Re: EU snipers
Please see the response to JH123 and then express the threat level as a probability.
(It died today anyway).
1182 posts • joined 6 Sep 2006
Please see the response to JH123 and then express the threat level as a probability.
(It died today anyway).
Thanks, but you don't really challenge the proposition that it's a bogus scare that won't be implemented, which is fairly critical context needed to understand this story.
I know some people will want it, Europe has professional copyright bureaucrats who would love to start another society or four. But you've missed two important things.
One, the amendment wouldn't be on the table if the rapporteur hadn't done such a bad report. One things leads to another.
Two, these are the stages that would need to happen to lose the Panorama exception.
1.The European Council writes exactly the same amendment. Council members vote on it. Since most of its members have a Panorama exception they would vote against it. It dies.
2. But assuming it doesn't, it goes to Parliament, where MEPs are from countries that have a Panorama exception and don't want it. They vote, it dies.
3. But assuming it's still alive, it has to be implemented in all the countries in Europe that have a Panorama exception. Which is most of them. They have an exception because it's a good idea. So it never gets into legislation. Because if it goes to each Parliament, it dies.
It was never a danger to either photographers or Wikipedia. Oettinger ruled out any prospect of 1) today.
I agree with you actually, it is overused.
It's a figure of speech, though, that applies here. The doofus Amendment wouldn't have been tacked on to the rapporteur's report if the rapporteur hadn't made a doofus suggestion. That's because she doesn't understand the framework at all, she doesn't understand why people need copyright, and why we have exceptions.
He's also wrong when he says Google is in the position of being "judge and jury". It isn't at all. That wasn't challenged either.
2. didn't need 1. to happen. It happened because there are more choices of media, and more choices about how you get your TV.
The best thing I've seen recently is The Secret History of Our Streets, BBC factual at its best. Incredible research worn very lightly:
Then I found out its 3 years old. Lost the habit.
That's a fascinating concept of justice you have there.
It's one we abandoned a few hundred years ago, but fascinating nonetheless.
If Jolla send us one, we'll review it. Maybe they don't think it's ready?
Huawei is employee owned. These things aren't hard to find out, you know.
Fair enough! It sounds fine, no wobblies on the noise cancellation. We'll add this to the review.
The idea that you think your property rights are "bollocks" shows what a good job Silicon Valley has done brainwashing you.
"[AO]The laws are there to protect you and your work from exploitation that you don’t agree with, by somebody much more powerful – such as a record company or Google. But in the copyfighter's mind, this is inverted, and the purpose of the law is oppression, prohibition and exclusion.
It's far easier to persuade people to relinquish their freedom if they do so voluntarily. Even better if they do so with a smile. I think it's Big Tech's greatest achievement, to be honest: to get people actively campaign against their own interests.
cf Lenin, and "useful idiots".
Sorry, but you don't really understand the law - which is a bit alarming even for a hobby photographer.
You may be being hassled under terrorism laws, but that is nothing to do with copyright.
The "freedom of panorama" doesn't need "saving", as this is not a legislative proposal.
The main complaint with the copyright system today is that people get ripped off, and can't get access to justice. This applies to you whether you are an amateur or a pro. You expect to be ripped off, and can do nothing about it.
This affects livelihoods. Whether term duration is 70 or 90 years doesn't really affect livelihoods at all.
Sorry, but you need to much better informed before you can comment usefully.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 27, Paragraph 2
“Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author”)"
American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man of 1948
Article 13, Paragraph 2
“Every person has the right…to the protection of his moral and material interests as regards his inventions or any literary, scientific or artistic works of which he is the author”
Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1988 (the Protocol of San Salvador)
Article 14, paragraph 1 (c)
“The States Parties to this Protocol recognize the right of everyone…[t]o benefit from the protection of moral and material interests deriving from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author”
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1952 (the European Convention on Human Rights)
Article 1 of Protocol No.1
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law”
Just as useful is Samuel Johnson in 1773:
"There seems to be ... in authours, a stronger right of property than that by occupancy; a metaphysical right, a right, as it were, of creation, which should from its nature be perpetual."
What you're saying is that you want none of this to be real, so removing rights from people is painless and has no collateral damage.
