Copyright Law Could Put End To Net Memes (bbc.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: Memes, remixes and other user-generated content could disappear online if the EU's proposed rules on copyright become law, warn experts. Digital rights groups are campaigning against the Copyright Directive, which the European Parliament will vote on later this month. The legislation aims to protect rights-holders in the internet age. But critics say it misunderstands the way people engage with web content and risks excessive censorship. The Copyright Directive is an attempt to reshape copyright for the internet, in particular rebalancing the relationship between copyright holders and online platforms. Article 13 states that platform providers should "take measures to ensure the functioning of agreements concluded with rights-holders for the use of their works." Critics say this will, in effect, require all internet platforms to filter all content put online by users, which many believe would be an excessive restriction on free speech. There is also concern that the proposals will rely on algorithms that will be programmed to "play safe" and delete anything that creates a risk for the platform.

Comments

Let me refer you to Lt. Cmdr Data

[nitehawk214]

Here is his reaction after hearing about this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Let me refer you to Lt. Cmdr Data

[Calydor]

Let's hope Slashdot and/or Youtube have made sure to get the proper permissions to show such a video ...

Memes will survive...

[QuietLagoon]

.. they may just be a bit different.

Re: Memes will survive...

[Anonymous Coward]

They won't even react to this.

I'll believe copyright can stop meme "piracy" when it manages to stop any other piracy.

The whole point of memes is they spread on their own so stopping them is entirely preposterous.

Re: Memes will survive...

[fisted]

This.

Re:Memes will survive...

[jwhyche]

Memes will not even change. Nobody that creates them, mostly teens and young adults give two shits about some EU law. An those that even know about it will simply ignore it.

No, it won't

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like it hasn't stopped copyright violations in any other area.

Copyright law globally is becoming impossible

[rickb928]

The US is facing a bill to extend copyright another 70 years. And to prevent much 'old' content from going into the public domain.

Corporations are wrecking copyright by claiming rights for their 'lifetime', which for virtually every corporation is 'forever'.

Digital content is also virtually perpetual, which makes perpetual rights both rational (if you believe that) and possible. Physical media such as paintings will eventually face the problem of being replicated to be preserved, and then the inevitable fight over rights of this 'perpetual' replica as a replacement.

And the Internet has thrived on fair use, which was tolerated until it became widespread and actually practical to use.

We need to reconsider letting copyright become perpetual, that it become limited to reasonable protection, and see if Mickey Mouse actually fades away...

Re:Copyright law globally is becoming impossible

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporations are wrecking copyright

Government is wrecking copyright. They make the laws. Talk to them.

Re:Copyright law globally is becoming impossible

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

The US is facing a bill to extend copyright another 70 years. And to prevent much 'old' content from going into the public domain.

There's a way both to allow copyrights to potentially be extended and to get stuff into the public domain at the same time. I've posted before on this. The problem is that if these copyrights are so valuable that they simply must be extended, then why is Congress doing so for free or a mere pittance? Allow for renewals once the initial copyright expires but limit those to renewal to a much shorter period, say, 10 years. Charge $1 million for the first renewal. I mean, if these copyrights are valuable, they should require a fee. Uncle Sam keeps the money. The 2nd renewal is also for 10 years but it goes up by a factor of 10 to $10 million. 3rd renewal costs $100 million. 4th renewal costs $1 billion. At some point, probably at the $10 million mark, almost everybody will drop out and things will enter the public domain. Disney, for example, is a publicly traded company and I don't think their shareholders will view $1 billion a good price to pay to renew the copyright on 1920s Mickey Mouse when the following renewal will cost $10 billion.

Re:Copyright law globally is becoming impossible

[JaredOfEuropa]

In this case, I believe that they sign the proposals into law, but they do not make them

Re:Copyright law globally is becoming impossible

[thomn8r]

Government is wrecking copyright. They make the laws. Talk to them

You either don't know how government really works, or are simply being disingenuous.

Re:Copyright law globally is becoming impossible

[Cajun Hell]

We talk to them all the time. Every two years, we tell them "Democrats and Republicans, we've decided to re-elect you. Yes, again. Sorry if you were getting tired of "raping" us, but I'm bending over now, so get to it! And you better remember to tell me to squeal like a pig, so that I can maintain the fantasy that I'm being raped and never chose this! Oh, and congratulations on your re-election."

Re:Copyright law globally is becoming impossible

[tepples]

Another proposal along similar lines is a property tax. Beginning several years after first publication of a work, a copyright owner assesses the value of the copyrights it owns and remits a fraction of that value to the Copyright Office every year. Anyone else can put a work in the eminent domain* by paying the copyright owner that amount. To prevent this sort of taking pursuant to the Fifth Amendment or foreign counterparts, a copyright owner can pay more tax on a higher self-assessed value.

Those who disagree with this proposal would probably end up using the term "intellectual property" less often as they begin to realize the difference between exclusive rights in land and a copyright.

Re:Copyright law globally is becoming impossible

[CrimsonAvenger]

Anyone else can put a work in the eminent domain

Public domain. Eminent domain is something else entirely....

Re:Copyright law globally is becoming impossible

[desdinova 216]

woosh?

