Do all the things like ++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatarSign Up
Get a devDuck
Rubber duck debugging has never been so cute! Get your favorite coding language devDuckBuy Now
Search - "copyright law"
all kinds of things:
2. Idiots working on WiFi firmware
3. Said idiots telling us that they found a compiler bug when a signed integer optimization screws their codes dependency on rollover. People like that shouldn’t be writing WiFi firmware.
5. Treating weapons of mass terror like machine learning like just a fun game to work on and then release open source
6. The fact that when assholes from all these companies like Facebook google and Amazon testify before Congress our political leaders are dumber than bricks when questioning them so they either a. Ask totally the wrong questions and people get off clean or b. When the witnesses do say something questionable is happening Congress doesn’t have the mental capacity to notice that something of concern was just said
7. despite the fact Linux has an easier to use UI than windows people bitch about how hard it is still
8. How defensive people are over their “own stuff.” “I like windows so if you say anything against it you’re insulting me” or “but I wrote this code you can’t refactor it that’s my mark!”
10. The fact that web assembly, though the superior technology, is going to become popular not because it’s fast but because it makes it harder to block ads and harder to read and analyze the code.
11. The fact that our obsession with web technologies has led to applications that are 10,000x less efficient than other alternatives, the carbon footprint of this is astonishing, and nobody cares. But they all want to save the environment. What?
12. The social disease of social media and how people have become addicted to a degree almost comparable to crack
13. People think being an influencer on Instagram is a real job.
14. People waste preposterous amounts of energy on crypto currency mining despite the fact that it doesn’t offer many real advantages over cold hard cash. It’s still trackable!!
15. Modern copyright law and how it’s been implemented in our web services that we use every day is insane; the music industry is a mafia and are using google as a club to beat us all down with. And google is fine with that.
16. All the music made today is fake and that’s done by leveraging all the “great” technology that (now defunct) digidesign avid and auto tune has brought to us
17. We design computers and software for the stupidest users that easily fall prey to all these things rather than the average person.
18. The Boeing 737 crashes are software related. That means some idiot fucked up and a bunch of people died. Need I say more?
The world will end some day and it will be because of software. You either accept that fact or live in denial.
Can we stop the undifferentiated EU bashing already?
Yes, the copyright law changes suck, we get it.
But: The EU itself is not a bad thing. Millions of people profit from it by having a common currency, freedom of choice where to travel to, where they want to work without needing a visa, and many, many more things.
Thanks for your time, have a nice day.9
GDPR: great law, except for those who use technology (JS blockers, tracking protection, etc etc) to fight other technology (cookies, trackers, etc etc). Welcomed by the general public, but for content publishers it is a royal pain in the ass. Because did the EU provide non-legalese explanations as to how to become compliant? Of course they didn't. Why would they? But of course lawyers jumped on it like it's the best thing in the world. "GDPR-experts".
Now, article 11 and 13 again. Copyright law taken to ridiculous levels, impossible to implement, except for maybe Google, Microsoft and Facebook. Anyone else? Of course not. Again, a lot of money has to be involved with it. Does anyone want this thing? Of course not. And why the fuck is this still a thing even?! Did direct lobbying to the EU Parliament members a few months ago not teach them anything?! Senile pieces of shit. Should those old fucks really be able to decide about the future of the internet?7
Fuck you European union. You cunt smelling, ass licking, pieces of dog shit. Thank you so fucking much for taking yet another step towards closing the 'Web and making it harder for smaller people to exist on it.
I wish you all a slow and painful death just like the death you are sentencing the free 'Web to.
I’m back for a fucking rant.
My previous post I was happy, I’ve had an interview today and I felt the interviewer acted with integrity and made the role seem worthwhile. Fuck it, here’s the link:
So, since then; the recruiter got in touch: “smashed it son, sending the tech demo your way, if you can get it done this evening that would be amazing”
Obviously I said based on the exact brief I think that’s possible, I’ll take a look and let them know if it isn’t.
Having done loads of these, I know I can usually knock them out and impress in an evening with no trouble.
Here’s where shit gets fucked up; i opened the brief.
I was met with a brief for an MVP using best practice patterns and flexing every muscle with the tech available...
Then I see the requirements, these fucking dicks are after 10 functional requirements averaging an hour a piece.
+TDD so * 1.25,
+DI and dependency inversion principle * 1.1
+CI setup (1h on this platform)
+One ill requirement to use a stored proc in SQL server to return a view (1h)
+UX/UI design consideration using an old tech (1-2h)
+unobtrusive jquery form post validation (2h)
+AES-256 encryption in the db... add 2h for proper testing.
