Gah! I read this and imagine a big choir just belting it out in full voice, and now I just know it's going to be stuck in my head all day. Thanks a lot!
You think that's bad? Do some research into how many companies that sell opioid painkillers also sell medications used to treat opioid addiction, and then consider the concept of conflict of interest in the light of that knowledge. It's a really ugly picture.
Again, everyone pointed out why you're wrong when you talked about this a bit yesterday. I think a big part of it is that you fundamentally misunderstand the motivations involved. It's not "screw you, I got mine" at all; it's an invocation of the fundamental right of self-preservation.
Under the conditions that currently exist in reality, Europe should be considered infested with a noxious and potentially deadly disease known as "liability," and there is no way to know if any specific European user is a carrier until they've infected your site, at which point it's too late.
Until such time as they manage to eradicate this pestilence from among themselves, the only sane choice is to place the entire EU under quarantine.
It's not much of a disaster if it doesn't last long. So let's look at the historical precedent. The SOPA blackout took all of one day to utterly destroy the bad laws it was targeting. I don't expect that this would be that fast, because in this case we're dealing with a bill that has already been passed, but I don't expect it would take very long either.
First off, people don't need to be "organized" to take the action of voting someone out. I'm not advocating setting up protest marches or anything like that; I'm advocating terminating the political careers of the people who betrayed their constituents.
And second, people organized plenty before Facebook and Twitter existed. Unless you're going to argue that they have literally made people stupider, causing them to become incapable of doing things that people used to be able to do just fine before they were around--and if so, do you really want them to continue to exist?--what's the point of this line of reasoning?
I discussed some of the problems with the "let's all just geoblock Europe" line yesterday.
Yes you did. And everyone (including at least one self-identified EU citizen) pointed out how you were wrong and the guy you were responding to was right.
I should also point out that it's ridiculously ironic of you to use the term "short-sighted" to describe a policy that would cause some short-term pain that would be virtually guaranteed to quickly do away with the problem. Being averse to that pain may as well be the literal definition of "short-sighted!"
Now that the EU's awful Copyright Directive has been passed, it would be easy to give up, and assume that nothing more can be done.
Who's advocating for that? What a lot of people--myself included, but I'm hardly alone on this!--are saying is that it's time for the Internet to say "enough is enough." Geofence the EU, shut down their ability to interact with the sites they're seeking to destroy here, shut them down en masse and make it absolutely clear that if they don't like the way the Internet works, their only alternative is to not use it at all. Make it clear that they need us more than we need them.
Doesn't matter what the press says. Doesn't matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn't matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right.
This nation was founded on one principle above all else: The requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world -- "No, YOU move.”
Another thing: who are all these tens/hundreds of thousands of moderators going to report to? His number seems to be assuming that there is no hierarchy or overhead involved; no management coordinating them, no HR or Payroll people dealing with the details of their employment, etc, and neither does Mike's analysis. So the number of people actually required is significantly higher still!
And that seems backwards to me. If a rightsholder wants to be represented, they can sign up for it. If not, then they don't get the benefits of the program, and the rest of us don't get charged on their (rather dubious) behalf.
It is unique in American law for there to be such an effect like this: in most instances, sanction cannot follow unless and until a court has found there to be actual liability. In fact, when it comes to affecting speech interests it is expressly forbidden by the First Amendment to punish speakers or speech before a court has found specific instances of speech unlawful. To do otherwise – to punish speech, or, worse, to punish a speaker before they've even had a chance to make wrongful speech – is prior restraint, and not constitutional. Yet in the DMCA context, this sort of punishment happens all the time.
Wow, this is exactly what I've been saying on here for years now! Punishment for breaking the law ought to be handed down by a court of law, not a private party, particularly not an interested private party, and especially not the alleged victim! In any other context, we call such behavior "vigilantism" and it's considered highly illegal, largely because of how it leads to exactly the sorts of problematic behavior that we see from private parties under the DMCA.
The entire privatized law system of the DMCA--both the section 512 takedown system and the legitimization and protection of DRM technology--is blatantly unconstitutional and a legal abomination even if the constitution wasn't a thing, and it's a mark of shame on our country that it ever got passed, let alone endured this long! It's time to repeal the DMCA in its entirety. It's long past time.
musician Zoe Keating has noticed that the entire process appears to be rigged to (of course) help divert money to the big music publishers and away from independent artists
"Divert."
As important as it is to call out publishing interests on their continuous abuse of the word "steal" WRT copyright infringement, it's equally important to apply it appropriately instead of using euphemisms. So let's call a spade a spade here: the process is rigged to allow big music publishers to steal money from independent artists. The NMPA has designed a system in which they get to take money that rightfully belongs to independent artists, and stuff their own pockets with it instead. That's legitimate theft.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
Gah! I read this and imagine a big choir just belting it out in full voice, and now I just know it's going to be stuck in my head all day. Thanks a lot!
On the post: Facebook's Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Privacy Week
And in this week's edition of Egg On Your Face(book)...
On the post: Peachtree City Wants To Use Taxpayer Money To Sue Critics Of City Government
typo
*it* has?
On the post: John Oliver Has Famous Actors Act Out The Deposition Richard Sackler Is Trying To Hide
Re: Oh that glorious man...
You think that's bad? Do some research into how many companies that sell opioid painkillers also sell medications used to treat opioid addiction, and then consider the concept of conflict of interest in the light of that knowledge. It's a really ugly picture.
On the post: Google Pays $3.8 Million To Clean Up Its Fiber Mess In Louisville
4 years ago, I wrote about Google's chronic inability to keep useful systems running, and how it might lead to Google Fiber being shuttered once things get difficult or they lose interest.
I really wish I had been wrong.
