|
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. |
I am sure it is different for different companies and people, but the fact remains that these companies are so big and so unwieldy that they do harm all the time to people using them for business. It isn’t intentional, it is just a product of being huge, bloated and unregulated.
And if she is banned from all platform can’t confirm the photos are hers, is that really that bad if she is on one platform that she has a good working relationship with? It means all the people stealing the photos are banned. And this assumes that this dooms day reality becomes real, which I sort of doubt will take place.
|
On March 27 2019 03:22 Plansix wrote:
I am sure it is different for different companies and people, but the fact remains that these companies are so big and so unwieldy that they do harm all the time to people using them for business. It isn’t intentional, it is just a product of being huge, bloated and unregulated.
And if she is banned from all platform can’t confirm the photos are hers, is that really that bad if she is on one platform that she has a good working relationship with? It means all the people stealing the photos are banned. And this assumes that this dooms day reality becomes real, which I sort of doubt will take place.
what would that one platform be? They have to be able to confirm those are her pictures just as much as every other platform. That's the whole issue with this.
Like Acrofales mentioned. IF they want to make this a reality they somehow need some EU-wide database that holds all kinds of copyright protected material, the blue-prints so to speak, to check things against and make sure noone is uploading that song, that article, that book, that video or that photo that belongs to someone else.
Now let's just ignore how absolutely terrible we still are at doing this automatically with an algorithm (people trying to circumvent the algorithm by altering it ever so slightly, people who don't infringe on it because it's satire or whatever etc) and pretend someone waves a magic wand and we suddenly have the software to do this (we don't):
Even then, how are you supposed to run these checks. How big is that EU-wide database supposed to be to be able to store all photos, videos, songs, books, articles etc to check against? Even if we're only talking about commercial stuff, because technically speaking all those essays I wrote in highschool for classes are mine as well but that just gets even more ridiculous.
How big is a single file going to be for a raw video, a song, a photo or whatever? And now that database is supposed to encompass basicly everything. All series to make sure noone uploads them to youtube, all photos every commercial photographer ever took (which is probably a number in the millions per photographer lol), all books written in all languages etc.
And besides just storing all that you have to make a check against that database to make sure nothing infringes against it
That's basicly why I said it's impossible to implement this if you take it at face value. There's only two options:
a) you realize it's impossible and pretend it doesn't exist and don't enforce this
b) companies block the EU from acessing them to make sure they don't get sued.
|
A publisher vouches for your content and you pay them a fee. Why else did all the huge publishers lobby for this turd?
|
On March 27 2019 03:37 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 03:22 Plansix wrote:
I am sure it is different for different companies and people, but the fact remains that these companies are so big and so unwieldy that they do harm all the time to people using them for business. It isn’t intentional, it is just a product of being huge, bloated and unregulated.
And if she is banned from all platform can’t confirm the photos are hers, is that really that bad if she is on one platform that she has a good working relationship with? It means all the people stealing the photos are banned. And this assumes that this dooms day reality becomes real, which I sort of doubt will take place. what would that one platform be? They have to be able to confirm those are her pictures just as much as every other platform. That's the whole issue with this. Like Acrofales mentioned. IF they want to make this a reality they somehow need some EU-wide database that holds all kinds of copyright protected material, the blue-prints so to speak, to check things against and make sure noone is uploading that song, that article, that book, that video or that photo that belongs to someone else. Now let's just ignore how absolutely terrible we still are at doing this automatically with an algorithm (people trying to circumvent the algorithm by altering it ever so slightly, people who don't infringe on it because it's satire or whatever etc) and pretend someone waves a magic wand and we suddenly have the software to do this (we don't): Even then, how are you supposed to run these checks. How big is that EU-wide database supposed to be to be able to store all photos, videos, songs, books, articles etc to check against? Even if we're only talking about commercial stuff, because technically speaking all those essays I wrote in highschool for classes are mine as well but that just gets even more ridiculous. How big is a single file going to be for a raw video, a song, a photo or whatever? And now that database is supposed to encompass basicly everything. All series to make sure noone uploads them to youtube, all photos every commercial photographer ever took (which is probably a number in the millions per photographer lol), all books written in all languages etc. And besides just storing all that you have to make a check against that database to make sure nothing infringes against it That's basicly why I said it's impossible to implement this if you take it at face value. There's only two options: a) you realize it's impossible and pretend it doesn't exist and don't enforce this b) companies block the EU from acessing them to make sure they don't get sued.
You are asking for a hypothetical on your hypothetical reality where she is banned from all platforms because they have an error in their software were they will not let her host her own photographs. Or they put into place systems that would make them no-viable companies in an effort to comply with send regulation.
So my response about which platform that would be: The good one that doesn’t ban everyone in this dystopian hellscape of new regulation.
I understand that people hate change, but are we really that scared of a reality where huge platforms have to develop systems so they have to give a shit about who is putting what on their platform? This scary reality that looks a little more like the internet of the early 2000s, pre youtube, facebook and the rest.
|
On March 27 2019 03:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 03:37 Toadesstern wrote:On March 27 2019 03:22 Plansix wrote:
I am sure it is different for different companies and people, but the fact remains that these companies are so big and so unwieldy that they do harm all the time to people using them for business. It isn’t intentional, it is just a product of being huge, bloated and unregulated.
