Disaster In The Making: Article 13 Puts User Rights At A Disadvantage To Corporate Greed

from the don't-let-it-happen dept

Supporters of Article 13 in the EU Copyright Directive love to insist that all of the harms and concerns that many of us raise about how it will impact user rights are wrong, because the text of Article 13 says that user rights won’t be harmed. This is only sort of true. It does say that… but gives no instructions on how to make it a reality. Indeed, abiding by the rest of the law makes it impossible. In other words, it’s the equivalent of a law mandating everyone flies into the Sun, and when some of us point out that we’ll all burn up and die, the legislators tack onto the end of the bill “… and don’t let anyone burn up and die” without any further instruction.

Specifically, in the text, it says things like the following:

The cooperation between online content service providers and rightholders shall not result in the prevention of the availability of works or other subject matter uploaded by users which do not infringe copyright and related rights, including where such works or subject matter are covered by an exception or limitation.

Member States shall ensure that users in all Member States are able to rely on the following existing exceptions and limitations when uploading and making available content generated by users on online content sharing services:

a) quotation, criticism, review,
b) use for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche.

And also they insist that this shouldn’t require mandatory filters, while providing no explanation for how to abide by the law otherwise:

The application of the provisions in this article shall not lead to any general monitoring obligation as defined in Article 15 of Directive 2000/31/EC.

And, perhaps my favorite, the “and don’t let this impact anything it shouldn’t” clause:

This Directive shall in no way affect legitimate uses, such as uses under exceptions and limitations provided for in Union law, and shall not lead to any identification of individual users nor to the processing of their personal data, in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC, Directive 2002/58/EC and the General Data Protection Regulation.

Of course, all of that is nonsense, because before you get to that part in the Directive, you have everything else that clearly requires automated filters. Section 4 of the text says that if you haven’t paid off EVERY SINGLE COPYRIGHT HOLDER, then you’re liable for any infringement “unless” you make:

“best efforts to ensure the unavailability of specific works”

And, if told about certain works:

“made best efforts to prevent their future uploads”

How the hell do you “prevent their future uploads” if you’re not filtering everything uploaded? And, how does an automated system determine if those future uploads are actually parody, or fair dealing, or some other exception. The general response from supporters of Article 13 is a giant shrug. As Communia notes, there is literally no way to abide by the law without filters, and it is literally impossible to comply with the section about protecting user rights:

If you can’t see that full chart, it’s reproduced here as well:

If you look at that full chart, you see something pretty important. The ordering of the obligations here is key, as pointed out by Kristofer Erickson. First up, you need to try to license all works. Second, if you fail to license all works in existence, you need to employ expensive and faulty filters to keep down anything that you’ve received a notice over. Only after all of that are you able to consider user rights.

To be more explicit about this, Article 13 puts user rights at the very end of the line, way past the massive corporate handout the law gives to record labels, movie studios and book publishers. Then, at the very, very end, where it doesn’t even matter, it says “don’t let all the bad stuff that everyone knows will happen actually happen.” But it does not explain how that’s possible, because it’s not. The law has all sorts of problems, but trying to shove in “user rights” as subordinate to the special privileges of a few giant industries is especially disgusting and corrupt.

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 “Disaster In The Making: Article 13 Puts User Rights At A Disadvantage To Corporate Greed”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
98 Comments
Fresh Dirt on the Shovel says:

Re: First ZOMBIE of the week: "vadim" with 35 AND 45 month gaps!

21 (comments total, bit over 2 per year, begun 26 Mar 2010.

It’s a good one with 80 months dormant, but I’m low on astonishment because nearly every week one or more of these ancient and superficially suspect "accounts" pops up out of the blue, never a mention been gone, always just blandly supportive of the site.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Just a reminder . . .

As for the US, our founding fathers could never have imagined such gigantic concentrations of wealth and power or they would have built some kind of protection against it.

Our founding fathers possessed such concentrations of wealth and power. They saw government control as belonging to the land owners, the wealthiest among the population. They also wanted no controls on what the wealthy and powerful could do with their wealth and power — they wanted freedom to do as they pleased without government intervention, i.e. the opposite of the British control from which they fought to free themselves.

Or have they rewritten the history books again?

