MEPs Realizing How Bad Article 13 Could Be, Begin To Back Away From EU Copyright Directive
from the but-more-is-needed dept
The online protests around the terrible Article 11 and Article 13 only began yesterday. This weekend there are expected to be significant in-person protests as well, leading up to the big vote next week. Already the protests are having an impact. MEP Julia Reda passes on the news from Polish MEP Michal Boni that the major Polish political party, Civic Platform (or Platforma) has said they will not vote for the EU Copyright Directive if it contains Article 13:
Our efforts to defeat #Article13 just got a huge boost! Polish @Platforma_org will vote AGAINST the #copyright directive unless #Article13 is deleted! They're the second largest single political party in EPP after @CDU. Thanks @MichalBoni https://t.co/2sjuSpwxRe #SaveYourInternet
— Julia Reda (@Senficon) March 22, 2019
That’s a big win for the internet, and people should go thank Boni for that. However, many others in the EU Parliament have not yet said how they will vote and need to hear from people in the EU. The future of the internet — and whether it’s an open platform for all, or a closed platform for gatekeepers, depends on it.
Filed Under: article 13, censorship, civic platform, copyright, eu, eu copyright directive, filters, michal boni, platforma, poland
Comments on “MEPs Realizing How Bad Article 13 Could Be, Begin To Back Away From EU Copyright Directive”
I can’t help but wonder. We keep hearing about how bad Articles 11 and 13 are. This implies that there are at least 11 other Copyright Directive Articles that we’re never hearing about. How many are there total and why is no one talking about the rest of them, since it’s difficult to believe that the same people who came up with these two stinkers would make the rest of the package boring and innocuous…
Re: Re:
I can’t help but wonder. We keep hearing about how bad Articles 11 and 13 are. This implies that there are at least 11 other Copyright Directive Articles that we’re never hearing about. How many are there total and why is no one talking about the rest of them, since it’s difficult to believe that the same people who came up with these two stinkers would make the rest of the package boring and innocuous…
Most of the rest of the EU Copyright Directive is good. There is one other slightly problematic part concerning text and data mining, but it’s really just Articles 11 and 13 that are the true problems.
Again, the original intent behind the Copyright Directive made sense: to modernize copyright in the EU, and to make it possible for pan-EU services to thrive, rather than limiting them to each specific country with conflicting and different copyright policies in each.
Re: Re: Re:
I wonder if the intention isn’t to kill the entire thing by putting one or two things so toxic that the entire thing will fall apart. They know where to touch people to make them mad, they had plenty of training with SOPA and the likes. At least it seems to me that the current broken status quo is pretty much better than the sanity presented by the directive (excluding 11 and 13 and possibly 50 if memory serves).
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That’s quite likely why the RIAA/MPAA (and European equivalents) wanted the whole thing thrown out when they claimed Article 13 didn’t go far enough as they were likely using that as a smokescreen because they dislike other parts of the directive, but they just couldn’t outright say they disliked the other parts as they were pro-artist;
However I think both of these bits got gutted in the last draft, but didn’t get much attention due to the fuss about Article 11/13 so even the good bits of the directive have been lost.
Re: Re: Re:
Explaining for anyone who wants a little more specifics:
Article 3 only forces an exception for scientific research when it comes to the legality of data-mining, I guess an appendix might be able to be added after 5 years but that’s a long times for startups to struggle and fail not being able to utilize data.
Article 15 (prev. 11) is link-tax stuff that makes it harder for small news publications to establish themselves on the market, which will reduce competition, as externally funded news organizations (who won’t notice as much) don’t tend to play nicely with others.
Article 16 (prev. 12) allows publishers a lawful entitlement of shares from an authors work outside covering up the costs of publishing, this is unnecessary imo since publishers doesn’t to my knowledge have an obligation to accept licenses that doesn’t benefit them, however it isn’t really the end of the world.
Article 17 (prev. 13) has some good (exceptions for fair use!) and a lot of bad in it.
The biggest issue is that platforms need to seek licenses for all creative work that exists, which is simply impossible to achieve for the people who might not be able/want to join a collecting society (which also only exists for music/text atm), at which point they’d still be open to predatory behavior by copyright holders.
Leaked works that isn’t in potential filter systems would still be a problem and platforms are liable by default unless they can prove in court that they did their absolute best to remove/quarantine said content, should a copyright holder press charges.
Another mistake (imo) that ties into the previous stuff I just said is the lack of protection against misuse of flagging systems like we see on youtube, if large copyright holders actually had to face consequences for misuse there would not have been nearly as much outrage over the article in the first place.
Re: Re: Re: "We have altered the deal, pray we do not alter it further..."
Article 16 (prev. 12) allows publishers a lawful entitlement of shares from an authors work outside covering up the costs of publishing, this is unnecessary imo since publishers doesn’t to my knowledge have an obligation to accept licenses that doesn’t benefit them, however it isn’t really the end of the world.
Wait, what? I find it really hard to believe that publishers are the ones regularly finding themselves getting the short-end of the stick in the contracts they sign, so beyond trying to tilt the field even more in their favor I fail to see what ‘problem’ that is trying to address.
Re: Re: Re:2 "We have altered the deal, pray we do not alter it further..
Does that mean id there is a way for an author to make extra money from their work, like public performance, that the publishers can claim a share of that income?
Re: Other articles in the copyright directive
See https://reform.communia-association.org/
Then, some articles are just technicalities, for instance article 1 ("this directive changes everything without changing anything") and 2 (definitions). Article 2 is actually Voss’ darling, he keeps quoting the supposed exceptions.
Prediction... just wait for it
So hopefully there is enough public support and backlash that no EU politicians will feel comfortable voting for this crap legislation.
Now assuming this does happen and this directive does not pass, how many weeks will it be before some intern changes a few words in other legislation overnight before a vote in order to try and accomplish the same goal (making the internet a broadcast medium)? I say they will wait at least 3 weeks… (but I’m an optimist…)
Re: Prediction... just wait for it
That is actually not how it works, especially this late in the game. They’re all going to vote it down, and if they want to try again, start at the very beginning again.
I can’t help but remember a Peter Sunde interview I read a while ago. He was talking about how he hoped that Trump would win the election because he feels society needs to suffer a shock sufficient to open their eyes. While I don’t believe copyright was the focus of the statement, I do wonder what state Hollywood would be in if this does pass. Yes the Internet would conform to their long desired view but… it’s one thing to be vilified by the Internet for a bad law until the law is defeated. It’s quite another to take what’s left of the open internet away (and openly claim credit). I think if this passes, Hollywood is going to be dealing with backlash from a million times more people than it does now. The tech activists will no longer be shouting in a vaccum and people may think twice about seeing that awesome new blockbuster or listening to the latest mass produced crap that passes for music.
If Hollywood wanted to piss off "average consumers", a long term change like this is the best way to do it.
And yet it's not nor been on Drudge Report.
I don’t think it’s that big a deal if not rated as more important than some guy dying on a seat in the subway.
