Slashdot Mirror
European Commission Gives Final Seal of Approval To Copyright Law Overhaul (variety.com)
The European Commission, the European Union's executive body, has approved a long-gestating major reform to copyright law, which had already been passed by the European Parliament last month. From a report: The overhaul contains two controversial provisions that will make online platforms liable for illegal uploading of copyright-protected content on their sites, as well as force Google, Facebook and other digital companies to pay publishers for press articles they post online. "With today's agreement, we are making copyright rules fit for the digital age. Europe will now have clear rules that guarantee fair remuneration for creators, strong rights for users and responsibility for platforms," said European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker. According to the French newspaper Le Monde, six countries -- Italy, Finland, Sweden, Luxembourg, Poland and the Netherlands -- voted again the reform.
If the entire EU is blocked from accessing all content on Google, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and every other social media and news site, they'll get the hint and re-think these ridiculous polices.
honk honk
The whole adjustment to force Google etc to provide compensation for article snippets seems fair. If the companies don't want to agree to a fair price, don't include them.
However, the whole illegal uploading part seems, well...... extraordinarily draconian.
bye bye servers,
There is no way i would be prepared to run any kind of internet service under these rules.
What wankers even thought is was a good idea ?
to start sending millions of takedown notices to EU government websites for copyright violations.
... and everywhere.
And then rapidly become a basic part of normal browsers, used by default. Not just for end users, but also hosting content.
Culture flows through free expression. People refer to well-produced works. Places like Youtube are already becoming nearly useless for sharing basic culture because of laws like this - seemingly any reference to a popular work is becoming forbidden - or just random information since anything can be claimed by almost anyone.
So - the answer isn't to not share culture. The answer is to openly disdain and technically dismiss these attempts to contain culture.
I have zero interest in defending EU legislation and much less one about copyright (e.g., all my public activity can be considered public domain). But I think that there is a lot of misinformation online, perhaps even provoked by some interested parties. I found this Q&A from the European Parliament very informative.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
Now they just need to explain the rules for the next couple of years and show how they actually benefit commerce across the economic area. Reflection of, say German copyright law is not enough to convince people that are not used to harsh interpretations of it. We all prefer the familiar "Send a byte of locally copyrighted tune to the swarm and lose your house" style instead. Or do we?
One of the biggest issues on this is how compliance is demanded.
I assume this will be like the DMCA where there isn't any real deterrent for false claims.
Big companies can afford to hire people to validate the requests to ensure they aren't claiming things that aren't theirs.
Startup projects will simply honor all requests without validation as they don't have the time or money to do validation.
Even youtube run by one of the largest companies runs by a honor request then check only if someone disputes policy so even a bogus request can take legitimate content down for a while. Further last I heard if they just claim ownership they are able to steal whatever money is made from monetization until the dispute process is completed and even if the claim is successfully disputed the creator doesn't get that money back.
AFAIK the only company that is actually doing validation is google for their search product because they keep having companies take down things that aren't theirs, are their own websites or are overly broad like insisting slashdot be removed because one of the comments in 2008 quoted lyrics from a song.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
"as well as force Google, Facebook and other digital companies to pay publishers for press articles they post online."
So, as of the date of enactment, Google, Facebook, and a vast majority of other digital companies will now just block, wholesale, articles from any EU-based press/news company.
Easy enough.
Even better - add filters requiring all EU Facebook, Twitter, etc, users to add a credit card to their accounts and when they post a link to an EU based news source, the poster much pay the article fee directly (as it should be).
Copyright makes the media companies too powerful. It steals material from the public domain and gives it to the rich record companies and media companies.
If you want to Reform copyright law then start taxing it. There should be a $100 per year maintenance tax per copyright. There should be a 30% copyright royalty tax.
Jean-Claude, are you drunk again?
If anything this made the whole mess even worse since now nobody knows what to do. Neither do the various EU countries that don't even know how to adapt this in any sensible way into their laws, nor do companies that don't have any idea how to comply with them, nor do the users who are pretty much preparing to simply ignore it by using VPN services.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Workmen Compensation reserve
Europe seems hellbent to go back to the 7th century, one way or another...
