This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Google is threatening to pull its search engine from an entire country — Australia — if a proposedlaw goes into effect that would force Google to pay news publishers for their content. “If Facebook is also in the ACCC’s sights with this particular law, and is threatening to block its news from being shared in Australia , too.
Google has published an open letter about a newly proposed government regulation that would compel it to pay media outlets for news content. Google’s arguments include a claim that the law would give an “unfair advantage” to news publishers by giving them information they could use to boost their rankings compared to the competition.
This was first introduced (to my knowledge) in the Stakeholder's Platform discussions, which were the quickly ginned-up alternative option created in response to the original introduction at WIPO of the Treaty for the Visually Impaired ("TVI") by Brazil, Ecuador and Paraguay (and now co-sponsored by Mexico). The concept of TIs uses U.S.
Through negotiations, four competing proposals have been merged into a single document supported in June by the Latin Americans (led by Brazil), the U.S., In addition, the two national organizations of blind people both just passed formal resolutions in favor of the treaty proposal. the European Union and others.
I was part of an expert panel that drafted the original proposed treaty. law that made it legal for us to scan just a bout any book without needing to get permissions first. Brazil, Ecuador and Paraguay joined together to propose that WIPO consider this treaty.
In a recent blog post , Ed explains why growth markets are key to this proposed merger of two of the publishing world’s biggest players. Penguin, he points out, is a growing power in China, India and Brazil, while Random House is pervasive across Spanish-speaking Latin America.
We discussed Chafee, especially in the context of the Amazon text-to-speech brouhaha, and the proposed international treaty that was tabled at the WIPO SCCR meeting in Geneva last month. copyright exemption for serving the print disabled is commonly called the Chafee Amendment: Section 121 of copyright law. copyright law.
The lawsuit alleged that the social network “fuels its business with countless infringing copies of musical ‘compositions, violating Publishers’ and others’ exclusive rights under copyright law.” On February 8, Twitter Blue extended services further to India, Indonesia and Brazil.
Trending sideways : Facebook rejected a proposal to share ad revenue with news organizations, saying there would “not be significant” impacts on its business if it stopped sharing news altogether. Lawmakers in New York proposed a new law that would prohibit police from using geofence warrants as protests continue to grow.
The Trump administration is “looking at” a lot of things, and many previous insane-sounding proposals have come and gone without ever being enacted. Others, such as President Trump’s Muslim ban, took a few tries — but eventually became law. This piece goes deep on the intricacies of the law, and the arguments against it.
“That’s the irony of all this,” said Nathaniel Persily, a Stanford University law professor who studies technology and democracy. An executive order like this had first been proposed last August , after the White House invited ordinary Americans to share stories about times when they felt they had been unfairly censored by social networks.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 12,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content