EU copytight law madness. It has passed. It will become a reality. - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: R005T3r
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2018, 06:45:00 am
content: I mean,There was a petition not so long ago, and a lot of pepole signed for it. They didn't even care about and this MADNESS has passed... And by the end of 2019 will be implemented in the whole EU!https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/12/17849868/eu-internet-copyright-reform-article-11-13-approvedNow, as it has been written, wikipedia will disappear, the whole youtube world is at stake, online product reviews will be destroyed: you make a bad review of my product, yes? Then is copyright violation, and your review will be taken down. No possibilty to appeal. Soon you cannot even load a product image on ebay... It's just insane. They want google news to be a paid service (and then, all newspaper websites will dissapear from google).Who evaluate the fair use? Not to mention the "upload filter" section: how do you EVEN implement such a thing?As it has been written, you cannot even make a video with a coke in your hands, or you can be fined because of copyright violation. You cannot even post an image of a product of make a selfie if the image contains an advertisment banner.And, you know what really is pissing me off: piracy will not be even touched about this directive, so illegal file sharing will go underground and that is all, boosted by this madness. Not to mention that this would be a great impulse to the Tor project....Soon we will have google.onion...Dark times ahead....

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 13, 2018, 06:51:19 am
content: Certainly are. Thankfully those laws don't apply here, just like America's DMCA :-)

author: Kalvin
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2018, 06:54:14 am
content: Just use non-EU server?

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2018, 07:03:13 am
content: Brexit, either means it won't apply to the UK, good news!Or, not only will it apply to the UK, but we will have lost all votes and capabilities, to change any existing and future EU laws. As we will be still within the EU, to all intents and purposes, despite Brexit.Which of these two scenarios, we (in the UK), will be in, is not known yet. At least as regards the general public.

author: R005T3r
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2018, 07:13:44 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on September 13, 2018, 06:51:19 amThis is worse than DMCA!

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2018, 07:36:54 am
content: From what I've seen in the past, a kid drawing of a black and white picture looking like Mickey Mouse found somewhere on a public domain CD containing hundreds of pieces of public domain software landing the distributor in court with fines which could take them out of business permanently for life. Now this will be done on a grand scale. Imagine if you upload a video of your kids to facebook who just happened to be wearing some clothing containing Disney copyrighted images, you'll be done for...And when I say Disney copyrighted images, just remember how many movies and kid toys and clothing of everything they now own and all that memorabilia they sell.Worse, if you unknowingly purchased a Chinese knockoff, or a video of your kids drawing the wrong thing, now you will automatically get caught, you'll end up in jail....

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2018, 09:27:29 am
content: Quote from: BrianHG on September 13, 2018, 07:36:54 amI've already, partly lost some of my internet access, because of some kind of potentially "silly" rules (I don't know much about it, maybe if I looked into it, I would see some merit from the new rules/laws) or something.I sometimes get a screen (typically from US news sources, via my UK ISP), which says it won't give me any webpages, due to the new GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation ) laws.E.g. I go to the Los Angeles Timesand get ...Quotehttp://www.tronc.com/gdpr/latimes.com/N.B. I know there are ways around it, such as VPN. But I'm trying to make a point about how much worse things can get.Article about it here:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-44614885

author: janoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2018, 09:33:53 am
content: Hold the panic, it didn't "pass" yet. All that has passed is that the parliament has agreed to consider the text. While bad it is not lost yet.The text will now go into the "trilogues" stage that involve the national governments and then there will be another, this time final, parliament vote next year. And then the directive will have to be translated into national law in every country. Only afterwards will the thing come into effect.At all those steps the process can be still affected, amendments introduced and/or it can be stopped altogether. That's why it is important to lobby your MEPs, lobby your national governments andvotein the upcoming EU elections (which most people ignore and then they are surprised what did that evil EU impose on them again!).This also needs much more mainstream publicity than it has today - the media only cover that it will concern only "the giants of the web" - if at all. So an average person has no idea that such law is even being prepared and what its consequences for their daily internet usage could be. That's the only way how to put pressure on the MEPs to do something about it - nobody aspiring for a re-election is going to want to run on the "I broke the Internet" platform.

author: Tepe
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2018, 12:40:00 pm
content: Quote from: MK14 on September 13, 2018, 09:27:29 amYou can blame LA Times for that, not the GDPR.Either the LA Times are hysterical or or they wouldn't give up on violating your right to privacy.

author: bloguetronica
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2018, 01:32:37 pm
content: This only proves that the European Commission is a corporatocracy and not a democracy. I'm getting sick tired of UE bans on everything. There is no freedom of speech, no freedom of opinion, no freedom of though and now no freedom of creativity inside the EU. My two cents.Quote from: Halcyon on September 13, 2018, 06:51:19 amDon't worry. Keep looking at your own interests only, and you'll be affected as well, in no time. Mark my words.Kind regards, Samuel Lourenço

author: ConKbot
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2018, 01:38:12 pm
content: US:we're gonna shit all over the internet with this net neutrality stuff.Europe:Hold my beer/wine/vodka (depending on the country)ǝʇɐɯ NqN ɹno uo ƃuᴉʞɹoʍ llᴉʇS :ɐᴉlɐᴉɹʇsn∀

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2018, 02:27:35 pm
content: Quote from: Tepe on September 13, 2018, 12:40:00 pmI'm still not sure enough about GDPR, to make an informed decision, about it, and how it has been handled.Provisionally, my "TOO MUCH RED TAPE" sensor alerts are twinging a lot. But I'm NOT sure, if GDPR is a good or bad thing and/or if it is too big/complex/over-reaching/over-done etc.But I already have a bad feeling about it, and I'm worried, it is a bad thing, in a number of senses.But to be clear, I'm too uninformed about it, to make up my mind, one way or other, yet.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2018, 02:53:36 pm
content: Quote from: Tepe on September 13, 2018, 12:40:00 pmGiven the gigantic fines the EU has imposed on Microsoft and Google, it is not surprising that a smaller organization would simply disconnect from the EU. Heck, I thought Microsoft should have quit selling Windows of any flavor in the EU the first time they were sued (over Internet Explorer). To expect Microsoft to include a competitor's product on their distribution CDs is absurd!Considering these fines and draconian laws, I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of companies block the EU.I especially don't get the multi-billion Google fine. Of course they rank advertisements, that's how they make money from advertisers. If the EU doesn't like the way Google ranks advertisements, maybe they should just require using a different browser. For an absolute certainty, if I were the head of Google, I would have shut down the EU users a long time ago. They have no "right" to a free product and they should agree to use it the way it comes. But no, the anti- and non-competitive EU wants to tell Google how to run a business. Like they would know... Maybe the EU should just mandate using Opera.

author: R005T3r
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2018, 03:12:38 pm
content: Copytight trolls all over the EU, then.Also, going underground may be the cure for this madness.

author: bloguetronica
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2018, 03:32:25 pm
content: Quote from: blueskull on September 13, 2018, 03:21:04 pmI don't know if you are being sarcastic, but it was the DCMA that brought this insanity. And by the way, the DCMA is not sane, because it doesn't allow fair use, that is, using excerpts of a piece for criticism purposes, for example. The DCMA is pretty much broken, as proven over the years.Kind regards, Samuel Lourenço

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2018, 03:41:54 pm
content: Quote from: ConKbot on September 13, 2018, 01:38:12 pm˥O˥

author: bloguetronica
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2018, 03:58:36 pm
content: Quote from: blueskull on September 13, 2018, 03:35:41 pmYou can bring the fair use act to the table, but we both know what practical effects it had. Zero whatsoever.Kind regards, Samuel Lourenço

author: vodka
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2018, 05:05:08 pm
content: If we want f.. the European Commission, there are giving to support to Viktor Orban.This man is a good hemorrhoid for many euro parliaments.

author: doobedoobedo
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2018, 06:02:01 pm
content: Quote from: bloguetronica on September 13, 2018, 01:32:37 pmHaha. There is nothing democratic about the EU comission. They are appointed. Except for the commission president, but then there's only one candidate put forward and the populous don't get to vote.The parliament is there to give the illusion of some level of democracy, but the parliament's only power is to rubber stamp what's come from the commission.

