Australia and Facebook....
Discussion
AlvinSultana said:
If you want to call it symbiotic thats fine.
However the relationship between the tech companies and traditional news gathering business is a bit like the kid who goes hungry because the school bully always takes his dinner money. The bullied kid soon realises if he befriends the bully, he might get a few scraps. If he helps the bully beat up the other kids he might even end up with a decent meal at lunchtime.
That is not a symbiotic relationship, its the weaker party doing what it has to for survival.
The weaker kid would much rather keep his own dinner money and not have to beg for scraps from the bully.
You ask a slave if he enjoys a symbiotic relationship with his master.
The reason the news outlets are the 'weaker kid' is because more people want to browse Facebook than news websites. At least that's what Facebook believe as they think news only makes up a small percentage of their content. If people primarily wanted to consume news then it's unlikely they would do it on Facebook as the user experience isn't nearly as good.However the relationship between the tech companies and traditional news gathering business is a bit like the kid who goes hungry because the school bully always takes his dinner money. The bullied kid soon realises if he befriends the bully, he might get a few scraps. If he helps the bully beat up the other kids he might even end up with a decent meal at lunchtime.
That is not a symbiotic relationship, its the weaker party doing what it has to for survival.
The weaker kid would much rather keep his own dinner money and not have to beg for scraps from the bully.
You ask a slave if he enjoys a symbiotic relationship with his master.
News is an element of what keeps people using the Facebook platform but not the primary one, not by a long shot. Same as Instragram, TikTok etc
Looks like the governments are amending some of the legislation to keep Facebook at the negotiating table, although no doubt they'll claim the opposite.
survivalist said:
The reason the news outlets are the 'weaker kid' is because more people want to browse Facebook than news websites. At least that's what Facebook believe as they think news only makes up a small percentage of their content. If people primarily wanted to consume news then it's unlikely they would do it on Facebook as the user experience isn't nearly as good.
News is an element of what keeps people using the Facebook platform but not the primary one, not by a long shot. Same as Instragram, TikTok etc
Looks like the governments are amending some of the legislation to keep Facebook at the negotiating table, although no doubt they'll claim the opposite.
If the viewers want to browse FB and not news, why does FB scape news content like a rabid bNews is an element of what keeps people using the Facebook platform but not the primary one, not by a long shot. Same as Instragram, TikTok etc
Looks like the governments are amending some of the legislation to keep Facebook at the negotiating table, although no doubt they'll claim the opposite.
h ?You guys are really f
king stupid.Observing what news FB users like is how they make money FFS.
Dont you get it ?
Dont you realise how the masses are manipulated come election time ?
Dont you realise why FB sells its data by the gazillion $ to organisations who manipulate every nuance of that behavioural data ???
FB serves you news. FB monitors your reaction. FB serves you more news that it think you will like. FB sees more clicks. FB sells more ad space.
Murdoch says WTF.
Symbiotic relationship my hairy arse.
End of thread/
AlvinSultana said:
If the viewers want to browse FB and not news, why does FB scape news content like a rabid bh ?
You guys are really fking stupid.
Observing what news FB users like is how they make money FFS.
Dont you get it ?
Dont you realise how the masses are manipulated come election time ?
Dont you realise why FB sells its data by the gazillion $ to organisations who manipulate every nuance of that behavioural data ???
FB serves you news. FB monitors your reaction. FB serves you more news that it think you will like. FB sees more clicks. FB sells more ad space.
Murdoch says WTF.
Symbiotic relationship my hairy arse.
End of thread/
Thanks for tour entirely measured and rational post.h ?You guys are really f
king stupid.Observing what news FB users like is how they make money FFS.
Dont you get it ?
Dont you realise how the masses are manipulated come election time ?
Dont you realise why FB sells its data by the gazillion $ to organisations who manipulate every nuance of that behavioural data ???
FB serves you news. FB monitors your reaction. FB serves you more news that it think you will like. FB sees more clicks. FB sells more ad space.
