Slashdot Mirror
EU Takes First Step in Passing Controversial Copyright Law That Could 'Censor the Internet' (theverge.com)
The European Union has taken the first step in passing new copyright legislation that critics say will tear the internet apart. From a report: This morning, the EU's Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) voted in favor of the legislation, called the Copyright Directive. Although most of the directive simply updates technical language for copyright law in the age of the internet, it includes two highly controversial provisions. These are Article 11, a "link tax," which would force online platforms like Facebook and Google to buy licenses from media companies before linking to their stories; and Article 13, an "upload filter," which would require that everything uploaded online in the EU is checked for copyright infringement. (Think of it like YouTube's Content ID system but for the whole internet.) EU lawmakers critical of the legislation say these Articles may have been proposed with good intentions -- like protecting copyright owners -- but are vaguely worded and ripe for abuse.
Laws that transfer power from citizens to the government are never about "good intentions," they're about control.
One of the first things they'll start censoring is content critical of sacred Eurocratic initiatives. Video opposing unassimilated Muslim immigration into Europe? Sorry, that's banned because we call it "hate speech." Video suggesting Italy should leave the Euro? Sorry, we have to ban that because it endangers "economic stability."
Good intentions have nothing to do with it. It's all about censorship and control.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Funny how you're anticipating the people who "don't like the EU," but there just aren't that many of those. There's a lot who don't like the things the EU does, though.
We keep being told how much better the EU is than the US - but then they do something awful like this, which is much, much worse than anything that would be seriously proposed in the US.
There's copyright infringement enforcement, and then there's "fascism disguised as protecting copyright."
When memes are outlawed, only outlaws will meme.
This is where all those crazy European internet laws like GDPR inevitably lead.
Sure, our techno-idealism loves foisting expensive functionality on every website which is accessed by europeans, and we cheered for it, knowing it would not really affect us, or if anything would pay our techie salaries.
But this is where heavy handed internet regulation leads.
You can take our lives, but you can never take our pirated internet pornography!!!
...and Article 13, an "upload filter," which would require that everything uploaded online in the EU is checked for copyright infringement.
Do the people writing this crap have ANY IDEA how the internet works?
Nobody believes the fake news anymore. Nothing but a bunch of haters hating on our beloved President.
https://www.rt.com/usa/429956-caged-boy-immigration-debunk/
The link tax :
Link to a newspaper in the EU? Thats a copyright problem that can result in having to pay a company in the EU.
Quote from an EU nation newspaper? Thats copyright. Show the EU payment was made per line quoted.
The upload filter
A cartoon? Is it a political meme? Does it related to Spanish or French politics? No upload for you on social media.
Report the account to French and Spanish authorities. Is the meme funny and political? Could it cause an EU political party to be considered funny? No social media access for that cartoon.
A message about Catalan? No EU freedom for you. Spain gets a report on that social media account and requests an upload ban. The EU bans the image.
An image from a movie? Thats an EU tax for using that copyright frame from a movie.
An image from a movie with a French political leader added in as a meme? Thats going to get reported and banned. A copyright fine must be paid.
SJW want to stop news getting linked and their politics getting turned into a funny meme.
So EU political leaders tax and censor the internet. Thanks for the new tax and internet censorship attempt EU bureaucrats.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
AC why should a one line quote and using a link be EU taxed?
Why should a funny political cartoon be banned by the EU?
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
I somehow don't see much uproar against art 15, which is worse than 11 and 13. It pretty much forbids any free software licenses, as it disallows perpetual licenses where payment is deemed to be too cheap.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Based on everything green-lit from Slashdot over the past year about unwavering, unquestioning support for every scaremongering climate article they could get their hands on and every similarly scaremongering article about net-neutrality that only looks at the things from the MSM filtered left-wing perspective I'm glad to see a level-headed approach to a censorship issue.
The "Link Tax" is about the stupidest damned thing I ever heard of in my life.
If I'm publishing articles for a living I want people to link to those articles and drive traffic to my site so I can sell banner ads. In fact, there's entire bullshit sites built around the idea of going viral by getting your aunt to post links to feel-good stories on Facebook that could easily be the equivalent of a single legal-sized sheet of paper of content, but require you to hit "next" to load a new page with a new unrelated image a dozen times to read an incoherent string of facts and opinions that are only tangibly related to the subject of the "root link" - mostly to keep you clicking for page/banner loads. "Legitimate" news stories make money in a similar fashion - the "better" news sites put it all on one page, but some "legitimate news" sites use the bullshit article approach to keep you clicking. (slide-shows - how I hate ad-based slideshows, how I love legitimate add to the story well done slideshows with a wealth of images)
Nope, if I were a news source I would exempt myself from charging the link tax if it were an option just to make sure people actually shared my links, assuming the AI filters don't prevent it. This is why I'm moving to block-chain social networks. Fuck AI overlords on legacy media sites.
