Planet Rugby Forum

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.

Slim 293 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 01, 2021 9:05 am The news links uploaded willingly by the news organisations themselves?

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

freewheelan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 01, 2021 1:30 pm it's about advertising revenue.

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.

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?

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.

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.

https://i.postimg.cc/65kzfpjn/Email-2021-03-06-at-07-34.jpg

Ellafan wrote: ↑Sat Mar 06, 2021 9:04 am 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.

Ellafan wrote: ↑Sat Mar 06, 2021 9:04 am 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.