EU Copyright Proposal That Would Destroy Internet Memes Being Protested With Internet Memes

from the meme-while-you-still-can dept

The EU is no stranger to bad laws, but its desire to “protect” copyright holders from the Wild West Internet™ is one of its worst. A proposed change — known as Article 13 — would force social media platforms and other service providers to preemptively block copyrighted content during uploads unless permission has been specifically granted by the rightsholder.

Here’s what Mike Masnick had to say about the impossibilities Article 13 would demand:

How would a site like Instagram create a working filter? Could it catch direct 100% copies? Sure, probably. But what if you post a photo to Instagram of someone standing in a room that has a copyright-covered photograph or painting on the wall? Does that need to be blocked? What about a platform like Github where tons of code is posted? Is Github responsible for managing every bit of copyright-covered code and making sure no one copies any of it? What about sites that aren’t directly about the content, but which involve copyright-covered content, such as Tinder. Many of the photos of people on Tinder are covered by copyright, often held by a photographer, rather than the uploader. Will Tinder need to put in place a filter that blocks all of those uploads? Who will that be helping exactly? How about a blog like ours? Are we going to be responsible to make sure no one posts a copyright-covered quote in the comments? How are we to design and build a database of all copyright-covered content to block such uploads (and won’t such a database potentially create an even larger copyright question in the first place)? What about a site like Airbnb? What if a photo of a home on Airbnb includes copyright-covered content in the background? Kickstarter? Patreon? I’m not sure how either service (which, we should remind you, both help artists get paid) can really function if this becomes law. Would they need a filter to block creators from uploading their own works?

There’s a movement underway to destroy this proposal before it gets implemented. One of the internet’s greatest collective creations/forms of communication (ymmv) is memes. Memes are almost always composed of copyrighted material, but no one would seriously argue they somehow diminish the market for the underlying content. Some would disingenuously argue this, and those are the sort of people who are pushing impossible filters to block third-party uploads.

If it’s memes that are (inadvertently) targeted — along with the freewheeling nature of internet communications — then it’s memes that will be pressed into service to fight the war against Article 13. Beckett Mufson has compiled some of the best ones for Vice. The meme warriors started with a set of memes that cleared Article 13’s copyright filters.

This was followed by a misguided, but hilarious, attempt to get the EU to destroy itself by placing its flag front-and-center when crafting memes.

Of course, the flag isn’t capable of being targeted for preemptive takedown since it’s in the Creative Commons, but the underlying message — that the proposal is ridiculous and harmful — still comes through.

But the best of the batch is this one, which speaks to a great deal of our coverage of the EU and its bizarre treatment of copyright protection, free speech, and other ancillary issues. When a terrible, extremely harmful law is proposed by the EU, it’s just another day at work for the governing body.

Only the most antagonistic of rightsholders would view memes as a destructive force pushing creators into poverty. But the EU’s proposal takes exactly this hard line: it wants platforms to treat every bit of copyrighted material being uploaded as infringing by default. This won’t just bankrupt smaller tech companies and make millions of users miserable. It will also do serious damage to internet communications in general, pushing platforms towards restricting users’ interactions with the service, either by limiting their ability to post content or by suspending/deleting accounts for alleged Article 13 violations. The law is stupid and dangerous. Far too often, so is the EU.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “EU Copyright Proposal That Would Destroy Internet Memes Being Protested With Internet Memes”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
52 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

uncopyrighted (and generally toxic) memes

"Memes are almost always composed of copyrighted material"

But it would indeed seem that many of the most popular internet memes are public domain. Let’s not forget the most pervasive meme in internet history, the so-called "Happy Merchant" (AKA "Jew-bwa-ha-ha") by an artist known by the nom de guerre A. Wyatt Mann.

Another well-known offensive meme (one that has thankfully died down in popularity) is "Goatse," also not copyrighted as far as anyone knows.

There are many other memes of a similarly foul odor that remain apparently uncopyrighted, perhaps because no respectable person would ever dare to claim credit for them.

