Re: Best British sites today?
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2017 9:12 am
OEJ, The trailer looks very interesting. .
One of the interesting things about Mindgeek is that they happily and aggressively give away their own content through the tubes. What needs to be understood is that Capital (Wall St/City) has been seeking to capture the Internet since it was invented. Only by monopolising access to it can large corporations monetise it. Otherwise they are just another player along with every other person on the globe. Mindgeek is said to control 90% of all porn related internet traffic. After they eviserated the production websites they then bought them out. The money behind this comes from hedge funds. Private capital through private banks on Wall St. Notably Colbeck Finance, started by former executives from Goldman Sachs.
Like a lot of lemmings everyone goes along with this, or doesn't understand it. The British Government certainly doesn't.
What the Internet promised at it's inception was that anyone could publish anything to anyone else who cared to look. That was a threat to Capital that owned the media companies who controlled mass communication. Now of course, while anyone can put a web page on the Internet, it takes a modicum of knowledge and effort. Whereas posting on Youtube or Facebook or Youporn involves no effort at all, and no expense. It's free they say. So Internet startups lose money hand over fist giving away the bandwidth until they have a big enough hold on the user base to earn from selling your data and pushing advertising. The law that governs these companies is US law. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act exempts ISPs and other "intermediaries" from liability for infringement of copyright committed by their users. Their only responsibility is to take down infringing material upon receiving a complaint in a prescribed form. That's a long winded process that if successful offers no protection against the infringement being re-posted immediately. Similarly if a user posts a libel or Jihadi incitement on Facebook, only the anonymous user is liable not Facebook. This is plainly wrong. It's a conspiracy. If someone started a print publication and said we will publish any anonymous contribution without editing it and distribute it free it would inevitably fill up with copyright infringement, libel, and bollocks. But the publisher would be liable and it wouldn't last more than one edition. But that is what's been allowed to happen on the Internet.
A simple change to the Law should be made in the EU (and the UK if brexit happens) making it clear law that whereas an ISP is a "mere conduit" (and not responsible for the content they transmit), every website on the otherhand is a "publication", and the beneficial owners are liable for everything published on a website along with the contributor and any editor. Only then can the free speech be saved. And only then will you get decent British porn websites.
One of the interesting things about Mindgeek is that they happily and aggressively give away their own content through the tubes. What needs to be understood is that Capital (Wall St/City) has been seeking to capture the Internet since it was invented. Only by monopolising access to it can large corporations monetise it. Otherwise they are just another player along with every other person on the globe. Mindgeek is said to control 90% of all porn related internet traffic. After they eviserated the production websites they then bought them out. The money behind this comes from hedge funds. Private capital through private banks on Wall St. Notably Colbeck Finance, started by former executives from Goldman Sachs.
Like a lot of lemmings everyone goes along with this, or doesn't understand it. The British Government certainly doesn't.
What the Internet promised at it's inception was that anyone could publish anything to anyone else who cared to look. That was a threat to Capital that owned the media companies who controlled mass communication. Now of course, while anyone can put a web page on the Internet, it takes a modicum of knowledge and effort. Whereas posting on Youtube or Facebook or Youporn involves no effort at all, and no expense. It's free they say. So Internet startups lose money hand over fist giving away the bandwidth until they have a big enough hold on the user base to earn from selling your data and pushing advertising. The law that governs these companies is US law. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act exempts ISPs and other "intermediaries" from liability for infringement of copyright committed by their users. Their only responsibility is to take down infringing material upon receiving a complaint in a prescribed form. That's a long winded process that if successful offers no protection against the infringement being re-posted immediately. Similarly if a user posts a libel or Jihadi incitement on Facebook, only the anonymous user is liable not Facebook. This is plainly wrong. It's a conspiracy. If someone started a print publication and said we will publish any anonymous contribution without editing it and distribute it free it would inevitably fill up with copyright infringement, libel, and bollocks. But the publisher would be liable and it wouldn't last more than one edition. But that is what's been allowed to happen on the Internet.
A simple change to the Law should be made in the EU (and the UK if brexit happens) making it clear law that whereas an ISP is a "mere conduit" (and not responsible for the content they transmit), every website on the otherhand is a "publication", and the beneficial owners are liable for everything published on a website along with the contributor and any editor. Only then can the free speech be saved. And only then will you get decent British porn websites.