8 ms·

Good job, EU! Squelch your citizenry in the interest of the copyright industry. Content filtering is draconian and fundamentally opposed to a free and open soci

by toxik 7y ago

Good job, EU! Squelch your citizenry in the interest of the copyright industry. Content filtering is draconian and fundamentally opposed to a free and open society.

jsilence 7y ago
Self hosted, federated alternative: funkwhale.audio
- indigochill 7y ago
  Is the theory that this will be more resistant to copyright takedowns (given the talk about "sharing music with friends") because takedowns will have to be issued to individual pods?
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  Does this pay artists? I can't find any mention of it on their website.
  - sethhochberg 7y ago
    They claim to specialize in copyleft content, so almost certainly not. The cynic in me thinks that in practice it'll be a fancy frontend for everybody's BitTorrent downloads folder... with an archive.org downloader script for some plausible deniability.
criley2 7y ago
It keeps happening with their draconian regulations. After the privacy/data protection bill, I hear that the european market for online advertising imploded trying to meet regulations and Google Ads gobbled up some 30-40% more market share in Europe. It came down to the fact that Google was able to meet the regulations fastest, and achieve informed user consent across a wide userbase dramatically faster than small local outlets, so ad buyers flocked to the fastest and widest game in town. One example: https://techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/image002.png https://techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/image002.p... Seems more true than ever that big regulations create big business moats that big businesses can easily absorb, but which demolish smaller businesses.
- Semaphor 7y ago
  The whole GDPR thing was known years in advance and even smaller outfits would have had enough time to make changes. An additional anecdote: we experimentally tried a smaller German ad exchange (used by quite some big-name sites here). Profits went way up compared to AdSense. What also went way up was the amount of stupid, low effort clickbait-bullshit (which as a non-lawyer I sometimes questioned the legality off considering some told outright lies). We stopped using them shortly afterward.
- dmitriid 7y ago
  Why do you think that advertising business is good and imploding ad business means privacy regulation is bad for small businesses in general? Besides, GDPR is an extension of similar laws that have existed for years.
  - criley2 7y ago
    * I didnt say ad business was good or bad, but from the perspective of a European I would want European firms competing against American firms and keeping money and talent in my borders to boost my communities. * I didn't say that imploding ad business means privacy regulation is bad for small business, but I did demonstrate that big regulation chokes out small business and strongly correlates with big business success
    - dmitriid 7y ago
      > I didnt say ad business was good or bad, but... But that's the business you chose for your illustration. > I didn't say that imploding ad business means privacy regulation is bad for small business, but ... ... you specifically talked about ad business alone and drew the conclusion that "big regulations create big business moats ... which demolish smaller businesses." It's a good thing that GDPR destroyed ad business that existed only by selling user data without consent. And there's nothing big about GDPR. It's very small and easy to comply with. If your business is built upon selling and profiting from user data without user's consent, good riddance. If not, GDPR doesn't affect you in the slightest.
- 7y ago
raverbashing 7y ago
While I don't think it's exclusively due to it, it is certainly a factor A lot of independent artists supported art 13 though, let's see how they like this change
Broken_Hippo 7y ago
Content filtering is draconian and fundamentally opposed to a free and open society. Now, I'm not a supporter of current copyright laws as I think they are absolutely ridiculous as is, however, I disagree with your statement. It all depends on who is doing the filtering. Done correctly, content screening is a part of a free and open society. And with some care, sometimes it is required. I am also going to assume that you are more referring to the entertainment industry than the "copyright industry" since the topic is content instead of, say, logos or toaster design. If I had children, I'd really want age-appropriate filtering to be available and I understand someone wanting "wholesome" content for themselves. I simply don't want them choosing for me and I am not the one to choose for my spouse. In most cases, as long as I have control over what sorts of content filtering I'm good. I do think society should be free from rhetoric that puts others in danger (anti-vaxx) or that calls for dehumanizing or wiping out others or their religion in most cases (white supremacy, for example). I don't think we should be so open that our brains fall out, in other words. But more to the point: All of that entertainment that was listed was made by someone. Likely many someones. So was the music people listen to in a store. And the art people look at in restaurants and people's homes.I completely understand people wanting to make money from their own work. When there is absolutely no screening, you get places that steal others work - music, art, entertainment, and so on - and make money from it. This might come in the form of making purses and coffee cups with art or someone getting taking your music and performing it for money. It is a real issue - and the "big industries" are not innocent of this. So yeah, if it is technologically possible for an entity to filter content based on these things, I can understand requiring it. Beethoven might not have been able to stop folks from memorising his music and playing it in a foreign land, but he would have had a chance with today's tech. Content filtering itself isn't bad - and I post this on a site that filters content to a point - and it doesn't make the "copyright industry" bad. The copyright laws make the copyright stuff bad.
- toxik 7y ago
  I would be cautious about defending those that have, from those that do not. The general public does not have the kinds of money and resources that the copyright lobby does. For that is the first point to counter your argument: the copyright industry is not mainly looking out for artists, it is looking out for itself and its benefactors. Ask any musician what percentages of royalties they get from their song, it's a joke at this point. Live performances are the sustenance of musical artists today. That is not to say that I don't defend the rights of artists to their work; I do. But that isn't what this battle is about, this is a battle against the same industry that finds it pertinent to send out mass blackmail letters to families, to single mothers, to depressed people. It is surely going to be one of those things that we look back on in decades to come and go "what the f--- were we thinking?" Finally, you have to take a wider view in these matters than saying "there is some configuration of content filtering that I find acceptable," because once you have content filtering laws in place, people who you disagree with can co-opt this into a totalitarian state. You do not know who will have the keys to the kingdom come tomorrow.