Murdoch says WTF.
Symbiotic relationship my hairy arse.
End of thread/
Facebook doesn’t scrape news like a ‘rabid b
h’ - it makes up 4-5% of their content.They make money by selling data, which allows them to generate revenue. They can do this with and without news - overwhelmingly without news.
This is evident in that they were willing to remove news from their platform rather than pay to host it. Why? Because their incredibly accurate data suggested that they had little gain and a very quantifiable amount (not that much) to lose.
Have a peek at why google news closed their Spanish operation. Spanish government told google to pay news outlets for content. Google elected to close the operation.
I don’t disagree that Facebook has an enormous amount of information about its users that can provide huge insights into people’s pretences and preferences and serve as a basis for manipulation.
However, reposting news articles is borderline irrelevant. If I post on Facebook that I think Kier Starmer is the greatest thing since sliced bread and my friend calls me a lunatic, then Facebook has the relevant info without any mainstream news agency getting involved.
There are also legal hurdles to the sharing of data that make it more complex than you suggest.
It’s interesting that the main change in the legislation essentially prevents the Australian government from setting the terms of the agreements between Facebook and the media providers and instead reduces its role to, essentially, an arbiter to private negotiations.
All of that said, I’m not a huge supporter of a small number of private organisations deciding what information we have access to. But the solution isn’t governments handing control to media companies because they have more influence on government.
survivalist said:
Thanks for tour entirely measured and rational post.
Facebook doesn’t scrape news like a ‘rabid bh’ - it makes up 4-5% of their content.
They make money by selling data, which allows them to generate revenue. They can do this with and without news - overwhelmingly without news.
This is evident in that they were willing to remove news from their platform rather than pay to host it. Why? Because their incredibly accurate data suggested that they had little gain and a very quantifiable amount (not that much) to lose.
Have a peek at why google news closed their Spanish operation. Spanish government told google to pay news outlets for content. Google elected to close the operation.
I don’t disagree that Facebook has an enormous amount of information about its users that can provide huge insights into people’s pretences and preferences and serve as a basis for manipulation.
However, reposting news articles is borderline irrelevant. If I post on Facebook that I think Kier Starmer is the greatest thing since sliced bread and my friend calls me a lunatic, then Facebook has the relevant info without any mainstream news agency getting involved.
There are also legal hurdles to the sharing of data that make it more complex than you suggest.
It’s interesting that the main change in the legislation essentially prevents the Australian government from setting the terms of the agreements between Facebook and the media providers and instead reduces its role to, essentially, an arbiter to private negotiations.
All of that said, I’m not a huge supporter of a small number of private organisations deciding what information we have access to. But the solution isn’t governments handing control to media companies because they have more influence on government.
Son, your naivety is rather sweet but you really need to wake up.Facebook doesn’t scrape news like a ‘rabid b
h’ - it makes up 4-5% of their content.They make money by selling data, which allows them to generate revenue. They can do this with and without news - overwhelmingly without news.
This is evident in that they were willing to remove news from their platform rather than pay to host it. Why? Because their incredibly accurate data suggested that they had little gain and a very quantifiable amount (not that much) to lose.
Have a peek at why google news closed their Spanish operation. Spanish government told google to pay news outlets for content. Google elected to close the operation.
I don’t disagree that Facebook has an enormous amount of information about its users that can provide huge insights into people’s pretences and preferences and serve as a basis for manipulation.
However, reposting news articles is borderline irrelevant. If I post on Facebook that I think Kier Starmer is the greatest thing since sliced bread and my friend calls me a lunatic, then Facebook has the relevant info without any mainstream news agency getting involved.
There are also legal hurdles to the sharing of data that make it more complex than you suggest.
It’s interesting that the main change in the legislation essentially prevents the Australian government from setting the terms of the agreements between Facebook and the media providers and instead reduces its role to, essentially, an arbiter to private negotiations.
