|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On March 26 2019 22:03 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2019 21:49 kongoline wrote:
it has nothing to do with them being old and clueless they are well aware most people hate it, they just dont care because corporations paid a lot of money for that law to pass. My sister has a small business online selling baby bonnets. She takes very nice photos of other seller’s clothing on the side as part of that business. I cannot tell you how many of her photos are stolen, just because it is so easy to do so and there is no recourse for her. It isn’t just big companies who want a way to protect their labor.
I completly agree with the sentiment of the idea being a noble one and something we should look into, but i just don't see how what they plan to implement is even physically possible.
If the platform is liable for what users upload/write/post on them (the moment it appears on there, and not just the moment they're notified about it the way it is right now), that just means that they have to be incredibly strict to make sure they can't get sued. Or at the very least not a lot.
Considering how fucking useless even Youtube's content ID is (as in rate of actually "catching" stuff that's not supposed to be on there) that just results in no other possiblity than cranking it up so much that for every postive you find and prevent from uploading you probably get hundrets or thousands of false positives that get blocked from uploading/writing a comment/whatever.
And then there's the whole issue that it's not just video/music either. You have to make sure noone starts a thread on twitter and posts the first vol of Harry Potter on there because he thinks that's funny. Which is totally a thing I agree with in principle, but again, how do you figure out that's what's happening and it's not someone just quoting 1-2lines for some reason?
As much as I agree with the sentiment of trying to reduce shady stuff like that from happening I just don't see any way we could implement that, not even in some pipedream land with unlimited money. It's basicly the EU pulling the same shit as the UK with the irish backstop saying that it could be solved with technology while everyone knows that technology doesn't exist and probably won't exist for the next 10 or so years either.
|
On March 26 2019 22:16 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2019 22:07 Dan HH wrote:On March 26 2019 21:26 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:I haven't followed this closely so not sure what is the current situation but if it will lead to the uploadfilters and other suppressive measures for glorious copyright, then they just gave euro-sceptic parties a huge stick to hit them with. Not many people will be enjoying this legislation... The euroscpetic parties ENF and EFDD have supported this, it couldn't have reached a parliament vote without their help on the legal affairs committee. And while the details of who voted how today aren't out yet, I bet it couldn't have passed without their votes. Ok, well that's their loss then I guess, seemed like an easy win for them. No doubt they will still use it as a stick even if they themselves helped implement it, because shouting is more important than reality often times these days.
I was wrong, looks like they switched camps since last year. From what I'm seeing the ENF vote was 50/50 and EFDD voted mostly against the directive
|
On March 26 2019 22:22 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2019 22:03 Plansix wrote:On March 26 2019 21:49 kongoline wrote:
it has nothing to do with them being old and clueless they are well aware most people hate it, they just dont care because corporations paid a lot of money for that law to pass. My sister has a small business online selling baby bonnets. She takes very nice photos of other seller’s clothing on the side as part of that business. I cannot tell you how many of her photos are stolen, just because it is so easy to do so and there is no recourse for her. It isn’t just big companies who want a way to protect their labor. I completly agree with the sentiment of the idea being a noble one and something we should look into, but i just don't see how what they plan to implement is even physically possible. If the platform is liable for what users upload/write/post on them (the moment it appears on there, and not just the moment they're notified about it the way it is right now), that just means that they have to be incredibly strict to make sure they can't get sued. Or at the very least not a lot. Considering how fucking useless even Youtube's content ID is (as in rate of actually "catching" stuff that's not supposed to be on there) that just results in no other possiblity than cranking it up so much that for every postive you find and prevent from uploading you probably get hundrets or thousands of false positives that get blocked from uploading/writing a comment/whatever. And then there's the whole issue that it's not just video/music either. You have to make sure noone starts a thread on twitter and posts the first vol of Harry Potter on there because he thinks that's funny. Which is totally a thing I agree with in principle, but again, how do you figure out that's what's happening and it's not someone just quoting 1-2lines for some reason? As much as I agree with the sentiment of trying to reduce shady stuff like that from happening I just don't see any way we could implement that, not even in some pipedream land with unlimited money. It's basicly the EU pulling the same shit as the UK with the irish backstop saying that it could be solved with technology while everyone knows that technology doesn't exist and probably won't exist for the next 10 or so years either.