On the post: EU Parliament Votes To Require Internet Sites To Delete 'Terrorist Content' In One Hour (By 3 Votes)
Re: Re: Geofencing
Again, everyone pointed out why you're wrong when you talked about this a bit yesterday. I think a big part of it is that you fundamentally misunderstand the motivations involved. It's not "screw you, I got mine" at all; it's an invocation of the fundamental right of self-preservation.
Under the conditions that currently exist in reality, Europe should be considered infested with a noxious and potentially deadly disease known as "liability," and there is no way to know if any specific European user is a carrier until they've infected your site, at which point it's too late.
Until such time as they manage to eradicate this pestilence from among themselves, the only sane choice is to place the entire EU under quarantine.
On the post: EU Parliament Votes To Require Internet Sites To Delete 'Terrorist Content' In One Hour (By 3 Votes)
Re: Re:
It's not much of a disaster if it doesn't last long. So let's look at the historical precedent. The SOPA blackout took all of one day to utterly destroy the bad laws it was targeting. I don't expect that this would be that fast, because in this case we're dealing with a bill that has already been passed, but I don't expect it would take very long either.
On the post: EU Parliament Votes To Require Internet Sites To Delete 'Terrorist Content' In One Hour (By 3 Votes)
The case for the rest of the Internet geofencing the EU until they come to their senses continues to get stronger...
On the post: Could Article 13's Upload Filters Be Thrown Out Because Of The EU-Canada Trade Deal CETA?
Re: Re:
First off, people don't need to be "organized" to take the action of voting someone out. I'm not advocating setting up protest marches or anything like that; I'm advocating terminating the political careers of the people who betrayed their constituents.
And second, people organized plenty before Facebook and Twitter existed. Unless you're going to argue that they have literally made people stupider, causing them to become incapable of doing things that people used to be able to do just fine before they were around--and if so, do you really want them to continue to exist?--what's the point of this line of reasoning?
On the post: Could Article 13's Upload Filters Be Thrown Out Because Of The EU-Canada Trade Deal CETA?
Re: Re:
Yes you did. And everyone (including at least one self-identified EU citizen) pointed out how you were wrong and the guy you were responding to was right.
I should also point out that it's ridiculously ironic of you to use the term "short-sighted" to describe a policy that would cause some short-term pain that would be virtually guaranteed to quickly do away with the problem. Being averse to that pain may as well be the literal definition of "short-sighted!"
On the post: As Expected, EU Nations Rubber Stamp EU Copyright Directive
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well yeah, it's Thad. That's what he does.
On the post: Could Article 13's Upload Filters Be Thrown Out Because Of The EU-Canada Trade Deal CETA?
Who's advocating for that? What a lot of people--myself included, but I'm hardly alone on this!--are saying is that it's time for the Internet to say "enough is enough." Geofence the EU, shut down their ability to interact with the sites they're seeking to destroy here, shut them down en masse and make it absolutely clear that if they don't like the way the Internet works, their only alternative is to not use it at all. Make it clear that they need us more than we need them.
On the post: No, YouTube Cannot Reasonably Moderate All Content On Its Platform
Re:
With all due credit to Homer Simpson: "Tech. The cause of, and the solution to, all of life's problems!"
On the post: No, YouTube Cannot Reasonably Moderate All Content On Its Platform
Another thing: who are all these tens/hundreds of thousands of moderators going to report to? His number seems to be assuming that there is no hierarchy or overhead involved; no management coordinating them, no HR or Payroll people dealing with the details of their employment, etc, and neither does Mike's analysis. So the number of people actually required is significantly higher still!
On the post: Legacy Music Industry Shouldn't Get To Watch Over The Royalties Of Independent Songwriters
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And that seems backwards to me. If a rightsholder wants to be represented, they can sign up for it. If not, then they don't get the benefits of the program, and the rest of us don't get charged on their (rather dubious) behalf.
On the post: Wherein The Copia Institute Updates The Copyright Office On The First Amendment Problems With The DMCA
Wow, this is exactly what I've been saying on here for years now! Punishment for breaking the law ought to be handed down by a court of law, not a private party, particularly not an interested private party, and especially not the alleged victim! In any other context, we call such behavior "vigilantism" and it's considered highly illegal, largely because of how it leads to exactly the sorts of problematic behavior that we see from private parties under the DMCA.
The entire privatized law system of the DMCA--both the section 512 takedown system and the legitimization and protection of DRM technology--is blatantly unconstitutional and a legal abomination even if the constitution wasn't a thing, and it's a mark of shame on our country that it ever got passed, let alone endured this long! It's time to repeal the DMCA in its entirety. It's long past time.
On the post: Legacy Music Industry Shouldn't Get To Watch Over The Royalties Of Independent Songwriters
"Divert."
As important as it is to call out publishing interests on their continuous abuse of the word "steal" WRT copyright infringement, it's equally important to apply it appropriately instead of using euphemisms. So let's call a spade a spade here: the process is rigged to allow big music publishers to steal money from independent artists. The NMPA has designed a system in which they get to take money that rightfully belongs to independent artists, and stuff their own pockets with it instead. That's legitimate theft.
On the post: Game Exclusivity Wars Are Upon Us And Valve's Anti-Review-Bombing Process Is Without A Rip-Cord
Re:
War is peace! Freedom is slavery! Exclusivity is competition!
On the post: Very Little In Trump's 'Bold' New Rural Broadband Plan Is Actually New
I really hope he's gone long before we start talking about 6G...
On the post: Game Exclusivity Wars Are Upon Us And Valve's Anti-Review-Bombing Process Is Without A Rip-Cord
Re: Re:
You've never listened to the podcast, have you? You know, the one where Mike repeatedly describes Techdirt as a news site?
Next >>