I'm sure they'll show as much respect to the manga that they show their anime series by missing volumes in the middle of series so you have no idea what is going on, or miss major plot points.

They upped the requirements to monetize a channel - because ads where been displayed on terrorist videos etc as a way to protect the advertisers because the large advertisers stopped advertising on Youtube...

The requirements first run was something like 100 followers and a certain amount of watched time a month, since then they have been upped and upped again.

Now they are going to put videos on all the small content again, without the smaller creators getting a cent this time.

What Happened to protecting the advertisers from bad creators? or is the "protection" costing the Advertisers to much in lost revenue...

MS changed to the Chrome engine in edge because Youtube kept making changes that broken hardware support for videos (on edge)... basically they ended up making MS use the chrome engine.

Google is there to make profit... controlling an entire market is one solution for them...

The laws have been written to be so vague, that they would also cover sites like the Chaser and Betoota - these Laws are so bad, I'm surprised that google decided to play ball...

I hate FB with a passion - however I do think they have done the right thing...

What the Australian government is trying to do here is worse. the news agency's basically are able to set the rate to be paid. The new laws also make it illegal for google to deindex them if they fail to come up with an agreement on price. Also they have to tell the news companies how their algo's work - and give written notice 30(?) days in advance of an algo update.

With the way the laws are now, the 2 options are pay what the news companies demand, or withdraw google search from the Australian market.

I wouldn't be surprised if they had planned this for a long time. They heavily upped the requirements due to advertisers saying that their ads where been run on bad videos - and they where from smaller creators.

Now... that it has died down, they'll put the ads back on the smaller creators without giving them a cut - with all the changes they have made recently - this is going to be a big windfall for them - basically they would of more then doubled their incoming by not sharing the revenue from the ads - but they also play a lot more ads as well.

But I guess it's OK to do this, as the smaller creators which will be a decent portion of their ad views, won't be able to do anything about it - their individual voices are to small to raise an issue over this.

"with consumers' rooftop solar systems contributing 77 per cent."...

The people in S.A got sick of losing power so often, and been charged though the nose for it - that a quite a number of them got roof top solar. 77% of the 100% renewable for that hour was provided by the people themselves not the government or private power providers.

This really is a result of how badly the state have managed their power grid over the last few decades. While it's going in the right direction - clean energy wasn't the goal here, it was the ability to generate energy as an end user so you weren't losing access to it 3-5 times a week due to bad infrastructure.

Twitch already does this - check out a steam that plays popular music - and you'll see red bars across the timeline where it has been done. They have been doing this for a few years now.

Can you explain to me - how charging something $1-$5 dollars to play a commercial song is "fair use".

Fair use is generally using a small part of an item i.e:- 30 seconds of less of a song - not playing the full works - let alone selling access for it.

Whether you like it or not - they made the songs - so they own the songs. The streamers can buy rights to play songs on their stream - or use music that isn't copyrighted.

However they decided to play the highly popular current music to get more viewers and money - this is commercial usage...

Before I start - I want to be clear that I streamed daily on Twitch for over 4 years until recently.

There are 2 parties here I don't feel sorry for...
1) The affected Streamers
2) Twitch

Both Twitch and the streamers knew this was coming. This was obvious because over the last few years Twitch has given out multiple warnings not to use copyrighted music - and even implemented features to combat it. If you look at archives of streamers who have been using copyrighted music - you'll see that there is an automatic mute that happens (red lines in the timeline bar).

The problem here isn't the music companies getting heavy handed, it's the streamers using the music for commercial purposes - and Twitch failing to to enforce penalties to those that used it. Everything Twitch has done so far has been nothing better then a token gestor.

We are use to going against the music companies on this type of behavior and rightly so, like them putting a claim on a video on YouTube where you can faintly hear a song in the background.

However with Twitch, Streamers where playing popular music (aka copyrighted), and even selling access to it - by the of allowing viewers to pay to select the next song on the playlist (from YouTube mostly).

To put it clearly - streamers and Twitch(via commissions on bits) where/are using copyrighted music in a commercial fashion profiting from it directly. This also includes increasing view ships of said streamers.

There are a ton of streamers on Twitch that didn't do this - and won't be affected by this action. The ones that are - don't have the right to call foul on the matter - they where warned continuously by Twitch - and knew what they were doing was wrong.

Do you really think that the Music companies where going to allow this to stand? twitch has at best done some token actions - obviously the Music companies have had enough, and decided to go for the Jugular - If Twitch had taken it more seriously to start with, then they wouldn't of had to take such serious matters...

I would be rather p'd off about that as well. Luckily here in Australia - we have laws that protect us from type of thing. If something fails when you reasonably expect it to function (IE the battery swelling - manufacture fault), then they are required to replace it by law. The ACC has and will take company's to court over this type of thing - and they put huge fines on them for it as well.

Simple, Some seriously bad zero day exploit comes out and a foreign power uses it to start attacking infrastructure on a large scale - hospitals / power grids / emergency services / etc - wiping out systems or locking them down (some type of ransomware variation). Just because *YOU* can't think of a reason, doesn't mean there isn't one. However unlikely a scenario may be - it could happen, and that is the reason for emergency powers.

Our public funded broadcaster in Australia is the "ABC"... and they put items on the end of the name, I.e:- "ABC News". If they try and use "ABC Signature" in Australia - they will have issues.

The owner of the company I work for hates Microsoft with a passion, around 1/2 our office computers are now Mac's.
we have tried openoffice, officelibra etc. However the problem is they aren't 100% compatible, there is always formatting issues, colour issues, and in some instances data just went missing.
in the End, the owner gave in, and purchased office for MAC for all the machines, and also all the pc's. Unless something has massively changed in the last several months i can see this been a great waste of time and money.
With the amount of time it takes to get things done in government as it is, this is only going to slow them down even more.

This is a business level product.

While you can build one cheaper using DYI parts, however the time spent in wages, for souring the hardware, software and doing the software can add up very quickly

.

Then there is also support and maintenance - will having a custom built machine cost more in the long run?

The more you spent on the machine - the bigger the margin for the DYI version - however at the end of the day - is the cost worth it for business?