Re:Copyright law globally is becoming impossible

[tepples]

It's eminent domain leading to public domain. In this property tax proposal, the Copyright Office pays the owner-assessed "just compensation" to the owner for a taking pursuant to the Fifth Amendment. (That's the eminent part.) Then the Office formally abandons said copyright. (That's the public part.)

Re:Copyright law globally is becoming impossible

[stikves]

That would be terrible for non-commercially viable, however still valid copyrights. Major example would be OSS.

I might want to keep copyrights to my library and distribute it for free, or for a small fee / consulting opportunity. A big company might steal it with that proposal for peanuts.

Article 27 GDPR was the breaking point

[tepples]

At what point will it no longer be worth it to business in the EU?

For many companies, that came on 25 May 2018, the effective date of Article 27 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (text). It requires businesses outside the EU that do business in the EU to hire a representative in the EU to handle privacy requests, even if the foreign business otherwise complies with the GDPR. Representative service can cost thousands of USD per year (source).

Only "occasional" processing of personal data is exempt from the Article 27 requirement, and it remains to be seen how EU judges will interpret "occasional" in light of its lack of definition in the text of the GDPR. For example, if a business does less than 1% of its worldwide turnover in the EU, is processing "occasional" when it happens roughly twice per order, once during payment and once when the business prints a shipping label?

Re:Article 27 GDPR was the breaking point

[Rakarra]

"Representative service can cost thousands of USD per year"

Oh noes! How will the multinational conglomerates worth billions of dollars on the open market be able to handle such a cost?

It's also a very high barrier to any smaller business trying to start in Europe or expand into it. But it's not like the immediate effect of regulations shutting down a business, it's more that you have no idea what businesses could have started up if the barriers to entry weren't so high. But since that's an unknown, we tend not to think about it very much, and thus undervalue what those barriers are actually costing us, because we're only considering sticking it to the big boys. Well anything applied uniformly hits the smaller guy a lot harder than the big guy.

Re:Article 27 GDPR was the breaking point

[Anonymous Coward]

These "American" companies are in reality owned by international investors whose only allegiance is to money.

The problem we are facing is that the EU and Asian markets are more valuable to business than the US by far (the EU market alone is twice the size of the US).

The shareholders of these firms are not going to pull out of Europe over a cost of several millions of dollars a year, let alone thousands.

The unfortunate situation is that we no longer have the economic power to dictate how business is done on the global stage.

Watch as they cave in to these laws one by one.

Re:Article 27 GDPR was the breaking point

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats ok. The price of proper privacy is worth the cost. I understand that "capitalism with the sole goal of riches" is the way it goes in the USA, in Europe (and the rest of the civilized world) it's "capitalism with a goal of furthering society". Here, the people of Europe have decided that unfettered capitalism over the internet be curtailed to ensure privacy.

The US will get used to it's new trading partners, and they won't be first world nations. US built cars pollute too much, US products don't hit the bar in terms of privacy, US agricultural products aren't clean enough for import, US financial products don't hit the bar in terms of oversite etc etc. The US will trade instead with countries on it's level.

Re:Article 27 GDPR was the breaking point

[tepples]

My current employer is not a "multinational conglomerate" but a small business in the United States. It did less than 1 percent of its business in the EU during the 365 days prior to the effective date of the GDPR. If it were to continue to ship to the EU, the price of the Article 27 representative service that I linked would exceed the total margin on orders that bill or ship to the EU.

Re:Article 27 GDPR was the breaking point

[MrMr]

Well, that company sounds like it tries to make a quick buck from the sensationalist headlines. You only need to have a representative if you do large scale processing of tracking data mentioned in paragraph 9.1: Like race, religion, health and other categories deemed especially sensitive, and only if you haven't got prior permission. I think the EU is overreacting to facebook in a very heavy handed way, but this legislation will hardly affect normal small businesses.

Re:Article 27 GDPR was the breaking point

[tepples]

You only need to have a representative if you do large scale processing of tracking data mentioned in paragraph 9.1: Like race, religion, health and other categories deemed especially sensitive, and only if you haven't got prior permission.

Article 27(2)(a) (linked again for convenience) sets forth four requirements for a private sector business outside the EU that does business in the EU to be exempt from the requirement to hire a representative:

1. processing "is occasional";
2. processing does not include large-scale processing of Article 9(1) data, largely related to membership in a protected class under anti-discrimination law, which you mentioned;
3. processing does not include large-scale processing of data about criminal convictions; and
4. processing "is unlikely to result in a risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons".

The use of the word "and" in the text of the article means that processing must meet all four requirements. Even if processing meets criteria 2, 3, and 4, if it does not additionally meet criterion 1 of being "occasional," the business must either hire a representative in the EU or turn away customers in the EU. This is why a lot of small businesses outside the EU are waiting for EU judges to define "occasional" before entering or reentering the EU market.

If my analysis is incorrect, then what does the phrase "processing which is occasional" in the regulation mean, and why?

Re:Article 27 GDPR was the breaking point

[HornWumpus]

Just as a practical matter, if the only business you do in the EU is accept user logins you can extend a finger to EUcrats.

How are they going to do anything about it? What are they going to do? Waggle their wigs at you?

