Not really relevant to YouTube's ContentID system. The EU law would require this kind of system be implemented everywhere, rendering all perfectly legitimate Fair Use reasons moot. Want a platform that supports Fair Use? You'll need to find a site that isn't YouTube or based in Europe or run the risk of being a copyright infringer.
Not to say that what is happening isn't wrong, but is this really a "data leak"? We're talking information that was harvested on apps where users likely gave their consent to have their information sold anyway. I'd call this more of a clear cut case how Facebook is by no means something you should use if you want privacy. Reference.
If someone was depressed in a pre-internet era, the word would likely not get very far outside of the city borders. Today, it's possible someones depression will become known throughout the world thanks to interconnectedness. I wouldn't be surprised if the level of depression is really just the same after all this time, yet the only difference is the technology compared to, say, 50 years ago. I would worry that technology is just a convenient scapegoat.
I think more people need to at least give open source (or whatever you want to call it) projects a try. I've tried a number of projects over the years. Not all open source projects are created equal, but I certainly don't regret trying things like Libre Office. Is it for everyone? No. Should people at least try it and decide for themselves? Yes. It doesn't have to be a whole OS. Small apps work fine.
It does concern me about some of the smaller sites struggling to survive. If a hypothetical site is barely able to pay the server bills, the last thing they need is an additional $15 charge per year (or more) tacked on just to allow a percentage of users to access their site without having users complain about alarms blaring that it's an unsecured site. I mean, sure, $15 a year doesn't sound like much, but if you're not a major site pulling in hundreds off of ad impressions or subscription fees, that seemingly small fee is going to sting on the bottom line. No matter how you slice it, this is going to raise the barrier for entry for new sites.
This added to what is going on with the destruction of network neutrality in the US is almost like pouring salt on the wound. The number of users being able to reasonably access your site may very well drop, but Mozilla decided that web admins need to add another layer of security that come with fees in the process.
Well, what other reliable source is there? Slyck is dead and ZeroPaid stopped posting stuff years ago. Until I found out about Freezenet, I thought filesharing news was dead.
I agree that the monopoly the big players have had for years is over. When you compare independently produced music to music sold by the big four, there's just no comparison. The major players get completely swamped in both quality and quantity from the competition. The only hopes the industry really has at this stage is to keep up the illusion that the best and brightest come from various talent shows on TV or people keep listening to mainstream radio thinking that there's nothing else better out there. As soon as a majority of people realize they can find better music from various online sources and realize there's far better music out there, the labels are pretty much finished. When you change your business focus from one of music into one of litigation, your music side suffers and all people know is for your litigation.
As a millennial, I always assume that retirement is permanently out of reach myself. I can save all I want and it won't do me any good when a small jug of milk will cost $100 by the time I reach 65.
It's worth emphasizing that a start-up is a long term investment. Sooner or later, you are going to hit a wall where you REALLY don't feel like throwing more effort into the project in question. Those moments are where your startup idea becomes tested. Some people spend a couple of weeks on an idea. Then, when they run into their first obstacle, throw their hands up in defeat and start searching for an easier idea. Problem is, there usually isn't an "easier option", so it becomes an endless loop of starting an idea and never finishing it.
One of the trickiest tasks is mapping out your startup career. What are the steps to setting yourself up for success? What are the reasons you feel will make this startup a success? What are the point to point goals of your startup? By point-by-point, I'm looking at small baby steps. If your idea involves a website, then you got to think about registering a domain, setting up e-mail, figuring out which CMS you are going to use if you use a pre-packed CMS, etc. etc. Your amazing startup is going to be built on a lot of mundane basic and almost silly small steps.
Some people seem to be under the impression that start-ups just happen overnight. All the people behind it do is get together, table an idea, spend a couple minutes formulating it, then sit back and watch the paychecks roll in. Newsflash: it just doesn't work that way. A startup involves months of working your butt off for mere pennies or even nothing. Are you prepared for that moment when you look at the 3 cents you just got after weeks of intense and exhausting work? That's often the startup life.