And if she is banned from all platform can’t confirm the photos are hers, is that really that bad if she is on one platform that she has a good working relationship with? It means all the people stealing the photos are banned. And this assumes that this dooms day reality becomes real, which I sort of doubt will take place. what would that one platform be? They have to be able to confirm those are her pictures just as much as every other platform. That's the whole issue with this. Like Acrofales mentioned. IF they want to make this a reality they somehow need some EU-wide database that holds all kinds of copyright protected material, the blue-prints so to speak, to check things against and make sure noone is uploading that song, that article, that book, that video or that photo that belongs to someone else. Now let's just ignore how absolutely terrible we still are at doing this automatically with an algorithm (people trying to circumvent the algorithm by altering it ever so slightly, people who don't infringe on it because it's satire or whatever etc) and pretend someone waves a magic wand and we suddenly have the software to do this (we don't): Even then, how are you supposed to run these checks. How big is that EU-wide database supposed to be to be able to store all photos, videos, songs, books, articles etc to check against? Even if we're only talking about commercial stuff, because technically speaking all those essays I wrote in highschool for classes are mine as well but that just gets even more ridiculous. How big is a single file going to be for a raw video, a song, a photo or whatever? And now that database is supposed to encompass basicly everything. All series to make sure noone uploads them to youtube, all photos every commercial photographer ever took (which is probably a number in the millions per photographer lol), all books written in all languages etc. And besides just storing all that you have to make a check against that database to make sure nothing infringes against it That's basicly why I said it's impossible to implement this if you take it at face value. There's only two options: a) you realize it's impossible and pretend it doesn't exist and don't enforce this b) companies block the EU from acessing them to make sure they don't get sued. You are asking for a hypothetical on your hypothetical reality where she is banned from all platforms because they have an error in their software were they will not let her host her own photographs. Or they put into place systems that would make them no-viable companies in an effort to comply with send regulation. So my response about which platform that would be: The good one that doesn’t ban everyone in this dystopian hellscape of new regulation. I understand that people hate change, but are we really that scared of a reality where huge platforms have to develop systems so they have to give a shit about who is putting what on their platform? This scary reality that looks a little more like the internet of the early 2000s, pre youtube, facebook and the rest.
Because there is zero chance that system that is developed will benefit the common people.
|
On March 27 2019 03:37 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 03:22 Plansix wrote:
I am sure it is different for different companies and people, but the fact remains that these companies are so big and so unwieldy that they do harm all the time to people using them for business. It isn’t intentional, it is just a product of being huge, bloated and unregulated.
And if she is banned from all platform can’t confirm the photos are hers, is that really that bad if she is on one platform that she has a good working relationship with? It means all the people stealing the photos are banned. And this assumes that this dooms day reality becomes real, which I sort of doubt will take place. what would that one platform be? They have to be able to confirm those are her pictures just as much as every other platform. That's the whole issue with this. Like Acrofales mentioned. IF they want to make this a reality they somehow need some EU-wide database that holds all kinds of copyright protected material, the blue-prints so to speak, to check things against and make sure noone is uploading that song, that article, that book, that video or that photo that belongs to someone else. Now let's just ignore how absolutely terrible we still are at doing this automatically with an algorithm (people trying to circumvent the algorithm by altering it ever so slightly, people who don't infringe on it because it's satire or whatever etc) and pretend someone waves a magic wand and we suddenly have the software to do this (we don't): Even then, how are you supposed to run these checks. How big is that EU-wide database supposed to be to be able to store all photos, videos, songs, books, articles etc to check against? Even if we're only talking about commercial stuff, because technically speaking all those essays I wrote in highschool for classes are mine as well but that just gets even more ridiculous. How big is a single file going to be for a raw video, a song, a photo or whatever? And now that database is supposed to encompass basicly everything. All series to make sure noone uploads them to youtube, all photos every commercial photographer ever took (which is probably a number in the millions per photographer lol), all books written in all languages etc. And besides just storing all that you have to make a check against that database to make sure nothing infringes against it That's basicly why I said it's impossible to implement this if you take it at face value. There's only two options: a) you realize it's impossible and pretend it doesn't exist and don't enforce this b) companies block the EU from acessing them to make sure they don't get sued.
I believe it is going to be mostly a). The national legislature will be rather lenient and the real law enforcment even more so.
The law will come in force when some big firm with an expensive lawyer and enough money and competitive interest wants some other firm (probably a rather small one) to stop operating in a certain way. The conservatives will say "We told you so" and the media that bought that law will proclaim how wrong everyone was on that thing and "doomsday didn't happen".
It's going to be that way because it is the only realistic option.
|
On March 27 2019 03:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 03:37 Toadesstern wrote:On March 27 2019 03:22 Plansix wrote:
I am sure it is different for different companies and people, but the fact remains that these companies are so big and so unwieldy that they do harm all the time to people using them for business. It isn’t intentional, it is just a product of being huge, bloated and unregulated.
And if she is banned from all platform can’t confirm the photos are hers, is that really that bad if she is on one platform that she has a good working relationship with? It means all the people stealing the photos are banned. And this assumes that this dooms day reality becomes real, which I sort of doubt will take place. what would that one platform be? They have to be able to confirm those are her pictures just as much as every other platform. That's the whole issue with this. Like Acrofales mentioned. IF they want to make this a reality they somehow need some EU-wide database that holds all kinds of copyright protected material, the blue-prints so to speak, to check things against and make sure noone is uploading that song, that article, that book, that video or that photo that belongs to someone else. Now let's just ignore how absolutely terrible we still are at doing this automatically with an algorithm (people trying to circumvent the algorithm by altering it ever so slightly, people who don't infringe on it because it's satire or whatever etc) and pretend someone waves a magic wand and we suddenly have the software to do this (we don't): Even then, how are you supposed to run these checks. How big is that EU-wide database supposed to be to be able to store all photos, videos, songs, books, articles etc to check against? Even if we're only talking about commercial stuff, because technically speaking all those essays I wrote in highschool for classes are mine as well but that just gets even more ridiculous. How big is a single file going to be for a raw video, a song, a photo or whatever? And now that database is supposed to encompass basicly everything. All series to make sure noone uploads them to youtube, all photos every commercial photographer ever took (which is probably a number in the millions per photographer lol), all books written in all languages etc. And besides just storing all that you have to make a check against that database to make sure nothing infringes against it That's basicly why I said it's impossible to implement this if you take it at face value. There's only two options: a) you realize it's impossible and pretend it doesn't exist and don't enforce this b) companies block the EU from acessing them to make sure they don't get sued. You are asking for a hypothetical on your hypothetical reality where she is banned from all platforms because they have an error in their software were they will not let her host her own photographs. Or they put into place systems that would make them no-viable companies in an effort to comply with send regulation. So my response about which platform that would be: The good one that doesn’t ban everyone in this dystopian hellscape of new regulation. I understand that people hate change, but are we really that scared of a reality where huge platforms have to develop systems so they have to give a shit about who is putting what on their platform? This scary reality that looks a little more like the internet of the early 2000s, pre youtube, facebook and the rest.
no you misunderstand. It would not be based on an error of the software. I'm saying that if they try to enforce this to a tee it would be a default that everyone has to follow (and ban her).
