Just in: Articles 11 and 13

Destry · 2019-04-10 07:44:44

michaelkpate wrote #317577:

Currently in the US, Copyright for something created by a person is 70 years from the death of the author, not the publication of the work.

From death of the author is what I meant, sorry. I’m guessing many signatory countries in the Berne Agreement use the ‘70yrs after the author’s death’ measure. But I don’t follow every country’s specific rules.

As for the rest, I trust what you’re saying, but it doesn’t concern me. I’ll keep repeating it: I don’t care about news media or social media platforms. I think news media sold its soul a long time ago and social media has proven itself corrupt. I don’t care about either of those flimflam industries. Burn ‘em down, I say, and throw national television news into the flames too.

colak wrote #317576:

but I think that the net is a much more complex place, behaviourally-wise.

For sure it is, Colak. You are right. Same as human society is behaviourally complex offline. (Offline is where society needs to return its focus, in my useless opinion.)

My oversimplifying the situation was intentional and necessary. If we don’t break it down in fundamental ways to talk about it, then people are easily caught up in making sweeping generalizations. Gloom and doom cries to get others to act incoherently. ‘The sky’s falling’ extremism. The ‘danger’ is coming, people. I think the world is in as much danger as it’s going to get without suddenly exploding. We can only ensure a certain end at this point or do something to make it better. I’m not holding my breath. But that’s a different conversation.

There are the memes which are so important in today’s net culture and activism. There are large curated sites or accounts residing in platforms which can only pass their message through serial copyright infringement. Check out this one for example.

I think the correlation of ‘memes’ and ‘important’ is very subjective. This is less about context and more about individual values. In my opinion, society made a big mistake gulping social media down like a hungry dog — at least as it was rolled and sold.

Crying over internet memes is the least of my worries. Look how valuable those were in 2016. I dread the next US elections, frankly, just for the CO2 it will release, to say nothing of the noise and visual pollution that I’ll have to endure. The world’s biggest clown show. Believe me, the armies of sociopath troll racists are way better at social media memes than we are, and it benefits them more too. I mostly see memes as garbage that clogs up servers and releases carbon. Speaking of clowns, that seems to be Pepe’s new shtick. I’m so glad I’m out of mainstream social media.

In my occasional research into the 19th century, I’m constantly reminded of how society dealt with ‘memes’, if you will, in politics, industry, and so forth, and it was always by artists creating original works (e.g. political cartoons, magazine covers, street sign posters, etc). And these original works were clearly delineated by author, publisher, etc. Other artists did not take these images, change them, and redistribute them for whatever agenda they had. Rather different artists came up with their own art and interpretations in response, or in addition to. Likewise, you didn’t have every numbskull citizen with no art or writing skills stealing your stuff and warping it out of context for questionable agendas. Newspapers were in control and a natural kind of filter. If you didn’t like the socialist rag, you drew for the commie rag, whatever. Minds were swayed (or not) by the skill of a writer to convince in a cogently written argument, not by gaming the intertubes with algorithms and fake news.

colak · 2019-04-10 16:39:03

Well, cultural appropriation of images were there far before the net (think of the punk movement, Duchamp’s Mona Lisa and the objet trouve or even many of Warhol’s silk-prints). Meme’s to me follow this tradition and transport and disseminate it to the net-admittedly unfortunately-through centralised social media.

As much as I agree with you that social media is hugely problematic, as well as over-rated, the fact remains that they became the major platforms where ideas are communicated, be that in a totally unacceptable way where the AI is implanting fake and racist recommendations, eventually actually promoting extremist ideologies. I come from a place that has the highest fb usage/capita but I do not have a fb account and I never did.

In my view, if we are to over-simplify this, there are 2 ways to study social media.

their impact (negative) based on their algorithms
their impact (positive) based on how some users are managing to drive positive change in and information about the physical world.