The EU is doing the right thing by having their Brexit. More nations should follow because of stupid shit like this. Sometimes it feels like we've all been duped, the Nazi's actually won WWII and their running the EU to get shit like this shoved down everyone's throats.
BTW - here at home in the US we're being threatened by an expansion of the Mickey Mouse protection act. JUST SAY NO to the automatic insanely long copyright extension here in the US.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
It's nice to see Trump's Russian puppet masters step up to defend child abuse!!
Moscow Donald will have to grope his daughter extra tenderly tonight to make up the stain left on our country from his campaign of treason and child abuse.
If Google, Facebook, and everybody else this will affect is smart, they will just wait until the EU passes this ridiculous legislation and then simply cut off the entirety of the EU. If suddenly the entire EU is unable to access the largest services on the internet, what do you think will happen? The end result will be a huge uproar within EU member-states and the legislation will be reversed.
then you're going to drop off the internet. Companies have tried this before. Google will pull them from search results and they'll cease to exist. Meanwhile I'll keep watching Youtube videos that report the facts in the articles (perfectly legal since they're facts) from guys like Secular Talk, the Young Turks and the BBC and get my news that way. This is a profoundly stupid thing to do.
And if newspapers want to be relevant to me how about covering issues that matter to me (like our screwed up healthcare, the ongoing wars that just won't end or the fact that we're at full employment but wages are declining) instead of banging on about the British royal family or some such. How about some good 'ole fashion Watergate style muck racking? Of course your corporate owners wouldn't like that...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
At first I wasn't too worried about the 'link tax' - I figured that news outlets and media companies would realize what a tremendous footgun the idea is and have it repealed posthaste. But then I started thinking about smaller content creators who depend on those links - lack of site traffic is likely a bigger problem for them than copyright infringement is. As for checking everything uploaded for infringement, just how are they going to do that? Even if you ignore the problems of different laws in different jurisdictions outside the EU; and even if you can figure out how to consistently and reliably make sure that 'fair use', 'fair dealing', and the like are properly evaluated; there's still the techno-logistical problem of the HUGE volume of uploading that takes place every minute. There's simply no way to handle that volume with anything like acceptable accuracy and latency. And this is just the first gloss - I can already see a LOT of subtleties and complexities that would make this whole thing totally unworkable even if the means existed to do the job. Those who drafted this either weren't thinking clearly, or are simply too stupid and / or ill-informed to be charged with writing laws.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
well us based systems will have hard time doing an FULL Content ID on all internet without running into some 1st amendment issues.
I patent the use of the letter E on line $.0005 per use.
bad movie review = copyright infringement
In the USA a person can make a funny cartoon. Comment on politics. Quote from a magazine, book, novel, speech.
Publish a comment for the world to see with references without a EU tax per line and per link.
In the USA a person is free to review a movie review and invite comments on the movie.
The USA has freedom of speech and freedom after speech.
The EU starts an investigation for every attempt at speech and a EU fine for attempting publishing links and using quotes.
The EU then has a nice set of laws for political cartoons and memes that amuse internet users on aspects of politics in Spain and France.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
then hopefully something more benevolent will fill the void
maybe inject pidgin or some other FOSS GPLed instant messenger service with some financial help to build a better alternative to facebook, something that does not see their users as a product and respects their privacy, and any advertising in non-intrusive, and no malicious or upsetting scripts to annoy people
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
All they can do is spend a fortune firewalling their part of the Internet, while vainly trying to ignore an avalanche of complaints from their own users, who will just resign themselves to accessing everything through offshore servers.
Never issue an order or pass a law that you know will be ignored. This is utterly unenforceable, and will just make the EU look like feckless inept buffoons. So, no change.
We all know the EU is a shithole.
Just like the US public education system.
We keep being told how much better the EU is than the US - but then they do something awful like this, which is much, much worse than anything that would be seriously proposed in the US.
Trump administration: "Hold my beer and bucket of chicken"
Just be patient, it will get worse here.
