Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

All things Rugby
towny
Posts: 20066
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by towny »

Flyin Ryan wrote: Fri Feb 26, 2021 6:05 pm So the Libertarian Party of Indiana's political director shared this anecdote on his Facebook page:
A friend of mine that has a long running terrestrial radio show has had links to her page, website, and show blocked as part of the restriction on Australian news sharing on Facebook. But...it's a U.S. show, website, and page. She hasn't even shared or talked about an Australian topic since the countrywide fire (and even then it was commentary and not links to Australian news sources).

I put in a request to fix and today they did...kind of. "In response to Australian legislation, Facebook temporarily restricted sharing news content, including posting to you page. We've restored the ability to post news while we continue to work with the industry to find the best ways to support news publications."

So somewhere in Facebook databases she is still listed as being an Australian news source and when this happens again links to her website and show will be blocked.

The whole situation is ridiculous.
The Oz regulations states that FB must not publish any news from any source to Australian users if it didn’t link Australian news sites.
towny
Posts: 20066
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by towny »

Ellafan wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 7:55 am
towny wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 5:19 pm
towny wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 5:21 pm
towny wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 5:36 pm Lastly.....

TLDR
So.... you’ve got nothing? You really don’t understand this debate do you? Have you made a single, relevant point in 5 pages?

What’s the go? Are you actually keen to understand issues and debate them on their merits or do you just want to be
the bored Alan Jones.
towny
Posts: 20066
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by towny »

:((
Ellafan wrote: Fri Feb 26, 2021 2:48 pm At some point, the cacophony in lefty echo chambers such as this thread will die down, and you lot will wake up to yourselves and see that this was not about Murdoch or any other traditional medium (correct spelling) organisation. It was about the law, in particular IP law, catching up with big internet tech who have been using other peoples' IP to make billions out of other peoples content (and a bit of clever coding) for years.

The sooner the US Justice Department launch antitrust suits against google and facebook, the better for all of us. Good on the Oz parliament for pushing this, as a bilateral issue. We didn't exactly put the ball in the scrum (France did), but we by all ccounts are generating some momentum that will correct the monopoly/cartel influence of the big 5 tech giants. :thumbup:
If you want, we can talk about antitrust and monopoly in reference to both those companies. I’d suggest a new thread though.

Perhaps we should start it with some informed information rather than the ignorant crud posted by most journos that look at the issue of saving their jobs. I can post some info if you wish - perhaps it will let you understand something about the issue before you open your mouth and lock yourself in for life.
User avatar
Ellafan
Posts: 5470
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by Ellafan »

towny wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 6:07 am
Ellafan wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 7:55 am
towny wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 5:19 pm
towny wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 5:21 pm
towny wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 5:36 pm Lastly.....

TLDR
So.... you’ve got nothing? You really don’t understand this debate do you? Have you made a single, relevant point in 5 pages?
I can't be arsed reading your boring, repetitive diatribes.

You are no James Joyce.
towny
Posts: 20066
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by towny »

Ellafan wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 9:00 am
towny wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 6:07 am
Ellafan wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 7:55 am
towny wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 5:19 pm
towny wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 5:21 pm
towny wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 5:36 pm Lastly.....

TLDR
So.... you’ve got nothing? You really don’t understand this debate do you? Have you made a single, relevant point in 5 pages?
I can't be arsed reading your boring, repetitive diatribes.

You are no James Joyce.
I’m not James Joyce, true. But I do know what I’m talking about. I guess you don’t make a habit of reading alternative opinions - you believe what you believe and damn everything else, right?

Sort of like a Trump supporter.
User avatar
Ellafan
Posts: 5470
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by Ellafan »

Towny, if you just keep posting repetitive long streams of babble, you lose the room. And no-where do you ever directly address the concrete point that the tech giants make their billions out of reposting other entities' IP to generate clicks that directly generate advertising $.