author: janoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2018, 06:44:09 pm
content: Quote from: doobedoobedo on September 13, 2018, 06:02:01 pmGuys, please, I understand you are pissed, angry and whatever, but at least don't spout this sort of ignorant nonsense.If the parliament's only power was to rubber stamp whatever comes from the commission, then this thread wouldn't exist in the first place. The commission has tried to ram through these draconian copyright laws (and many other things) several times before and it was stopped each time by guess who - the European parliament.When it comes to lawmaking, the parliamentis on equal footingwith the commission and theymust agreeon the version of any text before it can be adopted. Here is how the procedure works:https://europa.eu/european-union/eu-law/decision-making/procedures_enAnd re the commission being unelected - that's not completely true. While we don't elect the commissioners directly, the candidates are selected by the states (through their appointed representatives in the Council of Europe),taking into account the results of the European elections(that's actually part of the Lisbon treaty). Who sits on that council is determined by the governments of the individual states - which are certainly elected as well.Once that is done, all commissioners, including the President,are elected from among the candidates by the European parliament. Typically after a good grilling session and there have been cases when the candidate was rejected by the parliament as unsuitable. (e.g.:https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/slovenia-s-nominee-for-european-commission-rejected-1.1956712)Here is how the Commission works:http://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/25/the-european-commissionAll in all, how the EU functions is not that much different from a normal parliamentary democracy where you elect your MPs and then those select a prime minister (EU commission president) who nominates a government (EU commissioners) which then have to be approved by the parliament again - e.g. in a vote of confidence with the entire government en-bloc, or how it is done in Brussels, one by one.So, please, can we cut this BS now?

author: doobedoobedo
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2018, 07:50:04 pm
content: Quote from: janoc on September 13, 2018, 06:44:09 pmCan we quit this anti-democracy apologist BS now. What you just described bears no resemblance to democracy.You appear top miss the part aboutallmembers of the government being elected by the populous and hence removable by the populous.

author: bson
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 13, 2018, 09:50:45 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on September 13, 2018, 06:51:19 amDMCA is just straight up WIPO, which is an international treaty. Australia is also a signatory to WIPO (http://www.wipo.int/members/en/) so the same rules apply to you. That's its whole point, to create a universal copyright framework. I think you might just be getting caught up in on-line activism, which is dominated by American well-funded activist groups, and agreeing with them and engaging in their campaigns you've failed to note that your own government has agreed to exactly the same. Of course, some countries (e.g. China) are notorious for not enforcing laws; if there's anything the U.S. federal government can be trusted with, it's abiding with law to the letter. (Typically to the point that it's grossly inefficient and can't bend a finger without a team of legal experts reviewing 10000 pages of law and regulations, then formulating a written policy that has to be reviewed and vetted to make sure every committee finds it acceptable.)

author: donotdespisethesnake
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 14, 2018, 06:37:34 am
content: Quote from: bson on September 13, 2018, 09:50:45 pmNo it isn't.It's the Trump Triple:1. Make a false statement2. Blame "outsiders", the UN is a favorite3. If anyone calls out the falsehood, say they are "fake news" planted by the opposition

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 14, 2018, 09:40:52 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on September 13, 2018, 06:51:19 amBut they have flow on effects that impact here.Take the new EU GDPR, only applies to the EU right? Tell that to practically every large company that has rewritten their website privacy rules to align with it. That's why half the websites you have visited in the last few months have this annoying popup about new privacy terms. Or your inbox has been flooded with privacy updates.I've have oneUScompany refuse to advertise on my website (Aussie with server hosted in the US) any more unless I could prove I complied with the new GDPR regulations.

author: Tepe
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 14, 2018, 09:58:25 am
content: Quote from: doobedoobedo on September 13, 2018, 07:50:04 pmYou seem to be overlooking the fact that the commisioners are nominated by the national governments/parliaments.The democracy is indirect, but it is there,

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 14, 2018, 09:59:09 am
content: Quote from: doobedoobedo on September 13, 2018, 07:50:04 pmThe EU is exactly as democratic or undemocratic as Britain. In Britain we don't vote for a government. We vote for MPs who then select a government. Its the same with the EU. The citizens of member states democratically elect people who then select the members of the commission. Love it or hate it, its really the same thing. Do you wish to overturn the British system?

author: R005T3r
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 14, 2018, 12:33:02 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 14, 2018, 09:40:52 amGDPR is a stupid directive, but to some (little) extent I can understand. But this? It's just insanity! I mean, with those conditions, can private users/enterprises still use ebay/their own website in the EU without being fined? Or without having to fear a colossal fine over a petty copytight dispute? Since you cannot even post a photo of a product YOU OWN!It's inexcusable, and ridiculous, and a treachery to those who played by the rules.Think about it: What happens if you do a negative review on a product... Some company owns the copyright, they won't like it and they will take your review down over a "copyright infringement presumption"

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 14, 2018, 02:22:33 pm
content: "Paxman in Brussels - Who Really Rules Us"

author: doobedoobedo
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 14, 2018, 10:33:09 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on September 14, 2018, 09:59:09 amExcept with the British system the government are all directly elected by the people and hence can lose their seats so not the same thing at all.For you to conflate the EU system with the British system must mean either: that you understand nothing about the EU system, or nothing about the British system, or nothing about both.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2018, 12:19:55 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 14, 2018, 09:40:52 amThe GPDR is well worth the price of admission. It's a landslide victory for consumer rights. In the current corporate climate and rapidly evolving technological arena consumers tend to end up with the smelly end of the stick, so having things slanted a bit more in their favour is both very welcome and necessary.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2018, 02:06:49 am
content: Quote from: doobedoobedo on September 14, 2018, 10:33:09 pmWhen Alex Douglas-Home became Prime Minister he had never been elected. As an honourable guy, he sought the first opportunity to be elected, but there in nothing is the rules which enforced that. Among the MPs the electorate has no direct say about which MPs are in the government, and what their roles are. Since our current local MP is not in the government, I have no power as a voter to have any direct say about who is in the government. Just like the EU, I can only vote for my local MP and hope that they act well in influencing who is actually in government.

author: doobedoobedo
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2018, 03:11:43 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on September 15, 2018, 02:06:49 amSo because something could happen (despite several members of the government resigning in protest as in Douglas-Home's case). It'll never happen again. Wikipedia has an awesome quote from a newspaper at the time:QuoteSo to summarise your argument:So this happened once - nobody thought it was a good idea - lets make that what we always do!

author: bitwelder
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2018, 04:25:36 pm
content: Quote from: janoc on September 13, 2018, 09:33:53 amLuckily is not too difficult to go to the EU parliament website, check the roll call for some important votes (like this one), and remember about it at the upcoming election time, or directly question the MEPs about their voting choices.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2018, 04:34:24 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on September 13, 2018, 02:53:36 pmI'm sure they have gone over the numbers and found that they can make more profit by continuing to sell it in the region. They aren't forced to include a competitor's product, that is only because they claimed they could not offer a version without Internet Explorer. Using a position of dominance to push another product is illegal, as it should be. They got slapped hard here in the US too and apparently didn't learn from it.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2018, 04:56:07 pm
content: The EU is a massive market. Companies like Microsoft can't afford to just drop it or leave it to the competition.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2018, 05:28:31 pm
content: Nothing can beat corporate greed. I heard Google might return to China, bending to their Government requirements. Talk about fixing the History at google search level.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2018, 09:38:41 pm
content: Quote from: doobedoobedo on September 15, 2018, 03:11:43 pmNobody thought it was a good idea? I assume the supporters who got Home into the position were OK with it. 1963 was a big year - we moved house and I had to change schools. Politics had its moments, too. It was a very contentious period in the Conservative party, with several people fighting to take over from MacMillan. Home was not even the only Lord contesting the role of Prime Minister at that time. Hyperbole like the Caligula reference was to be expected. Home renounced his peerage on becoming Prime Minister, but the 20th century started with a prime minster who actually lead the government from the Lords.Alec Douglas Home was foreign secretary before becoming prime minister, and that was pretty uncontentious. It has been quite normal for one or two cabinet ministers to be from the Lords, and something like 20% of non-cabinet ministers are typically from the Lords. There are actually no rules requiring ministers to be from either house of parliament, although appointing a true outsider seems to be regarded as bad form.I notice you only responded to the less problematic of the two issues of accountability I raised.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 16, 2018, 09:44:02 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on September 15, 2018, 04:34:24 pmNobody was ever forced to use Internet Explorer, they could just use it once to download Google Chrome and be done with it. If they really disliked IE, they could circulate Chrome on a CD. Nobody was harmed by the inclusion of IE and the fine was absolutely BS. BTW, they knew that IE came with Windows when the bought it. They could have bought something else. Nobody forced them to buy Windows! But no, let's try a chicken**** fine!As I said, were I running Microsoft, I would have pulled out of Europe and left them in the backwoods with Linux. It would have held them back for 20 years (or more).Same story with Google. Before I would pay the crooks of the EU several billion dollars, I would disable the connections to any EU country. Simple as that.And, voila', I'm going to get my way. This ignorant copyright law may force the issue. As I understand it, if Google posts a link to The Guardian in a reply to a search, they are supposed to send money to The Guardian because they own the copyright on the name of the paper. Fine, don't provide those replies. In fact, don't provide replies for any EU company or organization. No reply, no copyright violation! Keep providing replies for companies that pay for the privilege and dump the rest.We're starting to see that idea today where companies won't accept connections from the EU. Good for them!This anti- and non-competitive attitude of the EU is why there is no magic invented in the EU.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 16, 2018, 09:57:22 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on September 16, 2018, 09:44:02 pmIf Microsoft had done that. Would they still exist now, and in 10 or 20 years ?The EU is a huge market place. Probably easily big enough for us, to come up with practical alternatives to windows, and better than Linux, even for people who do not know much about computers.Then, the new EU non-Microsoft "windows", could also be sold in the rest of the world.Hence Microsoft could have had major competition for windows. Which could ultimately, have reduced Microsoft to bankruptcy, with them disappearing forever. Much like all the other computer companies which no longer exist these days.E.g. Radio Shack (they did some early, mainly Z80 computers and stuff).