There's copyright infringement enforcement, and then there's "fascism disguised as protecting copyright."
People around here generally supported the right to have your misdeeds forgotten, now let's see how they like phase 2.
Yeah, because you can spell DMCA without that big fat fucking D-for-Democrat.
Wait, no you can't.
Why would that be?
Because "content producers" pretty much own the parts of the Democratic Party not totally annexed by public employee unions.
Eliminate copyrights and patents and the new law will not apply to anything. Any objections?
Kill that IP Tax and costs drop!
The whole point of "copyright" (actually distributor's privilege) is to enable *distributors*, *not* creators, to create an artificial scarcity monopoly, so they can leech on the actual creators, and leech on the consumers too, getting free money without working, (to, judging from my career in said inustries, keep their *massive* cocain addiction going).
It is, in the literal sense of the word, organized crime, and factually the biggest enemy of all creators.
Prison or extradiction are the only acceptable treatments.
A "link tax" is absurd, the site publishing the link is doing the linked site a favor by driving traffic to their site and potentially increasing ad revenue. It's the sites that repost entire news articles verbatim that are stealing content.
An "Upload Filter" that checks all uploaded content for copyright infringement? Is the EU also going to provide a web service with an insanely extensive database and develop the content verification system and APIs with which to check uploaded content against? If not, this is an absurd barrier to entry for any start-up, particularly when it has fines attached (which I believe last I read about this article it did, those the linked story doesn't mention them so maybe I'm wrong).
The main outcome from this is probably just google starting to charge by search request for eu member countries. then not handing any of money out. like they do with adsense and youtube monetisation.
Where can I submit all my stuff so it'll become part of what gets reported when scanned? I have about 1tb of home videos and photos as well as all my writing assignments from since high school and I can go through all my old accounts and submit all the posts I've written. I use a desktop email client so submitting all the email I've written should be easy.
Waiting for the fascist eu liberals to attack and denigrate anyone who dares to point out the obvious.
President Clinton could not have stopped the Digital Millennium Copyright Act from becoming law.
The Constitution allows 20 percent of either house to force a recorded vote or 34 percent to uphold a presidential veto. If a bill lacks enough dissent to force a recorded vote, there certainly isn't enough to uphold a veto.
In 1998, Newtros Newtros-Gingy's crop of Republicans still controlled the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate. The DMCA passed both houses by unanimous consent, also called a voice vote. Which if any Republican members of Congress went on record as opposing the DMCA?
First Trump wants a Space Force, now we pay to link to web sites!
I feel like my Vanilla Sky dream is going bad!
"TECH SUPPORT.....TECH SUPPORT!"
We keep being told how much better the EU is than the US - but then they do something awful like this, which is much, much worse than anything that would be seriously proposed in the US.
There's copyright infringement enforcement, and then there's "fascism disguised as protecting copyright."
And it's so wasteful. In the US we just outsource the fascism to be handled by Facebook and non-profit agitating groups, for free!
You're welcome, taxpayers :)
They'll never censor the internet, that's the joy of it.
They'll only censor their little corner of it, and if the regulations become too troublesome to adhere to, they'll just lose functionality for their citizenry as various vendors decide compliance is economically more painful than simply refusing service.
That's their (the EU's) choice as a nominally-democratic entity; they elect (again, ostensibly) representatives to enact their will and if their will is to be in a carefully-managed little dead-end of the interwebs ('to protect people from bad stuff' of course), that's what they'll end up getting.
-Styopa
So what would you do?
Is it fair that the companies that don't produce the content (Google and Facebook) make all the money?
Something needs to change. Not sure if this law is the way to do it, but publishers need to be able to make money off their content.
Because this is how you get copyright abolished.
Even if people support the idea of copyright, if this is what it costs to have it, giving it up is the most reasonable and practical choice.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Right 1995 McIntyre v. Ohio:
Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.
Let's see how many companies follow that rather than bending to the will of the EU. I don't have much confidence
Considering the first two World Wars started in Europe, I fully expect the third to start there as well. That said, I didn't expect it would play out this way.
The malevolent EU leaders seem to want to build up their own Great Firewall of Europe, as if they're jealous of China or North Korea's "internet." This will simply make it harder for European companies to do business with other parts of the world. That will gravely wound their economies for years to come. Add in a ton of refugees/immigrants who have no intention of ever assimilating to the local cultures to create ever more No-Go zones. Also keep in mind that mostly tied together via the Euro, so that some countries can hurt other countries' economies (like how Greece's problems hurt Germany's economy, etc).
