Tell The EU Not To Wreck The Internet

from the last-chance dept

As we noted earlier this week, a bunch of sites are taking part in an internet blackout today and urging their visitors, especially those in the EU to contact their MEPs, asking them to sign the pledge not to vote for Article 13. As the page notes, Article 13 is bad for the public, bad for creators and bad for innovation.

Because this is being pushed (misleadingly) as being good for creators, I wanted to go into a bit more depth as to why that’s wrong and why this will be bad for most creators. Over the past two decades, contrary to what some lobbyists will tell you, the internet has been an incredible boon to creativity and creators. The internet has made it easier to create, to promote, to distribute, to build a fan base, and to monetize your works than ever before in history. The idea that the internet has somehow harmed creators is a laughable myth. What the internet did do was change the model by which creators could make money. Historically, outside of the absolute fringes, it required you to get “accepted” into the club by a giant gatekeeper — a giant gatekeeper most creators couldn’t even get in front of, let alone sign a deal with. And, since that was the only path to success, those gatekeepers signed creators to insanely bad deals. They would own your copyright, not you. They would be in charge of what you created. They would be in charge of the relationship with fans. They would control how the content was distributed. You might have some input, but it was theirs now.

And, yes, they might give you an “advance,” but it was structured as a loan. You would need to use that advance to pay for everything having to do with the creation of your work — and then the gatekeeper would bill against that “advance” for any revenue that came in. The amount of money you actually made would be tiny — and the likelihood of ever actually “recouping” the advance was so slim, that record labels were known to not even keep records because they knew they’d never have to give you another dime.

Compare that to the world today, with the internet. In the modern world, any content creator can just go online. They can create using tools available online. They can upload their content for free at a ton of different sites. They can reach a worldwide audience. They can promote. They can build a fanbase. They can make money from a bunch of different platforms. And they retain their copyright. They retain control. They don’t have some giant company telling them what to do or keeping every penny that comes in.

But Article 13 changes how things work. Supporters insist that it will magically make the big internet companies start paying artists more. But that’s a myth. The entire structure of Article 13 is designed on purpose to be bad for the internet. The entire setup is to try to pressure internet companies into purchasing licenses, and it does that by basically saying, “if you don’t buy a license for every piece of content, you will face crippling and impossible lawsuits.”

But that’s an impossibility. How do you license every piece of content that anyone might post on your service? There is no way. Supporters of the bill insist that collection societies will step into the void — but need I remind you of the myriad stories of how nearly every collection society falls prey to corruption, which frequently involves artists simply not getting paid at all?

Even if collection societies do fill the void, how will lesser known artists actually get paid? As we’ve seen, the answer is they won’t. Collection societies collect all the money, and since they can’t track what belongs to less well known creators, they just give the money to the successful ones.

And even if they could figure all of that out, most creators would still get screwed. The only way this system works is if there are just a few giant organizations on each side of the negotiations. The giant content creator gatekeepers and the big internet platforms. There is no room for smaller, more innovative internet platforms. There is no place for more targeted, niche communities to spring up, where artists can build closer relationships with their fans. Bandcamp is one of the best tools out there right now for musicians — and has provided millions of dollars to musicians. How does it survive in a post-Article 13 world? I’m not sure it can. How does that help musicians? I have no idea. Patreon has become an amazing source for crowdfunding for musicians. How does it handle Article 13? Does Patreon really need to license all content? Again, how does it help artists to shut down Patreon?

And even if you still think that it’s fine to just have some giant licensing orgs on one side and a few giant internet platforms on the other, if the cost for the internet platforms goes up drastically, how many “free” services will they still offer? Do you remember the bad old days before you had YouTube/Vimeo where you could upload videos for free? You had to do something like set up a “RealNetwork” server — which cost a ton and didn’t work most of the time. And you had to pay for a ridiculous amount of bandwidth to host and stream your own video. YouTube, Vimeo and others made that all totally free. But if they now have to give a massive chunk of money to license-holders, why will they keep providing such services for free?

The end result is that a few gatekeepers regain their position as gatekeepers. A few internet giants get locked into their position without much fear of competition. And artists and creators get totally screwed.

This is not the internet we should want. Tell the EU to reject Article 13.

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 “Tell The EU Not To Wreck The Internet”

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

Re: Re: Article posted at 0013 pacific

Masnick is such a horrible LIAR as well; Patreon shut down? Bandcamp shut down? What the fuck are you LYING about here?

The truth that Masnick won’t tell you is that there is a value gap that has to be remedied. Spotify, Amazon and Apple all pay a somewhat reasonable rate to stream an artist’s work; YouTube content ID? Not so much. As in comically low. That’s because artist’s have no negotiating power with YouTube. Article 13 fixes that.

There is little doubt Mike Masnick will burn in hell for trying screw over artists the way he does. Karma is a bitch.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Patreon shut down? Bandcamp shut down? What the fuck are you LYING about here?

There is no lie here. Article 13 will push restrictions upon sites such as Patreon and Bandcamp that will essentially force them to either stop accepting user-generated content (which means the sites may as well be shut down) or drain their bank accounts so they can pay off all the massive fines (which means the sites will eventually shut down due to lack of funding).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

An online content sharing service provider shall obtain an authorization from the rightholders referred to in Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 2001/29/EC, for instance by concluding a licencing agreement, in order to communicate or make available to the public works or other subject matter.

This already happens with Patreon and Bandcamp- it is part of their TOS and EULA when artists upload their works.

The text of Article 13 isn’t that long, it isn’t difficult to read and realize that Masnick is LYING about how sites like Patreon and Bandcamp would have to shut down.

ARTICLE 13

Use of protected content by online content sharing service providers

  • 1 –

Member States shall provide that an online content sharing service provider performs an act of communication to the public or an act of making available to the public for the purposes of this directive when it gives the public access to copyright protected works or other protected subject matter uploaded by its users.

An online content sharing service provider shall therefore obtain an authorisation from the rightholders referred to in Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 2001/29/EC, for instance by concluding a licencing agreement, in order to communicate or make available to the public works or other subject matter.

  • 2 –

Member States shall provide that when an authorisation has been obtained, including via a licensing agreement, by an online content sharing service provider, this authorization shall also cover acts carried out by users of the services falling within Article 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC when they are not acting on a commercial basis or their activity does not generate significant revenues.

  • 3 –

When an online content sharing service provider performs an act of communication to the public or an act of making available to the public, under the conditions established under this Directive, the limitation of liability established in Article 14(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC shall not apply to the situations covered by this Article. This shall not affect the possible application of Article 14(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC to these service providers for purposes falling outside the scope of this Directive.

  • 4 –

If no authorisation is granted, online content sharing service providers shall be liable for unauthorised acts of communication to the public of copyright protected works and other subject matter, unless the service providers demonstrate that they have:

(a) made best efforts to obtain an authorisation, and

(b) made, in accordance with high industry standards of professional diligence, best efforts to ensure the unavailability of specific works and other subject matter for which the rightholders have provided the service providers with the relevant and necessary information, and in any event

(c) acted expeditiously, upon receiving a sufficiently substantiated notice by the rightholders, to remove from their websites or to disable access to the notified works and subject matters, and made best efforts to prevent their future uploads in accordance with paragraph (b).

  • 4a –

In determining whether the service has complied with its obligations under paragraph 4 and in the light of the principle of proportionality the following should, among others be taken into account:

(a) the type, the audience and the size of services and the type of works or other subject matter uploaded by the users;

(b) the availability of suitable and effective means and their cost for service providers.

  • 4aa –

Member States shall provide that when new online content sharing service providers whose services have been available to the public in the Union for less than three years and which have an annual turnover below EUR 10 million within the meaning of the Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC, the conditions applicable to them under the liability regime set out in paragraph 4 are limited to the compliance with point (a) of paragraph 4 and to acting expeditiously, upon receiving a sufficiently substantiated notice, to remove the notified works and subject matters from its website or to disable access to them.

When the average number of monthly unique visitors of these service providers exceeds 5 million, calculated on the basis of the last calendar year, they shall also demonstrate that they have made best efforts to prevent further uploads of the notified works and other subject matter for which the rightholders have provided relevant and necessary information.

  • 5 –

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.

[*exact wording of “in all Member States to be revised by lawyer-linguists]

  • 7 –

The application of the provisions in this article shall not lead to any general monitoring obligation. Member States shall provide that online content sharing service providers shall provide rightholders, at their request, with adequate information on the functioning of their practices with regard to the cooperation referred to in paragraph 4 and, where licensing agreements are concluded between service providers and rightholders, information on the use of content covered by the agreements.

  • 8 –

Member States shall provide that an online sharing service provider puts in place an effective and expeditious complaint and redress mechanism that is available to users of the service in case of disputes over the removal of disabling access to works or other subject matter uploaded by them.

When rightholders request to remove or disable access to their specific works or other subject matter, they shall duly justify the reasons for their requests. Complaints submitted under this mechanism shall be processed without undue delay and decisions to remove or disable access to uploaded content shall be subject to human review.