Re: And yet it's not nor been on Drudge Report.
Hey matey, the problems with drudge and not with the real news.
They Only “Say” They’re Backing Out
It seems to me that they only are saying they’ll back out just to get its people off their backs, and then they’d secretly vote for the Directive. Same with many other MEPs. When they pledged to vote against the Directive, they probably only pledged it just to get their people to shut up, and then they turn around and vote for the Directive.
(Note: these aren’t based off of facts. This comment is only based on a rough prediction based on past corruption within the EU)
Re: The 'I will vote for anyone BUT you' stick ain't going anywhere
Which is why you keep the pressure on, making it crystal clear that a vote for it will result in nothing but endelss votes against them.
Re: Re: Pressure won’t be enough.
Have u seen what happened with the FCC and Net Neutrality? They repealed Net Neutrality despite millions of protests against the repeal. Ajit Pai didn’t even listen to the public and he only believed anyone who agreed with Pai’s views (thanks to the ISPs begging for more money). Now, the EU is mere moments from voting on the new Copyright Directive, and they’re probably going to pass it despite all of us telling them not too. Despite millions of pressure from around the world, the EU will more than likely pass it, even if the MEPs pledge to vote against it (which I said before they likely pledged just so that they can try to shut the people up, even with the continuous pressure).
And if it does indeed pass, the rest of us outside the EU will be affected alongside the EU member states. USA, Brazil, Japan, China, Russia, Kuwait, Mexico, Canada, and every single country will be affected, because once it passes, the censorship spreada rapidly like a virus. It would be brought from coast to coast, from river to river, from island to island. And it’s all because the big media companies want even more money.
And this week will be the deciding week. And it seems as though it will pass. I don’t want it to pass at all, but clearly the governments all over the world don’t care. Thailand is also trying to do a similar task in their country, and Japan also had an idea as well.
It’s all luck based, and the odds are not in our favor. We better step up our game if we want the EU to reject Article 13 and the entire Copyright Directive.
Re: Re: Re: Pressure won’t be enough.
The difference between Ajit Pai and MEPs is that Ajit Pai is not an elected official.
Re: Re: Re:2 Pressure won’t be enough.
“The difference between Ajit Pai and MEPs is that Ajit Pai is not an elected official”
Ajit Pai was put in as Chair of the FCC by Donald Trump.
Whatever difference you’re saying is very slim to none.
Re: Re: Re:3 Pressure won’t be enough.
"Ajit Pai was put in as Chair of the FCC by Donald Trump."
So, not elected. Like he said.
"Whatever difference you’re saying is very slim to none."
It’s the difference between elected officials and unelected ones. Whatever bullshit the Brexiters buy into about the EU, we do actually vote the MEPs into office.
Re: Re: Re:4 Pressure won’t be enough.
Actually I’m not a Brexiter. I’m an American residing in Pennsylvania.
But it’s not WHO these government officials are that you should be taking note. It’s about HOW these governments performed their dastardly acts that should concern you. Though they represent two different types of governments, the EU and the FCC both ignored thousands upon thousands cries in order to “close” the internet up.
It’s almost similar, but similar enough to not be a coincidence.
Hey, MM: who "authorizes" the censoring here at TD?
Couple pieces back you’re wondering who authorize some statement.
Now let’s have some transparency here as to exactly WHO designed Techdirt so that comments can even be hidden? It’s a UNIQUE far as I know feature. — And I think reason so is because infuriates even casual readers when any and all dissent is suppressed. But you don’t worry about popularity, MUST get your agenda through.
Seems of late that you’re indeed going full automatic, just knee-jerk response, unable to argue so trying to drive dissent off.
Ridiculous and laughable, but that’s Techdirt’s schtick.
Re:
Dissent is marked by a cogent rebuttal to a point of argument. It is not mere contradiction, and it certainly is not whining about having your comments flagged for being off-topic drivel.
Re: Re: Dissent is marked by a cogent rebuttal
Man: An argument isn’t just contradiction.
Mr. Vibrating: It can be.
Man: No it can’t. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
Mr. Vibrating: No it isn’t.
Man: Yes it is! It’s not just contradiction.
Mr. Vibrating: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
Man: Yes, but that’s not just saying ‘No it isn’t.’
Mr. Vibrating: Yes it is!
Man: No it isn’t!
Re: Hey, Troll
Heya Blueballs – Downvoted for off-topic.
Is there some ideal comment system you endorse, which you can hold up as example to TD readers of the "Right" way to run things?
Re: Hey, MM: who "authorizes" the censoring here at TD
There are plenty of other websites which allow communities to hide comments like yours. You would know this if you spent any time outside your obsessive conspiracy bubble.
Re: Re: Hey, MM: who "authorizes" the censorin
Name three.
Re: Re: Re: Hey, MM: who "authorizes"
You’re kidding, right?
Reddit allows users to set a net-downvote threshold to hide comments (and the default is rather low).
Slashdot, which Techdirt’s commenting system is similar to, has the same option.
YouTube comments can be hidden after sufficient user flags.
This is not hard.
Re: Re: Re: Hey, MM: who "authorizes" the cens
Slashdot, Digg and Reddit, but there are more.
Re: Re: Re:2 Hey, MM: who "authorizes&qu
Ars Technica does too. -15 locks the quote feature, -20 collapses it behind a click like here.
Re: Re: Re: Hey, MM: who "authorizes" the cens
"Name three."
Ars Technica, Slashdot, Reddit
There are hundreds of others – and some of these sites even delete and ban posts from idiots like you rather than allowing you to lie anonymously.
Re: Hey, MM: who "authorizes" the censoring here at TD?
You do know that even the casual readers can flag. Also, as a casual reader, your comment is only self serving. I come back here because the comment structure is unique and like it far better. Unlike techdirt, other places content is deleted. Your comment would likely not even exist. Here is the only place that I know that actually only hides it so others can view it. 90% of the time I agree with the flagging. Just like I have flagged both our posts for being off topic.
Re: Re: Hey, MM: who "authorizes" the censoring here at TD?
I honestly can’t even name a website that still allows anonymous commenting like TD. Anywhere else, you need to register with a valid email before posting.
Re: Re: Re: Hey, MM: who "authorizes" the censoring he
Well, I can… after some search, not off top of head. But there are.
And a key point: those ALL state up-front that they may remove / edit comments. Techdirt has no such reserving of rights and thereby LIES.
Now, since Techdirt reserves no rights, then it needs what to edit comments with a warning and click required? — Some good cause in Common Law. But there are none: dissent is nearly always the LEAST objectionable tone.
Now, too: since Techdirt chooses this method and there’s no obvious objection to be made to, say, my comments, compared to Timothy Geigner aka "Dark Helmet" (and I believe YOU too, "Gary"), who called persons "ignorant motherfucker", which Masnick later said was mere joke, THEN it’s censoring and viewpoint disrimination.
Oh, and clearly MOST people despise it and leave: Masnick doesn’t care about discussion or popularity.
