katsbits.com/blog

Click to get the RSS master feed

Article 11 of the EU Copyright Directive (link tax)

June 19, 2018, 06:10:20 PM by kat

TL:DR; as with the previous discussion on Article 13 of the EU's Copyright Directive, Article 11, the so called "link tax" clause, is not so much about taxing links, but obligating governments to act on behalf of Stakeholders in pursuit of their copyright claims and broader enforcement - "Member States shall provide publishers ... with the rights [outlined] in Article 2...". Again the use of "shall" is indicative of an order or obligatory mandate, not a voluntary action.

Quote
TITLE IV
MEASURES TO ACHIEVE A WELL-FUNCTIONING MARKETPLACE FOR COPYRIGHT

CHAPTER 1
Rights in publications

Article 11
Protection of press publications concerning digital uses

1.Member States shall provide publishers of press publications with the rights provided for in Article 2 and Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC for the digital use of their press publications.

2.The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall leave intact and shall in no way affect any rights provided for in Union law to authors and other rightholders, in respect of the works and other subject-matter incorporated in a press publication. Such rights may not be invoked against those authors and other rightholders and, in particular, may not deprive them of their right to exploit their works and other subject-matter independently from the press publication in which they are incorporated.

3.Articles 5 to 8 of Directive 2001/29/EC and Directive 2012/28/EU shall apply mutatis mutandis in respect of the rights referred to in paragraph 1.

4.The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall expire 20 years after the publication of the press publication. This term shall be calculated from the first day of January of the year following the date of publication.

Notes on the above:
Para. 1. Essentially the 'link tax' clause although nothing in the paragraph lays this out explicitly so any such outcome would be as a direct consequence of right-holders claims and subsequent State enforcement of those rights/claims (State acting on behalf of vested interests over those of citizens).

With that said, depending on how this is enforced it could lead to a tax on or license to link, but... to what degree is a link considered subject to copyright when urls are often auto-generated from input that may or may not mean anything beyond being a URL or include descriptive words that could be/would be usefully policed for infringement.

How is content to be treated with respect to Robots.txt, permissive access granted by rights holders to have certain elements of their material index by search engines - if access is granted through Robots doe this also imply consent/limited licence of use. What obligations are services subject to if denied access by robots.txt. Are copyright monitoring agencies exempt from all considerations (e.g. Mark Monitor).

Para. 2. Copyright as a 'natural' or automatic right recognised of authors, creators et al, should not be affected by the new legislation. Similarly, previsions already afforded to creative works should not be restricted - although not expressly spelled out this should mean that allowances for 'fair use' (and its European equivalent, e.g. 'fair dealings' in the UK) and 'transformative works', should not be affected by the Directive (fair use and transformative works are allowances or degrees to which infringements may be tolerated within the confines of copyright law, they are not exemptions). However, this would be contingent on Rights-holders pursuit of infringement claims and to what degree they require State intervention on their behalf to police those claims/rights.

Para. 3. Directive 2001/29/EC "Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society". Directive 2012/28/EU "Directive 2012/28/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on certain permitted uses of orphan works". "mutatis mutandis".

Para. 4. It's not clear if the twenty year limitation is exclusive or inclusive of the normal 70+ years afforded under previously established copyright legislation (e.g. Berne Convention on copyright). This might then mean copyright claims in some circumstances being claimed to be 90+ years instead of 20.

Additional Reading
- EU considers hyperlink Copyright
- EU Commission & Restricting YouTube for the Public Good
- MarkMonitor, AWS and site scanning abuse
- Illegal Hate Speech, the EU and Tech
- "Net Neutrality" has been hoodwinked, yet again!
- Two tier Internet - Net Neutrality has been hoodwinked
- Draft Investigatory Powers Bill (as passed "Investigatory Powers Act 2016")

Article 13 of the EU Copyright Directive

June 12, 2018, 08:24:59 PM by kat

TL:DR. In short the European Directive on Copyright reform essentially places the legal rights of corporations above those of sovereign Nations, the individual and those afforded through due process. In other words, the Directive grants Rights Holders supranational authority to make claims of infringement and have service providers and EU Member States act on their behalf to ensure those claims are properly prosecuted instead petition member States through their legal systems - supranational legislation in service of corporations rather than corporations subject to National legislation.



Generally speaking the use of "shall" in the following is indicative of an order or mandate (an enforceable requirement), not a request, optional obligation or other type of voluntary action.