Not because of an error but because that's how it is.
Her only option would be to host the pictures herself because she herself does know that she took those pictures.
On March 27 2019 03:50 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 03:37 Toadesstern wrote:On March 27 2019 03:22 Plansix wrote:
I am sure it is different for different companies and people, but the fact remains that these companies are so big and so unwieldy that they do harm all the time to people using them for business. It isn’t intentional, it is just a product of being huge, bloated and unregulated.
And if she is banned from all platform can’t confirm the photos are hers, is that really that bad if she is on one platform that she has a good working relationship with? It means all the people stealing the photos are banned. And this assumes that this dooms day reality becomes real, which I sort of doubt will take place. what would that one platform be? They have to be able to confirm those are her pictures just as much as every other platform. That's the whole issue with this. Like Acrofales mentioned. IF they want to make this a reality they somehow need some EU-wide database that holds all kinds of copyright protected material, the blue-prints so to speak, to check things against and make sure noone is uploading that song, that article, that book, that video or that photo that belongs to someone else. Now let's just ignore how absolutely terrible we still are at doing this automatically with an algorithm (people trying to circumvent the algorithm by altering it ever so slightly, people who don't infringe on it because it's satire or whatever etc) and pretend someone waves a magic wand and we suddenly have the software to do this (we don't): Even then, how are you supposed to run these checks. How big is that EU-wide database supposed to be to be able to store all photos, videos, songs, books, articles etc to check against? Even if we're only talking about commercial stuff, because technically speaking all those essays I wrote in highschool for classes are mine as well but that just gets even more ridiculous. How big is a single file going to be for a raw video, a song, a photo or whatever? And now that database is supposed to encompass basicly everything. All series to make sure noone uploads them to youtube, all photos every commercial photographer ever took (which is probably a number in the millions per photographer lol), all books written in all languages etc. And besides just storing all that you have to make a check against that database to make sure nothing infringes against it That's basicly why I said it's impossible to implement this if you take it at face value. There's only two options: a) you realize it's impossible and pretend it doesn't exist and don't enforce this b) companies block the EU from acessing them to make sure they don't get sued. I believe it is going to be mostly a). The national legislature will be rather lenient and the real law enforcment even more so. The law will come in force when some big firm with an expensive lawyer and enough money and competitive interest wants some other firm (probably a rather small one) to stop operating in a certain way. The conservatives will say "We told you so" and the media that bought that law will proclaim how wrong everyone was on that thing and "doomsday didn't happen". It's going to be that way because it is the only realistic option.
yeah agree.
Just to make this clear. I don't think this dooms-day I'm talking about will happen. I'm just trying to make a point that it would happen if you try to enforce it. Which leads me to believe that it just won't be. It's the only plausible way.
|
On March 27 2019 03:48 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 03:46 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2019 03:37 Toadesstern wrote:On March 27 2019 03:22 Plansix wrote:
I am sure it is different for different companies and people, but the fact remains that these companies are so big and so unwieldy that they do harm all the time to people using them for business. It isn’t intentional, it is just a product of being huge, bloated and unregulated.
And if she is banned from all platform can’t confirm the photos are hers, is that really that bad if she is on one platform that she has a good working relationship with? It means all the people stealing the photos are banned. And this assumes that this dooms day reality becomes real, which I sort of doubt will take place. what would that one platform be? They have to be able to confirm those are her pictures just as much as every other platform. That's the whole issue with this. Like Acrofales mentioned. IF they want to make this a reality they somehow need some EU-wide database that holds all kinds of copyright protected material, the blue-prints so to speak, to check things against and make sure noone is uploading that song, that article, that book, that video or that photo that belongs to someone else. Now let's just ignore how absolutely terrible we still are at doing this automatically with an algorithm (people trying to circumvent the algorithm by altering it ever so slightly, people who don't infringe on it because it's satire or whatever etc) and pretend someone waves a magic wand and we suddenly have the software to do this (we don't): Even then, how are you supposed to run these checks. How big is that EU-wide database supposed to be to be able to store all photos, videos, songs, books, articles etc to check against? Even if we're only talking about commercial stuff, because technically speaking all those essays I wrote in highschool for classes are mine as well but that just gets even more ridiculous. How big is a single file going to be for a raw video, a song, a photo or whatever? And now that database is supposed to encompass basicly everything. All series to make sure noone uploads them to youtube, all photos every commercial photographer ever took (which is probably a number in the millions per photographer lol), all books written in all languages etc. And besides just storing all that you have to make a check against that database to make sure nothing infringes against it That's basicly why I said it's impossible to implement this if you take it at face value. There's only two options: a) you realize it's impossible and pretend it doesn't exist and don't enforce this b) companies block the EU from acessing them to make sure they don't get sued. You are asking for a hypothetical on your hypothetical reality where she is banned from all platforms because they have an error in their software were they will not let her host her own photographs. Or they put into place systems that would make them no-viable companies in an effort to comply with send regulation. So my response about which platform that would be: The good one that doesn’t ban everyone in this dystopian hellscape of new regulation. I understand that people hate change, but are we really that scared of a reality where huge platforms have to develop systems so they have to give a shit about who is putting what on their platform? This scary reality that looks a little more like the internet of the early 2000s, pre youtube, facebook and the rest. Because there is zero chance that system that is developed will benefit the common people.
The current internet right now barely benefits the common person. It is actively destroying news media across US, which is being replaced by nothing. The quality of reporting and news media has been degrading for a two decades and there is a rise of right wing nationalism that no one can seem to figure out how to stop(because its so damn profitable). We are charging head long into a robocop like future and everyone is worried that some regulations might make youtube have to give a shit about what is on its service.
So yeah, I have a really negative opinion of the current internet and find it hard to believe that more government involvement could somehow make it worse.
On March 27 2019 04:03 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 03:46 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2019 03:37 Toadesstern wrote:On March 27 2019 03:22 Plansix wrote:
I am sure it is different for different companies and people, but the fact remains that these companies are so big and so unwieldy that they do harm all the time to people using them for business. It isn’t intentional, it is just a product of being huge, bloated and unregulated.
