The article says how it's "supposed to" work out: with Google being forced to pay European news companies. That's been pretty obvious, with little in the way of room for alternate interpretations, from the start.
That is an answer. I believe that the rule of law, and the rights that it establishes, should forbid attempts by private institutions to infringe upon those rights just as much as it does for similar attempts by public institutions. More so, even, as private institutions do not have the same accountability for their actions as public ones do, and so require a greater degree of scrutiny to balance that out.
Stop twisting my words. At no point did I say it's OK or acceptable; what I said is that the point made by the original commenter that it's far less harmful than what Facebook is doing is correct, and this is why.
To justify that with "well, it catches some bad people" is on a par with jailing all black males under 30 because SOME of them are violent criminals.
...huh? Is anyone actually doing that? Is anyone even advocating doing that?
As far as I know, the answer to both questions is "no." So why are you bringing it up in response to a discussion about things that are really happening?
> There's also the fact that the dash buttons are essentially for commodity items.
Not all of them. I've had Amazon serve me dash buttons for 3D printer filament, for example. For the sort of printing I was doing, there are two major suppliers. One of them makes filament that has a tendency to break without warning during long printing jobs, a fact which I discovered at the expense of a fair amount of time and money. If I wanted to re-order the stuff that actually works well, and got the brittle filament instead, you'd better believe I would be unhappy about that!
Why not? If someone has my location data, they'll learn that I spend most of my time at home or at work, and that I occasionally spend time at restaurants, going to movies, going to church, shopping, training at a local dojo, etc. They might uncover the rather salacious detail that I visit somebody in a town 30 miles away on a semi-regular basis... until a bit of digging reveals that that's my parents' house. Honestly there's nothing particularly ground-shaking there.
But if someone's spying on my conversations and online associations, things I do in the privacy of my own home, that's where my privacy is being invaded. If Facebook starts reporting to people on what sites I visit, what my interests are, who I associate with, etc, they can abuse that in ways that knowing my location would never make problematic.
The report did mention one class of people for which this is not true: apparently this location information is being used by bounty hunters to more efficiently track down fugitives. And, well... why exactly is that a bad thing, to take some of the uncertainty out of hunting down dangerous people, which (among other things) helps them to reduce the risk of anyone getting hurt in the process?
As far as I'm aware, shrink-wrap agreements have been upheld in exactly one US case, in the 9th circuit, and that ruling was utterly wrong as it flies in the face of the Supreme Court's decision in Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, which established the First Sale Doctrine by stating that exactly this kind of contract is completely void and worthless.
Unfortunately, it was not reviewed and overturned by the Supreme Court. Fortunately, I don't live within 9th Circuit jurisdiction.
Terms of service are fine for purely internal matters, but once we start going out into the real world, treating terms of service (or EULAs, which are essentially two versions of the exact same thing) as enforceable gets into all sorts of thorny questions of "private law," which is never a good thing to have.
WRT Amazon's very generous return policy, a couple years ago I ordered several Echos as Christmas presents, around $200 worth of hardware. They supposedly got delivered to my door, but they weren't there when I got home. Fedex GPS tracking confirmed that the deliveryman had in fact come by my place when he said he did, (apparently that's a thing now,) so either the deliveryman or one of my neighbors walked off with it.
I contacted Amazon and reported what had happened, and they re-sent the whole thing free of charge, no questions asked. (I received it this time!)
Then again, a device like that has to be activated to be useful, and I'm sure they had the serial numbers of the Echos on record. Whenever the thief tried to set one of them up, I bet it pinged their fraud department and they knew exactly who to send the cops after. But still, I thought that was really cool of them.
Stop twisting my words. You're claiming I'm saying things I never said.
At no point in this sequence is YouTube being sued. The dispute is always between the record label and the user, and no one else. YouTube is required (by the court, not by the label) to notify the user and allow them to respond. I worded it that way specifically to avoid the dual problems of YouTube being dragged into court for discovery or, more broadly, YouTube or other platforms being required to disclose the identity of a hitherto anonymous user to a party who may be acting as a copyright troll.
I'm not proposing to go back; I'm proposing to go forward. I'm proposing that we learn from the mistakes of the past. One thing that we didn't have in the past, that should be included as a part of repealing the DMCA, is bringing copyrighted content into the CDA 230 fold, such that the platform can't be sued for hosting infringing content.