Chris-Mouse (profile) says:

Re: uncopyrighted (and generally toxic) memes

Another well-known offensive meme (one that has thankfully died down in popularity) is "Goatse," also not copyrighted as far as anyone knows.

There is a big part of the problem. Goatse is covered by copyright. It’s a photograph, and as such is automatically granted a copyright. The fact that nobody knows who holds the copyright doesn’t change that.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: The only way to test a mine is to step on it

Nonsense, what possible problems could arise from people not knowing, or even having any real ability to learn at times, the copyright details of a given piece?

I mean it’s not like there’s the potential for massive ‘do not pass GO, do not collect $200, go straight to sued into the ground’ fines for infringement, such that a chilling effect is created wherein a work is essentially untouchable because no-one has any idea who owns it or even it’s copyright status and no-one dares find out the hard way.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: question

Depend on whether it is considered permission, or if a site must ask each creator for explicit permission. The link tax could also have an impact is it is a mandatory tax, and people cannot avoid demanding it.

Despite any claims that the proposal are to benefit the creators of content, what they will actually do is increase the power of publishers so that they can control a larger percentage of creative output by forcing self publishers off line.

tp (profile) says:

Companies can always limit their market size

> How would a site like Instagram create a working filter?

If they can’t figure out other ways, they can hire some real humans to do the filtering process.

If they don’t have enough money to hire the humans, they might want to handle smaller market, since clearly they cannot service that large group of people.

Proper companies do not grow larger than what they can actually handle.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Companies can always limit their market size

When what they are required to handle increases drastically I don’t think it’s that simple.

Lots of American companies simply blocked EU users on GDPR because it was too much effort. Won’t these services have a harder time? How does the consumer benefit if these services are made impossible to run?

tp (profile) says:

Re: Re: Companies can always limit their market size

How does the consumer benefit if these services are made impossible to run?

When there’s gaps in the market, some local companies will smell the opportunity to make money with it, and will start creating a local company that can handle the issue. If instagram isn’t available, then other companies have a chance.

How did you think markets are working? The customers just will go to the companies that can actually do it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Companies can always limit their market size

Your gasp of the scale of postings and works being published on the Internet is way off scale. What any individual see of that flood is a fraction of a percent of the output, and will attract audiences that are too small for any company to expend the effort in deciding whether it should be published or not. So to try and prevent a small amount of infringement in the vast outpouring of self published works, you would kill peoples ability to self publish.

The only practical route to enabling large volume self publishing is to provide a platform, and let people get on with trying to attract an audience. Oh, just in case you did not see the reports, ContentID only deals with music ans sound, and does a fairly poor job in that limited field, and blocks a lot of fair use.

Yes a lot of that content is not something I would want to see or hears, but that does not matter because I have found enough podcasts and YouTube channels to fill in my retirement, and I do not worry that there might be something even more interesting out there that I have not discovered..

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Companies can always limit their market size

What you are ignoring is that there is no way that enough companies can hire enough people to vet what the general public wish to publish. Your approach will kill the Internet stone dead because it will give a very limited number of people the power to decide what gets published, and lots of what will be submitted will not even get looked at to see whether it can be published.

The whole reason that many authors, musicians and actor became household names is that they were competing in a very limited market where the publishers, labels and studios decide who could get their works in front of the public. Pre-Internet most creative works never got a chance of finding an audience because they were never accepted for publication, and that is the world your proposals would restore.

stderric (profile) says:

Re: Companies can always limit their market size

Proper companies do not grow larger than what they can actually handle.

Makes sense. In the case of Article 13, smaller companies could just limit their traffic and therefore have fewer lookups to run against the EU’s universal database of "all rightsholders, copyrighted material, fair use, exceptions, and situational interpretations".

tp (profile) says:

Re: Re: Companies can always limit their market size

any companies that don’t have $60 BILLION to throw at the problem like Google should just stay home and forget about joining the market.

There are problems where small companies are just doing more damage than what they can be helpful. How did you plan to handle situation like that?

