Slashdot Mirror
The EU Could Vote To Wreck the Internet Tomorrow (vice.com)
The EU is preparing to vote Wednesday on sweeping new copyright guidelines that could dramatically reshape the internet and potentially harm your ability to share content online. From a report: As noted previously, the proposal is being driven by rights holders frightened by technological change, including brick and mortar publishers eager to blame companies like Google for their failure to evolve in the modern internet era. And while the EU's new Copyright Directive may be a well intentioned effort to modernize EU copyright rules, it still contains numerous provisions that could significantly harm the open internet. Most of those provisions remain largely intact despite a July vote that sent the proposal back to the drawing board in the wake of widespread activist backlash. The most problematic provisions of the plan include new licensing fees for sharing anything more than "insubstantial" portions of content. Such a "link tax" could prove costly for small news outlets, and, depending on final wording, could put volunteer-centric organizations like Wikipedia at risk since the original proposal failed to include a noncommercial exception.
The most controversial component of the plan mandates that any website that lets users upload text, sounds, images, code, or other copyrighted works for public consumption (read: most of them) would need to employ automated copyright systems that filter these submissions against a database of copyrighted works at the website owner's expense. As we've consistently highlighted, such filters routinely don't work very well.
The most controversial component of the plan mandates that any website that lets users upload text, sounds, images, code, or other copyrighted works for public consumption (read: most of them) would need to employ automated copyright systems that filter these submissions against a database of copyrighted works at the website owner's expense. As we've consistently highlighted, such filters routinely don't work very well.
It's because of them that I have websites constantly saying, "We use cookies on our website to track you" et cetera. I thought the US solution under DMCA was good:
- You upload something
- It gets taken down
- You respond by saying "This does not infringe copyright" and the item gets reinstated by the website (as required by DMCA).
- At that point the copyright claimant must either file a lawsuit and Prove in court that they are the legitimate owner.... or just let it go.
It provides a way for us average people to deal with takedown requests, without causing permanent harm. It appears the EU and the corporate donors will dismantle this regime, so you have NO way to reinstate legitimate uploads of yur own creation.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Nobody is talking about Trump. Just you. The discussion taking place as absolutely nothing to do with Trump or any of you TDS induced issues.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
And how does such a database of copyrighted works work?
Full text of anything ever generated? every frame of every film in case someone might make a meme of it?
Not to mention, who oversees it. " He who has the Gold (copyright DB control) makes the Rules. "
Exactly. This is mostly the publishers trying to double dip. Memes using a single frame of a movie and sharing of links benefits the copyright holder. Most of this seems to be targetting google and facebook. Practically everything on google and facebook links back to the original article. What facebook/google needs to do is just start banning links to any site that doesn't want to be included. Then lets see how many views their articles get when they aren't allowed to be shared on google or facebook. A summary and a link to the original article is what every content producer should want. It's free advertising. Give them a way to opt out if they don't want it and let's see how many actually opt out.
A. Facebook is not the Internet. It's a shitty website that preys on stupid people.
B. Anybody can compete with Facebook. This law just says that you'll have to monitor the content, just like Facebook is going to have to do.
C. The Internet is alive and well for those with brains. For dummies who think the Internet is Facebook... well... they never really used the web... any more than the people who used AOL did.
I don't respond to AC's.
And how does such a database of copyrighted works work?
Exactly the same way that the DMCA works in the U.S. If someone sees something they don't like, they file a complaint claiming "copyright infringement".
Since investigating the complaint and determining whether or not it really is infringement would require doing actual work, the "infringing material" is immediately taken down without question.
The big social media companies love this law. Because it makes it that much harder for some new upstart start-up to steal their eyeballs and profits.
The bigger issue however is covert censorship. For instance, if the EU start to make a stink about “hate speech” and have some sufficiently vague guidelines about what constitutes hate speech, the social media companies might be frightened into erring on the side of caution, and remove moderate but “undesirable” speech as well. They will be doing the dirty work, while Brussels keeps its hands clean.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Subscription fees don't even cover the cost of ink for newspapers. Newspapers are paid for by advertisers, just like social media. Subscription fees exist to give credibility to publishers' claims about subscriber count.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
"The EU Could Vote to Wreck the Internet Tomorrow"
"As noted previously, the proposal is being driven by rights holders frightened by technological change, including brick and mortar publishers eager to blame companies like Google for their failure to evolve in the modern internet era."
No the internet will not be wrecked tomorrow. No this is not driven by businesses that failed to "evolve in the modern internet era."
Stop being a fucking ass-hole and report the facts. That's all you need to do, promoting FUD does not help your argument.
And need I point out that you're being fucking hypocrite and Luddite when you say businesses need to evolve in the internet age but at the same time say technology solutions (automated copyright systems) won't work in policing copyrighted works. So you need to evolve but only to a certain point?
Ass.