Before we get started, it needs to be noted that the admins of this forum do not like anything that supports illegal activities, and that is absolutely correct.
THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT DOING ANYTHING ILLEGAL.
I hope we can have a discussion without this thread being locked.
The European Copyright Directive ... is long and full of legealese, as I understand it, it is summed up in three main points ...
* Article 11 - linking to other sites would require a fee to be paid to the site being linked.
* Article 11 may also include quoting two or more words either deliberately or coincidentally in text or other means
* Article 13 - forcing internet service providers to apply filters to everything being uploaded to check for copyrighted content and block it as it is being uploaded.
These are the main points people have issues with. They are not advocating illegal activities, but are concerned about freedom of speech and whether this will basically shut down the internet in Europe.
I think this video describes it better than I could. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-D89qZ1jgzM
This has already happened. Google was providing a free news service, Google News, in Spain. Spain trialled this fee for linking to other sites, and Google ... GOOGLE, the biggest internet company in the world, pulled Google News from Spain and refused to pay any fees. That was six months ago and Google still has not returned Google News to Spain.
Against this directive: Google, Facebook ,Youtube and Tim Berners-Lee to name but a few.
THIS WAS PASSED ON 12TH SEPTEMBER AND IS BEING KEPT QUIET ON THE INTERNET.
I'm trying to remain neutral in this post and just present facts for you, but it's hard.
I hope we can discuss this without crossing the line on illegal topics that this forum rightly enforces.
Why have we not been talking about the European Union Copyright Directive?
Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum
Why have we not been talking about the European Union Copyright Directive?
Formerly "Alien Tech Inc."
Re: Why have we not been talking about the European Union Copyright Directive?
Not going to comment on all of it, as I've not read the directives as of yet. However, to pull you up on something quite quickly as it needs clarification.Alien Tech Inc. wrote: ↑Sat, 29. Sep 18, 10:18This has already happened. Google was providing a free news service, Google News, in Spain. Spain trialled this fee for linking to other sites, and Google ... GOOGLE, the biggest internet company in the world, pulled Google News from Spain and refused to pay any fees. That was six months ago and Google still has not returned Google News to Spain.
I don't believe Google was providing a news service as we should understand it. By that I mean - Google did not pay journalists to seek out news, write articles for them.
Their "free" news service pulled source material from various locations and displayed it; it was news aggregation.
Their idea is that people would search Google, find the news (as Google has kept constantly crawling their content and therefore picks it up v quick to rank it in their search algorithms) displayed as snippets or so in the search results, and link to it. It's a convenience service to us lazy lot
it also depends highly upon what Google deems displayable. Google can literally control what you see. Their rationale was, during events, people will search and the event was never displayed. With this, they can include news that matches search terms in near real time. Very convenient I will agree! They spun that into the news service. I don't feel sorry if Google News disappears. Google isn't some evangelical company of awesome, it is a global business with it's own interests at heart - not yours. Google news didn't exist to give people the news, it existed for you to use their service, be tied into their business, to become dependent upon Google. It was to ensure their search engine was what you wanted (allegedly due to 9/11 Twin Tower searches bringing back non news only when people just wanted to know what was happening). This was purely to keep their services front and centre of your life.
I'm not saying Google News was only bad as a service itself, and I'm certainly not saying that the European Copyright Directive is good or without flaws either - I've not looked at it and I'm sure it'll be overly onerous in many ways.
But in this instance, using Google as a victim to explain why the EU directive is bad is laughable. Google violates many laws, intentionally, and is being repeatedly fined by the likes of the EU for anti competitive behaviour through their dominance and positions. Don't buy into Google's "plight" over their news service.
Indeed, look at the companies you mention. Google and Facebook. Two that rely upon keeping you in their ecosystem for their own profit, now complaining their profits will dip as they have to pay to display data that... is aimed to keep you in their environment, using their ecosystem, making them money. "Lulz".
Re: Why have we not been talking about the European Union Copyright Directive?
Regarding the fee paid:
Can the content author negotiate that fee or the lack of?
Does that work the same way with TV media/ news?
Article 13 seems like a fantasy. ISPs will do what exactly? Read encrypted traffic? Or this is something else?
Can the content author negotiate that fee or the lack of?
Does that work the same way with TV media/ news?
Article 13 seems like a fantasy. ISPs will do what exactly? Read encrypted traffic? Or this is something else?
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!
Re: Why have we not been talking about the European Union Copyright Directive?
Is that "linking to a site"? If yes, who should pay the fee to Youtube? You (who wrote the link) or Egosoft (whose site has the link)? Who is the content owner? Youtube or the creator of the video? If the latter, will Youtube relay the fee to the owner?
Goner Pancake Protector X
Insanity included at no extra charge.
There is no Box. I am the sand.
Insanity included at no extra charge.
There is no Box. I am the sand.
Re: Why have we not been talking about the European Union Copyright Directive?
Pandora's box
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!
Re: Why have we not been talking about the European Union Copyright Directive?