Re: Re: Re:2 Hey, MM: who "authorizes" the censorin
Seriously guy, what part of WE ARE TIRED OF LISTENING TO YOUR SAME FUCKING BULLSHIT OVER AND OVER do you not understand?????
Please answer me that!!!!
Re: Re: Re:3 Knocked on the door but no-one was home
Don’t expect honesty or even coherency from this one, dishonest babbling, lies and strawman is all they have.
Re: Re: Re:2 Hey, MM: who "authorizes" the
There is literally nothing factual in your entire comment.
Re: Re: Re:2
Please show me the law, statute, or court ruling that says Techdirt absolutely must host and display all comments without any form of hiding/“censorship” or face legal punishment.
I’ll wait.
Re: Re: Re:2 Hey, Troll
And you still can’t even form an actual reply, using facts.
So you can name three websites with anonymous posting? But laughably, you didn’t actually name them. (And it took research to come up with those.)
But you still can’t name a single website with better commenting system. Or… you choose not to.
Your posts are flagged due to multiple violations of Colander Law. the Colander police will be along to arrest you shortly.
Re: Re: Re:2 Hey, MM: who "authorizes" the censorin
Uh, what?
TD doesn’t remove or edit ANY comments. Hidden is not the same as removed or edited. Word have meanings. You might have an easier time at this if you actually knew proper English.
Well he probably doesn’t care about popularity so at least you got that right. As for the rest, considering many posts in the last week went well over 100 comments, I’d say there’s a fairly active reader/commenter base with a mix of both registered and anonymous users.
Re: Re: Re:3 Hey, MM: who "authorizes"
Clarification:
I’ve seen TD remove botspam like posts from Mr. Sjupgta Prhmgnasi and his make-money-with-one-simple-click, but outside of that I’ve never seen a single post removed.
Re: Re: Re:2 Bro you got called an ignorant motherfucker
Because you are an ignorant motherfucker. And you will keep being called an ignorant motherfcuker until you stop being an ignorant morherfucer.
Re: Re: Re:2 Hey, MM: who "authorizes" the censorin
"those ALL state up-front that they may remove / edit comments. Techdirt has no such reserving of rights "
Techdirt does neither of those things…
"Oh, and clearly MOST people despise it and leave"
You know where the door is…
Re: Re: Re:3 Hey, MM: who "authorizes" the cens
Apparently most people despise the website and leave but the new troll talking point is that Techdirt influences enough people or not enough people to either throw out Article 13 or make Shiva Ayyadurai a social pariah, just in case his obnoxious behavior against Warren supporters wasn’t enough. Oh, and lying about being the inventor of email.
It’s almost like the constant inconsistencies in their arguments might be a hint that they have a mind and soul full of dog shit.
Re: Re: Re:2 Hey, MM: who "authorizes" the censorin
We’re all still wondering why you came to describe "laws" that are entirely a fiction from the depths of your mind should be called "Common Law". That term is already taken and means something completely different to what you use it for.
Re: Re: Re:3 'Yes, but MY interpretation of the law says...'
Given they seem to treat it as a failed ‘I win’ phrase I believe it’s a ‘borrowing’ from SovCit lingo, where from what little I’ve seen of the individuals in the group the term seems to mean ‘the laws according to how I see them in my head’.
Re: Re: Hey, MM: who "authorizes" the censoring here a
I take that as the key point and say: SO?
I’m complaining about entirely innocuous comments which are well within ordinary discussion being censored. — Oh, I have to admit that complaint is off-topic! It’s the ONLY way one can complain here. Otherwise it’s total black-box, insular clique, NOT the public forum as purports. False advertising.
It just happens that those all disagree with Techdirt / Masnick, so it’s de facto viewpoint discrimination at best.
And the astro-turfing is ridiculous! That’s to pretend there’s a larger number commenting.
Re: Re: Re: Hey, MM: who "authorizes" the censoring he
Maybe the VERY FIRST time you started asking about the comment system, we could give you the benefit of the doubt and let you rant…. but after you have come here, and hundreds of articles, all bitching and moaning about the SAME FUCKING THING OVER AND OVER, everybody else is just plain old tired of fucking listening to you, therefore you get flagged!!!
Re: Re: Re:2 Hey, MM: who "authorizes" the
FINE with ME if you clowns want to trash the site!
In my view it’d be FAR better to leave visible, not least ’cause shows Techdirt can’t stand even mild dissent.
Re: Re: Re:3
Dissenting from/disagreeing with a given view expressed here and whining contrarianism are two different things. You are almost always guilty of the latter. That is why you get flagged.
Seriously, try making a post that raises a cogent point and doesn’t have any complaints or namecalling or other such bullshit. Behaving like a decent human being instead of a whiny asshole might keep your comments from getting flagged.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
To call the abusive trolling that gets hidden "dissenting opinion" is not just disingenuous but flat-out ridiculous, as it literally takes just one click to disprove such assertions.
Re: Re: Re:3 Hey, MM: who "authorizes"
That’s great coming form you, trashing the site…. actually we are making it better so people don’t have to listen to you bitch and moan ABOUT THE SAME FUCKING THING OVER AND OVER
And it has been explained to you why you get flagged, OVER AND OVER but you still come where with your same fucking attitude and expect everybody needs to listen to you…WE DON’T, and I for one am getting fucking tired of your same old shit you pull every day on just about every article!
And it also been pointed out to you that there are plenty of dissenting opinions here and those comments rarely get flagged because those commenters act like actual real human adults in their discussions.
Re: Re: Re:3 Hey, MM: who "authorizes&am
Your self-importance is just massively inflated.
Re: Re: Re: why you still here bro
“And the astro-turfing is ridiculous! That’s to pretend there’s a larger number commenting”
Not really since you, Jhon, and Hamilton got it through your heads that switching IPs doesn’t hide your crazy bullshit.
Re: Re: Re:2 why you still here bro
I don’t switch IPs to post here.
I just share my viewpoint so it’s counted in whatever focus group is being run through this site.
Maybe all these protests will work. Still hope Article 13 passes though.
Re: Re: Re:3 why you still here bro
Remember when you said you couldn’t care if Article 13 passed? What a fucking surprise, John Smith lied through his teeth.
Re: Hey, MM: who "authorizes" the censoring here at TD?
I am one of the people who authorize it, every time I click on the button titled "Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam."
Re: Re: Hey, MM: who "authorizes" the censoring here a
Well, thanks for honesty, AC!
I note that you don’t bother to call it "hiding", the official term here.
But of course you don’t speak for site, unless are more astro-turfing.
I still want Masnick to be somewhere near honest as you. "The community" with a "voting system" that has no upvotes even possible, without ever admiting that an Administrator / Moderator makes a decision is just plain LIE, then.
And again, since Techdirt offers a form contract with plain HTML and reserves no rights, then either lump the very mild dissenters, or go to closed system. — You can’t have it both ways while dissent can yet complain. Choose, TD.
Re: Re: Re:
Question: For what reason does a voting system need an “upvote” option if the only reason a voting system exists is to flag spam/off-topic bullshit?