Quote
CHAPTER 2
Certain uses of protected content by online services


Article 13
Use of protected content by information society service providers storing and giving access to large amounts of works and other subject-matter uploaded by their users

1.Information society service providers that store and provide to the public access to large amounts of works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users shall, in cooperation with rightholders, take measures to ensure the functioning of agreements concluded with rightholders for the use of their works or other subject-matter or to prevent the availability on their services of works or other subject-matter identified by rightholders through the cooperation with the service providers. Those measures, such as the use of effective content recognition technologies, shall be appropriate and proportionate. The service providers shall provide rightholders with adequate information on the functioning and the deployment of the measures, as well as, when relevant, adequate reporting on the recognition and use of the works and other subject-matter.

2.Member States shall ensure that the service providers referred to in paragraph 1 put in place complaints and redress mechanisms that are available to users in case of disputes over the application of the measures referred to in paragraph 1.

3.Member States shall facilitate, where appropriate, the cooperation between the information society service providers and rightholders through stakeholder dialogues to define best practices, such as appropriate and proportionate content recognition technologies, taking into account, among others, the nature of the services, the availability of the technologies and their effectiveness in light of technological developments.

Comment;
Para. 1. In a nutshell paragraph "1" obligates content providers, that's any party or entity providing access to their own, or the content of others, enable monitoring mechanisms that filter content for suspected Infringements or Rights Holders material based on their criteria and to their satisfaction, "adequate and proportionate". The legislation does not provide remedy from inadequate or disproportionate monitoring except as outlined in Para 2 (see below). In other words Para 1. defines a playing field where rights holders are able to force service providers into actively monitoring their networks for infringements based on what may be ever-changing rules, and in ways that may subject Users to increased privacy violation risks as a consequence - the Directive effectively creates an ecosystem in which Rights Holders fish or trawl for infringements, requiring services provide 'actionable data', rather than Rights Holders prosecuting specific instances of infringement, which raise additional due-process concerns.

Para. 2. Service providers and EU member States are liable for consequences arising from monitoring, policing and prosecuting claims not Rights Holders. Remedy i.e., refuting or disputing a claim is the responsibility of service providers and member States. In other words, Rights Holders are in a position to make claims but not be held to account for false, incorrect or otherwise improper prosecution.

Para. 3. Grants Rights Holders the ability to coerce other businesses/services into compliance - essentially Rights Holders are able, through legislatively authority, to engage in anti-competitive behaviours, dictating compliance from other companies and corporations, in pursuit of their rights - their rights supersede those of others.

Additional Reading
- EU considers hyperlink Copyright
- EU Commission & Restricting YouTube for the Public Good
- MarkMonitor, AWS and site scanning abuse
- Illegal Hate Speech, the EU and Tech
- "Net Neutrality" has been hoodwinked, yet again!
- Two tier Internet - Net Neutrality has been hoodwinked
- Draft Investigatory Powers Bill (as passed "Investigatory Powers Act 2016")


Footnotes:
[1] the original, and much longer draft version (8 sub-paragraphs rather then 3) of the above can be found here "Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on copyright in the Digital Single Market - Mandate for negotiations with the European Parliament".

Fact-check: Valve will no longer police Steam Store

June 10, 2018, 12:18:13 AM by kat

TL:DR. If outside third-parties want to dictate the rules by which Valve assesses content on Steam, they can accept legal and financial liable for any and all consequences in this being so.

As a matter of fact: Valve will no longer police its service.

Fact Check: True/False


Since Valves announcing it will be taking a more laissez-faire approach to policing Steam Store ("Who Gets To Be On The Steam Store?"), press and media coverage on the matter has almost universally represented the move as an abandonment of the services to alt-right, alt-lite, Nazi-bigot, racist-mongering mongers, and that in various ways Valve is telling the world it no longer cares about [insert current-year cause]. In essence that 0.001%[1] of content will somehow spread, infecting Steam Store into oblivion (or so the catastrophic rhetoric seems to suggest. Ed.).

Checking such claims and assertions against what Valve actually said (cf. below), as a matter of fact(TM): Valve did not they will stop policing Steam Store[2], their actual words were that they would "focus less on trying to police what should be on Steam". Or more plainly, Valve is making it clear (in ever-so-nice-a-way) they "will be focusing less on policing Steam the way a vocal minority are saying we should, instead leaving it up to its developers and users, customers who actually use the service.".