It'd also depend on host location... it is EU after all, not WU.
Still not got around to reading it yet, early search didn't immediately bring up the actual text. Then attention wen... ohh butterfly.
Re: Why have we not been talking about the European Union Copyright Directive?
I'm getting most of my "deep background" on this from here, fyi: The Verge: EU Copyright DirectiveAlien Tech Inc. wrote: ↑Sat, 29. Sep 18, 10:18Before we get started, it needs to be noted that the admins of this forum do not like anything that supports illegal activities, and that is absolutely correct.
THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT DOING ANYTHING ILLEGAL.
I hope we can have a discussion without this thread being locked.
The European Copyright Directive ... is long and full of legealese, as I understand it, it is summed up in three main points ...
* Article 11 - linking to other sites would require a fee to be paid to the site being linked.
* Article 11 may also include quoting two or more words either deliberately or coincidentally in text or other means
* Article 13 - forcing internet service providers to apply filters to everything being uploaded to check for copyrighted content and block it as it is being uploaded.
These are the main points people have issues with. They are not advocating illegal activities, but are concerned about freedom of speech and whether this will basically shut down the internet in Europe.
I think this video describes it better than I could. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-D89qZ1jgzM
...
What this seems to be in response to is garbage "content" sites that do nothing but snatch copyrighted material and then display it so as to make it appear it's their own work. It also seems to cover people who take copyrighted material and use it as the majority "content" for their own profit, with no artistic, journalistic or other credible, non-infringing, purpose.
As the article quotes "“If you think the internet is made up of just YouTube and Facebook, you will come up with this sort of sweeping legislation.”
So, this raises the question: Are "Reaction Videos" covered? IMO, most of them should be stricken from the 'net. (The "Kid's React" ones are hilarious as well as the related "Irish react to eating/drinking something," which are funny as @$%^$... OK, so not all of them should be stricken...
But, there are far too many people out there ignoring Copyright laws. This isn't just a reaction to reaction-videos. It's a reaction to the wholesale slaughter of Copyright laws on the 'net. I am a staunch supporter of Copyright Law. Creators deserve to be rewarded for their efforts to enrich our lives and should have confidence that people will support and protect their intellectual property. It's not just the rampant sharing of entire libraries of copyrighted material, but the dastardly theft of copyrighted material being used to generate income for people who did nothing more to earn that income other than to create a webpage and steal someone else's work.
Artistic license, substantive commentary, educational or public information use of copyrighted material is still being protected, as far as I know. IOW - Those legitimate uses of copyrighted material, including the legitimate use of that material to create "memes" are all still under protection. Our memes are safe.
What isn't safe are sites and services that blatantly steal material and then repackage it as their own. But, somehow actually managing to enforce this new ruling is going to be problematic. This is one of those times when just because we can think of something, that doesn't mean it can be done. Someone obviously expects someone else to enforce this law. And, that someone else thinks they can try to automate some process that makes what someone wants do to be done... That is not going to happen any time soon.
Most places have laws against "littering." Fines for throwing used drink cups and cigarette butts out the car's window and spreading them across the countryside are common. But, how is that enforced? It's enforced when someone, a person, catches the person doing this in the act. Should car manufacturers be required to equip all automobiles with a "magical cigarette butt scanner" that tracks the origin, use of, and disposal of a cigarette after use? The E.U. is saying "YES! THEY SHOULD DO THE THING BECAUSE WE WANT THE THING!"
/sigh
It's a laudable goal, protecting Copyright Law. But, when they jump into an ocean like this, they need to first figure out how to build a darn boat. Any attempt to use "computer magic" to "make the thing do" in this regard is going to end up like Youtube's "automagic copyrighted music filter" which can end up striking an innocent 'tuber's vid when they do nothing more than hum a few bars of a song. If that's the sort of process they want to implement, the E.U. will turn into an "Original Content" wasteland.
Why?
A large portion of the 'net is made up of people sharing ideas. Many of those ideas originate with something someone else may have copyrighted. Or, at the very least, they may own publication rights. And, inevitably, even completely original thought, which doesn't happen very often, incorporates the culturally spread memes that are popular at the time. Somewhere in that chain is going to be something that someone may actually legitimately own rights to. This sort of public discussion and information is a legitimate use of Copyright law. After all - Copyrighted Material is intended for consumption by the public. So, it's going to appear all over the place. No "bot" or "filter" now known is going to be able to parse legitimate use from illegitimate use.
Sometimes, and it may be surprising to some, we actually have to use self-discipline in order to do what is right, true, and just. No magical computer is going to be able to enforce morality or ethics. The E.U. wants "somebody else" to do all of this rather than slapping some people on the back of the head and ordering them to be better... people.
Just a note: No, that link would require no monetary reimbursement under the new ruling as far as I am able to interpret it. This discussion is covered under International Copyright Law as I currently understand it, including the application of the new E.U. law/ruling/thingie.
