The war on Terror - just a vehicle for a power grab? By who?
While the effects of terrorism on people living in Europe is negligible, politicians see it as a convenient means to ratchet up police powers. Anti-Terror laws have been turned into police batons for smashing to pieces human and constitutional rights.
No longer is evidence required to convict people of crimes to send them to prison - a simple allegation that someone MIGHT commit a crime in the future is sufficient to lock them up for a long time, and a simple suggestion that a web site MIGHT contain something illegal (or just inconvenient?) is now sufficient to take the entire site offline, no questions asked (no judge involved who might ask). (German ISP Vodaphone just blocked a site at the request of collection society GEMA, citing some vaguely related old court case as justification).
Qui bono? Who wants this power, and why? Is there an agenda someone is driving, or is this simply bureaucracy out of control, with people getting paid for dreaming up new laws, just in case?
Spotify appears to rake in billions for the music industry, according to a recent Tech Dirt article - an all-you-can-eat-subscription to the tune of $10 per month.
Video streaming started of in a similar way - but keeps fragmenting to a point where users have to pay several subscriptions to access the content they want to watch. The movie industry conducted a study recently concluding that around 22 subscriptions are needed for access to all current soaps and movies. Extra ones for legacy content, and some more for sports.
Even if there were people around who could afford to 250 Dollars a month, they'd get lousy value for money.
Until the industry gets their head around the fact with their reduced role in the internet age, they'll have to accept lower profits, people will resort to piracy since there simply isn't a legal option with acceptable terms.
A similar regulation was passed - with surprisingly litte discussion - in Germany, about a year ago. Some pressure group had conocted a "study" claiming that platforms weren't censoring "illegal" content fast enough. (Illegal as determined by the pressure group, not courts of law).
The law was passed, and evaluated a recently:
Rather than the expected 25.000 complaints, only 714 were filed. Around 90 % were determined to be unfounded, leaving around 60 to be investigated further. (Source referenced below)
We passed a law mandating compulsory censorship infrastructure across all platforms because some pressure group asked for it.
And now, the same on EU level? Is there any sound evidence - beyond the odd anecdote - that terrorist content is widely available and a threat to democracy. Because censorship is, and the least we can expect is a thorough justification for a law with such enormous potential for abuse.
Actually, the copyright/DMCA-part worked just as it should
Someones files a notice, the content is taken down. If the notice is contested, content goes back up, and the original claimant has to prove their claims in court.
Is there really a better alternative?
What's plainly wrong here is Barstool resorting to bullying rather than follow the law. That is not copyright, though. And there are other ways to address that.
The really disappointing part of all this? Barstool's tenacity suggests that the really like Miel Bredouw video. If only they had found ways to express their fondness for her work, this could have been a wonderful story of artists inspiring each other.
Why don't the media have a problem with this witch hunt?
Assange did what every good journalist did - he published information he considered to be relevant to be public, pushing some light into shadier areas of government activity.
Whether one regards Wikileaks formally as a media outlet or not, the bottom line is that the government is going after the messenger.
And that is plainly wrong. And should be a major concern for everybody who is in the business of sharing information.
$150.000 for downloading an .mp3-file worth a few cents
0$ for extorting terminal cancer victims. Plus a hypocrit judge who kicks you in the face and smiles while siding with the extortionists.
Saying "the court should re-evaluate" while doing the exact opposite is the same as a mafia bully saying kicking you the face hurts them more than it hurts you, but sadly is necessary to make you see the light.
...that those "bums on seats", those politicians whose job is essentially to raise their hands when their party leaders tell them to, refer to others as "bots"?
Those politicians need to spend time talking to real people
Not just to each other and to lobbyists.
Us ordinary people will not suddenly vote for Trump just because some idiot labels Hillary Clinton a "crook" on Twitter. We might vote for him if those in charge keep droning on about climate change and saving the frogs while we are worried about losing jobs or getting mugged in the street.
Leave the internet alone and start working on real problems if you are concerned that we might vote for a populist, for BREXIT or for Putin!
It used to be common practice to open an investigation after every shooting, suspicion of wrongdoing or not. After all, someone had been injured or worse, and deserved at least someone looking into the circumstances.
If the FBI still investigates every incident where a shot has been fired, a 98 % clearance rate might actually be good news - even if the odd shooter gets whitewashed when they'd deserve to go to jail.
The Underlying Logic: "National Security" trumps the law. The constitution. And any international agreement you can think of.