There's also all the problems with things like:
1) Satire. There are immensely popular channels dedicated to showing short clips from movies while making fun of them (particularly TLJ, but there's plenty of bad lipsync, taking music videos literally, etc. etc. etc.). These do not infringe on copyright, because this type of use is explicitly exempted. But good luck to any automated filter that has to distinguish between just playing the video, and those that parody/criticize/report on it.
2) "Let's play" videos, and general streamers. I think technically in-game footage is copyrighted. And I can well imagine that game companies don't want the single player story campaigns streamed. But there is a large market for people who do speedruns, or tutorial videos on strategies, or semi-professional gamers who just stream themselves playing multiplayer games, or.... All of these are currently a gray area that is generally allowed, but good chance these will simply get banned.
3) News aggregators. Dead. GG.
4) People playing covers of copyrighted music. Dead. GG.
Probably many more examples, but these are the most obvious ones to me that I would like to take an approach where the copyright holder can object and have it taken down, but the law generally takes a "no harm no foul" approach, rather than making content hosts responsible, and therefore more likely to just ban everything out of fear of giant lawsuits.
|
On March 27 2019 00:53 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2019 22:22 Toadesstern wrote:On March 26 2019 22:03 Plansix wrote:On March 26 2019 21:49 kongoline wrote:
it has nothing to do with them being old and clueless they are well aware most people hate it, they just dont care because corporations paid a lot of money for that law to pass. My sister has a small business online selling baby bonnets. She takes very nice photos of other seller’s clothing on the side as part of that business. I cannot tell you how many of her photos are stolen, just because it is so easy to do so and there is no recourse for her. It isn’t just big companies who want a way to protect their labor. I completly agree with the sentiment of the idea being a noble one and something we should look into, but i just don't see how what they plan to implement is even physically possible. If the platform is liable for what users upload/write/post on them (the moment it appears on there, and not just the moment they're notified about it the way it is right now), that just means that they have to be incredibly strict to make sure they can't get sued. Or at the very least not a lot. Considering how fucking useless even Youtube's content ID is (as in rate of actually "catching" stuff that's not supposed to be on there) that just results in no other possiblity than cranking it up so much that for every postive you find and prevent from uploading you probably get hundrets or thousands of false positives that get blocked from uploading/writing a comment/whatever. And then there's the whole issue that it's not just video/music either. You have to make sure noone starts a thread on twitter and posts the first vol of Harry Potter on there because he thinks that's funny. Which is totally a thing I agree with in principle, but again, how do you figure out that's what's happening and it's not someone just quoting 1-2lines for some reason? As much as I agree with the sentiment of trying to reduce shady stuff like that from happening I just don't see any way we could implement that, not even in some pipedream land with unlimited money. It's basicly the EU pulling the same shit as the UK with the irish backstop saying that it could be solved with technology while everyone knows that technology doesn't exist and probably won't exist for the next 10 or so years either. There's also all the problems with things like: 1) Satire. There are immensely popular channels dedicated to showing short clips from movies while making fun of them (particularly TLJ, but there's plenty of bad lipsync, taking music videos literally, etc. etc. etc.). These do not infringe on copyright, because this type of use is explicitly exempted. But good luck to any automated filter that has to distinguish between just playing the video, and those that parody/criticize/report on it. 2) "Let's play" videos, and general streamers. I think technically in-game footage is copyrighted. And I can well imagine that game companies don't want the single player story campaigns streamed. But there is a large market for people who do speedruns, or tutorial videos on strategies, or semi-professional gamers who just stream themselves playing multiplayer games, or.... All of these are currently a gray area that is generally allowed, but good chance these will simply get banned. 3) News aggregators. Dead. GG. 4) People playing covers of copyrighted music. Dead. GG. Probably many more examples, but these are the most obvious ones to me that I would like to take an approach where the copyright holder can object and have it taken down, but the law generally takes a "no harm no foul" approach, rather than making content hosts responsible, and therefore more likely to just ban everything out of fear of giant lawsuits.