First of all, there was a shift in revenue for the last several years. People were moving from physical to digital as various platforms dragged the industry kicking and screaming into the year 2000. Labels were not "losing money left and right", their revenues dipped briefly as the changes were made. Digital music sales surged for a number of years. While it may or may not offset the losses from the albums as the industry sued everyone, the shift happened.
Secondly, piracy is responsible for offsetting many of the losses. Studies have shown that people who pirate music are often the music industries biggest customers. This is little more than RIAA whining that it's no longer 1975 and the labels using piracy as a scapegoat. The RIAA is notorious for fabricating losses (at one point, even going so far as to claim they lost the entire GDP of France in a year). Someone has been reading one too many RIAA press releases.
Virtually every problem the RIAA faces can be attributed to wrongheaded thinking on the RIAA's part (suing teenagers and grandparents, three strikes laws, DRM, attempted INDUCE act, attempted SOPA, ripping off artists with terrible contracts, 360 "deals"). If they listened to the people on the ground for the last decade+ who said that they needed to adapt to a changing marketplace, they would still be an overwhelming dominant force in the market today. Instead, they opened the door for independently run labels and independent artists who didn't want this whole "internet thing" "to just go away".
then the products those jobs produce will decrease in price
That presumes that capitalism will cease as a system in the process (not likely going to happen any time soon). Until that happens, then the price of products will remain high because companies still want to make as big of a profit as possible. In short, the companies will retain the difference for the sake of profit.
THERE. ARE. TO. MANY. PEOPLE. Reality check- EXPONENTIAL GROWTH. This train aint gonna slow.
I agree that we need to get off this planet sooner rather than later, but the whole overpopulation thing is a myth that's been debunked for some time: https://www.washingtonpost.com...
A lot of small news sites use Google Adsense because the connections are small to non-existent. The resources to negotiate deals directly is virtually non-existent which is why some simply throw these ads on in the first place. Another reason is that it is a pretty good way to ensure journalistic independence. You aren't beholden necessarily to your advertisers in the same way some traditional news organizations (i.e. TV broadcasting) are beholden to theirs. These policies need to be very carefully weighed and not rushed through. A lot more could be at stake than blacklisting clickbait sites and alt-right "news" sites that post the most ludicrous conspiracy theories as facts.
One reason I would personally worry about such a policy is who plays the role of executioner? How does Google determine a site is real or fake? Is there independent reporting involved? If so, what's to stop someone from maliciously reporting a competing site as a fake news site to cut off their funding?
On the flip side, this kind of policy also has the potential of hurting Google. What's to stop sites, regardless if they are fairly or unfairly targeted crying foul and holding Google up on anti-trust allegations? Google does, in fact, hold a lot of power. If Google comes knocking with some kind of notice saying you've been cut off, what are the alternatives to Adsense? How many other ad distribution networks distribute ads with drive-by malware, etc.?
I personally can only see things getting messy even if Google has the best intentions in mind for everyone.
Indeed. By all means big publishers, demand money from Google. When Google delists you, all that juicy traffic will go to the smaller independent news sites who will be more than happy to make some extra ad impressions. Heck, I would go so far as to say some of them are jumping up and down in excitement over the prospect of some of the big media outlets cutting themselves out of that stream of traffic.
Slashdot Mirror
Fix the memory leak, maybe? I know, I know, that'll never happen.
Indeed. That's one major reason why I don't like the proposed law.
The laws would mandate content filtering similar to YouTube which is widely known to doing a terrible job at recognizing what is and is not Fair Use.
Not really relevant to YouTube's ContentID system. The EU law would require this kind of system be implemented everywhere, rendering all perfectly legitimate Fair Use reasons moot. Want a platform that supports Fair Use? You'll need to find a site that isn't YouTube or based in Europe or run the risk of being a copyright infringer.
