Mreža

Share
avatar

Posts : 10110
Join date : 2015-11-22

Re: Mreža

Post by Gargantua on Thu Sep 13, 2018 12:58 pm

Evropski parlament, juče:


Parliament adopts its position on digital copyright rules  

-    Tech giants must pay for work of artists and journalists which they use
-    Small and micro platforms excluded from directive’s scope
-    Hyperlinks, “accompanied by “individual words” can be shared freely  
-    Journalists must get a share of any copyright-related remuneration obtained by their publishing house


Parliament adopted its revised negotiating position on copyright rules on Wednesday, adding safeguards to protect small firms and freedom of expression.

Parliament’s position for talks with member states to hammer out a final deal was approved by 438 votes to 226, with 39 abstentions. It makes some important tweaks to the June committee proposal.

Tech giants to share revenue with artists and journalists

Many of Parliament’s changes to the EU Commission’s original proposal aim to make certain that artists, notably musicians, performers and script authors, as well as news publishers and journalists, are paid for their work when it is used by sharing platforms such as YouTube or Facebook, and news aggregators such as Google News.

After the vote, rapporteur Axel Voss (EPP, DE) said, “I am very glad that despite the very strong lobbying campaign by the internet giants, there is now a majority in the full house backing the need to protect the principle of fair pay for European creatives.

There has been much heated debate around this directive and I believe that Parliament has listened carefully to the concerns raised. Thus, we have addressed concerns raised about innovation by excluding small and micro platforms or aggregators from the scope.

I am convinced that once the dust has settled, the internet will be as free as it is today, creators and journalists will be earning a fairer share of the revenues generated by their works, and we will be wondering what all the fuss was about.”

Fair pay for artists and journalists while encouraging start-ups

Parliament’s position toughens the Commission’s proposed plans to make online platforms and aggregators liable for copyright infringements. This would also apply to snippets, where only a small part of a news publisher’s text is displayed. In practice, this liability requires these parties to pay right holders for copyrighted material that they make available. Parliament’s text also specifically requires that journalists themselves, and not just their publishing houses, benefit from remuneration stemming from this liability requirement.

At the same time, in an attempt to encourage start-ups and innovation, the text now exempts small and micro platforms from the directive.


Protecting freedom of expression

The text includes provisions to ensure that copyright law is observed online without unfairly hampering the freedom of expression that has come to define the internet.

Thus, merely sharing hyperlinks to articles, together with “individual words” to describe them, will be free of copyright constraints.

Any action taken by platforms to check that uploads do not breach copyright rules must be designed in such a way as to avoid catching “non-infringing works”. These platforms will moreover be required to establish rapid redress systems (operated by the platform’s staff, not algorithms) through which complaints can be lodged when an upload is wrongly taken down.

Wikipedia and open source software platforms will not be affected

The text also specifies that uploading to online encyclopaedias in a non-commercial way, such as Wikipedia, or open source software platforms, such as GitHub, will automatically be excluded from the requirement to comply with copyright rules.


Stronger negotiating rights for authors and performers

Parliament’s text also strengthens the negotiating rights of authors and performers, by enabling them to “claim” additional remuneration from the party exploiting their rights when the remuneration originally agreed is “disproportionately” low compared to the benefits derived.

The text adds that these benefits should include “indirect revenues”. It would also empower authors and performers to revoke or terminate the exclusivity of an exploitation licence for their work if the party holding the exploitation rights is deemed not to be exercising this right.
avatar

Posts : 10110
Join date : 2015-11-22

Re: Mreža

Post by Gargantua on Thu Sep 13, 2018 1:12 pm

https://boingboing.net/2018/09/12/vichy-nerds-2.html

...
Here's what the EU voted in favour of this morning:

* Upload filters: Everything you post, from short text snippets to stills, audio, video, code, etc will be surveilled by copyright bots run by the big platforms. They'll compare your posts to databases of "copyrighted works" that will be compiled by allowing anyone to claim copyright on anything, uploading thousands of works at a time. Anything that appears to match the "copyright database" is blocked on sight, and you have to beg the platform's human moderators to review your case to get your work reinstated.

* Link taxes: You can't link to a news story if your link text includes more than a single word from the article's headline. The platform you're using has to buy a license from the news site, and news sites can refuse licenses, giving them the right to choose who can criticise and debate the news.

* Sports monopolies: You can't post any photos or videos from sports events -- not a selfie, not a short snippet of a great goal. Only the "organisers" of events have that right. Upload filters will block any attempt to violate the rule.

Here's what they voted against:

* "Right of panorama": the right to post photos of public places despite the presence of copyrighted works like stock arts in advertisements, public statuary, or t-shirts bearing copyrighted images. Even the facades of buildings need to be cleared with their architects (not with the owners of the buildings).