The user can be sued for hosting infringing content, and the court can order the platform to make the user aware of this, but the intermediary liability itself would be gone. The only liability in copyright would be the obligation to obey court orders to take down content that the court has ruled infringing.
And without the safe harbor laws (because this happened), youtube is found guilty of copyright infringement.
Which is why in the past, when I've brought up the idea of doing away with the DMCA, I've stated that part of fixing it would be to bring copyright under the aegis of CDA 230, making it consistent with all other classes of content.
This all ignores that your route requires treating the courts as the sole mediator
No it doesn't. It's not ignoring that at all; that is the explicit point of the whole thing! The courts, not the platforms and certainly not the alleged victims, should be the one and only authoritative source for deciding if the law has been violated by a certain action. This principle should not change simply because the law that was allegedly violated was copyright law.
First, even though it's already been done, that doesn't contradict the fact that it's very expensive to do. Second, if you have any sort of maintenance, patches, updates, new features, etc, you don't just "write the software once." It's a continuous process.
The point was that they can sell the TVs cheaper because they recoup some of the cost by selling the information about viewing habits.
I'm not sure how much I buy that, though, because those costs they're recouping are balanced out by the costs of developing the smart TV software in the first place. I'm a software developer by profession, and believe me, that kind of work doesn't come cheap!
On the post: Google Shows What Google News Looks Like If Article 11 Passes In The EU Copyright Directive
Re: News?
On the post: Google Shows What Google News Looks Like If Article 11 Passes In The EU Copyright Directive
It kind of is, from a certain point of view. There's a reason the technical term for this kind of behavior is malicious compliance, afterall.
That doesn't mean it isn't kind of awesome. If Europe wants to live by the electronic sword, as it were, then let them die by the same sword.
On the post: Court To Revenge Porn Bro Suing Twitter: You Agreed To Twitter Picking The Courtroom Every Time You Created A New Alt Account
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Ajit Pai Refuses To Brief Congress On What He Plans To Do About Wireless Location Data Scandals
Re: Re: Congress, senate, president...
...and he'll sue anyone who claims otherwise!
On the post: Ajit Pai Refuses To Brief Congress On What He Plans To Do About Wireless Location Data Scandals
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Ajit Pai Refuses To Brief Congress On What He Plans To Do About Wireless Location Data Scandals
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Ajit Pai Refuses To Brief Congress On What He Plans To Do About Wireless Location Data Scandals
Re: Re: Re: Re:
...huh? Is anyone actually doing that? Is anyone even advocating doing that?
As far as I know, the answer to both questions is "no." So why are you bringing it up in response to a discussion about things that are really happening?
On the post: Amazon Dash Buttons Ruled Illegal In Germany For... Making It Too Easy To Buy Stuff
Re: Re: Re:
Not all of them. I've had Amazon serve me dash buttons for 3D printer filament, for example. For the sort of printing I was doing, there are two major suppliers. One of them makes filament that has a tendency to break without warning during long printing jobs, a fact which I discovered at the expense of a fair amount of time and money. If I wanted to re-order the stuff that actually works well, and got the brittle filament instead, you'd better believe I would be unhappy about that!
On the post: Court To Revenge Porn Bro Suing Twitter: You Agreed To Twitter Picking The Courtroom Every Time You Created A New Alt Account
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Ajit Pai Refuses To Brief Congress On What He Plans To Do About Wireless Location Data Scandals
Re: Re:
Why not? If someone has my location data, they'll learn that I spend most of my time at home or at work, and that I occasionally spend time at restaurants, going to movies, going to church, shopping, training at a local dojo, etc. They might uncover the rather salacious detail that I visit somebody in a town 30 miles away on a semi-regular basis... until a bit of digging reveals that that's my parents' house. Honestly there's nothing particularly ground-shaking there.
But if someone's spying on my conversations and online associations, things I do in the privacy of my own home, that's where my privacy is being invaded. If Facebook starts reporting to people on what sites I visit, what my interests are, who I associate with, etc, they can abuse that in ways that knowing my location would never make problematic.