Re: Re: Re:2 Because the opinion of a clique isn't the whole story.
You tacitly believe that your one — very uniform — opinion here is all that needs said.
And you dare call this a discussion forum?
And the site touts free speech?
Just not HERE, which is SAME as everywhere! — Just admit that you can’t stand my viewpoint. Be honest like the ACs.
Re: Re: Re:3 Because the opinion of a clique isn't the whole story.
You don’t have a "viewpoint." You’re not interested in discussion. The reason your comments are repeatedly flagged is because this fact is clear to everyone else except you.
Re: Re: Re:3
Unless someone’s post is blatantly abusive/spammish/off-topic, I leave it unflagged even if I disagree with the argument presented within. Your “opinions” always amount to the same thing: “Fuck whatever Techdirt says and fuck Mike Masnick!” If you could present a cogent, on-topic argument without the vitriol and the namecalling and the whiny-asshole-ness, I might not flag your posts. But since you cannot do so, well…
Re: Re: Re:4 Words matter, "Stone": you are making up VILE words for me.
First, STOP THAT. YOU ARE LYING.
Not only that, YOU are the one injecting vile tone. STOP IT.
Gee, and your opinions change every day? I hadn’t noticed.
Re: Re: Re:5 Words matter, "Stone": you are making up VILE
Ah, projection. Classic.
Re: Re: Re:3 Because the opinion of a clique isn't the whole story.
Also, a key point: will you state whether you believe that it’s an automatic system without a person deciding? Cause Masnick won’t ever state whether, just blathers about "the system".
If a person does decide, by what criteria?
Now, since I find the site opaque on basic point: it’s viewpoint discrimination.
Re: Re: Re:4
And if you could visit some form of legal repercussions upon Techdirt for the discrimination of your “viewpoint” (such as it is), that complaint would mean something.
Re: Re: Re:5 Yes, "Stone", I'm forced to rely on asking for fairness.
But I’m pretty sure that you’re not up on current state of legislation being considered to address "deplatforming" and other fairness.
You’re clearly against all protest. You’ve previously near stated that blacks shouldn’t have sat in at lunch counters until the law / practice of barring them from ordinary fairness was changed.
Guess you’ve never heard of "Gay Rights", either.
Or apartheid in South Africa.
NO, when comes down to YOU being upset over a little bit of text, LIKE EVERYONE ELSE, you think that YOUR freedom suppresses mine!
Re: Re: Re:6 Yes, "Stone", I'm forced to rely on asking for fairness.
I didn’t think you could still jump the shark, but here we are.
Re: Re: Re:7 Yes, "Stone", I'm forced to rely on asking
Yes. You clowns have the same attitude as commies and oppressors everywhere, just not same degree yet.
Now, please state one actual reason why my viewpoint is suppressed here other than it’s an insular clique of pirates besides the site pushing a corporate agenda.
Re: Re: Re:8 Yes, "Stone", I'm forced to rely on as
Sure.
It’s because you’re consistently off-topic, because you constantly lie, because you spam comments about your ridiculous pet conspiracies, and because you offer nothing of value to any discussion (which you’re not interested in in the first place).
Re: Re: Re:9 Yes, "Stone", I'm forced to rely o
You forgot that anyone not agreeing with him are damn pirates, thieves, kids, freeloaders etc.
Re: Re: Re:8 Yes, "Stone", I'm forced to rely on as
Because you are an off topic, batshit crazy, spammer.
Re: Re: Re:6
By all means, show me the legislation that purports to force Internet platforms into hosting and displaying a third party’s speech.
And please cite the comment I made in which I stated this position. The text of the comment must be unambiguous in its meaning; a willful misinterpretation of what I said does not count.
I’ll wait.
Re: Re: Re:7 I note you don't object to not hearing of other matters...
You use the old technique of picking a specific in order to simply stall, while entirely neglecting the POINT that asking for fairness is often about all that’s possible.
Second point was that you simply dodge away when troubled by a questioin, and you repeat the tactic by that diversion.
Re: Re: Re:8 I note you don't object to not hearing of other matters.
If only there were multiple examples in this very comment thread where you run away after your lies are proven.
Re: Re: Re:9 I note you don't object to not hearing of other matt
He can’t find them as he can’t figure out how to "Click here to show it"
Re: Re: Re:8
…says the asshole who refuses to cite the legislation he purports to know about.
…says the asshole who refuses to cite the comment that supposedly attributes a specific viewpoint to someone else.
If’n you can’t back up your claims with factual citations when pressed on whether your claims are factual, don’t make the claims in the first place.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Actually he has. It is common law. Just never any clarification beyond that. Either he is being deliberately obtuse or just clueless.
Re: Re: Re:6 Yes, "Stone", I'm forced to rely on asking for fairness.
NO, when comes down to YOU being upset over a little bit of text, LIKE EVERYONE ELSE, you think that YOUR freedom suppresses mine!
As you sit in your mom’s basement typing this, do you actually think that it makes sense?
If TD is breaking the law, show us.
If you think the Federal Government needs to step in and protect you – call them.
If you you think Colander Law supports your positions – show us.
Instead, you can rant nonsense. I’m not against your "arguments" because you have never made any. You just make accusations, liar.
Re: Re: Re:7 Yes, "Stone", I'm forced to rely on asking
Who said TD was breaking the law meaning actionable in any way? It’s discriminating against viewpoint, which you clearly believe is all right on a "Free Speech"-touting site which invites discussion! It’s just hypocrisy. — And you can’t resist joining in for a dig, can you, Timmy? How does that help the site?
You repeat the nonsense "Colander Law" which no one but you has ever used, and claim I’M crazy? — Apparently you use it because can’t stand to see "Common Law". Sheesh.
Re: Re: Re:8 Yes, "Stone", I'm forced to rely on as
Apparently you use it because can’t stand to see "Common Law". Sheesh.
No "Apparently" about it. I think you are sitting in your basement with a colander upon your head, mate. The colander has wires on it, so it will protect you from opposing viewpoints.
If you know what common law is, you’d tell us. – But you don’t.
You repeatedly claim TD is breaking the law. But you can’t cite any.
You claim you have "Midwest values" but you actually are a racist piece of shit and can’t stop complaining about the Jew conspiracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
Judicial Precedent. Judge Made Law.
You also claim to love Copyright – which is the exact opposite of free speech. Just saying, weaksauce. You cry like a little kid about getting downvoted but cheer on when corporations filter uploads.
Re: Re: Re:4 Because the opinion of a clique isn't the whole stor
You know where the door is, don’t let it hit you in the add on your way out!!!
Re: Re: Re:5 Because the opinion of a clique isn't the whole
There’s a door?
What’s an "add"?
And watch those exclams! You seem excited, and we’re running out of them after a generation of it!
Re: Re: Re: Hey, MM: who "authorizes" the censoring he
Seriously guy, what part of WE ARE TIRED OF LISTENING TO YOUR SAME FUCKING BULLSHIT OVER AND OVER do you not understand?????
Please answer me that!!!!
