The real problem is the lack of standardized training allows randos to push non-sense as sensible. You have people who should NOT be creating training material because they don't know what society has chosen to be the rules, be in power and guide the masses in how to behave. Imagine going to a doctor who learns on the job and the chief doctor instructed the newcomer to discard some evidence to protect other doctors. That's what's happening here.
The ridiculous request here is that police unions area asking that police officers be treated different from other citizens. Criminal records on citizens shouldn't be different for the police. People are people. If a 5, 10, whatever years passed on a crime committed by a citizen then it would be recorded. The same should apply to the police or the president or the senator or the doctor or the janitor.
Your statement doesn't quite negate the OP's point. The batmobile is an expression. The car maker isn't making cars based on an idea of transportation for a caped vigilante but is rather copying that particular expression of it. Searching for "Mark Towle" brings up batmobiles from very specific movies and games. These are not merely ideas these are specific expressions of them.
How can the unlocking of one phone -- no matter how many man hours might go towards testimony and cross-examination -- even begin to make a dent in this pile of money?
Imagine if someone made the same argument when walking out of a store without paying for off the shelf items, or not paying medical fees to a hospital.
How can the cost of a cereal box make a dent on a supermarket's pile of money.
How can the cost of cancer treatment make a dent on a hospital's pile of money.
How come only the FBI gets away with making such a claim.
So the FBI is conflating what software copyright means and what tool usage is. If I encrypt something with software created by somebody else it won't be possible for the software creator to decrypt my data.
Having comments on a page increases the lurkers on that page and reduces page views along with advertising impressions for the site.
Not having comments on a page will still get those lurkers to visit those pages because they were visiting anyway and would make them click through more pages in a shorter period of time.
I think you are reading too much into the 95% number. If you further read the article you see that a third of the requests are rejected and that Google is the entity making the decisions. Since a third is rejected that means that not all requests are deemed unfaithful to the nature of the data and also Google does not have the ability to discern whether the information published is irrelevant or incorrect yet it is the decision arbitrator.
It is incorrect to say that the last sentence is non-sequitur. DMCAs cover works of art, not free speech. DMCAs don't attempt to delist journalism, they delist Beyonce, Game of Thrones and the their ilk which are not truths, half truths or even lies. However the right to be forgotten tries to hide those potential truths, half truths and lies which makes them a tool for the perpetuation of a false narrative. A disagreement is not grounds for censorship just because someone benefits from that censorship. As for the DMCA, I was neither giving it credit nor taking it away. I was pointing out how unrelated it is to the right to be forgotten by grokking the justification that brought it into existence.
"defenestrate" hmm, big word. You are the one who injected artists and compensation because you don't have a point about the right to be forgotten which by the way has nothing to do with art and compensation. The article is pointing out the act of delisting online material and asking why they are treated differently, not art or compensation for art, end of story.
OK you got my bait. Historically important is a very subjective measure. What is historically important to you is not important to someone else. Similarly what is published about a person's conduct is important to some people and unimportant to other people. A person committing business fraud can hide that fraudulent behaviour and go do the same thing again. This is historically relevant info about the person that also negatively affects the entity wanting to do business with the fraudster.
If there is a decision involved in creating the "right" then by definition it is not natural. You have a right to know by virtue of you being able to know the things that are around you. However someone coercing you into forgetting does not happen all by itself naturally, you are coerced into it.
There is a reason why it matters for DMCA requests. If we look at the principals that make laws they are the right and wrong that we as humans agree upon. Copyrights holders were given a human created artificial monopoly because we wanted to create a compensation mechanism for works of art that enrich society. There is no natural form of compensation for arts like movies if they are allowed to be copied using a cassette duplicator or a cheap digital device. Artists compensations would be avoided and we as a society will have less arts since art is nearly always costly. Hence the DMCA requests.
Switch to the right to be forgotten. This is another artificially created "right" since there is no natural right to be forgotten. What I know about someone is known to me and I can communicate it. No one will agree on barring a human being from speaking the truth, even an ugly truth. If you look at what is allowed to be delisted from search engines you see that news agencies are delistable too. So the right to be forgotten is a truth hiding mechanism. One can't legally block the BBC from publishing a story about a person but that person can legally fool people into believing that that story doesn't exist. In essence the right to be forgotten is a work-around to reduce journalistic freedoms without touching news agencies but rather the delivery mechanism.
I so much agree. A lot of those delisted links are on news websites that the government cannot censor so they turned over to search engines which don't carry a journalistic attribute to them and hence have nothing like shield laws protecting news agencies.
Standardized training is necessary
The real problem is the lack of standardized training allows randos to push non-sense as sensible. You have people who should NOT be creating training material because they don't know what society has chosen to be the rules, be in power and guide the masses in how to behave. Imagine going to a doctor who learns on the job and the chief doctor instructed the newcomer to discard some evidence to protect other doctors. That's what's happening here.