But, if the vid was embedded into a different page, it's source masked so that it appeared to be someone else's work, and Youtube's embedded advertising or ad trackers stripped, then it would be illegal. (That already is, btw.) It's also worth nothing that some services, like Youtube vid downloaders, will be immediately effected if they are in or touch content in the E.U. Why? They offer a product produced by someone else and then monetarily gain from it by circumventing the creator's efforts to fairly monetize their own content. So, if there's any cat vids you want to download, you better hurry up!
Re: Why have we not been talking about the European Union Copyright Directive?
What this is really about is killing freedom of expression and suppressing so called ' memes'
They will not succeed if they try they will ignite anger.
.
They will not succeed if they try they will ignite anger.
.
Not only is that immoral but also I think impractical.here's a new directive in the works in the EU right now, with a vote scheduled for next week. Article 13 of that directive would regulate the uploading of copyrighted works, essentially requiring internet platforms to apply automatic filtering to detect copyright infringement.
Since most people sharing memes do not have the copyright of the image they're using, internet platforms could decide that the easier way to comply with Article 13 is to err on the side of caution and ban everything, memes included.
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest."
-Thomas Paine-
-Thomas Paine-
Re: Why have we not been talking about the European Union Copyright Directive?
It's the nuclear option that some will take if the EU moves forward with rigorously enforcing extreme interpretations of this rule. I don't think the EU is that stupid... But, we must never underestimate someone's ability or desire to truly be stupid...
I think this is something that is designed to be selectively applied. But, in a pinch, it could get out of hand. Websites have gone through periods of banning links/embedded images/etc and it wouldn't be unheard of to see that again. Keep in mind that this is for public sites where unknown people without a clear provenance for license are frequent "content providers." Posting memes wouldn't be the norm for commercial sites and only rarely for news organizations. And, since they're about making money, the responsible ones get the licenses to post those images.
Re: Why have we not been talking about the European Union Copyright Directive?
I've mostly being ignoring due to the following thought process.
- Politicians have (in this case the EU) proposed a thing.
- Everyone who knows anything about the thing says the proposal is: a) really badly thought out, b) impossible to implement anyway.
- In my experience every time these two things have aligned in the past the proposal has been eventually dropped (well unless there's a referendum on it of course. )
Am I wrong? Are they actually likely to do the impossible thing that happens to makes 90% of the internet illegal?
- Politicians have (in this case the EU) proposed a thing.
- Everyone who knows anything about the thing says the proposal is: a) really badly thought out, b) impossible to implement anyway.
- In my experience every time these two things have aligned in the past the proposal has been eventually dropped (well unless there's a referendum on it of course.
)Am I wrong? Are they actually likely to do the impossible thing that happens to makes 90% of the internet illegal?
"Shoot for the Moon. If you miss, you'll end up co-orbiting the Sun alongside Earth, living out your days alone in the void within sight of the lush, welcoming home you left behind." - XKCD
Re: Why have we not been talking about the European Union Copyright Directive?
I don't know that they will actually enforce it as written. IIRC, there's a clause in there that dictates the "spirit of the regulation" or its "intent." That would supposedly be there as a guideline for enforcement. The thing is, the actual regulation is written so it can be, somewhat, widely interpreted. It's written in "Idontunderstandtehinterwebz" language.
So, let's stay they wrote a speed-limit law, in FreedomUnits:
"The Speed Limit in this area is 40 miles per hour."
A plane flies overhead, is traveling at 300 mph and is immediately fined and brought up on regulatory charges which revokes its license to be an aircraft...
Obviously, that's not in the "Spirit of the Law." The law was written for automobiles traveling on the road. It also exempts emergency vehicles responding to an emergency. At least, as commonly understood.
But, without the specific language to define the "Spirit" of the law, it may be that people can define it however they like. The "intent" is not to limit, as the regulation states, "Fair Use." IF that is true, and the definition of Fair Use is understood to be the same as is commonly used, then there's not much wrong with this law. But, if that definition isn't very rigid and is open for interpretation, which it shouldn't be, then people may be able to abuse this regulation to stifle social commentary. That is, reportedly, not it's purpose and the "Spirit of the Law" is stated that way.
If it sticks with its published intent, then it won't present an issue. If people attempt to use the regulation for their own purposes and attempt to apply wide interpretations of it in legal cases, things might get a bit difficult.
Memes should be safe. "Fair Use" images and video should be safe. Fair Use article citations and excerpts should be safe. Commentary that makes artistic use of both images, video, and text should be safe. All of this should be true, but only if the understanding of "Fair Use" of copyrighted material is appropriate.
Re: Why have we not been talking about the European Union Copyright Directive?
Read this again, erm, are you sure? It seems to refer to platforms, not internet providers. So Facebook, Youtube, Tumblr etc. The most compelling arguments against as far as I could see were how it would disadvantage startups in the EU compared to the rest of the world, as they'd be required to implement or pay for filters for their service.
The arguments about memes are a bit tenuous... but maybe I'm a bit too laid back and don't believe anyone would ever go after memes.