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 17, 2018, 12:07:26 am
content: Quote from: MK14 on September 16, 2018, 09:57:22 pmThere's no question that the EU hates large US businesses and despite all that there is still no competition for Windows. Linux, on it's best day, represents 2% of the desktop computers. Had Microsoft left EU to Linux, the EU would be stuck 20 years back. Actually, I'm surprised that the EU countries didn't just adopt Linux by edict. "Everybody use Linux".What would have happened had Microsoft pulled back is that the lawsuit would have been dropped or there would have been an uprising from the business world. There were too many businesses invested in Microsoft to have their platform of choice pulled out from under them. In fact, had Microsoft pulled out, how would the EU have collected the fine? What court had jurisdiction over a private US company?In the end, Microsoft probably recovered the fine by raising the prices in the EU. So customers got to pay for something they didn't get. Outstanding! It's pretty clear that the fine didn't harm Microsoft.It isn't the billion dollars, Microsoft could afford that out of the petty cash drawer. It's the principle of the thing. Never pay extortion!

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 17, 2018, 12:27:15 am
content: Quote from: rstofer on September 17, 2018, 12:07:26 amI agree. That sounds about right, and perfectly reasonable.I've heard about similar, unbelievably massive fines for companies like Google. But not really spent time, going into the details of it. Since there are many news items each day, and one has to be selective, about what you spend time looking into detail about, and what you just largely ignore.Google, seem to be a basically good/sound business. Especially compared to companies like Microsoft, which seem to be way, way less friendly to its customers.So I feel sorry for them getting the massive fines, from time to time. Which I don't really understand, as to how Google got handed all these fines.Microsoft probably considered things such as your post, and the longer term picture, and decided to "eat" the fine (accept it).As regards planet Earth (World), I'm disappointed that we haven't, as a massive population (world-wide). Developed a really good operating system, that everyone can benefit from.There is win10, which doesn't really seem better than windows7 (it does have some benefits), in many respects, and seems to have all sorts of negatives, which windows7 didn't have.There are various alternatives, such as various flavours of Linux (which I'm typing this on now!), and other things like openBSD, OSX, Android/Chrome etc etc.But none of them, seem to be as good as, you can probably achieve on a modern PC these days. If this notional/hypothetical super-operating-system was ever created, on a world wide basis. (Or I'm day-dreaming too much!).But in all fairness, Linux is not too bad at all. It is only really let down by certain sets of software (especially games), which don't run very well (or at all) on it and if you get into certain difficulties, it can be a really hard, uphill struggle to sort it out.Whereas windows, with similar problems, would just have been a lot easier to sort out.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 17, 2018, 03:50:52 am
content: I don't feel sorry for them at all. If you want to play the game, you play by the rules, if a company doesn't want to play by the rules then they can face the consequences or they can pull out and another company will step in and take that profit. Big companies have whole teams of lawyers, they knew exactly what they were doing and knew that they might get fined. They gambled on the fine being less than the potential profit to be gained in doing what they did.Microsoft didn't hold a gun to anyone's head and force them to use Internet Explorer, but by bundling the browser with Windows they used their market dominance of the virtual monopoly on Windows to push IE, and usage numbers at the time showed that it worked. Agree with the law or not, that's illegal, they knew the rules, they willfully violated the rules, and they got slapped with a fine over it, boo hoo. Ironically I'd bet that the same people who advocate a corporation should be able to do whatever they please would throw a fit if an individual willfully violated the law and then went around whining for sympathy that the punishment they received was too severe.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 17, 2018, 03:16:02 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on September 17, 2018, 03:50:52 amThe problem or counter argument to that, is that (I'm NOT an expert or even especially knowledgeable about these laws, so could be spouting nonsense) I get the impression. That are lot of the modern laws, by the UK and especially by the EU. Are these wishy-washy laws, that could be applied to almost any business. Because of the woolly, weak/ambiguous way the laws have been written.Analogy:Some forums have some arbitrary rules (I'm NOT referring to this one). Which essentially boil down to that if you say something which the Moderator/Administrator, strongly disagrees with. They can say that is "against the unwritten rules", and delete the offending post(s) and/or lock the thread.When that happens on a forum, it can be annoying, but it is not the end of the world.But when the EU, says "Naughty Google, you should not have done your search results that way, with that advertiser going higher" (or whatever they got fined for). They slam a (think of some mind boggling huge amount), such as $50,000,000,000 fine!For doing something, which on the face of it, does not sound terribly bad and/or many other companies are doing a similar thing, and yet never getting fined for it.tl;drI'm NOT sure if these fines (e.g. Google) are a good or bad thing. I'm undecided.But I accept that if we never fined any business, ever. We could have mayhem and anarchy, so we need to draw the line (law), somewhere/somehow.tl;dr2I really need to read up on the news articles (and other sources) about the big Google/Microsoft fines. Because my relative disinterest in such matters, appears to be adversely affecting my ability to reply to threads like this.

author: Red Squirrel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 17, 2018, 04:21:59 pm
content: IP laws in general are getting so ridiculous. The system is only designed to cater to the rich corporations, it's insane. And they keep making it worse by passing all these laws. What makes it even more absurd is that in lot of cases IP laws are not only enforced internationally (you can get extradited for breaking another country's IP laws) but they also tend to have stronger sentences and faster court time than real crimes that actually harm people, like murder.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 17, 2018, 06:01:03 pm
content: Quote from: MK14 on September 17, 2018, 03:16:02 pmBut nobody is forcing anybody to use Google. Folks in the EU can use any service they wish. Clearly, if they don't like Google ordering search replies by revenue gained from including the reply, they can use something else. Maybe Microsoft Bing using Microsoft Internet Explorer on Microsoft Windows.What Google needs to do is incorporate in their terms of use something along the lines of "this is how we do it, if you don't like it, go elsewhere". And "by using our product, which is free BTW, you agree to our terms and conditions".Nobody was forcing the EU to buy Microsoft Windows which came with a free version of Internet Explorer. Only the EU could find harm in getting something for free! At one point they wanted Microsoft to include on the distribution CD copies of competing browsers. I don't know how that worked out. There is no way in hell that Microsoft should have been compelled to provide a competing product. Only in the EU...The reason was pretty simple: If the competing browser wasn't on the installation CD and Internet Explorer couldn't be included (for free, BTW) on the CD, the end user would have no way to download their chosen browser. They would have had to deal with CDs and some form of secondary distribution. No, they didn't want the free browser, they wanted a competing browser and they wanted Microsoft to hand it to them - plus pay a huge fine.I had always thought that the entire EU would have moved to Linux because it's free. I guess it didn't happen.

author: jmelson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 17, 2018, 09:47:45 pm
content: Quote from: MK14 on September 17, 2018, 12:27:15 amWell, I don't know. Maybe some packages do install more easily on Windows, but I've been running Linux on my desktop for 20 years. There are a FEW apps that are Windows only, I run them under VirtualBox (used to use VMWare, but their PAID customer support is an absolute JOKE).When something doesn't work right on Linux, I can usually look up the solution in less than 5 minutes online. FASTER than a support call!I run a web server at home, and am constantly getting hackers trying to get in through one scheme or another. I haven't been successfully hacked in WELL OVER 10 years. (Yes, I used to not know that much about security, and left some doors unlocked.)Jon

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2018, 02:49:19 am
content: By and large, I'm very pleased with a range of Linux and similar, operating systems.I know there are ways of running windows software on Linux, such as Wine and virtual machines.But I prefer to use real windows, when using software which either doesn't run on Linux natively, or is best run on windows. As the Linux version does not work so well.Also, some hardware, is not so well supported on Linux.E.g. Development kit, whose drivers (if applicable), only support windows. If I remember correctly, various FPGA development stuff, only really supports windows. As does its VHDL/Verilog software utility's as well.Linux is great for servers, development/programming, internet and many other uses. Has easy/free licencing and is much "cleaner" than windows. I.e. It does what it says on the tin.Rather than says "Updating", then 3 minutes later "Updating 2 of 98 updates complete". While one desperately wants to go on the internet.Windows could be really good and useful. But I am extremely disappointed by the way that Microsoft, operates as a company.They seem purely interested in $'s, and NOT interested in creating nice, decent, honest, flexible, useful etc, products for people worldwide.I know business's are business's. But there are nice business's, not so nice business's, and down right horrible business's.I will leave it to any readers of this post, to guess where in that spectrum, I think Micro$oft belongs.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2018, 03:02:25 am
content: Linux may be great for developers but it is nightmare for users, because developers do not give crap to each others work. That is seen as i install a program if breaks some other program(s). How in bloody hell can i use this shit?