National sovereignty does not exist. For some it will be a gradual realization.
Presumably this goes both ways. So those "news" outlets whose only content is made up of republishing Twitter (or Reddit) comments and pretending they did some work are now liable for paying those Twitter users for their content.
Just having the title is the way to go , a one liner summary. but this is not what google or facebook were doing. Wholesale copying of paragraph was done.
If they don't want to, then they still can implement the directive in super lax ways into their national law.
After all that is what this is a directive. A cue towards what should be accomplished by the member states, while the means of doing so aren't too specific.
Hence it comes down to the individual member states.
In my country the politicians are already debating over what to do. Some are in favour of lax implementation, because the public hates the directive, while others push for harsh implementation probably because they're to busy sucking corporate dick to realize that their job is to represent the people.
Problematic would be nations like France, where there's already fake news laws as far as I know. Or states like Hungary where they guy in charge practically already owns all of the media in his country. Imagine all the copyright claims that he could issue?
In those cases you can be certain that this will be abused while it is backed by the EU.
What YouTube will do is easy to figure out. If you're on their A-List, whatever you say is gospel and will be removed immediately. If you're not, any of your content that was removed stays removed.
Why do you think they'd change anything?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Lies. The only "laxness" permitted in terms of implementing a directive, is that which is explicitly permitted by the directive.
And if a goverment implements it laxer than that? They can be taken to court and sued for damages. It has happened before.
If they're smart, they will.
Since it does not matter where I put my server within the EU (if I want to put it inside the EU for whatever reason), take a wild guess where I'd put it...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Brexit anyone?
My blog is indexed in Google. My stuff is copyrighted. Where's my money?
Will $CURRENT_YEAR be the year of the Linux Desktop?
First, the Internet doesn't owe anyone a living. If you can't make money on the Internet, then don't be on the Internet.
Second, there's the example of Randall Munroe and his xkcd comic. He allows free use of all his webcomic, and the quality of his content has allowed his survival by other means.
They aren't sovereign nations. Is the word country even appropriate?
"EU Member State" seems more accurate. They have less autonomy than Rhode Island does.
So does this mean that sites like Twitter or even Slashdot would have to pay news sites when users link to them in posts? It seems like a big article being linked with a few thousand retweets could be a crazy expensive hit. Perhaps links will no longer be allowed.
Republic of Ireland?
It will now content makers will use their own websites instead of using YouTube and giving Google a cut.
Open Source federated YouTube alternative will won.
Two countries, Germany and Spain, already tried to pull this stunt before. Germany was first, and Google retaliated by making companies sign a thing stating that if Google was to host those snippets they would do it licence free. Spain didn't like that so they made sure Google couldn't do that in their country. Google was like fine, guess what, we aren't hosting your news snippets at all. Spain complained, tried to take Google to court and told the judges that Google wasn't being fair, because them not hosting such content was hurting tons of business. Courts told Spain Google don't have to do business with anyone they don't want to do business with. In the end news companies in Spain were losing far far more money by not having their content hosted because Google wouldn't pay for license vs going license free.
Made in the US by American genius, destroyed by European fascists.
evil than emperor Palpatine? It is a question i struggle with every day. Please help and if you meet him just point and say hai.
Google -- and any other online site -- cannot possibly know the upload contains "illegal" content until the upload is completed. So much babbling here about "Upload Filters" is even more perplexing, as though filter software will need to be installed on your computer before uploads are even allowed!!!!
The EU politicians are idiots, of course, and YouTube has long since had copyright detection where your video will be blocked from viewing if YT's algorithms think your video has protected content.
As far as news stories, Google is doing the news sites a favour, driving traffic to them. Talk about biting your gift horse.
