https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.indepen...html%3famp

https://order-order.com/2019/03/26/eu-vo...-internet/

https://twitter.com/Senficon?ref_src=tws...r%5Eauthor

In short:

Quote:The two clauses causing the most controversy are known as Article 11 and Article 13.

Article 11 states that search engines and news aggregate platforms should pay to use links from news websites.

Article 13 holds larger technology companies responsible for material posted without a copyright licence.

It means they would need to apply filters to content before it is uploaded.

And the last part is where the controversy lies. Critics fear this will lead to censorship of images or material that have the likeness of people or copyrighted imagery which could see hosts of such material subjected to being sued. This may include further strikes against YouTube content creators or small news sites.

What do you think?

Further explanations via https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-47239600 among many others.

The fact that a lot of larger news sites and copyright lawyers for larger media companies (under article 11 there is the chance that smaller companies will have to pay for citations of larger sites, pricing out independent news) are very happy often, to me, sounds alarm bells...

It's increasingly difficult to sideload listening material from piratebay.

If that's what you mean.

I'm not techy enough to be sure that I understand all of the ramifications.

(March 26, 2019 at 5:43 pm)wyzas Wrote: I'm not techy enough to be sure that I understand all of the ramifications.

To keep it short, the whole discussion about memes being banned sums it up quite well. If you post a meme of something that has an identifiable copyright (I dunno, something with a logo in like Nintendo or coke or something) then the site hosting it either has to buy some sort of license which gives money to the copyright holder or take it down to avoid being subject to legal action over hosting copyrighted material.

Quote:What does Article 13 say?
Article 13 says content-sharing services must license copyright-protected material from the rights holders.
If that is not possible and material is posted on the service, the company may be held liable unless it can demonstrate:
it made "best efforts" to get permission from the copyright holder
it made "best efforts" to ensure that material specified by rights holders was not made available
it acted quickly to remove any infringing material of which it was made aware

It’s not really about torrenting copyrighted material, that’s already illegal in most EU member states. It’s more about posting fair use criticism of a product (like a game or a car or something) and having a copyright claim against your content. The host (say, youtube) is unlikely to suffer the loss and almost impossible task of getting a license for content that might be deemed copyrighted. It’s easier to just take the content off, and perhaps even ban the user to stop them from uploading.

In reality it will probably end up being like this:

Quote:That’s where Article 13 comes in. It remains to be seen how the legislation will be implemented in practice, but Article 13 will probably be introduced in two ways. First, platforms will likely negotiate licenses with copyright holders. Second, they will implement content filters to stop copyrighted material they don’t have a license for from being uploaded in the first place.

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/eu-artic...article-17

Unless we reach deep and find the wherewithal to tell them to shut up about their copyrighted images and sell soda..if this doesn't kill it, it's just a matter of time.

I think that it's DailyMotion that'll be more effected by Article 13 than YouTube. Remember, YouTube is based out California, which isn't really beholden to the rules of the EU. DailyMotion, however, is based out of Paris, and will likely suffer for it once Article 13 goes into effect.

Besides, YouTube doesn't need new laws as an excuse for frivolous copyright strikes on smaller channels, since literally anyone can get copyright claimed for literally anything even if the claimant doesn't even own the item claimed:



People have gotten copyright claims on YouTube for:

• uploading videos of themselves playing public domain classical pieces on the piano because some label decided it was one of their own recordings.
  
• a 10-hour video of white noise, which was claimed by five different people (who, bizarrely, claimed specific segments of between 41 seconds and 6 minutes' length). Indeed, another video which was 52 hours of rain sounds, had the same exact thing happen to it.
  
• The sound of chirping birds in the background of a video where a guy went into the woods to prepare ingredients for a wild salad.
  
• Indeed, I have even heard tales of some copyright holders filing DMCA takedowns on videos they themselves uploaded. I have heard that the first time The Beatles had their own VEVO channel, the people responsible for uploading them filed takedowns on their own videos..
  