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: "They have a splinter." "Remove the leg" "But-" "All of it!"

A) Put forth a [Citation and Evidence Needed].

B) If the harm is actually real, weigh the costs of a legal system where that sort of thing can happen vs the harm that would result from a legal system where it’s slightly less likely to happen, but which also has vastly less platforms and companies in the field because it’s too dangerous to operate, and where what platforms there are are significantly crippled by insane demands by industries who don’t care for ‘work’ or ‘competition’.

Dealing with one ‘harm’ by causing even more is not even remotely a sensible response.

tp (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 "They have a splinter." "Remove the leg" "But-" "All of it!"

A) Put forth a [Citation and Evidence Needed].

Check for example the number of android devices or search queries that google handles with high quality. It’s a number like 100,000,000,000.

Your 30 person startup is going to be able to handle 10,000 low quality products to the market. With google’s numbers, there’s huge demand for products in this category, but how does this startup’s output is going to help solve the 100,000,000,000 number? The startup is doing nothing else than damage to their customers.

The startup gets huge demand because people are looking for alternatives to google’s offering, but all they can do is cause damage to their customers.

Obviously google knows this beforehand, that there will be flood of startups that try to outsmart the large companies, so they can put a warning sign to the marketplace and require the companies to do copyright infringement before they can enter the market. But it’s only a warning sign, designed to indicate to the startup that something is going wrong.

Of course this whole discussion was about google vs oracle lawsuits, where oracle was the one who correctly marked their location to marketplace, and google was the one who wanted to ignore the markings. The the positions are reversed in that case. But at least google isn’t 30 person startup.

> B) If the harm is actually real,

Hum, if google can handle hardware creation by pressing a red button and letting the hw robot spit out some working devices, how is this startup’s manual process with outdated techniques going to help at all? The hardware just costs 5 billion to create and 2 billion per year to operate, but of course your 30 person startup with 100k cash in the bank is going to outsmart the operation…. Basically they cannot do anythng that is useful in this market.

> Dealing with one ‘harm’ by causing even more is not even remotely a sensible response.

how is this “even more harm”? If some startup needs to reconsider their approach when they’re accidentally going to large player’s market, it’s just useful activity.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 "They have a splinter." "Remove the leg" "But-" "All of it!"

If entering big companies markets is a bad idea, you should have given up you software project before you started.

By the way. Google was the small newcomer to the search engine market, and they took out the giant of the day. Alta Vista. FaceBook was a small project at one time, and they have taken the crown from MySpace. Heck, at one time Microsoft and Apple were two blokes in a garage competing against a myriad of microcomputer makers who were well established.

Regulationa that seal the position of the big players only leads to stagnation, as it eliminates the small high risk start ups, where many fail, some become stable small business, and a few lead the next technological revolutions.

tp (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 "They have a splinter." "Remove the leg" "But-" "All of it!"

If entering big companies markets is a bad idea, you should have given up you software project before you started.

This could be true. Unfortunately this wasn’t possible solution.

> Google was the small newcomer to the search engine market, and they took out the giant of the day. Alta Vista.

I’m sure they had serious problems with growth.

> Regulationa that seal the position of the big players only leads to stagnation

Yes, but small companies cannot do anything to it. They simply lack the scale required to do useful stuff in the market.

Happily, there’s always new markets opening and large companies are leaving some markets reserved for small companies, so that those have a chance to excel in their own niche area. It is also illegal for large company to conquer market of small players, and using their monopoly status to drive away small companies. But this doesnt apply, if the small players decided to (illegally) come to large player’s market (to cause damage).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 "They have a splinter." "Remove the leg" "But-" "All of it!"

“This could be true. Unfortunately this wasn’t possible solution.”

So you make knowing market size a requirement for everybody else except yourself.

This is why nobody takes you copyright tards seriously. It’s always one rule for you and a “fuck you” rule for everybody else.

tp (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 "They have a splinter." "Remove the leg" "But-" "All of it!"