I think that to date, the negative algorithmic impact far out-weighs any positive issues spread through such platforms. Proper academic evaluations about social media are constantly been produced. To cut to the chase, my view is that more legal restraints have to be put in place regarding the commodification of users, rather than imposing any copyright laws which have already been proven that they seldom help the artists as most of them do not have the necessary money or the know-how to demand their rights.

michaelkpate · 2019-04-10 21:10:54

Destry wrote #317583:

I’ll keep repeating it: I don’t care about news media or social media platforms. I think news media sold its soul a long time ago and social media has proven itself corrupt. I don’t care about either of those flimflam industries. Burn ‘em down, I say, and throw national television news into the flames too.

I can be as critical of the “Mainstream Media” as anyone. But we do actually need some form of reporting so we can find out what is going in the world. Or in our local communities.

For sure it is, Colak. You are right. Same as human society is behaviourally complex offline. (Offline is where society needs to return its focus, in my useless opinion.)

It isn’t useless but I can still remember actually subscribing to a print newspaper and getting it delivered. Going back to that is going to very difficult, especially for young people who have no experience with that.

Believe me, the armies of sociopath troll racists are way better at social media memes than we are, and it benefits them more too. I mostly see memes as garbage that clogs up servers and releases carbon. Speaking of clowns, that seems to be Pepe’s new shtick. I’m so glad I’m out of mainstream social media.

I think The Left can’t meme has been one of the most successful memes the Alt-Right morons have put out.

In my occasional research into the 19th century, I’m constantly reminded of how society dealt with ‘memes’, if you will, in politics, industry, and so forth, and it was always by artists creating original works (e.g. political cartoons, magazine covers, street sign posters, etc). And these original works were clearly delineated by author, publisher, etc. Other artists did not take these images, change them, and redistribute them for whatever agenda they had. Rather different artists came up with their own art and interpretations in response, or in addition to. Likewise, you didn’t have every numbskull citizen with no art or writing skills stealing your stuff and warping it out of context for questionable agendas. Newspapers were in control and a natural kind of filter. If you didn’t like the socialist rag, you drew for the commie rag, whatever. Minds were swayed (or not) by the skill of a writer to convince in a cogently written argument, not by gaming the intertubes with algorithms and fake news.

“Good artists copy; great artists steal.” – Pablo Picasso

jakob · 2019-04-10 21:50:34

Destry wrote #317583:

In my occasional research into the 19th century, I’m constantly reminded of how society dealt with ‘memes’, if you will, in politics, industry, and so forth, and it was always by artists creating original works (e.g. political cartoons, magazine covers, street sign posters, etc). And these original works were clearly delineated by author, publisher, etc. Other artists did not take these images, change them, and redistribute them for whatever agenda they had. Rather different artists came up with their own art and interpretations in response, or in addition to. Likewise, you didn’t have every numbskull citizen with no art or writing skills stealing your stuff and warping it out of context for questionable agendas. Newspapers were in control and a natural kind of filter. If you didn’t like the socialist rag, you drew for the commie rag, whatever. Minds were swayed (or not) by the skill of a writer to convince in a cogently written argument, not by gaming the intertubes with algorithms and fake news.

Have recently translated a fair bit about the time a little later on – pre-Bauhaus developments from turn of the century up to WWI and again directly after – and the avant garde of the day’s social media was a) debates and b) chain letters. There was plenty of riffing off each other, and considerable disagreement too, but, as you say, the means of reproduction were not so widely available, ideas were redrawn / painted / sketched or rewritten, which as a method is creative in itself, and ultimately transformative. It also required time, effort and engagement.

michaelkpate · 2019-04-10 23:31:16

Maybe we do need rules for culture, and maybe we even need laws for culture, but they shouldn’t – and can’t – be the rules we designed for industry. – Cory Doctorow

Destry · 2019-04-11 15:14:41

Regarding the 19th century stuff, I’m not saying there was never any riffing. I’m not that jaded. There are no original ideas, as they say. My point was that it has become way to easy to do it. People who have no purpose or point can, and do now, riff and rip in counter-productive ways for no other reason than the sake of it, en masse, in a carbon-releasing way. For laughs and giggles. For likes and faves. For the shitposting glee of it. It’s gone way beyond value into downright environmentally destructive, ergo destructive to human society. The internet has made the mindless glut possible.

