Slashdot Mirror
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.
Here is his reaction after hearing about this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
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...
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
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?
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.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
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).
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
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.