Re: Re: Re:2 Hey, MM: who "authorizes" the
I’m tired of being censored. On a site that lauds free speech. When mine is well within common law, and always on-topic when not forced to argue for fair treatment! — By the way, in last fourth of 2017, it was exactly as though a switch was turned and my comments weren’t censored. I stopped complaining then because not a constant irritant to me.
If you’re going to laud Free Speech, then remember that you might be annoyed by some disagreeing.
And since you’ve apparently read my whole suite of argument, then you choose censoring all dissent here.
Re: Re: Re:3 Hey, MM: who "authorizes&am
(You don’t know what free speech is, and you’re off-topic all the time)
Re: Re: Re:3
Then go somewhere else and complain. You are not legally entitled to “fair treatment” here, nor are you legally entitled to have your comments displayed for all to see despite your vague citation of “common law”. You have a right to speak your mind; you have no right to an audience or the use of a third-party platform.
Re: Re: Re:4 Separate is not equal. Especially for a Public Forum.
I like Techdirt. It’s large enough I stand out, wacky enough that my ordinary Midwest notions are considered out of bounds, and the hoots from Masnick’s notions can’t be beat.
Re: Re: Re:5 Separate is not equal. Especially for a Public Forum.
Yes, you do stand out. It’s easy to find your "contributions", they’re all under the username:
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
Re: Re: Re:6 Separate is not equal. Especially for a Public Forum
Clever, but only proves how uniformly Techdirt censors viewpoint.
Re: Re: Re:7 Separate is not equal. Especially for a Public F
Or how easy it is to hide disruptive spam.
Re: Re: Re:8 Separate is not equal. Especially for a Publ
Or how uniformly Techdirt censors viewpoint.
Re: Re: Re:9 Separate is not equal. Especially for a
Or that you are a numpy are we are tired of your horseshit.
Re: Re: Re:3 Hey, MM: who "authorizes"
I call bullshit right there, this entire comment thread is NO FUCKING WAY on-topic, you are just here to piss and bitch and moan about poor little you getting censored. Maybe if you grow up and act like a fucking adult, you will not get censored!!!
Re: Re: Re:4 Hey, MM: who "authorizes&am
Now, right there, with vile word and triple exclams, shows that "adult" isn’t necessary to not get censored here.
It’s simply viewpoint discrimination, NOT way said.
Re: Re: Re:5 Hey, MM: who "authorize
What does "NOT way said." supposed to mean?
Re: Re: Re:5 Hey, MM: who "authorize
HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO FUCKING TELL YOU??? I flag your posts because they are "abusive/trollish/spam" and it has nothing to do with viewpoint discrimination. Just because you tell yourself that over and over, does not make it true. Especially when I come here and tell you exactly why I flag your posts, which has nothing to do with viewpoint discrimination!!!
Re: Re: Re:6
There’s no point in getting worked up over it, as they’re either too delusional to accept the reasons people give for why their comments get flagged(which are obvious to everyone but them), and/or too dishonest to admit it.
Flag and ignore, or have fun poking at them. Either way it’s a waste of energy to get frustrated and/or angry, as they’re simply not worth it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Hey, MM: who "authorizes"
You’re not. But if you’re tired of your comments being HIDDEN, stop being a moron.
I couldn’t give a flying rat’s tail about your stupid common law. It has no bearing on commenting on this website.
Oh oh! You mean like how you started going off about copyright, pirates, and corporatists in an article about the CBP illegally detaining two kids, and forcing one of them to sign a document stating that something that was 100% true wasn’t true? That kind of staying on topic?
Your comments are such a dumpster fire it’s not even funny anymore.
Re: Re: Re:4 Hey, MM: who "authorizes&qu
So Colander Law – Please Cite what Law TD violates? You never stop harping on this point, But can’t show a single law TD has broken?
And you wonder why we thing you wear tinfoil?
You invoke "Law." Followup or shutup. Citation needed.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Remember in 2017 when you said your best achievement was staying away from this site for over a year?
Ever considered extending your record? I promise nobody is going to disagree with you doing so.
Re: Re: Re: Hey, MM: who "authorizes" the cens
Again, there are literally two different positive votes available.
And you have no idea what a contract is.
Re: Re: Re:2 Hey, MM: who "authorizes&qu
The phrase "form contract" is clarified in "Consumer Review Fairness Act". You should read it though has no enforcement so I don’t worry about it much beyond the stated principles that hiding review — which is what I do when criticize Masnick — is clearly out of bounds.
Re: Re: Re:3 Hey, MM: who "authorizes&am
Yes, you still don’t know what a contract is, and it has nothing to do with "plain HTML".
Keep on flailing.
Re: Re: Re: Hey, MM: who "authorizes" the censoring he
Yeah we can. Every time I click to hide your insane bullshit I get to have a forum free of spam and to methaphorically spit in your face.
Re: Re: Re: Hey, MM: who "authorizes" the censoring he
I kept telling myself, this time i will ignore this shit stain but here I
am again,
"I note that you don’t bother to call it "hiding", the official term here."
You fucking imbecile, words mean things, you do not understand the things those words mean!
Re: Hey, MM: who "authorizes" the censoring here at TD?
A lot of people disagreed with Mike’s take on Facebook and its privacy focus (and on shutting down Facebook). And those comments weren’t flagged. Perhaps because people were making actual arguments in intellectually honest ways and not just doing the obvious trolling that you do.
Re: Re: Hey, MM: who "authorizes" the censoring here a
It’s a good try, "AC" who’s clearly a regular, but just right you stated total bias against person / viewpoint, and doesn’t answer the key question of why Techdirt can’t stand any dissent.
Wasn’t like this in the old days. I’ve not changed what nor how said. Techdirt has gotten more sensitive the smaller audience and number of fanboys get.
I think that touchiness is due largely to pirates losing on the legal fronts, one of my interests. But even calling you pirates as you call yourselves is forbidden to me and used as justifyijng the censoring.
I can’t win here. But it’s even more HOOTS when YOU clowns go ON AND ON like this even knowing it’s futile and that YOU are trashing the site.
Re: Re: Re: Hey, MM: who "authorizes" the censoring he
English man, learn it.
Re: Re: Re: Hey, MM: who "authorizes" the censoring he
Well that’s true enough at least.
Easily disproved by looking back at previous articles.
Re: Re: Re: Hey, MM: who "authorizes" the censoring he
No, not a bias against person/viewpoint. A bias against obvious intellectual dishonesty and trolling. That’s all.
And "can’t stand dissent" is obviously false. As I stated above, there has been lots of unhidden dissent when people disagree without trollish/boorish behavior.
In the meantime, congrats, you’ve trolled this post so heavily that almost none of the comments are about the actual post. That’s why people hide your comments: you’re a troll.
Re: Re: Re: Hey, MM: who "authorizes" the censoring he
“But it’s even more HOOTS when YOU clowns go ON AND ON like this even knowing it’s futile and that YOU are trashing the site.”
He said in his 101st whiny off topic post of the day
Re: Hey, MM: who "authorizes" the censoring here at TD?