I am not saying that Google is a shining company, as the recent fiasco with James Damore demonstrates. But come on. Google provides so many free services to everyone, why bitch? Maps is a fine example, and I use that app daily to navigate through the rush hours in Berlin. I would actually pay for that service. And yes, yes, I know they are storing my movements -- for me, they have my movements stored all the way back to 2009. I actually find it useful to see precisely when and where I've travelled around the world. It's a privacy issue for sure, but then you don't have to use Google, or you can simply create a burner account if it matters that much to you.
The EU seems hell-bent on destroying the Internet. At least for Europe. All Google and others have to do is simply block Europe (and I'll have my VPN at the ready!!!). How would Europe get along without Google? Bing? Yahoo? Sure. It would be funny as hell if the big Internet companies boycotted the EU. Funny as hell.
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
Is not bought and paid for by the old media trying to destroy the internet.
Yes, but the governments can also just ignore the directive. The EU can complain about it if they want, but then we will complain about germany not implementing all the things they don't like.
Italy, Finland, Sweden, Luxembourg, Poland and the Netherlands voted no. This law needs to be written into the laws of each EU country. What if those six countries simply didn't write laws implementing that, or did write laws implementing those two sections but half-assed it by making the burden of proof high and/or the punishment low?
It would appear msmash is drunk again.
#DeleteFacebook
The UK was, as always, one of the major players behind this because it's long had backwards ideas on copyright much like the US, in large part due to the heavy music lobby (BPI) there.
Post-Brexit, this sort of thing will only get worse in the UK, whilst the loss of the UK will mean the balance of power in Europe will sway towards less draconian copyright laws such that laws like this won't pass as easily, if at all.
So Brexit helps Europeans, and fucks Brits even harder in regards to this sort of copyright law rather than the other way around. For Brits, the EU stopped this law being as harsh as our own government wanted to be, so if anything this is an argument against Brexit for Brits, but for Brexit for Europeans as if they get rid of us they won't have to listen to our nonsense on hardline copyright laws anymore.
Any politician or group that supports this mess. When they ask why, explain that the platform can not be sure their uploaded contend doesn't violate somebodies IP. ( is that wall paper in the background of your cat picture copyrighted? ) When they as why its just them, explain that we have to start somewhere. Our first attempt could be to ask all test posters ( which at this point is just them ) to provide notarized affidavits stating that each upload doesn't not violate any IP. Probably won't scale very well for the general population, but hey, it's a start.
Apr. 11, Juche 108 (2019) Thursday
Report on 4th Plenary Meeting of 7th Central Committee of WPK
The 4th Plenary Meeting of the 7th Central Committee of the Workers' Party of Korea (WPK) took place at the headquarters building of the C.C., WPK on Wednesday.
Kim Jong Un, chairman of the WPK, guided the plenary meeting.
Attending the meeting were members of the Presidium of the Political Bureau of the WPK Central Committee, members and alternate members of the Political Bureau, members and alternate members of the WPK Central Committee and members of the Central Auditing Commission of the WPK.
Vice directors of some departments of WPK Central Committee and other members were on hand as observers.
Kim Jong Un chaired the meeting upon authorization of the Political Bureau of the WPK Central Committee.
The plenary meeting discussed agendas as follows:
1.On holding higher the banner of self-reliance in the socialist construction
2.On the plan of formation of state leadership bodies to be presented to the First Session of the 14th Supreme People's Assembly
3.Organizational affairs
There was discussion on the first agenda at the plenary meeting.
Kim Jong Un made a report on the first agenda.
He in his report made a scientific analysis of the changed international landscape and the peculiarities of the present situation becoming daily acute and clarified the main tenor of the recent DPRK-U.S. summit talks and the Party's stand towards it. He underscored the need to more vigorously advance socialist construction by dint of self-supporting national economy suited to the specific local conditions of our country based on our efforts, technology and resources under the uplifted banner of self-reliance, so as to deal a telling blow to the hostile forces who go with bloodshot eyes miscalculating that sanctions can bring the DPRK to its knees.
