Hollywood may not, but you can bet your money that if the US puts something like that into law (not possible, I know), everyone else and their grandmother is going to want in on it.
Let's go crazy and assume that someone manages to make a filter that is 99% effective, and someone else waves a magic wand that makes it so that it doesn't just filter content but actual infringement.
That leaves us with just over 1000 hours worth of video A DAY that would get incorrectly targeted. And let's be honest here, it would err on the side of false positives, not false negatives, leaving us with 1000+ hours worth of video a day being taken down despite being completely legal.
How could you EVER reconcile the idea of blocking any legal speech, let alone that amount, with the idea of Freedom of Speech?
I first made that kind of guess, and actually landed on 40 billion (I made a lot of rounding). But then I realized that you don't need the judges to watch EVERY video. You could have a first level of just "regular joes" that does an initial screening. I started to try and figure out how much that would cost, but quickly arrived at the figure "humongous" anyway so...
Did you do my mistake of not taking into account that they would have to check the videos based on every jurisdiction in the world? Cause that would probably cost more.
I think "they" think that everyone that pirates a copy have to crack it themselves (ignoring the readily available cracks online), so the harder the game is to crack, the less people will crack it.
Back in the days, before Internet really took off, most game piracy was by copying between friends. They probably still think that's the case.
Now now, we don't know what the bot-writer knows or did. Perhaps this writer-person actually pointed out how silly it is, and got a "want you money or not?" reply?
Yes, I like to think that "us nerds" are a little bit better than the nutjobs that created this situation.
Actually, Google is doing an incredible job here! It's not THEIR fault that the system sucks, now is it?
I love the fact that they don't bring out the "big guns" of violations and deletion unless you repeat the alleged infringement. How many service providers do you know that actually lets you keep the post, rather than just straight up delete it, while the issue is being resolved?
A lot of people claim that the purpose of "security theater" is to give politician a chance to say "we're doing something to keep you safe". I think the purpose is the complete opposite, not to make you feel safer but to remind you that there are bad people out there (somewhere, probably, maybe) that want to kill you. And child-predators.
There's a world of difference. Here it was the people who was in danger of being defrauded that did the investigation and policing. What you're suggesting is that the people who commit the fraud do the policing. We have seen countless times that whenever you give people a choice between doing "The Right Thing" and "The Thing That Benefits Them The Most" without outside oversight, to many choose the latter.
Wowa, that was one hell of a leap you did there! Ever tried out for the olympics?
And since you put that "period" at the end there, obviously you are Right, and I am wrong. It's not like the school is the logical choice since that's where the kids meet, and because they are the ones who could most easily stop this madness. No, you said "period", so therefore the school has no business in this. I stand corrected.
Wait, what? Is your argument REALLY that as long as there are worse things happening, it's no big deal? Basically it's okay to beat someone up as long as someone else gets murdered?
Then again, there is a big difference with taking the word of a policeofficer over someone they arrested and see this kind of video-evidence and just go "ah well". I mean, they should at least try to pretend that they're honest. Right?
I do wonder how many will point out that he was a christian fundamentalist hellbent (pun intended, although horrible) on bringing "back" some sort of Christian Utopia, where The Church basically told people how to live. I mean, wouldn't that have been mentioned if he was a muslim?
I live in Sweden, and I pay 59 kronor (about 9 dollars) a month. For this I get to call other people who uses the same provider as me (Telia/Halebop) for free (which in my case means the two that I would ever call ;-)), and I get 3000 free SMS a month.
I do pay for data (which I rarely use), but luckily there is a maximum per day (9 kronor or about 1 dollar).
"Because we only present a squeaky-clean, groomed version of ourselves in our facebook profiles, or anywhere online, we miss out on most of the data about the people we are interacting with."
I remember a couple years back when Google first announced the Nexus One. It was a HUGE thing that you would be able to choose any carrier you wanted. I remember thinking "wait, what now? It this a NEW thing!?".
I still have to remind myself that you "over there" can't count on your cellphone being compatible with all the operators. Meanwhile, here in cold Sweden, I can use my cellphone with any operator I want. Which is a good thing.
Re:
If not they will force UK to pass a law that makes it so. ;-)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Automating filtering
Hollywood may not, but you can bet your money that if the US puts something like that into law (not possible, I know), everyone else and their grandmother is going to want in on it.
Re: Automating filtering
Let's go crazy and assume that someone manages to make a filter that is 99% effective, and someone else waves a magic wand that makes it so that it doesn't just filter content but actual infringement.
That leaves us with just over 1000 hours worth of video A DAY that would get incorrectly targeted. And let's be honest here, it would err on the side of false positives, not false negatives, leaving us with 1000+ hours worth of video a day being taken down despite being completely legal.
How could you EVER reconcile the idea of blocking any legal speech, let alone that amount, with the idea of Freedom of Speech?