And if she is banned from all platform can’t confirm the photos are hers, is that really that bad if she is on one platform that she has a good working relationship with? It means all the people stealing the photos are banned. And this assumes that this dooms day reality becomes real, which I sort of doubt will take place. what would that one platform be? They have to be able to confirm those are her pictures just as much as every other platform. That's the whole issue with this. Like Acrofales mentioned. IF they want to make this a reality they somehow need some EU-wide database that holds all kinds of copyright protected material, the blue-prints so to speak, to check things against and make sure noone is uploading that song, that article, that book, that video or that photo that belongs to someone else. Now let's just ignore how absolutely terrible we still are at doing this automatically with an algorithm (people trying to circumvent the algorithm by altering it ever so slightly, people who don't infringe on it because it's satire or whatever etc) and pretend someone waves a magic wand and we suddenly have the software to do this (we don't): Even then, how are you supposed to run these checks. How big is that EU-wide database supposed to be to be able to store all photos, videos, songs, books, articles etc to check against? Even if we're only talking about commercial stuff, because technically speaking all those essays I wrote in highschool for classes are mine as well but that just gets even more ridiculous. How big is a single file going to be for a raw video, a song, a photo or whatever? And now that database is supposed to encompass basicly everything. All series to make sure noone uploads them to youtube, all photos every commercial photographer ever took (which is probably a number in the millions per photographer lol), all books written in all languages etc. And besides just storing all that you have to make a check against that database to make sure nothing infringes against it That's basicly why I said it's impossible to implement this if you take it at face value. There's only two options: a) you realize it's impossible and pretend it doesn't exist and don't enforce this b) companies block the EU from acessing them to make sure they don't get sued. You are asking for a hypothetical on your hypothetical reality where she is banned from all platforms because they have an error in their software were they will not let her host her own photographs. Or they put into place systems that would make them no-viable companies in an effort to comply with send regulation. So my response about which platform that would be: The good one that doesn’t ban everyone in this dystopian hellscape of new regulation. I understand that people hate change, but are we really that scared of a reality where huge platforms have to develop systems so they have to give a shit about who is putting what on their platform? This scary reality that looks a little more like the internet of the early 2000s, pre youtube, facebook and the rest. no you misunderstand. It would not be based on an error of the software. I'm saying that if they try to enforce this to a tee it would be a default that everyone has to follow (and ban her). Not because of an error but because that's how it is. Her only option would be to host the pictures herself because she herself does know that she took those pictures.
I really doubt this regulation is going to destroy every single photo hosting service in existence to the point where we all have to build our own servers in our back yard just to share baby pictures.
|
On March 27 2019 03:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 03:37 Toadesstern wrote:On March 27 2019 03:22 Plansix wrote:
I am sure it is different for different companies and people, but the fact remains that these companies are so big and so unwieldy that they do harm all the time to people using them for business. It isn’t intentional, it is just a product of being huge, bloated and unregulated.
And if she is banned from all platform can’t confirm the photos are hers, is that really that bad if she is on one platform that she has a good working relationship with? It means all the people stealing the photos are banned. And this assumes that this dooms day reality becomes real, which I sort of doubt will take place. what would that one platform be? They have to be able to confirm those are her pictures just as much as every other platform. That's the whole issue with this. Like Acrofales mentioned. IF they want to make this a reality they somehow need some EU-wide database that holds all kinds of copyright protected material, the blue-prints so to speak, to check things against and make sure noone is uploading that song, that article, that book, that video or that photo that belongs to someone else. Now let's just ignore how absolutely terrible we still are at doing this automatically with an algorithm (people trying to circumvent the algorithm by altering it ever so slightly, people who don't infringe on it because it's satire or whatever etc) and pretend someone waves a magic wand and we suddenly have the software to do this (we don't): Even then, how are you supposed to run these checks. How big is that EU-wide database supposed to be to be able to store all photos, videos, songs, books, articles etc to check against? Even if we're only talking about commercial stuff, because technically speaking all those essays I wrote in highschool for classes are mine as well but that just gets even more ridiculous. How big is a single file going to be for a raw video, a song, a photo or whatever? And now that database is supposed to encompass basicly everything. All series to make sure noone uploads them to youtube, all photos every commercial photographer ever took (which is probably a number in the millions per photographer lol), all books written in all languages etc. And besides just storing all that you have to make a check against that database to make sure nothing infringes against it That's basicly why I said it's impossible to implement this if you take it at face value. There's only two options: a) you realize it's impossible and pretend it doesn't exist and don't enforce this b) companies block the EU from acessing them to make sure they don't get sued. You are asking for a hypothetical on your hypothetical reality where she is banned from all platforms because they have an error in their software were they will not let her host her own photographs. Or they put into place systems that would make them no-viable companies in an effort to comply with send regulation. So my response about which platform that would be: The good one that doesn’t ban everyone in this dystopian hellscape of new regulation. I understand that people hate change, but are we really that scared of a reality where huge platforms have to develop systems so they have to give a shit about who is putting what on their platform? This scary reality that looks a little more like the internet of the early 2000s, pre youtube, facebook and the rest.
Actually the most likely scenario if the EU decides to take a stab at enforce this is that Instagram will just charge your sister (and anybody else) for uploading photos (at least, if they operate in the EU), and take over all legal fees of copyright infringement. Of course, this ruins the entire business model, and nobody gets to upload selfies for free anymore.
This will either work fine, or it won't and pinterest/instagram/youtube/facebook will realize their business model has been wrecked in Europe and pressure the EU to change the law back, probably by threatening to just stop operating in Europe altogether.
Because the "technological solution" is a total pipedream.
In neither of these cases do European small businesses or consumers win.
|
The world where people have to pay a nominal fee to host there photos is not that bad, IMO. Free services that make money on “the back end” are the opposite of consumer friendly.
|
On March 27 2019 04:04 Plansix wrote:
[...]