These cunts want me to knock 15-20h of Work into their interview tech demo.
I’ve done a lot of these recently, all of them topped out at 3h max.
The job is middling: average package, old tech, not the most exciting or decent work.
The interviewer alluded to his lead being a bit of a dick; one of those “the code comes first” devs.
Here’s where shit gets realer:
They’ve included mock ups in the tech demo brief’s zip... I looked at them to confirm I wasn’t over estimating the job... I wasn’t.
Then I looked at the other files in the fucking zip.
I found 3 of the images they wanted to use were copyright withheld... there’s no way these guys have the right to distribute these.
Then I look in the font folder, it’s a single ttf, downloaded from fucking DA Font... it was published less than 2mo ago, the license file had been removed: free for Personal, anything else; contact me.
There’s no way these guys have any rights to this font, and I’ve never seen a font redistributed legally without it’s accompanying licence files.
This fucking company is constantly talking about its ethical behaviours.
Given that I know what I’m doing; I know it would have taken less time to find free-for-commercial images and use a google font... this sloppy bullshit is beyond me.
Anyway, I said I’d get back to the recruiter, he wasn’t to know and he’s a good guy. I let him know I’d complete the tech demo over the weekend, he’s looked after me and I don’t want him having trouble with his client...
I’ll substitute the copyright fuckery with images I have a license for because there’s no way I’m pushing copyright stolen material to a public github repo.
I’ll also be substituting the topic and leaving a few js bombs in there to ensure they don’t just steal my shit.
Here’s my hypotheses, anyone with any more would be greatly welcomed...
1: the lead dev is just a stuck up arsehole, with no real care for his work and a relaxed view on stealing other people’s.
2: they are looking for 15-20h free work on an MVP they can modify and take to market
3: they are looking for people to turn down this job so they can support someone’s fucking visa.
In any case, it’s a shit show and I’ll just be seeing this as box checking and interview practice...
Arguments for 1: the head told me about his lead’s problems within 20mn of the interview.
2: he said his biggest problem was getting products out quickly enough.
3: the recruiter told me they’d been “picky”, and they’re making themselves people who can’t be worked for.
I’m going to knock out the demo, keep it private and protect my work well. It’s going to smash their tits off because I’m a fucking great developer... I’ll make sure I get the offer to keep the recruiter looked after.
Then fuck those guys, I’m fucking livid.
After a wonderful interview experience and a nice introduction to the company I’ve been completely put off...
So here’s the update: if you’re interviewing for a shitty middle level dev position, amongst difficult people, on an out of date stack... you need people to want you, don’t fuck them off.
If they want my time to rush out MVPs, they can pay my day rate.
Fuuuuuuuuck... I typed this out whilst listening to the podcast, I’m glad I’m not the only one dealing with shit.
Oh also; I had a lovely discriminatory as fuck application, personality test and disability request email sent to me from a company that seems like it’s still in the 90s. Fuck those guys too, I reported them to the relevant authorities and hope they’re made to look at how morally reprehensible their recruitment process is. The law is you don’t ask if the job can be done by anyone.6
I think I have to leave the EU.
This is the straw to break the camel's back finally.
I am very disappointed, EU parliament.
Maybe Swiss, or Norway... or the moon, hmm...10
Now the new EU copyright directive is getting closer, Google does A/B testing to comply with article 11.1
Regarding Article 13 (or 17 or wherever it moved to now)… Let's say that the UK politicians decide to be dicks and approve the law. After that, we need to get it engineered in, right? Let's talk a bit about how.. well, I'd maybe go over it. Been thinking about it a bit in the shower earlier, so.. yeah.
So, fancy image recognition or text recognition from articles scattered all over the internet, I think we can all agree.. that's infeasible. Even more so, during this lobby with GitHub and OpenForum Europe, guy from GitHub actually made a very valid point. Now for starters, copyright infringement isn't an issue on the platform GitHub that pretty much breathes collaboration. But in the case of I-Boot for example, that thing from Apple that got leaked earlier. If that would get preemptively blocked.. well there's no public source code for it to get compared against to begin with, right? So it's not just "scattered all over the internet, good luck crawling it", it's nowhere to be found *at all*.
So content filtering.. yeah. Nope, ain't gonna happen. Keep trying with that, EU politicians.