Well, you were pretty much success in highjacking another post so there’s that. BTW…. I’m another one that flags your post. One can disagree with the premise of the topic without going of the rails but you can’t seem to do that.
Re: Re:
Eh, the article is basically a status update, talking about how the current protests seem to be working; not much to say to that beyond ‘keep it up’ so might as well have fun mocking TD’s #1 fan(atic).
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It was a great way to spend a lunch hour!
Re: Hey, MM: who "authorizes" the spam filter at TD?
I do bro. Every time I flag your insane garbage.
That's strange...
I could have sworn there’s been at least one person rabidly talking about how this is a ‘done deal’, others talking about how it’s no use fighting because it’s just going to go through anyway… It’s almost like historical evidence is holding up, that if you make your displeasure known loud enough politicians will fold, so long as you keep up the pressure and don’t just accept defeat.
I’ve said it before and I’ll keep saying it for any and all defeatists and/or people trying to sabotage those actually trying:
Fight and you might lose.
Give up and you will lose.
If someone’s going to stick in a knife in your back make them work for it, don’t just hand them the blade and turn around because hey, they were going to do it anyway, so why bother?
Re: That's strange...
Wow, almost 100 posts, and almost nothing about the article. Instead, commenters go on and on about Techdirt’s censorship policy.
Maybe this deserves some official response to make the “community” more transparent and accountable to those who would like to comment here.
Or does it just deserve to be ignored and forgotten because you don’t care about any opinion but your own?
Re: Re:
We would care about the opinions of the troll brigade if they would present even one opinion worth caring about. As it stands, contrarianism for the sake of trolling is not worth caring about beyond the snipes and the deconstructions of troll logic.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That sounds like circular logic. We don’t care about other opinions because other opinions are presented by trolls. They are trolls with bad opinions, we are upstanding with good opinions. You could justify anything with that logic.
Re: Re: Re:2
Trolls do not present “other opinions”. Trolls present disingenuous arguments, whiny complaints, and an all-around lack of any attempt at holding a serious discussion about the subject of a given article. When someone presents an opinion that runs counter to (what you believe is) “Techdirt dogma” and does so in an intellgent and sincere manner, the commenters here — myself included — treat the “dissent” as a path to an actual discussion on the merits of that opinion. When someone whines about “censorship” because they have a long history of having their comments flagged and hidden, we mock them (mainly to blow off some steam).
When the trolls can present an opinion that they are both willing and able to defend with something other than whining about “censorship” or making obviously ludicrous statements such as “all pirates should be jailed”, the community here will stop flagging them. Until that day comes, they are not entitled to have their opinions taken seriously.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
A troll is anyone that you say is a troll. From my view you are a troll. Calling someone a troll and then using that as a replacement for an actual argument is ridiculous.
Focusing on who the commenter is instead of what he says is cowardly and tyranical. Besides that, you are usually wrong about who a commenter is. What is the point of allowing Anonymous Cowards to post if you then point to who they are to discredit them? Why can’t you focus on the ideas presented rather than the people who present them? Is it because your arguments are weak?
Your arguments are often disingenuous and often lack any attempt at serious discussion. They are also often disgusting and refer to fecal matter. If we held your comments up to scrutiny, how many “normal” people would defend your words?
Tell me again how an independent third party could distinguish between a troll post and a non-troll post without listening to the 10,000+ posters here. Or is the term “troll” just something you use to discredit those with whom you are unable to debate.
Re: Re: Re:4
And this is an example, dear readers, of a disingenuous troll who wants to argue in bad faith. This is why we have the flagging system.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Ok, just to be clear – I am a troll and you are not a troll because ..
My opinions regarding this site are less valid than your opinions regarding this site because ..
The fact that the censorship policy here is an outright lie is OK because …
I have seen 10+ posts hidden in less than 1 minute. Are you really going to claim that this is a “community effort”.
It’s all just an outright lie. I know that if I point this out, then I am a “troll” by your warped standards. Truthing is Trolling.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Here is some help if you want to not be considered a troll:
What censorship policy? And if you feel it is a lie, give us a concrete reason why you believe so and we can discuss the merits of your reasoning.
And what proof or evidence do you have so support that it isn’t a community effort? Give us something other than "Because I said so" and we can then discuss the merits of your reasoning.
And what proof or evidence do you have so support that it is a lie? Give us something other than "Because I said so" and we can then discuss the merits of your reasoning.
Have a real argument and we can have a real discussion.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Blah blah blah you don’t want a real discussion, you couldn’t handle a real discussion. You are totally invested in your lies and misdirection in order to take money in return for promoting self-serving lies.
I have you facts – large swaths of comments are hidden in very short amounts of time. This is simply impossible if it is a “community effort”. I am a witness to this, I have seen it on multiple occasions. Show me one piece of evidence to the contrary.
Many others have given you facts – like commenters “rising from the dead” after years of silence. I have personally seen that maybe 30 times. You use fake names and fake histories and fake biographies to give the impression of real people who are not real.
A real argument – if you had any real arguments you wouldn’t need to use the word “shit” in your headlines, articles or comments.
There is a real argument for transparency. Who are your customers? Who pays for this? How much do you charge and in return for what?
Why do you hide everything financial about this site and lie about your censorship policy? Why do you allow disgusiting sexual fantasies to be employed in the place of actual arguments?
Your answer: (not forthcoming because you are as dishonest, corrupt, fraudulent, unscrupulous, nasty and absent a moral basis)
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Why this obsession over an Illuminati that calls you out for the garbage you post? It’s because you can’t stand the idea that this site you refer to as a cesspool has a large enough readership to mock you for your rubbish.
I get that Shiva Ayyadurai’s failure to rape this site out of existence tore a gaping hole in the dumping ground you call a heart, Hamilton, but that’s not exactly something I’d shed a tear over. In fact, after two years of you claiming that this site has thousands of people who were hurt by the fact that it exists you haven’t listed a number larger than I can count on one of my hands. In fact that number even went down by one, after Janice Duffy realized that her feud with Wendy Cockcroft was a shithead idea and make your miserably short list even shorter.
Sucks to be you!
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
You only think that because you don’t sit where I sit, see what I see and hear what I hear.
I like article 13 more than Shiva, anyway.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
Yeah, ignorance is a bitch, I get it.
On the subject of sexual fetishes, you boyfriend MyNameHere had a grand old time flirting with you constantly, so once again, thanks for proving your side to be staffed by absolute, thorough hypocrites.
You like Article 13? Have an Article 13 vote! That’s what you wanted, right? Right right? Right?
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Simply put. We don’t own you anything but contempt bro.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Contrary opinion is not always hidden, see the arguments in this thread where plenty are expressed and not hidden.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
You are right, they are not always hidden. But they are often hidden. And disgusting, vile, sexual fantasy filled posts are VERY seldom hidden. What does that say about the censorship policy here?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
It says, quite clearly, that you’re concern trolling.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
It means Shiva Ayyadurai didn’t invent email, Hamilton.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Your reply is the very definition of “trolling”, yet you are never censored.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
It’s because unlike you, I don’t fantasize about Melania Trump/Shiva Ayyadurai fanfiction.