Member States shall also ensure that out-of-court redress mechanisms are available for the settlement of disputes. Such mechanisms shall enable disputes to be settled impartially and shall not deprive the user of the legal protection afforded by national law, without prejudice to the rights of users to have recourse to efficient judicial remedies. In particular, Member States shall ensure that users have access to a court or another relevant judicial authority to assert the use of an exception or limitation to copyright rules

This directive 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.

Online content sharing service providers shall inform the users in their terms and conditions about the possibility for them to use works and other subject matter under exceptions or limitations to copyright and related rights provided for in Union law.

  • 9 –

As of [date of entry into force of this Directive] the Commission in cooperation with the Member States shall organise stakeholder dialogues to discuss best practices for the cooperation between the online content sharing service providers and rightholders. The Commission shall, in consultation with online content sharing service providers, rightholders, users associations and other relevant stakeholders and taking into account the results of the stakeholder dialogues, issue guidance on the application of Article 13 in particular regarding cooperation referred to in paragraph 4. When discussing the best practices, special account shall be taken, among others, of the need to balance fundamental rights and the use of exceptions and limitations. For the purpose of this stakeholders dialogue, users associations shall have access to adequate information from online content sharing service providers on the functioning of their pratices with regard to paragraph 4.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

User agreements do not protect the site from user uploading infringing content, and article 13 makes the site liable if users do so. Hence sites need to obtain a general license from the legacy industries, and/or implement upload filters, especially as after being notified once they are required to keep the same content off their site or face ruinous damages.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

Please read Article 13 again. If a website is policing itself in good faith and not allowing unauthorised copyrighted content on their site, they have absolutely nothing to worry about:

"If no authorisation is granted, online content sharing service providers shall be liable for unauthorised acts of communication to the public of copyright protected works and other subject matter, unless the service providers demonstrate that they have:

(a) made best efforts to obtain an authorisation, and

(b) made, in accordance with high industry standards of professional diligence, best efforts to ensure the unavailability of specific works and other subject matter for which the rightholders have provided the service providers with the relevant and necessary information, and in any event

(c) acted expeditiously, upon receiving a sufficiently substantiated notice by the rightholders, to remove from their websites or to disable access to the notified works and subject matters, and made best efforts to prevent their future uploads in accordance with paragraph (b).

4a –
In determining whether the service has complied with its obligations under paragraph 4 and in the light of the principle of proportionality the following should, among others be taken into account:

(a) the type, the audience and the size of services and the type of works or other subject matter uploaded by the users;

(b) the availability of suitable and effective means and their cost for service providers."

This utterly destroys all the scaremongering you have been reading about Article 13.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re:

Why should I believe you, rather than the German government who have to make a law to meet the objectives of article 13.

About the only practical way to prevent a file being re-uploaded is a filter, as no single person can identify all infringing content that a site has been notified of. Would you for instance recognize every track under copyright to the labels on first hearing it?

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re:

Yeah, you, and the people who wrote it, aren’t fooling anyone. The fact that it may not specifically say ‘upload filter’ doesn’t mean squat when that’s the ultimate effect.

If someone tells you ‘Do X or you’ll be punished’, and the only reasonable way to do X is by doing Y, the fact that they didn’t name Y specifically doesn’t change the fact that for all intents you will have to do Y.

In the case of YT for example if they’re told ‘If you have infringing content on your service you’ll be punished’, and they’re told they need to engage in ‘good faith’ efforts to keep infringing content off, given the massive amount of content they have to deal with on a daily basis the only way they could even possibly manage that and keep the site running at an even remotely similar rate is is now is to use… upload filters.

You are of course welcome to present your alternative that doesn’t involve upload filters, but I got to say, it would certainly be a first if you can manage it.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Re:

In which case congratulations, you’ve just effectively admitted that spending $60 to 100 million is not enough to protect a site, such that any site without that kind of cash to spend(pretty much all of them) is screwed.

You are of course welcome to present your alternative that doesn’t involve upload filters, but I got to say, it would certainly be a first if you can manage it.

I also note that you didn’t actually present an alternative to this, so am I to take this as a concession that filters are effectively required, contrary to what you claimed above?

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13 Re:

In the same way the mob ‘encourages’ stores to pay protection money, sure.

‘Nice site you got there, be a shame if someone were to post something not covered by a license, so just to be safe you’d better pay for a license from us to cover our stuff, and since you’ve no way to know if stuff we don’t own is infringing or not you’d better keep that stuff off your site.’

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Equally possible, had they only cured cancer...

With regards to the link-tax half, you’d be wrong. It’s not the first time it’s been tried, merely the most wide-reaching.

With regards to the ‘you need to keep all infringing content off your platform’ half… $100 million. That’s how much they’ve spent on their CopyrightID filter in a vain attempt to ‘behave better’ and spot infringement. If that isn’t enough then nothing would have been short of giving the parasites pushing this all the money they made, and most if not total control over the platform such that creators could no longer keep bypassing said parasites.

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re:

There’s absolutely nothing in Article 13 that says filters are required.

If a law is written in such a way that no human can be used to comply with it, it’s extremely disingenuous to say that no filtering is required.

There are many laws that doesn’t spell out what tools have to be used to comply with them, but the reality is that the tools are necessary for compliance and no reasonable person is ever going to deny that fact.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re:

In the [German] federal government’s view it appears likely that algorithmic measures will have to be taken in connection with large volumes of data for practical reasons alone.

No but see, they called them ‘algorithmic measures’, which is totally different than ‘filter’, that means it doesn’t require filters!

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10

Such filters would be prohibitively expensive, meaning only the “major players” (e.g., Google) could afford to buy and implement them without going bankrupt. That would make those “major players” the only real players, which would seem to be the exact opposite outcome that Article 13’s supporters want.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Re:

Which is the entire point: Only the “major players” could ever afford to implement the filters that would be absolutely necessary to comply with Article 13. All other sites would either stop allowing third-party contributions (thus making themselves functionally useless) or shut down to avoid bankruptcy. Rather than diminishing Google’s power, Article 13 would further entrench Google as a “major player”.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:13 Re:

I guess I didn’t phrase that very well; what I meant was that whether Article 13 exists or does not exist, the server capability necessary to allow millions of uploads is incredibly costly, and thus only involves those that already have a lot of money backing them. In that scenario, I would think filter cost would be trivial compared to what their server bills look like.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:14

I would think filter cost would be trivial compared to what their server bills look like.

It would be if you fail to take into account the size of the databases necessary to run those filters, the number of servers necessary to store those databases, and the other costs associated with running and maintaining those filters and databases. Otherwise, it’ll look expensive as hell, and only the companies with the biggest bank accounts (e.g., Google) could ever afford to implement those filters and not go bankrupt.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Re:

"Also Stephen- any company/website with the server capability to allow millions of uploads would by definition have to be a major player or have the backing of one. That stuff ain’t cheap!"

Spoken like someone who has never seen a genuine commercial license cost in his life.

Cost of running a commercial-grade database with tens of thousands of users on multiple server instances, available for a dozen countries…between $500 and $1000 per week.

Cost for each license of the software running on said server…the sky’s the limit but from what I’ve seen, $3000 per license, per year isn’t considered abnormal. So with ten thousand licenses you now have 10000 x $3000 = $30,000,000 per year in cost for the licenses.

The hardware administration and expense: around $50k per year.

It’s a given that the cost of running all of youtube will be a pittance compared to using a 3rd party upload filter – which is why youtube invested 60-100 million USD to build their own. It’s the cheap option.

Any platform unable to pony up a similar expense either to build a filter or lease one will be up shit creek under article 13.

"That stuff ain’t cheap!"

Compared to a filter system yes, it’s cheap. The real world analogy would be legislation which forces anyone using a public road to do so only in a lamborghini, porsche, tesla, koenigsegg or rolls royce.
Which needless to say would make 99% of the citizenry unable to use the road.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Re:

Ah the breeze that comes from someone shifting the goal-posts… From ‘doesn’t require filters’ to ‘it’s their own fault if they have to use filters’.

If you’re allowing large volumes of unauthorized copyrighted material on your site, filters would be a solution.

According to who? As far as the likes of YT knows all content that people upload is ‘authorized'(I would be greatly surprised if the upload TOS didn’t include a ‘do you assert that you can legally upload this video’ clause), it’s only when told of a specific bit of infringing content that they have any knowledge that some of it might not be, such that what you’re really saying is that if sites allow large amounts of content to be uploaded then they’d need filters to be able to tell what may or may not be authorized, which is what people have been pointing out as an obvious result of the law only to be told by the likes of you that that’s not true.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11

I can think of one, yes: A video-based critique of a film being taken down by the studio that owns the rights to said film because the critique video happened to include footage from the film. Just ask Bob “MovieBob” Chipman about how much trouble he had with getting his “Really That Bad: Batman v Superman” video to stay up on YouTube.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:18 Re:

There are no rightsholders with the legal power of You Tube or Facebook. If you’re suggesting that a rightsholder would go after a little guy in a fair use case, sure, we’ve seen that done. Having fair use tested in the courts is something that solidifies it. I believe the EFF has helped in cases where the defendant needed some extra legal muscle.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:19 Re:

That’s why Universal went after Lenz and not YouTube.