* User generated content exemption: the right to use small excerpt from works to make memes and other critical/transformative/parodical/satirical works.
...

Posts : 6203
Join date : 2016-06-25

Re: Mreža

Post by Zuper on Thu Sep 13, 2018 2:00 pm



Axel Voss celebrates after a vote on modifications to EU copyright law
avatar

Posts : 9202
Join date : 2014-11-06

Re: Mreža

Post by plachkica on Thu Sep 13, 2018 2:33 pm

evo, i nuns slavi

[img][/img]

http://rs.n1info.com/a419444/Vesti/NUNS-Direktiva-veliki-korak-u-zastiti-autorskih-prava.html
avatar

Posts : 16270
Join date : 2012-02-12
Location : носач супстанце

Re: Mreža

Post by паће on Thu Sep 13, 2018 3:08 pm

Gargantua wrote:* "Right of panorama": the right to post photos of public places despite the presence of copyrighted works like stock arts in advertisements, public statuary, or t-shirts bearing copyrighted images. Even the facades of buildings need to be cleared with their architects (not with the owners of the buildings).

Живот опонаша уметност. Има она сцена у Буњуеловом "Дискретном шарму буржоазије" кад доводе клинку код шринка, па траже да покаже безобразне фотке које држи у торби. А фотке... све сама архитектура. Сви се саблажњавају, праве се да не знају шта су то видели, и јако су забринути за њено ментално здравље.



Списак копирајтованог материјала сад проширити и на фасаде и на кола.


_____
то ја бришем, некад милице некад не
I want to be Bujumbura for a while. Then I'll can say Bujumbura is a place I've been.
avatar

Posts : 10110
Join date : 2015-11-22

Re: Mreža

Post by Gargantua on Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:35 pm

https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/delete-your-account-a-conversation-with-jaron-lanier/

Delete Your Account Now: A Conversation with Jaron Lanier
Harper Simon interviews Jaron Lanier

JARON LANIER IS ONE of the leading philosophers of the digital age, as well as a computer scientist and avant-garde composer. His previous books include Dawn of the New Everything: Encounters with Reality and Virtual Reality, Who Owns the Future?, and the seminal You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto. His latest book bears a self-explanatory title: Ten Arguments for Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now. We first met while performing on stage together in San Francisco several years ago and developed a friendship. On August 14, he sat down with me to talk about the perils of social media and the promise of better things to come.

...

- Can you describe some of the consequences of what you refer to as “network effects” or “lock-ins,” and how these kinds of design flaws have made it critical for people to quit social media entirely in order to ensure fundamental change?

Well, those are two slightly different ideas. So let me address them each separately. The network effects and lock-in have to do with what you call natural monopolies that arise in some situations. In the case of Facebook … there’s a very widespread dissatisfaction with Facebook. It’s been criticized almost constantly by everybody. And yet, somehow, people are still on it. And the reason why is twofold in this case. One thing is it’s the network effect, which we were just mentioning. What that means is that, because everybody is already on it, it would require a supernatural degree of coordination for everybody to get off it at the same time. So to get off it means that you’re sort of isolating yourself. And this is typical of a lot of network systems — why it’s hard to have a lot of competing electric companies or competing highway systems. In general, it just gets easier if there’s one of them. And so Facebook is one of these natural monopolies. Sometimes it’s more proper to call these things both monopolies and monopsony.

The key idea here is that it’s just hard to get off it. Mathematically, people are kind of stuck. Then, added to that, in this case, is the addiction factor. People are addicted to it. So if you have both network effect and addiction, then it becomes really hard to leave.

...

You brought up this other question of why is it so important for people to leave, and the thing I want to say is that, because of addiction and because of network effects, I realize that only a small minority of people can do it, and I don’t know how many I have influenced to get off of there. I don’t have a means of measuring that. But here’s what I would say: there have been times before, recently and even in America, when society had to confront mass addiction that had a commercial component.

I’m thinking of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers. And I’m thinking of the public smoking of cigarettes. In both of those cases, there were industries that relied on mass addiction, but somehow or other, a rational conversation gradually created a change. In neither case was the substance totally outlawed, but its role in society was vastly changed. And I just want to point out that this process of having a rational conversation about how things can change is only possible when at least somebody isn’t addicted. If the MADD Mothers were themselves alcoholics, it would have been harder for them to organize. A space for conversation where some people aren’t addicted facilitates thinking different thoughts and being able to envision different outcomes. And what I do believe is that we can get at least enough people to quit this stuff to create such a space.

...

- So can we talk a little bit about the social justice or activism aspects of social media? Aside from taking selfies, self-promotion, and communicating with friends, the main justification people have for being on social media is that it enables so much community activism and social justice.