It's no wonder Valves decision has so many up in arms. The resulting splatterfest of opined column inches is not about Valve's Steam Store policing policy per se, rather it not being done in deference to wholly unaccountable[3] outside interests whose motivations are not aligned with Steams broader user-base.

Quote
If you're a player, we shouldn't be choosing for you what content you can or can't buy. If you're a developer, we shouldn't be choosing what content you're allowed to create. ... Our role should be to provide systems and tools to support your efforts to make these choices for yourself... ... we've decided that the right approach is to allow everything onto the Steam Store, except for things that we decide are illegal, or straight up trolling. Taking this approach allows us to focus less on trying to police what should be on Steam, and more on building those tools to give people control over what kinds of content they see.


Footnotes:
[1] 0.001% is pure speculation as definitive demographic data to qualify the claim is not available to the public.

[2] if Valve are to act on 'illegal' and 'trolling' content they need to be actively policing/monitoring Steam Store to some degree as a prerequisite to facilitate enforcement of that policy.

[3] the problem with capitulating or acting in deference to third-parties is that they are never the ones holding the ball when things go belly up... should a developer or customer sue Valve as a consequence of third-party induced policy changes or enforcement, who is then responsible for servicing that action (the same problem arises from use of third-party Codes of Conduct).

Games Media, Cultural Critics and Partisan Duplicity on Violent Video Games

March 10, 2018, 03:24:34 PM by kat
Violent video games cause violence TODAY/violent vidoe game don't cause violence YESTERDAY

Over the last few years a cancerous zeitgeist has been slowly enveloping gaming, one that insists video games cause various forms of harm irrespective of subject, context or intent; that overt expressions of "violence" not be considered prerequisites; that obligates subjective interpretation above objective intent[1]; that perceives "violence" to mean anything the individual might deem unwanted or unwarranted; and that words and actions are equal[2].

This confluence of circumstance[3] has become particularly intractable, spread as it is through the ease by which involved parties, media and press, advocates, activists and allies, politicians, are willing and eager to conflate "cause" with "reinforce", "promote", "perpetuate", "normalise", "desensitize", often interchangeably as mood, cause or convenience dictate. In this way video games can be blamed for "sexism", "online harassment" and "abuse", "misogyny", "hatred", "Islamophobia", "bigotry" and all manner of social-ills infecting society at large including, perhaps most incredulously, the election of President Trump.

Such is the all encompassing narrative this creates discussion has become part and parcel of the broader political landscape; legislation is proposed and in some instances signed, activists, advocates and their ilk push their causes, informed by a debate they presume and position themselves to control, that { video games = violence } = { violence = harm } = { harm = violence }, propagated through highly questionable selective filtering[4].

In such an environment then, when Trump calls for a discussion on violent video games in the wake of another mass shooting, his embroilment triggers the aforementioned through shear enmity into reflexively reiterating a situationally forgotten belief, that violent video games do not in fact cause violence ("Oh I remember now" Ed.), one seemingly contrary to every position previously and currently espoused on other topics, solely because Trump made the claim, paraphrasing their talking points, deftly snatching control of the conversation from their hands; violent video games "desensitize our community to violence"[5], an assertion authoritatively propagated in other contexts as the ever expanding and multifariously unfalsifiable realms of *.isms, *.ists and *.phobias etc.

Make no mistake, game and cultural glitterati, a veritable cohort of pseudo-gonzo, self-proclaimed, self-entitled, duplicitous miscreants if there ever were, piping up when formerly busying themselves vociferously disparaging and castigating games, gaming and game culture, only do so now to wrest narrative control back into their hands, away from Trump.

Once that happens they will all be back on track eagerly asserting video games 'cause' whatever they say it does, aggressively attacking and shaming differing opinions, citing highly selective studies and problematic research to prove a irrefutable and unfalsifiable premise or point[6].

Further Reading
- Dear Mr President, video games causing violence is "fake news"
- Violent Video Games & the Dishonest Debate
- Boom Headshot, perpetuating the 'murder-simulator' narrative through bad science.
- Dumb things pop-culture critics say: video games cause violence.
- Digital Self-Harm Among Adolescents, a new phenomena.
- Men harassed online more but like, seriously, it's not about them - Pew 2017.
- Moral Combat: Why the War on Violent Video Games is Wrong.
- Kicking ass and chewing bubblegum.
- Assassination Generation: Video Games, Aggression, and the Psychology of Killing.
- Virtual Reality Assault and Developer Responsibilities.
- Normalising/desensitising violence in games. An (initial) study.
- How social context influences violence-aggression relationship.
- Violence against males in games doesn't count... another study that 'proves' it.