The issue which you seem very keen on avoiding is that rightsholders are bent on going after the people least likely and capable of fighting back, then when the EFF gets involved, scream "good faith" and run away without having to pay a cent.

This argument from your side happens every time your motives and evidence standards are called into question. Fair use is fine. It’s you Prenda Law-types who consistently refuse to acknowledge it.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:17 Re:

"Well, I mean there’s already a Fair Use exemption in Article 13, so I don’t really see where the problem would arise."

Here’s the problem:

MovieBob puts up a clear and visible fair use video – or even an original work all his own.

Copyright troll 1-1000 send takedown notices.

The platform either has to pony up the resources (not cheap) to determine the veracity of each and every claim.
Any failure to correctly perform a takedown will result in hefty fines under article 13.

So any platform will by necessity have to refuse an upload rather than allow any time the question is asked, requiring the uploader to prove his innocence repetitively.

This incidentally already happens with every popular uploader spending several daily hours counterclaiming takedown notices sent out by automated pre-templated bots. Even if the uploader in question is completely legit and uses only original material.

So…the issue with article 13 is that in practical effect it puts all the burden on the uploader to prove innocent and on the platform never to allow an upload which might be in doubt.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:17 Re:

"Let’s remember we’re talking about the EU, not the US."

Correct. In the EU under article 13 the uploader has no legal recourse. The dancing baby would never be judged fair use in court because the case would never go to court.

The uploader would either have to pay off a thousand copyright trolls to get them to stop sending takedown notices, or would have to somehow get the platform to agree to spend significant legal resources on his behalf.

Or would have to give up and put the fully legitimate fair use compilation on a torrent site where it wouldn’t have to fear a takedown.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re:

Manual review of every submitted piece of content against the Global Copyright Repository(which contains copyright details on every work and any licenses involving it, and is totally a thing) to see who owns a given work before allowing it to be posted of course.

Should be easy enough, I mean it’s not like there are sites that have to deal with hundreds/thousands/millions of uploads on a daily basis or anything, at most I’m sure a few dozen checks daily should be able to keep up with any uploads, and if they can’t be bothered with that clearly they’re not operating in ‘good faith’.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Re:

Depends, can you point me to a site that would meet that criteria so I have an idea what you mean when you say ‘millions of uploads of unauthorized content on a daily basis’? Because as I noted above as far as the sites are concerned all content is ‘authorized’ until someone tells them differently, such that any site that handles ‘millions of uploads’ could potentially be argued to fall under that, even if the vast majority were if not authorized then legal regardless.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Re:

Any site as an example of what you mean would be a start. Point to any site that allows ‘millions of unauthorized uploads’ on a daily basis, keeping in mind what I’ve said twice now in that a site has no way to know what is authorized or not before being told of specific infringement(unless of course they are using a filter, but as you’ve claimed multiple times those aren’t required), such that if your definition is wide enough to include potentially unauthorized uploads you’re effectively defining it wide enough to catch every site.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:13 Re:

Yes, Stephen pointed out a good list of such sites in a post above. It didn’t look like any of them had some crazy rash of infringement going on, so I can’t see why rightsholders would need to bother with any of them. Although I don’t know whats up with Imgur, as I don’t know if Article 13 covers photography.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:14 Re:

Yes, Stephen pointed out a good list of such sites in a post above. It didn’t look like any of them had some crazy rash of infringement going on, so I can’t see why rightsholders would need to bother with any of them.

‘They probably won’t go after those sites’ does not a defense of the bills make, or at least not a good defense, and if you’re willing to include those as your examples that sounds rather like you are widening the net large enough to catch ‘millions of potentially unauthorized uploads’ as sites that can be impacted, and merely hand-waving potential risks with ‘they probably won’t be targeted.’

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Re:

The only way to detect infringement is to check every upload against a database, as that is the only way to unreliably detect infringing content. Without that check, how can it be decided whether a file is infringing or not. Even if only 1 in 100,000,00 was infringing, every 100,000,000 files have to be checked to detect that 1; (or somebody has to make a real working crystal ball).

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

This utterly destroys all the scaremongering you have been reading about Article 13.

No, because no matter how you read paragraph 4 – the determination of how to practically ensure a site is in compliance isn’t objective, because how do you define best effort and *sufficiently substantiated"? The language used in the articles is fuzzy, but they also put all the liability on the sites which makes it very easy to abuse them to get inconvenient content taken down.

If a law is written in such a way that every person interprets its scope differently everyone loses except the lawyers.

And if something is open to interpretation, any company will go with the most stringent option to avoid liability, legal hassles and an unreasonable financial burden – or that they relocate out of the affected jurisdiction. This means less options for rightsholders to expose their works which mostly will impact smaller creators.

What have been demonstrated again and again, policing large platforms is difficult since there are no perfect solution for it.

And paragraph 10, AFAIK the "stakeholder" dialogue didn’t include any of the larger UGC and social platforms which is strange since they are also impacted.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 'Hey, they SAID they owned it, what more do you want?'

Hell, if a user agreement is all it takes to be in compliance then the law would be beyond useless, as every single site(that doesn’t already have such a thing) would simply add in a ‘do you pinky-promise you own the content you’re uploading?’ check, and instantly be immune from the law.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:8 'Hey, they SAID they owned it, what more do you want?'

Do you really think that the MAFIAA will treat a sites end user agreement as a good faith effort, especially as they consider everyone to be a pirate? They will want every upload checked by the site by some means, and in practice that means a filter.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

This already happens with Patreon and Bandcamp- it is part of their TOS and EULA when artists upload their works.

The text of Article 13 isn’t that long, it isn’t difficult to read and realize that Masnick is LYING about how sites like Patreon and Bandcamp would have to shut down.

Is that why both Patreon and Bandcamp warned all their users today about how much harm Article 13 would do?

Meanwhile, if having a TOS and EULA is all you need to avoid Article 13’s more onerous requirements, then it will do nothing. YouTube also has a TOS that says you can’t upload infringing content. So based on your own definition, YouTube is free and clear.

The reality is your wrong. If you want to go by the language of the Act, look at section 4 of the text you yourself posted. Let’s say someone goes on Bandcamp and uploads an infringing work. It happens. Under the text here, Bandcamp would have to then take down the work (fine) but also to "prevent their future uploads."

There is literally no way to do that without a filter. Any work that is taken down off the site must then be put into a filter that will block any new upload. And if someone changes the file just slightly or the filter doesn’t work… boom. Bandcamp is fucked.

Plenty of people talking about this have spent literally decades understanding how these systems work, and what intermediary liability creates. You should try listening to them.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

"Is that why both Patreon and Bandcamp warned all their users today about how much harm Article 13 would do?"

It’s just worth noting that Patreon at least have objected for much longer (post dated Jun 11 2018):

https://patreonhq.com/patreon-stands-with-our-eu-creators-deleteart13-saveyourinternet-903978e94673

I assume this guy will just claim that Patreon is now a shill for Google or other such nonsense.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

That wasn’t funny or clever the first time you did it, dood, and it’s just grown more stale and obnoxious with each pointless repetition thereof.

That actually applies much more to your repeated use of "dood," which has never been funny or clever and grows more stale and obnoxious with each pointless repetition, no matter how cool you think you are to be "Prinny."

Thad’s line, on the other hand, is used properly each time people think they’re making an argument when they’re not.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

Gah, Mike, why are you taking the side of one of this community’s most prominent bigots, over someone calling him out? As obnoxious as Prinny’s quirky voice may be, at least he says unique things each time rather than repeating the same tired old Monty Python quote again and again and again and again and again and again and again and…

Also, relevant XKCD is relevant.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Article posted at 0013 pacific

The truth that Masnick won’t tell you is that there is a value gap that has to be remedied. Spotify, Amazon and Apple all pay a somewhat reasonable rate to stream an artist’s work; YouTube content ID? Not so much. As in comically low. That’s because artist’s have no negotiating power with YouTube. Article 13 fixes that.

Again, why isn’t the bill SOLELY TARGETED at YouTube then? Why does it impact every other site including, yes, Patreon and Bandcamp — both of which host user generated content.

There is little doubt Mike Masnick will burn in hell for trying screw over artists the way he does. Karma is a bitch.

I’m a content creator. I fight for content creators.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Article posted at 0013 pacific

The application of the provisions in this article shall not lead to any general monitoring obligation. Member States shall provide that online content sharing service providers shall provide rightholders, at their request, with adequate information on the functioning of their practices with regard to the cooperation referred to in paragraph 4 and, where licensing agreements are concluded between service providers and rightholders, information on the use of content covered by the agreements.

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Article posted at 0013 pacific

You know, Google isn’t the only company that will be affected by this..

But I guess you never reflected on that because it’s makes it easy for you to call those not in support of article 11/13 Google stooges.

In other words, your own words declare your stupidity for the world to see.