Sobriquet DeComplexifier says:

Re: Re: Just a reminder . . .

Or have they rewritten the history books again?

No, but you just did.

Look, the "Founding Fathers" were not without flaw. — Rather oddly you don’t mention that several owned slaves, a fact which shows that no matter what The Rich SAY, they will directly contradict it in their own lives. — But despite that, they left the start of a free nation "all men are created equal" — and removed the prior bunch of merely Born Rich from having automatic control.

The Rich ALWAYS try to set themselves up as royalty. As Lincoln said four score and seven years later: "testing whether that nation or any nation can long endure".

We have to Make America Great Again, not just sit and whine that the EVIL copyright owners are withholding content from you, pretending that you’re oppressed. Sheesh.

Anyhoo, America is worst country in the world — except for all the rest. But of course The Rich today are trying to take over all again, through the corporatism that "Gary" so rightly despises, and which Google-supported Masnick so eagerly promotes.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Just a reminder . . .

All that blither and you failed to make any argument against what I said. Well done.

Also, that they owned slaves isn’t really relevant to the immediate discussion as slavery was legal at the time, almost over the entire world. It only strengthens the point that the wealthy were due more control. And so much for "all men are created equal" which only works if you don’t classify slaves as "men".

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Just a reminder . . .

“We have to make America great again”

By what? Stealing? This is America Bro lol this country became great becuase guys like you came on boats 100s of years ago and stole the ##### out of everything from people who Owned it and said it was always your house by the grace of god lol but now that all these folk are talking about sharing SomethiNg NEFARIOUS is in the water!

FlatZOut (profile) says:

If the EU was a janitor, they’re Doing a crappy job!

If the European Union were a janitor, they would be slacking on the job, because they instead created a monstrosity of a mess with this Copyright Directive.

And I was hoping they’d reject it by now, but NOPE! They just keep rushing it without common sense and they’re basically kamikaze-ing this like an unstoppable train. (Kind of reminds me of the movie Speed)

They better get it rejected soon, because Pokémon Sword and Shield are being released and I don’t want to lose the ability to see Nintendo’s own uploads.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: If the EU was a janitor, they’re Doing a crappy job!

Well, the bad thing about article 13 is that it will gut the european independent artists from accessing much of the european market. The EU online environment will become a wasteland.

The good part is everyone will have to use VPN’s to access anything from europe, with an exit node outside of europe. So little will change for the common consumer, except that european artists will be left high and dry, and europe will end up importing every culture and meme from the US.

FlatZOut (profile) says:

Re: Re: If the EU was a janitor, they’re Doing a crappy job!

Well don’t forget that this won’t just affect the EU. It will also affect the world’s internet. Even people like me who live in the United States of America won’t be safe from the censorship and the filters. It’s like a catastrophic forest fire. One small match can cause a deadly chain reaction.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Piracy will continue unabated but that’s a nice dream you have there.

Aggregated content might suffer but in the US we have laws that protect Fair Use so it won’t really affect this nation much. As a reminder, Fair Use is not something that should be compensated, at least not by the aggregator. The authors of that content ought to compensate the aggregator for driving traffic their way but that won’t happen either.

Mason Wheeler (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I’m all for the proper applications of Hanlon’s Razor, but there’s simply no explanation other than "spreading malicious falsehoods" for anyone to say that on here. What you’re claiming flies in the face of the entire history of similar laws and the way they have always been abused for as long as they’ve existed, and anyone who’s spent any length of time on this site knows it because Mike has covered it extensively.

Please go away and don’t come back until you grow some basic honesty.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Actually this will have the complete opposite effect. Especially at how fast internet is now compared to 20 years ago. Would probably only take 20 minutes to abandon a server in Norway and spin it back up in South Africa. The only way to beat piracy is accessibility. Remove accessibility and you will super charge piracy.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re:

"Piracy and uncompensated, aggregated content are the only things that will suffer, as they should."

How?

Even the most draconian version of article 13 won’t even impact the torrent index pages. From what I can see, piracy is one of the very few online phenomena article 13 can’t impact either directly or indirectly, in any way.

