Slashdot Mirror
European Governments Approve Controversial New Copyright Law (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: A controversial overhaul of Europe's copyright laws overcame a key hurdle on Wednesday as a majority of European governments signaled support for the deal. That sets the stage for a pivotal vote by the European Parliament that's expected to occur in March or April. Supporters of the legislation portray it as a benign overhaul of copyright that will strengthen anti-piracy efforts. Opponents, on the other hand, warn that its most controversial provision, known as Article 13, could force Internet platforms to adopt draconian filtering technologies. The cost to develop filtering technology could be particularly burdensome for smaller companies, critics say.
Online service providers have struggled to balance free speech and piracy for close to two decades. Faced with this difficult tradeoff, the authors of Article 13 have taken a rainbows-and-unicorns approach, promising stricter copyright enforcement, no wrongful takedowns of legitimate content, and minimal burdens on smaller technology platforms. But it seems unlikely that any law can achieve all of these objectives simultaneously. And digital-rights groups suspect that users will wind up getting burned -- both due to wrongful takedowns of legitimate content and because the burdens of mandatory filtering will make it harder to start a new online hosting service.
Online service providers have struggled to balance free speech and piracy for close to two decades. Faced with this difficult tradeoff, the authors of Article 13 have taken a rainbows-and-unicorns approach, promising stricter copyright enforcement, no wrongful takedowns of legitimate content, and minimal burdens on smaller technology platforms. But it seems unlikely that any law can achieve all of these objectives simultaneously. And digital-rights groups suspect that users will wind up getting burned -- both due to wrongful takedowns of legitimate content and because the burdens of mandatory filtering will make it harder to start a new online hosting service.
Thank goodness for the Brexit!
.. that they can turn digital files into scarce property. They hate hate hate that nature defies capitalist logic in the digital realm. Supply can now always meet demand and they want us to live in some stone age corporatism of false scarcity to extract tribute from their serfs.
This, but a thousandfold worse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I was going to say something about wrongful take-downs but self-censored the post out fear of unpredictable and automatic Youtube-take-down.
https://cdn.netzpolitik.org/wp-upload/2019/02/voss-pornhub.jpg
1) A way to block EU access to my servers
2) A large retainer for lawyers to issue copyright takedowns for any EU access to my comments on any social media, which I own the copyright to.
3) A tax shelter for all the sweet sweet profit.
There haven't existed any European governments since 1945.
Route around bureaucratic EU censorship.
If the EU does not like the net and links, be aware of every link used.
Find the same link outside the EU, use that one.
Can only find a link into the EU?
Tell the world why you are not linking into the EU.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
This law essentially prohibits hosting copyrighted content without owner's approval, The expected outcome is to prevent companies from making money off someone else's intellectual property. This makes sense; however, we will have to see if this can be implemented.
Participation in the European Union definitely means you're not a sovereign nation. Not being a sovereign nation means that you do not have an actual government, you have the local authorities. You know your nation is not sovereign because there are laws you cannot enact within its borders, such as limiting the freedom of movement to and from your nation from other nations that are in the agreement as well.
The United States of Europe is more accurate.
The DMCA enabled all large platforms that have user-contributed content by absolving them from liability in return for notice-and-takedown. Even though it is a much-hated law, this safety from liability is the foundation of the internet as we know it. The European copyright law is the complete opposite: It shifts liability from the people who upload back to the platforms, who can only avoid it by trying to get licenses for everything their users might upload. This will make sure that the internet in Europe will become a mere access network for platforms outside of Europe.
Fuck all those fascist empires that support organized crime (the "intellectual property" Mafia) and allow them to steal our hard-earned money without actually working for it. (But merely leeching on artists.)
Nothing is more harmful to art, than 'intellectual property". The time when the UK had "copyright", while Germany didn't and hence became "the country of poets and thinkers" is cold hard proof of that.
If the cost of enforcing copyright exceeds the benefit of copyright to society, then the tradeoff is no longer worth it. That is, copyright has outlived its usefulness, and should be abolished. But the simplest way to make this determination is to make sure that the copyright holder bears the full cost of enforcing that copyright. Then they can simply look at how much money they're making from copyright, compare it to how much they're spending to enforce copyright, and decide whether or not copyright is worth it.