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2018, 03:17:32 am
content: Quote from: Bud on September 18, 2018, 03:02:25 amI think that there is a lot of room for improvement, in Linux, as regards installing applications.I agree with you.It is one of my big complaints (although I like (it overall) and use Linux a lot), about Linux.Another complaint, is that it is NOT what I would consider "user friendly", especially for users who are relatively clueless about computers and how to use them.

author: Tepe
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2018, 11:10:14 am
content: Quote from: MK14 on September 18, 2018, 03:17:32 amThere will always be room for improving things, of course. Windows, however is not a paragon of excellence in the software installation - and uninstallation - department.My main beef with the GNU world is the dual abominations autoconf and automake (*shudder*) which have spread like a cancer in the open source world.

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2018, 11:15:50 am
content: Wiki will disappear?As long as you give credits to the source there is absolutely no issue with copyrights.Something that is very often neglected on YouTube.What isn't clear to me is if ths "tax" is just for situations were those sources aren't credited or for all situations.Besides that I do understand the problem, there a numerous websites (like Google) that earn pretty pennies by just simply linking to others.These other people don't even get a cent from it.

author: Tepe
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2018, 11:23:51 am
content: Quote from: b_force on September 18, 2018, 11:15:50 amThat depends on both context and extent.

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2018, 11:42:46 am
content: Quote from: Tepe on September 18, 2018, 11:23:51 amExplain?

author: Tepe
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2018, 12:59:46 pm
content: Quote from: b_force on September 18, 2018, 11:42:46 amThe easiest way to do that might be to simply quote the English language Wikipedia on the "Right to quote":QuoteThe first bullet limits the extent and the third the context. Your comment only approximated the second bullet.As always, your mileage may vary depending of jurisdiction.

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2018, 01:06:04 pm
content: Quote from: Tepe on September 18, 2018, 12:59:46 pmHow has quoting to do with this?I think you're confused with plagiarism instead maybe?Quoting is allowed to some extend yes (like you mentioned), but copying a whole article or idea (on Youtube) is plagiarism.According to Wikipedia it's not a crime, which actually is a false statement.In a lot of countries plagiarism is actually seen as a crime.But you can still "copy" or refer to an article or idea and write or say it in your own words.As long as you give credit to the original source, that is not an issue.

author: Tepe
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2018, 01:56:08 pm
content: Quote from: b_force on September 18, 2018, 01:06:04 pmThanks. Now I get your point.Quote from: b_force on September 18, 2018, 01:06:04 pmIf that is even necessary.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2018, 02:06:05 pm
content: Quote from: Tepe on September 18, 2018, 11:10:14 amI agree windows has its own issues (problems) as well.But partly because I don't know much about autoconf and automake. But especially to keep this thread on topic, I'm going to thank you for your replay, and leave it at that.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2018, 02:30:31 pm
content: Quote from: b_force on September 18, 2018, 11:15:50 amOf course they do! They have some probability that someone will click the link to their site and they gain something from visitors - like Amazon selling billions of dollars worth of stuff.If we're suggesting that the target site is some kind of academic site with nothing to sell, well, the click gets them recognition which is why they put the site up to begin with.There must be some value to having a site included in search results. Otherwise, the web server can tell the bots to ignore the site and move along.The alternative is to have sites specifically opt-in or opt-out of Google responses. Of course that leaves the site in total obscurity if they opt out. Kind of like having a web server and no Internet connection. I suspect the 'dark web' works a lot like that.Google, OTOH, makes their money by including commercial sites that pay a fee. These sites will be at the top of the replies. And that makes sense! If I'm trying to buy something, I will almost always find Amazon at the top of the list. That's because they pay Google to put them there. Billy Bob's Hardware Store, if it is referenced at all, will be somewhere down the list because they didn't pay anything at all. Their site was found by wandering bots. And there was no requirement that Google wander the web looking for his site.That pretty much defines capitalism. You have to spend money to make money. Pay the click fee and you get farther up the list. There's nothing wrong with capitalism. If Billy Bob was smart, he's open an account at Amazon and run his business through their web services. Then even when Amazon was at the top of the list, his site would be linked as another supplier (or maybe the only supplier if his products are unique).I fear that some of these proposals are going to backfire in a really big way. We could wind up with a situation where EU users can't reach US sites at all. It would obviously be a bilateral situation and I might not be able to buy from the EU. This kind of thing isn't going to end well.

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2018, 02:35:56 pm
content: Quote from: Tepe on September 18, 2018, 01:56:08 pmAnd I think that last part is something the EU wants to work on.I can just act as a website that only refers/links other websites.That is totally fine and all, but it's a bit sad when the original writers/owners don't see anything back from it.Especially on such a large scale.It's even worse when someone puts all his time, energy and effort in writing a paper, people just "copy" it and write an article in their own words.The only thing they need to do is refer back to the original article.Mostly this is done by hyperlinking the original article which is embedded in a sentence or so (which most people don't even click on).So yes, I can see that in these situations it's very frustrating for the original creator, since he doesn't see anything back from it.Maybe a little bit of "exposure".So I am not against the proposed idea, but (as always) the implementation is just one big cringe.

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2018, 02:48:25 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on September 18, 2018, 02:30:31 pmWhat"s wrong with it, is that you force people using the same big players over and over again, which makes these big players even bigger.You end up with only a very limited selection of options.That is just completely unfair competition, besides the fact that some people don't wanna support companies like Amazon for other reasons (they aren't the nicest to their employers).So I can totally understand why Billy Bob doesn't want to deal with Amazon.Maybe Billy Bob even has an idea or way of working that is way better than Amazon, and therefore beneficial for everyone?Who knows, but by working this way we will never know or experience.Personally I think it's even unethical that people or companies get benefits just because they have bigger wallets.You will end up with some companies that are way to big and have way to much power.Billy Bob probably things the same.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2018, 08:03:35 pm
content: Quote from: b_force on September 18, 2018, 02:48:25 pmWalmart comes to mind. It demolishes small, inefficient, businesses. You would think that NOBODY would buy from them, knowing what a terrible company they are. Oh, wait! It's about prices! People may not like Walmart but they buy from them based on price alone.On what planet would a no-account company like Billy Bob's Hardware Store (a mythical company in this post) wind up farther up the list of replies than Amazon? He does what, maybe a hundred grand per year? Amazon does a 350 grand per minute. And Amazon's price (or their affiliates price) might actually be lower and I often get the stuff with 'same day delivery'. Of course I'm going to order from Amazon. Just the other day I bought a single item: a box of 12 cheap ball-point pens. I could have driven downtown to get them at Office Max but, no, I just click a few buttons and they showed up the next day. Same for the windshield wipers I needed to replace on my truck. We have half a dozen auto parts stores and the big dealerships. Did I bother to get out of my jammies and drive to one of them? Not a chance. A few clicks and they were here the next day.Funny thing: Amazon's prices are not the lowest around. But free next-day delivery and sometimes same-day delivery makes up the difference. Of course I want them at the top of the list!But that's not the point! What gives some government the right to tell a private business how to run their business as long as they are ethical. The US has gone through company breakups and it hasn't worked out as legislators would have hoped. The breakup of AT&T, the breakup of Standard Oil - these didn't provide any consumer benefit at all. Instead of behaving like good corporate citizens of a larger organization, the new, smaller, entities were now free of corporate shackles and off they went, themselves monopolies.In any event, if somebody thinks they can model Amazon, they're free to enter the market at any time. The problem is, Amazon has a 24 year headstart. And it's going to take a trillion dollar investment to compete.Sure, let's kill off the successful, efficient, businesses and let the incompetent rule. That'll work!

