how will this effect loverslab?

[Grey Cloud]

Remember the punk movement in the seventies? That was a protest against the way the music industry was going.

[SexDwarf2250]

2 hours ago, Jazzman said:

As the daughter of a grass-fed beef producer in Argentina I must say that you pretty much sound like the Monsanto shill I came across in the immediate vicinity of a Cristina Kirchner in her last months in presidential office...

As the owner and user of a critical mind, I must say this sounds pretty much like you operate based on faulty logic.

[SexDwarf2250]

3 hours ago, winny257 said:

Do you know what would be better than Gen Food?
state birth control! 

I don't necessarily disagree, but it's incredible that while some in the lap of luxury cry about GMO, ironically while often eating expensive foods produced in the least efficient methods possible, the exact scientists they bitch about actively work towards saving starving people at massive levels. I think you could even make an argument that obstructing GMO foods is not that far from a crime against humanity. 100 nobel prize winners certainly think that exact question is worth considering.

 

In any case, re: birth control, because one is good doesn't mean the other is bad or not needed. That is not an argument. Just to pull a random counter-argument out of the air... GMO can use vastly less farm land. This leaves more room for nature: wild animals, etc.

[Grey Cloud]

We are straying off topic here. The thread is about legislation affecting the music industry - nothing to do with those caring, sharing scientists who will work for whoever pays them the most.

[Jazzman]

On 5/14/2019 at 11:17 PM, winny257 said:

I will my meat only still buy from you. 

That'd be great, pops. Unfortunately, the European market share for non-GMO food is rapidly melting away in the sun. Common man in the West simply has to look upon the price per kilogram at the meat market or the tasty online order-advertisement, the illusive package of the special buy in the local super market. I don't even put the blame on the consumers, humans simply restructure their monthly budget when the cold financial wind blows, not to give up their claimed living standard. And good, healthy food gets dropped first whenever there is cheaper replacement accessible. So it came to pass that whole nations tend to become obese and immunodeficient, and often as drug addicted as their food was during its short lifespan in Cow- or Pigschwitz concentration camps, kept alive in small feedlots only by a daily dose of antibiotics. Flu anyone? Or depressed? No? Lucky you!

 

To switch almost ideologically from sick animal food sources to poisonous plant food sources the former gets fed with is a bad bug joke not even the bees and birds could laugh about, in case they didn't went extinct already due to the pesticides used to raise sterile GMO crops unharmed by insects, fungi and bacteria let alone birds. 80% of the insects not just in Europe did exactly that in the last two decades thanks to Monsanto and large-scale deforestation. What a brave new world we're living in. 

 

To pull the natural rug from under our feet comes at a price at the end of the day...

 

[winny257]

1 hour ago, Jazzman said:

That'd be great, pops. Unfortunately, the European market share for non-GMO food is rapidly melting away in the sun. Common man in the West simply has to look upon the price per kilogram at the meat market or the tasty online order-advertisement, the illusive package of the special buy in the local super market. I don't even put the blame on the customers, humans simply restructure their monthly budget when the cold financial wind blows, not to give up their claimed living standard. And good, healthy food gets dropped first whenever there is cheaper replacement accessible. So it came to pass that whole nations tend to become obese and immunodeficient, and often as drug addicted as their food was during its short lifespan in Cow- or Pigschwitz concentration camps, kept alive in small feedlots only by a daily dose of antibiotics. Flu anyone? Or depressed? No? Lucky you!

 

To switch almost ideologically from sick animal food sources to poisonous plant food sources the former gets fed with is a bad bug joke not even the bees and birds could laugh about, in case they didn't went extinct already due to the pesticides used to raise sterile GMO crops unharmed by insects, fungi and bacteria let alone birds. 80% of the insects not just in Europe did exactly that in the last two decades thanks to Monsanto and large-scale deforestation. What a brave new world we're living in. 

 

To pull the natural rug from under our feet comes at a price at the end of the day...

 

you have so verrrrrrrry right, I'm happy that I am already 61 years old and will die soon.
My heart is bleeding if I see what happened to this world in forty years!
my children and grandchildren do me so sorry to grow up in such a shitty world.