Author's Rights are human rights
It's a Human Right as expressed in
"Jolla's Sailfish platform show what Nokia could have had, an independent platform that was good enough at the time which now runs android apps. Basically, if Nokia had put the effort into Meego that they put into WM, I'm certain it would have turned out differently."
If Meego had been as slick as it was in the N9 but two or three year earlier, then I'd agree. By 2011 nobody else wanted Meego and Nokia didn't think it could build an ecosystem on its own. The board agreed.
It's not as convenient. RFTA next time.
"For 4p a day..."
Bloody hell, I hope you don't teach maths.
14,450 / 365.25 = 39.56p a day.
You're off by a factor of 10.
You make a lot of interesting points but none of them address the objections to the BBC that have been raised. Just repeating that's its traditional and that you like it hasn't stopped other institutions getting shafted. They were traditional and well-liked too.
Also, you could have declared that you worked for the BBC.
"But would I think lead to less people subscribing as and when they needed to tighten their belts for whatever reason"
But the number of "it's worth it for Radio 4 alone" comments here shows how much more revenue it could get.
You can do the modelling for yourself on the back of an envelope. We've done it before (search for Elstein). Even with 20-30pc refuseniks you're looking at a lot more money, because it's cheaper than all the other subscription services. Would you cancel the BBC before you cancelled Netflix.
It's smart to jump before you're pushed sometimes. But if you were smart you probably wouldn't be in BBC strategy.
The sources for all the numbers are in the story, you can look them up yourself. The ones you doubt were compiled for the BBC Trust.
You seem a bit concerned that the poor (with their ghastly satellite dishes) might move near you, possibly lowering your house price. But at the same time you're happy for them to subsidise what you use.
"I. I'd pay a chunk of the license fee for Radio 3, and I only regularly listen on a Saturday morning.
2. I'd pay almost all of the license fee just for Radio 4. It's great, really. I'm not a heavy user but there's no commercial equivalent.
3. I'd pay the license just for 6 Music, and would do so just for Radcliffe & Maconie."
Great post, Andrew.
From your numbers it looks like you'd pay almost 2x the current license fee to get services you value, maybe £250-£300. I know some people who'd pay even more.
Even at £500/yr it's still much cheaper than Sky.
This is a compelling case for the middle class users paying subscriptions - it suggests the middle class don't pay enough. Until that happens though, the poor who don't use it subsidise your media habits.
"Sky certainly should not be allowed to be a pay TV platform (in many countries) AND ALSO have control of Pay TV channels. They must divest Sky1, Sky Sports and Sky News etc, or be a content provider and divest of the Satellite Pay TV platforms."
I think beer should be free, and benefits the population enormously. That doesn't mean its going to happen.
Europe isn't the USA, Europeans aren't going to abandon 40 languages for slacker English, and have the same income across the EU. Well, at least not overnight. So in the mean time, we can expect that attempts to coerce a single market into existence by dictating the terms of trade that result in harm, are going to meet resistance.
Ansip didn't spend any time listening to small indies, but took what the soap-dodgers told him on trust.
If you think that is weird, check out the stuff about how the cloud makes us E400bn richer ... just like that.
Like the USA?
+1 for 4DOS. It was the first thing to install on a new box.
This isn't a argument over whether our personal data has value when processed. Tim says none of the value accrued by the processing should go back to the people who contribute it. There shouldn't be an economic relationship or a market in data.
Obviously, thermometers are not really in a position to bargain.
"Tim's argument works only if the individual are able to control"
Tim's argument works only if the individual is UNABLE to control'
Tim's argument works only if the individual are able to control either your privacy or your property rights.
As DropBear and others have pointed out (better than I can), merely being able to withhold the data, and to name a price, makes you an economic participant. You'd have a market for that data.
So tech companies would have to bid for your data, or induce you to part with it in other ways.
Of course this is the last they want. Silicon Valley isn't really all that innovative - it's extremely lazy, and basically relies on legal loopholes, and the bet that people won't assert either privacy or property rights.
File Tim's pieces under "Free Marketeers Who Hate Free Markets".