I really doubt this regulation is going to destroy every single photo hosting service in existence to the point where we all have to build our own servers in our back yard just to share baby pictures.
depends... will it? I don't think so. Would it if you have to follow it? Yes
On March 27 2019 04:12 Plansix wrote:
The world where people have to pay a nominal fee to host there photos is not that bad, IMO. Free services that make money on “the back end” are the opposite of consumer friendly.
idk. I like the option to post my holiday pictures on twitter to share with people. Don't think I'd want to pay for that though.
|
On March 27 2019 04:09 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 03:46 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2019 03:37 Toadesstern wrote:On March 27 2019 03:22 Plansix wrote:
I am sure it is different for different companies and people, but the fact remains that these companies are so big and so unwieldy that they do harm all the time to people using them for business. It isn’t intentional, it is just a product of being huge, bloated and unregulated.
And if she is banned from all platform can’t confirm the photos are hers, is that really that bad if she is on one platform that she has a good working relationship with? It means all the people stealing the photos are banned. And this assumes that this dooms day reality becomes real, which I sort of doubt will take place. what would that one platform be? They have to be able to confirm those are her pictures just as much as every other platform. That's the whole issue with this. Like Acrofales mentioned. IF they want to make this a reality they somehow need some EU-wide database that holds all kinds of copyright protected material, the blue-prints so to speak, to check things against and make sure noone is uploading that song, that article, that book, that video or that photo that belongs to someone else. Now let's just ignore how absolutely terrible we still are at doing this automatically with an algorithm (people trying to circumvent the algorithm by altering it ever so slightly, people who don't infringe on it because it's satire or whatever etc) and pretend someone waves a magic wand and we suddenly have the software to do this (we don't): Even then, how are you supposed to run these checks. How big is that EU-wide database supposed to be to be able to store all photos, videos, songs, books, articles etc to check against? Even if we're only talking about commercial stuff, because technically speaking all those essays I wrote in highschool for classes are mine as well but that just gets even more ridiculous. How big is a single file going to be for a raw video, a song, a photo or whatever? And now that database is supposed to encompass basicly everything. All series to make sure noone uploads them to youtube, all photos every commercial photographer ever took (which is probably a number in the millions per photographer lol), all books written in all languages etc. And besides just storing all that you have to make a check against that database to make sure nothing infringes against it That's basicly why I said it's impossible to implement this if you take it at face value. There's only two options: a) you realize it's impossible and pretend it doesn't exist and don't enforce this b) companies block the EU from acessing them to make sure they don't get sued. You are asking for a hypothetical on your hypothetical reality where she is banned from all platforms because they have an error in their software were they will not let her host her own photographs. Or they put into place systems that would make them no-viable companies in an effort to comply with send regulation. So my response about which platform that would be: The good one that doesn’t ban everyone in this dystopian hellscape of new regulation. I understand that people hate change, but are we really that scared of a reality where huge platforms have to develop systems so they have to give a shit about who is putting what on their platform? This scary reality that looks a little more like the internet of the early 2000s, pre youtube, facebook and the rest. Actually the most likely scenario if the EU decides to take a stab at enforce this is that Instagram will just charge your sister (and anybody else) for uploading photos (at least, if they operate in the EU), and take over all legal fees of copyright infringement. Of course, this ruins the entire business model, and nobody gets to upload selfies for free anymore. This will either work fine, or it won't and pinterest/instagram/youtube/facebook will realize their business model has been wrecked in Europe and pressure the EU to change the law back, probably by threatening to just stop operating in Europe altogether. Because the "technological solution" is a total pipedream. In neither of these cases do European small businesses or consumers win.
I don't think that's likely. There doesn't need to be a perfect technological solution, they just have to prove they tried if they get sued over this. Google and a few of the other giants will make their own filters which they will license to others for a fee, the websites for which this doesn't make financial sense will simply geoblock the EU.
|
On March 27 2019 04:14 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 04:04 Plansix wrote:
[...]
I really doubt this regulation is going to destroy every single photo hosting service in existence to the point where we all have to build our own servers in our back yard just to share baby pictures. depends... will it? I don't think so. Would it if you have to follow it? Yes Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 04:12 Plansix wrote:
The world where people have to pay a nominal fee to host there photos is not that bad, IMO. Free services that make money on “the back end” are the opposite of consumer friendly. idk. I like the option to post my holiday pictures on twitter to share with people. Don't think I'd want to pay for that though.
Assuming that Twitter handled its bullshit and was just a fun place, I would pay $15 a year or so use that service. But this is the problem, we are all addicted to this free internet reality that the concept of paying for any of it bothers us. But we never think that because everything is free, the entire internet is no longer designed with us in mind. It is a free playground where very large companies watch us and sell our information to each other to extra money from us.
|
On March 27 2019 04:04 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 03:48 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 27 2019 03:46 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2019 03:37 Toadesstern wrote:On March 27 2019 03:22 Plansix wrote:
I am sure it is different for different companies and people, but the fact remains that these companies are so big and so unwieldy that they do harm all the time to people using them for business. It isn’t intentional, it is just a product of being huge, bloated and unregulated.
And if she is banned from all platform can’t confirm the photos are hers, is that really that bad if she is on one platform that she has a good working relationship with? It means all the people stealing the photos are banned. And this assumes that this dooms day reality becomes real, which I sort of doubt will take place. what would that one platform be? They have to be able to confirm those are her pictures just as much as every other platform. That's the whole issue with this. Like Acrofales mentioned. IF they want to make this a reality they somehow need some EU-wide database that holds all kinds of copyright protected material, the blue-prints so to speak, to check things against and make sure noone is uploading that song, that article, that book, that video or that photo that belongs to someone else. Now let's just ignore how absolutely terrible we still are at doing this automatically with an algorithm (people trying to circumvent the algorithm by altering it ever so slightly, people who don't infringe on it because it's satire or whatever etc) and pretend someone waves a magic wand and we suddenly have the software to do this (we don't): Even then, how are you supposed to run these checks. How big is that EU-wide database supposed to be to be able to store all photos, videos, songs, books, articles etc to check against? Even if we're only talking about commercial stuff, because technically speaking all those essays I wrote in highschool for classes are mine as well but that just gets even more ridiculous. How big is a single file going to be for a raw video, a song, a photo or whatever? And now that database is supposed to encompass basicly everything. All series to make sure noone uploads them to youtube, all photos every commercial photographer ever took (which is probably a number in the millions per photographer lol), all books written in all languages etc. And besides just storing all that you have to make a check against that database to make sure nothing infringes against it That's basicly why I said it's impossible to implement this if you take it at face value. There's only two options: a) you realize it's impossible and pretend it doesn't exist and don't enforce this b) companies block the EU from acessing them to make sure they don't get sued. You are asking for a hypothetical on your hypothetical reality where she is banned from all platforms because they have an error in their software were they will not let her host her own photographs. Or they put into place systems that would make them no-viable companies in an effort to comply with send regulation. So my response about which platform that would be: The good one that doesn’t ban everyone in this dystopian hellscape of new regulation. I understand that people hate change, but are we really that scared of a reality where huge platforms have to develop systems so they have to give a shit about who is putting what on their platform? This scary reality that looks a little more like the internet of the early 2000s, pre youtube, facebook and the rest. Because there is zero chance that system that is developed will benefit the common people. The current internet right now barely benefits the common person. It is actively destroying news media across US, which is being replaced by nothing. The quality of reporting and news media has been degrading for a two decades and there is a rise of right wing nationalism that no one can seem to figure out how to stop(because its so damn profitable). We are charging head long into a robocop like future and everyone is worried that some regulations might make youtube have to give a shit about what is on its service. So yeah, I have a really negative opinion of the current internet and find it hard to believe that more government involvement could somehow make it worse.