Yeah. A lot of people have felt that using social media is a way to organize for mutual betterment, whether it’s a social justice movement or other things. You’re absolutely correct: in the immediate sense their experience of that is authentic. I think they’re reporting on real events. The problem, however, is that behind the scenes there are these manipulation, behavior modification, and addiction algorithms that are running. And these addiction algorithms are blind. They’re just dumb algorithms. What they want to do is take whatever input people put into the system and find a way to turn it into the most engagement possible. And the most engagement comes from the startle emotions, like fear and anger and jealousy, because they tend to rise the fastest and then subside the slowest in people, and the algorithms are measuring people very rapidly, so they tend to pick up and amplify startle emotions over slower emotions like the building of trust or affection.

And so you tend to have the algorithms trying to take whatever has been put into the system and find some way to get a startle emotion out of it in order to maximize its use for addiction. What we call engagement should be called addiction and then behavior modification. And so you tend to have this phenomenon where there will be, let’s say, a social justice movement of some kind; it’s initially successful, but then the same data is instead optimized to find whoever is irritated by that social justice movement. Those irritated people are introduced to each other and put into this amplifying cycle where they’re more and more agitated until they become horrible. So, you start with the Arab Spring, but then you get ISIS getting even more mileage from the same tools. Or you start with Black Lives Matter and you come up with this resurgent bizarre racist movement that had been dormant for years. And this just keeps on happening.

So the problem is that when people say, “Oh, we use social media for social justice,” they’re typically correct. And yet in the longer story they’re really vulnerable to a far greater backlash than they would have gotten if they used another technique. At the end of the day, it’s hard to say whether they really benefited or not.

...

- It occurs to me that it now requires real bravery to quit your social media accounts, and I imagine that “ influencers” might see it as career self-sabotage. So what would you say to them?

Well, one other thing I emphasize, to the point of being annoyingly repetitive in the book, is that each life is different. And I don’t want people to self-sabotage. I want people to be successful. My personal opinion is that even if social media as it exists is bad for the world, if it helps you for now, it might be a really legitimate decision for you to stay on it. I’m not going to judge you for it. And I don’t think there are any easy, one-size-fits-all answers. Having said this, I do want to point out that, as far as I can tell, I have a pretty successful writing career. I have a pretty successful speaking career. I have a pretty successful career as a public intellectual. And I’ve never had one of these accounts. And whenever I point that out, people say, “Well, but you’re an exception.” And, you know, maybe — but I can’t be that exceptional. I don’t think I’m that unusual. I think there might be a degree to which people are afraid that if they did anything different, their life would be completely destroyed, but they may not be correct. It might actually be fine.

- I think that’s absolutely right. And I do wonder how much pressure studios or record labels or other powerful companies put on talent to use social media.

Yes, I know, there is a bizarre conformity thing; sometimes, if you’re not on social media and you did something with someone, they feel let down that you’re not there to promote them. But ultimately, the whole thing is just a fake, you know — again, I’m not on it and I seem to be doing fine. I mean, maybe if I was on social media I’d have some spectacularly bigger career or something, but it seems to me like I’m doing pretty well, really.
avatar

Posts : 5556
Join date : 2014-11-04

Re: Mreža

Post by Indy on Sat Oct 13, 2018 12:07 am

Pazi, stvarno je obrisao svoj twitter nalog.   Nema ga više.


_____
Eto šta škola učini od čoveka! A mogao je da bude majstor, kad toliko voli.
avatar

Posts : 5556
Join date : 2014-11-04

Re: Mreža

Post by Indy on Sat Oct 13, 2018 2:45 am

A sećam se da je nedavno bio na tvitru, čak je bio lajkovao 1 moj tweet...

Nisam siguran da je cela ta ideja sa napuštanjem socijalnih mreža mnogo produktivna, ne vidim alternative. OK, uvek možemo da ne komuniciramo, al što smo ih zahebali jbga...


_____
Eto šta škola učini od čoveka! A mogao je da bude majstor, kad toliko voli.
avatar

Posts : 10110
Join date : 2015-11-22

Re: Mreža

Post by Gargantua on Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:58 am

O BUMMER-u, pominje se u intervjuu, a ovo je deo iz knjige:


Seems like a good moment to coin an acronym so I don’t have to repeat, over and over, the same account of the pieces that make up the problem. How about “Behaviors of Users Modified, and Made into an Empire for Rent”? BUMMER.

BUMMER is a machine, a statistical machine that lives in the computing clouds. To review, phenomena that are statistical and fuzzy are nevertheless real. Even at their best, BUMMER algorithms can only calculate the chances that a person will act in a particular way. But what might be only a chance for each person approaches being a certainty on the average for large numbers of people. The overall population can be affected with greater predictability than can any single person.

