The only thing I didn't like when Facebook removed the news from it's Australian users a couple of years ago was that, at the time, I tried to link a couple of Techdirt stories for my friends - including one about this very topic - and the Facebook algorythm declared it a news article and so said it couldn't be shared because of the situation.
Fortunately I could still share YouTube videos because about the only ones I share are the Honest Government Ads from The Juice Media and I share each and every one of them, usually with the comment "Nailed it. As usual."
The trouble is I don't know how to program a computer. Anyone here know how? If you know how to make a computer make silly sounds, you can have my idea.
And Section 230 allows sites like this one to spread hate-speech in the comments without fear of liability.
Likewise, Section 230 allows sites like this one to moderate or hide hate speech that appears in the comments without fear of liabilty.
It's a pity those academics in Europe back in 2008 wasted their time opposing what the counsel had clearly already decided on. So not only was less academia performed that year and what there was will be locked up for longer.
So those on the so-called right don't want to become woke. Therefore they want to stay sleep. Doesn't that make them all zombies? And if nobody is woke, who's drinking all that coffee? Lefty liberals are stealing our coffee!
I won't tell you who, but I have already helped a show writer do just that. This was in January of 2011. They wrote an episode of the kid's cartoon "Willa's Wild Life" for Nelvana (in Canada), and they couldn't get a copy of it. I grabbing it from my local station and I then was putting it on YouTube at the time (illegally). And so when that episode came up, I made certain to record it and I sent them the .mpg file of it.
I had also recently read an article on here, from several months prior, of another writer for Nelvana who couldn't even watch the show they'd written as it was only available on a U.S. streaming service but not the Canadian version. I see nothing has improved since these instances.
No wonder the American writers are on strike!
Check out this report from TechLinked (from Linus Tech Tips)
(2min 49sec, the link should take you to the right spot)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHvuXZB4-Ow&t=169s
That's a lot of money! And that's a lot of time! But if these companies want to lock things up, then someone's gotta have a lock pick.
Not the same, but I myself am making an archive of kid's TV shows. They tend to disappear after a few years or so. I have a large collection from the UK, Australia (my home) and Canada, plus a few American ones. Both purchased on physical media and recorded.
I'm a little bit upset. I've done some research.
In Australia, the law says an author has to be deceased for 70 years before their work enters the public domain. Furthermore, it doesn't matter what the law is in their home country, you must act as if the work was first published in Australia and, therefore, Australian law applies. This is a 2006 or 2007 amendment (I forget which, as there were numerous amendments made in both 2006 and 2007) to the Copyright Act 1968 that was made to comply with the US-Au Free Trade Agreement that was negotiated from 2005 to 2007.
A.A. Milne died in 1956 so, as an Australian in Australia, I have to wait until 1st January 2027 for his works to become public domain in my country. I can't say "James James Morrison Morrison Whetherby George Dupree" in Australia, even though I could if I was in America but almost every website I can access, even many run in Australia or the UK or almost anywhere, seems to only abide by American laws. OK, so I could actually say it, just not in public or to the public.
I did something stupid in December 2019: I read the Australian Copyright Act (1968, with amendments). Oh man did that give me a headache! Not to mention it was incredibly depressing!
Anyway, while I think tech companies like Facebook should be held to account for intentionally making their services addictive, your hatred for section 230 is somewhat misguided. Let me see if I can make a good analogy that a fag like you can understand.
Imagine you are a student and your teacher called you a fag. Would you rather sue the school (and possibly see the principal fired) or would you rather sue your teacher? Sure, you might get more money if you sued the school. But more people would suffer as a result, mainly your fellow students (who had nothing to do with it) as funds are drained from the school.
As much as I think Elon is an idiot, if someone else called me a fag on Twitter, I'd rather see them get punished instead of Elon. Sure I would love to get my hands on some of Elon's money, but if he isn't the one calling me a fag, he's not the one who should be punished for it.
Am I wasting my time by explaining this to you? Probably. More than likely, really. But hopefully I can help somebody who wants to understand it to understand it.
I started a YouTube channel to upload good DVD copies of the public domain Looney Tunes cartoons to, rather than the ugly worn out prints most places have.
One of the first cartoons I put up was "A Corny Concerto" from 1942, a parody of Disney's "Fantasia" and well known for being in the public domain for not having its copyright renewed (PD as of 1971). After it was there for a few months, I got a copyright claim from some company I'd never heard of claiming the Sydney Symphony Orchestra performed the music. It wasn't a strike, just a demonetization. Rather than fight it, I took it down.
At the same time, I had uploaded the first of the Superman cartoons from Paramount Pictures from the 1940's. It is well known that these are in the public domain from not having their copyright renewed (PD from 1969 to 1974), although Superman and other characters may be copyrighted to Warner Brothers through DC Comics. This cartoon now has a ContentID match for the theme song, as it was released a couple of decades ago on CD by the composer's daughters. I cannot argue that this film uses that music but I feel like I'm missing something here.
So are these films in the public domain? I'm not certain any more, although I am pretty sure. But YouTube says they are not. And it feels like The ContentID System is The Law. At least on YouTube.
So where do we stand with the animated shorts from Paramount Pictures from the 1940's which have been public domain for decades due to no copyright extending?
No Techdirt Articles
The only thing I didn't like when Facebook removed the news from it's Australian users a couple of years ago was that, at the time, I tried to link a couple of Techdirt stories for my friends - including one about this very topic - and the Facebook algorythm declared it a news article and so said it couldn't be shared because of the situation. Fortunately I could still share YouTube videos because about the only ones I share are the Honest Government Ads from The Juice Media and I share each and every one of them, usually with the comment "Nailed it. As usual."