But let's say that I am a content creator who hates the cancer of joke/meme because more often than not it manifests itself as a clone of r/programmerhumor.. someone decides to freeboot my content. So I go out, look for it, find it. Facebook and the likes, make it easier to find it in the first place, you dicks. It's extremely hard to find your content there.
So Facebook implements a way to find that content a bit easier maybe. Me being the content creator finds it.. oh blimey! It can't be.. it's the king of freebooting on Facebook, SoFlo! Who would've thought?! So at that point.. I'd like to get it removed of course. Report it as copyright infringement? Of course. Again Facebook you dicks, don't make it so tedious to fill in that bloody report. And look into it quickly! The videos those SoFlo dicks post is only relevant in the first 48h or so. That's where they make the most money. So act more quickly.
So the report is filled, video's taken down.. what else? Maybe temporarily make them unable to post as a bit of a punishment so that they won't do it again? And put in a limit to the amount of reports they can receive. Finally, maybe reroute the revenue stream to the original content creator instead. That way stolen content suddenly becomes free exposure! Awesome!
*suddenly realizes that I've been talking about the YouTube copyright strike system all along*
… Well.. maybe something like that then? That shouldn't be too hard to implement, and on YouTube at least it seems to be quite effective. Just imagine SoFlo and the likes that are repeat offenders, every 3 posts they get their account and page shut down. Good luck growing an audience that way. And good luck making new accounts all the time to start with.. account verification technology is pretty good these days. Speaking of experience here, tried bypassing Facebook's signup hoops a fair bit and learned a bit about some of the things they have red flags on, hehe.
But yeah, something like that maybe for social media in general. And.. let's face it, the biggest one that would get hurt by something like this would be Facebook. And personally I think it's about time for that bastard company to get a couple of blows already.
What are your thoughts on this?6
Friend: Can I download youtube vids on my iphone? Do you know an app for this?
Me: No that is illegal and against the copyright law.
Friend: Why? I just want to download some cool music... Then do you know a site to watch cinema movies for free?
My inner self: No you (censored :)) sh*t. How are you even on college?!
Me: No, the most sites are just sites with bloatware... Do some own research...
This situation repeats once a week...14
The new EU copyright reform (article 13, etc.) is getting comical.
After even the big copyright holders retracted their support for the law, it seemed to have no chance and was "put on ice".
After short while it was warmed up again by negotiating some trade offs (which are apparently hated by everyone) and it may or may not be passed in the next few weeks.
So far so idiotic.
It seem that even the initiator - Axel Voss - will not vote for the law. Unfortunately for wrong reasons. Why? It is not strict enough for him.
Anyhow, the longer text he used to present his view he he seems to - copy - his argumentation from Bertelsman (German media group).
It could be funny, if all of that wasn't so sad as there is still the possibility that this stupid law passes.
I've just noticed something when reading the EU copyright reform. It actually all sounds pretty reasonable. Now, hear me out, I swear that this will make sense in the end.
Article 17p4 states the following:
If no authorisation [by rightholders] is granted, online content-sharing service providers shall be liable for unauthorised acts of communication to the public, including making available to the public, of copyright-protected works and other subject matter, unless the service providers demonstrate that they have:
(a) made best efforts to obtain an authorisation, and
(b) made, in accordance with high industry standards of professional diligence, best efforts to ensure the unavailability of specific works and other subject matter for which the rightholders have provided the service providers with the relevant and necessary information; and in any event
(c) acted expeditiously, upon receiving a sufficiently substantiated notice from the rightholders, to disable access to, or to remove from, their websites the
notified works or other subject matter, and made best efforts to prevent their future uploads in accordance with point (b).
Article 17p5 states the following:
In determining whether the service provider has complied with its obligations under paragraph 4, and in light of the principle of proportionality, the following elements, among others, shall be taken into account:
(a) the type, the audience and the size of the service and the type of works or other subject matter uploaded by the users of the service; and
(b) the availability of suitable and effective means and their cost for service providers.
That actually does leave a lot of room for interpretation, and not on the lawmakers' part.. rather, on the implementer's part. Say for example devRant, there's no way in hell that dfox and trogus are going to want to be tasked with upload filters. But they don't have to.
See, the law takes into account due diligence (i.e. they must give a damn), industry standards (so.. don't half-ass it), and cost considerations (so no need to spend a fortune on it). Additionally, asking for permission doesn't need to be much more than coming to an agreement with the rightsholder when they make a claim to their content. It's pretty common on YouTube mixes already, often in the description there's a disclaimer stating something like "I don't own this content. If you want part of it to be removed, get in touch at $email." Which actually seems to work really well.