by toxik 7y ago

Good job, EU! Squelch your citizenry in the interest of the copyright industry. Content filtering is draconian and fundamentally opposed to a free and open society.

jsilence 7y ago

Self hosted, federated alternative: funkwhale.audio

indigochill 7y ago
Is the theory that this will be more resistant to copyright takedowns (given the talk about "sharing music with friends") because takedowns will have to be issued to individual pods?
jakelazaroff 7y ago
Does this pay artists? I can't find any mention of it on their website.
- sethhochberg 7y ago
  They claim to specialize in copyleft content, so almost certainly not. The cynic in me thinks that in practice it'll be a fancy frontend for everybody's BitTorrent downloads folder... with an archive.org downloader script for some plausible deniability.

criley2 7y ago

It keeps happening with their draconian regulations. After the privacy/data protection bill, I hear that the european market for online advertising imploded trying to meet regulations and Google Ads gobbled up some 30-40% more market share in Europe. It came down to the fact that Google was able to meet the regulations fastest, and achieve informed user consent across a wide userbase dramatically faster than small local outlets, so ad buyers flocked to the fastest and widest game in town. One example: https://techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/image002.png https://techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/image002.p... Seems more true than ever that big regulations create big business moats that big businesses can easily absorb, but which demolish smaller businesses.

Semaphor 7y ago
The whole GDPR thing was known years in advance and even smaller outfits would have had enough time to make changes. An additional anecdote: we experimentally tried a smaller German ad exchange (used by quite some big-name sites here). Profits went way up compared to AdSense. What also went way up was the amount of stupid, low effort clickbait-bullshit (which as a non-lawyer I sometimes questioned the legality off considering some told outright lies). We stopped using them shortly afterward.
dmitriid 7y ago
Why do you think that advertising business is good and imploding ad business means privacy regulation is bad for small businesses in general? Besides, GDPR is an extension of similar laws that have existed for years.
- criley2 7y ago
  * I didnt say ad business was good or bad, but from the perspective of a European I would want European firms competing against American firms and keeping money and talent in my borders to boost my communities. * I didn't say that imploding ad business means privacy regulation is bad for small business, but I did demonstrate that big regulation chokes out small business and strongly correlates with big business success
  - dmitriid 7y ago
    > I didnt say ad business was good or bad, but... But that's the business you chose for your illustration. > I didn't say that imploding ad business means privacy regulation is bad for small business, but ... ... you specifically talked about ad business alone and drew the conclusion that "big regulations create big business moats ... which demolish smaller businesses." It's a good thing that GDPR destroyed ad business that existed only by selling user data without consent. And there's nothing big about GDPR. It's very small and easy to comply with. If your business is built upon selling and profiting from user data without user's consent, good riddance. If not, GDPR doesn't affect you in the slightest.
7y ago

raverbashing 7y ago

While I don't think it's exclusively due to it, it is certainly a factor A lot of independent artists supported art 13 though, let's see how they like this change

Broken_Hippo 7y ago

Content filtering is draconian and fundamentally opposed to a free and open society. Now, I'm not a supporter of current copyright laws as I think they are absolutely ridiculous as is, however, I disagree with your statement. It all depends on who is doing the filtering. Done correctly, content screening is a part of a free and open society. And with some care, sometimes it is required. I am also going to assume that you are more referring to the entertainment industry than the "copyright industry" since the topic is content instead of, say, logos or toaster design. If I had children, I'd really want age-appropriate filtering to be available and I understand someone wanting "wholesome" content for themselves. I simply don't want them choosing for me and I am not the one to choose for my spouse. In most cases, as long as I have control over what sorts of content filtering I'm good. I do think society should be free from rhetoric that puts others in danger (anti-vaxx) or that calls for dehumanizing or wiping out others or their religion in most cases (white supremacy, for example). I don't think we should be so open that our brains fall out, in other words. But more to the point: All of that entertainment that was listed was made by someone. Likely many someones. So was the music people listen to in a store. And the art people look at in restaurants and people's homes.I completely understand people wanting to make money from their own work. When there is absolutely no screening, you get places that steal others work - music, art, entertainment, and so on - and make money from it. This might come in the form of making purses and coffee cups with art or someone getting taking your music and performing it for money. It is a real issue - and the "big industries" are not innocent of this. So yeah, if it is technologically possible for an entity to filter content based on these things, I can understand requiring it. Beethoven might not have been able to stop folks from memorising his music and playing it in a foreign land, but he would have had a chance with today's tech. Content filtering itself isn't bad - and I post this on a site that filters content to a point - and it doesn't make the "copyright industry" bad. The copyright laws make the copyright stuff bad.

toxik 7y ago
I would be cautious about defending those that have, from those that do not. The general public does not have the kinds of money and resources that the copyright lobby does. For that is the first point to counter your argument: the copyright industry is not mainly looking out for artists, it is looking out for itself and its benefactors. Ask any musician what percentages of royalties they get from their song, it's a joke at this point. Live performances are the sustenance of musical artists today. That is not to say that I don't defend the rights of artists to their work; I do. But that isn't what this battle is about, this is a battle against the same industry that finds it pertinent to send out mass blackmail letters to families, to single mothers, to depressed people. It is surely going to be one of those things that we look back on in decades to come and go "what the f--- were we thinking?" Finally, you have to take a wider view in these matters than saying "there is some configuration of content filtering that I find acceptable," because once you have content filtering laws in place, people who you disagree with can co-opt this into a totalitarian state. You do not know who will have the keys to the kingdom come tomorrow.