 

 

[winny257]

4 hours ago, Grey Cloud said:

We are straying off topic here. The thread is about legislation affecting the music industry - nothing to do with those caring, sharing scientists who will work for whoever pays them the most.

it was clear that you gripe! 

for this reason, because some gripe, are churning out Threads closed. 

[Grey Cloud]

11 minutes ago, winny257 said:

for this reason, because some gripe, are churning out Threads closed

KGB CPU was right.

[ToJKa]

17 hours ago, Grey Cloud said:

What a stupid comment.

Well what would you expect from a guy with a title like this? ?

[winny257]

7 minutes ago, Grey Cloud said:

KGB CPU was right.

yes, also in this thread became gripe, Loverslab is slowly turning into Nexus. 

 

 

[Grey Cloud]

Named and Shamed:

winny257 and donttouchmethere

 

[donttouchmethere]

 

(see: winny has a good influence on me! It's gifydi-gifydi-gif-time )

[guk]

Well here is a question to all of you:

 

The world today is evidently run by companies like Google and Facebook, who earn their money by collecting data about you, and selling it for advertising purposes. They do not pay any taxes in the places where they earn most of their money.

Their financial power has already allowed them to grow way beyond what an average sovereign country on this planet could ever achieve; a fine of 3 or 5 billion USD is merely a form of minor operating costs for them, which is much cheaper than abiding by the law.

Mind you that all this is done without providing any content themselves; they have no interest in protecting intellectual property, because every click generated means more money for them.

 

So what i would like to hear - what exactly are your suggestions to improve this situation?

 

 

 

Article 13 might contain problematic parts, because - like everything in a democracy - it is waged against several interest groups. However, this includes not only the big money copyright holders, but also the army of independent writers, artists, journalists and such who are trying to make a living with their creative work. And who (FYI) are celebrating this law, because now they at least have hope to get paid for their work, where they merely got copied by Facebook news, Youtube Streamers and alike.

 

The very essence of the law actually means that the online platforms have to compensate the copyright holders, while so far this responsibility was delegated to the uploaders. So from what i can see, this is at least an attempt to improve a situation that previously was entirely in favor of the "internet giants".

[Grey Cloud]

@guk 

Good post.

 

This is how democracies do things. Shit happens and the democratic government(s) react to it (sooner or later). The reaction (legislation) is a one-size-fits-all job and cannot please everybody equally.

The capitalists will try to exploit loopholes in the law(s) and the govenrments will introduce further legislation to fill those holes. That has always been the case, e.g. food standards, working conditions, etc.

 

Where will it all end? Someone, somewhere will produce a product which counters the data theft and does protect your privacy. A company will start protecting your privacy as a way of setting themselves apart from the pack, in other words as a marketing ploy (but they will have to deliver). And, as an outside chance, mayhap people will start being less stupid.

 

Or maybe winny will get the entire Internet closed down.

[winny257]

49 minutes ago, Grey Cloud said:

Spoiler

@guk 

Good post.

 

This is how democracies do things. Shit happens and the democratic government(s) react to it (sooner or later). The reaction (legislation) is a one-size-fits-all job and cannot please everybody equally.

The capitalists will try to exploit loopholes in the law(s) and the govenrments will introduce further legislation to fill those holes. That has always been the case, e.g. food standards, working conditions, etc.

 

Where will it all end? Someone, somewhere will produce a product which counters the data theft and does protect your privacy. A company will start protecting your privacy as a way of setting themselves apart from the pack, in other words as a marketing ploy (but they will have to deliver). And, as an outside chance, mayhap people will start being less stupid.

 

Or maybe winny will get the entire Internet closed down. 

 

how it will end is certain! 

Spoiler

 

and yes, to last line. 

[DoctaSax]

1 hour ago, guk said:

Article 13 might contain problematic parts, because - like everything in a democracy - it is waged against several interest groups. However, this includes not only the big money copyright holders, but also the army of independent writers, artists, journalists and such who are trying to make a living with their creative work. And who (FYI) are celebrating this law, because now they at least have hope to get paid for their work, where they merely got copied by Facebook news, Youtube Streamers and alike.

 

The very essence of the law actually means that the online platforms have to compensate the copyright holders, while so far this responsibility was delegated to the uploaders. So from what i can see, this is at least an attempt to improve a situation that previously was entirely in favor of the "internet giants".