So say for example, I've had this issue with someone here on devRant who copypasted a work of mine into the cancer pit called joke/meme. I mentioned it to dfox, didn't get removed. So what this law essentially states is that when I made a notice of "this here is my content, I'd like you to remove this", they're obligated to remove it. And due diligence to keep it unavailable.. maybe make a hash of it or whatever to compare against.
It also mentions that there needs to be a source to compare against, which invalidates e.g. GitHub's iBoot argument (there's no source to compare against!). If there's no source to compare against, there's no issue. That includes my work as freebooted by that devRant user. I can't prove my ownership due to me removing the original I posted on Facebook as part of a yearly cleanup.
But yeah.. content providers are responsible as they should be, it's been a huge issue on the likes of Facebook, and really needs to be fixed. Is this a doomsday scenario? After reading the law paper, honestly I don't think it is.
Have a read, I highly recommend it.
So, I don't have any idea about copyright law. I've heard, that React is bad, as it has a `if you sue or in any way "compete" against us, we revoke your licence` clause.
So how bad is this? Is this really a thing, unless you either sue FB, or they try to buy you (which are both not very probable for small companies). Could someone who knows their shit give me a tl;dr summary (or feel free to debate)
What I've found so far: https://github.com/facebook/react/... which seams to be kind of ok.
This would be the patent: https://github.com/facebook/react/...5
If I create a product, lets say a new toaster.
Naturally I have a .com website for that..
So far so good..
Next I create a support forum for the site.
From my limited understanding, no one would be allowed to do the following:
Post a URL to say, a website about a competitors toaster with a picture of said toaster.
Upload a picture of a competing brand of toaster from another site.
Say anything that was copyrighted such as, a christmas poem, or a famous quote from history.
Upload quotes from posted content anywhere else on the internet, or from a book, newspaper, written diary..
But forum users could do the the following ?
They would be allowed to upload a picture of themselves holding a competitors toaster..
Or upload their own words.
So, some questions:
How do you check uploaded content against the zillion TB of copyright data out there ?
Will every message/picture have to be moderator approved before being allowed to be posted ?
Could you have your forum hosted in another country without that law, or would you still be liable ?
I guess one could just do telephone support like the shit companies do already..
"New computer game out"
*support only available via phone between the hours of 1pm and 2pm on a Tuesday..*
But if I put my support forums on say, a site like Facebook, then its entirely their problem to deal with ?
Or will the moderator of a group have any legal responsibility ?
Does this only apply to open public groups that anyone can join, or will this also effect private member only clubs ? (eg. closed non-public viewing forums.)
Suddenly I feel less and less like making and trying to sell anything if I can't support my customers easily and cheaply. (Read affordable..)26
So the EU plans to make an "upload-filter"-law.
Actually this means that every service, every provider literally everyone has to check everything which is going to be uploaded on a webpage if there is an copyright violation and so on.
Thanks to my european government for slowing down the digital evolution in a absolutely shit way.4
Well, while I still I can, I just want to say that fuck the whole EU and its fucking new shitty assfucking copyright law, which is definitely gonna completely fucking destroy internet if that crap passes.
THEY REALLY FUCKING DON'T HAVE ANYTHING BETTER TO WORK ON EXCEPT MAKING SHITTY FUCKING DUMB LAWS TO ANNOY AND CONTROL PEOPLE. FUCKING CUNTS. GG
PS: Devrant will have to remove this rant when this law passes...and probably 90% of the joke category...
Edit: This would be worse than Russia blocking websites. New fucking communism5
Guys. Seriously. Get a grip. I get it. The new laws are not perfect. Some will even say that they suck. But you cannot tell me that the current laws were okay and covered all bases on copyright. Getting it under control is a process and it will require us as citizens to make meaningful choices with our votes. But simply repealing the law outright is not necessarily the best choice. We need to get a good idea on what is right and just, what is legitimate and then criticize the law. Being against it because it's a trending topic is not cool. It's moronic. E.g. Wikipedia won't die over this. Public content won't die over this. Some content will be more restricted because the copyright owner wants it to be. The implementation will be difficult but this does not mea that it will hurt liberties of the citizen. If anything quite the opposite. It's kind of amusing seeing people call privacy i to this. Privacy laws are unchanged. I'm all in favor of activism (and hacktivism) but let's do it right.19