Equal Under the Law
The ridiculous request here is that police unions area asking that police officers be treated different from other citizens. Criminal records on citizens shouldn't be different for the police. People are people. If a 5, 10, whatever years passed on a crime committed by a citizen then it would be recorded. The same should apply to the police or the president or the senator or the doctor or the janitor.
Your sarcasm is painful.
Re: Re: am I somehow NOT violating copyright there?
Your statement doesn't quite negate the OP's point. The batmobile is an expression. The car maker isn't making cars based on an idea of transportation for a caped vigilante but is rather copying that particular expression of it. Searching for "Mark Towle" brings up batmobiles from very specific movies and games. These are not merely ideas these are specific expressions of them.
Re: Damn!
Downloading them for free is still the same as watching the paid copy.
No, but the FBI is pretending that it does and doesn't want to acknowledge anything otherwise.
Re: The power of One
Imagine if someone made the same argument when walking out of a store without paying for off the shelf items, or not paying medical fees to a hospital.
How can the cost of a cereal box make a dent on a supermarket's pile of money.
How can the cost of cancer treatment make a dent on a hospital's pile of money.
How come only the FBI gets away with making such a claim.
Conflation
So the FBI is conflating what software copyright means and what tool usage is. If I encrypt something with software created by somebody else it won't be possible for the software creator to decrypt my data.
Re: Wondering out loud
Having comments on a page increases the lurkers on that page and reduces page views along with advertising impressions for the site.
Not having comments on a page will still get those lurkers to visit those pages because they were visiting anyway and would make them click through more pages in a shorter period of time.
Ka Ching!
Re: Re: Free speech
I think you are reading too much into the 95% number. If you further read the article you see that a third of the requests are rejected and that Google is the entity making the decisions. Since a third is rejected that means that not all requests are deemed unfaithful to the nature of the data and also Google does not have the ability to discern whether the information published is irrelevant or incorrect yet it is the decision arbitrator.
Re: Re: Re: Why does Google really care?
It is incorrect to say that the last sentence is non-sequitur. DMCAs cover works of art, not free speech. DMCAs don't attempt to delist journalism, they delist Beyonce, Game of Thrones and the their ilk which are not truths, half truths or even lies. However the right to be forgotten tries to hide those potential truths, half truths and lies which makes them a tool for the perpetuation of a false narrative. A disagreement is not grounds for censorship just because someone benefits from that censorship. As for the DMCA, I was neither giving it credit nor taking it away. I was pointing out how unrelated it is to the right to be forgotten by grokking the justification that brought it into existence.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why does Google really care?
"defenestrate" hmm, big word. You are the one who injected artists and compensation because you don't have a point about the right to be forgotten which by the way has nothing to do with art and compensation. The article is pointing out the act of delisting online material and asking why they are treated differently, not art or compensation for art, end of story.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why does Google really care?
This point has nothing to do with the article. DRM free material shared by the author online doesn't get DMCA take-down requests.
Re: Re: What about Hitler?
OK you got my bait. Historically important is a very subjective measure. What is historically important to you is not important to someone else. Similarly what is published about a person's conduct is important to some people and unimportant to other people. A person committing business fraud can hide that fraudulent behaviour and go do the same thing again. This is historically relevant info about the person that also negatively affects the entity wanting to do business with the fraudster.
Re: Re: Re: Why does Google really care?
Again you are missing the point by being a reductionist.
Re: Re: Re: Why does Google really care?
If there is a decision involved in creating the "right" then by definition it is not natural. You have a right to know by virtue of you being able to know the things that are around you. However someone coercing you into forgetting does not happen all by itself naturally, you are coerced into it.
Re: Re: Re: Why does Google really care?
YouTube, Jamendo, Podiobooks, Flickr etc. don't create the art. This is a complete mischaracterization of those services.
Re: Why does Google really care?
There is a reason why it matters for DMCA requests. If we look at the principals that make laws they are the right and wrong that we as humans agree upon. Copyrights holders were given a human created artificial monopoly because we wanted to create a compensation mechanism for works of art that enrich society. There is no natural form of compensation for arts like movies if they are allowed to be copied using a cassette duplicator or a cheap digital device. Artists compensations would be avoided and we as a society will have less arts since art is nearly always costly. Hence the DMCA requests.
Switch to the right to be forgotten. This is another artificially created "right" since there is no natural right to be forgotten. What I know about someone is known to me and I can communicate it. No one will agree on barring a human being from speaking the truth, even an ugly truth. If you look at what is allowed to be delisted from search engines you see that news agencies are delistable too. So the right to be forgotten is a truth hiding mechanism. One can't legally block the BBC from publishing a story about a person but that person can legally fool people into believing that that story doesn't exist. In essence the right to be forgotten is a work-around to reduce journalistic freedoms without touching news agencies but rather the delivery mechanism.
Re: Free speech
I so much agree. A lot of those delisted links are on news websites that the government cannot censor so they turned over to search engines which don't carry a journalistic attribute to them and hence have nothing like shield laws protecting news agencies.
What about Hitler?
So if it is a human right, does Hitler have the right to be forgotten? If not, why not?