Re:Article 27 GDPR was the breaking point

[thegarbz]

For many companies, that came on 25 May 2018

Did it? Didn't notice. Because unlike most of the sensationalist bullshit you don't actually need to hoover up every last detail of your customer for marketing purposes. Interestingly nearly all companies that are affected by this actually have offices in the EU anyway. Just because you are willing to put something in a box and mail it to the EU doesn't mean you're doing "business in the EU".

That's one of the things that most people seem to forget. Just because someone from the EU can access you doesn't automatically put you at the mercy of the GDPR, and even if it did, what's someone in the EU to do? So a company without offices of presence in the EU under EU law?

Rather than paying representatives companies which do business in the EU could just get their Irish accountants to handle the requests. I'm sure the few thousands of dollars will be nothing in comparison to the money saved by actually having your financial subsidiary in the EU, let alone the actual market of 500 million people for your products.

Re:Article 27 GDPR was the breaking point

[HornWumpus]

You missing an important part.

Every company handling personal data about EU citizens that is in reach of EU law enforcement has to comply.

Re: Article 27 GDPR was the breaking point

[Calydor]

That the US is a collection of non-sovereign states and the EU is a collection of sovereign countries?

Re:Article 27 GDPR was the breaking point

[sfcat]

You missing an important part.

Every company handling personal data about EU citizens that is in reach of EU law enforcement has to comply.

Yea, but banking is increasingly an international industry and such provisions are enforced by putting the onus on the banks to ensure their customers comply or risk access to EU markets. So I'm sure that unless every bank with which you do business is entirely inside the US and the EU doesn't somehow force the US-only banks to comply, your company's money can be claimed/fined by an EU court. Which is the problem. The US uses the same mechanism to enforce sanctions on Iran and N. Korea. The EU is going to try to use this mechanism to enforce GDPR and we'll see if it works (I'm betting it does, bankers don't stand up for principles).

Re:Article 27 GDPR was the breaking point

[HornWumpus]

The EU doesn't have subpoena power to find out who's behind the corporate entity that registered the domain. The worst they can do is accelerate the adoption of untraceable money flows and fragment a few financial services. The more obnoxious the EUcrats get, the more will slip through their fingers.

They will have a hard time catching Europeans that put their hosting overseas, much less actual non-EU citizens.

Re:Article 27 GDPR was the breaking point

[GuB-42]

The representative shall be established in one of the Member States where the data subjects, whose personal data are processed in relation to the offering of goods or services to them, or whose behaviour is monitored, are.

Sounds like the representative has to be in the EU to me...
However, in practice, if you don't have a presence in the EU, I don't know what GDPR can do to you. And if you do, then you can just designate a person who already works there.

Re:Article 27 GDPR was the breaking point

[tepples]

You just have to appoint a responsible person.

That's for the data privacy officer provision, which is distinct from the representative provision.

Re:Article 27 GDPR was the breaking point

[tepples]

Just because you are willing to put something in a box and mail it to the EU doesn't mean you're doing "business in the EU".

Article 3(2)(a) states that "offering of goods and services [...] to such data subjects in the Union" is enough to make the GDPR apply.

Rather than paying representatives companies which do business in the EU could just get their Irish accountants to handle the requests.

Correct. A company with a subsidiary in the EU can designate the EU subsidiary as its representative pursuant to Article 27.

But when you wrote your comment, were you mostly referring to multibillion-dollar companies or to small businesses with annual turnover less than $10 million?

Re:Article 27 GDPR was the breaking point

[jrumney]

The danger is not the bureaucrats. It is malicious ambulance chasing lawyers who use the vaguity of the language to shake down sites who don't have the means to fight against them. You can extend your finger to the bureaucrats as much as you like, if the lawyers find a jurisdiction where you not turning up to court means an automatic judgement in their favour, they will play this to keep courts from actually deciding on the limits of what occasional means, and you could face arrest for unpaid fines if you ever travel to an EU country.

Re:Article 27 GDPR was the breaking point

[thegarbz]

Article 3(2)(a) [gdpr-info.eu] states that "offering of goods and services [...] to such data subjects in the Union" is enough to make the GDPR apply.

Indeed it does. But just because you can buy something and get it shipped doesn't mean it's on offer to an EU customer. One legal analysis said that you actually need to put effort into targeting said customer. E.g. If you sell me something on ebay or from your other American store doesn't automatically put you in the line of fire for the GDPR. For that to apply you need to at least put some effort into your customers:

a) Do you collect taxes and report it to the EU state? If your customer is likely to have their shipment held up at customs for taxation then GDPR does not apply to you.
b) Do you accept payment in Euros or is the customer required to have their bank convert it back to your home currency?
c) Is your website in German? Or are you relying on customers to have proficiency in English?
d) Are you shipping within the EU or from outside?

The the most obvious get out of jail card:

e) Do you actually have a subsidiary or presence in the EU. If not, then how is a law from another jurisdiction supposed to apply to you?

I've seen several analysis that basically summed up the GDPR as a senseless kneejerk reaction by a world not realising that just because you have a website, doesn't mean you are actually offering "to data subjects in the Union".

Remember you actually need to do something within a jurisdiction for that jurisdiction to apply or you need to fall afoul of laws on both sides of the legal border to create extradition. Which brings me to:

But when you wrote your comment, were you mostly referring to multibillion-dollar companies or to small businesses with annual turnover less than $10 million?