Companies talk about how bad this will be, but none of them want to do the one thing that would be pretty much guaranteed to kill it;
"Dear European Union,
As of today, we have blocked all European IP addresses from accessing any of our services. These blocks will be removed as soon as you officially announce the permanent dropping of articles 11 and 13. If you pass these articles, the blocks will become permanent.
Signed,
Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram…"
You think people are protesting this now? Today’s protests would be a drop in the bucket compared to what would happen if all of Europe were suddenly cut off from all the internet services they’ve come to rely on. They’d be screaming for the politicians’ heads on platters until this gets fixed.
Re: Re:
You think people “rely on” Facebook and Twitter and Instagram?
Rely on? Really?
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, of course I do.
Just because I don’t personally rely on those sites doesn’t mean I don’t think other people do.
The International Literary and Artistic Association (ALAI) has released its opinion in support of Article 13 regarding the proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market as adopted by the trialogue. The entire opinion can be read in English, French and Spanish.
ALAI is an independent society dedicated to legal issues and the protection of moral and economic rights of creators. The society was founded in 1878 by Victor Hugo. ALAI is the world’s most important source of expertise on global copyright laws, bringing together distinguished lawyers and academics.
The Copyright Directive is set to be voted on this Tuesday, March 26th, 2019.
Re: Re:
"We, the underssigned organisations, representaing authors, composers, writers, journalists, performers, photographers and others working in all artistic fields, news agencies, book, press, scientific and music publishers, audiovisual and independent music producers CALL ON THE COUNCIL OF EUROPEAN UNION AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT TO ADOPT THE DIRECTIVE ON COPYRIGHT IN THE DIGITAL SINGLE MARKET."
READ THE FULL STATEMENT
http://authorsocieties.eu/mediaroom/334/33/Rights-holders-band-together-for-a-strong-statement-on-the-Copyright-Directive
Re: Re: Re:
Where it comes to Article 13,
there are no silly questions
Here are some of the more significant changes to the text compared with the version Parliament adopted in September:
Platforms will be encouraged to get licences from the rights holders rather than block content. This means less removals, more content available and greater legal certainty for individuals when posting and sharing creative works.
There is no obligation to put filters in place. Services need to be able to identify specific copyright protected content for which rightsholders provide relevant information. They cannot use filters randomly to stop content from being posted. Therefore, YouTube’s claims that it will have to shut down channels and put in place a filtering mechanism are groundless.
The new text helps start-ups: the obligations under Article 13 will take into account size, audience and business type, and start-ups benefit from a special regime with much softer obligations. This ensures a level playing field.
Exceptions for quotation, criticism, caricature, parody etc. are specifically spelled out. So memes and gifs will remain safe to post!
Download the PDF
Will Article 13 result in a censorship machine that would filter all content?
People opposed to Article 13 often say that all platforms will need to check the entirety of their content to find out if anything infringes copyright. They insist that because they won’t be able to differentiate between what is protected and what is not, this would lead to censoring information.
False. And here’s why:
Incentivising new solutions
Article 13 will incentivise licensing solutions by which rights holders authorise platforms to store and give legitimate public access to the largest possible amount of content. Creators rely on collective management organisations that are one-stop shops for granting licences from their large repertoires.
In practice this means more content available, with fair remuneration for creators, and no need to filter and remove content, as it will be authorised. Such licences will also cover the activity of uploaders as long as they are not acting for commercial purposes.
Targeted removals mean no filtering or general monitoring
According to the new text, services don’t need to check, understand and make decisions on every single piece content. They need only remove specific works through targeted measures and based on information (metadata) provided by rights holders.
If a rights holder decides that it doesn’t want to negotiate a licence with the platform, the two parties have to work together to make sure that the identified works are not made available. Platforms can also rely on ‘mitigation of liability’ in case any content slips through despite its ‘best efforts’.
There is no obligation to put filters in place. Services need to be able to identify specific copyright protected content for which rightsholders provide relevant information. They cannot use filters randomly to stop content from being posted.
Memes are safe
Furthermore, ind ividuals will be able to rely on exceptions and limitations related to freedom of expression such as quotation, criticism, caricature, parody etc. when uploading and sharing content. This means that memes, gifs etc. will continue to be used lawfully in all circumstances and freedom of expression, which is expressly mentioned in the directive, will be safeguarded.
Will it Change the internet as we know it?
No.
The only big change is that big platforms will need to remunerate the creators fairly on the basis of copyright. This makes all the difference between an unfair market and a fair one!
Article 13 only applies to a limited number of services
These are big user-uploaded content platforms, such as YouTube, Facebook, DailyMotion, Soundcloud, Vimeo etc. – those whose main purpose is giving access to a large amount of protected works with profit-making purposes.
Article 13 does not apply to a large number of your favourite services, such as:
Non-profit encyclopaedias like Wikipedia, and non-profit educational and scientific repositories
Cloud services for private use like DropBox
Open-source software developing platforms like GitHub
E-commerce sites that sell physical products like Amazon
Personal blogs or discussion forums, because they don’t store and give access to a large amount of protected works
Basically, any service that’s main purpose is not to upload and share a large amount of copyright protected content and obtain profit from this activity, such as TripAdvisor, Tinder and other dating websites, etc..
Creators will be paid fairly
Article 13 doesn’t require platforms to change their business models. It requires them to get authorisation from rights holders for protected content or to remove specific works based on information given to them by rights holders.
More protection for individuals and their channels
Individuals will not be prevented from uploading, sh aring protected content and growing their channels. The reality is the exact opposite: the licences granted to platforms will cover all of an individual user’s acts. This means they are covered whenever they upload something, and the same goes for when they are not acting on a commercial basis or their activity does not generate significant revenue. Moreover, people can still generate and share content that includes protected works for the purpose of criticism, parody, caricature etc.
Will it lead to YouTube closing channels?
This was mentioned in statements made by the CEO of YouTube, who said that if Article 13 is not changed then YouTube will close millions of channels in Europe.
False!
Remember, YouTube’s CEO was referring to a provisional text adopted by the European Parliament in September. The interpretation was misleading. Article 13 has changed and such an interpretation would now not only be misleading but also totally void!
Making platforms liable, not individuals
Article 13 is not about the users of the ser vice but about the liability of the platforms. The content on YouTubers’ channels is typically covered by the licences that YouTube must obtain from rightsholders.
YouTube generates huge profits (through ads, selling data, etc.) from providing access to creative content. Will the platform really jeopardise its main source of revenue by shutting down channels and in doing so becoming devoid of all creative content? YouTube’s statements sound more like a threat than a risk.
Will Article 13 kill European innovation and startups?
No. Today the leading European legitimate online content services are threatened by market distortion caused by free-riding US tech giants. Article 13 puts forward the idea of a level playing field, legal certainty and market fairness to the benefit of innovation and the development of a European Digital Single Market.