All of that said, I’m not a huge supporter of a small number of private organisations deciding what information we have access to. But the solution isn’t governments handing control to media companies because they have more influence on government.
Who says news is 4-5% of the content on FB ?
Yes that would be data from FB right ?
So if news ( being the discussion seed ) is 5% of the content, how much is then discussion of said news ?
Then if you have managed to deduce that profiling FB users and selling the data is the FB business model, then you might manage to ascertain that news might be a small fraction of the actual content, but massively important in the data driven profiling of the FB user. i.e. the FB business model.
Are you keeping up ?
So FB want you to believe that news is no big deal, whilst FB is running the biggest data profiling operation on the planet, based to a large extent on your reaction to news.
Smell the coffee whenever you are ready.
I am tremendously fortunate, I have generated my income from all things internet for the last 20 years. I am good at it. I am further fortunate that my life experiences include the pre internet world. I grew up in a house with one black and white TV that could just about tune into 3 channels. The advent of channel 4 was the biggest media event I had ever witnessed. I bought my first PC when I was in my 20's, my second PC in my 30's. That one had a modem and a freeserve disc all ready to install.
So when corporate giants like FB say they cannot possibly pay for the content that they use to define which ads that are going to display to you, or when they say how terribly unfair it is to contribute to the costs of the news which they use to work out your political leanings before they sell their data to third parties it is not even funny.
I get it, you want to play with the cool kids.
But you are part of the problem. Open your eyes.
I dont think FB is evil, but neither do I have a single ounce of sympathy when one of the most profitable companies in the world throws a hissy fit over actually paying for its most basic raw materials/
AlvinSultana said:
survivalist said:
Thanks for tour entirely measured and rational post.
Facebook doesn’t scrape news like a ‘rabid bh’ - it makes up 4-5% of their content.
They make money by selling data, which allows them to generate revenue. They can do this with and without news - overwhelmingly without news.
This is evident in that they were willing to remove news from their platform rather than pay to host it. Why? Because their incredibly accurate data suggested that they had little gain and a very quantifiable amount (not that much) to lose.
Have a peek at why google news closed their Spanish operation. Spanish government told google to pay news outlets for content. Google elected to close the operation.
I don’t disagree that Facebook has an enormous amount of information about its users that can provide huge insights into people’s pretences and preferences and serve as a basis for manipulation.
However, reposting news articles is borderline irrelevant. If I post on Facebook that I think Kier Starmer is the greatest thing since sliced bread and my friend calls me a lunatic, then Facebook has the relevant info without any mainstream news agency getting involved.
There are also legal hurdles to the sharing of data that make it more complex than you suggest.
It’s interesting that the main change in the legislation essentially prevents the Australian government from setting the terms of the agreements between Facebook and the media providers and instead reduces its role to, essentially, an arbiter to private negotiations.
All of that said, I’m not a huge supporter of a small number of private organisations deciding what information we have access to. But the solution isn’t governments handing control to media companies because they have more influence on government.
Son, your naivety is rather sweet but you really need to wake up.Facebook doesn’t scrape news like a ‘rabid b
h’ - it makes up 4-5% of their content.They make money by selling data, which allows them to generate revenue. They can do this with and without news - overwhelmingly without news.
This is evident in that they were willing to remove news from their platform rather than pay to host it. Why? Because their incredibly accurate data suggested that they had little gain and a very quantifiable amount (not that much) to lose.
Have a peek at why google news closed their Spanish operation. Spanish government told google to pay news outlets for content. Google elected to close the operation.
I don’t disagree that Facebook has an enormous amount of information about its users that can provide huge insights into people’s pretences and preferences and serve as a basis for manipulation.
However, reposting news articles is borderline irrelevant. If I post on Facebook that I think Kier Starmer is the greatest thing since sliced bread and my friend calls me a lunatic, then Facebook has the relevant info without any mainstream news agency getting involved.
There are also legal hurdles to the sharing of data that make it more complex than you suggest.
