Have you followed the links? What would be sufficient evidence in your mind? Do you need a photo of some MEP or EU official receiving a big envelope full of cash from a person wearing a "copyright cartel representative" t-shirt? Anyway.
The publishers believe that a system that provides for the authorisation to make orphan works available online cannot dispense with an a priori diligent search.From the European Commission's document attached to the legislative file. https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/0136(COD)&l=en
When the debate on article 15 of the copyright directive raged in the EU, newspapers in Italy didn't cover any of the opposing voices. The only accepted line was that "big tech" was the only entity opposing the proposal, everyone else wasn't even mentioned. I have it on good authority that this was ordered from the very top. All publishers had agreed to make their newspapers stick to this line. Do you know what's the only newspaper which accepted to publish a short article about how there were also other views, like free knowledge projects? The catholic bishops newspaper, Avvenire. I guess the bishop of Rome was the one publisher who had not been informed of the line to hold.
Some brave journalists are learning the hard way too!
At first, I thought there was going to be a big journalist/ethical question about whether or not to ban entire servers. Until we got attacked by trolls and I learned just how many servers are 100% troll-army. So, blocked every one I could find. It’s like I got the Elon Musk crash course in moderation in a few quick hours.https://journa.host/@adamdavidson/109297137123981377 https://journa.host/@adamdavidson/109298694589387657 https://journa.host/@adamdavidson/109298704921633875 https://journa.host/@adamdavidson/109298716412611149
I have honestly no idea what "sender pays" is even supposed to mean. If you have ever tried to buy hosting services anywhere in the past couple decades, you probably got charged for your upload/egress traffic. It seems to me that senders already pay, most of the time. And sometimes they pay a lot: https://blog.cloudflare.com/bandwidth-costs-around-the-world/ I found this explanation useful: https://labs.apnic.net/?p=1651 In short, "sender pays" is not about making senders pay. It's about adopting one side's preferred interpretation of who should be considered sender or customer.
The United States desperately needs a new foreign policy that confronts head on the consequences of a fragmented and dangerous internet.Have these people been living under a rock since 2013? The USA already have a policy about international fragmentation of the internet, which is to own it. The NSA and friends have spent billions of dollars to set up surveillance of international internet cables and other internet backbones. Whether trying to assert control on international internet communications has increased or reduced fragmentation, you tell me. However, whenever any country decides it's enough and tries to reduce their exposure, for instance with data localization requirements or privacy laws, USA diplomacy intervenes very quickly to counter such moves, and to increase dependency on USA software and networks, so that data keeps flowing to the NSA.
Moderna is so brazen that at the same time it's claiming in another court case that Moderna's alleged infringement of patents is no big deal, as it got a compulsory license from the federal government. https://www.keionline.org/37751 The TRIPS waiver was a fiasco. The NIH should grant compulsory licenses on all patents relevant for COVID-19 which got NIH funding. Put all those silly lawsuits at rest and let the most efficient pharma companies do the work, rather than those with the most creative lawyers. https://www.keionline.org/35746
And no one can explain how any of this will actually help children.Well, I'm sure some of those DPIA-writing lawyers have children...
The correct restaurant analogy would be an all-you-can eat buffet restaurant, which to increase profits cuts the availability of the most expensive ingredients, while keeping the price the same (or higher). The hope is that customers will eat less fish and more carrots, or whatever it is the restaurant can save money on. There's nothing new about this. Restaurants in Italy have been doing this for ages, by dosing the amount of "free" bread served to each customer based on how hungry they want them to be.
Presumably the chief objective of running TikTok on Oracle servers is to simplify the NSA's work in plugging it into PRISM, no? So the "audit" probably means "is there any data the NSA collection still misses?".
Yes, I did notice that The Conversation claims "By copying the HTML below, you will be adhering to all our guidelines". So it's not like they're likely to sue for copyright infringement (or win in court if they did). However, their advice is incorrect. By following that advice, reusers are relying on some implied license, not on the semi-free Creative Commons license they think they're using. So it's best to actually follow the public license.
That's meaningless. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#which-cc Under section 3(1)(C) of the license, one must "indicate the Licensed Material is licensed under this Public License, and include the text of, or the URI or hyperlink to, this Public License". I suggest to include a link to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/ , but saying "under CC BY-ND 4.0 license", or similar, is also possible.
I can't find a single mention of the word "substantive" in the whole "response" to the argument that
procedural safeguards can never fully replace substantive safeguardsso I must conclude that the argument is accepted. Translated, it means it doesn't matter what the proposed law says, it matters more what it actually does. If you pass a law mandating that every child have a hand grenade under their bed, "but they must be used very carefully", it doesn't matter how many words on a piece of paper claim everything will be fine.
I wish they did! Facebook "threatened" to shut down facebook.com in the EU next week, I can't wait. https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/meta-repeats-threat-it-may-pull-facebook-instagram-from-europe-1.1798780
The trick does work. The main objective is often to stop Facebook live streaming; I understand that happens quite quickly. You might use the video later, but it won't get nearly as much engagement. The value of filming for these harassers lies in the social media engagement. (As a corollary, this particular usage of copyright for censorship is probably rather harmless for a wide class of purposes for video recording, such as "storing evidence". Assuming you have a hard disk at home where to store it before it gets taken down on Google Drive or whatever as well.) As for YouTube, not all rightsholders opt for monetisation. Some opt for complete removal. Whoever wants to play this trick only needs to go look for very popular songs on YouTube and find one which, unusually, has (nearly) no covers, no alternative videos and so on. That will be a good indicator that the rightsholder is particularly aggressive at removing that song. Allegedly, the trick doesn't work (yet) for some of the social media used by neo-nazis, in particular Gettr. Or so I was told by someone who claimed to have tried using the trick.
But that's exactly why people pick Disney music to play this trick. This is not a song whose author might have a soul; Disney probably owns all rights of any sorts. Disney loves censorship. Why would they come out against censorship? What if a legal case comes out of it? However small, there is a chance that it would result into some kind of limitations for upload filters, which is the opposite of what Disney wants.
Here's the list https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/policies/internal-security/counter-terrorism-and-radicalisation/prevention-radicalisation/terrorist-content-online/list-national-competent-authority-authorities-and-contact-points_en So far it's mostly the police. In Hungary it's a politically appointed office.
It's not just 27. Any designated "competent authority" can give the order, so every member state can give this power to any number of entities. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32021R0784#d1e1275-79-1
Moreover, when Western nations make copyright worse, they then try to convince other countries to adopt the same bad ideas"Convince" as in "arm-twist" under the penalty of economic and military repercussions. https://edri.org/our-work/european-commission-derails-copyright-reform-in-south-africa/
Mozilla.Social