Will that mixed together, I don't think it'll take a large match to ignite another conflagration.
I was involved in multiple drafts of the DMCA before it became law, discussing the draft with people involved in many different aspects of the internet. People had different concerns and things were changed in the drafts to improve it.
Three major categories of people had different concerns:
Content producers
Hosting companies and ISPs
Web sites using content
Previously, when a content producer saw their content was being unlawfully copied on a web site, they would contact the hosting company. The liability of the hosting company was questionable - probably AFTER having received notice, they would most likely be liable if they didn't take it down, but that was murky. Different hosting companies had different policies. Some shut the site down right away. Some ignored the notices, which meant content producers would contact their upstream providers, who would often put pressure on the hosting company. Different companies had different policies about protecting their customers from invalid complaints (fair use etc). Most would just shut it down - they didn't want to get involved in a legal fight. It was all very inconsistent and messy.
Here's the process we ended up with:
Content provider would notify the site or hosting company, identifying exactly what infringed copyright.
Hosting company would inform the site owner, who had three options:
A. Deny the infringement (counter-notice)
B. Take down the content
C. Ignore the notice
If the site owner / poster denies there is infringement, that's the end of it. The hosting company is not liable, because they've received a statement saying there is no infringement. For some reason we didn't anticipate, very few people choose this option. It's the best and easiest option if you have content that isn't infringing.
Once the site owner or the person who posted the content says it doesn't infringe, the DMCA notice process ends and the content producer has to sue in federal court in order to move forward.
If the site owner sees there is likely infringement and takes the content down, that resolves the complaint process also. (Though the producer *could* still sue in federal court).
If the site owner ignores the notice and doesn't say "nope, not infringing", the web host will take down the content. This is the worst option. We didn't expect it would be the most common. Much better for the web site to respond to the notice somehow - either by taking down infringing content if they agree, or by sending back a note saying it's not infringing (a counter notice).
That seemed like a good, fair process, to most people. It's not exactly what content producers would choose if they got to pick, and not exactly what people re-using content would pick, but it's a fair compromise, we thought.
Two things didn't work out the way we expected. First, very few people send back a counter-notice. I can't explain why this is. It's so easy to just send back an email saying "nope, I disagree. This isn't infringement because it's educational fair use. That essentially nullifies the original DMCA notice.
Secondly, perhaps BECAUSE almost nobody responds to a DMCA notice, some producers started sending out way too many notices, not being sufficiently careful that they are accurate. Nobody anticipated that at the time the law was written. If I had an opportunity to do it over again, I would have suggested adding penalities for recklessly sending noticed, but that possibility never came up in the discussion.
Initially, the law was welcomed by most people in all the different areas. It set up a consistent, fair process that almost everyone used. Most people running sites and posting content were reasonably happy with it - they didn't violate copyright anyway, at least not much (maybe some clip art), and if they received a notice they'd gladly swap out any infringing content. They were glad to know that in a dispute, the hosting company would back them up - as long as they notified the hosting company that there WAS a
They can 'legislate' anything they want but they can't enforce anything on any country that doesn't agree to have it enforced on them. They're wasting their time, they're clueless idiots, and they should listen to their technical advisors who are doubtlessly telling them "This won't work".
Does the law mention how this should be accomplished? will it fund an agency the provides and API and allows me to check if an uploaded file contains copywriter material? I assume you would have to send all files? will the files need to be encrypted? Is there some master database of copyrighted material or can I just grab everything on you tube and claim it as mine? Is there an expectoration that you-tube will stop me from uploading video recording of myself singing happy birthday or reading curious George? how deep a look at the data is needed? No ? This looks a lot like Americas AHS ( we don't really understand , so we will give a group of bureaucrats enough power to take control over a large sector of the economy,strip people of all kinds of natural and legal rights and call it good, .)
Of course that is what you get for electing people who believe the government should provide every service that citizens need, because if your served everything you consume then you can expect that everything you consume is also controlled because finances will never be infinite. Or as the saying goes,' the problem with socialism is sooner or later you run out of other peoples money to spend'. So what do you do , grab more power and money until you virtually control all means of consumption and production. When it still isn't enough you encourage the less valuable people to go away , by removing the services they don't need and ensuring their 'right to die'.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
Funny how you're anticipating the people who "don't like the EU," but there just aren't that many of those. There's a lot who don't like the things the EU does, though.