author: Vtile
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2018, 08:18:37 pm
content: I predict a lots of nudity in nature to follow, what the images in the Internet comes for the future.Derp is derp.. and they wonder why the extremist movements gets foothold all over the west.On the other hand looking the long time historical trends we are late for revolution cycle, it must be that generations live at least 25 years longer now.

author: Red Squirrel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2018, 11:07:45 pm
content: Quote from: Bud on September 18, 2018, 03:02:25 amThat and so much fragmentation. There really should be more standards and collaboration so that there is less duplication of work. For example there needs to be a better way of managing software installation. A package should be universal and work on any distro, instead of having to make a package for each and every distro. If we want to encourage big name software to make a Linux port we need to make it easier for them.Also even simple things like settings, I find it's such a mess as if you want to do simple things like manage the screensaver or change GUI settings, it's different on every distro. Oh and don't get me started with how hard it is to actually remove the screensaver on some distros. *caugh* Raspbian.I love Linux, but do agree it still has lot of fixable issues before it can gain more adoption.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2018, 11:30:42 pm
content: Quote from: b_force on September 18, 2018, 11:15:50 amit is very hard to make a robot understand fair use and credits, and a robot is the only realistic way with the amount of data someone like google has to go through.Websites google link to might not like google making money linking to them, but they would like it even less if google stopped linkingto them because that would decimate their traffic

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2018, 11:28:19 am
content: Quote from: Red Squirrel on September 18, 2018, 11:07:45 pmYeah, everyone is just working by themselves on their little island or bubble.Include some personal far fetched subjective choices (that nobody else wants) to the mix and it's a recipe for an half broken system.Don't tell the fanboys because than you're "rude".(a big open community that can't handle critique or feedback)(Yes i have been running linux as my main system for years)

author: metrologist
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2018, 03:18:30 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on September 16, 2018, 09:44:02 pmI never understood the issue with bundling IE. I recall Gates testifying that it was integral to the OS, but still... Notepad, Paint, etc. were also bundled, and no complaint about that? Why?Because what I understood was that MS forced PC OEM's and system builders to exclude competitive browsers as opposed to other software. That is where I think they ran afoul, using their OS market dominance to manipulate the distribution of competitor's products. IE (Edge) still comes with Windows, AFAIK... and there is no issue with that

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2018, 03:32:22 pm
content: Quote from: langwadt on September 18, 2018, 11:30:42 pmThe robot (actually a 'crawler') makes no claims as to knowing about fair use, copyrights or any other concept. It simply says that "over here there is a site that seems related to your query". Crawler doesn't know, doesn't need to know, doesn't care.If the owner of the site doesn't want the crawler to link in their site, they can configure the server to tell the crawlers to ignore the site. Well mannered crawlers will do what is asked. But then the site is left in obscurity. If that's the goal, it's easy to implement.https://www.inmotionhosting.com/support/website/restricting-bots/how-to-stop-search-engines-from-crawling-your-website

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2018, 05:07:52 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on September 19, 2018, 03:32:22 pmI wasn't talking about a crawler that finds links, I was talking about a robot that goes through all user supplied contentand deletes everything that it thinks might be a copyright violation

author: jmelson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2018, 08:06:45 pm
content: Quote from: Bud on September 18, 2018, 03:02:25 amWell, almost my entire family uses Linux, and they hardly NOTICE! The ones who DON'T use Linux use Macs, and that is based on Unix, not really a big difference.I have never seen "this install one program it breaks another program" issue. I have had issues where after years of use and program/library installs, the package manager gets the dependencies fouled up and eventually it is time to install a whole new system. But, that usually takes years to happen.Jon

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2018, 08:18:06 pm
content: Lucky you. I have seen it as mad as requirements to install of some libraries FROM A PARTICULAR REPOSITORY even though it was of A SAME library version as anywhere else. otherwise the program did not work as expected. Some software requires having installed full Development kits which may be enormous size and take hours. This is insane , you know.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 20, 2018, 01:28:38 am
content: Quote from: langwadt on September 19, 2018, 05:07:52 pmThat's going to be a problem. Right now they do some of this by hand. I guess they're going to have to look at every file they serve and review all of the sites they link. A start would be to not serve up music or videos of any kind whatsoever. Perhaps open up the ZIP files to see what's in them or preclude compressed files altogether.But it's not happening in the US (AFAIK) and we have DRM, such as it is. It really doesn't matter what the EU does because our companies can just not accept a connection. Apparently, that is already started.It's going to be fun to watch!

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 20, 2018, 01:38:31 am
content: Quote from: rstofer on September 20, 2018, 01:28:38 amYou said something similar before, but you keep forgetting a few vital things. The EU market is very large and hugely profitable and most US companies operating there are publicly traded. Not accepting connections simply isn't possible because the shareholders won't accept it. It's capitalism in its purest form.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 20, 2018, 02:25:08 am
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on September 20, 2018, 01:38:31 amNor will US subscribers accept reduced replies just because the EU doesn't like them. So it really comes down to separate providers and the EU would really like to create their own Google/Facebook.Reply #6 of this thread mentions that the Los Angeles Times won't accept connections from the EU. Not for this latest copyright issue but from the new privacy laws. As more and more US companies learn about these laws the number of blocking sites will surely increase.The Internet will soon be fragmented - an island here, an island there, no way to do business between them. That's fine, I don't buy a lot out of the EU anyway. Sometimes things from the UK though...

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 20, 2018, 02:39:38 am
content: Quote from: rstofer on September 20, 2018, 02:25:08 amNot many EU residents will be interested in the Los Angeles Times and it has therefore little to lose by blocking access. In short, nobody really cares. If EU residents actually visit a site in relevant numbers it starts losing out when those are blocked. Facebook and Google simply can't afford to do this. Of course, it's trivial to still access whatever website you please even with geoblocking enabled.There are also reports that the GPDR has actually improved the performance and loading times of many websites in the EU, US and elsewhere when accessed from the EU due to numerous tracking facilities being disabled. This can be a difference of many seconds and multiple MBs.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 20, 2018, 05:46:19 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on September 20, 2018, 02:25:08 amMany US media companies have blocked access from outside the US for years, as it generates little advertising revenue for them. The setups are often quite odd. CBS, for example, has gone through periods of blocking access and periods of allowing it. However, when they block access and you use one of the numerous partial VPN tools to bypass the blocking, you are fed ads relevant to your own location. It seems that at some level they are properly set up to get ad revenue wherever you are. Of course, there are issues of geographic control beyond just ad revenue. Many TV shows, and often things like comic strips in newspapers, are only licenced by the media company for distribution in certain markets.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 20, 2018, 09:48:44 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on September 20, 2018, 02:39:38 amThey may not be interested in the LA Times but I read BBC.com and express.co.uk every day. In fact the Daily Express is my favorite source for BREXIT related tidbits. Sure, they sensationalize the headlines but they have more video quotes than any other source I have seen. The DE doesn't seem to have advertising (or my ad blocker kills it) and I don't need to 'join'.Every day...

author: DimitriP
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2018, 03:28:55 am
content: Quoteyou could ( can and always will be able to ) "do business" as long as you know who to call, pay for shipping and "help out" so your stuff doesn't sit at customs too long.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2018, 04:20:35 am
content: The european privacy law is actually a very positive thing, because its safety net in particular is in major conflict with the data collection agenda, in such a way that the two cant find a safe middle ground. But the money involved is astronomical - more than half a million dollars per person (using old figures too) in profits in one service sector, health insurance, alone, if they go commercial so its going to be hard to resist caving in. What they want is information, so they can decide who to insure and who to 'underwrite' i.e. exclude.EU has had its safety net for a long time and much of the information which has been collected is about things which might impact people's ability to buy health insurance in the future, once its collected. Thats how health insurance works. Its really only supposed to be extended to healthy people, before they get sick. So preventing the collection of that data now is the only way to avoid it being used to do things like exclude people with common conditions from health insurance underwriting in the future. Although its been a nightmare here, resulting in millions of people not being able to afford insurance and in many cases being bankrupted, its not new. Europeans aren't remotely prepared for the 'pure' strains of capitalism that are being locked in by international agreements. Allowing wholesale data collection about them will increase profits for sure but it could backfire on the major corporations. So although they likely will grumble they will put up with it at least for now.Much of this data collection and manipulation is actually all about electronics, FPGAs to be specific. "Multilayer Perceptrons" , "Convolutional Neural Networks" and "Recurrent Neural networks" - they will be leading the top firms to profitability, allowing them to be lean and mean. These hardware and software devices will be their bread and butter.. so to speak.The workers of the future will be deep neural networks inside of electronics.Different countries want to maximize their profit making opportunities off of those robots and the applications they run.One fast, cheap, error-prone FPGA board may replace thousands of slow expensive error prone workers.