Not to say that what is happening isn't wrong, but is this really a "data leak"? We're talking information that was harvested on apps where users likely gave their consent to have their information sold anyway. I'd call this more of a clear cut case how Facebook is by no means something you should use if you want privacy. Reference.
If someone was depressed in a pre-internet era, the word would likely not get very far outside of the city borders. Today, it's possible someones depression will become known throughout the world thanks to interconnectedness. I wouldn't be surprised if the level of depression is really just the same after all this time, yet the only difference is the technology compared to, say, 50 years ago. I would worry that technology is just a convenient scapegoat.
I think more people need to at least give open source (or whatever you want to call it) projects a try. I've tried a number of projects over the years. Not all open source projects are created equal, but I certainly don't regret trying things like Libre Office. Is it for everyone? No. Should people at least try it and decide for themselves? Yes. It doesn't have to be a whole OS. Small apps work fine.
PLEASE DESIST IN THINKING THINGS ARE MADE BY SINGLE PEOPLE IT IS A VERY UNHEALTHY MYTH
Um, I hate to break it to you, but there are plenty of single person projects out there. You can find some of them on Patreon for example.
It does concern me about some of the smaller sites struggling to survive. If a hypothetical site is barely able to pay the server bills, the last thing they need is an additional $15 charge per year (or more) tacked on just to allow a percentage of users to access their site without having users complain about alarms blaring that it's an unsecured site. I mean, sure, $15 a year doesn't sound like much, but if you're not a major site pulling in hundreds off of ad impressions or subscription fees, that seemingly small fee is going to sting on the bottom line. No matter how you slice it, this is going to raise the barrier for entry for new sites.
This added to what is going on with the destruction of network neutrality in the US is almost like pouring salt on the wound. The number of users being able to reasonably access your site may very well drop, but Mozilla decided that web admins need to add another layer of security that come with fees in the process.
Oh, I get it, you're just trolling. Nevermind.
Well, what other reliable source is there? Slyck is dead and ZeroPaid stopped posting stuff years ago. Until I found out about Freezenet, I thought filesharing news was dead.
The title was way too accurate and factual with not enough click-bait-y-ness-es.
You're probably right. That and it isn't spamming TorrentFreak everywhere even though Freezenet beat them to the punch I suppose. What a bummer.
May I ask what was wrong with the original submission of this story? https://slashdot.org/submissio...
I agree that the monopoly the big players have had for years is over. When you compare independently produced music to music sold by the big four, there's just no comparison. The major players get completely swamped in both quality and quantity from the competition. The only hopes the industry really has at this stage is to keep up the illusion that the best and brightest come from various talent shows on TV or people keep listening to mainstream radio thinking that there's nothing else better out there. As soon as a majority of people realize they can find better music from various online sources and realize there's far better music out there, the labels are pretty much finished. When you change your business focus from one of music into one of litigation, your music side suffers and all people know is for your litigation.
As a millennial, I always assume that retirement is permanently out of reach myself. I can save all I want and it won't do me any good when a small jug of milk will cost $100 by the time I reach 65.
It's worth emphasizing that a start-up is a long term investment. Sooner or later, you are going to hit a wall where you REALLY don't feel like throwing more effort into the project in question. Those moments are where your startup idea becomes tested. Some people spend a couple of weeks on an idea. Then, when they run into their first obstacle, throw their hands up in defeat and start searching for an easier idea. Problem is, there usually isn't an "easier option", so it becomes an endless loop of starting an idea and never finishing it.
One of the trickiest tasks is mapping out your startup career. What are the steps to setting yourself up for success? What are the reasons you feel will make this startup a success? What are the point to point goals of your startup? By point-by-point, I'm looking at small baby steps. If your idea involves a website, then you got to think about registering a domain, setting up e-mail, figuring out which CMS you are going to use if you use a pre-packed CMS, etc. etc. Your amazing startup is going to be built on a lot of mundane basic and almost silly small steps.
