This shouldn't be a big deal to the copyright trolls- it's simply a cost of doing business. You win some and you lose some. All they have to do is send out another batch of extortion, I mean "settlement" letters. If they can get 9 people to settle for $2,000, then they've more than made up for this loss.
Give them what they want: sports reports should ignore them
I understand that companies want to "control the message" regarding their property, but why would an organization be so strict that they won't let people post photos of a game? Do they *not* want photos or clips of the games to go viral and attract more attention? In that case, give them what they want: no one should post photos or talk about the games. Sports reporters should simply say "The home team played a game and they won. We can't give you the name of the team or the score or the big plays because the team claims a copyright on all of those."
Can we start a meme that says anything that happens between election day and inauguration day is because of Trump and not the result of long-term plans finally coming together?
Carrier brings some jobs back to the US? Because of Trump. Softbank promises jobs and investments? Because of Trump. Fidel Castro dies. Because of Trump. Ron Glass and Florence Henderson die. Because of Trump.
Will it ban posts designed to radicalize the far-right?
Will these blocks will also catch postings designed to radicalize the far-right into "investigating the truth" with a gun? I would certainly consider many of them to be terroristic postings.
Case in point: the recent issue where people (including generals!) were saying that Hillary Clinton ran a child sex ring out of a pizza restaurant. So of course a guy who only reads far-right media (meaning "radicalized") goes there with a gun to "rescue" the non-existent "sex slaves".
Can someone please explain the different between these kinds of posts and what ISIS posts? Both of them are designed to get people so angered that they take action against the enemy.
Or they could, you know, let people see the 16 episodes for free and make money downstream, rather than fighting this stupid fight.
Here's what should happen: someone sees an episode on YouTube for free, thinks is funny, and then goes searching for more... and look, the show is on at least 10 different channels, including: Nick at Nite, TVLand, AntennaTV, Cozi, Retro, MeTV, and probably more. I'd wager that in some parts of the country, you could get almost 24 hours of "The Andy Griffith" show if you kept switching channels.
And in all fairness, it could be worse: the site could require the use of Flash to do anything on the site. It doesn't matter if you use FlashBlock or if your browser says Flash is a security risk: you either make it active or you can't use the site... and too bad if there are no other alternative websites to use.
If we assume that there's actual voter fraud going on, what's the result? Would the "millions of voters" (as Trump claimed) really change the result? Or would those millions of votes basically match the distribution as the real votes? In other words, how can any party say the fraudulent votes will only help the other party?
I think the issue boils down to one idea: that too many people believe what they see online because it's "in print". For hundreds of years, people would read the newspaper and magazines and assume that every story had been editted and fact-checked to tell the truth. Now comes the Internet with tons of opinion pieces, propaganda, and just plain wrong stories. Yet because people have the idea that "if it's in print, it must be true", they'll believe anything they read.
Just look through your own Facebook newsfeed to see how many people recently shared the old "post this message to stop Facebook from taking your content"... which was never true and which was debunked in 2012! Why do people still believe it? Why can't they spend 10 seconds on Snopes to see that it's completely false?
Then combine this with the media outlets who make money from clicks and advertising, and who don't really care about fact-checking: if it's wrong, they can later add a link to a corrected version of the article. This creates people like Trump who get ahead by shouting the craziest, most offensive things just to get attention.
Then there's the idea that media outlets have to report on every story out of "fairness", though it's usually just to ride the coat-tails of another network to get clicks and ratings: Fox News: Does this video show Hillary eating puppies? We think it does. (An obvious lie, but it gets attention.) CNN: Fox News reports that Hillary was caught eating puppies. We talk with experts about what this means for her campaign. (By "analyzing" the obvious false story, they legitimize it while also getting attention.) Your local news channel: How will Hillary's puppygate scandal affect the nation? Our report at 11:00.
After all this, can anyone *not* believe that Hillary was eating puppies?
How did this turn into a discussion about free speech?
The way I see is a drunk guy said some drunk things while he was drunk and the special-snowflake officers got offended by it. Whatever happened to just throwing the guy into the drunk tank over night, letting him sober up, and then letting him apologize for being a drunk idiot? Like other commenters are saying, did the guy really say anything that any other drunk person would say? And why aren't these officers trained to ignore the drunken rantings of people they're arresting.
Here's a helpful hint: of course some people are going to be mad and unhappy about getting arrested, and they're going to complain about it.
So let me see if I have this straight: people are filing "right to be forgotten" notices with Google to de-index Wikimedia rather than filing the notice with Wikimedia itself?