> “This could be true. Unfortunately this wasn’t possible solution.”

> So you make knowing market size a requirement for everybody else except yourself.

Yes. There’s good reason for this though. It’s not just random “rules don’t apply to all people” kind of issue. It still “applies to all humans”, you just need to jump outside of definition of a “human”. The robots that create hardware for google and costs billions of operate are one way how you can skip the “human” part, but there are also ways to make employees who operate the machines to qualify for definition.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 "They have a splinter." "Remove the leg" "But-" "All of it!"

Then there is a good reason to ignore your credibility.

It’s not just random “I ignore you because I think you’re an asshole” kind of issue.

It still applies to you, because you jump outside of definition of what copyright law actually entitles you to.

tp (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 "They have a splinter." "Remove the leg" "But-" "All of it!"

It still applies to you, because you jump outside of definition of what copyright law actually entitles you to.

This looks kinda strict. Are you saying that humans are only allowed to do what copyright law entitles? Everything outside of it is illegal? So, if the lawbooks didnt mention transportation, moving is not allowed? Law scolars forgets eating from the keywords, you’re not allowed to consume food?

I don’t think the law works like that. Every person can have their own theories why their activity is legal (according to copyright sections of law), but it doesn’t limit operations to only those allowed in the law text. This is why demanding mansion is just ok, even though lawbooks never mentioned my mansion or elfs specifically.

Still they are allowed to classify your operations to these classifications like “display”, “perform” or “distribute” and you can be sued if your eating pattern has been hardwired to do illegal copying every time you eat a sandwich. There’s only small distance between your fridge tweeting, and the fridge doing illegal operations whenever you open the door.

But this is just example of how it doesnt even require humans to do illegal activity. Semi-automatic actions can also go against the lawbooks. This is why you can be sued when your internet connection is automatically doing evil stuff behind your back after adverticement platform decides to DDOS their competitors. Owner of the property needs to check whatever their equipment is doing and interrupt the evil stuff, in case something bad happens.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9 "They have a splinter." "Remove the leg" "But-" "All of it!"

Are you saying that humans are only allowed to do what copyright law entitles? Everything outside of it is illegal?

That’s exactly the point you’ve been trying to beat us over the head with, dumbfuck.

it doesn’t limit operations to only those allowed in the law text

Aereo would like a word with you. Also every single fucking time the RIAA ordered pre-emptive shutdowns of new technology.

Owner of the property needs to check whatever their equipment is doing and interrupt the evil stuff, in case something bad happens.

Yet every single time the RIAA demands money based on a wrong IP address you keep giving them benefit of the doubt.

tp (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 "They have a splinter." "Remove the leg" "But-" "All of it!"

Yet every single time the RIAA demands money based on a wrong IP address you keep giving them benefit of the doubt.

Money demands are ordinary part of life. Everytime you take a cola bottle from the food store, they demand payment for your activity. It’s very common operation, and happens almost automatically. If RIAA feels that you ordered stuff and haven’t yet paid your order, they can send a money demand.

If their order processing system examines IP addresses where evil stuff is happening, they can send money (settlement) demands to the owners of the equipment. If RIAA is optimizing their order transactions so that their clients no longer need to choose RIAA’s products from authorised channels before it regognizes the order happening, of course their transaction processing system can send money demands to anyone who they like.

There are laws against bogus money demands, the demands are not allowed to be based on scams. A product need to be exchanged before order can be processed, but given that the IP address already consumed RIAA’s product, that doesnt seem like a big issue.

Of course sometimes RIAA’s order processing system can make mistakes in identification of the IP address, where settlement demands will be sent. This is natural when they’re processing thousands of settlement demands in their order processing system. These issues can be resolved by contacting your RIAA payment processing experts and explaining the situation at hand. They can then make more accurate evaluation of your situation and increase or decrease the settlement amount based on the currently available information.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:11 "They have a splinter." "Remove the leg" "But-" "All of it!"

but given that the IP address already consumed RIAA’s product

Ray Scantlebury. Tanya Andersen. Gertrude Walton. The RIAA’s sheer inaccuracy in finding these evil, evil IP addresses is legendary. "Sometimes", my ass.

