I heard a nice argument supporting region locking on steam. While I personally would love that there just wasn't a difference in price, the argument was actually reasonable.
It goes like this: some areas in the world get a cheaper price because these are areas where there may be lower income for the population (it makes no sense to charge 50€ for a game in a region where minimum wage is something like 100€, for example). To give you an example, it would make no sense to try to sell games in Venezuela under the same price as everywhere else because the market would be too small. If you lower the prices in that country, you can (potentially) have more costumer (even if they pay you less) instead of them being forced to buy it from outside the country or just plain pirate it.
IIRC, the same happens with the region Russia is located in. At least, that was the argument I read.
To be honest, it should be handled by a court or an entity empowered to do so by the government, and not a private company. And yes, she would probably have to tell the people working at that place why she wants it removed, preferably with proof, so that they know she isn't trying to wipe her slate clean. Because, yes, they should err on the side of not removing. Just as the US Justice system requires people to prove their claim instead of assuming it's true (the defendant is guilty).
But this isn't what this law is about. At least, that's not what I understand it to be about. For this given example, there should be a very specific law designed to handle it properly. This is more about forgetting things that you did (and somebody wrote on the internet), and not cases where you are a victim of a crime. At least, that's what I understand it to be for.
Companies should be legally required to provide evidence of such claims. Not saying things is not Photoshopping their public persona. It's just not showing all of their public persona. If they encouraged news sources to hide/delete/not report that information, then yes, they would be.
photoshopping is a misused term anyway. We should be using manipulation. Photoshopping, as/. should know, is modification/manipulation of a digital image with Photoshop (by Adobe), a term that later simply meant manipulation of images with appropiate software and is now being extended to things that are not digital images, but shouldn't. Just as we shouldn't extend "to google"'s meaning to "search anything anywhere".
A long time ago I made the decision to live with my actions online. I say this as somebody who grew up being told to never publish anything that might ID me online. As such, I've tried my very best to: not publish something I don't want to remain on record for eternity; and if I do write something I later find... regrettable, not ask for it's deletion or it's inclusion. If somebody finds it, I hope they are capable of understanding that people change. If they aren't, I'm okay with not interacting with them (or I'll deal with it).
I can understand, however, that people do not share my stance. For them, there should be a process where the information is hidden (there needs to always be a backup, in case a later ruling/decision says there was a mistake) only if there is a good reason to do so (or, in the case of dumb things while drunk, there can't be a good reason to keep it).
Also, newspapers and other news sources should be exempt of it as long as they contain verified, true facts and only facts. As far as we know, we don't strike from history books what we don't agree with or find no longer relevant (okay, maybe we do show what we want, but that's wrong and it shouldn't be like that).
I think it would be best if we disclosed that her husband has been beating her up to the police. However, in the land of imperfect solutions, not disclosing that information is good starting point. But instead of a "right-to-be-forgotten", shouldn't that be something along the lines of screaming "fire" in a full theater (or otherwise enclosed space with lots of people)?
But then, with a technically perfect system, isn't it better to simply change the input(equalize as needed) to suit your tastes instead the equipment for something that produces a sound you enjoy more yet isn't perfect?
I do agree with you: at the end of the day, what matters is whether we enjoy the sound of it or not. Regardless of price.
So what Google is doing here is saying: this license we had isn't good enough for us anymore, we now want an extended license that also allow us to use your content on an audio streaming service, except they want everything or nothing.
An aggressive move, yes. I can understand people disliking that they didn't try to renegotiate the deal as opposed to scrap the old one and get a new one (the only way they would end up in a situation that would require them to block content they don't have a license to). The problem isn't, as was the focus of TFA, that they are blocking the videos (if they no longer have a license and they know it, I assume it's safest to simply block such content until a new license is issued OR it is clear that they won't have a new license; thus avoiding legal issues) of independent labels. The problem is that Google decided to go for a "double or nothing", in which the labels are always the losers: either because the terms are bad, or because they just are not in Youtube.
At least, that's what I think. Did I miss anything or made any mistakes in my thought process? Is there any assumption that's impairing my analysis of the situation?
My guess is that when the videos were uploaded, they were uploaded under a different license than the ones common users use. That license had probably something along the lines of "if you don't agree with new terms, you need to stop using our service" (like TOS).