The man who's responsible for that video about Youtube is most known for reviewing cartoons, and he's had a lot of issues with copyright holders who don't understand fair use, and has made several videos about how people have abused the system, not only with dubious strikes against his own videos, which, being reviews that use edited clips that are frequently talked over specifically to comment on the original clip (and flaws in the larger work), would seem to be clearly transformative, and thus, fall under fair use, but some of the more mindless and arbitrary claims that I described above.

(March 26, 2019 at 6:19 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote:

(March 26, 2019 at 5:43 pm)wyzas Wrote: I'm not techy enough to be sure that I understand all of the ramifications.

To keep it short, the whole discussion about memes being banned sums it up quite well. If you post a meme of something that has an identifiable copyright (I dunno, something with a logo in like Nintendo or coke or something) then the site hosting it either has to buy some sort of license which gives money to the copyright holder or take it down to avoid being subject to legal action over hosting copyrighted material.

Quote:What does Article 13 say?
Article 13 says content-sharing services must license copyright-protected material from the rights holders.
If that is not possible and material is posted on the service, the company may be held liable unless it can demonstrate:
it made "best efforts" to get permission from the copyright holder
it made "best efforts" to ensure that material specified by rights holders was not made available
it acted quickly to remove any infringing material of which it was made aware

It’s not really about torrenting copyrighted material, that’s already illegal in most EU member states. It’s more about posting fair use criticism of a product (like a game or a car or something) and having a copyright claim against your content. The host (say, youtube) is unlikely to suffer the loss and almost impossible task of getting a license for content that might be deemed copyrighted. It’s easier to just take the content off, and perhaps even ban the user to stop them from uploading.

In reality it will probably end up being like this:

Quote:That’s where Article 13 comes in. It remains to be seen how the legislation will be implemented in practice, but Article 13 will probably be introduced in two ways. First, platforms will likely negotiate licenses with copyright holders. Second, they will implement content filters to stop copyrighted material they don’t have a license for from being uploaded in the first place.

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/eu-artic...article-17

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) 

Interesting.

A few years ago my government announced it was banning file sharing sites/search engines, such as the Pirate Bay. "I've been told',  the work around was  available within 24 hours and that it takes a non expert all of a minute.  As far as I'm aware, the Pirate Bay is still going strong.

My point is that politicians tend to know very little about how the internet works. Nor do governments employ the best and smartest IT experts.  The best and brightest are in the community and are often anti authority.


There has also been a massive change in IT use. Today there are companies such as Netflix and Stan which make  all sorts of content available, legally and cheaply. Apple has just announced it is mounting a huge movie steaming service. The music industry has also changed, massively, with MP3 making CD redundant.    

I've always accepted that internet  is a dynamic system, in a constant state of change, which  changes being in response to the market and to consumer demand.

I'm not quite ready to believe the sky is falling.

OK, how about this, a person takes a picture of a copy write image (say Mickey Mouse), upload it to imgur, then make a meme with and post it, imgur would be liable?

If correct, this makes no sense and would be impossible to police/enforce.

The Internet Wild West may be over. I'm would be surprised if it went much further anyway.

(March 26, 2019 at 7:21 pm)wyzas Wrote: OK, how about this, a person takes a picture of a copy write image (say Mickey Mouse), upload it to imgur, then make a meme with and post it, imgur would be liable?

If correct, this makes no sense and would be impossible to police/enforce.

Yup, in effect. Hence why, rather than bother to try and get a ‘license’ for said content it’s easier just to remove it. 

The practicalities of such legislation when it comes into force are almost impossible to determine. Probably unworkable.

But it won’t stop those who are anal about their IP from going after sites where they think they’ve got a shot of either monetising or removing it if it’s not posted on their terms.

Worth mentioning again, perhaps more damaging, is the Article 11 provision which effectively means news citations can (and probably will) be chargeable or will, again, be removed if the original news site objects to its content being posted elsewhere. Again, no idea how that will work in practice, but the idea itself and that fact that a parliament has green lighted it, is worrying.