But keep dreaming. For the last thirty years we from the anti-copyright crowd have realized you guys keep wanking that hate-boner of yours in public every time you’re about to get yet another senseless and completely ineffective piece of legislation through.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

It’s not impossible but it is completely impractical and would destroy any business that tried to do it. YouTube, for example, would require 100,000 people employed full time to review all the content uploaded on any given day. Add another small army to deal with the appeals of bad decisions. Add an army of lawyers to cope with content that should have been blocked but was not. And that’s just YouTube.

People who claim human filtering should happen should first go build a successful business that relies on public content and then come back to share their experience filtering all that content by hand.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Human filtering is possible, just not for some companies that do well today with bots. It’s just not as PROFITABLE for the greedy big tech companies.

The minimum-wage analogy applies: if it’s too expensive, then someone has the wrong business model.

The internet companies that built their "empires" on the house of cards that is automation will be replaced by newer business models.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

It’s just not as PROFITABLE for the greedy big tech companies.

If by "not as profitable" you mean "completely impossible to make a profit" then sure, I’d have to agree. Just as requiring all nails to be hand-rubbed with oil to make them easier to drive would make construction impossibly expensive. And the request just as naive.

Stop and think about what the internet would become if there were zero user-generated content. Is that really the appropriate evolution of what is presently the so important to society as a whole that this will in future be know as the internet era? Sounds like book burning to me.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

You are also ignoring that no human if familiar with every copyrighted work, especially as that include all self published content.

So if every file has to be checked against music , video and text, including cross checking video and music against written works, or vice versa to detect possible copyright infringement, how many people will be required to check every work.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

No, it really doesn’t scale at all.

"if it’s too expensive, then someone has the wrong business model"

No, the business model is to use computers to process information. You’re wanting them to replace their computers with people. Totally different business model.

If I run a taxi firm and you tell me that I have to replace my fleet of taxis with pedicabs, when I tell you that you’re an idiot it’s not because I have the wrong business model.

"The internet companies that built their "empires" on the house of cards that is automation will be replaced by newer business models."

Not if people like you keep telling them they can’t use efficient ways of running a modern business they won’t.

Which other forms of automation do you wish to replace with slave labour (hint: you’re using several of them to spew your drivel right now)

Mason Wheeler (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Not if people like you keep telling them they can’t use efficient ways of running a modern business they won’t.

Point of order: how much does efficiency really matter when it fundamentally doesn’t work?

There’s an old joke in the programming community: "[insert new CPU model here] will run an infinite loop twice as fast!" If what you’re doing isn’t working, doing the wrong thing more efficiently isn’t actually a benefit.

Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"People who claim human filtering should happen should first go build"…a database of all copyright eligible material, divided into under current copyright and public domain, so that it could be compared with anything uploaded.

With that fix, there might be a way to build a filtering systems, human or digital, but the needed armies of humans to deal with the bugs and errors and malicious uses of this system would still be extraordinary, and likely financially torturous to any independent creator. Then there are the questions of who is the ‘fair dealing’ arbiter, and who decides when three notes, or a few words, or video of a sunset taken at the same location at different times by different people is actual infringement.

It will certainly pay to become a lawyer in the EU, as they are creating a massive need for people to argue both sides of what will become a huge wave of cases.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

That 100,000 is a bit short allowing for holidays, sickness, management, wages clerks etc. Besides which having enough people to just watch the videos will no do much to detect infringement, as those people will not be able to recognize all, or even most infringement on sight, especially as a video of a written work, without a license is also infringement.

Disney Hoits Tothers-O'Kay says:

Re: Re: Generous "Gary"

Gosh, see you’ve yet again put someone else’s comment to be highlighted. I suspect that it’s because you can do that for free, since "you" are actually a minion. Clearly you’re an ardent fanboy trying to promote this tiny little site. From the evidence of being in IT, familiar with lawyers, bombastic and aggressive, are Timothy Geigner aka "Dark Helmet" ("Gary’s" user name is the similar "darkflite" too.)

Besides, I still say the First Word / Last Word highlighting is annoying for start and skipped over because seen as a link.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Generous "Gary"

being in IT, familiar with lawyers, bombastic and aggressive

Right… on a planet of over 7 billion humanoids clearly only one individual could ever have the above simultaneous criteria. You know, not everybody holds the copyright on everything. Multiple people can be familiar with IT, law, and be assholes to idiots who deserve it, such as Prenda Law fanboys like you!

aerinai (profile) says:

Rembember Evil Cookies?