Under Steve Jobs, Apple didn't do any UI testing. So doesn't your third paragraph contradict your second?
When Bell uses jargon in the AMA (which isn't very often) he explains what it means.
Speculative. The opposite was actually true, as we've reported.
Nokia/Microsoft couldn't compete with the strongarm tactics of Apple, which had trouble shifting the 5c, and the spiffs that Samsung threw at the channel. Smaller vendors couldn't get release slots - literally.
Uh, you do know that the RIAA doesn't represent the movie industry, but the music industry?
You want the other Ass.
"Either taxpayer money is always found to "fulfill a pressing need for local cultural diversity" (aka. vote buying of the "creative types" because no-one is actually interested enough for the product to make economic sense) or else the market is totally not as bad as continually portrayed."
Well everyone likes a good whinge. There is a market for niche stuff today, I doubt if all of it would be viable if territoriality was abolished.
Not really, the objection is at the B2B level.
"No you don't have to sell to anyone - you just can't limit the license to certain eu countries."
Same difference. It means that in the EU you'll have to er, sell to anyone.
Even if I improve your shop analogy to say "I cannot charge French people more" it doesn't hold up, because by opening a shop you're obliged not to discriminate. Whereas price discrimination is absolutely essential in this market.
Probably because the headline is misleading - we'll fix it.
What's called (propaganda-friendly term) "geoblocking" really means "freedom of licensing". The EU wants to stop this.
Of course if you think Europe is one country with one language, it's logical. If you think Europe is lots of countries with even more languages, then the reform is coercive.
"...release the same content at a *lower* price in other parts of Europe, while keeping prices hiked up for the local audience? Then that's just market abuse."
No, it isn't. It's bog standard price discrimination. If you sold stuff then you'd want to do this too.
"Why would the removal of geo blocking hurt niche/local producers (which seems to be one of the arguments here). OK, they can't restrict which areas they sell their content to, but why does that hurt them?"
Because they can't maximise the price of their goods. If you RTFA it's quite informative - follow the link to the Rivers study for the European Commission, it's quite a readable analysis of price discrimination.
"Doesn't un-recouped just mean that you royalties have not exceeded your advances?"
Sales royalties, yes. There are other royalties that the record company cannot control.
"Conventional wisdom is that you enjoy a lifetime in music not by making royalties on music sales so much as by touring, selling merchandise, etc."
Conventional wisdom from ... who? People quoting 20-year old Steve Albini and Janis Ian articles on Slashdot? Or from people who have helped destroyed sales, who have absolutely no vested interest at all in telling you that artists should sell more T-shirts?
Sales were once at a level that a sick artist didn't have to go on the road even though they have cancer, like Levon Helm had to:
"I'd feel more charitable if the Tidal crowd on that stage made music that I'd want to hear. Why would I want to encourage more of that that garbage?"
OK. We get it. But there are two things here, 1) liking/trusting the music that the people involved, and 2) the viability of their proposition that someone can do better than Spotify.
"How could I trust these identikit-surgeoned airheads to promote original bands?"
Because Jay Z has quite a good track record doing so?
Like you say Dabbsy, the megastars behind Tidal have done better from streaming than anyone else - they are not in the long tail and have deep back catalogs. So for them, the micro pennies add up.
The "new" record business is even less fair than the "old" one, because the "old" one was basically a socialist model. It used the windfall profits from Jay-Z and Madonna and redistributed them to support the Middle Class and blue collar artists: the "99 per cent". A lot of artists failed to recoup their advance but still enjoyed a lifetime in music. For example David Lowery never recouped but had a twenty year career thanks to a minor hit. That's better than twenty years behind a Tesco checkout desk.
Lowery: "I know this is probably really confusing to you civilians. Am I really saying it’s better to be un-recouped as an artist? Yes it is. Quantitative finance geeks will see this as selling a series of juicy “covered calls”. Being un-recouped means you took in more money than you were due by contract. You took in more money than your sales warranted. And there was a sweet spot, being un-recouped but not too un-recouped. For instance I estimate that over my 15 year career at Virgin/EMi we took in advances and royalties equivalent to about 40% of our gross sales. In other words we had an effective royalty rate of 40%, despite the fact that by contract our rate was much lower)."