Some people seem to be under the impression that start-ups just happen overnight. All the people behind it do is get together, table an idea, spend a couple minutes formulating it, then sit back and watch the paychecks roll in. Newsflash: it just doesn't work that way. A startup involves months of working your butt off for mere pennies or even nothing. Are you prepared for that moment when you look at the 3 cents you just got after weeks of intense and exhausting work? That's often the startup life.
Relax, the maker won't be getting off on this one.
First of all, there was a shift in revenue for the last several years. People were moving from physical to digital as various platforms dragged the industry kicking and screaming into the year 2000. Labels were not "losing money left and right", their revenues dipped briefly as the changes were made. Digital music sales surged for a number of years. While it may or may not offset the losses from the albums as the industry sued everyone, the shift happened.
Secondly, piracy is responsible for offsetting many of the losses. Studies have shown that people who pirate music are often the music industries biggest customers. This is little more than RIAA whining that it's no longer 1975 and the labels using piracy as a scapegoat. The RIAA is notorious for fabricating losses (at one point, even going so far as to claim they lost the entire GDP of France in a year). Someone has been reading one too many RIAA press releases.
Virtually every problem the RIAA faces can be attributed to wrongheaded thinking on the RIAA's part (suing teenagers and grandparents, three strikes laws, DRM, attempted INDUCE act, attempted SOPA, ripping off artists with terrible contracts, 360 "deals"). If they listened to the people on the ground for the last decade+ who said that they needed to adapt to a changing marketplace, they would still be an overwhelming dominant force in the market today. Instead, they opened the door for independently run labels and independent artists who didn't want this whole "internet thing" "to just go away".
then the products those jobs produce will decrease in price
That presumes that capitalism will cease as a system in the process (not likely going to happen any time soon). Until that happens, then the price of products will remain high because companies still want to make as big of a profit as possible. In short, the companies will retain the difference for the sake of profit.
THERE. ARE. TO. MANY. PEOPLE. Reality check- EXPONENTIAL GROWTH. This train aint gonna slow.
I agree that we need to get off this planet sooner rather than later, but the whole overpopulation thing is a myth that's been debunked for some time: https://www.washingtonpost.com...
A lot of small news sites use Google Adsense because the connections are small to non-existent. The resources to negotiate deals directly is virtually non-existent which is why some simply throw these ads on in the first place. Another reason is that it is a pretty good way to ensure journalistic independence. You aren't beholden necessarily to your advertisers in the same way some traditional news organizations (i.e. TV broadcasting) are beholden to theirs. These policies need to be very carefully weighed and not rushed through. A lot more could be at stake than blacklisting clickbait sites and alt-right "news" sites that post the most ludicrous conspiracy theories as facts.
One reason I would personally worry about such a policy is who plays the role of executioner? How does Google determine a site is real or fake? Is there independent reporting involved? If so, what's to stop someone from maliciously reporting a competing site as a fake news site to cut off their funding?
On the flip side, this kind of policy also has the potential of hurting Google. What's to stop sites, regardless if they are fairly or unfairly targeted crying foul and holding Google up on anti-trust allegations? Google does, in fact, hold a lot of power. If Google comes knocking with some kind of notice saying you've been cut off, what are the alternatives to Adsense? How many other ad distribution networks distribute ads with drive-by malware, etc.?
I personally can only see things getting messy even if Google has the best intentions in mind for everyone.
If anyone is interested, here's the link to the actual story: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...
Indeed. By all means big publishers, demand money from Google. When Google delists you, all that juicy traffic will go to the smaller independent news sites who will be more than happy to make some extra ad impressions. Heck, I would go so far as to say some of them are jumping up and down in excitement over the prospect of some of the big media outlets cutting themselves out of that stream of traffic.
May I ask what websites can do to stop DDOS attacks then?
Wikileaks has responded to these allegations:
"No, WikiLeaks did not disclose "gays" to the Saudi govt. Data is from govt & not leaked by us. Story from 2015. Re-run now due to election."