Sure, in the long term, we might learn that some of those laws and regulations were there for a reason. And, since we are replacing the rule of law with the rule of whoever has the biggest gun, there may be day when someone else has a bigger gun.
But hey, that is in the long term, long after Trumps re-election. Long after the current politicians retire. And long after the current industry captains execute their stock options.
Unless Napoleon was right: "China is a sleeping lion. Let her sleep, for when she wakes she will shake the world."
When an author signs her rights over to the publisher, they don't have right any longer, they are no longer in equation and have no right to sit at the table.
The argument that they might regain the copyright under some circumstances is irrelevant: a change in copyright ownership has no effect on books sold earlier or rights granted by the previous owner.
FBI agents would have been lynched a few years back ...
... had they been caught reading people's diaries behind their backs.
Pretty amazing how fast it has become the new normal for "security agencies" to consider it a their human right to investigate your most private thoughts on the off-chance that you might blow up a government building at some unspecified point in the future.
All this, let's not forgot, without any evidence that all the spying on Americans and foreigners does actually make the country safer...
Impossibility Of doing business as before and Complying
So far, the large platforms appear to try getting away with not changing data collection and data analysis at all. Instead, they coerce "permission" from customers through elaborate T&C - a practice that has just been fined by French authorities.
If that avenue gets closed, or if noyb's complaint is accepted, it will indeed be difficult to continue collecting insane amounts of data (up to, as has recently been uncovered, camera recordings of people's bedroom in case of Amazon) in the hope of mining some gold nuggets out of them.
The real question is if Google, Amazon, Facebook & co will continue to be viable businesses if they were forced to work with smaller data sets, and possibly more transparent (read public) algorithms.
If Amazon's current "suggestions", and some of their current processes are anything to judge by, restarting their AI-systems from scratch with fewer, better data might actually be an improvement.
... that the very people who have created in Europe an environment that has produced .... exactly no relevant internet platform at all ... now presume to be experts for both the business side of internet platforms (they rake in tons of money by doing nothing relevant at all), and the technical side (easy peasy to make sure nothing illegal is hosted, doesn't even require filters.)
... before it is required to comply with the constitution and its amendments?
The constitution says it is up to courts to decide what is and isn't covered by the first amendment, not by some algorithm.
And once a company reaches a size that they can effectively censor the internet, one might question the presumption in the second paragraph, that "the company has every right to make these calls however they want".
Might be about time for to force Apple to work sustainably
What is going on here - while the rest of the world tries to figure out how to save the planet, Apple specifically designs products that need to be trashed and replaced after a very short time?
Just so the company with some of the highest profit margins on the planet can make even more money?
... where did Rapper 2 Milly get the absurd idea that copyright was about protecting the small people's interest?
Of course dance moves can be copyrighted, just like APIs, tiny sound bytes of larger songs, or words used in newspaper headlines. Those things may have been laughed out of the courts a few years ago. By now, corporate lobbyists and specialized legal teams have convinced politicians and courts that the only limit to copyright is the rightsholder's imagination. Which appears to expand faster than the universe.
The way copyright works, though, would be that EPIC might somehow, accidentally, mix the stolen moves into new ones. And then charge Rapper 2 Milly for performing them on stage. Not other way round!
On the post: European Parliament Moves Forward With 'Terrorist Content' Regulation That Will Lead To Massive Internet Censorship
The war on Terror - just a vehicle for a power grab? By who?
While the effects of terrorism on people living in Europe is negligible, politicians see it as a convenient means to ratchet up police powers. Anti-Terror laws have been turned into police batons for smashing to pieces human and constitutional rights.
No longer is evidence required to convict people of crimes to send them to prison - a simple allegation that someone MIGHT commit a crime in the future is sufficient to lock them up for a long time, and a simple suggestion that a web site MIGHT contain something illegal (or just inconvenient?) is now sufficient to take the entire site offline, no questions asked (no judge involved who might ask). (German ISP Vodaphone just blocked a site at the request of collection society GEMA, citing some vaguely related old court case as justification).
Qui bono? Who wants this power, and why? Is there an agenda someone is driving, or is this simply bureaucracy out of control, with people getting paid for dreaming up new laws, just in case?
On the post: Ironically, Too Many Video Streaming Choices May Drive Users Back To Piracy
Where is the competiton in video streaming?
Spotify appears to rake in billions for the music industry, according to a recent Tech Dirt article - an all-you-can-eat-subscription to the tune of $10 per month.