If you shift copyright enforcement costs onto someone other than the copyright holder, then you make possible a solution where copyright becomes a net drain on society, yet we retain it because we have no easy way to determine that it has become a net drain on society. So it is imperative that the copyright holder be liable for all enforcement costs. The only two choices here that make sense are the copyright holder bears the enforcement costs, or we abolish copyright.
So shifting enforcement costs onto others is stupid, because it destroys your only direct means of determining if copyright is still worth it. If the copyright holder believes enforcement by ISPs is beneficial to copyright, then they should be paying ISPs to enforce copyright. That will make it obvious if the enforcement costs has exceeded the value of copyright to society, meaning copyright is no longer worth it and should be abolished.
And FINES for FALSE TAKEDOWNs, how about 5,000 if the takedown initiate by a private and 50,000,000 if by a company.
After all, these are budgets to make a video (private) or a movie (company), and 80% of the fine should go to the victim of the false takedown.
If it is in the LAW, it has to be respected.
Light a fire under peoples' asses to develop ad hoc networking that can't be taken down!
There is no other way to do this while we keep on reelecting fascists into government. We need high technology to protect us from each other.
If all the cool countries told you to jump off a cliff, would you?
EU members say yes.
even today? https://science.slashdot.org/story/19/02/20/2342200/israel-to-launch-first-privately-funded-moon-mission.. deja phewww, almost lost in latest translations?
This resource is no longer valid. Please return to the beginning and try again.
Anyway. And they don't care.
The fewer the platforms the fewer to enforce their rule on.
Europeans isn't supposed to talk or rule themselves anyway. The elite got better ideas.
Lose memes? GOOD! PeopleÂs post aren't visible or they are removed from the platform? GOOD!
And if you don't agree you're a threat to democracy and Europe!"#ÂRT
I'm beginning to doubt all the propaganda we were taught in "history"
I'll feed the troll: lies are "assembled" using bits of truth.
In any case, the virtual non-existence of actually Semitic Jews (i. e. Sephardic Jews) should be a good indicator that the Holocaust was a real thing, despite the obvious shadiness of those pushing the narrative the hardest.
I thought the inquisition wiped out most of the Sephardic Jews.
The devil will be in the implementation details and the interpretation of the law. A harsh rendering of the law would be something to worry about, but a tech-friendly rendering would require only minor adjustments.to what is now done.
... and some bad.
The GDPR is really good and gives authorities leverage over the large internet Megacorps that couldn't give a f*ck and now face bazillion Euro fines if they don't play ball and follow the law. Very nice.
This new copyright law however is total bullshit and something like Europe equivalent of the DMCA. It doesn't impact private people as much as it does impact corps and I expect a lot of anonymous forum activity to move overseas but it still is established by institutions that don't seem to have a clue how the internet works and stick with their old structures come hell or high water. I don't really like this new bill and the smell that cove with it and hope the European Parliament takes it down again or fixed it soon.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Online service providers have struggled to balance free speech and piracy for close to two decades.
This is impossible because copyright is a form of censorship.
Maybe people will get so disgusted they will seek alternative means to get their content?
Won't be ruled by the so called elite anymore.
History is fake. It's obviously fake. There is evidence all around us; most people just live with so much cognative dissonance they barely notice. Why do you think they burnt libraries and books in the past? Today, they don't even need to burn the libraries. All digital data is naturally untrustworthy, as revisions leave no trail.
Participation in the European Union definitely means you're not a sovereign nation
Lies, bullshit lies.
Every nation is the EU is sovereign. At any point they can choose to not adopt one of the EU's laws. The choice is always implicitly all the same: adopt the rule or leave the EU. The choice to leave is ALWAYS on the table, so countries are sovereign. By contrast, Aabama is not a soverign nation. It tried to leave the US (with some others) and they got shot at until they stopped leaving.
Now of course no country with a brain wants to actually leave, because they get so much good stuff from being in.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Despite the backlash from people, and the commission writing an article about how uninformed and uneducated people were https://web.archive.org/web/20...
Now deleted https://medium.com/@EuropeanCo...
They just went on with it.
EU copyright racketeers.
None of this will matter soon. Europe is a dying state.
I'm glad my shitty country (UK) is getting out of it before it collapses in on their retarded decisions.
Several of the smaller countries are already in pre-collapse. Some have collapsed. The larger ones are on the verge of collapse. SOON.
I hope it crashes and burns like the shitheap it has been. Europe has been the worst decision this past century.
Worse than letting America come in to existence.
