Hackaday Links: September 16, 2018

Hackaday Links Column Banner

Apple released a phone, the most phone in the history of phones. It’s incredible.

There are four machines that are the cornerstone of electronic music. The TR-808, the TR-909, the TB-303, and the SH-101 are the machines that created techno, house, and every other genre of electronic music. This week at KnobCon Behringer, the brand famous for cheap mixers, other audio paraphernalia of questionable quality, and a clone of the Minimoog, teased their clone of the 909. Unlike the Roland reissue, this is a full-sized 909, much like Behringer’s clone of the 808. Price is said to be under $400, and the best guess on the release is, ‘sometime in the next year’

Speaking of synths, [jan] has created a ton of electronic musical instruments based around single chips. There’s one that fits inside a MIDI plug, and another that also adds a keyboard. Now he has an ‘educational kit’ on IndieGoGo. It’s surprisingly cheap at $19.

Europe, currently.

Europe is outlawing memes (I’m 12 and what is this?).

The EU parliament adopted a proposal for a Copyright Directive, the most onerous proposal being Article 13, requiring platforms to adopt copyright filters to examine everything uploaded to a platform.

The takeaway analogy is that this proposal is opposite of the DMCA’s Safe Harbor provision that protects ISPs from consequences of user’s actions; If Article 13 is adopted, an image-hosting service could be sued by copyright holders because users uploaded copyrighted images.

Needless to say, this is dumb, and a massive opportunity for you to become a startup founder. Companies like Google and Facebook already have robots and databases crawling their servers looking for copyrighted content, but smaller sites (hackaday.io included) do not have the resources to build such a service themselves. You’re looking at a massive B2B startup opportunity when these copyright directives pass.

27 thoughts on “Hackaday Links: September 16, 2018

  1. “You’re looking at a massive B2B startup opportunity when these copyright directives pass.”

    Cloud, cloud, cloud, and it’s going to be done anyway, not JUST because of copyrighted materials, but all that other nonsense that end up on OPS (other people’s servers)

      1. Well I’m making the point that this onerous burden (filtering) is already happening/going to happen anyway, because of all the things like bad new, bad words, bad images, nosy governments, etc. Even if these directives aren’t passed, the other stuff will still exist.

  2. To be fair here, article 13’s worst point isn’t the content filtering and copy right detection “requirement”.
    To quote the actual text (article 12 paragraph 1):
    “Information society service providers that store and provide to the public access to large amounts of works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users shall, in cooperation with rightholders, take measures to ensure the functioning of agreements concluded with rightholders for the use of their works or other subject-matter or to prevent the availability on their services of works or other subject-matter identified by rightholders through the cooperation with the service providers. Those measures, such as the use of effective content recognition technologies, shall be appropriate and proportionate. The service providers shall provide rightholders with adequate information on the functioning and the deployment of the measures, as well as, when relevant, adequate reporting on the recognition and use of the works and other subject-matter.”

    It actually states that “Those measures, such as the use of effective content recognition technologies, shall be appropriate and proportionate.”

    So that use of content recognition is just a proposal, one could still do it manually, or by having users report it.

    It is though the second part after this that makes me curious, since: “The service providers shall provide rightholders with adequate information on the functioning and the deployment of the measures, as well as, when relevant, adequate reporting on the recognition and use of the works and other subject-matter.”

    Seems like something even Google, Facebook or others doesn’t live up to at current.

    Paragraph 2 is just stating “Member States shall ensure that the service providers referred to in paragraph 1 put in place complaints and redress mechanisms that are available to users in case of disputes over the application of the measures referred to in paragraph 1.”
    Practically that there should be a way to say, “That wasn’t infringing on a copyright.”

    And paragraph 3 the most important one: “Member States shall facilitate, where appropriate, the cooperation between the information society service providers and rightholders through stakeholder dialogues to define best practices, such as appropriate and proportionate content recognition technologies, taking into account, among others, the nature of the services, the availability of the technologies and their effectiveness in light of technological developments.”

    Source: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52016PC0593

    1. I should maybe continue that the last part practically states that, what constitutes as ” effective content recognition technologies” is up to the industry to set forth best practice guidelines for.

      Yes, at a first glance, this all might look like a stupid law that is overreaching and even seeming like politicians just spotted Google’s marketing blurb for their content filtering process. But in actuality the politicians behind this at least seems to have a grasp that maybe not all companies can have near endless resources to pour over a problem, and from that gather that a realistic ” effective content recognition technologies” might even be nearly non existent at current.

      Though, the whole debate about third party content recognition services and how that relates to privacy and data storage practices and how privet information is even handled is another question all together, in the end, that collision will eventually happen and that is after all covered in the “define best practices, such as appropriate and proportionate content recognition technologies, taking into account, among others, the nature of the services, the availability of the technologies and their effectiveness in light of technological developments.”

      So to not spin this wheel any further, if the technology isn’t there to have content filtering without stumbling over other laws, then the technology isn’t simply there and this whole article 13 is then just sitting there saying “But one day the technology will exist! And then I have meaning!”

      Even though it currently also accepts user reports as adequate….

        1. If a service provider has a high number of false positives, then is their content filtering proportionate? (I think they mean “well adapted” (the phrase and the word are synonyms) since symmetrical or harmonious seems a fair bit less logical in this context)

          But to out right penalize a service for having false positives might be counter productive, since false positives will likely always happen. Though, yes at some point there is just too many false positives, but where to draw the line is a good question. I can agree that if a service has way too many false positives they need to do something about it, and if they don’t do anything within a reasonable amount of time, then yes, give them a penalty.