yeah, I wanted to keep it short but those are some of the examples. The saddest part is that it more or less requires the platform to prevent the upload from happening in the first place which puts them into a really weird place. To add another example to your list, let's pick Plansix' example of his sister who has some kind of online shop or just website with pictures that get stolen (I don't think he's talking about people physically stealing the pictures, as in snatching them out of her hand)
So I assume she has some kind of shop / website. It sounds like she takes those photos herself and then uploads them to her website or something along those lines. Not too much info on the specifics but that's what I read out of his post.
So basicly, like already shortly mentioned by FueledUpAndReadyToGo in his post, that results in whatever hosting service she uses being forced to make sure those don't infringe other peoples copyright.
This sounds really stupid and like a trivial thing but it really isn't. She knows that she took those photos herself and so do most people around her but I'm just going to assume that she never met the people who are running the hosting-service in person. It's not like she's handing them the original film from which she developed those photos, she's just uploading them.
How in the world are they supposed to know that she took those photos herself and isn't just trying to upload someone elses photos?
It's insane.
The way I see it that either results in EU getting blocked to make sure that people from the EU can't sue them or the law being interpreted in some really weak way that results in it not being enforced. There's really no other way around it.
|
This sucks.
Aside from just how bad this shit is, it also totally turns a large part of the younger generation against european democracy.
Just look at how shady this whole shit is. The thing is very unpopular among the population, especially among the younger parts thereof, but the people who are supposed to represent the population instead make politics for a small amount of lobbyists and clearly either do not understand the law or lie about it.
For a lot of these kids, this is the first time they actively engage in the political process. And what is their experience? Old men make laws, ignore what the population wants, ignore all of the effort put into the protests because there is literally nothing that can be done to them because old people who do not understand the law or the internet either will still vote for the same old men who make laws. And all for the benefit of a few corporations with lots of money for lobbying.
And it is not like it would be impossible to create a copyright law that works with the internet. You could simply have everyone pay a flat rate for culture and copyright stuff through their internet bill, and then figure out a fair way to distribute that money amongst the copyright holders. But of course, that would destroy the whole industry of copyright protectors, and we can not have something like that. We have to force the way analog copyright works into the digital realm no matter the cost, because we are old people who do not understand the modern world.
|
For further details, the photos are uploaded onto intagram after they are provided to whoever ordered them. The entire homemade baby cloths industry seems to be concentrated on instagram and all of their shit gets stolen all the time. And when I say she has a small business, I mean its a small business. She makes more than my brother and I put together. Her photos have value and they are stolen all the time. And there isn't much she can do about it because the commercial industries and laws on the internet are designed around protecting the companies hosting the data/photos/labor rather than the people who created the labor. It sucks a lot, so I can understand why the EU is trying to get a handle on the internet. Especially with the damage it has done to the US local news networks. Because they are just disappearing and are not being replaced by anything.
Also, I would point out that things like streaming video games has always been legally questionable in the US. There is no controlling ruling saying that simply talking over a video game is sufficient to be fair use. It is just that streaming games has been a huge source of marketing for so many companies that it has been allowed to go on. Laws that restrict streaming might not change that much, because currently any company can stop a any stream of their game just by demanding Twitch take it down.
|
On March 27 2019 01:47 Plansix wrote:
For further details, the photos are uploaded onto intagram after they are provided to whoever ordered them. The entire homemade baby cloths industry seems to be concentrated on instagram and all of their shit gets stolen all the time. And when I say she has a small business, I mean its a small business. She makes more than my brother and I put together. Her photos have value and they are stolen all the time. And there isn't much she can do about it because the commercial industries and laws on the internet are designed around protecting the companies hosting the data/photos/labor rather than the people who created the labor. It sucks a lot, so I can understand why the EU is trying to get a handle on the internet. Especially with the damage it has done to the US local news networks. Because they are just disappearing and are not being replaced by anything.