If you're a multi-billion dollar organisation you've got funds to not worry.
If you're a small business with a turnover of less than $10million and you don't even have an office in the EU, relax. If you can't relax then get some different legal advice because the current one you're getting is making you afraid of being sued by your own shadow.

Re:Article 27 GDPR was the breaking point

[tepples]

Is your website in German? Or are you relying on customers to have proficiency in English?

That depends. Does a website in English, French, and Spanish with a US mailing address appear as someone targeting Britain, Ireland, France, and Spain? My reading of the test in recital 23 shows that regulators would instead realize it is targeting USA, Anglophone Canada, Francophone Canada, and Mexico. However:

d) Are you shipping within the EU or from outside?

From outside. But if the <select> element for country in the shipping destination and billing address forms contains <option> elements referencing member states, that might count as "the mentioning of customers or users who are in the Union" per recital 23.

e) Do you actually have a subsidiary or presence in the EU.

Article 27 compliance is easier for an entity with a subsidiary in the Union because it can designate said subsidiary as its representative.

Remember you actually need to do something within a jurisdiction for that jurisdiction to apply

Does having a processor process customers' payment count as "doing something"?

get some different legal advice because the current one you're getting is making you afraid of being sued by your own shadow.

In principle, I agree. But it'll take some time for there to be enough case law that lawyers leave "avoid making yourself a test case" mode and become interested in offering a more moderate second opinion.

Re:Article 27 GDPR was the breaking point

[tepples]

The representative pursuant to article 27 must be in the European Union. Our business is in the USA.

Re: Article 27 GDPR was the breaking point

[Andtalath]

Out of curiosity, which part did you think you didn't comply with?
The regulations are basically:
Tell the user what data s/he stores and why.
Let the user decide if you are allowed to keep the data, unless there is a valid reason to keep it.
Don't lie about what you store.

Honestly, that is about it.

The fees?
They come after EU tells you to stop what you are doing and you refuse to comply...

Re:Article 27 GDPR was the breaking point

[thegarbz]

Don't cherry pick. I just gave examples of things that could be considered defence against the legislation. Just because your website is in Spanish doesn't mean it's targeting EU people, but if your website is only in English its part of the argument against.

From outside. But if the element for country in the shipping destination and billing address forms contains elements referencing member states, that might count as "the mentioning of customers or users who are in the Union" per recital 23.

It's very rare to see any company do anything other than list all possible postal codes, including those belonging to countries where the USA has sanctions. Now if you specifically mention just EU countries, then you have a case for targetting.

Does having a processor process customers' payment count as "doing something"?

See above, does the processor cater to your customers? Or are you customers required to jump through hoops to use said processor, such as having their currency converted to another currency? Just because you use Paypal (or for the sake of the EU argument Adyen) doesn't mean you're catering to customers of every country where someone can log into said payment processor.

avoid making yourself a test case

I'm still trying to figure out how you, with such little presence inside the EU that you need representation (the original thing we're talking about here) can become a test case. You have as much chance at becoming a test case in this scenario than I do getting fined by the council of Seattle for smoking a joint in public on the streets of Amsterdam.

Re:Article 27 GDPR was the breaking point

[HornWumpus]

They'd have an unenforceable foreign judgement against a corporate entity, unless the operator was really really foolish.

US courts have long laughed at foreign default judgements against American citizens/corporations that have never been 'there'. That's kind of an old worn out shyster scam. In practice 100% bluff in attempt to extract payment.

Re:Article 27 GDPR was the breaking point

[KingBenny]

i think its past that point copyright law can also make cosplayers and writers of potter fanfiction terrorists now btw ...

Re:Article 27 GDPR was the breaking point

[tepples]

Just because your website is in Spanish doesn't mean it's targeting EU people, but if your website is only in English its part of the argument against.

It might not have been clear, but I was agreeing with that part. Just offering service in the languages of one or more of your trading partners outside the EU isn't evidence that you're targeting the EU, even if they also speak a member state's language due to being an ex-colony.

It's very rare to see any company do anything other than list all possible postal codes, including those belonging to countries where the USA has sanctions.

For the business in question, it had been standard practice to remove country codes from the list if the business has made a decision not to ship to that country, such as compliance with an overall embargo (like that of the United States toward Cuba, Iran, DPRK, Sudan, and Syria) or high levels of payment or refund fraud from a particular country. At times, we have omitted countries like Indonesia or Bosnia and Herzegovina from the list. In addition, the form split the list of countries into "Advanced Economies" (the 19 individually represented countries of the G20, alphabetically) and "Other Countries" (alphabetically). This split the EU in the list between the four member states in the G20 (France, Germany, Great Britain and N. Ireland, and Italy) and other member states not individually represented. All prices were shown in US dollars, and customs duty was explicitly the buyer's problem. Would that remotely be seen as targeting EU members?

Re:Article 27 GDPR was the breaking point

[thegarbz]

Possibly. But still the question is how much. Showing you're willing to ship something somewhere is quite different from actively doing business with that area.

As usual if the laws were black and white then the lawyers would be out of business.