Re: Re: Automating filtering
I first made that kind of guess, and actually landed on 40 billion (I made a lot of rounding). But then I realized that you don't need the judges to watch EVERY video. You could have a first level of just "regular joes" that does an initial screening. I started to try and figure out how much that would cost, but quickly arrived at the figure "humongous" anyway so...
Did you do my mistake of not taking into account that they would have to check the videos based on every jurisdiction in the world? Cause that would probably cost more.
Re: Re:
I think "they" think that everyone that pirates a copy have to crack it themselves (ignoring the readily available cracks online), so the harder the game is to crack, the less people will crack it.
Back in the days, before Internet really took off, most game piracy was by copying between friends. They probably still think that's the case.
Re: Re:
Now now, we don't know what the bot-writer knows or did. Perhaps this writer-person actually pointed out how silly it is, and got a "want you money or not?" reply?
Yes, I like to think that "us nerds" are a little bit better than the nutjobs that created this situation.
Re: L vs E
Actually, Google is doing an incredible job here! It's not THEIR fault that the system sucks, now is it?
I love the fact that they don't bring out the "big guns" of violations and deletion unless you repeat the alleged infringement. How many service providers do you know that actually lets you keep the post, rather than just straight up delete it, while the issue is being resolved?
Re: Yet another reason why
"I swear, under penalty of perjury, [...]"
I was under the impression that perjury is a VERY serious felony. Isn't it the same as lying under oath in a court?
Beholden huh?
I always find the whole "beholden to your fans" "argument" quite odd. Isn't ALL forms of entertainment "beholden to their fans"?
I've been thinking.
A lot of people claim that the purpose of "security theater" is to give politician a chance to say "we're doing something to keep you safe". I think the purpose is the complete opposite, not to make you feel safer but to remind you that there are bad people out there (somewhere, probably, maybe) that want to kill you. And child-predators.
Re: Crowd Policing
There's a world of difference. Here it was the people who was in danger of being defrauded that did the investigation and policing. What you're suggesting is that the people who commit the fraud do the policing. We have seen countless times that whenever you give people a choice between doing "The Right Thing" and "The Thing That Benefits Them The Most" without outside oversight, to many choose the latter.
Re: Re: Sure the school could have done something!
Wowa, that was one hell of a leap you did there! Ever tried out for the olympics?
And since you put that "period" at the end there, obviously you are Right, and I am wrong. It's not like the school is the logical choice since that's where the kids meet, and because they are the ones who could most easily stop this madness. No, you said "period", so therefore the school has no business in this. I stand corrected.
Sure the school could have done something!
"The school couldn't get involved with off-campus speech (correct) [...]"
This I don't agree with. The school could, and should, have handled this. Talk to the kids responsible, and if that doesn't work their parents.
Re: Much ado about not a whole lot
Wait, what? Is your argument REALLY that as long as there are worse things happening, it's no big deal? Basically it's okay to beat someone up as long as someone else gets murdered?
Or did I just miss obvious sarcasm again?
Re: reality...
Then again, there is a big difference with taking the word of a policeofficer over someone they arrested and see this kind of video-evidence and just go "ah well". I mean, they should at least try to pretend that they're honest. Right?
Sounds about right...
Threaten to kill a 14-year old kid - loose your job two years later. Sounds about right.
And we wonder why the police is abusing their power. Sheesh.
And just to make everybodys day a little bit better, let me remind us all of how it's supposed to be done:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMMPV4D6cs0
The religion part.
I do wonder how many will point out that he was a christian fundamentalist hellbent (pun intended, although horrible) on bringing "back" some sort of Christian Utopia, where The Church basically told people how to live. I mean, wouldn't that have been mentioned if he was a muslim?
Re: Price is Irrelevant Without A Stated Quantity
I live in Sweden, and I pay 59 kronor (about 9 dollars) a month. For this I get to call other people who uses the same provider as me (Telia/Halebop) for free (which in my case means the two that I would ever call ;-)), and I get 3000 free SMS a month.
I do pay for data (which I rarely use), but luckily there is a maximum per day (9 kronor or about 1 dollar).
Should point out that I'm not paying off a phone.
Re: Bandwith and Fake Interaction
"Because we only present a squeaky-clean, groomed version of ourselves in our facebook profiles, or anywhere online, we miss out on most of the data about the people we are interacting with."
You've never actually been online, have you? ;-)
Compatibility.
I remember a couple years back when Google first announced the Nexus One. It was a HUGE thing that you would be able to choose any carrier you wanted. I remember thinking "wait, what now? It this a NEW thing!?".
I still have to remind myself that you "over there" can't count on your cellphone being compatible with all the operators. Meanwhile, here in cold Sweden, I can use my cellphone with any operator I want. Which is a good thing.