|
Quoting a few short passages for the point of discussion is known as "fair use".
Basing a money-making enterprise on doing nothing but quoting other people's work is illegal.
The fair use laws already exist, and have done since copyright law was invented.
Taking the p1ss out of those laws to make money-for-nothing is hardly following the intent of the law.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Does the EU even have fair use? And it's anybody's guess as to how this will be applied in the context of fair use. It's likely the death of fair use, IMHO.
It's my belief that this will hurt copyright holders, rather than help them.
It's also my observation that this is not about copyright, but about power.
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
TheGreatAndPowerfulOz wrote: Does the EU even have fair use?
Oh, good God.TheGreatAndPowerfulOz wrote: It's my belief that this will hurt copyright holders, rather than help them.
Then your belief is incorrect.
It is already hurting copyright holders, and has been for some time.
Your googles and "based entirely on advertising impressions, rather than creating content" @rseholes are taking away the advrtising revenues that Belong To the copyright holders.
How would you feel about a site that just cloned CP's content, and raked in advertising money every time someone viewed a page -- people who should have viewed the page on CP, thereby supporting CP with advert impressions.
Theft is theft. Don't try to make excuses for thieves.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: Oh, good God.
It was a serious question.
Mark_Wallace wrote: advrtising revenues that Belong To the copyright holders.
So then you'd be ok so long as the Googles and Youtubes and Facebooks of the world didn't have advertising revenue associated with so-called "copyrighted" content?
Nevermind the millions of dollars spent by such sites to build the infrastructure, etc. That's not important at all.  If they have to pay revenues to the copyright holders for the advertising revenue, then they should be able to charge the copyright holders for the costs of providing such exposure to their copyrighted content.
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
Organised crime "empires" spends a fortune on training people how to be thugs, sell drugs, etc.
So what they do is OK, is it?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
non sequitur
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
Not at all.
Your defence of these criminals is that they spend a lot of money to implement their crimes.
Lots of criminals spend more time and effort on committing crimes than they would on living decent lives and doing proper jobs.
I see no difference because there is no difference.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not defending anyone. Point out where I've done that. I've asked questions.
Sorry, but your comparison doesn't follow nor equate. These sites aren't criminal nor are they committing criminal acts. Some users of their platform or "freeway" are committing wrong things, but why should the site be held liable for other people's acts?
It's more like these sites are providing a freeway, some people on that freeway independently display "copyrighted content" on their cars, the site has advertising billboards along the way as the cars travel that freeway and other cars observe the ones displaying the "copyrighted content". So why should the site pay anything to some third-party just because someone else is doing something wrong?
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
TheGreatAndPowerfulOz wrote: why should the site pay anything to some third-party just because someone else is doing something wrong?
It is the site that is displaying copyrighted content, and getting paid for it.
Assisting someone to commit a criminal act is in itself a criminal act.
Getting paid for work that is someone else's copyright is an illegal act.
It would be a trivial matter to vet files that are uploaded, but they don't want to do that, because they are stealing money, and they like it.
They even refuse to take down copyrighted content -- entire TV shows -- if the audio quality is poor.
So they're allowed to steal other prople's work and make money out of it if the sound's a bit tinny?
They are criminals. And if you don't think that you're not defending them and their criminal activities, try reading back what you've written.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
So every telephone network and and internet services provider and anyone else involved in this enterprise including you are criminals. Got it.
Just because I disagree with your extreme, moronic statements doesn't mean I'm defending anyone.
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
Scientists are about to restart the two giant facilities in the United States that register gravitational waves, the ripples in the very fabric of the universe that were predicted by Albert Einstein more than a century ago. They put tin foil on the bunny ears?
|
|
|
|
|
Being a fan of George Smoot, I would have been interested in this (which is why I set it aside o=to veiw later), but, unfortunately, their flagrant disrespect for privacy laws prevents me from viewing the page.
Ne' mind. I'll get the info from somewhere less criminal.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
All EU Android users will get the option to turn down Google Search and Chrome. Because it worked so well last time
|
|
|
|
|
You know... that's Google's revenge for the fine they are getting   
Jokes apart... nice irony.
Microsoft shuts Edge down and adopts Chromium because it sucked and noone was using it.
Google revives Edge to give an alternative to Chrome to avoid monopoly complains.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Is that "turn down" as in "uninstall"?
That would be an improvement.
I've got about 700 chrome updates queued, but I never open it, so why bother? I just want the nagging to stop.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Computer design meets potions class: A little of vial 1 and a little of vial 2 yield six-bit computations encoded in DNA. Now your bugs can have a computer program instead of the other way around
|
|
|
|
|
Then... will we need karpersky instead of gripostat next winter?
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent stuff!
This is the future of computing, not that quantum rubbish (as I predicted in thirty-five years ago[^])
Computers will be grown and bred, not made in environments that are hostile to life, and require all manner of "protection" and exclusion from the real world.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Now that the US government has been ordered to prioritize AI, it's launching a website to promote its AI efforts. I'm sure someone can come up with an appropriate and polite blurb here, but I'm dodging it
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: an appropriate and polite blurb
You will have to wait for Mark Wallace  
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Prioritizing is done by launching a website??
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
It's a hot topic on twitter.
Well, for one twitterator, anyway.
I hear the decree came out after some of POTUS' buddies decided to buy up AI companies...
Let's try that again...
I hear the decree came out after POTUS realised how dumb the US intelligence services are, and figured "Hell, it couldn't be worse!"...
Nope. Third time's the charm?
I hear the decree came out because POTUS heard that computery stuff involved firewalls
Damn! What is wrong with me, today?!?
I hear the decree came out because an AI had been trained to write fake news stories...
Oh, I give in!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Well, we all have a few problems getting our snark online some days
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
The main thing I’d say about computer science is that [programmers] have a self-concept of being totally skills-driven, but if you actually look at employment in computer science, that’s not how it works. Degrees from leading schools really do seem to matter. They really do seem to open doors. Semaphore, or critical section?
A counterpoint to the "Do I need a CS degree?" posts.
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: A counterpoint to the "Do I need a CS degree?" posts.
Most of the people asking that don't read this forum... maybe you should stick that link in the Q&A section
If you do so, don't forget to add the "we don't do your homework" in big fat red letters
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
