EU Passes new Controversial Internet Law re: Memes, Link Tax & Upload Filter

https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/12/17849868/eu-internet-copyright-reform-article-11-13-approved

In summary:

Here's what the EU voted in favour of this morning:

* Upload filters: Everything you post, from short text snippets to stills, audio, video, code, etc will be surveilled by copyright bots run by the big platforms. They'll compare your posts to databases of "copyrighted works" that will be compiled by allowing anyone to claim copyright on anything, uploading thousands of works at a time. Anything that appears to match the "copyright database" is blocked on sight, and you have to beg the platform's human moderators to review your case to get your work reinstated.

* Link taxes: You can't link to a news story if your link text includes more than a single word from the article's headline. The platform you're using has to buy a license from the news site, and news sites can refuse licenses, giving them the right to choose who can criticise and debate the news.

* Sports monopolies: You can't post any photos or videos from sports events -- not a selfie, not a short snippet of a great goal. Only the "organisers" of events have that right. Upload filters will block any attempt to violate the rule.

Here's what they voted against:

* "Right of panorama": the right to post photos of public places despite the presence of copyrighted works like stock arts in advertisements, public statuary, or t-shirts bearing copyrighted images. Even the facades of buildings need to be cleared with their architects (not with the owners of the buildings).

* User generated content exemption: the right to use small excerpt from works to make memes and other critical/transformative/parodical/satirical works.

WTF MAN

BREXIT NOW

What the *bleep* is that bullshit.

I've never been more in favour of brexit than i am now.

Good riddance, memes that involve 9/11 etc are just ignorance and show little to no sympathy to the actual victims familys. All memes were fun when you were a kid but are pretty dull at this age tbh

^ You do know this is not just for "offensive" (which is again a very dangerous precedent, since the word can be interpreted differently by different people) memes, but literally all meme images....I thought Europe was the beacon of liberal democracy in the world ?


Also, I can't understand how ANY sports/football fans can be okay wit this:

Sports monopolies: You can't post any photos or videos from sports events -- not a selfie, not a short snippet of a great goal. Only the "organisers" of events have that right. Upload filters will block any attempt to violate the rule.

Most of it just screams let's shit on freedom of expression and support corporations to control as much as possible.

It sounds absolutely terrible.

Sounds like contemporary liberalism

A proper description of it brings more perspective. That article linked in the OP is pretty much just propaganda.

Lol surely this wont stand.....

I agree that there's lots of people who steal content and content creators are not protected but this is definitely not the solution.

This can't happen if the vast majority of people is against it. Absurd.

rincon wrote:That article linked in the OP is pretty much just propaganda.

It was all over the frontpage of Norway's largest news publication yesterday, as well. Pretty sure it's not just propaganda.

This is just a law proposal, the final vote is in January. Very misleading article title.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:This is just a law proposal, the final vote is in January. Very misleading article title.

Oh lol, I hope it doesn't go through then. But I would argue the things proposed shouldn't have even gotten this far.

https://translate.google.no/translate?sl=no&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fe24.no%2Fnyheter%2Feu-vedtok-omstridt-direktiv-om-opphavsrett%2F24438959&edit-text=

Great Leader Sprucenuce wrote:

BarrileteCosmico wrote:This is just a law proposal, the final vote is in January. Very misleading article title.

Oh lol, I hope it doesn't go through then. But I would argue the things proposed shouldn't have even gotten this far.

Yeah agreed. Hopefully it does not pass.

Thimmy wrote:

rincon wrote:That article linked in the OP is pretty much just propaganda.

It was all over the frontpage of Norway's largest news publication yesterday, as well. Pretty sure it's not just propaganda.

Of course it is. There are literally large bold all caps colored letters saying "THE FIGHT IS FAR FROM FINISHED"

It's a misleading headline. They ignore key articles, they ignore key provision in the articles they mention.

Things like this have to be better communicated. These a real problems that need complex solutions that affect all of us, and certainly need to be discussed with more nuance than "THE FIGHT IS FAR FROM FINISHED".

This was the first round of voting.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4446228/meme-killer-copyright-eu-article-13/

The vote passed with 438 in favour, 226 opposed and 39 abstaining. EU lawmakers will have to work out details of the final law with the 28-member nations before it’s put to a final vote in early 2019.

So the title is not misleading. This was the preliminary vote and it passed with a strong majority. The final vote only 4 months away ... I was reading on other forums that this was the best stage to completely kill off the motion and it'd get harder every step as it nears full passing. Hope i'm wrong

------------------------------
Also a very interesting chart of who voted for and opposed to this:



Cuckservatives (is there anything more useless than center right cuckservatives anywhere in the world?)

Left and Populists

Some measures I'm sure, some I'm not sure which way I lean on, only thing I'm sure of is that the issues that this tries to tackle have to be tackled.

For the most part what I think is that this will not do as much as its being made to be, not "RESHAPE THE INTERNET GLOBALLY" as per that article. IF it passes: At best, it's a shakedown of Google, Facebook and co. that may set precedent for them to lose a step in the internet monopoly. At worst, it won't do anything, won't get enforced, will be repealed, ignored and forgotten quickly enough. There are some grey areas and individual countries have to enforce from interpretation so there's hope that some things can't/won't get done.

It's for the most part ways to try to make google pay the content creators whose contents it massively profits from. The discrepancy between the degree to which google (and co.) profits relative to the creators of the content it exploits is disproportionate. How many times do we hear about musicians get shit pay from Spotufy, and then we turn and see they get less or nothing from Youtube?

It's great for us users to have access to unlimited content for "free". The problems is that it isn't actually free, we exchange our data for it and google profits and monopolizes more and more, while disregarding data protection laws and shafting the content creators.

Open source sites (like wikipedia) are exempt from any of this, as are educational institutions, and scientific research.

The article about copyright screening, in its strongest interpretation, basically calls for large hosting sites to use the same kind of technology that Youtube already has been using for a decade.

Small companies and individual users are exempt from this, and only have to remove copyright stuff if the publisher requests it (so no change from how it currently works).

The real problem, for me, is the restriction on links by aggregators (like news). They can link the article and use some descriptors, but can't reproduce the headline and snippet in full, unless they pay the site creating the content. Today the sites get paid by traffic and not by views while on a list of links like google news. I get the point here in trying to make google accountable for profiting disproportionately of all content it presents while paying 0 euros to the creators. The implications of this seem too risky when we are talking about news. I don't think this will hold at all even if the law passes.

Well, you can't deny that there's a crapload of copyrighted material freely available on sites like youtube. Songs, tv shows, audio books... it's not exactly right towards the copyright holders of these that people can access their stuff so easily for free.

Maybe peer-to-peer networks will rise again if lots of that free content disappears.