And, for the avoidance of any doubt, I do not need to, nor am I desirous of, hearing your views about trade practices and competition protection laws that you have copy pasted from some internet blog somewhere. 'Coz I know about them already. I also know how IP laws work.
towny
Posts: 20066
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by towny »

Ellafan wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 12:18 pm Towny, if you just keep posting repetitive long streams of babble, you lose the room. And no-where do you ever directly address the concrete point that the tech giants make their billions out of reposting other entities' IP to generate clicks that directly generate advertising $.

And, for the avoidance of any doubt, I do not need to, nor am I desirous of, hearing your views about trade practices and competition protection laws that you have copy pasted from some internet blog somewhere. 'Coz I know about them already. I also know how IP laws work.
Why do you refuse to engage on the issues? You say babble but can’t specify a single thing I’ve said that’s incorrect. Why? Let me guess - you couldn’t be bothered?

It should be easy to shoot me down - I’ve made a tonne of statements that I’ve claimed as fact. Why can’t you shoot me down old man? And why can someone with no legal training school you so badly on legal matters?

This isn’t actually fun for me. It would be great to have an actual discussion on this stuff but all you want to do is bluff and hope people don’t realise you’re an empty vessel with nothing to offer.

I feel like Matt Damon in that scene in the bar from “Good Will Hunting” - you’re that annoying uni cnut with the ponytail who’s made to look pretty foolish in front of Minnie Driver. I guess that also means Mog and GS are the Afleck brothers.

I guess it’s now time to threaten to bash you outside, right?

How do you like them apples?
User avatar
Ellafan
Posts: 5470
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by Ellafan »

For the love of God. You know 1/10 of fudge all on legal matters. 99% of the stuff you copy paste is ill-informed tin foil hat nonsense.

You clearly know nothing about the history of IP law, emanating as it did from the doctrines of equity in the British Common Law world (includes USA) and becoming part of the statute law as parliaments determined to accelerate its development in the courts. The internet started about 30 years ago, in substance. The legislatures of the world have, since, reacted to the higher Appellate Courts' calls for the people's legislative representatives to speak on this subject.***

The first thing that happened was statutory fixed damages - It is easy to prove a breach of IP rights, but it has often been hard to quantify the precise damage in $ terms. Queue the housewife in the US who was running a illegal internet file distribution server. The plaintiff accepted statutory fixed damages of (??) $2million and bankrupted her - didn't make a lot of difference monetarily, but that was not the point.

We are now at stage-2 - the rather novel enforcement of IP rights through a "mediation-arbitration" regime - where the stick to the carrot is that the med-arbitrator will punish the recalcitrant party by an order enforcing the last offer of the more sensible party. It's similar in concept to statutory damages, but also invokes a long history in this federation, of industrial relations practice that has yielded considerable social benefit at immense reduction in legal system costs.

Walk away Towny, you're out of your depth.
towny
Posts: 20066
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by towny »

Ellafan wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 3:11 pm For the love of God. You know 1/10 of fudge all on legal matters. 99% of the stuff you copy paste is ill-informed tin foil hat nonsense.

You clearly know nothing about the history of IP law, emanating as it did from the doctrines of equity in the British Common Law world (includes USA) and becoming part of the statute law as parliaments determined to accelerate its development in the courts. The internet started about 30 years ago, in substance. The legislatures of the world have, since, reacted to the higher Appellate Courts' calls for the people's legislative representatives to speak on this subject.***

The first thing that happened was statutory fixed damages - It is easy to prove a breach of IP rights, but it has often been hard to quantify the precise damage in $ terms. Queue the housewife in the US who was running a illegal internet file distribution server. The plaintiff accepted statutory fixed damages of (??) $2million and bankrupted her - didn't make a lot of difference monetarily, but that was not the point.

We are now at stage-2 - the rather novel enforcement of IP rights through a "mediation-arbitration" regime - where the stick to the carrot is that the med-arbitrator will punish the recalcitrant party by an order enforcing the last offer of the more sensible party. It's similar in concept to statutory damages, but also invokes a long history in this federation, of industrial relations practice that has yielded considerable social benefit at immense reduction in legal system costs.