I've Got An Idea
The trouble is I don't know how to program a computer. Anyone here know how? If you know how to make a computer make silly sounds, you can have my idea.
Why This Case Took Four Years
This case dragged on because, obviously, the lawyers were milking it for all that it was worth.
How do you milk an oat?
You use a very low stool.
Section 230
And Section 230 allows sites like this one to spread hate-speech in the comments without fear of liability. Likewise, Section 230 allows sites like this one to moderate or hide hate speech that appears in the comments without fear of liabilty.
Social Media
Social Media is addictive. I haven't been able to quit but I have cut down my usage a lot. Maybe I should try to get onto a Mediadone program?
Sorry, your comment was not available in my country.
A Pity
It's a pity those academics in Europe back in 2008 wasted their time opposing what the counsel had clearly already decided on. So not only was less academia performed that year and what there was will be locked up for longer.
Awoke Me In The Morning
So those on the so-called right don't want to become woke. Therefore they want to stay sleep. Doesn't that make them all zombies? And if nobody is woke, who's drinking all that coffee? Lefty liberals are stealing our coffee!
Piracy
I won't tell you who, but I have already helped a show writer do just that. This was in January of 2011. They wrote an episode of the kid's cartoon "Willa's Wild Life" for Nelvana (in Canada), and they couldn't get a copy of it. I grabbing it from my local station and I then was putting it on YouTube at the time (illegally). And so when that episode came up, I made certain to record it and I sent them the .mpg file of it. I had also recently read an article on here, from several months prior, of another writer for Nelvana who couldn't even watch the show they'd written as it was only available on a U.S. streaming service but not the Canadian version. I see nothing has improved since these instances. No wonder the American writers are on strike!
Oops!
Sorry about the double posting - feel free to delete it! :)
I'm speechless!
I'd better get some more while it's still free!
Someone Did It!
Check out this report from TechLinked (from Linus Tech Tips) (2min 49sec, the link should take you to the right spot) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHvuXZB4-Ow&t=169s That's a lot of money! And that's a lot of time! But if these companies want to lock things up, then someone's gotta have a lock pick. Not the same, but I myself am making an archive of kid's TV shows. They tend to disappear after a few years or so. I have a large collection from the UK, Australia (my home) and Canada, plus a few American ones. Both purchased on physical media and recorded.
Charlie Brown
You blockheads! You're all just talking fucking bullshit!
Australian Copyright
I'm a little bit upset. I've done some research. In Australia, the law says an author has to be deceased for 70 years before their work enters the public domain. Furthermore, it doesn't matter what the law is in their home country, you must act as if the work was first published in Australia and, therefore, Australian law applies. This is a 2006 or 2007 amendment (I forget which, as there were numerous amendments made in both 2006 and 2007) to the Copyright Act 1968 that was made to comply with the US-Au Free Trade Agreement that was negotiated from 2005 to 2007. A.A. Milne died in 1956 so, as an Australian in Australia, I have to wait until 1st January 2027 for his works to become public domain in my country. I can't say "James James Morrison Morrison Whetherby George Dupree" in Australia, even though I could if I was in America but almost every website I can access, even many run in Australia or the UK or almost anywhere, seems to only abide by American laws. OK, so I could actually say it, just not in public or to the public. I did something stupid in December 2019: I read the Australian Copyright Act (1968, with amendments). Oh man did that give me a headache! Not to mention it was incredibly depressing!
Misguided
Anyway, while I think tech companies like Facebook should be held to account for intentionally making their services addictive, your hatred for section 230 is somewhat misguided. Let me see if I can make a good analogy that a fag like you can understand. Imagine you are a student and your teacher called you a fag. Would you rather sue the school (and possibly see the principal fired) or would you rather sue your teacher? Sure, you might get more money if you sued the school. But more people would suffer as a result, mainly your fellow students (who had nothing to do with it) as funds are drained from the school. As much as I think Elon is an idiot, if someone else called me a fag on Twitter, I'd rather see them get punished instead of Elon. Sure I would love to get my hands on some of Elon's money, but if he isn't the one calling me a fag, he's not the one who should be punished for it. Am I wasting my time by explaining this to you? Probably. More than likely, really. But hopefully I can help somebody who wants to understand it to understand it.
ugh
It feels like Elon has taken over TechDirt as well :(
When Is Public Domain No Longer Public Domain?
I started a YouTube channel to upload good DVD copies of the public domain Looney Tunes cartoons to, rather than the ugly worn out prints most places have. One of the first cartoons I put up was "A Corny Concerto" from 1942, a parody of Disney's "Fantasia" and well known for being in the public domain for not having its copyright renewed (PD as of 1971). After it was there for a few months, I got a copyright claim from some company I'd never heard of claiming the Sydney Symphony Orchestra performed the music. It wasn't a strike, just a demonetization. Rather than fight it, I took it down. At the same time, I had uploaded the first of the Superman cartoons from Paramount Pictures from the 1940's. It is well known that these are in the public domain from not having their copyright renewed (PD from 1969 to 1974), although Superman and other characters may be copyrighted to Warner Brothers through DC Comics. This cartoon now has a ContentID match for the theme song, as it was released a couple of decades ago on CD by the composer's daughters. I cannot argue that this film uses that music but I feel like I'm missing something here. So are these films in the public domain? I'm not certain any more, although I am pretty sure. But YouTube says they are not. And it feels like The ContentID System is The Law. At least on YouTube.
New Government
As of the end of May this year we have a new government. One that is very left. I hold up no hope.
Superman
So where do we stand with the animated shorts from Paramount Pictures from the 1940's which have been public domain for decades due to no copyright extending?