Anonymous Coward says:

Who knows, maybe the biggest opposition isn’t going to come from Article 13’s opponents, but its supporters.

That’s how they managed to fuck it up the last two times, after all. Even when Article 13 looked like it was going to be a done deal. And the supporters of Article 13 did so in the only possible way rightsholders could: insist the punishments weren’t harsh enough, insist the tributes to be paid to them weren’t large enough, insist the notice and staydown systems they wanted weren’t immediate and/or permanent enough.

So go ahead, out_of_the_blue, John Smith, Hamilton, Richard Bennett. Scream at the sky, ball your fists in righteous anger. Ask for jail terms. Ask for financial ruination. Ask for a live firing squad and prisons full of sex offenders to rape the corpses afterwards. Because the world needs more proof of the fact that you lot are unethical, money-grubbing parasites with a soul full of dog shit.

Jail terms in Japan for alleged manga downloads was also supposed to be a done deal, by the way.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re:

"Who knows, maybe the biggest opposition isn’t going to come from Article 13’s opponents, but its supporters."

…and eventually the copyright cult will actually get what they ask for, in some country too technologically inept to realize what they’ve legislated into existence.

And at that point copyright will start dying, because it will have become obvious to every citizen just what a terrifying legislation of censorship and information control copyright law is, and always was. Once it actually DOES affect everything it has always claimed to regulate, there’ll be no hiding what it’s supposed to accomplish, any longer.

Protecting and consolidating the monopoly of a minority industry of publishers at the cost of everyone.

TFG says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Wow, you’re a social darwinist, right? You believe everyone should never share anything, right, and that everyone should be forced to only pay the largest organizations, right? People should be compelled to create only for the hope of payment, maybe at the point of a rifle to the temple, right?

You would just love to force everybody to pay you for someone else’s work, right? You agree with that, right?

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

You believe everyone should share everything, and that laws that protect works of original authors for original authors are evil, right?

Do you realize that copyright is relatively new (300 years or so) in the context of all human history, right? For thousands of years prior to copyright technological advances were made, music was composed, stories were written and paintings were painted – all with out the benefit of copyright.

Personally, I do believe modern copyright is approaching evil status. The original notion of copyright in the US was to give authors exclusive rights FOR A LIMITED TIME so we would produce more works to eventually share with everyone. It was never designed to lock up works in perpetuity as it does now.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Wow, you’re a socialist, right?"

Actually, like Thomas Jeffersson I’m a conservative liberal and a market capitalist. I believe that value must be rooted in physical scarcity and the compromise between demand and supply.

But it’s telling that absolutely not a single copyright cultist so far has managed to realize the core tenets of "property", "capitalism" and "market value".

"You believe everyone should share everything, and that laws that protect works of original authors for original authors are evil, right?"

Nice straw man. No, I believe that laws should abide by common sense, proportionality, and ethics. Neither of which is fulfilled by copyright law – which first arose as a political-religious censorship tool in the hands of Bloody Mary.

No law which allows any 3rd party to control information not in their direct possession should be allowed to stand because such laws are, by every core principle of liberty and democracy, ethically bankrupt.

"…maybe at the point of a rifle to the temple, right?"

Tell me, when did you stop beating your wife?

Anonymous Coward says:

What if wrecking the internet is exactly the point?

I am more worried that the European Union is actually TRYING to become a fascist regime, like China, Russia, and North Korea. In order to do that the EU is trying to pull the plug on the internet and get rid of pesky things that authoritarian regimes hate, like freedom of expression and speech as well as freedom to organize protests. If that is the case, I question how effective our protests will be. Sounds like we’re trying to say pretty please to serial killer or rapist, to not murder you or rape you. They’re going to do what they want and not let the pesky will of the people stand in their way.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: What if wrecking the internet is exactly the point?

"I am more worried that the European Union is actually TRYING to become a fascist regime, like China, Russia, and North Korea."

You need look no further than the membership of the EU council and commission for that to look quite realistic.

Before being struck down in thunder by the EU supreme courts as violations against human rights the data retention directive demanded, in real effect, a supervision of every citizen well beyond what was even possible in the soviet union and the DDR.

The EU leadership, notably commission and council, are not so much TRYING to become a fascist regime. They simply take that development as natural and desirable. And national established parties are too shit-scared to oppose this.

Leaving it to the brownshirted wave of rising neo-nazi and racist parties to pick up the slack and use EU opposition as the coattails to ride into power.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: What if wrecking the internet is exactly the point?

If you have to resort to raising the specter of “new-Nazi and racist parties” then you have disrobed into your wacko Dacko leftist self for everyone to see.

Only wacko Dacko leftists first demand totalitarian rights and simultaneously paint their opposition as “new-Nazi and racist”.

Evil lives within you. You should let it go.

TFG says:

Re: Re: Re: What if wrecking the internet is exactly the point?

If you have to resort to the specter of wacko Dacko leftist conspiracies, then you have disrobed into your neo-Nazi and racist self for everyone to see.

Only new-Nazi racists first demand totalitarian rights and simultaneously paint their opposition as wacko Dacko leftists.

Evil lives within you. You should let it go.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 What if wrecking the internet is exactly the poi

Own a gun. That’s my idea. Keep state law strong, I like that too. Limit the federal government, they’re too big a and fat all the time. Don’t ask children to vote, that’s just stupid. Focus in actually living a better life now, and then make it better again in the future. Enough of this self-sacrificing bullshit about saving the earth. And libel law is just wrong about public figures, they should be more PROTECTED, not more vulnerable. Read the Constitution, right? Forget the Green New Deal. That was all bullshit.

You’d agree with that, right?

TFG says:

Re: Re: Re:3 What if wrecking the internet is exactly the

I agree with that which I agree with. Help each other. Don’t be an asshole. Don’t be a greedy fuck. Engage in actual discussion where possible. When people don’t argue in good faith, mock them for it. Snipe trolls, they make it so easy.

I’m TFG, bro. My name is an acronym. Can you figure out what it’s for?

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 What if wrecking the internet is exactly the

And libel law is just wrong about public figures, they should be more PROTECTED, not more vulnerable.

I don’t want to live in country where it’s more difficult to criticize those in power. If you do, move to North Korea.

The legal requirement of "actual malice" comes from New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) which was needed because southern officials were using defamation lawsuits as a means of preventing critical coverage of civil rights issues and it has worked pretty well in curtailing such egregious behavior since then.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: What if wrecking the internet is exactly the point?

"If you have to resort to raising the specter of “new-Nazi and racist parties” then you have disrobed into your wacko Dacko leftist self for everyone to see."

You mean the european parties who share the distinction of actually toting swastikas and copies of "mein kampf" in public? Those parties?

Sure, I’m a "wacky-dacky leftist" for believing self-confessed nazists and racists are, in fact, exactly what they themselves claim to be.

"Only wacko Dacko leftists first demand totalitarian rights and simultaneously paint their opposition as “new-Nazi and racist”. "

So because we oppose a strict information control law we are totalitarian leftists…

You do know that orwellian newspeak doesn’t really work in the real world, right? The only one you just marginalized was your own low self.

I must express my heartfelt gratitude at the way you copyright shills continually self-destruct in your arguments.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: What if wrecking the internet is exactly the point?

"TRYING to become a fascist regime, like China, Russia, and North Korea."

  • None of those countries you named are fascist.

"They’re going to do what they want and not let the pesky will of the people stand in their way."

  • Better to just give up then huh.
Thad (profile) says:

Re: Re: What if wrecking the internet is exactly the point?

None of those countries you named are fascist.

Maybe not if you stick to a strict interpretation of the word "fascism" and its original meaning as a specific type of government (though I could argue that Russian oligarchy carries a lot of similarities to Mussolini’s vision of a fusion between corporations and the state).

But did you know words have connotative meanings, too? It’s true!

As far as evaluating fascism, I’m partial to Dr. Lawrence Britt’s The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism. I think you’ll find that Russia and North Korea tick all the boxes, and China ticks most of them.

Mason Wheeler (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: What if wrecking the internet is exactly the point?

The word gentleman originally meant something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone "a gentleman" you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not "a gentleman" you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said – so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully – "Ah but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than John?" They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man "a gentleman" in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is "a gentleman" becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker’s attitude to that object. (A ‘nice’ meal only means a meal the speaker likes.) A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.

— C. S. Lewis

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 What if wrecking the internet is exactly the

And what is up with people using "you" as an informal second-person pronoun?

Hey you, stop telling me which pronouns I have to use!

Just kidding. I don’t really care. Although, I do sometimes self-identify myself as a black Trans Am and prefer my pronoun to be "kitt". Can I get my own public bathroom now?

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

You can when you come up with a transphobic joke that isn’t as tired and yawn-inducing as the one you just vomited out.

I am not transphobic whatsoever. Just a realist. Two sexes are all there is, period. People can self-identify as whatever they want to, I don’t care, but I am not going change MY language for them.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

Biologically speaking there’s more than two sexes. It’s quite a bit more common than people realise. Depending on the specific genetics involved the person themselves may never realise it. That’s not to mention any number of surgical and homomonal treatments that can leave a person in an in between state for anything from weeks to forever. That’s the reality bro.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

"Biologically speaking there’s more than two sexes."