It’s interesting that the main change in the legislation essentially prevents the Australian government from setting the terms of the agreements between Facebook and the media providers and instead reduces its role to, essentially, an arbiter to private negotiations.
All of that said, I’m not a huge supporter of a small number of private organisations deciding what information we have access to. But the solution isn’t governments handing control to media companies because they have more influence on government.
Who says news is 4-5% of the content on FB ?
Yes that would be data from FB right ?
So if news ( being the discussion seed ) is 5% of the content, how much is then discussion of said news ?
Then if you have managed to deduce that profiling FB users and selling the data is the FB business model, then you might manage to ascertain that news might be a small fraction of the actual content, but massively important in the data driven profiling of the FB user. i.e. the FB business model.
Are you keeping up ?
So FB want you to believe that news is no big deal, whilst FB is running the biggest data profiling operation on the planet, based to a large extent on your reaction to news.
Smell the coffee whenever you are ready.
I am tremendously fortunate, I have generated my income from all things internet for the last 20 years. I am good at it. I am further fortunate that my life experiences include the pre internet world. I grew up in a house with one black and white TV that could just about tune into 3 channels. The advent of channel 4 was the biggest media event I had ever witnessed. I bought my first PC when I was in my 20's, my second PC in my 30's. That one had a modem and a freeserve disc all ready to install.
So when corporate giants like FB say they cannot possibly pay for the content that they use to define which ads that are going to display to you, or when they say how terribly unfair it is to contribute to the costs of the news which they use to work out your political leanings before they sell their data to third parties it is not even funny.
I get it, you want to play with the cool kids.
But you are part of the problem. Open your eyes.
I dont think FB is evil, but neither do I have a single ounce of sympathy when one of the most profitable companies in the world throws a hissy fit over actually paying for its most basic raw materials/
Ultimately if the lack of news content were so devastating to Facebook’s business model then I’m sure they’d be able to bear the cost.
Facebook was popular before they are scraping news for a reason. Equally, popular topics were and are discussed on there without the need to link to external sites.
Also, thanks for your life story - based on what you’ve said we are of a similar age. I too, terrifyingly. remember black and white TVs, but unlike you and condescending tone can accept the march of time and progress - we’ve moved on to 4K and steaming
Trying to suggest I am anti progress is very weak. Taking stuff without permission is theft. Not progress.
As I said I derive my income from tech and the interwebs.
I am just a bit old fashioned though when it comes to stealing of IP. As would you be if it were your IP being stolen.
You point out that Google closed an operation when it was forced to pay for the content. Is this supposed to be an argument for allowing content theft ?
The poor Google found its business model did not work if it had to bear all of its costs.
Perhaps I should start scraping FB and selling the data, you would be all for it right ? Or maybe I should take your IP and profit from that.
You would have plenty to say if I build an empire on your hard work, and Zuckerbergs legal army would chase me through every court in the land.
You really dont see the hypocrisy here ? FB cannot afford to pay for news, Spotify says it is helping the poor content creators from having their content stolen, Google shuts down operations that are not allowed to steal IP.
The tech giants have taken profiteering to new levels. They have created enormous off shore cash mountains so large they have no idea what to do with it. Yet if they are asked to pay their fair share either for content or in taxes to support the society that they profit from, then they spit the dummy out. The thing is they always will as long as they have the support of the likes of you who cannot see the wood for the trees.
As I said I derive my income from tech and the interwebs.
I am just a bit old fashioned though when it comes to stealing of IP. As would you be if it were your IP being stolen.
You point out that Google closed an operation when it was forced to pay for the content. Is this supposed to be an argument for allowing content theft ?
The poor Google found its business model did not work if it had to bear all of its costs.
Perhaps I should start scraping FB and selling the data, you would be all for it right ? Or maybe I should take your IP and profit from that.
You would have plenty to say if I build an empire on your hard work, and Zuckerbergs legal army would chase me through every court in the land.
You really dont see the hypocrisy here ? FB cannot afford to pay for news, Spotify says it is helping the poor content creators from having their content stolen, Google shuts down operations that are not allowed to steal IP.