He reviewed and analyzed the successes and faults in the struggle for speeding up the socialist construction under the uplifted banner of self-reliance after the 7th Congress of the WPK, and set forth immediate objectives and tasks to be carried out without fail in further demonstrating the might of the self-supporting economy.
He referred to the great achievements for socialist construction made in all the fields and regions and by units through the indomitable offensive under the banner of self-reliance and self-sufficiency in recent years.
He noted that a great progress was registered in the struggle to make the national economy Juche-based and self-supporting and the reserved strength of the DPRK and tremendous potential of its independent economy were vividly demonstrated at home and abroad, adding that through the remarkable successes achieved in socialist construction he could keenly feel that our line was right over and over again.
Self-reliance and self-supporting national economy are the bedrock of the existence of our own style socialism, the motive power of its advance and development and the eternal lifeline essential to the destiny of our revolution, he stressed.
Noting that the first and foremost issue arising in accelerating socialist construction under the uplifted banner of self-reliance is to secure a sure guarantee for putting the national economy on a new phase of growth by expanding and reinforcing the foundation of self-supporting economy, he clarified in detail the immediate tasks for sectors of the national economy.
Officials in all the fields and units should do their best for the development of science and education, bearing in mind that the success of relevant fields and units as well as the present and future of socialist construction depend on the thorough implementation of the Party's policy of attaching importance to science and education and talents, he said.
He put special stress on decisively enhancing the role of the Party organizations in the struggle to vigorously speed up the socialist construction under the uplifted banner of self-relian
IE, The EU's unelected government.
If you were literate about UK inner politics you'd probably know that UK Music has been one of the strongest groups lobbying in favour of the directive. After all they are the biggest and most influential music organisation in Europe because they represent the interests of the strongest music industry in Europe.
In the case the UK won't adopt the directive because they left the EU via no-deal, you can rest assured that UK Music will continue to lobby representatives in the UK.
If there's still room between the servers of Amazon, MS and Facebook, sure.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I don't think I insinuated that youtube would change anything. I was using them as an example of the chilling effects seen by abuse of the DMCA and suggesting that other companies would be adopting similar or even more user untrusting policies.
User untrusting as in anyone makes a claim no matter how baseless and the content is removed automatically by machine trusting the accuser while the person who posted the content must defend themselves and prove they actually own it.
Like the recent EFF twitter debacle the company filing the DMCA couldn't even tell them what was being infringed on and they still pulled it.
It'd be like if someone said to the police "THAT MAN COMMITED A CRIME!"
And the police asked "What did they do?" and they replied "I don't know arrest them!"
Now in any normal scenario the police wouldn't take action in this case because the accuser is obviously being abusive because they aren't even able to form a valid complaint for what might have happened.
But with the DMCA (and many seem to think the new eu law will be much worse with preemptive blocking)
they see the claim and are immediately "well this is an open shut case take all their stuff until they can prove they did not do that thing. What thing? Doesn't matter."
The EU law is expected to have preemptive scanning so like if a computer thinks your picture of your cat looks similar to someone else's cat you won't be able to upload it and you will likewise have to contest that your cat is not their cat instead of them in any way having to show that your cat is theirs.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
A void will appear...briefly...and those with content would be wise to let it go and gain momentum. A content root check site will be setup so that if you own the content you can allow it to be used where ever provided it have some information about the content creator. Some of this is about money...creators want just a bit of money, but mostly they want to share their content with others...to tell their story through some medium.
"How many of those high level investigators on the Mueller team have been fired? Strok, Page, McCabe, etc. ." ARE YOU RETARDED LOL? They were fired for a prima facie POTENTIAL IMPRESSION of conflict of interest.
If you're going to accuse someone of being retarded, you ought to at least get your facts straight. McCabe was fired after an internal Inspector General investigation determined that he lied to investigators. That's PERJURY to the rest of us. You and I would be indicted just like Michael Flynn if it had happened to us. As for Peter Strzok (correct spelling by the way) and Lisa Page... We'll let the Barr investigation run its course before making any definitive judgments.