The report did mention one class of people for which this is not true: apparently this location information is being used by bounty hunters to more efficiently track down fugitives. And, well... why exactly is that a bad thing, to take some of the uncertainty out of hunting down dangerous people, which (among other things) helps them to reduce the risk of anyone getting hurt in the process?
On the post: Court To Revenge Porn Bro Suing Twitter: You Agreed To Twitter Picking The Courtroom Every Time You Created A New Alt Account
Re: Re:
As far as I'm aware, shrink-wrap agreements have been upheld in exactly one US case, in the 9th circuit, and that ruling was utterly wrong as it flies in the face of the Supreme Court's decision in Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, which established the First Sale Doctrine by stating that exactly this kind of contract is completely void and worthless.
Unfortunately, it was not reviewed and overturned by the Supreme Court. Fortunately, I don't live within 9th Circuit jurisdiction.
On the post: Court To Revenge Porn Bro Suing Twitter: You Agreed To Twitter Picking The Courtroom Every Time You Created A New Alt Account
Re: Re:
On the post: Infamous Pinkerton Detectives Claim Red Dead Redemption's Use Of Historically Accurate Pinkertons Is Trademark Infringement
Re: Re:
On the post: Amazon Dash Buttons Ruled Illegal In Germany For... Making It Too Easy To Buy Stuff
Re: Re:
WRT Amazon's very generous return policy, a couple years ago I ordered several Echos as Christmas presents, around $200 worth of hardware. They supposedly got delivered to my door, but they weren't there when I got home. Fedex GPS tracking confirmed that the deliveryman had in fact come by my place when he said he did, (apparently that's a thing now,) so either the deliveryman or one of my neighbors walked off with it.
I contacted Amazon and reported what had happened, and they re-sent the whole thing free of charge, no questions asked. (I received it this time!)
Then again, a device like that has to be activated to be useful, and I'm sure they had the serial numbers of the Echos on record. Whenever the thief tried to set one of them up, I bet it pinged their fraud department and they knew exactly who to send the cops after. But still, I thought that was really cool of them.
On the post: Court To Revenge Porn Bro Suing Twitter: You Agreed To Twitter Picking The Courtroom Every Time You Created A New Alt Account
On the post: Hollywood Asks EU To Drop Article 13 Entirely, Because It Might Possibly Have A Tiny Compromise For The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
At no point in this sequence is YouTube being sued. The dispute is always between the record label and the user, and no one else. YouTube is required (by the court, not by the label) to notify the user and allow them to respond. I worded it that way specifically to avoid the dual problems of YouTube being dragged into court for discovery or, more broadly, YouTube or other platforms being required to disclose the identity of a hitherto anonymous user to a party who may be acting as a copyright troll.
On the post: Hollywood Asks EU To Drop Article 13 Entirely, Because It Might Possibly Have A Tiny Compromise For The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not proposing to go back; I'm proposing to go forward. I'm proposing that we learn from the mistakes of the past. One thing that we didn't have in the past, that should be included as a part of repealing the DMCA, is bringing copyrighted content into the CDA 230 fold, such that the platform can't be sued for hosting infringing content.
The user can be sued for hosting infringing content, and the court can order the platform to make the user aware of this, but the intermediary liability itself would be gone. The only liability in copyright would be the obligation to obey court orders to take down content that the court has ruled infringing.
On the post: Hollywood Asks EU To Drop Article 13 Entirely, Because It Might Possibly Have A Tiny Compromise For The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which is why in the past, when I've brought up the idea of doing away with the DMCA, I've stated that part of fixing it would be to bring copyright under the aegis of CDA 230, making it consistent with all other classes of content.
No it doesn't. It's not ignoring that at all; that is the explicit point of the whole thing! The courts, not the platforms and certainly not the alleged victims, should be the one and only authoritative source for deciding if the law has been violated by a certain action. This principle should not change simply because the law that was allegedly violated was copyright law.
On the post: Vizio Admits Modern TV Sets Are Cheaper Because They're Spying On You
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Vizio Admits Modern TV Sets Are Cheaper Because They're Spying On You
Re: Re:
I'm not sure how much I buy that, though, because those costs they're recouping are balanced out by the costs of developing the smart TV software in the first place. I'm a software developer by profession, and believe me, that kind of work doesn't come cheap!
Next >>