Walk away Towny, you're out of your depth.
What specific IP are you talking about? I haven’t mentioned it. Let’s talk IP, but first tell me what it is you consider the relevant IP in question. If you can.
User avatar
Ellafan
Posts: 5470
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by Ellafan »

You cannot possibly be as stupid as your last post indicates.

What do you want, a legal definition of IP based on 200 years' jurisprudence?

You'll just post blog nonsense that argues with it. fudge off and stop wasting my time.
towny
Posts: 20066
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by towny »

Ellafan wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 3:52 pm You cannot possibly be as stupid as your last post indicates.

What do you want, a legal definition of IP based on 200 years' jurisprudence?

You'll just post blog nonsense that argues with it. fudge off and stop wasting my time.
I want to understand what you think the relaxant IP is - then I’ll ask you who’s stealing it and then I’ll ask how.

I expect your answers will be funny.

But also keen to understand why you think this obvious IP issue hasn’t been taken to the courts. You know, with the 200 years of settled law and all - why didn’t the media solve this the usual way instead of asking for new regulations.

Feel free to answer any of the above.
User avatar
Ellafan
Posts: 5470
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by Ellafan »

FMD, the populace ask for the law to catch up. That is how democracy's work. Get with the program. You're mistake is thinking that general opinion equates to the shouted agreement in left wing internet echo-chambers.
User avatar
Ellafan
Posts: 5470
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by Ellafan »

Listen Towny, the following rubbish has 18,058,722 listens on youtube. Way more than your echo chamber bull. And it is insipid, worthless crap.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xysVNigCsU Maybe pedos like it. Cunts.
towny
Posts: 20066
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by towny »

Ellafan wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 4:36 pm FMD, the populace ask for the law to catch up. That is how democracy's work. Get with the program. You're mistake is thinking that general opinion equates to the shouted agreement in left wing internet echo-chambers.
Oh, so what happened to that relevant 200 years of IP law you mentioned. Also, did the populace ask for the government to make Facebook pay the media that the media needs to put on Facebook to generate traffic? I must have missed that debate. Can you point me to the surveys, plebiscite or whatever was used to poll the populace?

At the end of the day, I don’t know what all the people think. I just know a bit about the relevant laws and a bit about how the media desperately depend on posting content to Facebook to generate as revenue, which they get 100% of. Facebook has also said they’re willing to pay for content, which is what they’re now happily doing.

But I’m keen to learn more and you said there was 200 years of relevant IP law, blah, blah, blah. When I asked you for specifics (and why on earth you even thought this was relevant), you posted what you thought was intimidating legal wizardry, but in reality was an irrelevant word salad, which I laughingly called you on. Then you pivoted to a new tact, which seems to argue that the existing laws of IP are irrelevant, which is what my point has been all the time.

Do you actually know what your opinion is? If so, what is it?

And don’t forget my question - what content is Facebook stealing and how are they doing it? Maybe you thought about it and realized you’re farked?
towny
Posts: 20066
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by towny »

Ellafan wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 6:32 pm Listen Towny, the following rubbish has 18,058,722 listens on youtube. Way more than your echo chamber bull. And it is insipid, worthless crap.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xysVNigCsU Maybe pedos like it. Cunts.
If my questions are worthless why can’t you answer them? Why can’t you find my fault with what I’m saying? I’m putting out specific opinions and you’re seemingly not able to find a hole, but you dismiss it because of........ unknown reasons?

Are we to understand that Sluggy gets his opinions from YouTube? I hate to think what his thoughts are on Soros and WTC7.
User avatar
kiap
Posts: 20279
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by kiap »

towny wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 6:40 pm Facebook has also said they’re willing to pay for content, which is what they’re now happily doing.
It essentially just boils down to that.

Weren't paying before, will be in future.
User avatar
kiap
Posts: 20279
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by kiap »

This scene is done. The camera moves on.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editori ... -same.html

... “It is about levelling the playing field,” Guilbeault said then. “Those who benefit from the Canadian ecosystem must also contribute to it, through the Canadian broadcasting sector or the fair remuneration for the use of news content … That includes making sure that Canadian news organizations continue to inform and empower our communities.”