When the EU announced their stupid ‘cookie notification’ regime, I was sure that after just a year or two, the powers-that-be would see that their blunder didn’t solve any problems and just annoyed users of websites. I expected it to die a quiet death and disappear.

Instead… we are still dealing with those stupid cookie notifications and now they are pushing through this ridiculous legislation.

This time I don’t hold out hope that they will see the errors of their ways. Goodbye, European friends. I’ll miss you on all of the message boards and discussion threads you will be geo-blocked from after this comes into law.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Rembember Evil Cookies?

It appears that there are a number of people who believe that the US’s fourth, fifth, and eight amendment does not apply to any action they do but does apply to any action done to them.

In order to obtain the information that the EU cookie law prevents from being obtained in the US the fourth, fifth, and eight amendment of the US Constitution must be violated. That being the case law in the US will slowly catch up by court decision when legal minds of the current legacy, paper and pen, legal system catch up to the current state of the legal system of the internet social media technology.

FlatZOut (profile) says:

Re: Rembember Evil Cookies?

I’m pretty sure that it’s not just the EU citizens that’ll be in danger. It’s all of us. Because the internet isn’t centralized in one area. Millions of us use it every day, no matter where we live. And if the EU gets affected with a censor, then the rest of us will end up getting dragged into the fray.

And the Thai government is also making the internet even more worse, via “Cyber Security update” which could prevent us from criticizing what the government does.

What’s next? Personal Hard Drives get affected? Illegalizing the use of technology? Shutting down the electricity grid? World War Three? An international civil war against our governments and ourselves? Or even worse…total annihilation from an unknown enemy?

These are dangerous times, everyone. Freedom of Speech is being degraded and our personal lives are degrading faster and faster every day. It’s like a Rapture all over again!

Anonymous Coward says:

Obligation to License, the service must make best effort to license all copyrighted works uploaded by its users.

How is the site meant to find the license holder for a work? How is a site meant to determine that the uploader does not own the copyright? That reads as if user cannot own a copyrights.

Would terms of service, like requiring users to only upload content they created count in anyway to being a best effort to license?

FlatZOut (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

True. But not just white-noise.

For example, if Warner Bros. were to try and upload a trailer for a movie, they wouldn’t be able to because of the filters provided by Article 13. The filters would be used not only on the common people, but against the companies who have been lobbying for the directive.

If that’s the case, then all that we probably will be able see on the internet is a blank screen. Nintendo probably won’t be able to share information about its games to its fans. Visual and Audio companies won’t be able to put their content on the internet. Those who are lobbying for the filter don’t realize that there always will be a backfire in their plans. Unless that’s what they intended to do in the first place.

tom a sparks (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

and you have cases where the left-hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._YouTube,_Inc.

"For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there. It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site. It deliberately "roughed up" the videos to make them look stolen or leaked. It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses. It even sent employees to Kinko’s to upload clips from computers that couldn’t be traced to Viacom. And in an effort to promote its own shows, as a matter of company policy Viacom routinely left up clips from shows that had been uploaded to YouTube by ordinary users. Executives as high up as the president of Comedy Central and the head of MTV Networks felt "very strongly" that clips from shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report should remain on YouTube. Viacom’s efforts to disguise its promotional use of YouTube worked so well that even its own employees could not keep track of everything it was posting or leaving up on the site. As a result, on countless occasions Viacom demanded the removal of clips that it had uploaded to YouTube, only to return later to sheepishly ask for their reinstatement. In fact, some of the very clips that Viacom is suing us over were actually uploaded by Viacom itself. — Zahavah Levine, Chief Counsel, YouTube"

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

"Filter might prevent the big media companies from uploading their own content online, even if they own it or not. Again, I could be entirely wrong. But it’s just a guess."

Not much of a guess, given that we already have plenty of examples where copyright trolls keep DMCA-ing the homepages of those companies.

Article 13 will indeed do what you describe. The media companies do not magically have a better process of registering their copyrighted works than anyone else.

