Pure Awesome Sauce

Via @edyong209,* this, which I encountered at the Atlantic’s Technology strand.

As Kasia Cieplak-Mayr von Baldegg explains over at the Atlantic site, the video plays on the Leistungsschutzrecht controversy — a German take on the copyright/internet search/data wars recently much discussed in another context.   She writes, “the term refers to controversial copyright legislation in Germany that would require search engines and aggregators to pay licensing fees to publishers for displaying snippets of text.”

But it may be sufficient that it’s a lovely piece of animation — the cherry on top of a midday open thread.

*That would be this Ed Yong, proprietor of his old blog over at the shiny new National Geographic empire.  One of the best science hacks now scribbling.

13 replies
  1. 1
  2. 2
    TooManyJens says:

    Direct link, for those of you who are like me and can never play embedded Vimeo videos for whatever reason: http://vimeo.com/57175742

  3. 3
    Machine-Gun Preacher (formerly Ben Franklin) says:

    Hey well, everyone has to be paid. Otherwise the pipe is worth more than the content….bwaaaaaaa.

    Does that mean I can retrieve retro-active residuals from all my College papers after professors lifted key graphs for their own need to publish or perish?

  4. 4
    burnspbesq says:

    That is one cool-ass piece of animation.

    The German proposed legislation is a characteristically (perhaps even a uniquely) European response to the free-rider problem that is at the heart of the Internet. Is it the best solution? Hell if I know, but I’m not opposed to the experiment. It doesn’t seem to be that much different in concept that ASCAP and BMI, which have worked reasonably well to ensure that copyright owners in recorded music (which aren’t necessarily the musicians who made the recording) are able to collect royalties for the commercial use of the recording.

    Do I think it’s politically feasible in the United States? No. That horse left the barn about 15 years ago. The free-riders have won.

  5. 5
    Elizabelle says:

    Speaking of animation, I am loving today’s Google Doodle with the Zamboni.

  6. 6
    Machine-Gun Preacher (formerly Ben Franklin) says:

    Ortiz was a rising star. Heh,it’s mainly because she racked up the greatest fine totals.

    Landreiux doesn’t have her on the AG wish list. Hmmmmm.


  7. 7
    Machine-Gun Preacher (formerly Ben Franklin) says:

    Ortiz was a rising star.

    Landrieu doesn’t have her on the AG wish list. Hmmmmm.


  8. 8
    Machine-Gun Preacher (formerly Ben Franklin) says:

    MIT Open Science has a petition which asks MIT to apologize to Aaron’s family.

    via Cory Doctorow


  9. 9
    peorgietirebiter says:

    Thanks for the Ed Yong tip.
    “How, you might ask, does one measure the penis of a barnacle?”   “It’s as if Rube Goldberg built a fluffing device.”
    Science for the rest of us.

  10. 10
    TaosJohn says:

    The Atlantic? So, is this “sponsored content” or real content?

  11. 11

    i has a sad for the tyrannosaur

  12. 12

    @Elizabelle: yes, because that’s exactly what I need: my search engine to host a compelling video game! ;-/

  13. 13
    pinkpuppy says:

    @burnspbesq:The search engines are free riders? I’ve never understood that argument.

    Search engines includes the snippet as context so the user can figure out if the link is relevant. Unless the snippet is so large that it contains all the information needed (which would seem to violate existing fair use rules), the user will have to follow the link and the newspaper gets its page view.

    So the newspaper is already getting its fair share. With this legislation, the newspaper is trying to get Google to pay them for the privilege of sending them customers. It would be like a hotel demanding a kickback from any cabbie dropping off customers to the hotel.

    So it seems more like the newspapers biting the hand the is feeding them…

Comments are closed.