You know, exactly how Google changes it's term of service and if you don't agree with them you need to stop using their service (usage implies agreement, in this case, though).
If my understanding of the issue is right, then what happened here is: I, label, make a deal with Google saying that I authorize them to display and monetize some videos for x% (where x is agreed by both parties). If I, at some point, no longer want the deal, then Google has no authorization to display my videos. Blocking the videos is simply covering their backs on "You didn't have authorization anymore because we didn't sign the new deal and the old one ended, and you profited from our works by having them on your website".
If this wasn't the case, ie: what was in place was a monetization deal only, then Google could (and it would be the best thing in terms of PR) to simply revert to the monetization everyone else uses because if they uploaded the videos, they agreed to the terms.
Please do correct me if I'm wrong. And do share your opinion.
The thing is, the summary (and the article) are biased, in my opinion. There is a failure to mention that if Google doesn't have a license to display/monetize videos, it cannot. There is also the failure to mention that if the new deal isn't signed, then Google would no longer have said license. Therefore, Google is legally obliged to remove such content, since otherwise they wouldn't be violating copyright law.
The biggest issue here, which is not what people are complaining about (everybody seems to just overlook this), is that Google decided that it wanted to change it's deal and some labels (independent or otherwise) and artists didn't like the new terms. Google, however, doesn't want to negotiate the terms of the deal. To me, it seems like normal business. Perhaps the more controversial or potentially bad part of all this is that, indeed, Youtube does have the equivalent of a monopoly.
I do not know what the deal is. All I can say from the information I know is that Google seems to be acting correctly and within reason. The articles do seem to vilify Google, or at least that's how it felt to me.
That's... that's pretty much what TFA said for sure. It never talked about videos made by artists. Just that, as you said, they wouldn't sign the license agreement, they would block the videos (which is the right things to do, since by not signing the agreement Google has no right to display/monetize the video).
The most suspicious thing is that there is no actual quote or link (that I could find) to a public statement made by Google. Maybe I missed it.
For now, I'll just think that Google are doing the legal thing by blocking videos whose license is terminated (by not signing the new one). I do not think that they will start removing videos that they do have a license to.
If he's asked about his opinion, he is in his right to answer. Now, of course, we the public should be smart enough to understand that this is outside his field of expertise.
On the other hand, you are right. And this is why I don't want to be famous. I like being able to talk about anything and everything if I so desire without anybody judging me for it.
You can ensure that the encrypted data looks random because you are the one encrypting it. You can't, however, ensure that the random data in windows actually looks random. The next string: "monkeys can write" can result from a random source. I mean, monkeys could, theoretically, write all of Shakespeare's works given infinite time. Random doesn't mean it looks random. Random means there is no structure/logic behind it. It can *look* like something with meaning or not.
What if I write an article discussing X event about Y person and due to the nature of X event it is for the best interest of the reader to know Z personal information about Y? Can Y then ask to google to stop linking to my article? Can I fight it? Can I get payment for any lost revenue due to loss of traffic (if applicable)? Do I, as the author of the article, even get notified about this?
FWIW, I lived in Caracas, and it definitely felt overcrowded. Now I live in what I consider a town in Portugal (for some reason local population insists in calling it a city). I'm not sure which one I like more if I control for the lack of security in Caracas. I have no idea how USA/Japan cities compare besides what I've seen on TV (which we know isn't that reliable).
My biggest complain is the insistence on trying to live in a gigantic city (it tends to be hard to solve commuting issues) when the population could live in large cities instead (still a city, still with good public mass transport, still with great services and access and everything else, just with less population and perhaps more breathing room on the streets).
It seems something that the government could try to solve by trying to invest in these less-developed areas and turning them into attractive areas for industry and businesses, in turns making people want to live in the less populated areas. I have always found it odd that there is little push towards homogenizing the population and instead everyone just seems to head towards the one or two large cities, slowly getting overcrowded.
There is default privacy, which I like, and then there is clicking facebook's like and then complaining that doing so shared that you viewed a movie...
Slashdot Mirror
Sadly, that last sentence defines a huge part of our social interactions.
I heard a nice argument supporting region locking on steam. While I personally would love that there just wasn't a difference in price, the argument was actually reasonable.
