caractacus

I still do not understand why anyone still believes anything Altman says about any matter, particularly commercial matters. if he told me he'd had eggs for breakfast, I'd be suspicious.

How on EARTH you go from 'sardonic comment about a pointless movie review site' to "gosh, you really should try and make a difference to something in your life!" is as patronising a take as I'll ever hear.

also this: "(I’m assuming you live in a western or otherwise free country, otherwise you may have bigger concerns than review payola on Rotten Tomatoes)" ... is simply hilarious, implying that 'western or otherwise free' countries don't have anything more important than messed up film reviews for me to want to change.

captainrenaultshocked.gif

Sorry to piggyback on this. I applied for a Director role at DDG about a month ago. Had the autoreply which said DDG would follow up whether it was a yes, let's talk! or a nope, sorry. But nothing at all which was a bit disappointing. The role has been taken down for a few weeks now. I wasn't looking for a new position at all but the description strongly appealed and it was DDG, a company I'd admired for years (and fully remote!).

The IA are trying to drum up support by stating that the publishers want to destroy libraries, which obviously makes them sound really awful. But publishers just want the IA to stop offering their copyrighted works for free to anyone at all times without paying any kind of license fee, which is not how a library works.

They don't want to 'squash lending'. They are delighted with public libraries who license books and lend out a discrete number of copies at any one time for a limited period of time. They don't like the Internet Archive version which is 'we shall upload any book we find and allow anyone to download it and keep it, forever'.

The publishers would like the IA to stop doing that. If the IA wants to keep offering things which are out of copyright or which the copyright owners aren't going to challenge, great. Go for it. This isn't an assault on the concept of a library which is what the IA is trying to pretend. It's a challenge on the IA's pretense that they are a library and not a stock of pirated books, amongst other items.

I tried "well-written fiction" and got back four non-fiction books about writing.

"intelligent fiction" - four non-fiction books.

"fiction by women" - two memoirs, two non-fiction....

So then I just tried "fiction" - guess what, four non-fiction books...

Gosh you make it sound like a schoolyard flirtation. "Stole a kiss". She was trapped in his car and he grabbed her by the throat. He grabbed another woman by the throat and didn't let go. He raped a woman. There is a pattern of behaviour here that is profoundly disturbing.

Victims are often frightened enough to not come forward. The kind of trial by social media in which you're now engaged is all part of that. Why allege anything when you'll be accused of making it up, being a slut, having your life history raked through by trolls online...

"Hunted by his money" ffs. "Without more data". Have some empathy.

Also note that he is NOT "being sued for sweet money" but criminally charged by a prosecutor. They don't do that unless they have strong evidence and there's no compensation to victims in a criminal trial.

"One thing that will definitely help is to have a good product"

o rly?

It's not copyright law, it's the agreements that YT has with copyright owners. No one is going to license their content to YT if the site allows anyone to download whatever is there.

No chance. YT has 2bn+ unique logins a month. China only has 800m internet users max. Further the video streaming landscape in China is much more fragmented than outside the country where YT is dominant.