https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9TY...em-uploademail
Printable View
and maybe for the most posts from a regular user with 'shouting' thread titles :D :p
I'll declare an interest here - I am all for, and active in, getting better protection for copyright
Sure this legislation has a lot of issues... but so does letting anyone copy anything they like, or say anything they like, [or for that matter pay next to no tax relative to income] - with freedom comes resposibility - Google/Facebook etc need to wake up to this
If they had done a whole lot more than they have been willing to do up to now it may have been different; still if this legislation forces them to do more, that will be good
I do understand that there is a copyright problem, but I don't think it's as much a demon as it's made out to be. We Boomers need to have a better look at how GenX and the Millennials operate instead of passing laws based on our business experiences.
My son got his start by breaking (as of now) article 13 and just today I sent a joke to my sister in the UK that had a picture of a tub of Vanish stain remover on it. WhatsApp just broke the law...and, if I posted it here to show you the example TG could be fined. It strikes me as obvious that some of the laws in this bill were paid for by old business wanting to keep things in the past because they don't understand modern methods. It's more a distribution problem than a copyright problem.
Yes there's a problem. No I don't have an answer, but clearly neither do the law makers in Europe. Let's hope it goes the same route as the stupid law that passed here in Australia a few months ago. I can't remember what it was now, and neither can anyone else.
I’ve not watched the whole thing, but as an inhabitant of Europe I personally feel compelled to raise my hand. Opening with "Congratulations Europe, you've ruined the internet" combined with faux clapping and a forced grin says enough. (Who does he think owns the internet?). If this is all about harming freedom of expression, I can't really see that happening. Btw I believe the two articles referred to in the clip, have been renumbered to Article 15 and Article 17.
Isn't this at heart a matter of perspective? Those who hold copyrights are happy that these will be better protected again and those who have been using copyrighted materials for years now feel slighted?
the regulators are arming themselves with a big stick... this does not mean that it will be used on each and every occasion - just how practical would that be ?
whilst not directly concerned with copyright, here is Mark Zuckerberg [hopefully] starting to face up to responsibility:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47762091
the real issue is getting the internet to do this, and so the more leverage there is the more sectors of the internet are at last getting the message
yes - if something changes there will always be both sides to the argument... but intransigence breeds enforcement - [and putting everything into an us-and-them senario rarely helps anyone]
To my mind copyright isn't really the issue, it's the business model that big business is trying to control. Back as a young man there was a thing called a cassette player that was going to ruin the whole music industry because the public could record the radio. Then VHS that was going to ruin Hollywood and no more movies would be made. Then Napster which...yeah, that was stealing...but it changed the way music hit our ears. An artist no longer needed to send 80 - 90% of sales to the recording label thanks to the Napster model being monetised.
Movies used to take months to reach DVD in the hopes the public would be forced to the cinema, until they started renting out DVDs. Cable TV is in it's death throes, not wholly because of piracy, but also overpricing and gouging. Netflix is now starting to produce some excellent original content.
Back on home turf...when I was a wannabe DJ I toured around asking for gigs. My ultimate goal was Ibiza My son, treading the same boards, relies heavily on social media and the Internet in general. His ultimate goal? Literally anywhere in the World. The playing fields have changed and always will do. Article 13/15/pick-a-number is badly written. They spin it as 'fight against copyright theft' but it's more than likely a fight for control of business strategy.
Using my son as an example. He posts a session online and self promotes to festival organisers with up and coming events looking for fill in sets between headliners. Now, with Article pick-a-number, an old school agent can copyright strike him unless he signs up for 80% of his earnings. And we're back to the 80's where parasitic middlemen make a mint and the artist goes hungry.
The gaming industry changed the way they did business and piracy is now low in that industry. The music and movie industry needs to rethink it's marketing rather than try to hold back progress. If the industry spent as much time, effort and money in moving forward rather than trying to hold on they would probably be far better off than they are. Back in 2006 MC Lars released Download This Song that covers the exact same thing we're discussing here 13 years later.
care to explain this to me in more detail?Quote:
Now, with Article pick-a-number, an old school agent can copyright strike him unless he signs up for 80% of his earnings
I think you are over re-acting
Fair-usage is still going to be possible
What is intended is that those who use others copyright parasitically are going to be at risk
[I leave you to judge whether that covers MEME :p]
This is all just possibilities, but the way the law is written it IS a possibility.