Maybe this will create a shakedown of the scummy corrupt back-alley dealing fuckwits that have ruined the modern world.
Hang every one of them. Especially all the multi-national scum that only seek to ruin local companies.
Weed out every last one of them and make a TV show out of them.
A large retainer for lawyers to issue copyright takedowns for any EU access to my comments on any social media, which I own the copyright to.
That's cute. From https://www.facebook.com/legal...:
"Specifically, when you share, post, or upload content that is covered by intellectual property rights (like photos or videos) on or in connection with our Products, you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, and worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate, and create derivative works of your content (consistent with your privacy and application settings). This means, for example, that if you share a photo on Facebook, you give us permission to store, copy, and share it with others (again, consistent with your settings) such as service providers that support our service or other Facebook Products you use. "
I don't respond to AC's.
The quicker something large like EU goes down the fucking government rules everything drain the better for the rest of us. We get to see what a government that passes laws against doing anything and everything looks like. We get to see the full action of the slippery slope of good intention passed laws. Hopefully this will open the eyes of citizens who don't mind the thousands of anti freedom laws passed every year in exchange for tiny amounts of protection against edge cases that may or may not hurt a handful of people. Or maybe they'll just import these stupid fucking laws like they already are trying to do. The USA already is proposing something like the privacy weakening GDPR. The US did already pass the anti sex traffic law that creates more private sex traffic (FOSTA-SESTA). Maybe I'm being too optimistic but I believe things have to get worse before they get better. It's hard to convince people who love nanny states that freedom is the better option until their favorite things are outlawed. Once that happens it's almost too late without a violent uprising since those kinds of people tend to do almost nothing with their lives anyway. Just like government/big corporations like its people: Do nothing tax paying law abiding homogenized citizens/employees.
You're 'free' to leave. They'll just do everything in their power to sabotage and punish you for doing so. See Brexit.
The other big difference is the requirement to ensure unavailability of unlicensed works based on information provided about works.
And that's a big question mark. How does the directive define "relevant and necessary information"? Is it just URLs and hashes, as seen in notices of claimed infringement pursuant to 17 USC 512? Or is a copyright owner permitted to say "block anything that looks like these keyframes and sounds like this recording"? The latter would require a counterpart to YouTube's Content ID.
And FINES for FALSE TAKEDOWNs
Some legal systems have a tort called "defamation of title" or "slander of title". Recklessly claiming you own copyright in someone else's work looks like a case of defamation of title. Which EU member states' legal systems have this?
The sabotage during Bexit have been 100% from the UK side
Aaron Swartz had a great encounter with Federal prosecutors who later charged him with two counts of wire fraud and eleven violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, carrying a cumulative maximum penalty of $1 million in fines, 35 years in prison, asset forfeiture, restitution, and supervised release.
I'm sure your words are cold comfort to his dead corpse you fucking fascist bootlicking cunt..
You're 'free' to leave.
Yes.
They'll just do everything in their power to sabotage and punish you for doing so. See Brexit.
Jesus Christ, Brexiters are entitled. So far the "sabotage" and "punishment" has simply not been getting all the stuff we got when we were in the EU. No fucking shit, sherlock! If you leave a club and stop paying your dues, you can't use the pool or sauna. The only reason Brexiters think this is "punishment" is because they are possibly the most whiny, entitled and shortsighted people on the planet at the moment.
Brexiteers were forewarned about not getting all the good stuff any more and called it "project fear". Now it's turned out that "project fear" is actually "project reality", they blame everyone but themselves for making a stupid decision.
The EU has not punished or sabotaged us. They have made no effort to interfere with our relations with third countries. They've mostly been looking out for their own interests. Brexiters are so incredibly stupid and entitled that they believe the EU has an obligation to not look after its own interests and must put us first.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The choice is always implicitly all the same: adopt the rule or leave the EU.
There is a third option.
Ignore the rule, stay and pay the fines.
IIRC some countries have been doing that for over a decade for rules they didn't like.
I am not trolling. Zionazis are writing our history. Walt Disney was the pioneer. Hollywood is a major player in the war effort, always was.
'charged' etc.
Oh, I get it, you're so anti-copyright that you consider it beyond the pale to even charge anybody with any crime ever. Ask OJ Simpson, I'm sure it's cold comfort to him that he had to spend all his money defending himself on those murder charges, leading him to steal and be put in jail later. Fucking government, if it'd just have understood how obviously innocent he was from the beginning....