Re:Article 27 GDPR was the breaking point

[pnutjam]

If you can't relax then get some different legal advice because the current one you're getting is making you afraid of being sued by your own shadow.

'murican problems

Implementation cost

[Sarten-X]

Critics say this will, in effect, require all internet platforms to filter all content put online by users

I run a forum. I already have to deal with the occasional spam that gets through the registration system, and now I have to check everything my users say to see if someone else has already said it? No, thanks.

I've also built a few web applications, some of which accept user-submitted content. Do I now need to integrate that with a third-party scanning tool to enforce filtering? I'd really rather not, just from a licensing and contracting perspective...

I also note this comes hot on the heels of the GDPR. I guess it's time for another new privacy policy update, to tell folks that the information they submit (which might possibly be personally-identifiable) will now be handed off to a copyright scanner and checked to see if they dared to have an unoriginal thought...

With all due respect, fuck that.

Re:Implementation cost

[dyfet]

As Stalin might have said, it is not important who controls the platforms, but rather the filters...

"unoriginal" will also include "unapproved", such an infrastructure will not be used for copyright alone.

Re:Implementation cost

[Jason Levine]

I run a forum as well. The penalties for violating copyright are $200 to $150,000 per work infringed. Even if one item slipped by me and I was hit with a $200 penalty, that would be devastating. That's essentially half of my small forum's yearly budget. And that's if they go on the low end. If the copyright owner went for what seems to be the standard RIAA amount of around $2,000, my forum would permanently be shut down and I'd be in bad financial shape. If they went for the maximum, I'd need to personally declare bankruptcy. All because someone uploaded a screenshot from a movie without getting express permission for that one still. Meanwhile, the financial cost of using one still from a movie without the company's permission is literally $0. (Who looks at a meme image and then decides "Well, guess I don't need to buy THAT movie now!")

Re:Implementation cost

[JaredOfEuropa]

"There is also concern that the proposals will rely on algorithms that will be programmed to "play safe" and delete anything that creates a risk for the platform." That is not a concern, it's a feature. And once the current system of copyright enforcement after the fact (with takedown notices and such) is replaced with a priori filtering, you can be sure that websites will then also be held responsible for socially undesirable content, and asked or scared into censoring it a priori as well. I expect EU sites to comply and others to leave. Mission accomplished.

Re: Implementation cost

[TimMD909]

Actually... memes warned me to not waste money on the new Star Wars films...

Re:Implementation cost

[Anonymous Coward]

If the copyright owner went for what seems to be the standard RIAA amount of around $2,000, my forum would permanently be shut down and I'd be in bad financial shape.

Starting an LLC is extremely cheap, and, if done somewhat correctly (not that hard), would mean you're not personally liable should the forum be sued (although, perhaps I have a different view of what is and is not cheap than someone for whom $2000 would put them in bad financial shape).

Re:and nothing of value was lost

[Anonymous Coward]

Quardekiple velson.

EU's proposed rules

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> European Parliament's proposed rules

That's cute: they think they are a relevant governing body.

This kills the Internet

[Rick Schumann]

Freedom of Speech would only be one of the casualties of legislation like this; it would, for the most part, make the Internet read-only. Few if any websites would allow anyone to upload anything whatsoever, because of the cost and the exposure to liability under the law. You wouldn't even be able to upload photographs you took with your own camera or device. In a possible future Internet under legislation like this, it would be more like having a Cable TV subscription than it would anything you've come to associate with the Internet of today. The only difference would be email and access to government services. Who would be willing to pay for that? Speaking only for myself, I wouldn't be willing to pay much, if anything, for that level of 'service', for the same reasons I stopped paying for Cable TV: not enough value for the money. If they really want to kill the Internet completely, then draconian legislation like this is the way to do it.

Re:This kills the Internet

[dyfet]

A free internet, if you can keep it...

Apparently we can't.

Re:This kills the Internet

[Art Challenor]

They don't want to kill it, they want to make sure that it's only available to large content providers. They'll be the only ones who can defend against this - legally and technically.

Re:This kills the Internet

[Rick Schumann]

But, see, that will kill it. Did you read my entire paragraph? The Internet would essentially become read-only, like Cable TV. The only difference between the two would be you'd (ostensibly) be able to email (maybe -- they'd probably sift through that, too, to make sure you're not 'sharing' anything copyrighted) and access government sites, and buy things from retailers. The real value of the Internet would be gone. There would be no room for creativity or freedom of speech. It wouldn't be worth paying for anymore, and even if it was free it would be boring and pointless.

Re:This kills the Internet

[Art Challenor]

Well yeah, that depends on your viewpoint. From the perspective of Google, Apple, CNN, Fox, etc. etc. it's a wonderful thing. You immediately eliminate all competitors and have the place to yourself. (See TV in the early days). Google then becomes a total shopping site instead of a search engine, but it's almost made that transition anyway. I think that the point they've overlooked is that much of the content they present is actually user-generated and, as you point out, that would go away, but they'd figure that out (except for Reddit).

Re:This kills the Internet

[Rick Schumann]

Reddit would end up being shut down for, again, concerns over liability. This place (slashdot) would be shut down for similar reasons, I'd imagine. You'd even have a hard time starting your own website that only contains things you created yourself, because there are companies that would claim copyright of them anyway (there is documented precedent for this happening, especially to musicians/singer/songwriters). We live in a day and age where, if someone's name, that they were given at birth, happens to clash with some companies' trademarked or copyrighted name, and that person tries to start a business that uses their name? They get sued for it, and they lose, and aren't allowed to use their own name. Ridiculous, right?