This is natural when they’re processing thousands of settlement demands in their order processing system

Which, by your own definition, would mean they overstepped their limits – which should have been done at the very beginning before they commenced their "process", and should be penalized for their behavior. But for some magical reason the RIAA doesn’t qualify for the rubrics you insist on everyone else.

RIAA payment processing experts

Hey, look, I can use big words too to try and sound sophisticated and pretentious! And if the IP address turns out to be wrong and they got the wrong guy, do they still have to send the RIAA money? Going by your track record, probably so, because apparently only you and the RIAA deserve a mansion.

tp (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12 "They have a splinter." "Remove the leg" "But-" "All of it!"

And if the IP address turns out to be wrong and they got the wrong guy, do they still have to send the RIAA money?

It of course depends on how many other RIAA products they ordered while trying to settle the demands. They would need to send enough money to account for all the products that they ordered.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:13 "They have a splinter." "Remove the leg" "But-" "All of it!"

“Yeah, let me order more stuff from the guy trying to sue me for no reason.”

You have a very dim idea of how consumers work. But considering that you want six million bucks for two advertised buses it’s not surprising.

tp (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:14 "They have a splinter." "Remove the leg" "But-" "All of it!"

“Yeah, let me order more stuff from the guy trying to sue me for no reason.”

RIAA is known/world famous for their excellent and understanding customer service in situations where the customer failed to pay his bills in time. One of their most famous products sends extortion letters to customers, followed by sueing him for copyright infringement. Then they provide excllent legal advice for people who want to question the bill’s money amounts, followed by visits in customer homes, scaring the children for stealing the money, working together with MPAA with their world famous “piraxy is theft” videos.

All in all, when customers see the wide product catalog, they automatically try to order more stuff, often without even knowing that they made another order to the system.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 "They have a splinter." "Remove the leg" "But-" "All of it!"

Your 30 person startup is going to be able to handle 10,000 low quality products to the market. With google’s numbers, there’s huge demand for products in this category, but how does this startup’s output is going to help solve the 100,000,000,000 number? The startup is doing nothing else than damage to their customers.

… What the hell are you on about? What 30 person startup is involved in ten thousand products of any sort? If you’re going to give examples of harm it might help if you used actual examples from the real world, not some unrealistic hypothetical where you just pulled the numbers from your backside.

Of course this whole discussion was about google vs oracle lawsuits, where oracle was the one who correctly marked their location to marketplace, and google was the one who wanted to ignore the markings.

No, it really wasn’t, it was all about how a large company like Google can deal with stupid regulations like ‘pre-screen everything for possible infringement, compare it to a copyright database that doesn’t exist‘, whereas a smaller company cannot, locking the current players in place.

Judging by the rest of your comment however I suspect that you would see that as a feature, not a bug.

Companies do not ‘mark out their location in the marketplace’, so long as they have the resources anyone is free to enter in and compete, and if the larger companies object to the competition that’s too damn bad.

how is this "even more harm"? If some startup needs to reconsider their approach when they’re accidentally going to large player’s market, it’s just useful activity.

Yeah, that’s… not how it works. Large companies don’t get to lock down a given market such that potential competition has to consider whether or not they can ‘do anything’, it’s up to them, not the larger company, to decide whether or not they feel they can offer something people will be interested in, and whether or not they can offer it at the same scale is irrelevant.

As always I am so very glad that your ideas for things have little to no bearing on reality, because things would be an absolute mess were it otherwise.

tp (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 "They have a splinter." "Remove the leg" "But-" "All of it!"

Define ‘causing damage’,

It’s like what terrorists are doing when they explode some bombs – generally destroying something that would otherwise exist.

Setting a bomb to a factory that builds gadgets is one alternative way.

