New copyright for internet content

[Skybird]

https://translate.google.com/transla...%2F&edit-text=

Even worse is the fact that the system can be abused quite simply. Anyone can claim copyright for content at any time, and then all users are at the mercy of an algorithm. For example, the Electronic Frontier Foundation describes what would happen if someone uploaded all of Wikipedia: no one would be able to quote or link Wikipedia content until the machinery sorted out the mischief.

Users whose content was maliciously declared copyrighted by another user would first have to take legal action and complain - in order to be able to use their own content again .


And that's not all: the reform of copyright law also aims to regulate machine-read content. All text and data mining, every machine reading and analysis of content should be relevant to copyright. Mind you: It's not about saving this data, but about the pure reading process. If you want to read and analyze, you have to pay. A disaster for independent scientists, citizens and journalists who are in fact making publicly available data inaccessible.

I stopped reading print newspaper many, many years ago. this maybe is a good invitation to consider stopping to care for internet newspapers as well. Too much rabble-rousing, too much lobby-driven propaganda anyway. Most of what I find, is not worth it.



If many come to my conlsuioon, it will dramatically change traffic patterns - and backfiore severly against those who pushed this new agenda. I take that as a grin-as-much-as-you-can bonus. Regarding scientists and journalists: too much work in their fields these days is corrupted as well anyway.



The bad side of this is that people will be pushed to simply believe the verbal garbage the government tells them for propaganda purposes. But then, many do that anyway, so.



Written paper letters, delivery by people you trust. Ruins every big data scanner's and spy agency's day. Maybe we shoukld ban schools form teahcing children to read and write. In Germany, this project has already reache dimpressingly far. The share of school absolvents being incapable of accurate readi8ng,w riting, understanding texts and doing elemental maths, is climbing form year to year. Strangely, the school notes get better and better on average. Today's average Math-Abitur-absolvents (=Gymnasium, the highest of the three-class school system in germany) , it was reported a week ago, cannot solve math quesiton from Realschul-math exam in the early 60s anymore, representing ther medium-class school format.


All inclusive, so to speak

[Dowly]

Sure, let's just stop reading news and make ourselves even more ignorant than we already are.
What people need to do instead of stop reading online newspapers is to regain their critical thinking skills.

[Skybird]

Don't read newspapers, and be uninformed. Read newspapers, and be misinformed.


Quality has gone down the drain many, many years ago already anyway. Its absolutely no loss not to read newspapers anymore. I would even say its a win in life quality, and a benefit to your health as well.



With TV its even much worse. You cant pratcially differ anymore between TV broadcasters, and political interest groups. The name for that is simple: propaganda.


Those who mess with ylour life and claim it is for the bettgering of the world, in the end all have one thing in common: they want to have control over you and want you to obey their demands. Of course, you get only educated for your own better.



Didn't find the ignore-button?

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Don't read newspapers, and be uninformed. Read newspapers, and be misinformed.

Haha, Oh wow, that was so funny and so true.

[Rockstar]

I remember not too long ago somebody brought up that NATO expansion was a broken promise to Russia. Several years ago I read an interview of Mikhail Gorbachev where he states no such things were spoken of when they pulled out of East Germany. I recently tried to find the interview again on Google to no avail all I found was pro Russia stories of broken promises by NATO

I used Duck Duck Go and lo and behold I found Gorbachev's interview.

Not saying one search engine is better than the other but it seems to me Google can sure manipulate its results.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Not saying one search engine is better than the other but it seems to me Google can sure manipulate its results.

That is one of the advantages they have and can abuse whilst being the number one in their field.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Don't read newspapers, and be uninformed. Read newspapers, and be misinformed.

Here in comes the critical thinking skill.


We as humans have more information available to use with a push of a few buttons than have been available to any single person in the history of the world. Use it.

[Skybird]

Correct (="critical") processing of corrupted information necessarily must lead to corrupted results.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Correct (="critical") processing of corrupted information necessarily must lead to corrupted results.

Bollocks.

There are four lights.

[mapuc]

To be honest I don't give much for this "critical thinking skills"

Because it all depend on the persons belief.

Let say I don't like a certain politicians
In my use of this "critical thinking skills"

I would probably end up with what my belief are/is.

Take a look at some of our own political discussion and some of our discussion about Global warming.

(sorry for this little detour)

Markus

[Catfish]

so true.. most live in their own world of 'information', or personal information bubble. They have an opinion and click away everything they do not like, and Google and Facebook support that!
Tailored advertisements and information, to make people even more dumb..

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Bollocks.

No, just pointing out the obvious (that you reject).

And beyond the how-to of processing, and the quality of its entered object, I even do not mention the third factor that needs to be seen here: the processor himself. Mapuc reflected a bit about it.

The eye cant watch itself. Ylou cannot find final truths about the system you are embedded in as long as you are embedded in thats ystem and its context and do not step beyond, and outside of it.

You can scan as many newspapers of different kinds as you want - your choice already influence the scanning result, the included claims in their articles - and the not included info/claim/statement in their articles as well! - decide the range of possible conclusions/results of your "critical thinking".

And if your only information sources are forged informaiton, propaganda, then you can think as hard as you want, you nevertheless do not get the real picture of the world and its events.

"A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant, and the crazy crazier." - H.L. Mencken.

[Eichhörnchen]

I'm pleased to reflect that I've neither read any newspapers nor watched TV for many years now; I get all my news about the world from BBC Radio.

The issue about paying fees, including even linking to stuff, well that's completely nightmarish. If the measures suggested here were enacted then it would cripple the internet... interpretation of intellectual copyright is enough of a minefield already for individuals and a goldmine for lawyers.

It was a basic foolish mistake on his part, but a guy recently got billed for over £700 for using a tiny photo on his website which belonged to somebody else (I heard this on the BBC News!) Just imagine the worry that these measures would cause... people would just stop using the web

[Skybird]

^Agreeing on all accounts.

And while I liked this detial so much, I again quote it:

"Users whose content was maliciously declared copyrighted by another user would first have to take legal action and complain - in order to be able to use their own content again ."

But who knows, regulating the internet to death might be the political will behind doing so: to suppress it as an opinion platform without being accused of acting like China.

[Eichhörnchen]

I've needed to be very aware of the pitfalls in my work as a painter, especially when it comes to producing artwork for publication. The area is open to wide interpretation and you'll get as many different accounts of what constitutes an infringement as 'experts' you consult. Some will say that it's enough to simply copy another person's image in reverse to avoid infringement... I just don't hold with that... others that you only need to alter one or two details.

I've had my artwork for greetings cards blatantly copied, with some alterations made... but any reasonable person would have looked at it and said that my image had been copied

I realise that this diverges somewhat from the subject of the OP but thought it might be of some interest