copyright wasn't to promote progress, or make money
They were invented so that there is no disincentive to create. This is usually accomplished by preventing people who did not create new products to benefit economically. This may sound the same as what copyright abusers try to argue, but it's very different. So long as other people do not benefit economically, it should be considered "fair use". That's the whole point.
But no. Now it's all about control. Money and control make for a bad, bad combination.
Newspapers, including the NYT, contain too much misinformation. They are losing readers because they have a bad product: bias, errors, lack of depth, fluff, poor writing. Paying for a newspaper is like buying rotting fruit. Who does that?
in a world where an atmospheric trace gas, one also produced by all animal respiration ever since animals evolved on this planet, is now widely believed to be a *pollutant* - why would anyone be surprised by pseudo-scientific "Media Hogwash Scare Tactics?"
Record Labels Face $6 Billion Damages for Pirating ArtistsWhile the major record labels were dragging file-sharers and BitTorrent sites to court for copyright infringement, they were themselves being sued by a conglomerate of artists for exactly the same offenses. Warner, Sony BMG, EMI and Universal face up to $6 billion in damages for pirating a massive 300,000 tracks.
However, on the positive side – this also means that tracking cookies (which are used by a countless number of advertising networks and behavioural profiling companies) and Local Stored Objects (LSO or Flash Cookies) – will now also have to present users with a clear explanation as to what they are, what they collect and what they will be used for.
As we saw in a recent research paper over 60% of consumers in the US do not want Behavioural Advertising so it is reasonable to assume the same would most probably apply with EU countries as well – in fact we may well see even more people opposed to it in EU states given the last couple of years of campaigning on the subject by privacy advocates (such as the members of this web site) meaning it is very much an issue which is in the public focus.
This is exactly what companies like Phorm and Audience Science did not want to happen – Opt-Out meant they could rely on the ignorance and apathy of the general population not to bother with opting out meaning they would capture a large percentage of the market without the consumers even knowing what was going on.
Now however, not only must they get permission from people (opt-in) but they also must give truthful and accurate information to consumers as to what they are doing – which is far more likely to illicit a reaction of NOT opting in as people do not want to be tracked.
This is going to hit the bottom lines of these companies very hard indeed and it is likely (in my opinion) that their revenues are in for a dramatic decline. I would be suprised if they can capture even 30% of the market with the new regulations – a long way from the current 90+% they probably have under Opt-Out models.
The changes would also make it illegal for companies to reset traditional cookies or gather behavioural information with Flash Cookies (LSO) without consent – which has become a new trend as advertisers realised they could bypass countermeasures which led to the deletion of their tracking cookies from users machines (such as deleting cookies when a browser is closed or only allowing session cookies – which are popular features of modern browsers and plugins).
Of course, as always – the devil is in the details. We need to keep pushing parliamentarians to make sure that this is added to UK law in an appropriate way.
On the post:
private companies spying and illegally intercepting your dataflow
you really should have ask for questions first to get the far better picture.
you missed private companies spying and illegally intercepting your dataflow, stealing your data to collate and build private 'derivative works' CRA and other databases without your consent,knowledge, or payments etc.
such as DPI data collection for commercial profit, 'commercial piracy' by any other name.
My kids were taught in grade school - 1990s - to never cite a news source to support a fact! The same lesson appeared in high school during report writing lessons. Needless to say they don't subscribe to a newspaper. And what did the latest studies show? About two-thirds of the population thought the news media was untrustworthy! And similar numbers declared the news media biased! Sure there are hard working honest journalists in the world. The problem is there is no way to tell anymore! Perception is reality. You can't believe a journalist! And that's the business case problem for news outlets. Few people with a brain will pay for untruths? And, for the intelligence challenged, they are being terrorized with untruths!
My kids were taught in grade school to never use a news source to support a fact. High school taught the same lesson with a letter grade deducted for each news citation in a written report. That was over 10 years ago! People don't trust anything authored by a news reporter and the AP is on the bottom of the don't trust list. Their science and health reporting is hilarious as they rarely get it correct.