Footnotes:
[1] both US and UK legislative and prosecutorial services have made great effort to emphasise the subjective and interpretive nature of an individuals actions, going so far as to state that a victims subjective perception be the determining factor towards a prosecution, largely to emphasise the public's perception of, confidence in, the judiciary, and to the victims mind they are at least being "listened" to if not outright "believed" (the so called "listen and believe" policy strategy/doctrine).

[2] being wholly generous in interpreting the situation it might be possible to claim "confluence of circumstance", i.e. that the antagonistic zeitgeist towards gaming is simply the consequence of coincidence. This would be false assumption for a number of reasons, least of which because; 1) journalists understand the power news reporting has, its ability to influence and make change, fundamental rubrics journalist formally learn; 2) advocates and activists understand narrative control, how its crafting informs perceptions of their cause, which is why more 'progressive' members of these communities engage in "culture-jacking", the hijacking of broader 'cultural' narratives (e.g. memes).

Where activist meets journalist the resultant activist journalist is in an incredibly power position to give disproportionate voice to their personal issues or causes, artificially inflating their prescience, making them 'political' tools to (mis)direct the public's attention and discourse away from issues that matter to the public at large on to those where they become nothing more than unwitting foot-soldiers to a "just and righteous cause".

Journalists and news media outlets know this, so too to politicians, advocacy groups and activists, they all know what narrative control is and how it effects open debate. It's why and how children and minors are pushed in front of news cameras, to sell a point of view instead of providing a picture of events as they transpire/d. It speaks volumes to those who would knowingly, intentionally, deliberately abuse the public's trust in this way, especially when there are no easy remedies or care to correct the record available to those persistently and egregiously wronged in ink.

[3] the comparative justification for violent words and violent acts being the same in the absolute (not 'similar' but 'same'), is predicated on mental harms to the individual then being manifest or expressed by victims in some way physically, an argument that supports the notion individuals can (do) suffer PTSD as a consequence of what are subjectively perceived to be 'acts of violence' towards themselves, especially where the individual is unable or unwilling to take affirmative action to prevent or stop the abuse, for example tweets and other social media content made by parties who otherwise pose no physical threat, the threat or possibility of actual harm is moot in this context, e.g. cf. "Hurtful Words: Association of Exposure to Peer Verbal Abuse With Elevated Psychiatric Symptom Scores and Corpus Callosum Abnormalities".

[4] cf.[4] Boom Headshot, perpetuating the 'murder-simulator' narrative through bad science - "Gerrymandering research is not so much cherry picking but selective filtering, data that supports a predefined conclusion is allowed though the filter even though it may not be fully supportive of the goal, whereas cherry-picking deals exclusive with selective bias. The difference between the two is that the former can give a greater appearance of veracity because conclusions aren't quite so easily refuted. In addition to this, journals giving voice to such 'soft-science' research are notorious for courting controversy for sake of notoriety or interest in their publications, often publishing controversial subjects that may or may not be backed by thorough research and/or exhibit preference towards fashionable political topics of discussion".

[5] Readout of President Donald J. Trump’s Meeting with Video Game Industry Leaders - "Today, President Trump and senior members of the Administration met with leaders in the video game industry and experts on violence to discuss violent video game exposure and its impact on our children. To date, the Administration has led many discussions about how to prevent violent behavior in our schools, with a focus on stopping those intent on committing mass murder. During today’s meeting, the group spoke with the President about the effect that violent video games have on our youth, especially young males. The President acknowledged some studies have indicated there is a correlation between video game violence and real violence. The conversation centered on whether violent video games, including games that graphically simulate killing, desensitize our community to violence.  This meeting is part of ongoing discussions with local leaders and Congress on issues concerning school and public safety and protecting America’s youth."

[6] Violence, Media Effects, and Criminology - "Overall, the lack of a consistent finding demonstrating that media exposure causes violent crime may not be particularly surprising given that studies linking media exposure, aggression, and violence suffer from a host of general criticisms. By way of explanation, social theorist David Gauntlett maintained that researchers frequently employ problematic definitions of aggression and violence, questionable methodologies, rely too much on fictional violence, neglect the social meaning of violence, and assume the third-person effect—that is, assume that other, vulnerable people are impacted by media, but “we” are not (Ferguson & Dyck, 2012; Gauntlett, 2001). (emphasis added)"

Dear Mr President, "video games cause violence" is "fake news"

February 26, 2018, 07:20:22 AM by kat

[images courtesy Pew Research]

TL:DR - Dear Mr. President. There is more compelling research highlighting the negative effects of *news media* on violence than for movies, games or other media. Of course "fake news" would say otherwise!.

