Sad. The public gave their opinion two months. It appears they haven't listened.
What actions can the average citizen take against this?
EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’
121–130 of 1001 posts
Re: EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’
#122This is so sad but kind of expected. EU is run by politicians and the public has very little to no insight. After this goes through I will become a single-issue voter, to leave the EU.
Do you really believe this is something politicians came up with in the first place? This is another example of the classic lobbies-driven political decision where politicians pass legislations as a favour to their friends in corporate A or corporate B. Also, if they think this will fix the revenue problems of the majority of newspaper publishers they are certainly wrong, newspaper are not dying because people read n…
It's worse: this is driven by Doepfner and co. They don't even hide.
Re: EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’
#123You see where this at national level, I have some access and ability to plead against it. But instead we've three MEPs serving a constituency of near 800,000 and they're never around. I hate the removal of substantive access to local politicians that the EU has.
How is this a local issue though? It affects 500m people directly so should be debated at that level.
Re: EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that Google is without question a monopoly, and so I think that there is a valid argument that it needs to be regulated and be forced to be impartial in the results shown. The fact that they show people's content without giving them page views (in a world where page views are how you get significant amounts of money, not to mention subscription opportunities) is a conscious decision to implement a feat…
> The problem is that Google is without question a monopoly This is just false. bing.com exists. news.ycombinator.com exists. reddit.com exists.... > The fact that they show people's content without giving them page views.. This is just false. Google shows at most an excerpt (that is defined by the publisher) or a headline (on news.google.com). Unless you're talking about AMP, but that's a decision made by the publis…
Just because there are other websites on the internet does not mean that Google doesn't have a monopoly. They have 91% search engine market share.
Re: EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that Google is without question a monopoly, and so I think that there is a valid argument that it needs to be regulated and be forced to be impartial in the results shown. The fact that they show people's content without giving them page views (in a world where page views are how you get significant amounts of money, not to mention subscription opportunities) is a conscious decision to implement a feat…
> The problem is that Google is without question a monopoly This is just false. bing.com exists. news.ycombinator.com exists. reddit.com exists.... > The fact that they show people's content without giving them page views.. This is just false. Google shows at most an excerpt (that is defined by the publisher) or a headline (on news.google.com). Unless you're talking about AMP, but that's a decision made by the publis…
Monopoloy: exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Re: EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wish the EU would, so that it stops damaging things for the rest of the planet. Eventually the costs of complying with the EU's decrees will get high enough where it will make more sense for companies to block European traffic than comply.
It's already happening. chicagotribune.com leads to http://www.tronc.com/gdpr/chicagotribune.com/ for example. Not sure what to think about that.
If (cost of providing content to EU visitors) > (revenue generated from separate non-personalized ad network for EU visitors) { turn off EU visitor access }
Re: EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’
#127If GDPR didn't make you block the EU, this will.
I have no idea how you think those two are even remotely related or in the same category.
Oh, and by the way, as long as you show something to EU visitors (even an error page telling them to GTFO), you need a privacy policy.
Re: EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’
#128UKIP and the Green Party joined forces to prevent Article 13 from getting rammed through without a public discussion. It was a good first step, but here we are, 2 months hence, and it was passed with virtually no amendments to the original text. This is an abhorrent decision by people who have no idea how the internet works. Markus Meechum (aka Count Dankula) was at the hearings, and reported that MEPs voting on the…
I may be naive in saying this, but I believe the law is made with good intentions in mind. The real problem lies in the laws it relies on, namely the extremely stringent copyright laws and the weird fair use. > Much of YouTube content is (perfectly legal) remixes, responses, or criticisms of other YouTube content that embeds part of the referenced video in their own video. As weird as it sounds, you are wrong. In a s…
I don't believe this is true. Every legitimate YouTube fair use case that I've seen go to court has gone in favor of the fair user.
The biggest name one so far is the H3H3 trial.[1] One that looks to be settled soon is Akilah Hughes suing Carl Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad), where all that Benjamin does is edit together two of Hughes videos with the only original addition being a new title. This is almost certainly going to go in favor of Sargon, yet YouTube's algorithms turned up to the nth degree would almost certainly have blocked it.[2]
If you go outside of YouTube, fair use law in the United States is very broad. Just look at what Richard Prince does with others' art. [3]
edit: added links
1. http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/41037631/youtube-stars...
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LMgGBDZbJY
3. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/18/instagram...
Re: EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's going to work like jaywalking - it's illegal, but I've done it, and it's fine as long as it doesn't cause a bigger issue, and as long as enforcer isn't overzealous. It's true though, that it's a weapon waiting to be used for political reasons, and the perspective of that happening is no good for anybody.
No individuals or companies can gain money from suing you for jaywalking. This is different.
Yes, the OP did also state that point as well. The comparison was just to illustrate that this law is unenforceable at large scale so people might just disregard it. The danger is, as he and yourself have both stated, you then have a situation where the law becomes a weapon to be abused rather than legislation to safeguard businesses or consumer interest.
Re: EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’
#130Is there anything good about this law? Is there any logical, coherent argument for what benefit it might provide to anyone?
I think the most "noble" angle you could have is that it's supposed to protect artists and help them benefit from their work instead of having it "stolen" by third parties. Of course in practice it seems like it will do nothing of the sort but if you only look at it on the surface to a casuals observer it might look like it would actually do some good.
On one hand I'm sad that the EU fell for that crap, on the other copyright law is so fucked up already that it kind of feels like more crap in a bucket of crap. One day this whole thing will become completely unsustainable and will have to be rebuilt from the ground up.