It goes like this: some areas in the world get a cheaper price because these are areas where there may be lower income for the population (it makes no sense to charge 50€ for a game in a region where minimum wage is something like 100€, for example). To give you an example, it would make no sense to try to sell games in Venezuela under the same price as everywhere else because the market would be too small. If you lower the prices in that country, you can (potentially) have more costumer (even if they pay you less) instead of them being forced to buy it from outside the country or just plain pirate it.
IIRC, the same happens with the region Russia is located in. At least, that was the argument I read.
Would you have a list or know some of those? It might be something relevant for TFS.
To be honest, it should be handled by a court or an entity empowered to do so by the government, and not a private company. And yes, she would probably have to tell the people working at that place why she wants it removed, preferably with proof, so that they know she isn't trying to wipe her slate clean. Because, yes, they should err on the side of not removing. Just as the US Justice system requires people to prove their claim instead of assuming it's true (the defendant is guilty).
But this isn't what this law is about. At least, that's not what I understand it to be about. For this given example, there should be a very specific law designed to handle it properly. This is more about forgetting things that you did (and somebody wrote on the internet), and not cases where you are a victim of a crime. At least, that's what I understand it to be for.
Companies should be legally required to provide evidence of such claims. Not saying things is not Photoshopping their public persona. It's just not showing all of their public persona. If they encouraged news sources to hide/delete/not report that information, then yes, they would be.
photoshopping is a misused term anyway. We should be using manipulation. Photoshopping, as /. should know, is modification/manipulation of a digital image with Photoshop (by Adobe), a term that later simply meant manipulation of images with appropiate software and is now being extended to things that are not digital images, but shouldn't. Just as we shouldn't extend "to google"'s meaning to "search anything anywhere".
A long time ago I made the decision to live with my actions online. I say this as somebody who grew up being told to never publish anything that might ID me online. As such, I've tried my very best to: not publish something I don't want to remain on record for eternity; and if I do write something I later find... regrettable, not ask for it's deletion or it's inclusion. If somebody finds it, I hope they are capable of understanding that people change. If they aren't, I'm okay with not interacting with them (or I'll deal with it).
I can understand, however, that people do not share my stance. For them, there should be a process where the information is hidden (there needs to always be a backup, in case a later ruling/decision says there was a mistake) only if there is a good reason to do so (or, in the case of dumb things while drunk, there can't be a good reason to keep it).
Also, newspapers and other news sources should be exempt of it as long as they contain verified, true facts and only facts. As far as we know, we don't strike from history books what we don't agree with or find no longer relevant (okay, maybe we do show what we want, but that's wrong and it shouldn't be like that).
I think it would be best if we disclosed that her husband has been beating her up to the police. However, in the land of imperfect solutions, not disclosing that information is good starting point. But instead of a "right-to-be-forgotten", shouldn't that be something along the lines of screaming "fire" in a full theater (or otherwise enclosed space with lots of people)?
But then, with a technically perfect system, isn't it better to simply change the input(equalize as needed) to suit your tastes instead the equipment for something that produces a sound you enjoy more yet isn't perfect?
I do agree with you: at the end of the day, what matters is whether we enjoy the sound of it or not. Regardless of price.
Can you explain to me why you claim that the worst components are my ears?
So what Google is doing here is saying: this license we had isn't good enough for us anymore, we now want an extended license that also allow us to use your content on an audio streaming service, except they want everything or nothing.
An aggressive move, yes. I can understand people disliking that they didn't try to renegotiate the deal as opposed to scrap the old one and get a new one (the only way they would end up in a situation that would require them to block content they don't have a license to). The problem isn't, as was the focus of TFA, that they are blocking the videos (if they no longer have a license and they know it, I assume it's safest to simply block such content until a new license is issued OR it is clear that they won't have a new license; thus avoiding legal issues) of independent labels. The problem is that Google decided to go for a "double or nothing", in which the labels are always the losers: either because the terms are bad, or because they just are not in Youtube.
At least, that's what I think. Did I miss anything or made any mistakes in my thought process? Is there any assumption that's impairing my analysis of the situation?
My guess is that when the videos were uploaded, they were uploaded under a different license than the ones common users use. That license had probably something along the lines of "if you don't agree with new terms, you need to stop using our service" (like TOS).
You know, exactly how Google changes it's term of service and if you don't agree with them you need to stop using their service (usage implies agreement, in this case, though).