Actually the genetic nuts-and-bolts do not allow for more than two options. Aneuploidy isn’t really common.

Phenotypically we get one more option, but I still maintain it falls into either of the two biological genders. (XX males, for instance).

But when we’re looking at transgender we aren’t looking at genotype or phenotype. Biology has little to do with it. We’re talking about gender identity which is another kettle of fish and arguably far more important. Biology does not make decisions, people DO.

That said…I believe the original intent on building gender-specific bathrooms was a crap idea to begin with, rooted in ideas of gender separation from Less Enlightened Ages.

My own 2 cents in the gender-bathroom debate is this: Get rid of the urinal in favor of ordinary toilet stalls completely and remove the gender-specific signs on the bathroom door.

Thad (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

People can self-identify as whatever they want to, I don’t care, but I am not going change MY language for them.

You’re defending intentionally saying things that you know are going to hurt people because you’re too self-centered to consider their feelings when you speak to them. Maybe think about what that says about you.

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

You’re defending intentionally saying things that you know are going to hurt people because you’re too self-centered to consider their feelings when you speak to them.

 

Everything anyone says anywhere is going to offend someone somewhere.

 

Maybe it’s just the generation I was raised in, but I don’t really care if something I say offends someone. I was raised on "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me". I took that to mean that how I feel and how I react to words spoken to me are completely and totally my responsibility. Words can only hurt if one allows them to and the only people I grant that power to are those who are the closest to me.

 

Perhaps I was a bit too cavalier looking for laugh and I apologize for that, but, I’m still not going to be convinced there is a "third gender" that needs it’s own bathroom anytime soon. Sorry.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8

I don’t really care if something I say offends someone

Ah, yes, the “fuck your feelings” mentality that is most often associated with people who like to say things such as “you need to be cured of the disease that is homosexuality” or “White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?”.

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re:

Ah, yes, the “fuck your feelings” mentality that is most often associated with people who like to say things such as “you need to be cured of the disease that is homosexuality”….

Ok. Now you are attempting to paint me as homophobic. Stop it, because I am not. I don’t care what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms and I do support gay marriage because I believe that all loving couples should have the same legal benefits regards of orientation. The minister who married me and my wife is a gay man and his long time partner was my tax accountant for years. As a side note: My accountant was also the most politically ultra-conservative person I’ve ever met.

I also believe in a civil society and common courtesy and treating others the way I wish to be treated. I’m not going to go out of my way to be offensive unless I’m in a debate and my intention is to be snarky or offensive. I’m just saying that I am not going to be held responsible for someone else’s reaction to my words.

 

“White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?”.

I don’t find the terms "white nationalist" or "white supremacist" in and of themselves to be offensive at all. The groups those terms actually describe I do find highly offensive. The terms themselves are just words.

As for "western civilization", I haven’t a clue as to why that would be offensive at all, really.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Re:

I also believe in a civil society and common courtesy and treating others the way I wish to be treated.

And yet…

People can self-identify as whatever they want to, I don’t care, but I am not going change MY language for them.

…if a trans person asked for the courtesy of being referred to by a certain name or a certain set of pronouns, you have already said you will not treat them as you would wish to be treated “in a civil society”.

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Re:

if a trans person asked for the courtesy of being referred to by a certain name or a certain set of pronouns, you have already said you will not treat them as you would wish to be treated “in a civil society”.

I guess I should have clarified myself a little on this. I have no problem referring to trans people as "they", "their" or "them" if I have actual knowledge of the person. What I won’t do is use a silly made-up pronoun like "ze", "sie", "hir", "co" or "ey", nor will I attempt keep abreast of meanings of those words.

If I bump into a person at the mall, my immediate reaction is going to be "Excuse me, ma’me" or "Excuse me, sir" based on my split second examination of how they are presenting themselves to the world. If I am unsure of their gender, I will just say "Excuse me". That’s how I was raised. If someone takes offense to an incorrect usage of their preferred pronoun in that situation I’m not going to lose any sleep over it.

Thad (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Re:

All pronouns are made up.

I stumble over stuff like "zhe" and "hir" too; I think a lot of people do, which is why they haven’t gained traction while "they" has. (Everybody already uses "they" as a gender-neutral pronoun, frequently, whether consciously or not.) But if somebody asks me to use one of those pronouns, I’ll do my best to do it, and if I stumble in getting it right, I’ll apologize.

Because if I’m going to deliberately insult somebody, it’s not going to be because of their gender identity.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13 Re:

While I’m certainly very sympathetic to the rights and difficulties of trans people, that also strikes me as a bridge too far, something that’s made up to create conflict even when people are on their side. The strange thing is, I haven’t seen it come up anywhere other than English. In Spanish, which is a fundamentally gendered language, I haven’t seen the argument come up anywhere near as much. Yet in English, where we don’t assign genders to chairs and trees, referring to anything as gendered is seen as offensive.

Thad (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Re:

Wrote a rather long response to this but it’s been caught in the spam trap (presumably due to a link in it, which was to a previous comment where you use "they" as a gender-neutral singular pronoun, which you didn’t seem to have any kind of moral or grammatical objection to at the time).

It may come up later, which would be nice, as I think it was rather a good post. But the gist is this:

Standards for civility and politeness change. (As do the definitions of words. Which was my point with my "you"/"thou" reference; it’s frankly bizarre that you responded to my post about how the meanings of pronouns have changed with a rant about how pronouns are fixed and immutable.) Once you’re made aware of new standards for what’s considered polite, you have a choice of either following those standards or not. If you choose not to, then have the guts to take responsibility for it; if you’re saying something that you know is going to insult somebody, and you do it anyway, accept that that’s your decision; don’t try and blame somebody else for your knowing and deliberate rudeness.

If I insult somebody, it’s either because I mean to or because I don’t. If I don’t, I apologize and try not to do it again. If I do, I own my responsibility for making the decision to deliberately insult them; I don’t try and say it’s their fault for getting offended. I admit I used to do that, but I outgrew it by the end of my twenties.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 What if wrecking the internet is exactly the

And what is up with people using "you" as an informal second-person pronoun? That’s what "thou" is for! If everybody addresses each other as "you", how am I supposed to figure out their relative social status?

Do you actually have any clue what the relevant history is with those two words and their meanings getting changed around? Because if you did, you’d realize that you unintentionally picked a very bad example that supports Mason’s point far better than the one you appear to be trying to make.

John Smith says:

While I support Article 13, I wouldn’t care too much if it didn’t pass.

Either outcome is well above my pay grade and I don’t waste energy like that. I post here to offset the notion that "everyone" is against Article 13 (or Section 230), as I believe this site is some type of focus group for whomever, and this is my viewpoint.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

I wouldn’t care too much if it didn’t pass

And if you look to your left you’ll see pigs flying over colliding meteors, just outside the window on the 27th basement floor.

Either outcome is well above my pay grade

Let’s analyze this statement more closely. John Smith’s prior postings indicate that after pirates stole his mailing lists and he was prevented from exacting legal pursuits because the man behind the curtain was to economically powerful to touch, he languished outside of the financial advice ebook industry (because that’s a thing, for some reason).

This was until some very rich patrons allowed him to write for Hollywood blockbusters and popular television series. Again, none of which he intends on naming, but it’s successful to the point where he boasts of having multiple girlfriends on top of enjoying immense influence in Hollywood’s inner circles. The amount of success he claims to have is precisely what he leverages on when insisting that the police are willing enough to investigate anonymous slights to his anonymous character.

So bearing the above in mind, why the term "above my pay grade", a phrase used to suggest something that’s unrelated to oneself due to one’s lower position? Is John Smith not someone who his analysis of Article 13 would benefit? Isn’t John Smith supposed to be someone of significant clout who can command armies of policemen and politicians to destroy those who he doesn’t like?

I don’t waste energy like that

Said the guy who spends several months posting threatening remarks on anally penetrating Asperger’s sufferers.

I post here to offset the notion that "everyone" is against Article 13 (or Section 230)

Oh, nobody thinks everyone is against Article 13 or supportive of Section 230. In the same way that 30 years of home taping didn’t actually kill music, porn trolls like you simply will not fucking die for some reason. Maybe it’s some form of cosmic joke, maybe it’s the kind of celestial grace that believes that a role still exists for your sort of pond scum.

this site is some type of focus group for whomever

Focus group for what? You claim this site is so small, so insignificant it can’t possibly influence legal policy or copyright law.

Let’s say that yes, this site is a focus group. If so… why use an insignificant site for that? Why use a platform which, according to long-standing critics, has been having consistently dropping Alexa ratings?

It’s like you go out of your way to disprove yourself with each and every time you post here, but considering you have sexual fantasies about police raping the people you hate, why does that surprise anyone?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Never said "pirates stole MY mailing lists," though I’m sure some people were diverted.

Instead — and this is why they are trying to make it about me — I said that mailing lists have a monetary value that means piracy is costing the creators money.