This is no longer possible for a few reasons, one of which is that the superwealthy (eg Madonna) can break away and sign their own 360 deals, so the windfalls are not redistributed. The megastars backing Tidal say they want a fairer system, with larger payouts for all, and if they make good on their promises to invest in new talent may be they will achieve that. It takes a lot of commitment and I don't know if many of them have that.
But we knock them (rightly) for sitting around and moaning about the unfairness of the world yet doing nothing about it. Then we knock them for trying to do something about it. The buggers can't win.
"As I understand it, you use the normal phone app to make the call, rather than for example O2's ToGo app, "
Yes it uses IMS not an OTT craplet. Cuddles needs to RTFA.
"The idea that big copyright holders have that they must attack the infrastructure is both disgusting and disturbing"
Well, two points.
1. It's little copyright holders (and that includes you) - should you ever do something as post a photo online - who get screwed today. That's if you want to own and control your own stuff, such as pictures of your family.
2. So called Safe Harbour liability limitations were never intended to shield criminal behaviour, but protect honest operators from being clobbered unfairly. They're obviously being used for a bit more than that. So something will need to change.
Whether we need a standing army of copyright cops is another matter. Not one many readers would want, or one I think is necessary.
Pretending there isn't a problem makes it more likely you'll get a standing army, though. Just saying.
The current trading system is based on the principle that you know how best to market your stuff - who to sell to, and where. No coercion is required. Coercing people to trade with people they don't want to trade with is very risky, and Ansip doesn't really get this, yet.
Perhaps in the future people won't remember where they're from, Europe will be one big happy country, and we will all speak the same language... and this won't be an issue.
I was watching Top Gear dubbed into Polish at a mate's house the other day. Poles here don't have any difficulty getting Polish cultural goods under the current system. It's all licensed.
Cyborg Ansip doesn't seem to have realised what he's stepped into.
The argument for enforcing a pan-European license is that the bigger market makes up for the lower returns from your home market. With some goods like football, this might be true. For others it isn't, for obvious reasons, mainly language. Your entire market for the Albanian equivalent of Sex Lives Of The Potato Men lives in Albania, pretty much.
The European Commission has just spent a few years looking at this. Barnier found that territoriality would diminish cultural diversity. Kroes leaked his report, then refused to endorse it. Juncker instructed Ansip to bring this regardless.
14 years ago a compromise was devised (see Santiago Agreement) which was a pan-European license but administered in the home territory. The EU didn't like it, and here we all are.
So you sacrifice cultural diversity for peace.
Can you explain how this works, exactly? I've never understood it.
Google own the largest private network in the world.
I'm sure the FCC rules mandate that others have access to it, on fair and reasonable terms. They do, don't they?
"Who are the new slaves?"
You are, obviously.
You can't own or control your own stuff. Which means there is no real functioning market for stuff. The terms of trade are set by others.
The tech oligarchs take the place of the market, set the terms, control the price, etc.
This has been their greatest achievement: persuading people to act against their own economic interests.
Repeating the smear on Hood, out of context, suggests you have real difficult with the context of this story.
You can read the request from Hood and the Attorneys to Google yourself. It's 72 pages. Look where copyright or IP figures in it. Look what they're really after.
"In many areas of the USA there is exactly 1 ISP (occasionally 2) available to connect to."
89 per cent of Americans have a choice of five broadband providers, wireline or wireless.
You wouldn't think so from comments left on message boards, etc, but in my experience, some people prefer complaining to being active consumers, campaigning and switching.
"It's no real surprise to find out that incumbent telco ISPs pretty much throttle VOIP out of existance"
Really? Someone should tell Skype!
ORG. 'Nuff said.
"ISPs are artificially creating service differentiation"
I can't think of a single instance of this ever.
"In summary, NN says paying more money should be about buying more infrastructure at the ISP end..."
That makes no sense at all. It's about paying for peering (what Netflix had to do, because it had tried to do OTT video on the cheap) vs. using a third party vs. building your own network (what Google does with YouTube).
You can monitor peering in real time:
Your comment is a fantastic illustration of the ignorance often exhibited in such discussions.