... Details to follow, but that’s the gist of it. Between them, Facebook and Google have been scooping up 80 per cent of digital advertising in Canada (about the same share as in Australia),
User avatar
Ali's Choice
Posts: 31505
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Queensland

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by Ali's Choice »

kiap wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 9:26 pm Between them, Facebook and Google have been scooping up 80 per cent of digital advertising in Canada (about the same share as in Australia),
So let's figure out a way to tax them so all Australians can benefit, rather than simply funnel money from Facebook and Google to Rupert Murdoch and Kerry Stokes.
User avatar
Ellafan
Posts: 5470
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by Ellafan »

towny wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 6:53 pm [demands answers]
I explained it to you already.

Google and facebook - they and their lawyers must know something you don't. After bluffing that they would remove the news links containing copyright material, they collapsed like a cheap deck chair, and agreed to pay for it. If they weren't making $$$$ out of displaying copyright material, they would have removed it, and not paid. Capiche?

As for the girl with 18 million views on youtube (which is owned by google) that was an example of hit rates , using someone else's' IP, that sell advertising. Youtube is probably paying Paul Simon royalties; American PRO's are aggressive collectors.
User avatar
danthefan
Posts: 23423
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by danthefan »

Ellafan wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 8:43 am
towny wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 6:53 pm [demands answers]
I explained it to you already.

Google and facebook - they and their lawyers must know something you don't. After bluffing that they would remove the news links containing copyright material, they collapsed like a cheap deck chair, and agreed to pay for it. If they weren't making $$$$ out of displaying copyright material, they would have removed it, and not paid. Capiche?

As for the girl with 18 million views on youtube (which is owned by google) that was an example of hit rates , using someone else's' IP, that sell advertising. Youtube is probably paying Paul Simon royalties; American PRO's are aggressive collectors.
What? They did remove news links.
User avatar
Ellafan
Posts: 5470
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by Ellafan »

danthefan wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 8:44 am
Ellafan wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 8:43 am
towny wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 6:53 pm [demands answers]
I explained it to you already.

Google and facebook - they and their lawyers must know something you don't. After bluffing that they would remove the news links containing copyright material, they collapsed like a cheap deck chair, and agreed to pay for it. If they weren't making $$$$ out of displaying copyright material, they would have removed it, and not paid. Capiche?

As for the girl with 18 million views on youtube (which is owned by google) that was an example of hit rates , using someone else's' IP, that sell advertising. Youtube is probably paying Paul Simon royalties; American PRO's are aggressive collectors.
What? They did remove news links.
You mean facebook? Not for long.
User avatar
Slim 293
Posts: 6005
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Straya plum

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by Slim 293 »

The news links uploaded willingly by the news organisations themselves?
User avatar
Ellafan
Posts: 5470
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by Ellafan »

Slim 293 wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 9:05 am The news links uploaded willingly by the news organisations themselves?
Why don't you ask Zakar if, because X puts some copyright property on display, that means Y gets a free kick to breach that copyright and commercially exploit it for profit? You're not going to like my answer.
User avatar
Slim 293
Posts: 6005
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Straya plum

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by Slim 293 »

Ellafan wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 9:11 am
Slim 293 wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 9:05 am The news links uploaded willingly by the news organisations themselves?
Why don't you ask Zakar if, because X puts some copyright property on display, that means Y gets a free kick to breach that copyright and commercially exploit it for profit? You're not going to like my answer.
Except that news organisations don't upload their articles to Facebook - they post links that redirect you to their own websites, in which you generally need an account to bypass the paywall to then be able to access said copyright material...
User avatar
Ellafan
Posts: 5470
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by Ellafan »

Slim 293 wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 9:15 am
Ellafan wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 9:11 am
Slim 293 wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 9:05 am The news links uploaded willingly by the news organisations themselves?
Why don't you ask Zakar if, because X puts some copyright property on display, that means Y gets a free kick to breach that copyright and commercially exploit it for profit? You're not going to like my answer.
Except that news organisations don't upload their articles to Facebook - they post links that redirect you to their own websites, in which you generally need an account to bypass the paywall to then be able to access said copyright material...
The fallacy in that argument is apparent to anyone who understands:

(a) to what it is that copyright attaches; and

(b) what it is that is protected by that right.
User avatar
Slim 293
Posts: 6005
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Straya plum

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by Slim 293 »

Ellafan wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 9:33 am
Slim 293 wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 9:15 am
Ellafan wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 9:11 am
Slim 293 wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 9:05 am The news links uploaded willingly by the news organisations themselves?
Why don't you ask Zakar if, because X puts some copyright property on display, that means Y gets a free kick to breach that copyright and commercially exploit it for profit? You're not going to like my answer.
Except that news organisations don't upload their articles to Facebook - they post links that redirect you to their own websites, in which you generally need an account to bypass the paywall to then be able to access said copyright material...
The fallacy in that argument is apparent to anyone who understands:

(a) to what it is that copyright attaches; and

(b) what it is that is protected by that right.

You're going around in circles and yet to explain how any copyright has been breached, or any IP stolen...
User avatar
Ellafan
Posts: 5470
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by Ellafan »

No, you and towny are going round in circles re-running the same failed arguments. Meantime, facebook and google , whose lawyers do properly understand copyright law, are handing over millions of dollars. ;)
User avatar
CrazyIslander
Posts: 20336
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by CrazyIslander »

Although I hate the fact that Murdoch is behind this, I think its important tgat mainstream media gets paid for their contents and help reward quality journalism. Otherwise we're heading down the road of loons providing news.
User avatar
Slim 293
Posts: 6005
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Straya plum

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by Slim 293 »

Ellafan wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 10:10 am No, you and towny are going round in circles re-running the same failed arguments. Meantime, facebook and google , whose lawyers do properly understand copyright law, are handing over millions of dollars. ;)

:lol:

They've thrown around enough cash to a handful of the main media players that will see them avoid the government's media code...
User avatar
Ellafan
Posts: 5470
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by Ellafan »

Silm, your above statement is intellectually dishonest, and you know it. IP law in this country has caught up to the google etc business model, and they'll do whatever commercially sensible deals they need to. The alternative is, as I explained above (but I think it went over Towny's head) the equivalent of "market rate" statutory damages, plus a bit of a punitive premium for being cunts.
User avatar
freewheelan
Posts: 838
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by freewheelan »

Ellafan wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:56 pm Silm, your above statement is intellectually dishonest, and you know it. IP law in this country has caught up to the google etc business model, and they'll do whatever commercially sensible deals they need to. The alternative is, as I explained above (but I think it went over Towny's head) the equivalent of "market rate" statutory damages, plus a bit of a punitive premium for being cunts.
This has never been about IP law, it's about advertising revenue.
User avatar
Ellafan
Posts: 5470
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by Ellafan »

freewheelan wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 1:30 pm
Ellafan wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:56 pm Silm, your above statement is intellectually dishonest, and you know it. IP law in this country has caught up to the google etc business model, and they'll do whatever commercially sensible deals they need to. The alternative is, as I explained above (but I think it went over Towny's head) the equivalent of "market rate" statutory damages, plus a bit of a punitive premium for being cunts.
This has never been about IP law, it's about advertising revenue.
The two, are, in this instance of 'borrowing other peoples' material, intertwined.
User avatar
freewheelan
Posts: 838
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by freewheelan »

Ellafan wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 1:45 pm
freewheelan wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 1:30 pm
Ellafan wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:56 pm Silm, your above statement is intellectually dishonest, and you know it. IP law in this country has caught up to the google etc business model, and they'll do whatever commercially sensible deals they need to. The alternative is, as I explained above (but I think it went over Towny's head) the equivalent of "market rate" statutory damages, plus a bit of a punitive premium for being cunts.
This has never been about IP law, it's about advertising revenue.
The two, are, in this instance of 'borrowing other peoples' material, intertwined.
Thanks for the word salad. If you want to be persuasive you might want to try another combination of words.
User avatar
kiap
Posts: 20279
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by kiap »

freewheelan wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 1:30 pm it's about advertising revenue.
In the context of the thread, yes, that's the bottom line.