I can be in favor of Article 13 without letting it rule me the way some let their opposition to it rule them.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

mailing lists have a monetary value that means piracy is costing the creators money

Oh yeah, that Pirate Bay newsletter is making tons of money for the guys behind it~.

I can be in favor of Article 13 without letting it rule me

…says the guy who constantly mentions, defends, and misinterprets Article 13 — wholly unprompted and unprovoked, no less! — in the comments of articles that have nothing to do with Article 13.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

“Let’s analyze this statement more closely. John Smith’s prior postings indicate that after pirates stole his mailing lists and he was prevented from exacting legal pursuits because the man behind the curtain was to economically powerful to touch, he languished outside of the financial advice ebook industry (because that’s a thing, for some reason).”

Wow, this is one of the most special displays of Techdirt Counter-Intelligence that I have seen for some time. Are you obsessed with attacking this guy personally? Do you think you are mentally balanced? Is is just a casual internet site, or is there a Techdirt Nazi Saluting Russian Funded Conspiracy to SPY on American Citizens and attempt the Publicly Discredit Them with Nothing But BULLSHIT and an Anonymous Soviet Funded MOB?

TFG says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Wow, this is one of the most special displays of TD troll speculation that I have seen for some time. Are you obsessed with defending this guy personally? Do you think you are mentally balanced? Are you just a casual internet commenter, or are you Nazi-saluting Russian Funded Troll part of the conspiracy to spread divisiveness and false narratives to influence American politics with nothing but BULLSHIT and Anonymous Soviet Funded MOB?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Well, if you’re a hammer, then you’re going to hammer something, right? And if you’re a sniper, then you’re going to snipe, I suppose. Be Happy! Snipe Away! Good Sniping! I went sniping once. But it was my older brother, Gerd, pulling a trick on me. I had to sit in the grass for a very long time, at night, to catch snipes. While I was doing that, he was drinking and laughing. To be honest, sniping wasn’t a lot of fun for me. But maybe it’s better for you. Hope so! Be Happy!

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re:

"I don’t waste energy like that"

No, you’re far too busy posting paragraphs of whining that the mailing lists you used to scams people aren’t as profitable as they used to be – and have for some reason latched onto "piracy" instead of lower use of email and people wising up to your fraud as the the reason.

"I post here to offset the notion that "everyone" is against Article 13 (or Section 230)"

Of course not everyone is against them, else there wouldn’t still be people pushing for them. But, people in possession of the facts about what they will really do are generally opposed to them, it’s liars and fantasists like yourself who tend to still be in favour. Not a word you’ve posted here has proven anything different.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Those in possession of the facts wouldn’t keep making shit up about me."

The only facts I have about you are the posts where you’ve claimed to be a scam artist who used to make huge amounts of money by spamming people, and now demand the right to continue defrauding people at the expense of every other industry and every artist on the internet.

If I’m wrong about that, provide some evidence as to what you actually did.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

Yes, actually saying something with your own words is probably more challenging. And I would guess that actually winning someone over to your point of view is WAY beyond what you even IMAGINE to be possible. So from that point of view, yes, rearranging a few words is easy when you actually have nothing worthwhile to say.

Do you imagine that in the future, you might ever aspire to actually PERSUADE someone of your point of view? Or do you, like the others here, think Persuasion is WORTHLESS.

Dominance, right? That’s all you care about. You have given up the hope of being persuasive. Isn’t there a name for people like you? Facist, right?

TFG says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re:

Yes, actually arguing in good faith is probably too challenging for you. And I would guess that actually winning someone over to your point of view is WAY beyond what you even IMAGINE to be possible. So from that point of view, yes, continuing to spout unsubstantiated nonsense and putting up strawman arguments and random extrapolations of absurdity is easy when you actually have nothing worthwhile to say.

Do you imagine that in the future, you might ever aspire to actually PERSUADE someone to your point of view? Or do you, like your fellow trolls here, think Persusaion is WORTHLESS?

Dominance, right? That’s all you care about. You have given up hope that you can ever grasp making an actual factual argument. Isn’t there name for you people like you? Fascist, right?

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

"Another false choice"

I’m open to a third option, I just can’t think of one. Although, I am slightly amused that you keep saying that phrase rather "false dichotomy" or "false dilemma". The reason for that is left up to the reader.

"Who do you think you are addressing? "

A rambling fool who appears to have lost his shit again, after merely being asked to back up his own words with evidence.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re:

PaulT – look up the definition of “delusional”.

characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.

You are imaging that multiple separate posters are a single poster – duh.

There is a whole group laughing at you. Get it?

TFG says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re:

AC: Look up the definition of "delusional"

[characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.
"hospitalization for schizophrenia and delusional paranoia"

based on or having faulty judgment; mistaken.
"their delusional belief in the project’s merits never wavers"]

You are imagining that people are not replying to your own posts as signified by your gravatar. You are also imagining that anyone is laughing at Paul and not you.

Get it?

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re:

"You are imaging that multiple separate posters are a single poster – duh."

No, I’m looking at the snowflake icon that’s automatically generated to indicate whether or not anonymous accounts are posting from the same IP address, It’s clearly indicating that everything I responded to is at very least coming from the same IP.

If you have evidence that this feature is not showing the correct information, please provide it, otherwise you really are a miserable failure of a troll.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Re:

"If he’s such a miserable failure of a troll, then why do you and everyone else keep feeding him?"

Because responding to pro-copyright trolls isn’t so much feeding them as simply giving them enough rope with which to hang themselves.

Generally, see, they (or, more likely, the sock puppets all manned by one and the same person – since a hundred nicknames all coming from the same ip is unlikely albeit possible) show up to post one brief set of one-liners full of straw men, false arguments, outright falsehoods and/or red herrings.

Every subsequent counterargument makes the troll fly off the handle a bit more. Eventually all that’s left from their attempt to troll (or astroturf) is an incoherent rant which gives away their game to absolutely everyone who ends up seeing any of it.

And that’s important since every casual observer will likely end up reading some of the flagged commentary and come to the conclusion that the troll in question has revealed himself as such.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re:

"While I support Article 13, I wouldn’t care too much if it didn’t pass. "

…he said, taking utmost care to post a comment on a topic he claimed didn’t interest him at all…

"I post here to offset the notion that "everyone" is against Article 13 (or Section 230), as I believe this site is some type of focus group for whomever, and this is my viewpoint."

So if you don’t care either way, why would you even care about what notion everyone has?

Stop pretending to be a fence-sitter.

Anonymous Coward says:

as i have said many times here and elsewhere, the whole aim of what the entertainment and copyright industries have been after since they realised the fuck up they’d made by not embracing the Internet, was to gain total control of it! every move they have made, every court case they have pursued, every person they have jailed and every person they have forced to die has all been so as to take that control away from the world and us ordinary people! every politician, security force, court and judge has done whatever they have been told so as to make this transition easier and, even if Articles 11 and 13 are defeated as i hope they are and indeed they should be, anyone who thinks these fuckers will give up is very much mistaken!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

So why don’t we push back? If single-issue voter blocs can force things most people don’t are about to become major political issues, why haven’t we done the same with something that tons of people on both the left and the right do care about, as evidenced by the overwhelming success of the SOPA blackouts?

Put the word out that no one will get elected into office who doesn’t commit to protecting our digital rights and rolling back abusive copyright laws, including withdrawing from bad treaties if necessary, and no one whose voting record indicates they betrayed that promise will get re-elected, and we’ll see real change happen quickly. As the Good Book says, "those that are greater than those that are with them." We just need to organize a bit.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

"So why don’t we push back? If single-issue voter blocs can force things most people don’t are about to become major political issues…"

We usually do. But where the main majority of people opposed to revolting protectionist Red Flag Acts are civilized in their protests, this is typical of what the copyright cult offers:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120120/14472117492/mpaa-directly-publicly-threatens-politicians-who-arent-corrupt-enough-to-stay-bought.shtml

When the RIAA CEO comes out in public and tells the body politic "We know who our friends are because we made sure to pay their way into office and if those friends stop being friendly with us we might just stop paying them, and possibly reveal who they are"…then you know there will be a whole lot of politicians thinking back to how much of their campaign fund and air time was donated by major media.

Quite a lot of politicians will have to vote with the copyright cult because although they can hope voters will forget their names until next election the MPAA, RIAA, IFPI et al. certainly won’t.

In other words: "Nice career you’ve got there, a shame if anything were to happen to it" trumps any mere protest unless its become obvious voting for a given proposal will be a total show-stopper as far as the public is concerned.

Anonymous Coward says:

"And, yes, they might give you an "advance," but it was structured as a loan. You would need to use that advance to pay for everything having to do with the creation of your work — and then the gatekeeper would bill against that "advance" for any revenue that came in. The amount of money you actually made would be tiny — and the likelihood of ever actually "recouping" the advance is so slim, that record labels were known to not even keep records because they knew they’d never have to give you another dime. "

It doesn’t have to be paid back, so it’s a loan.