Also, I would point out that things like streaming video games has always been legally questionable in the US. There is no controlling ruling saying that simply talking over a video game is sufficient to be fair use. It is just that streaming games has been a huge source of marketing for so many companies that it has been allowed to go on. Laws that restrict streaming might not change that much, because currently any company can stop a any stream of their game just by demanding Twitch take it down.
so what happens if instagram blocks her from posting those photos on instagram because they can't confirm she's the person who holds the rights to those photos? From the point of view of any kind of algorithm that engages to check the upload she could just be someone who "likes" those pictures and posts/collects them on their insta account after stealing them elsewhere.
Like I said, I absolutely agree with you that something needs to be done but the way this is implemented is just phyiscally impossible to do if you take it a face-value. And that's not a figure of speech. It literally is.
People always talk about how youtube, twitter and co should spend some of that money and hire some actual people to make sure things aren't getting out of hand and I totally agree with that as well but are they supposed to hire enough people so that every single tweet that ever gets posted gets read by a human before being published because it (and every other tweet) needs to be checked before it's allowed on the website?
And those people need to be fluent in all languages and know every publication out there to make sure noone is trolling and posting something they're not allowed to?
|
On March 27 2019 01:47 Plansix wrote:
For further details, the photos are uploaded onto intagram after they are provided to whoever ordered them. The entire homemade baby cloths industry seems to be concentrated on instagram and all of their shit gets stolen all the time. And when I say she has a small business, I mean its a small business. She makes more than my brother and I put together. Her photos have value and they are stolen all the time. And there isn't much she can do about it because the commercial industries and laws on the internet are designed around protecting the companies hosting the data/photos/labor rather than the people who created the labor. It sucks a lot, so I can understand why the EU is trying to get a handle on the internet. Especially with the damage it has done to the US local news networks. Because they are just disappearing and are not being replaced by anything.
Also, I would point out that things like streaming video games has always been legally questionable in the US. There is no controlling ruling saying that simply talking over a video game is sufficient to be fair use. It is just that streaming games has been a huge source of marketing for so many companies that it has been allowed to go on. Laws that restrict streaming might not change that much, because currently any company can stop a any stream of their game just by demanding Twitch take it down.
Ok. Now imagine you are instagram. Your sister uploads photos. If the photos are hers, she has the right to upload them and nobody should dispute that. However, how is Instagram supposed to know that the photos are hers?
The way it works now (or at least, the way it is supposed to work):
You upload someone else's copyrighted material. That person complains. Instagram takes them down, maybe warns you, maybe even bans you.
The way the EU wants it to work:
You upload someone else's copyrighted material. Instagram magically knows this is copyrighted and blocks you from uploading it.
The way it probably will work:
You upload *anything*. Some automated filters check it against a vast database of "copyrighted material". If it matches, you are blocked from uploading it. If this blocks you from uploading your own photos? Tough shit. Complain to instagram and maybe they will allow you to upload it. Probably not though, because it's too much work for them to check this.
So yeah, maybe your sister will benefit. Or maybe she will be blocked from even posting her pictures. Who knows.
Now... you might say that your sister's photos are unique and easily distinguished. But what about holiday pictures? I just uploaded a bunch of pictures of my holiday to Jordan. I stood next to a couple of dozen other people and took pictures of the treasury in Petra. When I was done, someone took my spot, and this went on all day. How is Instagram supposed to know that *I* took this photo, and it is my own IP?
Here is an interesting article on ACTA 2 and photos: https://petapixel.com/2018/06/23/article-13-in-the-eu-what-does-it-mean-for-photos/
I don't disagree with you at all that your sister totally deserves to not have her photos stolen. I just think there is no reasonable way to flip the burden-of-proof without creating far more problems than it solves.