We keep being told how much better the EU is than the US - but then they do something awful like this, which is much, much worse than anything that would be seriously proposed in the US.
There's copyright infringement enforcement, and then there's "fascism disguised as protecting copyright."
Been to Europe, they all want to be like America is so many ways.
this? We had the faux outcry over net neutrality for months upon months. Where is the outcry and campaign to stop this madness?
I get the feeling the money and power is on the side of the EU in this case. Waiting to see the nothing that materialize to stop this one.
Re "be able to make money off their content."
Did the big internet make EU publishers move to the net from paper publication AC?
To have content outside their own pay sites?
EU sites can select to not be part of the net. Not be searched. Not be linked into.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Nonsense. This is similar to the proposals a decade ago for a generic "copyright infringement tax" to basically give a windfall to content producers based on how often their content was produced. Proposals had no way to account for things like whether or not the people pirating were actually even in the US, whether or not each pirated copy was truly a "lost sale" or anything else. And frankly there's no non-invasive, non-antithetical-to-freedom-in-a-democratic-republic way to accomplish a goal like this. Though I imagine the main reason proposals like the ones we saw a decade ago failed is because the people proposing them realized the lion's share of the tax would go to adult content producers, not the movie and music studios.
I'm quite sure they'll rethink this idea when Google simply delists them from the search engine.
When their site traffic drops off to near zero, those companies will end up begging to be relisted soon enough.
First they do the stupid cookie banner laws. Then they say IP address is "personal private information" and now this.
There is no doubt that the EU has no idea what they are on about.
I picture EU staff at dinner parties drinking $300 bottles of wine coming up with these dumb ideas.
The EU doesn't produce any movies people watch.
They don't make music or video games or TV shows people like.
Why would they? The sheriff of Nottingham is just going to come by and pick their pockets.
This link tax is just going to make it harder for both of the content producers in the EU to get outsider into their stuff because there's another barrier.
It's become so abusive, it should be abolished as punishment. Maybe after a few years, allow it back with reasonable terms and a no expansion clause.
... the thought that now everyone is a publisher. They've been pushing this as a last ditch effort to save their stuff.
As a result of this law there's going to be some "content sharing" initative in like 6 hours ago, basically voiding this law just about instantly for all participants. Everyone is going to sign up except for them and the world will move on. Without them. And they will finally die.
Good riddance.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Counter notices are rarely sent because existence of such a possibility is rarely advertised. More people would use it if, say, youtube would present you a form to contest the takedown automatically once it started blocking you.
Secondly, perhaps BECAUSE almost nobody responds to a DMCA notice, some producers started sending out way too many notices, not being sufficiently careful that they are accurate. Nobody anticipated that at the time the law was written.
I did. Of course, I know that every law will be abused, and it's usually trivial to determine how. I was correct. Of course, nobody asked me.
If I had an opportunity to do it over again, I would have suggested adding penalities for recklessly sending noticed, but that possibility never came up in the discussion.
I believe it should be criminalized, and I believed so when the DMCA was written. But it was obviously written by big copyright owners who were writing it for their own purposes, rather than being a general-purpose law.
Do you have ESP?
If we just reverted to the original copyright system, which had copyright for only 17 years, ascribed to a human person, not a corporation, and not renewed, all of this would go away.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Have you ever seen the DMCA notices if you are caught downloading a movie? They are worded in such a way that indicates if they find out who you are they are coming after you, your children, your spouse, your house, and everything you own. I can only imagine its because the content owners word the notices in such a way that scares the shit out of everyone and no one dares acknowledge that it happened for fear that it will be used against them in the litigation that will inevitably be brought against them.
Fortunately, the Democrats got their ass kicked last few elections, so the Republicans were finally able to repeal DMCA.
I thought we were talking about linking, not actually republishing (i.e. pirating) the content.
If Facebook is taking your articles and showing people copies on their website, you can already sue them for copyright infringement without a new law.
If Facebook is making money by giving people a link to your article on your website, then yes, they deserve 100% of they money they get. And you deserve the money that you get when people visit your site to read the article.
Facebook did produce the content: they got user x to publicly say that he's thinks your article is worth reading. They produced an ad for you.
Am I misunderstanding the situation somehow?
Everyone should just "not comply". Can't arrest everyone, and it would tie up the courts for years if they try to "fine" folks.