As has been said many, many times, the "right to be forgotten" is actually "take me out of Google". If people really wanted to be forgotten, they would go after the original source of the information, whether that's a magazine, newspaper, or public website. Then when the website "forgets" the information, there's nothing for Google (and Bing and Yahoo) to index. Instead, people are filing claims with Google, which simply breaks the indexed link, but does nothing to remove the original data.
I'll say it again: this system is asinine and stupid.
At some point, people are going to get sick of these false copyright claims and these organizations' claims will fall of deaf ears, if it isn't happening already. I may have missed something, but I didn't see where they explained the "harm" done by the illegal streaming. On the contrary- as a US citizen, I *want* the rest of the world to see our presidential debates, even if their countries' news stations may not show it.
I'd remind them of the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf, but I don't want to repeat too much of it because of copyright concerns.
What I still find amazing is this typical exchange: Reporter: Mr Trump, did you assault these women? Will you apologize for what you did? Trump: Crooked Hillary did worse! She should be locked up for her e-mails. I'll lock her up. Reporter: Yes, but will you apologize? Trump: Those women are liars and it never happened. All of them liars. And I know liars. They're liars. And I'm going to sue them. All of them. Big lawsuits. Reporter: But we have you on tape saying it. Trump: Look, they're liars and that's not good. You know what's not good? Hundreds of illegal immigrants coming over the border everyday. And Obama lets it happen! I would send them all back to Mexico so they won't take jobs. I'll get jobs back and I'll give tax cuts to middle Americans. Reporter: But you still haven't answered the question.
So, here we are, almost a week later, and Trump still doesn't acknowledge that he did anything wrong. How does something Bill Clinton (or anyone) make it right for him to do something? At some point, all adults move past the idea of "but he did it first" argument.
Yes, seriously- his supervisor should be fired. What kind of person has so little work assigned to them that they can try to access porn that much in a day? Where was his supervisor to make sure he was actually doing his work and meeting his deadlines? Or did the guy finish his work and then look at porn? Then why didn't the supervisor give him more work?
I'd like to mention the disinformation campaign by Breitbart and FOX "news": they're running stories claiming that the New York Times hasn't paid taxes in years either.
1) When doing a Google search to confirm the story, the only results I got were from right-wing sites. If this were true, wouldn't sites like CNN, Time, and the Washington Post be talking about it? Oh, right, those are "mainstream media" sites out to get Trump so they won't talk about this story.
2) This is even more false equivalency from the Trump camp. Last I looked, the NYT wasn't running for president and rejecting 40 years of tradition by not releasing its tax returns. The NYT didn't post a loss of over $900 million, spread it out over 18 years, and claim to be a successful businessman (that I know of).
I don't blame these cities for trying, since this is exactly what's happening in the EU, though with countries instead of cities. It works this way: if I sell a product to a customer in France, then I have to collect a "VAT" based on France's rate and pay it to the French government. If a customer in Austria buys the same product, I have collect the Austrian VAT and pay it to the Austrian government.
So, yes, the VAT is based on the customer's address, which may get screwy if a guy from California is on vacation in Salzberg: does he stay at a hotel in Germany or Austria to get a lower VAT? Or is he exempt because he's on vacation?
Large business can adjust their accounting to handle this, but small businesses can either not sell to all the EU countries or they can pay an accounting company to handle the VAT collection and payment for them.
So why shouldn't every US state or every city do the same thing? It's a quick way for them to make money, even if it's a huge burden on businesses.
I think the real reason these people are angry and stresses is that other sellers are selling their product for a higher price and getting away with it. Let's see if I have this right: 1) Seller A lists it on eBay for $50. 2) A customer buys it. 3) Seller A buys it from the Ruckels for $40. 4) The Ruckels make $40, the seller makes $10, and everyone makes money.
I completely understand how customers might feel ripped off if they paid $50 for an item that's sold for $40 on Amazon, but shouldn't the customer have shopped around first?
This was an interesting article. I have an idea for a follow-up article: If the number of viewers or readers can't be accurately measured, how do companies accurately measure the effectiveness and results of an advertising campaign? If a site says it gets 6 million unique monthly views and it charges $200 for a banner ad and it gets 5,000 clicks, how many people actually buy the advertised product and how much money does the advertiser make? Or is this another "dirty secret": companies pay $200 for banner ads to get in front of 6 million "unique views", fully knowing that they might make 1 or 2 sales?
Or has the advertising industry basically brainwashed companies into thinking that they need to get their products "out there" or that any advertising is "good exposure", whether it leads to a sale or not? After all, how did companies measure the effectiveness of highway billboards in the 1920's?