author: R005T3r
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2018, 12:22:49 pm
content: I don't really think that robots will replace humans in factories, I think it's more like a cooperation between machines and humans rather than a fully automated factory made of robots, but to implement that kind of system will take 50 years or so... Mostly Because it's true that technology change quite rapidly, but not many factories want to make an investment on that sense.Moreover, in automation if you want to change something, things can be quite challenging. Not to mention you need someone reprogramming the software.Robots are made to make the hard work, but their comprehension about "how the work is done" is rather limited, thus, in order to weld or other peculiar work, you need a good welder, period.And this does apply to a lot of other works in a production environment in both heavy and light industry.In my modest opinion the production world is heading in one direction : 0 waste.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 19, 2018, 12:51:42 am
content: 'robots' replacing humans isn't a maybe proposition, its happening everywhere on a large scale. People are too smart and too expensive to have them do 99% of what is done in factories. The emergence of deep learning and associated technologies has the potential to soon eliminate the expensive programming staff and make teaching 'robots' as easy as doing the thing yourself a few times, poof, they will have learned how to do it.Humans aren't kept around for sentimental reasons, they have been utilized solely because until recently they were the only and then the cheapest way to do things. But those days are almost over. It is happening very quickly.Quote from: R005T3r on September 21, 2018, 12:22:49 pmI can see why people really want to believe this. But its not true. Automation is oftentimes much better at jobs than humans because of our large brains. We let our minds drift away and get off track (like I am doing right now)

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 19, 2018, 01:26:46 am
content: Because people cost more than electricity, this is a battle people have already lost. Billions of jobs will likely go away. So governments are all doing different things. Some are rising to the challenge in one way, others in others.People are largely unaware this shift is imminent, but for many its going to be an unsolvable situation.Are governments trying to figure out how to reduce the numbers of people who they feel compelled to help? Maybe.Onerous new laws are one way. Turning people into criminals is a way to disenfranchise large numbers of them.Quote from: R005T3r on September 13, 2018, 06:45:00 am

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 19, 2018, 02:21:28 am
content: Quote from: cdev on October 19, 2018, 12:51:42 amYes, the very fact that we still use humans as workers in many areas (even though automation is progressing fast) is because it's actually much easier to teach people to act like robots than it is to teach robots to act like humans.Obviously, once this either becomes false as AI progresses, or the need to have workers with human traits disappears (both scenarios having an equal probability at this point IMO and are not quite mutually exclusive), there will be no reason left to make humans work. No reason except to enslave them so they don't rebel, that is. So it's entirely possible that all human jobs will become bullshit jobs (yes there's already a significant proportion of those) with no actual value other than to keep people busy.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 19, 2018, 08:36:28 am
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on October 19, 2018, 02:21:28 amIts often just an investment hurdle - i.e. avoiding a large up front investment in equipment - which keeps many people employed. In most cases, if companies are under pressure to move work to another location where labour rates are higher, that will be the prompt which makes them invest in eliminating most of the labour requirement entirely. - i.e. the work will move, but the jobs will disappear.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 19, 2018, 11:32:59 pm
content: They are under pressure to move manufacturing and services to wherever they are cheaper. (or move the cheap workers to the work site, and let them work for what they were paid before)An additional issue is basically one that says that these jobs are more important for economic integration of the developing world than they are for their current holders, who just coincidentally are paid more.Another argument they use is the "comparative advantage" one. Some countries have large numbers of workers who are well educated and willing to work for very little. (instead of needing to make a 'living wage' which is more than it would be elsewhere.)There are many "externalities" as well.But make no bones about it, decent jobs are under systematic attack.The scary thing is that contrary to common sense, all the indigenous (current workers, who are alleged to be 'overpaid') are naively assumed to be able to find other work- but thats very unlikely to happen if this is happening on a mass scale. Instead it will cause an economic disaster. A crash.And as said earlier, the number of jobs which do show up in the other place may be very small. All this churning that the politicos and economists aresoexcited about may end up being seen in retrospect as one of the biggest economic mistakes ever.So, changes could be problematic and disappointing all around.Plus, if employment has all the remuneration sucked out of it - and their replacement workers are so few and/or make so little, who will buy their products?

author: bitman
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 20, 2018, 02:32:51 pm
content: Quote from: metrologist on September 19, 2018, 03:18:30 pmYou both have it wrong here. It wasn't just included - you could not STOP using it. Certain Windows features were tied only to IE and this was the base of the lawsuit. Ie. a competitor could not compete on equal footings with MS. At least according to EU logic which is a completely different topic here.

author: bitman
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 20, 2018, 02:49:56 pm
content: Quote from: Bud on September 19, 2018, 08:18:06 pmYou're doing it wrong then. There's a huge difference between a development environment and execution environment. I really don't know any developers who tries to rely on RPMs to setup their compile/build base. That's the result of their work - not the base of it. The idea of a distribution is to make sure inter-dependencies are taken care of, so the same library can support multiple programs. The moment you're looking at creating content to go into this tree, you start by creating a development structure OUTSIDE the global set of packages/header-files etc. Which means, in one project you may pull down different versions of the libraries from what you pulled down for another project. This is why there are source/library repositories like maven, npm etc. out there - and none of them are built/meant for you to create global system wide configuration changes. They're all focused on the individual developer account.Quite frankly, back in the days when I did use Windows (and OS/2, VMS, RS6000, BS2000 etc) that was the exact same process. Except we didn't have external repositories to easily pull down working versions of libraries we want to use. Just look at good old "Configure/make" type tar-ball designs. It's ALL self-contained!With flatpak, containers in general, all of this is now on getting yet another big tweak - so you setup completely isolated systems inside a core shell of a system. Meaning, the same CPU can run widely different versions of "the os" even if two programs have dependencies of incompatible API/header files - they'll run nicely side by side on the same CPU/Core/Thread.It's been 15+ years since I switched my workstations to Linux all the way. One of the reasons I changed was the stupid notion that every piece of software installed needed to include the same runtime libraries locally. Impossible to patch and be consistent. The development process was still the same. Your project directory had copies of all the dependencies needed to compile and do a local run of the software. How else would you test it? Look at the tons of build systems out there on FOSS projects. They all create mock systems fully created from the development branch - testing all changes to core libraries to a fix of a string that had a spelling error in it.Please don't confuse the -devel packages as the base for core programming. That's the base for high level programs created for THAT specific platform/version. Which ends up as clear references in the generated manifest for the RPM/DEB package created based on that software.And with all that said - the Atmel, ST, mbed stuff I've stumbled across include ALL libraries required for a full build already. It doesn't try to install RPMs/DEBs - but a full structure. That said, how they do it is bad. They think they need to configure global paths and unless you know your system/python etc. you don't need root and can create everything locally from $HOME. If they used FOSS it would be a simple BZ but clearly they're just as focused on Windows as you are and don't seem to care how to improve their process/setup.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 20, 2018, 02:52:39 pm
content: Quote from: bitman on October 20, 2018, 02:32:51 pmThe best thing about that was MS's "We didn't spread IE over all the libraries to create lock in. We're just very very bad engineers" defence.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 22, 2018, 03:40:05 am
content: Quote from: bitman on October 20, 2018, 02:32:51 pmThey never learned either, I recall they locked Cortana in to use only Edge at some point. Not that it matters particularly to me, Cortana is a useless gimmick and Edge has been soundly rejected by the market.

author: rsjsouza
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 14, 2018, 11:44:21 pm
content: Relevant to this:https://9to5google.com/2018/11/13/youtube-article-13-eu-copyright/If it goes ahead as Susan says, it was nice meeting you guys (mikeselectricstuff, techmoan, etc...)

