekeepers and the over-the-hill artists who no longer do live shows.
On the post: Appeals Court Overturns 47-Year-Old Murder Conviction Predicated On Faulty FBI Hair Analysis Evidence
Just wondering, what is the statute of limitations on perjury?
Is there some point system in the FBI or DoJ that gets some perquisites for convictions? If not, the why do they do these things? If there is, why isn't it public?
They work for us, via the Executive branch, but they still work for us. They are sworn to uphold the Constitution, and when they testify in court they swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help their god (something I have a hard time with as my god is not necessarily their god, nor do I classify my god as a god, but that doesn't mean I wont swear to tell the truth).
So anything that isn't the truth is actual perjury. That they perform hand-waving and obfuscation does not make it the truth. Why then, when these types of things come up are not the perpetrators of the inaccuracies (being kind here) brought to justice (again being kind as they are not only perjurers bur failed in their sworn duties as law enforcement officers who did not enforce the law by conjuring evidence) they have failed in their duty?
If is a statue of limitations issue, then that limitation should be removed when it is related to any law enforcement officer and their sworn testimony. They should be liable for their statements, forever. In addition, the court should be required to find that perjury happened and the relevant parties charged, whether they are still engaged in the relevant occupation or not, and if deceased, charged and convicted in absentia. There is no good reason to let the perpetrators of evidence creation go without severe penalties.
There is no such thing as qualified immunity. That is merely a court made up construct that should be shut down by the legislative branch. Not that I expect it, but then the legislative branch frequently disappoints their constituents.
On the post: Fifth Circuit Affirms Springboards To Education's Loss Against Houston School In Trademark Case Appeal
Re: Confused about confusion when confusing confusing is pertine
Confused about confusion when confusing confusion is pertinent
Where is that damned edit button?
On the post: Fifth Circuit Affirms Springboards To Education's Loss Against Houston School In Trademark Case Appeal
Confused about confusion when confusing confusing is pertinent
Confusion is inherent in a corporate entity that is looking for confusion, when there is no possibility for confusion in the public. That the corporate entity is confused about confusion isn't the issue. The issue is that the corporate entity is claiming confusion, but is seriously confused about what confusion is, when it comes to a court of law.
On the post: Slow Broadband, Usage Caps Could Mar Google Stadia's Game Streaming Ambitions
Re:
But, but, but, what does that do to their (ISP's talking out of their assholes) claims of needed network management? Will this degrade the Netflix experience? Will it shut out other streaming services because the network cannot actually withstand the volumes? Or will everything work out hunky dory and put lie to the claims for network management needs?
On the post: Florida College Asked Local Sheriff To Declare Faculty Member's Artwork Obscene
Re: Re: Hmm...
Even better is the colleges' consideration that a law enforcement officer (at whatever level) might be a better judge of an artistic expression, and as to whether it might or might not be obscene, was actually a rational decision. I would be very concerned about having my kids exposed to such an environment.
Next >>