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.
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.
Or just fucking link to them, if you're not in an EU country.
What are they going to do, extradite you?
Don't be a pussy. This isn't even civil disobedience if you're not in their jurisdiction. Link the fuck out of them.
If the laws aren't enacted in your country, then they're not your laws to follow. Link to the EU, take off your burqa, live like a person in a sovereign nation should live.
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.
Don't know wtf my fellow sheep are doing voting for these assholes.
This is exactly the problem. All our problems are self inflicted. But we do need a way to protect the minority from the majority that wants to fuck them.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Don't know wtf my fellow sheep are doing voting for these assholes.
Which arseholes? Or rather what's the alternative? Who should you vote for who you know will stand against a yet undisclosed issue lobbied for by corporations?
Stupidity like this directive doesn't get created in a legislative vacuum by the people you vote.
I vote pirate party all the way, but feels like I am the only one.
The pirate party has a currently sitting MEP (Germany). You're definitely not the only one. But fundamentally the problem with parties like the pirate party is that they are single issue parties made up of people with different backgrounds and opinions on other things not core to the pirate party. That will forever keep them as a minority player.
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
( Posting AC to preserve moderation to other comments )
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.
"Intellectual property" is an invented term used to frame the conversation in a light most favourable to rightholders and to the detriment of society at large. The original intent of copyright was to make an incentive to create by giving the creators some limited, and time-limited, exclusivity with regard to their works, not to treat those works as "property". The excuse was that it would end up enrich the public domain, which would be a net benefit to society at large. A social contract, if you will.
Originally, the duration of the copyright lasted for 14 years (some but not all jurisdictions allowed renewal for additional 14), required explicit registration, and did not cover things like derivative works. This was thought to be a reasonable compromise even at the time when the means of distribution were physical, and therefore slow and expensive. Also, infringement was a civil rather than criminal matter.
Comparing it to today, with copyright lasting for over a hundred years (life+70, or 120 in other cases) notwithstanding almost free and near-instantaneous world-wide distribution methods, includes derivative works, and results in criminal punishments often exceeding those meted for violent crimes, as well as the willingness to sacrifice every societal or technological benefit on the altar of copyright protection for the sake of perpetual profits for middlemen (such as legally unbreakable DRM that can prevent protected content from ever entering the public domain regardless of copyright expiration), it is clear that the social contract is irrevocably broken and gets even more so with every "reform" or "modernization".
The fact that attempting to actively participate in, extend and enrich their culture without paying gatekeepers for the privilege is criminal, is morally wrong and reprehensible. The fact that it also applies to one's children, grandchildren and so on for 4 generations all but ensures that by the time something enters the public domain it represents little more than a historical curiosity. The fact that it was allowed to happen is a failure of the democratic system, and arguably of the education system as well.
Copyright, in its current form, is a blight upon society.
Yes, they are. Whether you realize it or not, they are a perfect reflection of how much people care.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”