As they are so special, a special regime has been designed for startups
Startups are defined as having:
Existed for less than three years
An annual turnover of below €10 million
An average number of monthly unique visitors beneath 5 million
Online sharing service providers who fit the above description need to make their best effort to obtain authorisation adapted to their size and business model. They also only need to remove specific works when a notification is sent by rightsholders (i.e. only “notice and take-down” and no notice and stay down).
This smart exception gives start-ups a fair chance to grow both quickly and with legal certainty by avoiding more stringent measures applied to big services (such as “notice and stay-down”).
Will it impose cumbersome obligations on small businesses?
No!
Not a one-size-fits-all solution
Article 13 makes it clear that when it comes to a platform’s obligations, the principle of proportionality applies. This means taking into account things like the size of the service and the cost of the measures to be put in place.
It’s important to remember that Article 13 only addresses services whose main purpose is giving access to a large amount of protected works for profit-making purposes.
Will it prevent memes, gifs etc.?
No! Legitimate uses of content are protected by article 13 and a redress mechanism governed by a third party is dedicated to prevent from any abuse.
The fun does not stop here
People will still be able to freely upload content generated by themselves for the purpose of quotation, criticism, review caricature, parody or pastiche. Memes, gifs and all of that other good stuff that denotes freedom of expression and freedom of art is, of course, allowed!
Freedom of speech is safeguarded and protected from automatic blocking. People will continue to make fun of everything and anything online! The only difference is that now they will be doing so under solid and clear legal grounds.
Will it be practical? Algorithms would not be able to differentiate between parody and content that infringes.
Licence means access
When there is a licence granted to the service – which will be the case most of the time, whether or not the content is a parody is irrelevant, as it will automatically count as legitimate use.
An end to arbitrary removals
Youtubers have long bemoaned the unfair removal of their content. Under Article 13, in the rare cases where a service would need to remove content, uploaders can take advantage of the newly introduced complaints and redress mechanisms subject to human review.
Technical cooperation between rights holders and platforms, as well as the development of more sophisticated technologies, will remove the legal uncertainty that exists today. It will also put an end to platforms using their own arbitrary discretion to remove content.
Would it limit the exposure of new artists?
No. licensing agreements provided by authors societies and online distributors enable artists to make available their content on those online platforms. Those licences are crucial since Article 13 provides that platforms shall henceforth require an authorisation from rightholders.
Re: Re: Re: About US:
We are EUROPE FOR CREATORS. A gathering of professional organisations of writers, musicians, producers, comedians, films makers coming from all over Europe…. We represent some 12 million* jobs across the European cultural and creative sectors. We are people, not bots. And we are protesting against the false divide that has been put between citizens and us.
Join us in our fight to allow culture to flourish so that we can keep entertaining, enriching and inspiring you today… and in the future. Share this site to spread the word. Our moment is now. We will not get another.
You can find a version of article.13 org in
German: https://www.article13.de
Italian: https://www.article13.it
Croatian: https://www.clanak13.org
French: https://www.article13.info
Czech: https://www.clanek13.org
Spanish: https://www.article13.es
Romanian: https://www.articolul13.org/
Polish: https://razemdlakultury.eu/
Portuguese: https://www.article13.pt
Re: Re: Re:2
Well at least you figured out to change IP addresses between spam posts, even if you left other tells that it’s all coming from one source.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
What a beautiful week this was.
The Mueller investigation is over. No collusion. No surprise.
Article 13 seems to really get Techdirt’s undies in a wad.
Google is ousted as totally biased, and I found some new search engines that are NOT biased.
Ommmm…. My meditation and dedication to a spotlessly clean and blameless life are paying huge dividends, while sites like this are pissing in the wind of change and soaking themselves in toilet water, publicly and shamelessly.
Life is so good.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Barbra Streisand, of Techdirt lore, is causing controversy over her comments about the child sexual abuse allegations made against the late Michael Jackson.
The Oscar-winner, 76, shared her thoughts in an interview with "The Times" which was published on Friday.
Streisand said she “absolutely” believes Wade Robson and James Safehcuck’s molestation accusations against the King of Pop, which were detailed in the HBO 2-part documentary, "Leaving Neverland."
OPRAH WINFREY ON EXPLOSIVE DOCUMENTARY ‘LEAVING NEVERLAND’: ‘THIS MOMENT TRANSCENDS MICHAEL JACKSON’
The "It Had To Be You" songstress said that their parents are to blame for allowing the young boys to sleep at Jackson’s ranch — "I blame, I guess, the parents, who would allow their children to sleep with him?"
Streisand, who was famously referenced in Masnick’s “The Streisand Effect” writings, still thinks Mike is a dick.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Trumps not gonna suck it bro.
Re: Re: Re:4 Still 3.4%
So good
Re: Re: Re:2 About US:
Did you get a license to post all that copied content?
Re: Re: Re:3 About US:
Is your argument only your assertion that the content is “stupid”?
Is that the depth and breadth of your mental abilities?
Re: Re: Re:3 About US:
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.
Re: Re: Re:4 About US:
The bots are out in force tonight!!!
Re: Re: Re:4 About US:
Ah, but you see – since it was straight up copied without ANY accompanying text explaining the context it wouldn’t fall under any of those exceptions.
Re: Re: Re:4 About US:
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.
Straight up copying other content, without commentary, is infringing and doesn’t seem subject to any pan-EU exception or limitation that I’m aware of.
Either way, considering the extreme liability and punishment under Article 13, why should I need to take that risk. If it becomes law, the liability for allowing you to post such infringing work on my site is not worth the potential lawsuit for me to prove that it is covered by an exception.
So again, I ask: did you properly license that material?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And at the end of three years they have to be able to afford the filters, or give up because of legal risks. Not every startup aims at growing beyond providing the sole proprietor with an income, and that suits those who want a job they can enjoy in a niche market. Those exceptions have the appearance of helping out, but in reality are a sop to protesters, a time bomb for those who rely on them.
Will article 13 stop trolls?
Re: Re:
Considering that trolls were the ones who wanted it to become law in the first place…
Re: Re:
Stop? No. Put a serious crimp in their trolling? Possibly. Anonymous posting would be far too risky were it to pass, such that one potential consequence would be a requirement that to comment/post on a platform would be to create an account and only post under that, and since our current trolls are allergic to having their words tied to a specific account such that people can accurately point out what they said and when, I imagine it would drastically reduce the rubbish they post.
The downside of course is that the required account would also impact others who don’t feel like creating yet another account in order to comment, and might stop commenting as a result, which would be unfortunate.
You gotta wonder what is coming. It is said that Trump may have made a secret deal with the Globalists to end the Mueller probe.
I think could mean some kind of secret copyright agreement down the road like TPP or ACTA.
If he did give something to the Globalists to stop the witch hunt against him, anthing could be coming. Another attempt at SOPA? A US version of Article 13? Who knows?
Re: Re:
It could also mean you get back on your meds and stop being a nut job. Anything’s possible.