Life of author of work for hire; Bridgeman v Corel

[tepples]

The US is facing a bill to extend copyright another 70 years.

Copyright in which works? All works, or just pre-1972 sound recordings that are already subject to copyright-like rights granted by the several states? Besides, the sound recording copyright is among the easiest to design around, as once copyright in the underlying musical work has expired, it's fair game for your cover version.

Corporations are wrecking copyright by claiming rights for their 'lifetime', which for virtually every corporation is 'forever'.

For purpose of the U.S. copyright term in works other than pre-1972 sound recordings, the life of the author of a work made for hire is reckoned as 25 years after first publication or 50 years after creation, whichever comes first. This part of the copyright term formula has remained unchanged since the Copyright Act of 1976, even though a 1998 amendment to the statute extended the post-mortem period from the Berne minimum 50 years to 70 years to match that of the European Union.

Physical media such as paintings will eventually face the problem of being replicated to be preserved, and then the inevitable fight over rights of this 'perpetual' replica as a replacement.

Unlike Australia, the United States does not recognize "sweat of the brow" as extending a copyright term. When copyright in an original two-dimensional work such as a painting expires, copyright in all faithful reproductions thereof expires along with it. Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999).

Copyright is just about

[oldgraybeard]

a permanent monopoly. Which is just what the corporations that are ending up with these copyrights need. In order to make them a good buy and profit producer for the corporation owners. They want them to be an asset that will never be used up. Never require additional costs related to development and design. In essence they have an almost nonexistent cost to maintain. So most every bit of income generated is, for the most part profit.
That is why these corporations are willing to buy the right copyright laws from the politicians. It is a one time cost now for huge profit with little effort later.
I do not think it can be stopped because politicians are corrupt and will always take the money.

Just my 2 cents ;).

Re:Copyright is just about

[oldgraybeard]

One more thing, the corporate owners are even buying laws that pass the cost of policing their copyrights on to 3rd parties. Sweet deal to off load your cost to maintain on to other entities. ;) That way they can spend less on their copyright protection expenses.

Re:Copyright is just about

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Yes, that is why we need a reasonable and practical concept of fair use.

While it sometimes does negatively impact the copyrights owners, the actual net for fair use is often positive because all publicity is good publicity in the world of entertainment.

Re:Copyright is just about

[oldgraybeard]

I would like to see a "reasonable and practical concept of fair use" implemented.
But unfortunately I think here in the US the politicians are being paid to make our copyright laws even worst.
Mickey Mouse has loads of dough to protect himself, and plenty of corrupt politicians of both parties to buy. ;)

Just my 2 cents ;)

False premise

[micahraleigh]

Usually the things that become memes take some research to make sure there is no IP in them.

The story with disaster girl was her literal dad in real life worked very hard to research this and make it happen.

The upshot is if it sticks as a meme (after any potential law jungle-ry) then the courts aren't going to bring it down.

So there's really no potential for our beloved comrade Stalin to rescue the memes held hostage by future counter-revolutionary activity.

EU Overreach

[pubwvj]

Once again the EU tries to impose it's laws on the rest of the world. What this will result in is platforms leaving the EU. If the platform is not physically in the EU the EU has no actual control over them. Sure, the EU can convict them in absentia but so what. Just ignore the EU.

Re:EU Overreach

[HornWumpus]

Easily solved by spinning up a Panama corporation.

Re:EU Overreach

[Rick Schumann]

Really, though, it sounds to me like another case of technologically clueless politicians catering to the demands of corporations with no regard whatsoever to the technical feasibility of the 'legislation' they're proposing. In this case it would literally KILL the Internet, turning it into not much better than Cable TV, read-only.

Re:EU Overreach

[thegarbz]

Once again the EU tries to impose it's laws on the rest of the world.

It does nothing of the sort. Just because you're on the internet doesn't mean the EU can sue you.

Re:EU Overreach

[mikeebbbd]

You can't "just ignore" the EU. The EU won't sue you. But the companies in the EU can and will - especially with copyright and other treaties plus the ability to sue in your home country if they choose to (most have US subsidiaries). So ... should we revert to Usenet, with no pictures? Yes, they could still sue over text, but that's a bit less obvious and harder to prove unless it's a direct quote. Even then, fair use might apply in some countries.

Re:EU Overreach

[pubwvj]

I'll agree with you about tech-illiterati however it won't kill the Internet because the EU doesn't control anything outside the EU. It will mean simply a brain-drain from the EU to other countries. European countries have done this sort of thing over the centuries and each time the real literati leave. The result of such brain drains is a loss of creativity for the EU.

Re:EU Overreach

[pubwvj]

Yes. That was my point. The EU will lose those companies, individuals, creativity and have general brain drain. They've done this before and suffered for it each time.

Re:EU Overreach

[Rick Schumann]

I of course know that what one country (or coalition of countries) decides to do with the internet doens't affect everyone else directly, but what I'm more concerned about is everyone else deciding to follow suit and implement this nonsense regardless, mainly because of pressure from corporations (which have too much political influence currently). They'll go for whatever seems to make their bottom line more attractive regardless of the consequences to everyone else.