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2018, 12:12:42 am
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on October 19, 2018, 02:21:28 amSuppose the push to create punitive new copyright laws has a purpose. As somebody who knows that artists are being ripped off on a large scale, in a way that makes it almost impossibe for them to win, I am 100% certain that whatever the reason they have for doing this, its not getting artists their money.My nomination is that its exclusionism. They want new laws to replace laws that are showing their age or less effective in their goals than they once were. What those goals are I can only speculate.Its hard to say, but we need to understand the nature of the challenge they are facing. If jobs go away in large numbers, they are either going to have to increase taxesor decrease people. (eligible for help)

author: R005T3r
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2018, 04:20:45 pm
content: No, they don't need to increase taxes or decrease pepole.All they need is a system that works as expected and if everything goes as expected, then they can self-regulate. If we would live in an ideal world, greed would not exist.... Working inside automation i can see that every move manufacturers make is greed-driven, and is that the same greed that it will destroy us all.And greed-driven moves in a large scale have the potential to destroy an entire country or an entire organization as history proved so many times because it backfires.I firmly believe that when a problem arise and people are tired of the situation a solution is always found. It is only a matter of time and efforts. Pepole haven't rebelled in countries not because they are happy with the situation, but because the situation is not so bad...As for robot replacing humans, it's simply not going to work... Imagine a society where no one works and no income. the "market" becomes stagnant and nobody is going to spend their money, go figure if a manufacturer is able to sell their products. It is simply not possible.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2018, 06:45:27 pm
content: The trilemma: (most famously pointed out in recent times by Dani Rodrik but its been floating around for longer as I remember having this pointed out to me by some anonymous Canadian trade negotiator in the mid 1990s.)we can have two of the following three, but not all three.1 democratic governance at the local/state level,2 nation state and independent laws, the norm up until the 1990s, and what most people think we still have, wrongly.3 globalized economic governance - sort of global governance for corporations, it seems in practice, and the so called economic integration it is alleged to bring (and its alleged 'efficiency gains' - of job losses- what you were talking about - saying it wouldnt work, you're totally right, if you mean wont work for people, if people are no longer needed, they are no longer wanted).Those who don't have money to spend, a group which is bound to grow in the coming years unless we drastically change course and start investing more money back into society in the form of education and social services, (both barred by little known international agreements to dismantle them)which would mean taxation which countries are loathe to do because the rich and their money are extremely good at gaming national systems and they will take their money elsewhere or stash it offshore in tax havens.. The deregulation is to puff up the value of economies that are built on imagined wealth and unrealistic valuation. 'Churning' Not actual wealth creation.Technology like electronics is an oasis of actual wealth creation. In terms of economic activity, technology driven wealth is getting cheaper and better, or should be. When it can be done without taking from anybody, and international agreements, as exist should attempt to do the opposite of what they do now. Or nothing. Nothing should be set up to limit democracy because it will always be rigged.that wealth should be shared by all, for example, by limiting certain kinds of patents to ever shorter periods. (because of exponential growth in technology it actually makes sense to have petent terms get shorter and shorter.) certainly, life saving patents of any kind, such as drug patents should never be evergreened.But in many cases it isnt being shared at all. Quite the opposite. We're seeing what amounts to a globalsecond enclosure. (<Reference to the British Enclosure Acts) In the form of trade agreements.The public domain is actually shrinking in almost all respects. Just as natural resources are being looted and land held informally or in commons is being stolen and given to corporations.Technology, democratized could allow poor farmers to stay on their lands, by allowing them to utilize the same productivity enhancing technologies that larger faming operations use, like GPS-assisted agriculture.Technology-democratized could rein in the giants and IF society decided we needed resiliency (and we do) allow small scale e-commerce to be just as efficient as the huge stores. That would preserve jobs.Otherwise, the ordinary people, more and more and more of us, will increasingly be left out to dry without services or education or means to pull themselves upward - without anything - Even jobs will vanish to cheap labor arrangements that game the global wage gradients to cut costs - The common folk are being quietly removed from the picture.Because the system which really they should,we should all own(if we lived in a democracy of by and for the people) is really owned now by a very few and for that reason it fears them and it wants to wash its hands of them and this 'dull care' - its obligation. Noblesse oblige is dead. or dying.Whether that means automation before its really ready, or offshoring and outsourcing of their jobs and means of survival, it is human nature among the wealthy. Emerging from guilt. The common people have a wisdom the wealthy lack and they see through these schemes in a minute.This is why democracy has been quietly subverted by trade agreements. The people of our planet and and their basic human needs, are at best feared by politicians because they show how broken the so called perfect system really is getting for most of us and worse, in countries with high levels of inequality, very likely, the people are more and more likely to become the targets of efforts to marginalize them in large numbers, really mean spirited ones. "Poor is the new black".The whole world really needs an honest discussion about what future we all want (a future which depends on trust which we're rapidly losing) and class, which its never had the guts to have.Instead, enabled by high technology which is making it possible for business to exist without the people it has employed in the past, sacrificing on its altar - what you pointed out, its engine of prosperity, the middle class (and the idea of a middle class) Without a light at the end of the tunnel, for many more, we'll soon be - In some countries, we're already sliding back into the abyss.Nobody in their right minds wants this.Whats happening is happening in no small part because of something, a form of institutional dysfunction, self-reinforcing bad decisionmaking, called'groupthink'.

author: edy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2018, 09:29:07 pm
content: Quote from: BrianHG on September 13, 2018, 07:36:54 amThis is already happening so much with audio it's f*&^$ing ridiculous!I uploaded a video to YouTube when I was on a cruise and there happened to be some background music playing (among lots of people talking and cheering). The music was essentially USELESS to anyone wanting to really "pirate" a good version of the song, it was barely audible and certainly not enjoyable to listen.... YET THE ROBOTS at YouTube copyright infringed my video within seconds of uploading!!!So will YouTube ROBOTS scan every frame of a YouTube video for an infringing image? I don't know... It's only happening with AUDIO because that is an easier pattern match computationally. But as computers get faster and these copyright laws get more draconian, I don't see why it won't happen more and more to EVERYTHING if these laws get out of control.I think we've lost the "spirit" of the law, and going crazy over the "letter" of the law. It is utterly ridiculous!

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2018, 09:37:00 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on November 15, 2018, 06:45:27 pmAre you okay there? You seem to be going off on rants a lot more lately. Are you doing all right?

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2018, 10:29:19 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on November 15, 2018, 10:14:07 pmWhy do you think you're being censored? I can see the full post, I just cut it in my quote because the post itself is not my concern. As far as I can tell I see the same as is in your image.It does illustrate the point I was trying to make, though. You seem quite a bit more ranty and paranoid than usual in threads all over the forum lately. I know people tend to carry tensions and issues from the real world over to the forums, so I'm genuinely a bit concerned about your well-being. I hope you're not in distress or in need of help. We've seen people deteriorate before, which is why I'm asking in response to the change.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2018, 10:50:51 pm
content: Mr. Scram,I'm doing fine. If indeed you deleted the text from my post and posted it as you say, then there is no story. I was mistaken.Online censorship at the network level is very real. If you don't believe me, go to any of the web sites of the NGOs who monitor and tally such things. And indeed, as was pointed out above, its being done by AI software, without human intervention. That isn't speculation, its fact, and Ive had discussions about it with people who are much more knowledgeable about it than we are.Their argument is that the volume of the stuff they are asked to evaluate is so large that there is no way that people could do it all. Also, its a hard job that understandably burns people out. So, what happens is the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater. Most of the time its a mistake and its not intentional. But because of the nature of these tools, its a very blunt instrument.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2018, 10:53:07 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on November 15, 2018, 10:50:51 pmGood to hear you're not in a pickle. Be sure to take care of yourself.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2018, 10:59:07 pm
content: Edy,A wide variety of content is being censored for all sorts of reasons on virtually all of the large web sites.They wont get into the finer details of what is censored or why (they claim its because they dont want to help the bad guys' evade it) but you're right, one of the things thats clearly being done is fingerprinting of copyright content and flagging of any use of it that can be identified. I have read quite a bit about this issue in the computer science literature. (much of it is available to the public if you dig for it.) Google Scholar is a good starting point.They use dedicated AI hardware to develop the censorship tools which makes them difficult at best to audit. In fact, they claim they dont know why things are flagged in a way that is human readable.Its a recipe for disaster. Note, I don't think that the rank and file workers at the large web sites want anything like the orwellian world that is emerging from the widespread use of AI hardware to censor. But whats happening is the building of a system that automatically flags not just bad content, it flags arbitrary things, that might resemble bad content in ways that only a human could distinguish, or should distinguish. But the machines, which may have been trained by people who did have an agenda, sometimes in ways that are not discernible to most people - made decisions at one point to get the AI started. maybe those decisions were arbitrary, but the decisions may propagate and develop a life of their own, so to speak. Maybe the connection the hardware ends up making in a few months or years, is completely wrong. I'll get back to this idea in a minute.But anyway, I have spoken with some of these people. I don't think they are lying to me.Still, these decisions which seem to be made can be interpreted in multiple ways. Its entirely possible, at a higher level, some of this is intentional. But if so, I don't think even middle layer management is aware of whats happening. They feel they are protecting people from smut and racism and evil and they are, in many cases. and I do think thats genuine.(what caused this sudden rise in aggressive net behavior is an open question. Its entirely possible that some people are being paid to be trolls with the express purpose of shutting down what used to be an open net, of ideas, now.)At a lower level I do think some engineers are making arbitrary decisions in the training data they feed into these 'perceptrons' etc. They have admitted as much. Thats a problem but how could it be solved?How did suddenly some of the discussions essential to democracy get made to go away and everybody doing it gets a free pass?Quote from: edy on November 15, 2018, 09:29:07 pm