I'd be fine with more government involvement if government actually worked for the people and publishers didn't spend big money to lobby for this turd. I have zero faith that the policy that big copyright holders lobbied for will benefit me or anyone else besides those corporations. You're far too eager to hurt google and facebook that you're willing to give all that power right over to Disney, Sony, and all the other big companies without any thought to the matter.
|
On March 27 2019 04:16 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 04:09 Acrofales wrote:On March 27 2019 03:46 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2019 03:37 Toadesstern wrote:On March 27 2019 03:22 Plansix wrote:
I am sure it is different for different companies and people, but the fact remains that these companies are so big and so unwieldy that they do harm all the time to people using them for business. It isn’t intentional, it is just a product of being huge, bloated and unregulated.
And if she is banned from all platform can’t confirm the photos are hers, is that really that bad if she is on one platform that she has a good working relationship with? It means all the people stealing the photos are banned. And this assumes that this dooms day reality becomes real, which I sort of doubt will take place. what would that one platform be? They have to be able to confirm those are her pictures just as much as every other platform. That's the whole issue with this. Like Acrofales mentioned. IF they want to make this a reality they somehow need some EU-wide database that holds all kinds of copyright protected material, the blue-prints so to speak, to check things against and make sure noone is uploading that song, that article, that book, that video or that photo that belongs to someone else. Now let's just ignore how absolutely terrible we still are at doing this automatically with an algorithm (people trying to circumvent the algorithm by altering it ever so slightly, people who don't infringe on it because it's satire or whatever etc) and pretend someone waves a magic wand and we suddenly have the software to do this (we don't): Even then, how are you supposed to run these checks. How big is that EU-wide database supposed to be to be able to store all photos, videos, songs, books, articles etc to check against? Even if we're only talking about commercial stuff, because technically speaking all those essays I wrote in highschool for classes are mine as well but that just gets even more ridiculous. How big is a single file going to be for a raw video, a song, a photo or whatever? And now that database is supposed to encompass basicly everything. All series to make sure noone uploads them to youtube, all photos every commercial photographer ever took (which is probably a number in the millions per photographer lol), all books written in all languages etc. And besides just storing all that you have to make a check against that database to make sure nothing infringes against it That's basicly why I said it's impossible to implement this if you take it at face value. There's only two options: a) you realize it's impossible and pretend it doesn't exist and don't enforce this b) companies block the EU from acessing them to make sure they don't get sued. You are asking for a hypothetical on your hypothetical reality where she is banned from all platforms because they have an error in their software were they will not let her host her own photographs. Or they put into place systems that would make them no-viable companies in an effort to comply with send regulation. So my response about which platform that would be: The good one that doesn’t ban everyone in this dystopian hellscape of new regulation. I understand that people hate change, but are we really that scared of a reality where huge platforms have to develop systems so they have to give a shit about who is putting what on their platform? This scary reality that looks a little more like the internet of the early 2000s, pre youtube, facebook and the rest. Actually the most likely scenario if the EU decides to take a stab at enforce this is that Instagram will just charge your sister (and anybody else) for uploading photos (at least, if they operate in the EU), and take over all legal fees of copyright infringement. Of course, this ruins the entire business model, and nobody gets to upload selfies for free anymore. This will either work fine, or it won't and pinterest/instagram/youtube/facebook will realize their business model has been wrecked in Europe and pressure the EU to change the law back, probably by threatening to just stop operating in Europe altogether. Because the "technological solution" is a total pipedream. In neither of these cases do European small businesses or consumers win. I don't think that's likely. There doesn't need to be a perfect technological solution, they just have to prove they tried if they get sued over this. Google and a few of the other giants will make their own filters which they will license to others for a fee, the websites for which this doesn't make financial sense will simply geoblock the EU.
Meaning that even more data gets thrown at the very big companies. Since not everyone can make an uploadfilter, you are gonna use the google service. And that means google gets even more information on everything that gets uploaded at some place in the internet. Not really ideal.
Basically, as seen in this thread, there are a lot of ways that this can end bad, a few where it ends neutral (everyone basically ignores it), and none where it is good.
Why does something like that become law? Because it benefits some big companies with lots of money to spend on lobbying. Politics should be for the people, not for the money. But sadly, money always manages to find a way to twist politics to serve it.
This law will either be a net negative for most people, or a zero at best.
At least europa elections will be in two months, but the people in power have rightfully realized that the people who care about this sort of thing were not gonna vote for them anyways. And their electorate is old enough to not really care about the internet anyways. As if some hillbilly in upper bavaria is gonna think about this twice before electing CSU. They might eventually lose votes once there are more younger people, and the currently old people die off, but at that point they themselves will also be old enough to not care anymore. So there is really no problem for a CSU person to sell out to companies over internet stuff. It is not like anyone below 30 would vote for them anyways.
|
On March 27 2019 04:36 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 04:04 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2019 03:48 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 27 2019 03:46 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2019 03:37 Toadesstern wrote:On March 27 2019 03:22 Plansix wrote:
I am sure it is different for different companies and people, but the fact remains that these companies are so big and so unwieldy that they do harm all the time to people using them for business. It isn’t intentional, it is just a product of being huge, bloated and unregulated.