Very few people are going to make hits, but that’s not the record company’s fault. Those who do buy multimillion-dollar mansions before they turn twenty-five in many cases. Kathy Griffin said her home cost $13 million, and she paid cash for it.

Criminals should never be enriched, period. That is separate from the money being taken from those who make by those who take.

Haven’t found a single website other than this one which is "dark" today.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

To be fair, what you are pointing out is a fundamental facet of our legal system, and not limited to copyright. Anyone willing to invest in a legal proceeding can force another to invest in a legal proceeding for any plausible cause. That’s just how it works. Nothing to do with copyright.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

I’d disagree. Copyright in particular is very egregious at this because plaintiffs threaten people with $150,000 penalties, or cash up front.

Critiques of this system are met with insistent defenses from copyright fans, who claim that statutory damages are a must (even though they would never, ever be used at the maximum).

So yes, it is very much unique to copyright. It’s a system that behooves the government to tax everyone on blank media in case of piracy risk. And after everyone’s been punished for the crime of having an Internet connection, you want your armed goons to bash in everyone’s door just because you can’t afford your twenty-seventh solid gold Humvee. Fuck that.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

"That’s just how it works. Nothing to do with copyright."

Name me one jurisdiction, anywhere, where some troll in another country could have a computer script send automated notices to the department of vehicles and transports and have your driving license automatically revoked pending you setting up a court case to defend yourself.

And yet this is exactly how copyright law works. People who see nothing wrong with this either haven’t thought about the issue or are seeing the troll farms as a feature rather than a bug.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Who cares, it's the EU.

The US is socialist already. 2009 bailouts ring a bell? Social Security? Education, fire, police, etc? Most who bash socialism whine for it the most when they need it.

Those who don’t play fair aren’t winners, but cheaters. Capitalism only works in a fair society and our society is not fair.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Who cares, it's the EU.

What do you mean by “don’t play fair”? Fair from which angle? If you are born into money, and then use your money to both cover your expenses and make even more money, are you playing fair? Or is being born into money not fair? Or making money with money not fair? Or do you mean breaking the law?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Who cares, it's the EU.

I think your question is more about you than it is about me. I write for fun, no harm intended, it’s just a light hearted way to spend time, not unlike knitting or twiddling your thumbs or practicing “around the world” with a yo-yo for hours and days and weeks on end. Writing is like that for me, like spinning a coin to pass the time and watching how many times tails comes ups. Sometimes people here touch on something interesting and I write something in response. Usually I’m just bored and looking for distraction. There a lot of writers here who easily step on their own dick and they’re fun to watch sometimes.

The question is, why do you react to my harmless rhetoric tin such different ways? Why do you enjoy sniping? Sniping is just weird. Not like me. I’m normal. I have a long history of being normal, I even had top secret security clearances, that’s how normal I am. Really normal. You can’t get a security clearance if you do a lot of sniping. Did you know that?

TFG says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Who cares, it's the EU.

For fun, eh? So noted: "Person who claims to be entirely normal enjoys attacking random people on the internet, gets upset when assholery gets reflected back at them."

I will enjoy continuing to reflect your own assholery back at you.

BTW, Did you know that I’m CIA? It’s totally true and not made up at all.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Who cares, it's the EU.

"The US is socialist already."

  • Perhaps your definition varies from that published in dictionaries.

"2009 bailouts ring a bell?"

  • Corporate welfare

"Social Security? "

  • For a majority of retired people, Social Security is paying them back the money collected from them over their past working lives. So it is not an entitlement nor a handout and is not socialism.

" Education, fire, police, etc?"

  • Providing for the common good of society is not socialism and having competing services for these functions would be a bit chaotic.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Who cares, it's the EU.

"The US is socialist already. 2009 bailouts ring a bell? Social Security? Education, fire, police, etc? Most who bash socialism whine for it the most when they need it."

No, the US is socialized to a large extent. there’s a difference.

The 2009 bailouts were the results of three presidents in a row absolutely refusing to resolutely gimp shadow banking because a rowdy trade in funny money was highly profitable on paper.

As a side note on that aside from a slap on the wrist nothing was done to curb shadow banking so the next bubble to result in bailouts of every bank unwise enough to accept badly underwritten debts in bulk.
Of course, any bank who won’t take the risk of doing that will also be less competitive. Proof that at the very least there should be law against doing business with money you only possess in potentia.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Who cares, it's the EU.

OK, there I get for being quick on the draw. Here’s the edit of the above:

"As a side note on that aside from a slap on the wrist nothing was done to curb shadow banking so the next bubble to result in bailouts of every bank unwise enough to accept badly underwritten debts in bulk is growing nicely right now."

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Who cares, it's the EU.

The problem is that the effects may not be restricted to the EU. It would affect anyone whose site(s) can be viewed in the EU, especially if they allow user-generated content or quote news articles. This is bigger than the EU; this is about the fundamental nature of the internet.

Also, there is no guarantee this will stay in the EU. Based on past history, copyright maximalists are likely to try this again in the US should it pass in the EU, and part of the justification will be to make the laws more similar in both markets to avoid disparate regulations of a global market. It worked in the past.

Hugo S Cunningham (profile) says:

Re: Who cares, it's the EU.

In order to keep access to the huge EU market, some US tech giants might be tempted to humor some EU claims, starting with a "right to be forgotten" for EU scammers and crooked politicians. Since the US government would not be involved, it would not be a First Amendment issue. Congressional action might be needed to help insulate the US internet from foreign censorship demands.

Anonymous Coward says:

The Europeans are most definitely likely to put an end to Silicon Valley’s attempt at world hate, dominance, and control.

There will definitely put an end to actions like of the Facebook staged attempt at restarting the civil war in Sir Lanka.

There will definitely be an end in Europe of to private companies attempting to compile dossiers on individuals more pronounced than the ones compiled by the likes of the Gestapo, KGB, and Stasi. Bluntly they, the Europeans, have had enough of such even if it is all the rage in Silicon Valley.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Because of their dominance in their respective markets and enormous revenue streams, Google and Facebook will in many ways benefit from these laws because no one else can afford the licenses, snippet taxes, and upload filters required, effectively locking out the competition.

Also, with Google News (with regards to the snippet tax), Google earns no revenue from it, so it would likely just remove the feature altogether. This isn’t going to destroy Google and Facebook.

As for the stuff about compiling dossiers on individuals or attempting to restart a civil war, setting aside the fact that the latter isn’t Facebook’s fault and certainly not one of its goals (what would be the motive?), it’s completely irrelevant here. We’re talking about copyright, not privacy, terrorism, hate speech, or incitement. As important as those issues are, they have absolutely nothing to do with copyright in general or the EU Copyright Directive specifically. They’re each a whole other can of worms in their own right.

And none of the Silicon Valley giants are trying to spread hate (or have ever made, as you put it, an “attempt at world hate”; that’s just an unfortunate side effect of the internet as a whole. I’m not denying that, to an extent, Silicon Valley giants try to exert control and dominance within their respective markets, but “world hate” has never been a goal of any of theirs.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

And you understand the details of the inner workings of the upper management at Facebook and Google exactly how again?

I could ask much the same question of the OP of this particular discussion thread, given how he makes assumptions about the actions and motives of “Silicon Valley” in general (“Silicon Valley’s attempt at world hate, dominance, and control”) and Facebook management in particular (“the Facebook staged attempt at restarting the civil war in Sir Lanka”), not to mention the mindset of the broad group of people he refers to as “Europeans” (“the Europeans[ ]have had enough”).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Hey, Stephen, I like his writing. It rings true for me. He sounds insightful and I like to read what he writes. My guess is that he could back up each and every part of his post with a lot of facts, references, history, articles and bias (well, we all have some bias, right, even you). So there. I think he’s cool, and insightful, and I hope he writes some more.

By the way, are you black or white today? How can you post without giving away your identify explicitly? How about changing your name to “Stephen T. I Am White Stone”, or maybe “Stephen T. I am Black Stone” or maybe “Stephen T. White” or “Stephen T. Black Gay”. The last one is who you usually are, right? Black and gay and proud. Or are you not proud anymore? Or not black? Or not Gay? You’re hard to understand, that’s for sure. Who the heck are you?

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

I like his writing. It rings true for me. He sounds insightful and I like to read what he writes. My guess is that he could back up each and every part of his post with a lot of facts, references, history, articles and bias (well, we all have some bias, right, even you).

We get it, you read without a critical eye.

By the way, are you black or white today?

Please point out a single comment of mine where I specifically and unambiguously claimed to be a Black man, and I will answer this question. Until you can do that, do not blame me for your willful misinterpretation of my comments; it isn’t my fault you thought I was Black and got told otherwise.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Who in the heck would ever be able to express whether you are black or white except you? I “got told otherwise”? That’s just weird, Stephen. Who’s writing would I consider other than your own? Why have you avoided this question like a dozen times? You’re just weird.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

As I remember, you wrote about reparations for black people, and cast yourself as a potential recipient. You are incessantly critical of others and try to discredit people for their inconsistencies all the time and every day at almost every hour. I could care less if you are black or green or pink or purple. You’re just such a sanctimonious asshole towards others that I reflect a little back to you.