Video streaming started of in a similar way - but keeps fragmenting to a point where users have to pay several subscriptions to access the content they want to watch. The movie industry conducted a study recently concluding that around 22 subscriptions are needed for access to all current soaps and movies. Extra ones for legacy content, and some more for sports.
Even if there were people around who could afford to 250 Dollars a month, they'd get lousy value for money.
Until the industry gets their head around the fact with their reduced role in the internet age, they'll have to accept lower profits, people will resort to piracy since there simply isn't a legal option with acceptable terms.
On the post: EU's Never Ending Quest To Rip The Internet And Free Expression To Shreds Continues With The Terrorist Content Regulation
Why do we need this in the first place?
A similar regulation was passed - with surprisingly litte discussion - in Germany, about a year ago. Some pressure group had conocted a "study" claiming that platforms weren't censoring "illegal" content fast enough. (Illegal as determined by the pressure group, not courts of law).
The law was passed, and evaluated a recently:
Rather than the expected 25.000 complaints, only 714 were filed. Around 90 % were determined to be unfounded, leaving around 60 to be investigated further. (Source referenced below)
We passed a law mandating compulsory censorship infrastructure across all platforms because some pressure group asked for it.
And now, the same on EU level? Is there any sound evidence - beyond the odd anecdote - that terrorist content is widely available and a threat to democracy. Because censorship is, and the least we can expect is a thorough justification for a law with such enormous potential for abuse.
On the post: A Big Copyright Mess: Miel Bredouw, Barstool Sports, Slob On My Carol Of The Bells And The DMCA
Actually, the copyright/DMCA-part worked just as it should
Someones files a notice, the content is taken down. If the notice is contested, content goes back up, and the original claimant has to prove their claims in court.
Is there really a better alternative?
What's plainly wrong here is Barstool resorting to bullying rather than follow the law. That is not copyright, though. And there are other ways to address that.
The really disappointing part of all this? Barstool's tenacity suggests that the really like Miel Bredouw video. If only they had found ways to express their fondness for her work, this could have been a wonderful story of artists inspiring each other.
On the post: DOJ Moving Ahead With Its Attempt To Prosecute Julian Assange; Subpoenas Chelsea Manning
Why don't the media have a problem with this witch hunt?
Assange did what every good journalist did - he published information he considered to be relevant to be public, pushing some light into shadier areas of government activity.
Whether one regards Wikileaks formally as a media outlet or not, the bottom line is that the government is going after the messenger.
And that is plainly wrong. And should be a major concern for everybody who is in the business of sharing information.
On the post: Court Refuses To Allow Defendant In Copyright Trolling Case To Proceed, But Hints At Reform
$150.000 for downloading an .mp3-file worth a few cents
0$ for extorting terminal cancer victims. Plus a hypocrit judge who kicks you in the face and smiles while siding with the extortionists.
Saying "the court should re-evaluate" while doing the exact opposite is the same as a mafia bully saying kicking you the face hurts them more than it hurts you, but sadly is necessary to make you see the light.
On the post: As EU Politicians Insist That It's All Just 'Bots' And 'Astroturf' Tons Of People Showing Up In Real Life To Protest
Isn't it ironic ...
...that those "bums on seats", those politicians whose job is essentially to raise their hands when their party leaders tell them to, refer to others as "bots"?
On the post: A Conversation With EU Parliament Member Marietje Schaake About Digital Platforms And Regulation, Part I
Those politicians need to spend time talking to real people
Not just to each other and to lobbyists.
Us ordinary people will not suddenly vote for Trump just because some idiot labels Hillary Clinton a "crook" on Twitter. We might vote for him if those in charge keep droning on about climate change and saving the frogs while we are worried about losing jobs or getting mugged in the street.
Leave the internet alone and start working on real problems if you are concerned that we might vote for a populist, for BREXIT or for Putin!
On the post: FBI's Internal Investigations Of Shootings By Agents Clears Agents 98% Of The Time
Just wondering ...
It used to be common practice to open an investigation after every shooting, suspicion of wrongdoing or not. After all, someone had been injured or worse, and deserved at least someone looking into the circumstances.
If the FBI still investigates every incident where a shot has been fired, a 98 % clearance rate might actually be good news - even if the odd shooter gets whitewashed when they'd deserve to go to jail.
On the post: EU Moves Forward With Agreement To Fundamentally Change The Internet From Open To Closed
After the stunning success of SOPA, EU-Regulation was inevitable
SOPA convinced the Tech-Industry to open their wallets and spend insane amounts of money lobbying Congress.