Or interfering with the operations of the factory that builds gadgets

Or interfering with the operations of a sales organisation that sells gadgets built in the factory

Or interfering with the market dynamics of the product that was built in the factory

Substituting legit product with pirated or counterfeit version

Copyright lawsuits are handling damage calculations at the end of the paperwork. There’s like 300k per infringement possible in those cases.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 "They have a splinter." "Remove the leg" "But-" "All of it!"

What is it with you copyright-types and your inability to separate the analog from the digital? Oh, right – you’ll use it only when it’s most convenient, never mind that established law already punishes analog and digital deprivation very, very differently. Snore.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 "They have a splinter." "Remove the leg" "But-" "All of it!"

… and of course the first comparison you make is terrorists blowing stuff up.

See, stuff like this is why I find it impossible to take you at all seriously, and instead consider you a poe. The ideas and examples you put forth are so ludicrous that I find it rather difficult to believe for one second that you’re actually making them honestly, as opposed to simply throwing out the most insane stuff you can think of simply to get a reaction.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 "They have a splinter." "Remove the leg" "But-" "All of it!"

So does that mean you think that the small fraction of infringing videos on YouTube and friends is why they are so successful, as opposed to the huge volume of videos that are non-infringing new works? Often the successful YouTubers befriend talk to and cooperate with other that have similar interests.

Do You know why Linux dominates the server and supercomputer market? Hint, is is nothing to do with keeping control over the code, or infringement, but rather because Linus welcomed assistance from anybody who could produce decent code.

Are you getting the idea yet, people and groups succeed by cooperating, and not by owning ideas.

Also, have you not noticed that those pushing for these laws do not create new works, but rather gain control over the works of others as publishers, and that means they gain the bulk of the profit. Think of the starving artists is their favorite war cry, but they omit to mention that they keep those artists starving by limiting who get published, and using accounting tricks to keep most of th profit from an artists works.

Your software might succeed if you hand it over to a company that is good at publishing, but don’t expect to get rich doing that.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Companies can always limit their market size

Companies can always limit their market size

That explains why you limited your advertising to two buses.

You can also always limit your compensation. Two buses worth is not going to get you six million dollars in money or mansions no matter how much you actually want to masturbate to the thought.

tp (profile) says:

> What you are ignoring is that there is no way that enough companies can hire enough people to vet what the general public wish to publish.

publishing operation was always meant to be exclusive to filthy rich people. Originally the king published announcements about the laws that general public would need to follow.

Now EU is taking the position of the king, and publishes laws like GDPR which will control the market and general public enough that they would stop wanting to do publishing themselves.

Dumpkoften says:

Need a new WWW error code...

The ID10T code.

Whenever someone from any of the EU countries tries to hit a website outside of the EU, they see the following.

Error: ID10T
Due to your government being made up from the largest known brainless pool of entities, this site is no longer accessible from anywhere within any country that is a member of the EU.
If you don’t like that, then go find your EU brainless representative and give them a piece of your mind.
If sufficient intelligent people do this, then perhaps the EU brainless can achieve true sentient status.

OldMugwump (profile) says:

Not about helping creators - about hurting free-riders

Article 13 reflects a certain mentality about intellectual property that we see a lot of in Hollywood.

It’s envy, not greed. Greed, we could live with.

If it was about helping creators get paid, use that doesn’t harm, or actually increases the market for the original – would be exempt.

It’s about hurting anyone who hopes to benefit – even in the form of a few laughs from friends – without paying.

Envy, not greed.

It’s a lot like those in politics who are more interested in hurting the rich than in helping the poor.

Despicable human beings.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Not about helping creators - about hurting free-riders

A lot of these efforts are bout making it more and more difficult to self publish, by piling costs onto the platforms that enable self publishing, and using laws to try and force them into examining every submission before it is allowed to be published. That way it will cut the flood of self published works to a trickle.

It is all about crippling the competition, because when you make a living by gaining control over the works of others, anything that allows those creators to escape your control reduces your control over the market, and needs to be destroyed.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...