Well, it's the uploaders who do the uploading, isn't it. Seems pretty fair to me that they are the ones accountable for what they do.

 

It's easy to point at Google/Youtube and Facebook, say they're the bad guys, and that all this is only aimed at them. Nobody sheds a tear. What worries me is the precedent. It's absolutely impossible for any hosting site to verify and guarantee the legitimacy of every piece of content uploaded by pepole who aren't on staff. Images, video, text or code can come from anywhere, and unless the copying is entirely obviously illegitimate at a glance, you just don't know until somebody who does reports it to you.

[winny257]

2 hours ago, guk said:

Spoiler

Well here is a question to all of you:

 

The world today is evidently run by companies like Google and Facebook, who earn their money by collecting data about you, and selling it for advertising purposes. They do not pay any taxes in the places where they earn most of their money.

Their financial power has already allowed them to grow way beyond what an average sovereign country on this planet could ever achieve; a fine of 3 or 5 billion USD is merely a form of minor operating costs for them, which is much cheaper than abiding by the law.

Mind you that all this is done without providing any content themselves; they have no interest in protecting intellectual property, because every click generated means more money for them.

 

So what i would like to hear - what exactly are your suggestions to improve this situation?

 

 

 

Article 13 might contain problematic parts, because - like everything in a democracy - it is waged against several interest groups. However, this includes not only the big money copyright holders, but also the army of independent writers, artists, journalists and such who are trying to make a living with their creative work. And who (FYI) are celebrating this law, because now they at least have hope to get paid for their work, where they merely got copied by Facebook news, Youtube Streamers and alike.

 

The very essence of the law actually means that the online platforms have to compensate the copyright holders, while so far this responsibility was delegated to the uploaders. So from what i can see, this is at least an attempt to improve a situation that previously was entirely in favor of the "internet giants".

 

Which company, YouTube etc, will paid voluntarily?
what they are going to do is obvious, every video which contains copyrighted material, is blocked for the European market or becomes not allowed at all.
this in turn, has global repercussions. 

[Grey Cloud]

10 minutes ago, DoctaSax said:

Images, video, text or code can come from anywhere, and unless the copying is entirely obviously illegitimate at a glance, you just don't know until somebody who does reports it to you.

Yes but the obvious thing to do would be to put something in the legislation which says that the host has to make some sort of effort and is obliged to remove it on receiving a complaint.

[winny257]

8 minutes ago, Grey Cloud said:

Yes but the obvious thing to do would be to put something in the legislation which says that the host has to make some sort of effort and is obliged to remove it on receiving a complaint.

if a complaint comes, then it is too late, then it costs the website money.
therefore the websites will no longer allow sensitive material.

[Grey Cloud]

53 minutes ago, winny257 said:

if a complaint comes, then it is too late, then it costs the website money.

No. Not if the site has made whatever effort is required by law. They only have to hold the info on the uploader and and have the uploader read/click on a EULA.

[Jazzman]

54 minutes ago, winny257 said:

if a complaint comes, then it is too late, then it costs the website money.
therefore the websites will no longer allow sensitive material.

And who determines what's sensitive material and what's not? Those that preselect the news to control the narrative, isn't it?

[Grey Cloud]

7 minutes ago, Jazzman said:

And who determines what's sensitive material and what's not? Those that preselect the news to control the narrative, isn't it?

Winny is writing via translator. I don't think he means 'sensitive' in the way you are understanding it.

[winny257]

39 minutes ago, Jazzman said:

And who determines what's sensitive material and what's not? Those that preselect the news to control the narrative, isn't it?

now to Time it is like that in Germany, example, if a mod author no matter which country, a video of his work upload and this video contains copyrighted music.
then I only see a black picture with a sad smiley and the information of the German GEMA, with the Hint locked for german users!
if Article 13 becomes enters into force, then that is not only true for germany, then all of Europe is concerned. 

[winny257]

33 minutes ago, Grey Cloud said:

Winny is writing via translator. I don't think he means 'sensitive' in the way you are understanding it.

Jazzman knows that, is my girl. 

[Grey Cloud]

1 minute ago, winny257 said:

Jazzman knows that, is my girl. 

No offence to Jazzman but in this country we say 'there is no fool like an old fool'