That's the easiest way IMHO to deal with unjust/idiotic laws. Break them. By sheer numbers they won't be able to enforce it.
-Miser
> I was correct. Of course, nobody asked me.
> It was obviously written by big copyright owners who were writing it for their own purposes, rather than being a general-purpose law
If it were "written by big copyright owners for their own purposes", you wouldn't be able to end it by simply saying "I disagree, I don't think I'm infringing", and have the content stay up.
We DID ask you for input, we DID ask you to participate. Specifically *I* asked right here on Slashdot.
And a couple of us stated there should be pentaltys for sending fake notices.
This x1000
Hey, at least we can all agree on this.
Yep, we will hear the "don't want to follow EU law, then don't do business there"
But hol on, a link deluvers oeople to your site and ss a tesolt shows ypur ads etc, why would you make people that send you traffic pay you for that favor? I’m shore I’m missing something here, unless this is about those sites thst previo a bit of the lnked aticle, which us of corerse somwjat of an other matter, but demanding paimrnt for a plsin old link is just plain silly imho
One practical problem with the counter-notification process is that the complainant learns the alleged infringer's home address. That sort of breaks operational security for any fan project that isn't 100% certain that its use is a fair use.
Another is hosts being slow to react. I sent a counter-notification back in 2009 for a video reporting on a video game publisher's policy toward fans. YouTube took longer than the legally allowed 14 business days to reinstate my video, though I initially suspected the timing relative to the Memorial Day holiday was partly the culprit. (Three years later, I voluntarily retracted that video after the publisher won a lawsuit against another fan project.)
Thanks for your thoughts on section 512. As for section 1201, did the balance of "circumvention device" vs. "interoperability" work as anticipated?
I think one of the reasons no one bothers with counternotice is that you then immediately go to court, because the company filing the DMCA notice will at that point just file another notice against your counter notice.
And now you have to pay for a lawyer. Most people don't want to pay for that, since even if they win they will be out 10s of thousands of dollars.
Copyright infringement should never have been a thing for non-commercial use.
In the US we stand up against tyranny. It seems the EU embraces it.
I have no words to describe the sheer idiocy of the euroimbeciles who came with this megashitpie measure. American FCCing idiot is an Einstein compared to this debilitic mongoloids.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Thank you for the thoughtful input on this. Do you have links to what you asked on Slashdot? I couldn't find it after looking a couple places. I'm happy to accept my failure to find it with a "lmgtfy" response : ) It would be very interesting to see the analyze the comments in those threads.
Kill all the Jews the problem goes away automagically.
It was nice knowing you. I would love to see Google redacting pages for the EU market... just disable and block anything on YouTube that isn't a homemade cat video!
Road to hell is covered with good intension.
Also wondering if those media companies can afford not having google to link them...
Part of the problem is that most people simply cannot afford to be sued, even if they are obviously in the right. Compounding that, confidence in our civil court system is at an all time low. Many simply don't believe that being obviously in the right will result in a finding in their favor.
So, they get a doom and gloom nastygram and their content has already been pulled down. They can either move on or they can spin the wheel and pray it doesn't come up bankrupt. About half the wheel looks to be "bankrupt". They have kids to feed and a house to pay for. They have a job to go to and little ability to take unpaid time off to be in court, much less pay a lawyer several months worth of their paychecks.
Let's be honest, given that, what would you do? Would you care to send the complainant your full name and address?
That actually sounds like Youtube is in violation of the law, if they do the takedown immediately upon their receipt of the notice, without notifying anyone and providing the opportunity for counter-notice. I dunno, I don't use Youtube.
Your created widespread internet censorship you shit head.
> I was correct. Of course, nobody asked me.
> It was obviously written by big copyright owners who were writing it for their own purposes, rather than being a general-purpose law
If it were "written by big copyright owners for their own purposes", you wouldn't be able to end it by simply saying "I disagree, I don't think I'm infringing", and have the content stay up.
That doesn't "end it" - that simply means that you go to court if the supposed copyright owner wants to. It was considered a concession at the time to ISPs.
I believe the DMCA is a good law, but an infringement claim should be sworn with specific criminal penalties if the claim isn't upheld by a court. It should be a misdemeanor for some small number of them, with transition to a felony after 10 or 15 of them. The actual copyright owner - if different - should also have a civil claim against the fraudulent claimant. This is actually pretty normal stuff in the legal world.