          Then one could likely go on with questions in regards to service providers taking away the user’s ability to use certain functions when undergoing a copy right claims/disputes are processed, is it fair of a service to already remove functions when there is only a singular copy right claim/dispute is processed, or should the service only be allowed to when there is multiple claims being filed? Food for thought, but can a service penalize a content provider (user using the service) beyond the scope of the singular piece of content in violation, only for making small human mistakes once in a while? (I myself would say no in regards to singular once in a while violations since anyone can make a small mistake. But yes, depending on the severity of the case, things can differ.)

    2. “Appropriate”, “Proportionate”, “Adequate”, “Relevant”, “Facilitate”, …
      These are all ambiguous terms that lead to court battles. Where do you draw the line in the sand? Neither the copyright holders, the web sites, or the public wins here, only the lawyers. Effective laws spell it out clearly.

      1. Effective laws walk between the boundary of being effective and being obsolete. Fast paced technology makes that harder. Excessive verbiage leads to hard to understand laws, with lots of loopholes, for both sides to exploit (“it’s”)

      2. Paragraph 3 of article 13 should answer your question.
        Since article 13 in and off itself doesn’t state nor make claims for how to do anything, only that some form of content checking needs to be done on some level. Paragraph 3 clearly points out that all participating groups shall together put forth best practice methods of this content recognition, in regards to the nature of the service provided and the availability of the technology.

        Practically speaking, article 13 in itself states that service provides should check that the content they provided isn’t violating the copyright of the content being provided. And leave the huge question of how to do this up for future debate in regards to each type of situation that could arise.

        And article 13 paragraph 3 also states that with further development in the field of content recognition and license checking that it would only seem logical for the service providers to update their systems.

        But I can agree that the whole thing is rather ambiguous and vague at the best of times. But at the very same time the whole document is very clear with the fact that it leaves it up for future debate and that the nature of the service being provided can in fact impact what would be deemed necessary content filtering.

        It would almost seem more logical to just make a law to first unify copyright law within the European Union, and then make future laws in regards to the minimum requirements in the recognition of malicious use of copyrighted works, for service providers to live up to. But technically, that is what this whole document kinda is, but within one “nice” package.

      1. maybe not, but it was pretty good at not listening to the wishes of the general population and making crappy decisions based on ideological dogma rather than economic or cultural reality.

        1. This copyright thing is in the service of big business. Surely the opposite of what you claim. Except for it being crappy and against what the general public want. So more like the USA, say.

  3. As long as there is money to be had, the EU will be outraged. I think they would have collapsed into a Russian mafia stronghold if not for the brave folks at Microsoft and Google paying their light bill over the past decade.

    The best thing about jan’s creations are the crowdfunding pages that go silent.
    Never. again.

    1. Microsoft and Google haven’t paid much in EU taxes at all. Microsoft only paid France 32 million Euros in tax for 2016, despite having significant operations there. Last year there were reports that France would be seeking 600 million Euros in back taxes from Microsoft, but I haven’t seen any updates on that.

      European countries have also been going after Google, Apple, Amazon, etc, for their incongruously low tax payments.

  4. A new phone! I wonder what new-fangled crippling innovation went into these to force the user into having to buy a new one in 12 months time… we’ve seen the five-point torx, the removal of the phono socket (so you have to buy the bluetooth headphones), firmware written to slow down a phone when it gets “too old”…

    1. Yes very ho hum….

      It is consistent with the rest of the shmuck that has come out under the “leadership” of Tim Cook.

      Love him or hate him jobs had the vision to drive things forward Cook is just along for the ride down….

      1. Well Apple now needs to wait for someone else to make something new, so that they can release a phone two years later with enough marketing hype to make it look like they’ve invented it.

    2. I had just talked my wife into an Android because her 5S would be obsolete with iOS 12, due out tomorrow or something. Annnnd it’s still supported. Just when you think you’ve got apple figured out.

      1. iPhones 5s, 6, 6s, 7, 8 and now X#
        So your wife’s iPhone 5s came out in 2013 and is five years old.
        Please enlighten me which non-Nexus Android phone from 2013 can be easily upgraded to run Pie or even Oreo?


  5. B2B iis a ne abbreviation to me. But what represents, isn’t nothing new to me.B2B probably, is as old, commerce itself. I’m not one to discourage anyone creating new business, but ponder that all this may have came bout, because Google has a service they want to peddle. The contest of the post suggest Google my have head start.

  6. Sounds more like a B2G opportunity that’s already happened. Some butthole startup with their incredible new copyright-protecting technology, has been bothering their representatives to try create a huge, legally mandated demand, for a product nobody in their right mind would give a shit about.

    Of course, they’ll have over-promised this during a lavish dinner, possibly on a wonderful holiday, to some old politician who still has his secretary print out his emails.

    And this is among many reasons why politicians ought not to be able to accept money from any outside sources for any reason. Because nobody would give money to a politician unless they expected something back out of it. Similarly with sinecures awarded for faithful service while in office. Being a politician ought not to require being rich, and it particularly should not be seen as attractive for someone who wants to make money.

    They could each get a few quid from the state for their campaigns, with no other financing involved. It’d mean they’d have to actually serve their constituents if they wanted votes, and demonstrate good policies and conscientiousness, rather than just lying in expensive adverts. Would that be a bad thing?

Leave a Reply

Please be kind and respectful to help make the comments section excellent. (Comment Policy)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.