A DJ, complete with legal music, performs a set. That set is then sent/hosted/whatever means to event organisers in the hope they'll catch a gig. In the old days this involved a lot of leg work and by nature was restricted to how far you could travel unless you hired an agent and signed contracts. Now, with this law, there's nothing stopping an agent claiming a copyright infringement and stopping the DJ from posting his set. The platform being used would strike the set in fear of being fined without finding out whether a copyright infringement has actually occurred. It's happening right now on YouTube. The agent could then approach said DJ and offer to do the work for him without being hit by article pick-a-number., Roll back time to my day.
It personally won't affect my son as he hosts his work privately and just sends links. If an infringement notice lands on my desk I can simply ignore it, but that's not the point. The law has massive holes that can most certainly hold back the small up and comers.
I'm sure that practical solutions will be found for those situations. We're not going back to the old days; it's only a readjustment, just as is happening with paid streaming services.
You trust big business much more than I do.
I can remember when supermarkets ran at a loss until the family run corner shops were closed.
I remember McDonalds lobbying the local council to close down the 3am street vendors by promising they would stay open...then promptly closing at 10pm once the vendors had gone.
I remember a gym franchise dropping health and safety complaints on the local grunt and sweat gyms until they were forced to close.
SIPA?
PETA?
I'm pretty sure anything that big business wants won't be to help the little guy.
I wasn't talking about trusting big companies doing the right thing although many big companies do things that make life easier and more enjoyable for customers
I'm not sure why people who have been "stealing" copyrighted items for ever, are now complaining that the copyright holders are ruining the internet. If it belongs to someone else, then either buy the rights to use it, or don't use it - but don't complain that you can no longer steal it!
ok pauland "You win the prize for the most backlinks on TG!"
and handrawn "and maybe for the most posts from a regular user with 'shouting' thread titles :D:p"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
have it your way... you're two veterans here and can easily spot members such as myself... who obviously must have an agenda... (caught me)
I guess what 'thought' was participation, you guys deem something else? Fair enough...
whatever links I can remove, I will.. and I'll be careful with my thread titles in the future... wouldn't want to overstep...
Thanks
Cliff
Can't resist trying to balance things out (and at the same time attempt to feel right clever!). Anyhow, apologies Cliff in advance for this tit-for-tat and tongue-in-cheek posting. ;)
NORTH AMERICA DOES IT AGAIN...
"A country-level comparison reveals that the US is the world leader in image theft."
https://www.copytrack.com/global-inf...t-report-2019/
We Aussie's are an honest bunch. Ned Kelly was an outlier and doesn't count.
Chris I have to agree with Boy re practical solutions
I never had any issues with the UK PRS system myself...
Cliff ;):D
Ben Hall??? Never heard of hm. He was just another outlier anyway. Europeans creating problems when there aren't any. Pfft, Ben Hall, sounds like a European name anyway, bet he wasn't an Aussie at all. One of those ten quid Pommies or criminal thingos you dumped on our best surfing beaches. Nope, we Aussies are as clean as those chimney's you lot used to stuff small children up in 2015 or some such time.
That's the point. Those particular Article laws are NOT practical. Nobody has the tech to police the delivery of data to that degree. Google is a leader, if not THE leader in this type of thing and they've continually stuffed up with their policing on YouTube. Soundcloud lost literally thousands of subscribers when Universal jumped in and the ban hammer was wielded with abandon. You may be looking at it from a purely personal perspective and not how it affects a lot of others from reviewers to cover artists to comedians. Where does it stop?