Re:No More EU

[HornWumpus]

Europe would have been in WWIII 60 years ago if it wasn't for the adult supervision of Americans.

They, relatively recently, couldn't even handle the Balkans or Libia without our help.

In Soviet Russia ...

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia, meme puts end to copyright law!

Ha ha!

I'll be here all week, try the veal.

You can do it!

That's all folks.

This will not go as planned

[Anonymous Coward]

This will not work the way they think it will. It's unenforceable in any but draconian ways. And when you suppress things that hard the results will be as inevitable as entropy. Pirate and Dark Web outfits will see a resurgence on a massive scale. The smart people that can build ways around things like this will put there little grey cells on it. And the things they come up with will make TOR look tame. As a result truly bad criminals will have new tools to commit crimes and law enforcement will be facing up against the kind of talent they can't match. This will result in the classic vicious cycle of good people fighting oppression and the law hitting harder and harder on an ever ballooning group of criminals. Witch will only make them work harder to hide and so make things even easier for the true villains.

This is exactly how things like The Pirate Bay got so big. People wanted things that they by every measure should have been able to get at a reasonable price. Games and TV and Movies. But the people that made and sold them wouldn't play ball. So tech savvy people made workarounds that the law couldn't keep up with. Torrent sites and the like have been on the decline of late but not because they law is getting ahead of the curve. These days its pirate streams and overseas file sharing. But they law is getting a handle on it because the smart people can now get things legally at a reasonable price. You may not remember, but it was common for cable companies to require you to pay for a full cable package, a phone and internet package before they would let you have anything online. and movies? forget about it. But it was exactly that kind of unthinking and unreasonable action on the part of businesses that led to countless real crimes being possible.

This makes me think of the ongoing debate about Encryption Backdoor that governments bring up every other day. So let me settle it once and for all. You can't put in backdoor or make it weak anymore then you can require that every lock have a master key and make it the same master key for every lock. All it takes is one leak and everything everywhere is naked and that's not OK. This is why law enforcement hires locksmiths. Computer locks are no different. Do the smart thing and hire digital lock smiths. And stop trying to put every person on the planet at risk.

It hardly even matters

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

"Don't worry, nations of Europe. The EU government will only be granted very limited powers to regulate interstate trade, and anything it touches, and anything that in turn touches, out to six degrees of Kevin Bacon.

"Your sovereignity is not threatened!"

Re:It hardly even matters

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get your point.

The end goal of the European project is and always has been a federal Europe, even going back to the days of the EEC. While there are Europhobes within the union, for most of us the progress on integration is very welcome. Just because we have harmonised laws and a lack of internal borders doesn't mean that we each are no longer culturally Irish/French/German/whatever. For most of us, the idea of squabbling over nebulous concepts like "nationality" rightfully died off at some point back in the 20th century.

And something of no value was created

[DontBeAMoran]

Oh yeah? Well, instead of parroting the words of others, perhaps you should come up with real thoughts and words of your own! ...with blackjack and hookers!

They didn't create the work

[wolfheart111]

They Found it.

The end of memes?

[ElectricHellKnight]

Now I'm in favor of it.

Coming For Our Memes

[Jason Levine]

They're coming for our memes?

Finally, something that might unite the right and left against overbearing copyright laws!

Re:Coming For Our Memes

[BobSteinVisiBone]

They're coming for our memes?

Finally, something that might unite the right and left in support of copyright laws!

FTFY

Maybe talk to a young person..

[WolfgangVL]

Somebody is misunderstanding memes, social-media and the internet in general.

Imagine the flood of memes regarding the takedown notices of memes.

Re:Maybe talk to a young person..

[Quirkz]

Can we begin with: "And nothing of value was lost"?

Re:Maybe talk to a young person..

[WolfgangVL]

That's easy to say on front end, but culture has a way of showing it's value years later- Generally, memes are the distilled essence of whatever subculture.

Re:Maybe talk to a young person..

[Quirkz]

Sorry. I was going for an ironic "use a meme to celebrate the death of memes" as a joke. Though honestly I think most of them have to do with something like a social currency/grease than as particularly valuable. It's kind of like the hi, how are you, fine you, also fine -- just a bit of "oh yeah, I know that too, I guess I can sit in the same room with you or share a beer or whatever" than anything permanent or telling.

Re:Maybe talk to a young person..

[Hognoxious]

Sorry. I was going for an ironic "use a meme to celebrate the death of memes" as a joke.

Have you looked on Netcraft?

Re:and nothing of value was lost

[Memnos]

It's spelled "velsom". For God's sake, learn Kludish.

and then they came for memes

[mea2214]

and I didn't speak up because most all memes suck and I can't stand looking at them.

Re: No More EU

[HornWumpus]

Tell it to your leaders. They don't think so.

Face facts: Europe requires adult supervision. Before they had it, the whole place was at war, every 30 years.

Re:No More EU

[alvinrod]

Personally, I'd be glad for it. My taxes would be substantially lower if we weren't trying to be the world's police. Even if you could somehow demonstrate that it were good of us to do so anyway, I don't believe we have the moral authority to do regardless of what good may come of it. Furthermore, I suspect that our popularity would shoot up overnight were we to leave everyone else the hell alone.

