1451 posts • joined 6 Sep 2006
Re: Isn't it bad?
It's worth pointing out that Google filters *almost* every video already for copyright violations with ContentID. But they only turn it on for you if you sign up to their advertising network.
Perhaps Article 13 is not the way I'd plug the UGC loophole, or the way you'd want to either, but to pretend (as you just have) that Google doesn't already filter for copyright violations on a vast scale is disingenuous. It manages to do this apparently impossible task "without blocking Europeans from YouTube".
"It would seem that any use of patient personal data for purposes other than those explicitly set out in the contract will be illegal"
This is the Linklaters report paid for by the Royal Free. In it, everything's lovely. There's nothing to worry about. Unicorns have even been sighted in the meadow.
Story: Audit of DeepMind deal with NHS trust: It checks out, nothing to see here
No one else seems particularly reassured. The only opinion that matters here though is the ICO and they have yet to deliver their verdict.
Do you feel more confident now you know that Google/DeepMind doesn't actually *know* who owns the data, and falsely asserts that the Trust owns it?
Re: "This ensures the law remains uncertain"
The decisions of the Court are very much legally binding - that's the point. The top tiers of the court are legally binding while the third tier, the CST (the Tribunal) is not.
This might help: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldselect/ldeucom/128/12805.htm
Re: It may be a £899 phone
"First day of use and I haven't seen any nagware, everything just got turned off in the settings without a fuss."
I have to review what's in front of me, anon.
HiTouch is turned off in Settings and should stay off. Instead, it requests permissions to start every time the phone detects a two finger gesture. Which is quite often. Arguably, this is coercion under GDPR and the process is not fully GDPR compliant.
"there have been other implementations of facial recognition on phones for quite a while"
Not the same thing. Those compare 2D images and are easily spoofed. A few (eg, Lumia 950) added crude depth detection via IR, to decide whether the image was a photo or a 3D "face". By contrast Apple's FaceID builds a 3D model using 30,000 points, then uses that as the basis for comparisons.
Re: Copyright blockchain?
I have heard hundreds of use cases discussed but in many, the volumes of transactions are so high (thousands per second on Spotify) blockchain is completely inappropriate. That's the first hurdle. The bigger problem is that it causes friction - sometimes insurmountable friction - where today's arrangement works OK.
This was written in 2015 and still holds up well:
"Music benefits from a kind of semi-formality, where we can freely move audio files around between devices and platforms, some of which are part of the tracked and royalty bearing infrastructure and some not. Ensuring that the many stakeholders in a single audio file had given permission and were compensated at the point of each transfer would add massive cost and inefficiency."
And that's just music. I heard of one case for fine art (low transactions, high value) where it is plausible. Just. But auctions don't have a trust issue: they're a case where buyer and seller can both be anonymous, and the system works today. Blockchain doesn't solve the authenticity problem just by recording the transaction.
AI's next battlefield is literally the battlefield: In 20 years, bots will fight our wars – Army boffin
Re: you can't make a Veblen good out of a dumb computer terminal
A typical dumb computer terminal is a "green screen". Since the device has a very powerful chip, which is capable of performing most of the work locally, I would say No, Arthur - you are being silly.
Re: Right to be forgotten
"I don't quite understand is what Google et al are realistically meant to do in order to pre-emptively filter out results, or why they should do so at all. The responsibility surely lies with the people publishing the information"
Yes. That'll be Google. The CJEU had to balance two fundamental rights (privacy, free expression) and in Gonzalez v Google Sp. (2014) determined that Google was effectively publishing (and republishing) private information continually. Google had argued that it was that it was an offshore data processing business, and was not therefore subject to EU privacy rules. The actual computation took place somewhere else, outside the EU. This was rejected.
Of course the publishers have a responsibility and we receive such requests regularly. I'm struggling to see the logic in 2018 that because one publisher takes responsibility, another Google doesn't have to take any at all. Google continually filters Search. That argument has long gone. Is that what you meant?
Re: May we please stop calling them phones?
I always mention telephony - it's a golden rule. And I did right here. Every phone is tested on 2+ networks in the nastiest notspots I can find.
(And given more time and resources, I'd devote pages to signal and audio quality and do proper testing. It's what many of you want. )
Re: The biggest corporation of all is actually...
"These aren't little two-people-in-a-shed companies "
Actually, most are. You need to visit more record labels. Many would be glad to have an actual shed.
It was small independent labels who got a worse deal than big labels, because when you have dominant market power you can screw the little guy harder:
And if you are a dominant player dealing with a DIY artist, who is her own label and publisher, you can completely grind them into the ground:
So that was the background which persuaded the European Commission that there was an unfair playing field. Apple and Spotify supported the change - they don't enjoy the UGC loophole. Google has the filters but uses them as a competitive weapon.
