701–710 of 840 posts
Question to someone more familiar with how these votes work. Is this the page for this vote? https://www.votewatch.eu/en/term8-copyright-in-the-digital-s... If it is, it says 312 voted for it, 317 against it, 24 abstained. But it passed? Why?
Amendments did not pass 312-317 and Directive passed 3xx-247 (cant recall the exact numbers)
I know this is an extremely unpopular opinion, but I’m actually fine with more equality in copyright legislation. These “disastrous” copyright laws already apply to you and me, and if you think they don’t, then just try hosting a top 1 music video on your personal domain. Where the laws don’t apply is if your service is to host user content and you have the size to circumvent justice. YouTube makes a lot of money off…
Yes, and I don't want them to.
A wild guess: nothing changes, or things even improve somewhat. Not very invested into content distribution. If it has chilling effect on social networks, so be it. And memes can die for all I care.
Europe is more likely to be hived off from rest of internet as most companies won't cater to such nonsense. Progress continues, just less so in Europe.
China has already walled themselves off, Russia's been looking into it, the EU is just next in line.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As long as their cashflow in Europe is in black, they will absolutely cater. But we'll see soon enough.
Doubt it. It's very easy to implement GDPR compliance, and A LOT of websites opted for blocking their content in Europe instead of working to make their services compliant. The requirements for being compliant with these directives are so difficult, than only major companies will have the resource to do it, and many will definitely not think it's worth the effort.
Really? I had the impression that it borders on impossible to be GDPR compliant. At least in theory. In praxis nobody is GDPR compliant and nobody cares.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nightmare-letter-subject-acce...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>But that's part of the problem. No, it isn't. Tech changes rapidly, and legislation quite simply isn't going to be able to encode a specific contextual mutating standard. Law isn't wrong to offload that analysis to an institution that is in the thick of it, with access to expert testimony and amicus information to inform it. You WANT the EFF and other advocates being able to weigh in on how the balancing factors sho…
> Tech changes rapidly, and legislation quite simply isn't going to be able to encode a specific contextual mutating standard. Law isn't wrong to offload that analysis to an institution that is in the thick of it, with access to expert testimony and amicus information to inform it. You WANT the EFF and other advocates being able to weigh in on how the balancing factors should work and you want the courts to listen. T…
Yes, this happens in all industries that have cases being litigated all the time. In some instances, areas of settled law are completely upended by new rulings that change the status quo and force people to spend money on complying with the new state of affairs.
Yes, it sucks, but this is business as normal. The tension between certainty and flexibility in the law is a longstanding one.
You want these elements decided at the court level because these elements change, and legislation needs to be good law for a looooong time, whereas a shitty ruling can be blown up in months (sometimes in days).
>But the fact that they did have a million users for twelve months may get them hauled into court.
If they had a million users on a platform that shares and promotes other people's copyrighted works without a license, I'd sure hope they figured out their IP strategy.
> If you say to those people that they have to implement Content ID because they have too many users, those projects are dead.
Why would they need to implement Content ID...? That's the nuclear option in the field.
Do you think a blog's comment section needs filtering unless it becomes a common vector for sharing copyrighted material? It doesn't.
The objective isn't to nuke small companies - it is to strike a fair balance between distribution and content creation. No one wants distribution dead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not all for-profit websites are run by big corporations. The companies you're describing here are also the ones that will find it easiest to comply with these new regulations. YouTube for example was already pressured to create a filtering system, ContentID. Behemoths like Facebook will have a far easier time adapting than your typical startup. Article 13 dooms smaller companies and startups, thus further entrenching…
>Article 13 dooms smaller companies and startups, thus further entrenching these big corporations. Only "smaller companies and startups" whose main purpose is "enabling users to upload and share a large amount of copyright-protected content with the purpose of obtaining profit from that activity". That's what the document says; how it will actually be enforced is still a mystery, of course. P. S. I have pointed to th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That description includes any for-profit services that involve user-generated content. That doesn't make me any less concerned. Also that link appears to be dead, so I'm not sure what comment you're referring to.
It's a link to a comment of theirs that is dead - not sure why it seems like a pretty good comment. I've vouched for it, hopefully a few other people with enough karma to do so will and it will resurrect itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This also affects small online communities, who pay for their servers by running a few ads. There are a lot of these platforms.
It does affect them, but differently: "Member States shall provide that, in respect of new online content-sharing service providers the services of which have been available to the public in the Union for less than three years and which have an annual turnover below EUR 10 million , calculated in accordance with Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC 20 , the conditions under the liability regime set out in paragraph…
That is not a requirement to fall under Article 13! Are you maybe mistaking "copyright-protected material" for "copyright-INFRINGING material"? Every creative text and photo is "copyrighted material", so this covers any for-profit UGC platform.
MEP Reda proposed making the above change in the text, that proposal was rejected. So the broad coverage is intentional.
A big part of the problem is that there is no single entity that defends the citizens interest in this instance. You have the Disney's of the world heavily lobbying to pass reforms like these, but who protests against it? - Online signatures? Gets laughed out of the room. They could be fake, they don't mean anything, they are paid, etc.. - Voting? Voting cycles are too long and voting decisions cannot be made on a si…
EU Elections are coming up. Vote for the pirate faction in your country or check who voted what and only vote for those parties that voted against A13 or if there are none, parties that are vocal against A13. Same goes for your countries own election cycle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's be honest here, I have much bigger fish to fry. I like a free Internet, but it's low on my list of concerns, way below affordable housing, much stricter control of my country's borders, better support for entrepreneurs, more security and better police, etc. I'm not going to vote for a "pirate party" as if that was the most important thing in my life.
...then you're free to enjoy the "advantages" of "stricter borders" together with messed up copy right laws that will stop you from creating and sharing on open platform websites, you deserve them both :) Have fun with your totalitarian nationalist utopia: if you think anything referencing technologies like "upload filters" (their simple EXISTENCE!) is about anything then enabling tools of totalitarian mass control o…
Sorry, but you have it backwards. It isn't some "totalitarian nationalist utopia" that passed those laws, but the "European union".
And nation states are not by any definition "totalitarian". If anything, the rise of democracy in the modern world came along with the rise of the nation states.
What we had before was feudal kingdoms and autocratic empires. People revolted, spilt blood, and fought, to have their own nation states and be able to govern themselves directly, according to their will, custom, and local interests.
European Union, which nobody asked for, wasn't a grassroot movement, but a high-level top-down project (from rich industrialists, diplomats, and others post WWII) that was imposed upon Europe's nation states step by step. It has met longstanding popular reaction long before today (from the late 70s, onto Maastricht and Lisbon treaties, the Euro-constitution being discarded by popular vote again and again, referendums from different countries ignored or repeated (repleat with propaganda) until EU bureucrats got the results they wanted, etc, and so on, to today's Yellow Vests.
EU is a bureaucratic regression to empire-dom, only instead of an emperor there are private interests and bureaucrats ruling it.
And the popular vote is so removed from the actual decision making, and so diluted among dozens of states with different interests (some of which have big economies and influence, bribe, or threat a number of satellites and dependents for their political alliance) that might as well not exist.
That's what we're "enjoying" today with this vote, not some "dark" national dystopias...
(A united Europe under common government was, incidentally and ironically, the dream of a famous German firt-half of 20-th century state figure...)