The European countries would end up paying more for it, that much is certain. Though, whether that's in the form of additional taxes to support their own militaries or learning to speak Russian is a point of contention.

Re: No More EU

[Anonymous Coward]

You keep saying 'adult supervision' like the USA ever acts like an adult itself. You are a disgrace as a so-called 'world leader'. Don't forget your nation is not ascending anymore, it's on an inexorable downward slide. Nothing of value will be lost.

Re: Life of author of work for hire; Bridgeman v C

[Zero__Kelvin]

That was awesome. Excellent concise explanation of US copyright!

Natalie Portman will not be amused...

[LordHighExecutioner]

Stopping memes will decrease her popolarity (apart maybe in Soviet Russia), and cause a collapse of the hot grits sales.

Memes? It could put an end to CDNs!

[jtara]

I've been going back and forth with IBM for a week as to why I couldn't order CDN service (Akamai, which IBM bought a while back).

I got one strange error message, they did some "diagnosis", and then I started getting another strange error message. And, finally, an email stating that our credit card details couldn't be verified, and so the order was cancelled.

So, it turns out IBM needs more relevant error messages. The latter was apparently the easiest way they had to cancel the order.

IBM is currently not permitting customers to order new CDN service. Apparently, there is something they have to do to comply with GDPR requirements.

They have no projection when (if if) they will be selling CDN service again.

Thanks, EU. Somebody has FINALLY "broken the Internet".

Re: No More EU

[HornWumpus]

Yes, Europe was in its natural state of war when the American revolution happened. But France wasn't helping America for anything other than its self interest vs Britain.

Re:crazy

[thegarbz]

At what point will it no longer be worth it to business in the EU? Ridiculous.

Probably after they close the tax loopholes and the next war kills off several hundred million potential western middle to upper class customers.

Re: No More EU

[HornWumpus]

We were the adults that had to fix Europe's mess, twice in the 20th century.

Guarding Europe for them was simply judged as cheaper than saving their ass a third time. Sure we made mistakes, e.g. when France demanded their colonies back, as the price of getting them into NATO, we should have told them to fuck right off.

America is, in a way, following Europe in their downward slide. But don't kid yourself, you're a century+ ahead of us, in that respect.

For once, US law is better

[omnichad]

In the US, we have something called fair use. That means that a bite-sized spreading idea (a meme) can make a reference to pop culture as social commentary.

Re:For once, US law is better

[Dangerous_Minds]

Not really relevant to YouTube's ContentID system. The EU law would require this kind of system be implemented everywhere, rendering all perfectly legitimate Fair Use reasons moot. Want a platform that supports Fair Use? You'll need to find a site that isn't YouTube or based in Europe or run the risk of being a copyright infringer.

Re:For once, US law is better

[omnichad]

None of us were talking about Youtube.

Re:For once, US law is better

[Dangerous_Minds]

The laws would mandate content filtering similar to YouTube which is widely known to doing a terrible job at recognizing what is and is not Fair Use.

Re:For once, US law is better

[omnichad]

Every single frame of every film or TV show ever made (for just one example)? That would be far more impossible than the current content ID system at YouTube.

Re:For once, US law is better

[Dangerous_Minds]

Indeed. That's one major reason why I don't like the proposed law.

If you want to update copyright...

[Rhipf]

for the Internet age then you should look at reducing the length of copyright. It should become easier to make derivative works in the fast pace of the Internet age.

I own most of the memes

[WillAffleckUW]

All your hashtags are belong to me

But I agree that we should restore copyright to 17 years max, with one renewal while the person, not corporation, is alive.

Re: No More EU

[sfcat]

You really think the US govt is going to pass military savings back to the public? I doubt the oligarchy would allow that.

That's true, if by that you mean direct payment from conquered countries as tribute to American citizens. But in the modern world in which we live, its 100% false.

That gas you buy is 1/4 the price it would be in the EU. Why? Because of the Petrodollar. That same fact also makes sure that foreign currencies are usually depreciating against the dollar which allows you to buy from foreign companies very cheaply (while depressing their ability to buy foreign goods themselves). This allows the US to run huge deficits without any real consequences and allows more Americans to live with a much higher and more consistent standard of living. This fact also allows cheap transportation of goods to your town (even if you are in a remote place). Also, it keeps the dollar stable which probably isn't a big deal to you but ask someone from Venezuela if they want a stable currency or not.

Really, its just that Americans (me too) just don't realize all the benefits we get from our military dominance mainly because most of us have never known anything else. But live abroad and your eyes will open quickly as to what those advantages are and how much they really matter to politics and financial markets.

Re: No More EU

[Maelwryth]

The same same holds for the US entering WWI and WWII. It wasn't until 1917 that the US declared war on Germany after trade with Britain was disrupted, US citizens killed and American ships sunk. Entering WWII only happened after Pearl Harbour.

EU == totalitarianism

[walterbyrd]

Why do people want to live under the rule of unelected bureaucrats?

Re:MIT licenced memes

[ebvwfbw]

They'll ban that too because they're trying to silence people. That's the point.