But since the DMCA was written by big copyright owners for their own purposes, they didn't care to put any of that in.
Do you have ESP?
Agreed
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
They are the gatekeepers we must tear down so that anybody can host what they want. With an ad hoc internet nothing can be taken down involuntarily. Only then can we render all this copyright and 'illegal content' bullshit moot. The ISP is there to serve the tyrants..
The USA has freedom of speech...
Only in theory. The 1st Amendment has been rendered useless by various judges over the years.
The internet is controlled by the ISPs. We must find a way to make them obsolete so that nobody can force anybody to take anything down.
Copyright is theft and is also a violation of the 1st Amendment. It says right there, no law
I doubt it. Maggie II will probably come up with something even worse.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
That's nice, dear. Was that before or after you were an astronaut?
(Nurse! He's off his meds again!)
But then again, Look at the group invovled you cited
NONE are representing the general public interrest. Funny, uh ?
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
No, the counter notices are rarely sent because the notice issuer now has an actionable statement from poster that they can address with a lawsuit. It doesn't matter whether the posted content is squarely within fair-use or even "mostly" original content. The vast majority of people simply do not want to risk even a chance of being pulled into a court action, also largely due to the average person or small business simply not having enough legal experience (duh..) to "know" that they have a good case.
It's the classic "chilling effect". That the DMCA authors didn't see this angle is frankly dumbfounding.
Or is it?
The current scenario is one where content hosts is colluding with possibly IP owners, instead of forcing everyone to walk the talk and go to court.
Then again, legman law is basically crippled by poor understanding of law, and how harmless going to court is(assuming signed papers can be produced, and a rough outline of laws can be gathered)
Film at 11.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
I might find it later, if I don't have something else higher priority to do. I'd use Google's date filters for 1998 and early 1999, with my username and site: slashdot.com
It would probably be easier to find on some other forums, like GFY.com, if posts that old are still available there.
My focus at the time was web sites, so I wasn't paying much attention to circumvention devices.
I owned a web hosting company and this was when there wasn't yet the content-producing industry that exists today, so some of our customers could well be using content with questionable licensing rights. In fact, for adult content, there were basically five provides - Dave Lace, Dave Thompson, another Dave whose last name I've forgotten, Gabe, and a Suze Randall. Two of those content producers were also our customers. So I owned a hosting company, and had customers who were both content producers and users of content. My interest was in a good process for all of us to handle copyright issues related to web site content.
We should not worry with EU anymore. One by one, people of member countries elect government hostile to the Union. At some time one will manage to destroy the whole structure. Latest challenger is Italy.
> I believe the DMCA is a good law, but an infringement claim should be sworn with specific criminal penalties if the claim isn't upheld by a court. It should be a misdemeanor for some small number of them, with transition to a felony after 10 or 15 of them.
I tend to agree in principle. I would point out some cases are close calls. I'd penalize recklessly sending DMCA notices, or require "ordinary care" (a legal term). I wouldn't penalize a good-faith claim where the content producer did their due diligence.
Because a reckless DMCA claim that is brought to court harms a specific, easily identified person, there is an easier, cheaper, faster, and perhaps more appropriate way to handle it. You don't need to have a completely separate criminal trial, with proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead it could be done faster, easier, and probably more fair by allowing (treble?) damages to be awarded to the *defendant*.
So suppose I sue you for $50,000 for copyright infringement. The court can rule any of these three ways:
1. I'm right, you violated my rights wholesale, selling my work without a license. You owe me $50,000
2. I'm not quite right. Your use was infringement, but the infringement is allowed under fair use. You don't owe me anything.
3. I'm completely wrong. You didn't infringe at all. I have to pay YOU $150,000
That would resolve the issue without an extra trial, and the penalty would be paid to the person who was harmed.
I see your point
> Let's be honest, given that, what would you do? Would you care to send the complainant your full name and address?
I'm probably not the person to ask. A) I'm not hard to find, especially if you already know my web site and B) I actually really, really enjoy going to court. I was headed to law school, because I love that stuff, when my web business unexpectedly took off. I see your point though.
I haven't extensively researched YouTube, but my understanding is that their most-used process doesn't exactly follow DMCA. That would mean they don't get the benefit of DMCA safe harbor when they don't follow the process. It's not a "violation" in the sense that DMCA doesn't tell them they MUST follow the process, but rather IF they follow the process they are protected from liability on either side..