FlatZOut (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“Article 13 will indeed do what you describe. The media companies do not magically have a better process of registering their copyrighted works than anyone else”

And when the media companies can’t put their own content online (because they lobbied for a directive that prevents any user-generated content online and damages the internet as we know it), then they’ll lose lots of money because people can’t access content online. And the companies lose a very beneficial way to communicate with the people.
So when they say that they’re trying to make the internet “more fair”, it’s actually not going to at all.

Therefore, without the Internet, there would be a lot of jobs lost, and a lot of money is lost. Hence why all of their lobbying will backfire.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

"And when the media companies can’t put their own content online (because they lobbied for a directive that prevents any user-generated content online and damages the internet as we know it), then they’ll lose lots of money because people can’t access content online."

Only partially true.

See, pirates will still retain access to everything. Article 13 is a loaded gun pointing only at the legal customer.

The irony of most of copyright enforcement is that by the time it actually shows an effect the entire market it tried to protect is smoking ruins.

Anonymous Coward says:

I feel like these types of laws are designed to create criminals, not stop them. People do not assign the same value to something that can be recreated an infinite amount of times, as they would a tangible object. Nothing is going to change that; New laws, longer sentences, stricter adherence to existing laws is simply making more criminals. We seem to be good at that. If you don’t believe me, take a look at our drug laws.

TFG says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

How wonderful that you’ve seen the light! These pirates that masquerade as rights-holders must certainly be stopped. Their piracy and plunder of the profits due to the content creators has been made more difficult to achieve by the ease of self-publishing enabled by the internet, so now they wish to close it down!

No, say I! Halt the push to pirate our content! Halt the push to lock people into their systems and theirs alone! Halt the push to steal the copyrights of the creators, and thereby take their profits, too! Join us, brother!

Sobriquet DeComplexifier says:

If passes and EU internet collapses, that'd be good.

The US can LAUGH and not do the same.

I still fail to see a down side to it for me.

Had quit commenting on Masnick’s "sky is falling" pieces because he keeps out-parodying me, so I don’t need to.

if you haven’t paid off EVERY SINGLE COPYRIGHT HOLDER,

then you are / have been stealing. Simple as that.

The US Constitution states same principle as "EXCLUSIVE RIGHT (to control copies)", but of course Masnick has been on a 20-year jihad to destroy copyright, and this Article 13 is good measure of how he’s failed, and the rights of creators WILL be upheld.

It’s not the corporate win as he NOW tries to frame it, after 20 years of advocating other corporations empowered by being able to use the copyrighted works that others made.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Moronic shill is moronic shill

Had quit commenting on Masnick’s "sky is falling" pieces because he keeps out-parodying me, so I don’t need to.

Then what the hell is this comment? You admit to being owned but apparently are such a glutton for punishment you keep coming back for more. This is all by your own admission too. You need help.

then you are / have been stealing. Simple as that.

Even if content you haven’t "licensed" is never uploaded to your site? Wow, I didn’t know EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE ENTIRE WORLD was born a thief. But apparently they are since you don’t even have to steal anything to be one according to you.

The US Constitution states same principle as "EXCLUSIVE RIGHT (to control copies)"

The US Constitution also states copyrighted works can be used without permission in "fair use" scenarios, but you conveniently forget to mention that in every single one of your lunatic rants.

Article 13 is good measure of how he’s failed, and the rights of creators WILL be upheld.

I can pass a law that says everyone in the world must move to the moon to prevent further damage to the earth. That doesn’t mean it’s going to happen. Same is true for A11 and A13.

empowered by being able to use the copyrighted works that others made

Oh oh! You mean like how legacy studios and publishers get to make money off of the copyrighted works of the actual artists? Gee, that’s terrible, I guess we should shut them down too, RIGHT?

Anonymous Coward says:

everyone’s been saying this for months, that’s why Voss needs investigating to find out whose wishes he’s obeying and how much he’s getting out for doing so! from what i recall as well, the EU Commission is supposed to look out for the interests of the people, not money grabbing, lying industries like the Entertainment Industries etc, much like the FCC and the Telecoms companies!

Disney Hoits Tothers-O'Kay says:

This site's censoring is SAME effect as what you fear in EU.

Voices suppressed by arbitrary control with zero way to contest.

You can PAY to get your comments put above others.

Some corporations (GOOGLE and FACEBOOK) favored and advantaged, while others (ATT, Comcast) frequently attacked.