Likewise, I’m not saying the Internet has never been good, though that was a very short and piecemeal window, IMO. As soon as the assholes smelt the money, as Iggy Pop would say, that was the end of it. I don’t want to cross-mix conversations that are out of scope here, but there will be no internet when society collapses. It will be one of the first things to go, I’m quite certain. My point here is that collapse is probably something that should consume human attention more than whether or not we can freely riff on the internet. Making our own newspapers from ad-pulp and sunshine may be a worthwhile skill in a few decades. Viva la solarpunk!

If people have problems with 11 or 13, and it miraculously gets turned around. Good for those who it makes happy. I won’t care either way. I’m neither concerned about nor invested in anything either measure will impact. That’s all I’m saying.

More critical than either 11 or 13, for those who really put weight on this kind of pointless thing, is the Terrorist Content measure, and here’s a good example why. That does concern me more, though there’s nothing I can do about that either. It’s one thing for the Archive to respect requests from site owners to be removed from their archives — and they do honour those requests, I can vouch — but it’s something else for countries to make sweeping demands on content they didn’t even create.

jakob · 2019-04-11 19:12:45

Destry wrote #317595:

Regarding the 19th century stuff, I’m not saying there was never any riffing. I’m not that jaded. There are no original ideas, as they say. My point was that it has become way to easy to do it.

Of course, agree entirely in that respect. And just for the record – because sometimes things perhaps come across differently to how they were meant – I was just adding an anecdote that picked up what you had written earlier; it wasn’t meant in any away as a retort.

Destry · 2019-04-11 20:21:44

jakob wrote #317599:

just for the record – because sometimes things perhaps come across differently to how they were meant

I understood. No worries. I only followed up on that point because all three of you commented on it, so it’s not meant to single any one person out. I always try to use the comment feature when doing that. But I did want to capitalize on that nice word, ‘riff’. ;)

Destry · 2019-04-11 23:35:11

Destry wrote #317595:

I don’t want to cross-mix conversations that are out of scope here, but there will be no internet when society collapses. It will be one of the first things to go, I’m quite certain. My point here is that collapse is probably something that should consume human attention more than whether or not we can freely riff on the internet.

Haha…

Lights Out: Climate Change Risk to Internet Infrastructure

The results of our overlap analysis show that ∼4.1k miles of fiber conduit will be under water and over 1.1k colocation centers will be surrounded by water in the next 15 years. We develop a geo-based metric to assess Internet infrastructure risks in local areas and find New York, Miami and Seattle to be the most vulnerable areas, and that large service providers including Century Link, Intelliquent and AT&T have the most infrastructure risk. We believe that these results highlight a real and present threat to the management and operations of communications systems and that steps should be taken soon to develop plans to address this threat.

h/t to Sacripant for that one.

And that says nothing about all the other low-level municipalities in the world that face the same situation. Nor does it speak to the innumerable other ways — foreseen and yet-realized — our impact on the environment is going to hit back and cripple life as we know it. And that’s just in the next 20 years.

So, yeah, much bigger worries in my book. And just the investment of energy to remediate these problems is more carbon release. But as Jem Bendell and others have already calculated, all the best efforts to stem CO2 and temperature rise won’t make a difference now. We’ve already done the things that will continue to release latent carbon and warm the planet, even if industry stops using oil today (lol), which is impossible.

This is probably worth sharing too, though I think I did once before, 12 reasons why people refuse to address the idea that we’re headed for near-term societal collapse.

Dang, I went off topic.

michaelkpate · 2019-04-15 20:48:02

“With today’s agreement, we are making copyright rules fit for the digital age,” said European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker in a statement. “Europe will now have clear rules that guarantee fair remuneration for creators, strong rights for users and responsibility for platforms. When it comes to completing Europe’s digital single market, the copyright reform is the missing piece of the puzzle.” – EU countries give final approval to copyright reform aimed at Google and Facebook

According to this, the clock doesn’t start on individual member nations until the Official Journal of the EU publishes them. So you guys get to stay online a little longer.

michaelkpate · 2019-09-26 12:38:51

michaelkpate wrote #317577:

I presume something similar will happen in 2021.