These 2 articles have simply shifted the problem from one place to another. The small and individual copyright holders will still be floundering, but the large agencies have been handed some heavy artillery. An example is the recent banning of a YouTuber (forget his name) who had a pretty large channel, was monetised and doing very nicely reviewing movies. He gave a poor review of the latest Marvel movie and was hit with a strike...the good reviews stayed. He contested and was hit again. He had no choice but to bow down or lose his channel and income. There are plenty of stories with the same outcome. It's given large corporations the power to decide what is posted.
Let me state once again that I'm not in favour of piracy, but I'm not in favour vigilantes either. Frying pan and fire, and I fear the fire is way larger than the frying pan.
Hell no, I am surely looking at it from the point of view of a lot of others - those who have a legal right to their copyright being protected - can you give me a good reason why their right is less important?
big business - I love it, no bias from me; without google and micrsoft to name but two, big businesses both, my life would be very difficult; google and other social media just have to work with governments to find solutions - and they will once it eats into their bottom line - I don't share your pessimism, but then I probably [guessing here] work a lot closer to them than you do....
I was born in the UK and spent 30 years there. The same 30 years that North Yorkshire was a great example and leader to the rest of the Britain. 0% crime, 0% unemployment, prosperity and peace. Near utopia Yorkshire was. When I arrived in Brisbane the Aboriginals immediately accepted me and we, at last, became a unified nation. Unfortunately, large fires that simultaneously started in the local record departments of both Brisbane and Sheffield have destroyed proof, but I can assure you it's a true story.
My reference to chimney's just shows that what seemed like a good idea to solve a problem at the time, may not seem so good when you calculate the cost to others. Happened in the past? How about sugar cane cane workers, clothing factories and cocoa production? Big business is good? The Sackler's Oxycontin, Skerelli, the Panama papers, Fox News....most big media if it comes to that.
I have to have a break now, my high horse is getting tired of perching on the soap box that's balanced on the roof tops.
Erm... actually I'm a Yorkshireman - my family originally came from York - I stll have relatives Thirsk way, but I was born on the coast, south of Whitby
Sheffield? - lived there for three years - ah but then I was young and had never heard of Nick Clegg [now doing sterling work for Mr Zuckerberg or so we are to believe...]
Brisbane? - slightly too hot and humid for me I'm thinking - last time I was in the waterlilly house at Kew a lady was heard to remark that it was just like a normal day in Sydney - drenched with sweat and trying desperately to keep hold of my phone that was slipping all over, after only 45 seconds in, I decided to stay clear of such uncivilised foreign places - so far so good
:D
Wandering off topic (which I think we did around post 3) Thirsk you say. I have very fond memories of the Black Bull, 47 Sowerby Road, the Beck and the White Horse of Kilburn. Funny how I can remember the Black Bull, but not the name of the young lady that made it so memorable in the first place. The good old days when you didn't need 3 different forms of ID to buy a pint of John Smiths as a 16 year old.
Hanging out at the clock in the market square looking totally cool in my Brutus jeans and Ben Sherman. Nan lived there, hence the many holidays before I was old enough to wander the hallowed grounds of Manchester airport looking for last minute flight deals to somewhere exotic like Benidorm or Corfu.
I'm not from Yorkshire but we had very happy family holidays there, did a lot of walking and only happy memories. We stayed in a guest house in Amotherby.
you'd be lucky to buy beer at 16 now ID or no ID, got to be 18 legally
would that be a paisley ben sherman shirt, I believe I saw a photo of one once.. bit late '60s I'm thinking.. still brutus jeans might be a slight more practical than velvet oxford bags[*] which were also in the photo....
[* for the avoidance of doubt - these are a kind of trouser]
ah Malton way Paul - and you'd be handy for Castle Howard and the Howardian Hills as well as the Kirbymoorside [and the moor] to the north
very nice places to walk
:D Oxford bags. I can think of several meanings for Oxford bags, not all complimentary :D Yes the Brutus would have been Oxfords but the Sherman had to be checks or it wasn't cool. Levi Stay-press were another must have.