As a consequence of recent events network and cable TV news, politicians, advocates and activists are busying themselves doing what they do best, demonisation. For now its violent video games, because it serves as leverage towards a related goal, citing them if not as a cause, certainly as significant contributing factor to this latest atrocity (despite nothing yet indicating this) that requires immediate remedial action as a result.

Taking this assertion at face value then, that violent video-games, violent movies and violent media in general cause violent behaviour[1], that killers kill as a direct consequence of their consumption and exposure to violence, the claim must contend with the fact that violent crime rates have been down-trending for the past 30 years or so since a peak around 1993, which coincides interestingly with similar moral outrage accompanying the release of Doom (1993) and more crucially the US Senate hearings on video-game violence and bloodshed also in (late) 1993, the so-called 'Mortal Combat' hearings.

This is not to say "correlation = causation", rather it's to highlight the fundamental contradiction between any truth the claim made hold, that violent games cause/lead to violent behaviour, and the evidenced data suggesting the opposite; given the available facts for the claim to be correct, the only conclusion one might then reasonably and perhaps generously make is that violent media consumption has arrested the significance, speed or severity of the decline over time - causing violence in this context might mediate or moderate the decline, making it slower overall, whereas to contradict or correct, the influence would have to be strong enough to counteract the downward trend, requiring further input to push the trend into the 'positive' in a way that would bolster the argument and make it 'true'. In this setting it would not be too hyperbolic to suggest that degree of violence being indicative of absolute chaos on the streets, The Purge 24/7 as it were, not what is empirically observed, making the claim, set as it is against a backdrop of significantly reducing rates of violent crime over time, false at face value.

With that said, it is possible to consider violent video-games, movies and other violent media causative of violent behaviour in one sense; the public's perception of violence, which is almost to the inverse of the published data[2], or it did reflect the data until late 2001 early 2002, a transformation that appears to coincides with 9/11 and concerns over terrorism.

This naturally means asking questions about the origin of this perception, where exactly does the public get this false impression that violence and violent behaviour is more significant that it actually is. Its rhetorical of course because the public's perception of issues affecting the public and society at large is formed almost exclusively by local and national news, more so than the relatively irregular consumption of movies, games or other media.

The research on this topic, the effects of news reporting[3], seems to indicate news is more informative and influential than other forms of media due to its persistence, prevalence and the viewers connection to it - news is seen as 'real' insomuch as it reflects events, people and places the public might recognise or be familiar or intimate with, especially where local news reporting is concerned, whereas movies et al are largely understood as being 'fake' or 'fiction', the viewer knows they are stories told to entertain. Again however, 'coverage' and 'consumption' do not equate to 'cause' in this instance either, at least not superficially.

With that said there are certain instances where it might be considered causative, particularly in the persuasive sense of encouraging individuals down paths not otherwise contemplated, something readily apparent with reportage on suicides, terrorism and other headline grabbing violence, acts often referred to colloquially as consequences of "the copycat effect"[4]. Again this does not specifically indicate a causative relationship, it again simply highlights that rather reductive argument, that "'X' causes 'Y'", and heavy use of emotional motifs and language, is unhelpful in understanding the breadth and depth of exactly what's going on.

Further Reading
- Violent Video Games & the Dishonest Debate
- Boom Headshot, perpetuating the 'murder-simulator' narrative through bad science.
- Dumb things pop-culture critics say: video games cause violence.
- Digital Self-Harm Among Adolescents, a new phenomena.
- Men harassed online more but like, seriously, it's not about them - Pew 2017.
- Moral Combat: Why the War on Violent Video Games is Wrong.
- Kicking ass and chewing bubblegum.
- Assassination Generation: Video Games, Aggression, and the Psychology of Killing.
- Virtual Reality Assault and Developer Responsibilities.
- Normalising/desensitising violence in games. An (initial) study.
- How social context influences violence-aggression relationship.
- Violence against males in games doesn't count... another study that 'proves' it.