Your comment also reminded me of something else that I think was overlooked in DMCA. Remember this was before YouTube and Facebook. User-generated content was forums, and Slashdot. When I was looking at it, I was thinking in terms of a web site you're making a significant amount of money from, and a web hosting company. You'd know if your site was taken down, so I don't think there is actually a legal requirement that the host notifies you. The hosting companies I was familiar with did notify customers, because that's just basic customer service. My hosting company would call a customer if we got a complaint - specifically I would call, as the president of our small hosting company. I've heard through the grapevine that YouTube isn't always good about notifying people.
Of course on a forum, or Slashdot, how would Slashdot notify you if someone said your posting of their poem violated their copyright? I guess email, which isn't normally considered acceptable for legal notice, and was less so in 1998.
It is highly unlikely that this will tear the Internet apart. What is more likely to happen is that the Internet will simply reroute itself around the damage (aka the EU).
This space unintentionally left blank.
Is that just like how China will never censor Hollywood? Because that turned out to be completely wrong too. Many films now self censor so as to not offend China and lose out on the biggest market for their movies.
They will figure out it's easier to just make one product and pander to the lowest common denominator in order to make the most profit. How many tech companies already pander to China to be allowed to sell into their market? All but Google, and even they are having second thoughts.
Why should copyright owners, a miniscule portion of the population, get a preferential treatment? Who will protect the rest from them? Why would they deserve their profits to be protected? I want my profits to be protected too!
I'd take them over a smelly, sad, bitter, neckbeard cunt from Idaho any day of the fucking week.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
This is not EU law yet. It just left a committee but faces strong opposition from various political groups. Meanwhile, in the US, the "classics: act is about to extend the copyright protection of pre-1972 recordings to 2067. This is not liberals vs. conservatives - it's about media companies such as Sony or Disney who pay and push politicians. It's the way to re-define the framers idea of a "limited time" protection for intellectual property. The method has been use countless times: Hey let's extend the copyright (retroactively) for another 30 years. What? Sure it's still "limited time" . A few years later: Hey - we need to extend the copyright for another 25 years. Don't worry - it's still "limited time". This has been done 3 or 4 times already and now, with the classics act, some songs will enjoy more than 100 years of copyright. So folks please: The consumers and users in the EU and here in America are on the same side of being f*cked from behind. The dark side just uses different methods here and there.
Do you have evidence that more than a miniscule percentage of the internet is behind a paywall ?
It depends on whether "minuscule percentage" counts number of distinct domains or web usage time. I find it dishonest to count number of distinct domains, as this includes throwaway domains used by phishing campaigns.
As for web usage time, a lot of popular news sites have switched to a subscription model, either metered or hard. These include Wall Street Journal, The Times (London), Financial Times, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, Bloomberg, Boston Globe, numerous Gannett-owned local newspapers, and even some Medium-hosted blogs. Professionally produced video is also strongly associated with paywalls, with Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Video being big players in the United States, and most major cable TV channels put their web presence behind "TV Everywhere" authentication partnerships with traditional multichannel pay TV providers.
Blackhole all EU traffic now
One of your sources is "Most popular digital brands in the United States in from May to July 2017, ranked by monthly user engagement (in hours.minutes)" on Statista. #4 is Amazon, which I mentioned. Video on Amazon is either pay-per-view or included with an Amazon Prime subscription. #1 is Google, and Google Play Music is also a subscription service.
If we talk about nerd sites : /. , reddit , wired are free . Stack* sites
In order: Correct, correct, outdated, and correct. On February 1, 2018, WIRED put up a metered paywall.
Netflix is paywalled. In 2015 it boasted 37 percent of Internet traffic in North America according to Sandvine. The same article states that iTunes, Hulu, and Amazon Video were tied at 3 percent each, for a total of 45 percent. This didn't change much in Sandvine's 2017 survey, though Hulu and Amazon Video declined to 2 percent each.
Reinvented https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Casteism
the decision was basically made the day the estonian dictatorship proposed it ... just like with the piracy report any arguments to the contrary , even if they came from the internet god itself are swept under the rug ... the votes are cast during world cup footy and by the time anyone wakes up it's "law" ... the actual extent is that every single country can decide, basically paving the way for geo-localized and blocked internet, which won't work, and with great frustration lead to cops scoring massive results statistically while they round up all the copyrrists
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
I notice the german, french and spanish Wikipedias arent protesting.