Since BUMMER’s influence is statistical, the menace is a little like climate change. You can’t say climate change is responsible for a particular storm, flood, or drought, but you can say it changes the odds that they’ll happen. In the longer term, the most horrible stuff like sea level rise and the need to relocate most people and find new sources of food would be attributable to climate change, but by then the argument would have been lost.

Similarly, I can’t prove that any particular asshole has been made more asshole-y by BUMMER, nor can I prove that any particular degradation of our society would not have happened anyway. There’s no certain way to know if BUMMER has changed your behavior, though later on I’ll offer some ways to find clues. If you use BUMMER platforms, you’ve probably been changed at least a little.

While we can’t know what details in our world would be different without BUMMER, we can know about the big picture. Like climate change, BUMMER will lead us into hell if we don’t self-correct.


THE PARTS THAT MAKE UP THE BUMMER MACHINE

BUMMER is a machine with six moving parts.
Here’s a mnemonic for the six components of the BUMMER machine, in case you ever have to remember them for a test:
A is for Attention Acquisition leading to Asshole supremacy
B is for Butting into everyone’s lives
C is for Cramming content down people’s throats
D is for Directing people’s behaviors in the sneakiest way possible
E is for Earning money from letting the worst assholes secretly screw with everyone else
F is for Fake mobs and Faker society

...


THE PROBLEM IS LIMITED, SO WE CAN CONTAIN IT

The more specifically we can draw a line around a problem, the more solvable that problem becomes. Here I have put forward a hypothesis that our problem is not the internet, smartphones, smart speakers, or the art of algorithms. Instead, the problem that has made the world so dark and crazy lately is the BUMMER machine, and the core of the BUMMER machine is not a technology, exactly, but a style of business plan that spews out perverse incentives and corrupts people.

It’s not even a widely used business plan. Outside of China, the only tech giants that fully depend on BUMMER are Facebook and Google. The other three of the big five tech companies indulge in BUMMER occasionally, because it is normalized these days, but they don’t depend on it. A few smaller BUMMER companies are also influential, like Twitter, though they often struggle. One of the reasons I’m optimistic is that BUMMER isn’t great as a long-term business strategy. I’ll explain that observation more in the argument about economics.

Which companies are BUMMER? This can be debated! A good way to tell is that first-rank BUMMER companies are the ones that attract efforts or spending from bad actors like Russian state intelligence warfare units. This test reveals that there are pseudo-BUMMER services that contain only subsets of the components, like Reddit and 4chan, but still play significant roles in the BUMMER ecosystem.

Next-order services that might become BUMMER but haven’t achieved scale are operated by the other tech giants, Microsoft, Amazon, and Apple, as well as by smaller companies like Snap.

But this second argument is not about corporations, it’s about you. Because we can draw a line around the BUMMER machine, we can draw a line around what to avoid.

The problem with BUMMER is not that it includes any particular technology, but that it’s someone else’s power trip.

Methodical behaviorism, described in the first argument, isn’t in itself a problem, for instance. You might choose to be treated by a cognitive behavioral therapist, and benefit from it. Hopefully that therapist will have sworn an oath to uphold professional standards and will earn your trust. If, however, your therapist is beholden to a giant, remote corporation and is being paid to get you to make certain decisions that aren’t necessarily in your own interests, then that would be a BUMMER.

Similarly, hypnotism isn’t in itself a BUMMER. But if your hypnotist is replaced by someone you don’t know who is working for someone else you don’t know, and you have no way of knowing what you’re being hypnotized to do, then that would be a BUMMER.

The problem isn’t any particular technology, but the use of technology to manipulate people, to concentrate power in a way that is so nuts and creepy that it becomes a threat to the survival of civilization.

If you want to help make the world sane, you don’t need to give up your smartphone, using computer cloud services, or visiting websites. You don’t need to fear math, the social sciences, or psychology.

BUMMER is the stuff to avoid. Delete your BUMMER accounts!
avatar

Posts : 16270
Join date : 2012-02-12
Location : носач супстанце

Re: Mreža

Post by паће on Sat Oct 13, 2018 9:24 am

А све је почело тим да на интернету нема универзалног и лаког начина за плаћање или претплату, него се све финансира из реклама. Реклама захтева промену понашања издавача огласног простора. Издавач прилагођава садржај и измишља навлакуше. Навлакуше се отеле.


_____
то ја бришем, некад милице некад не
I want to be Bujumbura for a while. Then I'll can say Bujumbura is a place I've been.

Re: Mreža

Post by Sponsored content


    Current date/time is Fri Nov 16, 2018 11:22 pm