E: and for games, the same thing. Twitch takes streams down when gaming companies complain. And I suspect eventually someone will take the whole thing to court somewhere and we will learn what the law says about fair use. But what the EU does is flip it upside down: Twitch is now responsible for any copyright infringement, and needs to explicitly get permission for people to stream games.
|
On March 27 2019 02:10 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 01:47 Plansix wrote:
For further details, the photos are uploaded onto intagram after they are provided to whoever ordered them. The entire homemade baby cloths industry seems to be concentrated on instagram and all of their shit gets stolen all the time. And when I say she has a small business, I mean its a small business. She makes more than my brother and I put together. Her photos have value and they are stolen all the time. And there isn't much she can do about it because the commercial industries and laws on the internet are designed around protecting the companies hosting the data/photos/labor rather than the people who created the labor. It sucks a lot, so I can understand why the EU is trying to get a handle on the internet. Especially with the damage it has done to the US local news networks. Because they are just disappearing and are not being replaced by anything.
Also, I would point out that things like streaming video games has always been legally questionable in the US. There is no controlling ruling saying that simply talking over a video game is sufficient to be fair use. It is just that streaming games has been a huge source of marketing for so many companies that it has been allowed to go on. Laws that restrict streaming might not change that much, because currently any company can stop a any stream of their game just by demanding Twitch take it down. so what happens if instagram blocks her from posting those photos on instagram because they can't confirm she's the person who holds the rights to those photos? From the point of view of any kind of algorithm that engages to check the upload she could just be someone who "likes" those pictures and posts/collects them on their insta account after stealing them elsewhere. Like I said, I absolutely agree with you that something needs to be done but the way this is implemented is just phyiscally impossible to do if you take it a face-value. And that's not a figure of speech. It literally is. People always talk about how youtube, twitter and co should spend some of that money and hire some actual people to make sure things aren't getting out of hand and I totally agree with that as well but are they supposed to hire enough people so that every single tweet that ever gets posted gets read by a human before being published because it (and every other tweet) needs to be checked before it's allowed on the website? And those people need to be fluent in all languages and know every publication out there to make sure noone is trolling and posting something they're not allowed to?
That is a possibility right now. Instragram could block her at any time and she would have zero ability to stop them or challenge them. She is a tenant on the Lord Instagram's land and can be evicted at any time without recourse. The fear of some abusive system that screws her over already exists without EU regulations. She is always looking to move to another service. But at the end of the day, they all operate like instgram because the industry standard is to use algorithms and automated moderation, because it is cheap and it would be impossible for any company to compete at the scale while also employing human moderation.
Acrofales: You mean she is powerless in a world of players so much larger than her that she has no control over her fate? That is the status quo right now. The EU getting involved doesn't change much.
|
On March 27 2019 02:24 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 02:10 Toadesstern wrote:On March 27 2019 01:47 Plansix wrote:
For further details, the photos are uploaded onto intagram after they are provided to whoever ordered them. The entire homemade baby cloths industry seems to be concentrated on instagram and all of their shit gets stolen all the time. And when I say she has a small business, I mean its a small business. She makes more than my brother and I put together. Her photos have value and they are stolen all the time. And there isn't much she can do about it because the commercial industries and laws on the internet are designed around protecting the companies hosting the data/photos/labor rather than the people who created the labor. It sucks a lot, so I can understand why the EU is trying to get a handle on the internet. Especially with the damage it has done to the US local news networks. Because they are just disappearing and are not being replaced by anything.