Footnotes:
[1] in this context "violent behaviour" is understood to be an behaviour or conduct society general condemns, i.e. acts or expressions of outward aggression or violence towards others. The two main information sources for crime in the USA are defined by the FBI and BJS. In the Uniform Crime Reports the Federal Bureau of Investigation describes crime as "...murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, and human trafficking. Law enforcement agencies report arrest data for 22 additional crime categories". Similarly the Bureau of Justice Statistics in the National Crime Victimization Survey defines crime as; "...rape and other sexual assault, robbery, aggravated and simple assault, personal larceny, household burglary, motor vehicle theft, and other theft"
- The UK's Office for National Statistics in its Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) similarly describes and divides violent acts in terms of those reported to the Police and those reported through Citizen survey, ostensibly crime is largely "...against the population of England and Wales resident in households, and crimes against those households ... primarily [(including)] ... the offences of wounding, assault with minor injury, and violence without injury".

[2] Americans' Trust in Mass Media Sinks to New Low - "Americans' trust and confidence in the mass media "to report the news fully, accurately and fairly" has dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history".

[3] Oxford Research Encyclopedias - "Conflicting interpretations of research findings inform and shape public debate around media effects. Although there seems to be a consensus among scholars that exposure to media violence impacts aggression, there is less agreement around its potential impact on violence and criminal behavior.".
- Violence: Comparing Reporting and Reality - "The least common types of homicides received the most news coverage in Los Angeles County from 1990-1994. Specifically, homicides of women, children, and the elderly, and homicides involving multiple victims were reported more often than homicides involving one young or middle-aged adult. Actual crime rates showed that the majority of homicide victims were males between the ages of 15-34 with only one victim involved. Furthermore, gender, age, socioeconomic status, and relationship biases were found in homicide coverage (Sorenson, Manz, & Berk, 1998).".
- Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime "The media does not just decide what stories get that kind of attention, but what stories do not get that kind of attention. The murder of a homeless man is not likely to get as much media attention as the murder of a teenage girl from a middle class family. The media can focus on a story, thereby making it headline news, or ignore a different story, and the public will never know.".
- Understanding Media Coverage of Crime - Three explanations or models; 1. Market model (media gives public what they are interested in and what is in the public interest); 2. Manipulative model (media acts in direct in the interests of owners (Marxist theory)); 3. Production model (extent/nature of crime news function of how news is collected).
- What makes crime 'news'? - "... in fact all crime news stories that are published fit one of more of four classic forms of moral problematics. These categories should be understood as necessary but not sufficient conditions for publication. The argument is that candidate crimes stories for publication in daily newspapers must be shaped alone one or more of these four categories before they will be treated as newsworthy".

[4] Recommendations for Reporting on Suicide - "More than 50 research studies worldwide have found that certain types of news coverage can increase the likelihood of suicide in vulnerable individuals. The magnitude of the increase is related to the amount, duration, and prominence of coverage.".
- Increase in suicides the months after the death of Robin Williams in the US - "Although we cannot determine with certainty that the excess suicides were attributable to news media reports on Williams’ death, Williams’ death might have provided the necessary stimulus for high-risk segments of the U.S. population (e.g., middle-aged men in despair) to move from suicidal ideation to attempt. Therefore, the media industry can positively or negatively influence imitation suicides."
- The effect of media attention on terrorism - "Analyzing 61,132 attack days in 201 countries produces evidence that increased New York Times coverage encourages further attacks in the same country... If terrorists do not receive media attention, they will attack less.".
- Oxford Research Encyclopedias: Copycat Crime - "At this time, copycat effects are felt to be relatively rare and are most likely to appear in at-risk individuals predisposed to crime and in preexisting criminal populations. The effect of the media is thought to be more qualitative (affecting criminal behavior) than quantitative (affecting the number of criminals).".
- International Center for Journalists: mass shootings, media and the copycat effect - "...most journalists were in favor of perpetrator coverage and did not acknowledge a copycat effect ... But given research findings supporting a copycat effect, journalists should be aware that their perceptions of their work don’t always match the work’s actual impact.".
- CDC: Suicide Contagion and the Reporting of Suicide: Recommendations from a National Workshop - "One risk factor that has emerged from this research is suicide "contagion," ... Evidence suggests ... nonfictional newspaper and television coverage of suicide has been associated with a statistically significant excess of suicides.".
KatsBits Web
Search KatsBits using StartPage
Hottest item in Store right now!
Hot Product in Store
Visit the Store Now
^