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 16, 2018, 01:17:58 am
content: Too many people have too much money invested in copyright monopolies* for it to go away anytime soon unless something significant happens (unlikely). Things will just keep getting worse until it all collapses eventually, like it usually does, but probably not anytime soon.* More generally speaking, not just copyright, but intellectual "property" (it is information, not really property at all, but someone has been working hard to make us believe it makes sense to treat information as if it was physical objects.)

author: R005T3r
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 16, 2018, 11:57:00 am
content: Quote from: edy on November 15, 2018, 09:29:07 pmNo it is called watermarking protection.In a song/whatever product you inject a watermark that basically is:1. difficult to delete2. unnoticeable and hidden, generally encrypted or coded inside the data stream3. totally transparent to the userNo, I think it is time to find an alternative to youtube... Demonetization because they want to get all the money themselves and now, everything is copyright infringement, and everything you upload it will be used against you in court. It may be foolish to assume, but I think there are other reasons for youtube to behave that way...

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 17, 2018, 03:13:32 am
content: Quote from: R005T3r on November 16, 2018, 11:57:00 amI don't see that happening, it's not realistic to compete with Google. Can't beat their profit margin due to economy of scale. If net neutrality falls like it looks like it will in the United States internet will transform into cable-tv and then trying to compete with an established service like Youtube (especially a high bandwidth one) will be even less of a possibility. Net neutrality in the US only survived about 4 years, and then it's just going to be a matter of time before EU and everyone else follows suit.It's a slippery slope, the lobbyists keep pounding policymakers relentlessly, ordinary concerned citizens doesn't have enough stamina to keep the special interests at bay year after year. There have been successful campaigns against several draconian copyright proposals in EU before but as is evident by this new law, it's just a matter of time before a new bill comes along, even worse than the last one, and eventually one will pass.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 18, 2018, 01:13:00 am
content: You have to understand the motivators. Big changes are coming that will make most jobs vanish, and the remaining jobs really hard to get.Because only the most complex and difficult tasks will require people. And lots of education. So much that almost nobody who is not wealthy will be able to afford it. But they cant say that to people.They cant say, "we're sorry, you're all going to have a terrible life, but we will live like kings, and we're pulling up the ladders to the top so our children have an easier time of it" to so many people, and get away with it. So they are hiding it under a bunch of chaff. Static.Politicians are deliberately acting like idiots, as part of this greater cause. To divide and conquer. To hide reality and prevent the discussion that really needs to happen from ever going on. Until its too late.

author: Ranayna
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2019, 12:58:24 pm
content: Old Thread, I know, but I had to pull it up...Today, the vote has passed. I do not know when it will come into effect though.What I expect to happen now is the closure of many small sites depending on "user generated content". If I had a site, I would close it as well, the effort to comply with the bureaucratic madness is just too much nowadays.Hopefully, overseas sites will not start blocking visitors from the EU, like what happened when GDPR came into effect.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2019, 01:50:52 pm
content: And the UK will probably never properly leave the EU. Brexit will occur in name only so the laws will no doubt equally apply here too, but we won't be able to do anything about it, as well follow all the dumb laws but no longer have any influence.What's worse is this hasn't been mentioned by the media at all in the UK. Mainstream media don't want people to know, as the Youtube is their greatest competitor and fewer people watching it would benefit them.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2019, 02:00:06 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on March 26, 2019, 01:50:52 pmAnother win for the copyright industry.In Sweden we have to pay a tax on all storage media (hard drives, thumb drives, etc) that goes straight down the pockets of the media industry. It's amazing what they get away with.

author: Awoke
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: March 26, 2019, 02:11:32 pm
content: Businesses with dying art forms fighting to keep it alive instead of accepting the new norms...

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2019, 02:34:22 pm
content: The MEPs who voted with "yes" forgot about the election for the European Parliament in May. I'm pretty sure that all those paid demonstrating bots know exactly what to do in May.

author: Ranayna
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2019, 04:18:12 pm
content: I do not think that this will have much effect on the election. I would be very surprised if a significant amount of protesters would have ever voted for one the major supporting parties of that fiasco. I'm afraid that this will drive more voters to the more vocal anti-eu parties.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2019, 04:36:58 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on March 26, 2019, 01:50:52 pmTime for some "gillet janues" in UK too?

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2019, 07:10:46 pm
content: Quote from: somebodyGood riddance IMO. Internet was supposed to be decentralized, not curated by advertisement brokers. They will be back to painstakingly tracking down individual users of whatever P2P alternatives people come up with or playing whack-a-mole trying to block P2P altogether.Quote from: MT on March 26, 2019, 04:36:58 pmI think most of EU will be on flames in a few years, the whole thing is going bonkersQuote from: madires on March 26, 2019, 02:34:22 pmNo idea what you mean by paid demonstrating bots.But if you think professional politicians are going to lose their jobs because of what they voted for... think again. That's like insinuating you forgot to calculate voltage drop across a 1G resistor in your design, winning elections is what they do for a living.

author: Ranayna
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2019, 09:27:10 pm
content: Quote from: magic on March 26, 2019, 07:10:46 pmHe means two accusations made by politicians: The first was, while the protests where still mainly online, like petitions and emails, that most protesters are bots.Then, afterwards, when the protests were taken to the streets, they claimed the protesters were actually paid by GoogleMind you, there is likely some kernel of truth to both statements. I would be surpised if there have been no scripted mass-mailings triggered by some people. Also there was indeed a NGO that reimbursed around 20 people for their travel cost to Brussels.But just compare that to what the average lobbyist is likely paid pleaseYes, i am very much afraid the the EU is going to the dogs. I expect the elections to show a significant shift to the "right", all across europe.I always had hope that the EU goes more centralized, envisioning something akin to the USA, but what is happening at the moment is completely out of control. With the current, very wide spectrum in general policies and wealth across the countries in the EU (and to a lesser extent the Euro-Zone) i'm afraid the EU is doomed to fail in the not so far future.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2019, 02:52:39 pm
content: The bastard behind it:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axel_VossThe Duran debates the law.

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2019, 03:27:44 pm
content: As far as I am aware, this has yet to pass the EU Council, and has only finished an EU Parliament vote, who afaik, can't pass a directive without the Council's vote.

author: Nauris
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2019, 03:42:15 pm
content: Quote from: Ampera on March 27, 2019, 03:27:44 pmBut that is a good point!. I did some googling and apparently such laws indeed need to pass the council too. So that law is not in effect yet and there is still a change were are saved.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2019, 07:24:53 pm
content: Quote from: Ranayna on March 26, 2019, 09:27:10 pmHuh, can't really know. I think it's safe bet that there were forum raids involved and probably some bots too, it's just reality these days. But to what extent? No idea.Online polls and petitions might be a gauge of whether anyone cares or not but certainly not a source of reliable numbers.Quote from: Ranayna on March 26, 2019, 09:27:10 pmLOL, no way. Why pay if all they need to do is put up a banner on their website?Quote from: Ranayna on March 26, 2019, 09:27:10 pmWell, I'm of those who think EU shouldn't have progressed past a free trade zone.And, frankly, I'm not quite sure if "something akin to the US federal government" and "out of control" is necessarily mutually exclusive, if you catch my driftQuote from: Ampera on March 27, 2019, 03:27:44 pmThat's not too bad then, I suppose it means a single country with balls can still shoot it down.

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2019, 07:44:38 pm
content: Living under a rock, so not sure what this law is about.Isn't this the law that was supposed to redirect some money to journalists (e.g. Google have a news section in its search. The news section has excerpts from journalists articles, yet the journalists are not payed by Google from using their work and excerpts)?Anyway, I just hope the text law itself (didn't read it yet) is not as dumb and faulty as the EU cookie law, which instead of protecting the EU Internet users from the cookie's evil tracking, the cookie EU law just required an extra click from each and every site one visits, which turns out to be incredibly annoying.