Disclaimer: tweaking Article 13 would not be *my* preferred option when one dominant player is exploiting a unique advantage in one sector. That seems a classic case for a surgical strike using competition law. Google is abusing its monopoly position in video distribution. Nice, clean and simple. But objecting to the law because (the activist slogan this week) it helps entrench Google, or (the usual Chicken Little response from slacktivists) the sky might fall, doesn't help level the playing field.
Re: "The US approach maximises consumer welfare"
It may do that as well, but "consumer welfare" is a technical term:
...which really means lower prices. The prevailing theory in US antitrust is that if prices are lower, then everyone's a happy bunny.
Re: No Slater did not intentionally set it up.
Very little of that is correct. The US Copyright Office clarified that animals can't own copyright. It didn't need to go any further. This was stated in the third Compendium of US Copyright Office Practices which was being updated at the time.
"There was no 'setup' or placement or intention for the equipment to be used by passing animals"
The fact that Slater had gone to Indonesia for the purpose of taking photos of monkeys, and a photo was taken using his equipment laid out for the purpose of er, taking photos, is quite sufficient. Most TV wildlife footage falls into this category: it is activated by the non-human subject. Victory for TechDirt/Wikimedia/PETA would have resulted in the BBC and others losing huge amounts of material. They were seriously worried at the time.
Let me know when the macaques have designed and built their own camera - then you may have an argument.
"Isn't Psion a registered trademark or something? Some kind of protection to keep the real memories alive?"
Planet doesn't use the Psion brand or trademark anywhere.
"Sorry, but I find it seriously awkward that I hear no one ever mentioning once how this device managed to handle their appointments."
The Calendar app that Planet has created isn't ready to ship yet. Perhaps you'll hear more when it does. Until then, assume it handles appointments just like any Android handles appointments.
Facebook's inflection point: Now everyone knows this greedy mass surveillance operation for what it is
Re: don't worry, our ads aren't as effective as we told you
Thanks - that's the most relevant comment of all in this debate. I've written a piece about this (predates this one), but we haven't run it yet.
Consider that most people block out ads (and many run ad-blockers), and that behavioural targeting is soooo good, I get targeted with Club18-30 holidays, while students get targeted with retirement ads from Saga. The whole business is borked - something Zuckerberg can't admit - or at least nowhere near as effective as he wants us to believe.
The 2016 Election was a freak result, but I think this might have had more to do with it:
https://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/05/politics/trump-clinton-debate-prep/index.html - in fact, have a look at Clinton's campaign schedule for the final month.
Re: Huawei has no Brand Recognition
"phones, like for Samsung, are just a sideshow for Huawei, an attempt to get their name seen. They are all about networks and networking, the phone is just a marketing thing."
Consumer devices (mostly phones) brought in $30-35 billion for Huawei last year (yes, billion).
Quite "a marketing thing".
Re: Key Point
"The case hinges on whether a random search is basic journalism requiring reasonable judgement about the reliability of the information, relevance, importance, etc to the final result."
It should do, as this is a sensible description. But the UK Courts have already established that journalism may mean distribution of documents written by others, and this is what Google is arguing it does.
"It's inconceivable that music industry execs have decided to get in bed with other middle men to extend their perpetual shafting of the artists"
Only to a moron who didn't RTFA, but as usual, your hatred of the writer has clouded your ability to read or think clearly.
The majors have large equity stakes in Spotify, and will profit hugely from the IPO. As much as $3.39 billion. So the incentives for the majors has been: keep quiet, then cut and run, rather than develop the digital music market for the long term.
It's all in there. You only have to read, but you prefer to make a clot of yourself.
"Basically, technology old-timer IBM doesn't exactly mind seeing laws passed that make it harder for Google and other internet whippersnappers to rake in money."
I'm intrigued by this. How is Google inconvenienced by a law on sex trafficking. Is Google actually a sex trafficker? Similarly with political ads, and checking where they come from - this should not be onerous.
If being obliged to act ethically is an inconvenience, we need new Googles. These ones aren't worth defending.
Congress told Google "don't you dare pull a SOPA on this." Instead it sends its grumbles through EFF and other client organisations, but that's all it can do now. Grumble.
To make a call you start the Phone app (it's on the Dock) or hit Fn-Esc. You can then close the lid and carry on talking. It doesn't matter which way up you hold it, as there are two mics, and it works out which one is nearest your gob.
I would like to have tested this of course, but the SIM slot isn't working. If you have a wrist-jobbie that gives you alerts, it becomes feasible to replace a regular phone.
Your positing the hypothetical of ISPs choking startups against the reality of Google, Facebook choking startups. OK, then.
"If you're worried about Google's market share..."
Why the if? Is competition optional? The economic dominance by a few big players is not a trivial issue. There hasn't been a competitor emerge for over a decade. And where did your personal data go today? You do't know and neither do I.
Title II repeal keeps an easily distracted mob busy, while the Sans Culotte butcher "draws dotted lines on their hides".
No. A Government was lobbied by one massive corporation to shaft another massive corporation, and gave in. The ad market in India now belongs to Google: a monopoly, rather than the duopoly we have here:
It's called "crony capitalism".