The wrap of events in Aus, though, are just a tiny sliver of the story. Less than one hundredth of it.

The anti-competitive practices worldwide, rigged pricing bid systems and outright collusion has just been criminal. Proper cartel operations, raking over not only content publishers but advertisers as well.

Exploiting accelerated mobile pages (amps) which divert traffic in-house also allows the likes of Google to circumvent open auction header bidding on the
"cache" versions (or should that be "cash" versions?) meaning they can take that content and double clip the ticket.
User avatar
Ellafan
Posts: 5470
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by Ellafan »

freewheelan wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 1:56 pm
Ellafan wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 1:45 pm
freewheelan wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 1:30 pm
Ellafan wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:56 pm Silm, your above statement is intellectually dishonest, and you know it. IP law in this country has caught up to the google etc business model, and they'll do whatever commercially sensible deals they need to. The alternative is, as I explained above (but I think it went over Towny's head) the equivalent of "market rate" statutory damages, plus a bit of a punitive premium for being cunts.
This has never been about IP law, it's about advertising revenue.
The two, are, in this instance of 'borrowing other peoples' material, intertwined.
Thanks for the word salad. If you want to be persuasive you might want to try another combination of words.
Too subtle for you?
User avatar
freewheelan
Posts: 838
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by freewheelan »

Ellafan wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 10:07 pm
freewheelan wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 1:56 pm
Ellafan wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 1:45 pm
freewheelan wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 1:30 pm
Ellafan wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:56 pm Silm, your above statement is intellectually dishonest, and you know it. IP law in this country has caught up to the google etc business model, and they'll do whatever commercially sensible deals they need to. The alternative is, as I explained above (but I think it went over Towny's head) the equivalent of "market rate" statutory damages, plus a bit of a punitive premium for being cunts.
This has never been about IP law, it's about advertising revenue.
The two, are, in this instance of 'borrowing other peoples' material, intertwined.
Thanks for the word salad. If you want to be persuasive you might want to try another combination of words.
Too subtle for you?
You haven't constructed a proper sentence.
User avatar
freewheelan
Posts: 838
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by freewheelan »

kiap wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 3:53 pm
freewheelan wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 1:30 pm it's about advertising revenue.
In the context of the thread, yes, that's the bottom line.

The wrap of events in Aus, though, are just a tiny sliver of the story. Less than one hundredth of it.

The anti-competitive practices worldwide, rigged pricing bid systems and outright collusion has just been criminal. Proper cartel operations, raking over not only content publishers but advertisers as well.

Exploiting accelerated mobile pages (amps) which divert traffic in-house also allows the likes of Google to circumvent open auction header bidding on the
"cache" versions (or should that be "cash" versions?) meaning they can take that content and double clip the ticket.
The American history academic Timothy Snyder observed recently that when new technologies emerge it can take a long time to properly sort out regulation. He used the printing press as an example of how new technology can cause significant social disruption for lengthy periods of time.
User avatar
Ellafan
Posts: 5470
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by Ellafan »

freewheelan wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 10:48 pm

The American history academic Timothy Snyder observed recently that when new technologies emerge it can take a long time to properly sort out regulation. He used the printing press as an example of how new technology can cause significant social disruption for lengthy periods of time.
Well, at least we agree on that.
towny
Posts: 20066
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by towny »

I just received this. Maybe it will help you guys understand the issue but I doubt many of you have been interested in understanding anything since 1986.

Image

btw, the podcast links are:
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cH ... Lz9wPTQyNA
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/e ... 0509845082

Ignorance is a choice.
User avatar
Ellafan
Posts: 5470
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by Ellafan »

Very funny towny, but a bit of advice - forgery is not the career for you.

You do realise that when you post an image, with a series of right clicks (and the odd left one, anyone, even me, can work out that your "11:13 am" email image was uploaded at 07:34am, right?
https://i.postimg.cc/65kzfpjn/Email-2021-03-06-at-07-34.jpg
Nice try though.

Image
Post Reply