Jump to content

Garda

Dedicated Members
  • Content Count

    682
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

About Garda

  • Rank
    Hak5 Ninja

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.linuxquestions.org/blog/garda-181394/
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

5,548 profile views
  1. > Under the new rules, cars will also be fitted with compulsory data recorders, or "black boxes". I just don't see this playing out as a system that automatically controls your car's speed. No government wants that. There is just too much revenue collected from speeding fines. Instead, a government wants to be able to record where you were at every moment in a completely opaque black box. Then, whenever you come in for a service just download your driving habits and fine you for each time you sped. Much easier than installing cameras all over the place and only getting you on rare occasions. No government wants to help you automatically stay within the speed limit. There is not a government in the world that wants to shoot itself in the foot and dry up all it's revenues.
  2. Correct me where I'm wrong. All laws come from the European Commission, an institution made of a very small member of unelected bureaucrats, with no democratic controls to either elect or dismiss these members, the identity of which is not secret but unknown to most citizens, and the discussions and voting record of which is entirely secret. The European parliament is a debating club that has no power to create new laws and only a minority of members are needed for European Commission laws to pass into finally becoming passed legislation. With all the complaints people in the US might have with lobbyists and dirty money in politics, now imagine what happens when you narrow it down to just 20-something individuals, no election that they need to contest, and a secret voting record so you can avoid scrutiny. A typically European designed political institution.
  3. I see this as an evolution of the philosophy that's already in place in YouTube and elsewhere on the Internet. The problem is that the way copyright issues are managed on that platform is that if you make a video and any amount—say 1% of the content—comes from another piece of work, the owner of the original work gets 100% of the profits. This doesn't make much sense to me because we understand that most of the value comes from that 99%. In most cases this 1% is there because the video is a critique, references the work in which the 1% material originates, or otherwise falls into the legal category of fair use. Even if (say) two such "1%" clips feature, all profits will likely go to simply the first/only to file anything against that video. Add that this facility is only available to big media companies. Naturally if everyone were given this freedom and ease with which to steal other's profits that the big guys have there would be pandemonium and the system would collapse. There is also no penalty for companies to simply spam such flags, so everything is always getting flagged for copyright issues. This is unlike the case for creators which have a 3-strikes policy for complaining about a copyright notice, after which they're banned from the platform. This is a natural consequence of a political system like the EU with very little democratic controls, which instead is governed by unaccountable bureaucrats and their lobbyists. One should then not be surprised that this is a law/regime which hugely and unfairly favours big companies which now have enshrined into law special privileges not available to anyone else.
×
×
  • Create New...