^ Don't put words in my mouth mate. I'm no fan of the big G's dominance or more practically its tax obfuscation but sledgehammer legislation like this is always gonna hurt the little man more in the end. Ask yourself why and who these guys are really trying to protect here.
Article 13 is even more problematic than Article 11. Both together are a pincer movement against free speech in an attempt to wrest control back from the public at large. This is not the way to uphold copyrights.
(31-03-2019 13:16 )ShandyHand Wrote: [ -> ]Where's this definition of what's short?
The legislation does not specifically define how short the extracts must be. Anyone who disputes whether extracts are short enough or not can always bring a legal action to argue their case, in which case a court of law can rule on the matter and provide guidance on what is considered short enough to comply with the directive.
If Google does not care to risk whether the extracts they use are short enough, and potentially get involved in legal actions, they can always pay to use the content. Google profits are not measured in millions or even billions, but in tens of billions, so any fees they pay to use news content will doubtless be easily affordable.
(31-03-2019 14:08 )ShandyHand Wrote: [ -> ]^ Don't put words in my mouth mate. I'm no fan of the big G's dominance or more practically its tax obfuscation but sledgehammer legislation like this is always gonna hurt the little man more in the end. Ask yourself why and who these guys are really trying to protect here.
Article 13 is even more problematic than Article 11. Both together are a pincer movement against free speech in an attempt to wrest control back from the public at large. This is not the way to uphold copyrights.
You know I didn't do that
Starting your post with the reference to Google was maybe the wrong tack. The Media Show on Radio 4 with Amol Rajan has had a few good discussions about how the big internet giants have been behaving. Worth the price of BBC Sounds (it's free)
Love the government breaching their own data protection & privacy laws by revealing 300 emails of various individuals (media & tech journalists) with this announcement
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47962405
^ Oh the irony. You really couldn't make that up could you. The Day Today has come to life. What an utter shower.
Any one think this might be good for the babe channels as their online competition will now be adult verified ?
UK's porn age-verification rules can be circumvented in minutes
Using simple Google search the Guardian was able to register and age verify a made-up account
The first test of the UK’s new porn age-verification system can be circumvented in less than two minutes using a simple Google search, the Guardian has found, amid concerns the system is being implemented for political reasons before it is ready.
Providers of legal pornography will be required to implement an age-verification system by 15 July, one of the first of its kind in the world, raising concerns from privacy campaigners.
The system was tested for the first time last week by Channel 4, who created an “ethical” pornographic film called I Want Fourplay made by a group of mothers as part of the channel’s Mums Make Porn documentary.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019...in-minutes
Mid July 2019 !!!
I'm very fearful of having to register and / or provide personal info online just to watch porn or even Chaturbate ,..... what if the family finds out
