Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect

The UK Brave Space For Shitposting and Other Opinions Thread

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Donward said:

74 years + 1 day after D-Day.

 

KFC to test Vegetarian fried chicken option in UK

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kfc-vegetarian-chicken-test-uk_us_5b195585e4b0957825a04540

 

This wouldn't have happened if we just let the Krauts have the place. 

"Vegetarian Fried Chicken"

 

-ERROR- FILE " LOGIC.EXE" NOT FOUND. PLEASE RESTART.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect said:

Just fry tofo. That shit honestly ain't that bad.

"Tofu".

I lived in Japan for ~two years.

 

It's about as healthy as any other fried "stuff".. (which means I eat it).

Also, Japanese bar food should be a thing here. Lots of fried bits of delicious stuff that you just gnaw on and do not question.

It's slightly more healthy than gnawing on plutonium, but meh, life is 100% terminal.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect said:

So I've heard whisperings that the EU is banning memes.

 

Discuss.

 

That's a copyright law legally binding platform like facebook, youtube or any other web media hosting copyrighted content to systematically pass agreements with copyright owners.

 

Right now those plateforms are making money by hosting copyrighted content often without paying anything to the copyright owners.

As I understand it this law is saying that either the plateforms have an agreement with the copyright owners, giving them a share of the profits, or they have to implement filters to automatically take down copyrighted content before it even goes online. If said content manage to bypass the filters the one responsible for the violation will be hosting site.

 

The main idea is that there is no practical way to "hunt down" copyrighted content manually on plateform like youtube or facebook so we have to automate it, and the ones responsible for it would be those tech company since right now they are making a huge profit on it with little to no responsibility.

 

Now the fear is that since now the hosting sites will be juridically exposed (probably risking huge fines), they may try to play it extremely safe and put very restrictive bots/algorithm which will filter basically everything no questions asked (like if the copyrighted content was used as a basis for art, stating a political opinions or memes...) posing a risk of censorship.

 

That's a legit concern but it has more to do with the technical implantation of the law rather than it's base idea which is IMO good, those tech company are indeed making a huge profit on copyrighted contents without paying what they owe to copyright owners.

 

So my opinion on this is that either the bots will be too effective, posing a censorship problem, and the law will be quickly repelled on the basis that it infringe basic rights.

 

Or the platforms will actually start being proactive at passing agreements with copyright owners in the fear of legal actions (and in that case the objectives of the law will have been achieved).

 

Alternatively, uploaders will quickly find ways to bypass the filters (like how slightly changing the frequency of a music allowed to bypass youtube recognition bots) and the law will exist but will be mostly ineffective in practice and everybody will quickly forget about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Alzoc said:

That's a copyright law legally binding platform like facebook, youtube or any other web media hosting copyrighted content to systematically pass agreements with copyright owners.

 

Right now those plateforms are making money by hosting copyrighted content often without paying anything to the copyright owners.

As I understand it this law is saying that either the plateforms have an agreement with the copyright owners, giving them a share of the profits, or they have to implement filters to automatically take down copyrighted content before it even goes online. If said content manage to bypass the filters the one responsible for the violation will be hosting site.

 

In other words, the EU banned memes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sturgeon said:

 

In other words, the EU banned memes?

 

Depends on how stupid the filters will be.

That or Facebook and Google will pay up.

 

What I was trying to say, is that since the law transfer the burden of scanning for copyright infringement to the hosting site, it's up to them on how they'll make it work.

If they go too far, they'll kill their business because nobody will use their site any more, not far enough and they'll have to pay fines.

Or it won't be technically possible to enforce that law without stepping on neutrality and freedom of the internet.

 

It's really up to the technical solution that will be chosen, so it's hard to tell.

For now I'm just waiting to see how it will turn up (first filters, first trials and fines, first bypassing tools, etc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Bronezhilet said:

As I understand it they're technically blanket banning everything, but only selectively enforcing it. 

 

I hope it won't end up like this, because that would mean transitioning to case law on this matter, which is always a huge pain since it create a lot of uncertainty of whether something is legal or not.

My guess if it comes to this, is that there will be one ruling of the CJEU which will precise the limits of the law once and for all at the first trial.

Since it generally give sensible answers to questions asked (in terms of protecting citizens rights), it wouldn't be the worst outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

I wonder why I even bothered replying^^

 

I did appreciate the explanation, didn't mean to sound negative. Where the liability lands is certainly very interesting, but it also doesn't sound like "the EU is banning memes" is really that much of a mischaracterization. They have set the precedent that memes shared on a monetized platform are copyright infringement, so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

They have set the precedent that memes shared on a monetized platform are copyright infringement, so...

 

Didn't heard of that one but it's possible I guess.

To me copyright laws seem extremely convoluted and the whole thing look like a highly technical subject, so I'm withholding my judgement for now.

The intention looks good to me, I'm waiting to see how it will be implemented.

 

The road to hell is paved with good intentions like the other may say, so we'll see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

To me copyright laws seem extremely convoluted and the whole thing look like a highly technical subject, so I'm withholding my judgement for now.

 

Yeah, I think we're well overdue for an overhaul of copyright law. Not that the Mouse will let that happen...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/25/2018 at 9:08 PM, Alzoc said:

 

Didn't heard of that one but it's possible I guess.

To me copyright laws seem extremely convoluted and the whole thing look like a highly technical subject, so I'm withholding my judgement for now.

The intention looks good to me, I'm waiting to see how it will be implemented.

 

The road to hell is paved with good intentions like the other may say, so we'll see.

I am highly skeptical to this law.  Considering all the policing, witch hunts, smear campaigns and the "It is a automated system, therefor, we are not actually acting like a Totalitarian police state with very vague rules to allow us to ban indiscreetly anyone we like , it is just some bugs ;)" we see in mayor social media platforms. Most youtubers are switching to patron type income because they are shut down for questionable reasons. 

 

The Nazi's just wanted to clean out the inferior, degenerate part of humanity.  To make sure only the best suited would lead on the next era of humanity.  
They only had good intentions right? 

 

Well, history speaks for itself. 

 

If they pull it off as they claim. Kudos to them. But I am sure they have a few hidden intentions. And if not, then the next generation will exploit it. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×