Also, I would point out that things like streaming video games has always been legally questionable in the US. There is no controlling ruling saying that simply talking over a video game is sufficient to be fair use. It is just that streaming games has been a huge source of marketing for so many companies that it has been allowed to go on. Laws that restrict streaming might not change that much, because currently any company can stop a any stream of their game just by demanding Twitch take it down. so what happens if instagram blocks her from posting those photos on instagram because they can't confirm she's the person who holds the rights to those photos? From the point of view of any kind of algorithm that engages to check the upload she could just be someone who "likes" those pictures and posts/collects them on their insta account after stealing them elsewhere. Like I said, I absolutely agree with you that something needs to be done but the way this is implemented is just phyiscally impossible to do if you take it a face-value. And that's not a figure of speech. It literally is. People always talk about how youtube, twitter and co should spend some of that money and hire some actual people to make sure things aren't getting out of hand and I totally agree with that as well but are they supposed to hire enough people so that every single tweet that ever gets posted gets read by a human before being published because it (and every other tweet) needs to be checked before it's allowed on the website? And those people need to be fluent in all languages and know every publication out there to make sure noone is trolling and posting something they're not allowed to? That is a possibility right now. Instragram could block her at any time and she would have zero ability to stop them or challenge them. She is a tenant on the Lord Instagram's land and can be evicted at any time without recourse. The fear of some abusive system that screws her over already exists without EU regulations. She is always looking to move to another service. But at the end of the day, they all operate like instgram because the industry standard is to use algorithms and automated moderation, because it is cheap and it would be impossible for any company to compete at the scale while also employing human moderation. Acrofales: You mean she is powerless in a world of players so much larger than her that she has no control over her fate? That is the status quo right now. The EU getting involved doesn't change much.
Well, right now it is not in Instagram's interest to block her. Her interests (being seen by lots of people) and Instagram's interests (having lots of people use their platform) align perfectly. Instagram doesn't really care whether she uploads her own content or basic ripoffs. They do the current legal minimum: tell her she isn't allowed to upload copyrighted content, and take it down when someone complains. The EU wants to change that legal minimum so that Instagram's interests and your sister's interests may no longer align: Instagram may need to block all content that they cannot absolutely guarantee doesn't infringe on someone's copyright, and your sister may not be able to pass that bar (despite having her own original photos).
E: I say *may* because the fact that the law has passed doesn't mean anybody has any idea on how to implement it yet.
|
Again, Instagram's interest don't really factor into the fear my sister has about the platform. They could put in anti-bot software that blocks accounts that receive to many comments to quickly and she could then get caught up in that. And it could take her a week to get her account back in order. It isn't in their interests, but they are also so huge they don't really give a shit about her and never have. There is no possible way, that company is to huge.
This point I am trying to make is the fears about the law causing Instagram to put in systems that screw over people are the status quo right now without the law. The systems are put in place for reasons that are not the goverment, like combating bots or trying to promote some feature that no one cares about. So being worried about the potential way the law is implemented won't be a huge change for a lot of folks that do business on Instagram. It might even force Instagram to create systems that prevent accounts like hers from being caught up in the bullshit, but likely not.
|
|
|
The thing that worries me about the internet law is competition. I find it reasonable the authors get paid for their content if they want but google and facebook will easily be able to make a blanket deal with big content creators while for smaller parties it will be more difficult. The law hugely benefits google and facebook and other big internet companys,they could also try get exclusive deals maybe. Making the content simply unavailable for others.
|
Why would it be a bad idea?
|
Before i don't here something like that from someone more reliable than then daily mail, i am not going to believe that. The car industry lobby has far too much power here in germany to not fight something like that extremely hard. And way too many people here care far too much about the ability to drive as fast as they want.
