"The Supreme Court concluded that ISPs cannot be held secondarily liable for user piracy unless they actively induce or tailor their services for infringement, which means that rightsholders will need an alternative enforcement tool."
Umm because they didn't get what they want your concluding that an additional tool is needed? That makes no sense. There ALREADY exists a tool. They just don't like the tool. These entertainment cartels HAVE NOT GONE UNDER as a result of the internet in the past 25 years so WHY would there be another tool needed???? The fact the supreme court didn't agree that the ISPs were liable is not a reason a new tool is needed given that for more than 25 years ISPs have NOT been liable. This isn't new this is old. It's been the status quo all along. It's not something that has changed. There isn't some new technology your claiming is the reason that a new tool is needed. It's literally the same law of the land as its been interpreted for 25+ years!!! The supreme court just confirmed it because the copyright cartel after 25+ years started to push the claim it wasn't WRONGLY.
@thomholwerda @SRAZKVT I understand why “no politics” can sound like an excuse to ignore real issues. That is not what I mean by it at BSD Cafe.
In my life, and in the history of people before me, I have seen politics used too many times as a justification to silence, attack, or dehumanise others.
To me, no cause, no ideology, and no political position gives anyone the right to be disrespectful or abusive. A community can and should protect people, be welcoming, and take real issues seriously without turning every interaction into a battlefield.
That is what “no politics” means to me: not indifference, but maturity. Not ignoring people, but making sure nobody uses politics as a weapon against them.
And honestly, I think that requires more spine than simply joining the loudest fight.
Breaking: Senator Lindsey Graham (R) publicly endorses New Hampshire's 'live free or die' ethos.
https://bird.makeup/users/lindseygrahamsc/statuses/2076185414721847673
"DuckDuckGo just gave its browser a feature that a lot of people have been waiting for. The privacy-focused browser can now block most video ads on YouTube"
Then I read a humorous or maybe disingenuous comment:
"Slashdot reader BrianFagioli argues that the feature raises questions about how creators are compensated when ad revenue is bypassed."
Creators don't make shit from YouTube advertising. They make their money by pimping often questionable products (though probably less questionable than the ads YouTube places in the videos) and services, selling t-shirts, and similar merch.
I have to wonder how these people come to the idea that this somehow impacts creators unless I've totally overlooked what this is doing. I'll admit I didn't read the story, but it sounds like 'blocking' here is akin to what uBlock Origin does based on the summary which is NOT an adblocker that blocks creator advertising. It blocks the wayyyy more annoying Google placed advertising that gets inserted or played while the content creators video is basically paused at random terrible spots in the videos. Google makes money off the advertising that is placed in this way, not creators. Creators make money off the products the creators pimp within the videos themselves.
My gut says this irrational questioning is basically a left-wing tactic trying to get you to think that the only answer is socialism.
This is far from the reality. Google long ago abandoned funding most creators. They had a revenue sharing program regarding its placed ads, but it's largely irrelevant for the vast majority of creators now. Unless your one of the top content producers your not making your money from Google advertising. The solution didn't depend on socialism, but entrepreneurial efforts.