The tech giants have taken profiteering to new levels. They have created enormous off shore cash mountains so large they have no idea what to do with it. Yet if they are asked to pay their fair share either for content or in taxes to support the society that they profit from, then they spit the dummy out. The thing is they always will as long as they have the support of the likes of you who cannot see the wood for the trees.
AlvinSultana said:
If you want to call it symbiotic thats fine.
However the relationship between the tech companies and traditional news gathering business is a bit like the kid who goes hungry because the school bully always takes his dinner money. The bullied kid soon realises if he befriends the bully, he might get a few scraps. If he helps the bully beat up the other kids he might even end up with a decent meal at lunchtime.
That is not a symbiotic relationship, its the weaker party doing what it has to for survival.
The weaker kid would much rather keep his own dinner money and not have to beg for scraps from the bully.
You ask a slave if he enjoys a symbiotic relationship with his master.
If that's true (which is actually isn't), let's go with your utterly daft analogy. The head teacher confronts the bully and says "stop bullying the weaker kid, or pay compensation". So the bully decides to stop. And the head teacher says "this is a declaration of war, who do you think you are, how dare you". However the relationship between the tech companies and traditional news gathering business is a bit like the kid who goes hungry because the school bully always takes his dinner money. The bullied kid soon realises if he befriends the bully, he might get a few scraps. If he helps the bully beat up the other kids he might even end up with a decent meal at lunchtime.
That is not a symbiotic relationship, its the weaker party doing what it has to for survival.
The weaker kid would much rather keep his own dinner money and not have to beg for scraps from the bully.
You ask a slave if he enjoys a symbiotic relationship with his master.
AlvinSultana said:
Trying to suggest I am anti progress is very weak. Taking stuff without permission is theft. Not progress.
As I said I derive my income from tech and the interwebs.
I am just a bit old fashioned though when it comes to stealing of IP. As would you be if it were your IP being stolen.
You point out that Google closed an operation when it was forced to pay for the content. Is this supposed to be an argument for allowing content theft ?
The poor Google found its business model did not work if it had to bear all of its costs.
Perhaps I should start scraping FB and selling the data, you would be all for it right ? Or maybe I should take your IP and profit from that.
You would have plenty to say if I build an empire on your hard work, and Zuckerbergs legal army would chase me through every court in the land.
You really dont see the hypocrisy here ? FB cannot afford to pay for news, Spotify says it is helping the poor content creators from having their content stolen, Google shuts down operations that are not allowed to steal IP.
The tech giants have taken profiteering to new levels. They have created enormous off shore cash mountains so large they have no idea what to do with it. Yet if they are asked to pay their fair share either for content or in taxes to support the society that they profit from, then they spit the dummy out. The thing is they always will as long as they have the support of the likes of you who cannot see the wood for the trees.
The IP theft, as you see it, has become a non-issue. Facebook declined to participate and took steps to remove the news content from their platform. It was at that point that the news organisations (principally News Corp) changed the argument to one around censorship and IP theft, when it's really one of which platform is more popular with users. The answer to that, overwhelmingly, is Facebook. As I said I derive my income from tech and the interwebs.
I am just a bit old fashioned though when it comes to stealing of IP. As would you be if it were your IP being stolen.
You point out that Google closed an operation when it was forced to pay for the content. Is this supposed to be an argument for allowing content theft ?
The poor Google found its business model did not work if it had to bear all of its costs.
Perhaps I should start scraping FB and selling the data, you would be all for it right ? Or maybe I should take your IP and profit from that.
You would have plenty to say if I build an empire on your hard work, and Zuckerbergs legal army would chase me through every court in the land.
You really dont see the hypocrisy here ? FB cannot afford to pay for news, Spotify says it is helping the poor content creators from having their content stolen, Google shuts down operations that are not allowed to steal IP.