I was wrong. This is why everyone should be careful of my predictions.

It isn’t going to happen in 2021. It has already started in 2019.

Google has announced it will not pay European news publishers for the right to show their content on Google News, which will be mandatory under the EU’s new copyright directive that will come into effect next month, The Financial Times reports. France is the first out of the 28 EU member states to implement the new directive, but the law is already off to a rough start. Google has opted for displaying less information to its users, rather than entering into licensing agreements with European publishers. – Google’s unsurprising refusal to pay for news snippets undermines new EU copyright law

For Google, it is a matter of principle.

People trust Google to help them find useful and authoritative information, from a diverse range of sources. To uphold that trust, search results must be determined by relevance – not by commercial partnerships. That’s why we don’t accept payment from anyone to be included in search results. We sell ads, not search results, and every ad on Google is clearly marked. That’s also why we don’t pay publishers when people click on their links in a search result. – Richard Gingras, VP of news at Google.

Bloke · 2019-09-26 12:47:12

Oh dear. What’s the polite way of telling these dickish lawmakers and digital rights behemoths told you so after we campaigned for ages in advance to get the Articles altered so they did make sense and were workable?

colak · 2019-09-26 13:59:05

As always, those who can not afford it will be paying fines left right and centre, and our beloved billionaires, will be laughing all the way to the bank.

michaelkpate · 2019-10-01 12:25:58

I find this ironic.

French and German publishers don’t plan to stand down quietly without a fight. They’re betting on strength in numbers and as such are putting on a united front. The editors of France’s Alliance of the Press of General Information, which represents dozens of publishers, and the European Newspapers Publishers Association both issued statements condemning Google’s move as an abuse of power. Germany’s equivalent body– the Federal Association of German Newspaper Publishers — swiftly followed suit with its own statement of intent to stand with French publishers to challenge the ruling, and challenge Google’s position on antitrust grounds, with the European Commission. – ‘It’s blackmail’: French and German publishers unite to fight Google’s refusal to pay them copyright fees

There is nothing quite like a bunch of companies in two different nations getting together to make a charge on anti-trust grounds against a single company. I am not an expert but I don’t think that is how that works.

towndock · 2019-10-01 14:05:08

Google (and Bing) make snippets from tide tables on our site marineweather.net – and provide them in search results. Google includes snippets from some of our towndock.net stories under the Google Local news section in our area.

They are snippets – not the actual complete content. They include a link. As a publisher, I have no complaints. Rather, I adore this. We get significant traffic from it.

Textpattern CMS support forum

#16 2019-04-10 07:44:44

Re: Just in: Articles 11 and 13

michaelkpate wrote #317577:

colak wrote #317576:

#17 2019-04-10 16:39:03

Re: Just in: Articles 11 and 13

#18 2019-04-10 21:10:54

Re: Just in: Articles 11 and 13

Destry wrote #317583:

#19 2019-04-10 21:50:34

Re: Just in: Articles 11 and 13

Destry wrote #317583:

#20 2019-04-10 23:31:16

Re: Just in: Articles 11 and 13

#21 2019-04-11 15:14:41

Re: Just in: Articles 11 and 13

#22 2019-04-11 19:12:45

Re: Just in: Articles 11 and 13

Destry wrote #317595:

#23 2019-04-11 20:21:44

Re: Just in: Articles 11 and 13

jakob wrote #317599:

#24 2019-04-11 23:35:11

Re: Just in: Articles 11 and 13

Destry wrote #317595:

#25 2019-04-15 20:48:02

Re: Just in: Articles 11 and 13

#26 2019-09-26 12:38:51

Re: Just in: Articles 11 and 13

michaelkpate wrote #317577:

#27 2019-09-26 12:47:12

Re: Just in: Articles 11 and 13

#28 2019-09-26 13:59:05

Re: Just in: Articles 11 and 13

#29 2019-10-01 12:25:58

Re: Just in: Articles 11 and 13

#30 2019-10-01 14:05:08

Re: Just in: Articles 11 and 13

Board footer