And if she is banned from all platform can’t confirm the photos are hers, is that really that bad if she is on one platform that she has a good working relationship with? It means all the people stealing the photos are banned. And this assumes that this dooms day reality becomes real, which I sort of doubt will take place. what would that one platform be? They have to be able to confirm those are her pictures just as much as every other platform. That's the whole issue with this. Like Acrofales mentioned. IF they want to make this a reality they somehow need some EU-wide database that holds all kinds of copyright protected material, the blue-prints so to speak, to check things against and make sure noone is uploading that song, that article, that book, that video or that photo that belongs to someone else. Now let's just ignore how absolutely terrible we still are at doing this automatically with an algorithm (people trying to circumvent the algorithm by altering it ever so slightly, people who don't infringe on it because it's satire or whatever etc) and pretend someone waves a magic wand and we suddenly have the software to do this (we don't): Even then, how are you supposed to run these checks. How big is that EU-wide database supposed to be to be able to store all photos, videos, songs, books, articles etc to check against? Even if we're only talking about commercial stuff, because technically speaking all those essays I wrote in highschool for classes are mine as well but that just gets even more ridiculous. How big is a single file going to be for a raw video, a song, a photo or whatever? And now that database is supposed to encompass basicly everything. All series to make sure noone uploads them to youtube, all photos every commercial photographer ever took (which is probably a number in the millions per photographer lol), all books written in all languages etc. And besides just storing all that you have to make a check against that database to make sure nothing infringes against it That's basicly why I said it's impossible to implement this if you take it at face value. There's only two options: a) you realize it's impossible and pretend it doesn't exist and don't enforce this b) companies block the EU from acessing them to make sure they don't get sued. You are asking for a hypothetical on your hypothetical reality where she is banned from all platforms because they have an error in their software were they will not let her host her own photographs. Or they put into place systems that would make them no-viable companies in an effort to comply with send regulation. So my response about which platform that would be: The good one that doesn’t ban everyone in this dystopian hellscape of new regulation. I understand that people hate change, but are we really that scared of a reality where huge platforms have to develop systems so they have to give a shit about who is putting what on their platform? This scary reality that looks a little more like the internet of the early 2000s, pre youtube, facebook and the rest. Because there is zero chance that system that is developed will benefit the common people. The current internet right now barely benefits the common person. It is actively destroying news media across US, which is being replaced by nothing. The quality of reporting and news media has been degrading for a two decades and there is a rise of right wing nationalism that no one can seem to figure out how to stop(because its so damn profitable). We are charging head long into a robocop like future and everyone is worried that some regulations might make youtube have to give a shit about what is on its service. So yeah, I have a really negative opinion of the current internet and find it hard to believe that more government involvement could somehow make it worse. I'd be fine with more government involvement if government actually worked for the people and publishers didn't spend big money to lobby for this turd. I have zero faith that the policy that big copyright holders lobbied for will benefit me or anyone else besides those corporations. You're far too eager to hurt google and facebook that you're willing to give all that power right over to Disney, Sony, and all the other big companies without any thought to the matter.
I can’t really give any more power to them than they already have. The copyright laws that protect my work and labor are the same ones that protect them. And here is the thing: laws can be changed. They can be adjusted and refined. I am unwilling to live in the world where we do nothing for another 20 years while we wait for the perfect solution to the problems of today to arrive. Getting involved with the internet was always going to be messy, so I would rather start now.
|
the problem with this is that there are plenty of people who suggested some solutions, hell even in here (cooking right now and don't remember who it was, so can't doublecheck sry), that would be tons better and adress a lot of these problems. But those get ignored
|
On March 27 2019 04:45 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 04:36 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 27 2019 04:04 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2019 03:48 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 27 2019 03:46 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2019 03:37 Toadesstern wrote:On March 27 2019 03:22 Plansix wrote:
I am sure it is different for different companies and people, but the fact remains that these companies are so big and so unwieldy that they do harm all the time to people using them for business. It isn’t intentional, it is just a product of being huge, bloated and unregulated.
And if she is banned from all platform can’t confirm the photos are hers, is that really that bad if she is on one platform that she has a good working relationship with? It means all the people stealing the photos are banned. And this assumes that this dooms day reality becomes real, which I sort of doubt will take place. what would that one platform be? They have to be able to confirm those are her pictures just as much as every other platform. That's the whole issue with this. Like Acrofales mentioned. IF they want to make this a reality they somehow need some EU-wide database that holds all kinds of copyright protected material, the blue-prints so to speak, to check things against and make sure noone is uploading that song, that article, that book, that video or that photo that belongs to someone else. Now let's just ignore how absolutely terrible we still are at doing this automatically with an algorithm (people trying to circumvent the algorithm by altering it ever so slightly, people who don't infringe on it because it's satire or whatever etc) and pretend someone waves a magic wand and we suddenly have the software to do this (we don't): Even then, how are you supposed to run these checks. How big is that EU-wide database supposed to be to be able to store all photos, videos, songs, books, articles etc to check against? Even if we're only talking about commercial stuff, because technically speaking all those essays I wrote in highschool for classes are mine as well but that just gets even more ridiculous. How big is a single file going to be for a raw video, a song, a photo or whatever? And now that database is supposed to encompass basicly everything. All series to make sure noone uploads them to youtube, all photos every commercial photographer ever took (which is probably a number in the millions per photographer lol), all books written in all languages etc. And besides just storing all that you have to make a check against that database to make sure nothing infringes against it That's basicly why I said it's impossible to implement this if you take it at face value. There's only two options: a) you realize it's impossible and pretend it doesn't exist and don't enforce this b) companies block the EU from acessing them to make sure they don't get sued. You are asking for a hypothetical on your hypothetical reality where she is banned from all platforms because they have an error in their software were they will not let her host her own photographs. Or they put into place systems that would make them no-viable companies in an effort to comply with send regulation. So my response about which platform that would be: The good one that doesn’t ban everyone in this dystopian hellscape of new regulation. I understand that people hate change, but are we really that scared of a reality where huge platforms have to develop systems so they have to give a shit about who is putting what on their platform? This scary reality that looks a little more like the internet of the early 2000s, pre youtube, facebook and the rest. Because there is zero chance that system that is developed will benefit the common people. The current internet right now barely benefits the common person. It is actively destroying news media across US, which is being replaced by nothing. The quality of reporting and news media has been degrading for a two decades and there is a rise of right wing nationalism that no one can seem to figure out how to stop(because its so damn profitable). We are charging head long into a robocop like future and everyone is worried that some regulations might make youtube have to give a shit about what is on its service. So yeah, I have a really negative opinion of the current internet and find it hard to believe that more government involvement could somehow make it worse. I'd be fine with more government involvement if government actually worked for the people and publishers didn't spend big money to lobby for this turd. I have zero faith that the policy that big copyright holders lobbied for will benefit me or anyone else besides those corporations. You're far too eager to hurt google and facebook that you're willing to give all that power right over to Disney, Sony, and all the other big companies without any thought to the matter. I can’t really give any more power to them than they already have. The copyright laws that protect my work and labor are the same ones that protect them. And here is the thing: laws can be changed. They can be adjusted and refined. I am unwilling to live in the world where we do nothing for another 20 years while we wait for the perfect solution to the problems of today to arrive. Getting involved with the internet was always going to be messy, so I would rather start now.
