Communication to the public online: protecting copyright or breaking the Internet?

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 390-398
Author(s):  
Andrew McWhirter
Keyword(s):  
The Internet ◽  
Communication To The Public ◽  
The Public

11. Copyright in the digital environment

2019 ◽  
pp. 274-304
Author(s):  
Andrew Murray
Keyword(s):  
Public Relations ◽  
Information Society ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Communication To The Public ◽  
Digital Environment ◽  
Considerable Time ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Right ◽  
Public Right

This chapter examines copyright issues from copying and distributing information from the internet. It considers the discussion focuses on how the internet has challenged the application and development of copyright law, considering web-copyright concerns such as linking, caching, and aggregating, citing Google Inc. v Copiepresse SCRL. It spends considerable time discussing the operation of the temporary eproduction right though key cases Infopaq International, and Public Relations Consultants Association v Newspaper Licensing Agency. The analysis then moves on to examine the communication to the public right created by the Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society Directive, examining the application of the right through key cases such as Nils Svensson v Retriever Sverige, GS Media v Sanoma Media, and Stichting Brein v Ziggo BV.

Hyperlinking

2021 ◽  
pp. 255-270
Author(s):  
Poorna Mysoor
Keyword(s):  
The Internet ◽  
Communication To The Public ◽  
The Public ◽  
Implied Licence ◽  
The Right

This chapter studies hyperlinking and how implied licence can help better understand it both when the content was placed on the internet by or with the copyright owner’s consent and when it was not. Hyperlinking enables establishing links between different webpages and is critical to enhancing the efficacy of the internet. Although scholars are still divided, courts have held that hyperlinking engages the right of communication to the public. However, the approach adopted by the courts suffers from inconsistencies. This chapter instead argues that it makes sense to regard hyperlinking as amounting to the exercise of the right of communication to the public based on a consistent interpretation, and asks whether such exercise does not infringe the right because of the licence implied on different bases.

Detecting “DeepFakes” in H.264 Video Data Using Compression Ghost Artifacts

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (4) ◽  
pp. 116-1-116-7
Author(s):  
Raphael Antonius Frick ◽  
Sascha Zmudzinski ◽  
Martin Steinebach
Keyword(s):  
Image Forensics ◽  
Video Data ◽  
Experimental Results ◽  
Video Sequences ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Video Content ◽  
High Quality ◽  
The Public

In recent years, the number of forged videos circulating on the Internet has immensely increased. Software and services to create such forgeries have become more and more accessible to the public. In this regard, the risk of malicious use of forged videos has risen. This work proposes an approach based on the Ghost effect knwon from image forensics for detecting forgeries in videos that can replace faces in video sequences or change the mimic of a face. The experimental results show that the proposed approach is able to identify forgery in high-quality encoded video content.

The Internet Trap

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Hindman
Keyword(s):  
The Internet ◽  
Net Neutrality ◽  
The Public ◽  
Attention Economy ◽  
Digital News ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Over Time

The Internet was supposed to fragment audiences and make media monopolies impossible. Instead, behemoths like Google and Facebook now dominate the time we spend online—and grab all the profits from the attention economy. This book explains how this happened. It sheds light on the stunning rise of the digital giants and the online struggles of nearly everyone else—and reveals what small players can do to survive in a game that is rigged against them. The book shows how seemingly tiny advantages in attracting users can snowball over time. The Internet has not reduced the cost of reaching audiences—it has merely shifted who pays and how. Challenging some of the most enduring myths of digital life, the book explains why the Internet is not the postindustrial technology that has been sold to the public, how it has become mathematically impossible for grad students in a garage to beat Google, and why net neutrality alone is no guarantee of an open Internet. It also explains why the challenges for local digital news outlets and other small players are worse than they appear and demonstrates what it really takes to grow a digital audience and stay alive in today's online economy. The book shows why, even on the Internet, there is still no such thing as a free audience.

Im Archiv der Öffentlichkeit

2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rudolf Maresch
Keyword(s):  
Mass Media ◽  
Public Sphere ◽  
Digital Media ◽  
Structural Transformation ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Oder Eine ◽  
The Public ◽  
Postal Services ◽  
The Public Sphere