If my understanding of the issue is right, then what happened here is: I, label, make a deal with Google saying that I authorize them to display and monetize some videos for x% (where x is agreed by both parties). If I, at some point, no longer want the deal, then Google has no authorization to display my videos. Blocking the videos is simply covering their backs on "You didn't have authorization anymore because we didn't sign the new deal and the old one ended, and you profited from our works by having them on your website".
If this wasn't the case, ie: what was in place was a monetization deal only, then Google could (and it would be the best thing in terms of PR) to simply revert to the monetization everyone else uses because if they uploaded the videos, they agreed to the terms.
Please do correct me if I'm wrong. And do share your opinion.
The thing is, the summary (and the article) are biased, in my opinion. There is a failure to mention that if Google doesn't have a license to display/monetize videos, it cannot. There is also the failure to mention that if the new deal isn't signed, then Google would no longer have said license. Therefore, Google is legally obliged to remove such content, since otherwise they wouldn't be violating copyright law.
The biggest issue here, which is not what people are complaining about (everybody seems to just overlook this), is that Google decided that it wanted to change it's deal and some labels (independent or otherwise) and artists didn't like the new terms. Google, however, doesn't want to negotiate the terms of the deal. To me, it seems like normal business. Perhaps the more controversial or potentially bad part of all this is that, indeed, Youtube does have the equivalent of a monopoly.
I do not know what the deal is. All I can say from the information I know is that Google seems to be acting correctly and within reason. The articles do seem to vilify Google, or at least that's how it felt to me.
And that's pretty much it. The articles sounds very... clickbaity and not really informative at all.
That's... that's pretty much what TFA said for sure. It never talked about videos made by artists. Just that, as you said, they wouldn't sign the license agreement, they would block the videos (which is the right things to do, since by not signing the agreement Google has no right to display/monetize the video).
The most suspicious thing is that there is no actual quote or link (that I could find) to a public statement made by Google. Maybe I missed it.
For now, I'll just think that Google are doing the legal thing by blocking videos whose license is terminated (by not signing the new one). I do not think that they will start removing videos that they do have a license to.
If he's asked about his opinion, he is in his right to answer. Now, of course, we the public should be smart enough to understand that this is outside his field of expertise.
On the other hand, you are right. And this is why I don't want to be famous. I like being able to talk about anything and everything if I so desire without anybody judging me for it.
It forgets so much yet remembers so much. Ah... the beauty of the Internet.
You can ensure that the encrypted data looks random because you are the one encrypting it. You can't, however, ensure that the random data in windows actually looks random. The next string: "monkeys can write" can result from a random source. I mean, monkeys could, theoretically, write all of Shakespeare's works given infinite time. Random doesn't mean it looks random. Random means there is no structure/logic behind it. It can *look* like something with meaning or not.
Yes. You are right. This doesn't seem "right" at all. The very definition of fishy.
And this seems to me the proper use of wikipedia.
If we can get confirmation from somebody else, can we get this modded up? And possibly moved up?
What if I write an article discussing X event about Y person and due to the nature of X event it is for the best interest of the reader to know Z personal information about Y? Can Y then ask to google to stop linking to my article? Can I fight it? Can I get payment for any lost revenue due to loss of traffic (if applicable)? Do I, as the author of the article, even get notified about this?
FWIW, I lived in Caracas, and it definitely felt overcrowded. Now I live in what I consider a town in Portugal (for some reason local population insists in calling it a city). I'm not sure which one I like more if I control for the lack of security in Caracas. I have no idea how USA/Japan cities compare besides what I've seen on TV (which we know isn't that reliable).
My biggest complain is the insistence on trying to live in a gigantic city (it tends to be hard to solve commuting issues) when the population could live in large cities instead (still a city, still with good public mass transport, still with great services and access and everything else, just with less population and perhaps more breathing room on the streets).
It seems something that the government could try to solve by trying to invest in these less-developed areas and turning them into attractive areas for industry and businesses, in turns making people want to live in the less populated areas. I have always found it odd that there is little push towards homogenizing the population and instead everyone just seems to head towards the one or two large cities, slowly getting overcrowded.
There is default privacy, which I like, and then there is clicking facebook's like and then complaining that doing so shared that you viewed a movie...
Aren't peas the seed of a plant instead of the plant itself?