The tech giants have taken profiteering to new levels. They have created enormous off shore cash mountains so large they have no idea what to do with it. Yet if they are asked to pay their fair share either for content or in taxes to support the society that they profit from, then they spit the dummy out. The thing is they always will as long as they have the support of the likes of you who cannot see the wood for the trees.
Essentially the Australian government, under pressure form News Corp, wanted to force Facebook into a 'pay to play' model. Facebook was happy not to play. Once the government and News Corp realised this they had to change their approach as they realised they need Facebook's users more than Facebook needs their content, which is why the legislation is being watered down to keep them at the negotiating table.
If it was just about the IP theft element, then Facebook's removal of news content would have been an end to the matter. The reason it wasn't is that there is a real concern that traffic to news sites would be negatively impacted.
Google closing the Spanish news operation is interesting because it demonstrates, once again, who actually owns the user base. The Spanish government passed legislation that would have forced Google to pay for linking to news content (a similar 'pay to play' model), but Google realised that news wasn't enough of a contributor to their ability to attract users. In both the short and long term there were no negative impacts for Google. In the short term, many news organisations suffered a drop in traffic and, therefore, advertising revenue, with some even electing to use google's paid services to drive traffic.
It's relevant because it illustrates that news wasn't a major driver for Google, just like it's not a major driver for Facebook.
survivalist said:
Essentially the Australian government, under pressure form News Corp, wanted to force Facebook into a 'pay to play' model. Facebook was happy not to play. Once the government and News Corp realised this they had to change their approach as they realised they need Facebook's users more than Facebook needs their content, which is why the legislation is being watered down to keep them at the negotiating table.
If it was just about the IP theft element, then Facebook's removal of news content would have been an end to the matter. The reason it wasn't is that there is a real concern that traffic to news sites would be negatively impacted.
If it was just about the IP theft element, then Facebook's removal of news content would have been an end to the matter. The reason it wasn't is that there is a real concern that traffic to news sites would be negatively impacted.
As my son says, "not only do we not expect Facebook to pay to use our content, we're very happy they don't charge us, because with the reach they provide, we'd willingly pay them decent money."
TwigtheWonderkid said:
survivalist said:
Essentially the Australian government, under pressure form News Corp, wanted to force Facebook into a 'pay to play' model. Facebook was happy not to play. Once the government and News Corp realised this they had to change their approach as they realised they need Facebook's users more than Facebook needs their content, which is why the legislation is being watered down to keep them at the negotiating table.
If it was just about the IP theft element, then Facebook's removal of news content would have been an end to the matter. The reason it wasn't is that there is a real concern that traffic to news sites would be negatively impacted.
If it was just about the IP theft element, then Facebook's removal of news content would have been an end to the matter. The reason it wasn't is that there is a real concern that traffic to news sites would be negatively impacted.
As my son says, "not only do we not expect Facebook to pay to use our content, we're very happy they don't charge us, because with the reach they provide, we'd willingly pay them decent money."
hidetheelephants said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
survivalist said:
Essentially the Australian government, under pressure form News Corp, wanted to force Facebook into a 'pay to play' model. Facebook was happy not to play. Once the government and News Corp realised this they had to change their approach as they realised they need Facebook's users more than Facebook needs their content, which is why the legislation is being watered down to keep them at the negotiating table.
If it was just about the IP theft element, then Facebook's removal of news content would have been an end to the matter. The reason it wasn't is that there is a real concern that traffic to news sites would be negatively impacted.
If it was just about the IP theft element, then Facebook's removal of news content would have been an end to the matter. The reason it wasn't is that there is a real concern that traffic to news sites would be negatively impacted.
As my son says, "not only do we not expect Facebook to pay to use our content, we're very happy they don't charge us, because with the reach they provide, we'd willingly pay them decent money."
TwigtheWonderkid said:
hidetheelephants said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
survivalist said:
Essentially the Australian government, under pressure form News Corp, wanted to force Facebook into a 'pay to play' model. Facebook was happy not to play. Once the government and News Corp realised this they had to change their approach as they realised they need Facebook's users more than Facebook needs their content, which is why the legislation is being watered down to keep them at the negotiating table.
