EU Copyright: Block Everything, Never Make Mistakes, but Don't Use Upload Filter

Post by kodablah » Tue, Dec 11, 2018, 2:55 PM UTC

AsyncAwait wrote: post #195

kodablah wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why? People are affected by the practical application. Even if you argue that intent matters once it reaches a court or regulator, that is long past the effect.

Because when a law is pushed by corporations, aimed at individuals, you're not likely to have much recourse, as an individual targeted by such a law. The hammer is going to drop on you and that's that. A law such as the GDPR, which is targeted at corporations primarily, is worded in such a way that no company is going to get massive fines if they seriously tried to comply, but for whatever reason failed to do so. The…

Post by Zak » Tue, Dec 11, 2018, 2:56 PM UTC

growt wrote: post #99

Zak wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Upload filters like ones on youtube are super biased towards taking down anything that looks like copyrighted content Youtube's filter removed the audio track from a video of mine that was essentially silent to start with. There was certainly no music, TV, movie, etc... in the background.

You were obviously playing four minutes thirty-three seconds of silence by John Cage[1] on repeat in the background! Crystal clear copyright violation! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4%E2%80%B233%E2%80%B3

Post by koffiezet » Tue, Dec 11, 2018, 2:58 PM UTC

kodablah wrote: post #144

munchbunny wrote: post #4

I tend to put GDPR and this Copyright bill in different camps. The copyright bill is insane. GDPR is... also a bit insane, but the hard parts shine light on what we probably should have been doing which are now hard to do because we've spent so long ignoring the ethical elephant in the room. GDPR is very far from perfect, but I think it's still directionally good. The copyright bill is just bad.

> I tend to put GDPR and this Copyright bill in different camps [...] GDPR is very far from perfect, but I think it's still directionally good Depends on the context. I tend to see how one begets the other. GDPR is good by intent, but is bad by implementation. The copyright bill is bad by both intent and presumably implementation. And since it turns out that only implementation matters, many would agree that we'd be…

Post by heavyset_go » Tue, Dec 11, 2018, 3:00 PM UTC

XCabbage wrote: post #158

Sir_Substance wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>No; tokyodude is asking what happens if you request that (for example) Google erases your data, and he has your email address in his Gmail contacts. Oh, well in that case this is explicitly handled in recital 18. https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-18/ > Point (b) seems to suggest that it applies by default if the basis for originally processing the data was the subject's consent... but that the controller can override…

I think part of the issue here is that a plain English reading of the GDPR implies such appalling totalitarian overreach that most people find it hard to believe that it can really be what's meant. I mean, you've just agreed with my reading that the GDPR gives me the power to reach into your personal inbox and censor your records of communications with me. That sort of power for bad actors to carry out historical rev…

Post by foolrush » Tue, Dec 11, 2018, 3:03 PM UTC

sjroot wrote: post #3

Policies like this make it glaringly obvious how little our government representatives around the world understand technology. It almost seems malicious, or at the very least anticompetitive. Who has access to such filtering systems already, or the resources to create one? GRPR regulations, while I absolutely realize their necessity, have made it difficult for me to expand my side business into the EU. This would jus…