You’re a fake and a phoney spending a lot of time calling other people fakes and phonies.

I guess i just don’t like you. Well, to be honest, I like you sometimes, sometimes you say something clever. That’s fun to read. But your nasty shit is really tiresome.

Anyway, are you still gay? That going OK for you? I had a gay thought the other day. Want o hear about it?

TFG says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

You are very critical of everyone. You incessantly make up shit about everybody else. You incessantly ask if you’re right… which you aren’t.

You very much care if someone is black or green or pink or white, given the insistence on asking a particular person over and over based on a fabricated assumption of vacillation unsupported by anything.

You’re a fake, you’re a phoney, and you take enjoyment in being an asshole to random people on the internet. You try to deflect when that assholery gets reflected back on your, but the sad truth is that nobody likes you. Sometimes you say something mildly entertaining, and sometimes there is amusement to be had in shooting you down, but you have never contributed anything worthwhile, and your nasty shit is tiresome.

Are you still a racist? That going OK for you? Probably not. It tends to lead to being an asshole that pushes everyone away.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Why have you avoided this question like a dozen times?

Because someone willfully made an assumption about my race in a reply to one of my comments, got told their assumption was wrong, and is using both their incorrect assumption and my correction thereof as a weak-as-shit foundation for questioning my racial/ethnic identity in a pathetic attempt to discredit anything I say. And that someone wasn’t me.

You’re just weird.

Thank you.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

"You essentially made the claim that Stephen have lied, you prove it."

Baghdad Bob doesn’t need to "prove" anything. You know.
It’s enough that he speaks loudly enough and looks determined. The republican guard will shove those allies out of Iraq any day now, you’ll see.

He also doesn’t need to prove that damn teapot orbiting mars (and likely beaming mind control rays down on the earthlings on behalf of Facebook and "Sir Lanka", whoever that enigmatic character might be). His good friends "Bobmail", Jhon Smith" and "out_of_the_blue" all have his back on this.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

They were formidable, weren’t they, the American Indians. Savage, brutal, and simultaneously peace loving and generous. They’re all rich casino owners, now, right? That seems fair. Maybe we should let black people have casinos too, what do you think? That could be a reparation without an undue expense. Just give them a license to gamble legally. They mostly like to do that anyway, right? Just like Indians. Wow, they both like to drink, too, so that’s kinda a tri-fecta.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

It is only in your deeply deluded imagination that such comparisons are even considered.

You’ve been carrying that weight too long my old friend, let it go. Take Three deep cleansing breaths, open your chest, spread your arms wide, lean back, stick your tongue up your nose and then SCREAM BEGONE DEMON!

Then you will feel better.

I feel better already.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

"American Indians. Savage, brutal, and simultaneously peace loving and generous."

  • and the pilgrims were not savage, brutal … ?

"They’re all rich casino owners, now, right?"

  • No

"That seems fair."

  • Not

"Maybe we should let black people have casinos too"

  • Were they here first?

Are you on drugs?

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

"Found the racist!"

Even "Where’s Waldo" is less challenging than that game though. I am disappoint.

What’s really surprising is the arbitrary way old Baghdad bob keeps mixing racial stereotyping with pro-copyright rhetoric, almost as if he isn’t seeing the way he keeps torpedoing his credibility from both sides at once.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Those who can’t afford to have their own sites will function just fine under the umbrella of big tech

Which puts us back into the pre-Internet era of massively wealthy gatekeepers determining who can and cannot make money from creative works. The Internet helped tear down those gatekeepers; for what reason should society ever build them back up?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Society values credentials, like a "book deal" or a "record deal." Without that bias, the gatekeepers would have been bankrupted in the 1990s. The problem with the lack of gatekeepers (even reviewers are gatekeepers) is that the market winds up flooded with crap without them.

It’s the lesser of all evils.

YouTube is more of a technical gatekeeper in that they would handle the technical aspects of it while allowing the market to pick the winners. In fact, without a neutral gatekeeper like YouTube, you get conflicts of interest with premium content from the same creator sponsoring free content. It’s much better to have finance videos sponsored by Coke and Pepsi than by some finance get-rich-quick seminar.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

The problem with the lack of gatekeepers (even reviewers are gatekeepers) is that the market winds up flooded with crap without them.

Then let the market be flooded with so-called “crap”. I would prefer that result to a market limited to what the gatekeepers tell me is “cool” and “good” and “worth buying”. I want a world where as many people as possible can express themselves creatively and share their works with the world — even if I end up disliking the overwhelming majority of those works.

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

The problem with the lack of gatekeepers (even reviewers are gatekeepers) is that the market winds up flooded with crap without them.

If you can define "crap" in a way that is acceptable to every single human on the planet then you might actually have an argument here.

One man’s garbage is another man’s art.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

and even with gatekeepers, you can still very much get what some would consider as crap. Why? Because it doesn’t stop people with gatekeeper deals from making bad works.

Anyone can come up with an idea, the question is can you refine that idea into something that catches the audience and leave them with something they can look back on favorably?

Quality can certainly matter, but frame that as quality of what. Does that what take too much away from the overall work to catch you?

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

"The problem with the lack of gatekeepers (even reviewers are gatekeepers) is that the market winds up flooded with crap without them."

It’s pretty much been the experience of the last few thousand years worth of human history that good art only grows on a midden of shit. When you have no gatekeepers you get, every now and then, a mozart, shakespeare, cicero, aristotle and plato.

With gatekeepers you end up with medocrity being the standard with "art" being a thousand near copies of the accepted formula.

Nazi artwork, Soviet iconography…and the thousand variants of the same song, all written by the same two people, hyped to the sky by half a dozen labels.

Gatekeepers are always bad, especially so for art and culture.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

A gatekeeper is there to make money, and as such they will almost always go for the most bland, safe bet in what they allow through. This works great for them, as it will result in a nice steady stream of money, but for anyone who might have created something different, something that only might have made money(or, horror of horrors might have been unprofitable) they get left in the gutter under a system of ‘gatekeepers or nothing’, regardless of the quality of their work.

I’ll take dealing with a bunch of crap to finding the few gems, as it’s much better for me and society than a carefully curated system where only the blandest is allowed through.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Assuming that the filers let them, which is doubtful in many cases. Besides which increasing the costs that the big sites have to bear, and the licenses that they pay to the legacy industries reduce the amount that they can pay out to the Independents. The health of the independent publishing market also depends on Patreon, KickStarter and other funding sites being able to continue to operate without massively increased bills.

Rich Banning of Urls says:

Promising clickbait dissolves into usual censored dog-pile.

First: by any objective measure, you have made a DULL cesspit here, Masnick. You have failed to control your fanboys, and it’s obvious from the above that all you/they have is ranting ad hom. — At least that’s all can say when your true position is: "I DEMAND FREE CONTENT! NOW!"

Your true position is not going to stop Article 13, it’s the cause of it.

By the way, with all the censoring above of mild dissent, WHY should anyone fear having views stifled when you’re already doing it?

YouTube, Vimeo and others made that all totally free.

NO. Hosts provide little more than bandwidth. Requires practically no skill when what’s "totally free" is the content. Nearly all the good stuff is uploaded by pirates, and even those gaining money off own work are essentially captive to gatekeeper Youtube.

But if they now have to give a massive chunk of money to license-holders, why will they keep providing such services for free?

Well, WHO CARES? Idiots watching other idiots are not to be the focus of civilization. We’d lose almost nothing if all collapsed.

So how does present radio and television distribution work in Mikey-world? They "give" massive money to those from who license content. — You are simply in a panic that Youtube might have profits slightly reduced by having to actually pay for the huge amount of content that it doesn’t now.

The end result is that a few gatekeepers regain their position as gatekeepers. A few internet giants get locked into their position without much fear of competition.

NO, that’s just your assertion for blathering, and likely WISH. It’s not handed down from God nor fixed by necessisy. Much is flexible. The gatekeepers can be controlled with further legislation. — And if those gatekeepers balk and cheat, We The People should break up the biz and lock up the executives in jail.

And artists and creators get totally screwed.

NO, again just your assertion. You have the absolutely insane premise that status quo is the ONLY arrangement possible.

https://on-the-importance-of-horizontal-rule-dividers-to-teh-internets.com

I see "Scary Devil Monastery" aka "Gary" aka "Dark Helmet" aka Timothy Geigner is out in full cry here. Interested new readers should look at its comment history: made first comment in 2013, resumed after 5 year gap, now up to 400 per year rate! It’s just typical of the obvious astro-turfing here.

ECA (profile) says:

If'

1/10 of the people affected sent 1 email..
If 1% of those affected sent an email..
If .1% of the world sent an email..
They would have so much email they would think it was DNS attack. and deny anything was wrong.

I would have suggested(If it would have much affect) that those responsible for starting this, be threatened with removal from office.
If any of these politicians are elected as OURS ARE, then they are dependent on the PEOPLE.. And those in their Home country will have allot more pressure to put on them, then anyone else.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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...