Nobody is asking for a perfect solution. Most people in this thread have told you that this has zero benefit to the average person and may be ignored in the best case scenarios. Shifting the profiteer from Google to Disney because they paid you some money isn't how government should work.
|
the thing that irritated me the most is honestly politicians just either straight up lying, obfuscating or just straight up not understanding it...
The CDU was supposedly against uploadfilters. And now they signed this. And the explanation behind why is basicly "We don't require companies to use uploadfilters. You just have to use software that prevents people from uploading stuff they don't have the rights to upload" Imagine that in german with uploadfilter being the single word that's english in there.
It's literally just a translation of the word into german and banking on the fact that the 50year old watching TV while sitting on his couch and drinking a beer doesn't understand that.
It's disgusting.
|
On March 27 2019 04:57 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 04:45 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2019 04:36 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 27 2019 04:04 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2019 03:48 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 27 2019 03:46 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2019 03:37 Toadesstern wrote:On March 27 2019 03:22 Plansix wrote:
I am sure it is different for different companies and people, but the fact remains that these companies are so big and so unwieldy that they do harm all the time to people using them for business. It isn’t intentional, it is just a product of being huge, bloated and unregulated.
And if she is banned from all platform can’t confirm the photos are hers, is that really that bad if she is on one platform that she has a good working relationship with? It means all the people stealing the photos are banned. And this assumes that this dooms day reality becomes real, which I sort of doubt will take place. what would that one platform be? They have to be able to confirm those are her pictures just as much as every other platform. That's the whole issue with this. Like Acrofales mentioned. IF they want to make this a reality they somehow need some EU-wide database that holds all kinds of copyright protected material, the blue-prints so to speak, to check things against and make sure noone is uploading that song, that article, that book, that video or that photo that belongs to someone else. Now let's just ignore how absolutely terrible we still are at doing this automatically with an algorithm (people trying to circumvent the algorithm by altering it ever so slightly, people who don't infringe on it because it's satire or whatever etc) and pretend someone waves a magic wand and we suddenly have the software to do this (we don't): Even then, how are you supposed to run these checks. How big is that EU-wide database supposed to be to be able to store all photos, videos, songs, books, articles etc to check against? Even if we're only talking about commercial stuff, because technically speaking all those essays I wrote in highschool for classes are mine as well but that just gets even more ridiculous. How big is a single file going to be for a raw video, a song, a photo or whatever? And now that database is supposed to encompass basicly everything. All series to make sure noone uploads them to youtube, all photos every commercial photographer ever took (which is probably a number in the millions per photographer lol), all books written in all languages etc. And besides just storing all that you have to make a check against that database to make sure nothing infringes against it That's basicly why I said it's impossible to implement this if you take it at face value. There's only two options: a) you realize it's impossible and pretend it doesn't exist and don't enforce this b) companies block the EU from acessing them to make sure they don't get sued. You are asking for a hypothetical on your hypothetical reality where she is banned from all platforms because they have an error in their software were they will not let her host her own photographs. Or they put into place systems that would make them no-viable companies in an effort to comply with send regulation. So my response about which platform that would be: The good one that doesn’t ban everyone in this dystopian hellscape of new regulation. I understand that people hate change, but are we really that scared of a reality where huge platforms have to develop systems so they have to give a shit about who is putting what on their platform? This scary reality that looks a little more like the internet of the early 2000s, pre youtube, facebook and the rest. Because there is zero chance that system that is developed will benefit the common people. The current internet right now barely benefits the common person. It is actively destroying news media across US, which is being replaced by nothing. The quality of reporting and news media has been degrading for a two decades and there is a rise of right wing nationalism that no one can seem to figure out how to stop(because its so damn profitable). We are charging head long into a robocop like future and everyone is worried that some regulations might make youtube have to give a shit about what is on its service. So yeah, I have a really negative opinion of the current internet and find it hard to believe that more government involvement could somehow make it worse. I'd be fine with more government involvement if government actually worked for the people and publishers didn't spend big money to lobby for this turd. I have zero faith that the policy that big copyright holders lobbied for will benefit me or anyone else besides those corporations. You're far too eager to hurt google and facebook that you're willing to give all that power right over to Disney, Sony, and all the other big companies without any thought to the matter. I can’t really give any more power to them than they already have. The copyright laws that protect my work and labor are the same ones that protect them. And here is the thing: laws can be changed. They can be adjusted and refined. I am unwilling to live in the world where we do nothing for another 20 years while we wait for the perfect solution to the problems of today to arrive. Getting involved with the internet was always going to be messy, so I would rather start now. Nobody is asking for a perfect solution. Most people in this thread have told you that this has zero benefit to the average person and may be ignored in the best case scenarios. Shifting the profiteer from Google to Disney because they paid you some money isn't how government should work.
A lot of people have informed me of how they feel the law will be implemented and who it will impact. I’ve done my own reading on the subject and have come to the conclusion that it will be hard to tell how it is implemented and enforced at this time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