I've added a photo to show the beauty and wonderment of Yorkshire life, hope TG doesn't get fined for an inadvertent use of copyright by one of it's users :P
Attachment 123805
Indeed. We visited there with our small children. We decided we'd go for a walk around the grounds (outside the actual grounds) then go inside, so we parked a little distance away and set off around Howard but outside the official grounds. Then we got to the front part of Castle Howard and were rather naughty - we could just walk up a small bank, over a tiny fence and straight into the grounds. That's what we did. We spent our entrance money on an afternoon tea.
Other escapes - doing the tourist thing: catching the steam train then getting off at Goathland and then walking to Grosmont. Walking along old Roman roads, worried about adders under the stones in parts. Flamingoland when it was still relatively undeveloped. York, Scarborough, Whitby - fantastic place for family holidays.
I hope Malton hasn't changed since I was there last.
Don't worry TG community, Yorkshire advertising is now stopped..
You can't be picky who counts and who doesn't! According to Wiki he's a celebrated Australian national icon.
Small world - Amotherby, lovely village, nearly lived there once, and drove through it a couple of weeks ago on my way to Thirsk! And I used to wear Brutus jeans (now it's cheap sweatshop stuff from Asda!).
Hmm... ;)
Attachment 123806
Joking and nostalgia aside, I pulled that photo off a sub reddit. There was no credit to the photographer, no watermark, no copyright notice. How is the average user supposed to know what is, and what isn't public domain?
Jonopen clearly knows how to check the exif, but a dolt like me that just wants to amuse himself on a forum thread wouldn't do that...and I didn't. Now seriously, with Article pick-a-number, who does the photographer aim at?
you broke the forum rules Chris [though you may not remember them if you ever read them] - whether you think that a technicallity or not, TG are laible, should the photographer, were they ever to find out / care and persue it go after them - and that was always so before the new legislation
The problem is, Google don't think of themselves as 'publishers' - TG do [and they are]
I've disgraced the whole nation of Australia by posting a photo clearly taken in the late 70s/early 80s :(
This is where I think the system as a whole needs a reboot. Common sense says that Joe Public is going to be clueless when it comes to photos on the 'Net as it is now. They (me) will be putting equally clueless providers (TG) in the firing line. Instead of simply passing a law that basically says 'if a car is used in a robbery, then the showroom is responsible' they should look into a better way of saying 'hands off'. No, I don't have any ideas or suggestions, but I do know that, logically, neither myself nor TG are responsible; and neither is Reddit. It's hard to say who would have been first to knowingly distribute the photo, and it would be impossible to find out now, 40 years later. It is, however, a ridiculous notion to run around fining every platform it's been on.
Artwork, movies and music are easier to identify (not so much cartoons though...I'll have to ponder more on that) but photos are extremely hard to tell if they're professional or just a lucky one off, especially with today's cameras that can be set to Awesome-No-Matter-What mode.
It's a very tricky problem. I think we should all meet at the Cross Keys in Thirsk and discuss this over a pint and a bag of Pork Scratchings. Jonopen's first round because they ratted me out.
not a fan of cirticular arguments, I currently get more than my fair share in the Brexit ;)
@Paul - we use to go to Castle Howard as kids; last time I was there last summer the grounds were free, or at the very least, freely accessible - there are public rights of way that always made it awkward from a charging point of view anyway - you can stop feeling guilty [if you ever did :D]
Malton is bigger; there is a bypass; new housing estates and service road construction made it a place to aviod if possible when travelling across the Pickering Vale the last 12 months or so, but that means going the long way round - pretty though.. when we were kids a lot of the back roads still had streams running over the road rather than having bridges... or conduits
Sorry about that! (the ratting business) I've just strolled in and I'm at the bar waiting to put things right. The open fire is roaring and there's a great warm atmosphere (smoky, foody, beery aroma).
Even further off topic, but I haven't bought a pint in a pub for quite few years until the other day. Two pints £10.15 (18.72 AUD) - What!!! I gave the barman a tenner thinking I might have enough for another round later, but when he asked for the extra 15p it dawned on me how much prices have changed. The beer was lovely but...