Now, EU-officials want their share of the cake, too.
On the post: As Trump Prepares Ban On Huawei, Few Notice The Major Holes In The Underlying Logic
No holes in the Underlying Logic
The Underlying Logic: "National Security" trumps the law. The constitution. And any international agreement you can think of.
Sure, in the long term, we might learn that some of those laws and regulations were there for a reason. And, since we are replacing the rule of law with the rule of whoever has the biggest gun, there may be day when someone else has a bigger gun.
But hey, that is in the long term, long after Trumps re-election. Long after the current politicians retire. And long after the current industry captains execute their stock options.
Unless Napoleon was right: "China is a sleeping lion. Let her sleep, for when she wakes she will shake the world."
On the post: UK Forum Hands Out Public Records Request-Dodging Guidance To Over 100 Government Agencies
Let's hope these examples will be raised in discussions ...
... next time the nothing-to-hide--nothing-fear - apostles want to ratchet up surveillance laws.
On the post: Authors Guild Attacks Libraries For Lending Digital Books
They want to keep the cake and eat it
When an author signs her rights over to the publisher, they don't have right any longer, they are no longer in equation and have no right to sit at the table.
The argument that they might regain the copyright under some circumstances is irrelevant: a change in copyright ownership has no effect on books sold earlier or rights granted by the previous owner.
On the post: The FBI Says It Can Neither Confirm Or Deny Social Media Monitoring Programs It Publicly Secured Contracts For
FBI agents would have been lynched a few years back ...
Pretty amazing how fast it has become the new normal for "security agencies" to consider it a their human right to investigate your most private thoughts on the off-chance that you might blow up a government building at some unspecified point in the future.
All this, let's not forgot, without any evidence that all the spying on Americans and foreigners does actually make the country safer...
On the post: Max Schrems Files New Privacy Complaints That Seem To Show The Impossibility Of Complying With The GDPR
A small amendment to the headline ...
Impossibility Of doing business as before and Complying
So far, the large platforms appear to try getting away with not changing data collection and data analysis at all. Instead, they coerce "permission" from customers through elaborate T&C - a practice that has just been fined by French authorities.
If that avenue gets closed, or if noyb's complaint is accepted, it will indeed be difficult to continue collecting insane amounts of data (up to, as has recently been uncovered, camera recordings of people's bedroom in case of Amazon) in the hope of mining some gold nuggets out of them.
The real question is if Google, Amazon, Facebook & co will continue to be viable businesses if they were forced to work with smaller data sets, and possibly more transparent (read public) algorithms.
If Amazon's current "suggestions", and some of their current processes are anything to judge by, restarting their AI-systems from scratch with fewer, better data might actually be an improvement.
We may find out soon ...
On the post: EU Parliament Puts Out Utter Nonsense Defending Copyright Directive
Isn't it weird ...
On the post: Google Still Says Our Post On Content Moderation Is Dangerous Or Derogatory
What size/market share does a company need ...
The constitution says it is up to courts to decide what is and isn't covered by the first amendment, not by some algorithm.
And once a company reaches a size that they can effectively censor the internet, one might question the presumption in the second paragraph, that "the company has every right to make these calls however they want".
On the post: Apple Admits The Obvious: User Repairs Harm The Bottom Line
Might be about time for to force Apple to work sustainably
Just so the company with some of the highest profit margins on the planet can make even more money?
On the post: EU's First Attempt At Building A List Of Evil Pirate Sites... Lists Non-Infringing Sites
EU Budget €150 Billion
Yet no money to commission independent research as a basis for legislation that might destroy the internet as we know it:
"6,337 infringing domain names presented by the film industry showed over 30% (2,119) using CloudFlare's services."
On the post: Creators Of Dance Moves Suing Creators Of Fortnite Over Copyright Infringement That Can't Possibly Have Happened
Not as far-fetched as you make it sound, but ...
Of course dance moves can be copyrighted, just like APIs, tiny sound bytes of larger songs, or words used in newspaper headlines. Those things may have been laughed out of the courts a few years ago. By now, corporate lobbyists and specialized legal teams have convinced politicians and courts that the only limit to copyright is the rightsholder's imagination. Which appears to expand faster than the universe.
The way copyright works, though, would be that EPIC might somehow, accidentally, mix the stolen moves into new ones. And then charge Rapper 2 Milly for performing them on stage. Not other way round!
Next >>