Durch den digitalen Medienwandel ist der Begriff der Öffentlichkeit problematisch geworden. Die Debatte fokussiert sich zumeist auf die Frage, ob die sogenannte bürgerliche Öffentlichkeit durch das Internet im Niedergang begriffen ist oder eine Intensivierung und Pluralisierung erfährt. Rudolf Maresch zeichnet die berühmte Untersuchung der Kategorie durch Jürgen Habermas nach und zieht den von ihm konstatierten Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit in Zweifel. Dagegen verweist er auf die gouvernementalen und medialen Prozesse, die jede Form von Kommunikation immer schon gesteuert haben. Öffentlichkeit sei daher ein Epiphänomen nicht allein des Zeitungswesens, sondern der bereits vorgängig ergangenen postalischen Herstellung einer allgemeinen Adressierbarkeit von Subjekten. Heute sei Öffentlichkeit innerhalb der auf Novitäts- und Erregungskriterien abstellenden Massenmedien ein mit anderen Angeboten konkurrierendes Konzept. Mercedes Bunz konstatiert ebenfalls eine Ausweitung und Pluralisierung von Öffentlichkeit durch den digitalen Medienwandel, sieht aber die entscheidenden Fragen in der Konzeption und Verteilung von Evaluationswissen und Evaluationsmacht. Nicht mehr die sogenannten Menschen, sondern Algorithmen entscheiden über die Verbreitung und Bewertung von Nachrichten. Diese sind in der Öffentlichkeit – die sie allererst erzeugen – weitgehend verborgen. Einig sind sich die Autoren darin, dass es zu einer Pluralisierung von Öffentlichkeiten gekommen ist, während der Öffentlichkeitsbegriff von Habermas auf eine singuläre Öffentlichkeit abstellt. </br></br>Due to the transformation of digital media, the notion of “publicity” has become problematic. In most cases, the debate is focused on the question whether the internet causes a decline of so-called civic publicity or rather intensifies and pluralizes it. Rudolf Maresch outlines Jürgen Habermas's famous study of this category and challenges his claim concerning its “structural transformation,” referring to the governmental and medial processes which have always already controlled every form of communication. Publicity, he claims, is an epiphenomenon not only of print media, but of a general addressability of subjects, that has been produced previously by postal services. Today, he concludes, publicity is a concept that competes with other offers of mass media, which are all based on criteria of novelty and excitement. Mercedes Bunz also notes the expansion and pluralization of the public sphere due to the change of digital media, but sees the crucial issues in the design and distribution of knowledge and power by evaluation. So-called human beings no longer decide on the dissemination and evaluation of information, but algorithms, which are for the most part concealed from the public sphere that they produce in the first place. Both authors agree that a pluralization of public sphere(s) has taken place, while Habermas's notion of publicity refers to a single public sphere.

On Waxen Wings: Challenges to the Public Sphere in the Network Age

2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mike Francoeur
Keyword(s):  
Public Sphere ◽  
Public Discourse ◽  
The Internet ◽  
The Public ◽  
Digital Space ◽  
Multiple Viewpoints ◽  
Internet Users ◽  
Economic Production ◽  
The Public Sphere ◽  
Communicative Space

There is a tendency, particularly among Western pundits and technologists, to examine the Internet in almost universally positive terms; this is most evident in any discussion of the medium’s capacity for democratization. While the Internet has produced many great things for society in terms of cultural and economic production, some consideration must be given to the implications that such a revolutionary medium holds for the public sphere. By creating a communicative space that essentially grants everyone his or her own microphone, the Internet is fragmenting public discourse due to the proliferation of opinions and messages and the removal of traditional gatekeepers of information. More significantly, because of the structural qualities of the Internet, users no longer have to expose themselves to opinions and viewpoints that fall outside their own preconceived notions. This limits the robustness of the public sphere by limiting the healthy debate that can only occur when exposed to multiple viewpoints. Ultimately, the Internet is not going anywhere, so it is important to equip the public with the tools and knowledge to be able to navigate the digital space. 

The Public Services Provided by Brazilian Government Over the Internet

2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jorge Calmon Moniz de Bittencourt Filho ◽  
Elizabeth R. Loiola
Keyword(s):  
Public Services ◽  
The Internet ◽  
The Public ◽  
Brazilian Government

Write–Reach–Repeat

2020 ◽  
pp. 1083-1093
Author(s):  
Robin M. Boylorn
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Public Sphere ◽  
The Internet ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Future ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter considers the role, importance, and impact of public intellectualism on the future of qualitative research. The chapter argues that the move toward technology and the public dissemination of information via the internet requires a shift in how and what we research with an expressed intention of reaching a broader and nonacademic audience. The chapter considers the relationship between the private and public sphere, and the so-called “bastardization” of intellectualism to explain the role and rise of public intellectualism in qualitative research. By considering issues such as personal subjectivity, accountability, representation, and epistemological privilege, the chapter discusses how public contexts inform qualitative research and, conversely, how qualitative research can inform the public.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document