Would probably be a good idea if limiters actually work reliably. But we can't even bring ourselves to actually have a speed limit on our autobahn here in Germany.
|
On March 27 2019 03:03 Simberto wrote:Before i don't here something like that from someone more reliable than then daily mail, i am not going to believe that. The car industry lobby has far too much power here in germany to not fight something like that extremely hard. And way too many people here care far too much about the ability to drive as fast as they want. Would probably be a good idea if limiters actually work reliably. But we can't even bring ourselves to actually have a speed limit on our autobahn here in Germany. https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/02/27/all-new-cars-to-have-speed-limiters-fitted-rules-european-parliament/#550cf526d145
Forbes from a month ago about the same thing.
|
On March 27 2019 03:03 Simberto wrote:Before i don't here something like that from someone more reliable than then daily mail, i am not going to believe that. The car industry lobby has far too much power here in germany to not fight something like that extremely hard. And way too many people here care far too much about the ability to drive as fast as they want. Would probably be a good idea if limiters actually work reliably. But we can't even bring ourselves to actually have a speed limit on our autobahn here in Germany.
Yup that's what I said lol,and then she showed me this.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davekeating/2019/03/26/new-eu-law-will-require-all-new-cars-to-be-fit-with-anti-speeding-devices/
Now forbes isn't the greatest news source either but to see it in 2 news sources makes me doubt if it could be true. It seems hard to believe but maybe.
I don't know. In the Netherlands you have lots of different speed limits,the car would then break itself once you enter a new speed zone or how would this work. Seems like lots of things could go wrong.
Or say you need rush to hospital,or when overtaking another car. There can be somewhat decent reasons for speeding at times.
@below:ah I didn't see that you could overrule it. I didn't actually read the article as I was in shock.
Then its not that bad I guess. Still I am not sure I want to go towards a society where any and all rulebreaking has been made technological impossible. It has its advantages I can see that but it would feel restrictive and not free.
|
I don't see the problem with that at all. It even says right there in your article that the driver can override it by stepping hard on the gas pedal or by switching the ISA thing off (for instance, if they want to overtake someone). Having cars default to not allowing you to go faster than the speed limit seems quite okay. And unlike recognizing copyrighted images, recognizing road signs (or just using the Waze way with GPS and a map) is technologically possible already.
|
On March 27 2019 03:03 Simberto wrote:Before i don't here something like that from someone more reliable than then daily mail, i am not going to believe that. The car industry lobby has far too much power here in germany to not fight something like that extremely hard. And way too many people here care far too much about the ability to drive as fast as they want. Would probably be a good idea if limiters actually work reliably. But we can't even bring ourselves to actually have a speed limit on our autobahn here in Germany.
I think the point is that if there isn't a speed limit on the autobahn then the car will let you drive as fast as you like...
|
On March 27 2019 02:55 Plansix wrote:
Again, Instagram's interest don't really factor into the fear my sister has about the platform. They could put in anti-bot software that blocks accounts that receive to many comments to quickly and she could then get caught up in that. And it could take her a week to get her account back in order. It isn't in their interests, but they are also so huge they don't really give a shit about her and never have. There is no possible way, that company is to huge.
This point I am trying to make is the fears about the law causing Instagram to put in systems that screw over people are the status quo right now without the law. The systems are put in place for reasons that are not the goverment, like combating bots or trying to promote some feature that no one cares about. So being worried about the potential way the law is implemented won't be a huge change for a lot of folks that do business on Instagram. It might even force Instagram to create systems that prevent accounts like hers from being caught up in the bullshit, but likely not.
No I really don't think they are.
Your sister is currently afraid that maybe she gets screwed over by Instagram. That's a maybe, and it's a singular in the case of it just being Instagram. If that happens she could hire someone to make a website and host her stuff on there.
Or switch to twitter or something else. Which again, puts her in the same situation but she always has that option to switch platforms despite it being a hassle and probably losing customers because as you said, people only check instragram for this thing.
With what the EU plans to implement it would go much further than that, assuming they follow the guidelines to a tee. She might be banned from all platforms that can't confirm that the photos are hers. She wouldn't have an option to switch to another platform and try to make that work, none of them could let her allow to upload those photos.
Or more realistically speaking, because she's probably from the US: they'd block people from the EU from viewing her content and she's fine. But if she was living in the EU and trying to make that a business the fear to get screwed over should be way more extreme.
Again, it's unsure how it ends up playing out in reality as of right now but there's no way they can implement that and enforce it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