So why I should worry about the control regime that you claim the EU will put in place when Techdirt has been doing same for a good decade now?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: This site's censoring is SAME effect as what you fear in EU.

Voices suppressed by arbitrary control with zero way to contest.

There’s no Free Speech here, pal. If people don’t like you or what you have to say you can expect it to be "suppressed".

You can PAY to get your comments put above others.

Eh, no. No you can’t.

Some corporations (GOOGLE and FACEBOOK) favored and advantaged, while others (ATT, Comcast) frequently attacked.

There are plenty of anti-Facebook/Google articles here, too. Comcast deserves whatever attacks it receives.

So why I should worry about the control regime that you claim the EU will put in place when Techdirt has been doing same for a good decade now?

Lets pretend you’re correct (you’re not). You’re equating TechDirt to the EU. I’m sure TD gets a kick out of that comparison but it’s useless to this discussion. Section 13 is also nothing at all like the flag button here on TD. Nothing. This comparison, like you, is absolutely pointless.

Glenn says:

Is the EU trying to "out corrupt" the US? They’re looking less rational with each passing day. Used to be one of those "nice place to live" places; then "nice place to visit but I wouldn’t want to live there"; now, "visit? yeesh!". Not satisfied with ruining their own countries ("states"?), they want to ruin the rest of the world, too. Their plan? Seems to be: for starters, let’s ruin the Internet so badly that it’s like it never existed at all–the less people know, the less they’ll be aware how badly they’re being screwed (ignorance is bliss).

George Orwell has got to be having a laughing fit right about now.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re:

"Is the EU trying to "out corrupt" the US? They’re looking less rational with each passing day. Used to be one of those "nice place to live" places; then "nice place to visit but I wouldn’t want to live there"; now, "visit? yeesh!". "

As a european I’m all the way down to "Yeesh!" level myself already.

The EU isn’t trying to out-corrupt the US. It is, in practice, trying to re-establish the bureaucratic nightmare of the soviet union. Arguably worse than mere corruption.

ECA (profile) says:

Box's

the first white box with a description of who is ment to be Liable, and the Green box which says WHO isnt liable..

First white box, really does not pertain to many sites that I know of.

sorting of data as to make money?? Thats the Google collection and any site that sells Used books/records/tapes…
And its funny how its worded… supplied by its users..
Ebay? Backpage? I can see claims on those Chinese Sale sites, craigslist…
And the only thing about this, "is promoting for Profit".. Which I thnk the Corps would love to remove that part.

I would ask for a list of "Specific works"..because Anyone can send a DMCA.

This really sounds like a trap laid out for Mr. Dot.Com..
Also sounds like the Fun Youtube is having, at this time.. Fake DMCA.. Which is a PITA, because the complaint does not Prove ownership. Anyone can send one, for no valid reasoning.

wonder if this is going to Infringe on the right of resale..

That One Guy (profile) says:

Now, back to the corral little sheep

If sites need to license everything then they will be effectively forced to only accept content that’s covered by a major company/licensing firm since doing it on an individual basis for hundreds of millions of users and billions of works simply isn’t practical/reasonable/affordable. As a result if individuals want their stuff to be posted they will be forced right back to signing away their stuff to a major company/agency to have any hope of even being allowed to use a platform to post their stuff, returning the gatekeepers right back to the position they were in before open platforms allowed people to bypass them completely.

This is ‘protecting’ creators in the same way putting a sheep in a pen full of wolves is ‘protecting’ the sheep, because look, now the wolves can look after the sheep!

izmir avukat (profile) says:

izmir avukat

The basis of human rights is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 10 December 1948 and the European Convention of Human Rights of 04 November 1950. European Convention on Human Rights, fundamental rights and freedoms: right to life, prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, prohibition of slavery and forced labor, freedom and security of person, freedom of claim and right to a fair trial, legality of crimes and punishments, private life, family privacy of life and communication, freedom of thought, religion and conscience, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, association and union, right to marry and found a family, right to complain, prohibition of discrimination. Later, new rights such as the right to property, the right to education and training, the right to choose, the freedom of settlement and travel were added to these rights with the protocols arranged in parallel with the developments in the social life.

https://www.izmir-avukat.com

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...