If it was just about the IP theft element, then Facebook's removal of news content would have been an end to the matter. The reason it wasn't is that there is a real concern that traffic to news sites would be negatively impacted.
If it was just about the IP theft element, then Facebook's removal of news content would have been an end to the matter. The reason it wasn't is that there is a real concern that traffic to news sites would be negatively impacted.
As my son says, "not only do we not expect Facebook to pay to use our content, we're very happy they don't charge us, because with the reach they provide, we'd willingly pay them decent money."
The wider question of whether and how to regulate large internet firms is one that may need to be addressed, but it should encompass more than advertising revenue.
ETA - in this case it also highlights a power struggle between traditional media and social media. In terms of numbers, it's one that social media is winning.
Edited by survivalist on Wednesday 24th February 13:37
a stralian perspective very much not safe for work, but who the fk is in the office these days?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuZFdkjGzlM
k is in the office these days?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuZFdkjGzlM
citizensm1th said:
a stralian perspective very much not safe for work, but who the fk is in the office these days?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuZFdkjGzlM
ozzyman rulesk is in the office these days?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuZFdkjGzlM
survivalist said:
The IP theft, as you see it, has become a non-issue.
Says who ?You ?
Or FB ?
Because the victim of the theft does not agree with you.
You have completely failed to justify the theft of intellectual property. At any level. Let alone the massively profitable corporate giant taking whatever it wants and telling its victims to get with the program.
FB would be absolutely incensed if YOU or anyone else stole it’s IP.
Right ?
Or do you really good ol’Zuckers would say hey, knock your self out kid, take whatever you want, this is the internet right !
TwigtheWonderkid said:
If that's true (which is actually isn't), let's go with your utterly daft analogy. The head teacher confronts the bully and says "stop bullying the weaker kid, or pay compensation". So the bully decides to stop. And the head teacher says "this is a declaration of war, who do you think you are, how dare you".
In my utterly daft analogy the teacher is the govt, and the govt decides it does not want to see the bully taking the weaker kids dinner money.Right ?
Or is there some other point to your post ?
AlvinSultana said:
Says who ?
You ?
Or FB ?
Because the victim of the theft does not agree with you.
You have completely failed to justify the theft of intellectual property. At any level. Let alone the massively profitable corporate giant taking whatever it wants and telling its victims to get with the program.
FB would be absolutely incensed if YOU or anyone else stole it’s IP.
Right ?
Or do you really good ol’Zuckers would say hey, knock your self out kid, take whatever you want, this is the internet right !
hmmmm now talking as if Murdock's media empire is david to facebooks goliath is stretching it a bitYou ?
Or FB ?
Because the victim of the theft does not agree with you.
You have completely failed to justify the theft of intellectual property. At any level. Let alone the massively profitable corporate giant taking whatever it wants and telling its victims to get with the program.
FB would be absolutely incensed if YOU or anyone else stole it’s IP.
Right ?
Or do you really good ol’Zuckers would say hey, knock your self out kid, take whatever you want, this is the internet right !
TwigtheWonderkid said:
As my son says, "not only do we not expect Facebook to pay to use our content, we're very happy they don't charge us, because with the reach they provide, we'd willingly pay them decent money."
I will use Spotify to illustrate.
Spotify sets up a free streaming service.
Unlimited free streamed music.
The cool kids cannot get enough of it.
The content producers say WTF they are stealing our content - but this is the internet right ?
Time passes.
Spotify becomes the dominant force in music streaming because it is free to the end user - the content producers need to get their music onto Spotify because the cool kids have abandoned buying music because its free on Spotify.
Spotify declares this to be a symbiotic relationship.
Spotify tells parliament that it cannot pay the content producers more than a pittance because that would cut into their profits and they would have to put their prices up again.
The content producers say WTF ?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff