Sites Warn EU Users Of Just How Bad Article 13 Will Be

from the speak-up dept

As we mentioned, a bunch of websites started protesting yesterday in the lead up to next week’s vote on Article 11 and Article 13 that will fundamentally change the nature of the internet. The main ones were various European Wikipedia editions, which completely blacked out and posted a warning message. Here’s the one in Germany (with automatic browser translation — the original, obviously, is in German):

Different sites are doing different things — and for some it depends on whether you’re visiting from the EU or not, but it’s good to see so many sites coming together on this. Reddit, as explained in a blog post on its site, are telling any EU Redditor who tries to post something new that it’s blocked:

Lots of others have stepped up as well. The ever popular online streaming site Twitch is warning people in a variety of ways, including creating a video about its concerns:

And has also put the message all over its social media:

Patreon, the very popular website for helping creators get paid has warned its creators that under Article 13, it may need to block their content:

Others who have spoken up include Creative Commons and the Internet Archive:

Another site that joined in — which we’ll refrain from screenshotting — is the most popular porn site on the internet, Pornhub.

Between all of this, the question now remains: will the EU Parliament ignore all of these voices? Ignore all of the over 5 million people who signed a Petition against Article 13? Will it ignore all the companies who have said that Article 13 will put them at a disadvantage compared to Google? Will it ignore of the content creators who rely on platforms like Twitch and Patreon?

Filed Under: , , , , , , , ,
Companies: creative commons, internet archive, patreon, reddit, twitch, wikipedia

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 “Sites Warn EU Users Of Just How Bad Article 13 Will Be”

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

I don’t think you will convert anyone new to your way of thinking. Techdirt exists only so long time contributors, under a combination of fake names, AC names and “sleeper cells” can read their own bullshit. No actual thinking person takes this site seriously.

Except those that hate you,of course, they take you seriously because they hate censorship, they hate the use of feces to make arguments, and they hate promoting traitors like Chelsea Manning with awards, fame and fortune.

You have graduated into a new category – the “anti-journalism” media, where almost everything you say is supported only by your existing supporters. You have no new recruits, because you are so openly dishonest and disingenuous.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Gosh, it is amazing that so many commenters say the same things over and over. That the censorship policy here is a fake and a lie. That the commenters are fakers and liars. That the opinions are completely one sided and any dissent is attacked and banned.

Strange how all the commenters are so consistent, when they DON’T EVEN KNOW EACH OTHER. What they do KNOW is what EVERYBODY KNOWS – TECHDIRT is nothing more than PAID PROPOGANDA posted by FAKE PEOPLE in support of a HIDDEN and PAID Agenda.

Funny how so many people can reach the same conclusion. Is it possible that all these people are RIGHT? Dental is not a river in Africa.

Gary (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Funny how so many people can reach the same conclusion.

The conclusion that your post is off topic, uses too many caps, and doesn’t have anything to say?

Funny how pro-copyright trolls descend on TD. And complain loudly when their posts get censored – but all have the same message – Corporate censorship is Wonderful if it’s called Copyright. Funny, ain’t it? Almost like paid astro turfers descend on TD to promote Copyright.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

You have questions, I have answers: The first question relates to the compatibility of Article 13 with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (hereinafter “Charter”). First, legislators generally have quite some discretion in the way how they want to balance the different human rights of the Charter, and there is no indication that this discretion as chosen in Article 13 would be in conflict with the Charter. Article 13 as proposed by the Commission rather is envisaged as a tool to reestablish the fair balance, also aimed at by the CJEU, between authors’ human rights in their works and the other mentioned human rights; currently, the value of making available works to the public in the situation covered by Article 13 is not fairly shared (see the ALAI Resolution, in particular II). Also, the obligation to take measures “such as” content recognition technologies only result from dialogue with the right holders and must be appropriate and proportionate according to Article 13, so that there is no possible conflict with other human rights.

Anonymous Coward says:

Is opposing opinion allowed here, or not?

The online group Europe for Creators, argues platforms such as YouTube can at the moment "pretty much do whatever it wants" but if Article 13 became law, "a wider variety of artists will be able to monetise the use of their work" as platforms like YouTube will have to negotiate licensing deals with authors and creators.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Is opposing opinion allowed here, or not?

The Copyright Directive is pro-innovation, is fair for Creators, enables the internet’s future and we support it.
We represent technology start-ups across Europe, and we support the Copyright Directive. The future of the digital landscape of our continent and our culture will be shaped. We’re pro-creativity, we’re-pro innovation and we are pro-culture.
No other proposed regulation has generated so much noise. We feel the voices of European technology start-ups have not been heard enough in this debate to date.
With any new regulation, compromise is required. Three years of negotiations between Member States, the Commission and the European Parliament have developed a text that we believe is good and so we urge our elected representatives to vote for it.
The Directive is a positive step forward in the interests of innovation and Europe’s start-ups.
The compromise text should be supported for the following reasons:

1 for creators and artists: The Directive gives them a say by strengthening their rights. It balances the relationship between creators and the businesses that rely on their content, be it producers, publishers, or online platforms. It fosters transparency by forcing big UGC platforms to be open about their rules and practices (Art. 13.8)

2 for citizens: The Directive secures these rights by explicitly banning any general monitoring or arbitrary takedowns of content. Online sharing services cannot use filters to randomly stop content. This is explicitly written in Article 13.7: “the provisions […] shall not lead to any general monitoring obligation”.

3 for uploaders and all users who want to share content online: In Article 13.2, there are provisions that protect uploaders. It provides them with new protection, forcing big UGC platforms to justify any decision to remove content. For those who want to mash-up and play around with content, it guarantees exceptions to copyright such as quotations, criticism, review, caricature, parody etc. Memes and Gifs are safe, and freedom of speech is specifically safeguarded in article 13.5

4 for a free and open internet: The new definition of article 13 specifically excludes non-profit platforms such as Wikipedia, market places, open source platforms and internet service providers, or cloud services.

5 for start-ups and innovation in Europe: we welcome the Smart Exception introduced in article 13 to protect start-ups. Today, the picture for start-ups and their use of copyright content is unclear. Article 13.4a gives start-ups a special exemption during their first three years, providing them with the legal certainty that is key for investment and growth.

The scope is very broad: any start-up below 10 M€ revenue, a threshold that covers more than 95% of European start-ups (e.g. in France, a BPI/E&Y study indicates that start up average revenue reaches 7M€ only after 9 years) and an average number of monthly unique visitors below 5 million.
The Directive will not bring “censorship” or “break the internet”. On the contrary, we fear that biased online campaigns, are in fact in danger of breaking free opinion and breaking European democracy. 74% of Europeans, in a recent Harris Interactive poll surveyed in 8 countries, think that when Tech Giants speak out, they do so to protect their own economic interest rather that the public interest. The views of Europeans cannot be ignored.
We say #Yes2copyright, we urge our Members of the European Parliament to vote yes to the current version of the Directive with no further delay.
SIGNATORIES
Jean-François Césarini; Duong Pham, fonder of PIMS; Grégoire Harel, fonder of ProArti;
Alexandre Leforestier, fonder of PanOdyssey; Olivier Laouchez, fonder of TraceTV; David Schmitz
Fonder of OpenJam; Clotilde Chalot, Fonder of NoMad Music; Nicolas Molander CEO of Session;
Rupert Hine and Alan Graham, Co-Founders of OCL; Bernt Bomer, CEO of Omnio Sound; Mike Waters, Chairman Anglo-Dutch Chamber of Commerce; Prof Dr Nigel Osborne MBE FRCM FEIS FRSE, CTO X-System; Herwig Lejsek, CEO of Videntifier Technologies ehf; Pierre Gambini, CEO of Polytopes; Gilles Moyse, Fonder of reciTAL; Marc Leprat, Fonder of Viewpay; Damien Callerot
CEO, co-fonder of Polkatulk/scenso.tv

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Is opposing opinion allowed here, or not?

The privacy-focused European search engine Qwant has declared its support for the European Copyright Directive and will set aside money to pay creators and journalists for work that generates income for the platform.
"To prove to you how far I’m going to support this directive, I’m announcing that, before the vote even happens, Qwant will start paying content creators – news organizations for articles, photographers for photos – and the creators of music and video that our search engine indexes,”
Qwant’s chief executive, Eric Léandri, said in an interview with Les Echos.
Qwant, which describes itself as “the first search engine which protects its users freedoms and ensures that the digital ecosystem remains healthy,” is setting a powerful example in a debate where Google and its sister company YouTube have come out guns blazing against the Copyright Directive.
Mr. Léandri also called for the creation of a public, open-source platform to identify copyright protected material and determine who should be paid for it.
Regarding Article 13, which requires platforms like Facebook or YouTube to take responsibility for copyright-protected content posted by users of their services, Mr. Léandri told Les Echos:
“There is a risk that the filtering technologies would belong to Google, which just invested $100 million to improve its “Content ID” tool, or Facebook, which is doing the same thing. That would mean that the Tech Giants would become “gatekeepers” of the web and would be able to influence the destiny of messaging platforms, social networks, cloud storage specialists, etc. They would be able to gather users’ data and spy on the businesses of the smallest actors.”
He said the idea of the open source content-identification system would be that “companies that depend on the Web would be able to check with it to see whether the content they are using is copyright protected or not. For example, you send a photo you want to use and the system answers “yes” or “no” depending on a fingerprint associate with it. It’s a lot simpler technically than people thing. And fairer.”
In a post on Qwant’s Medium account, the company said it “will help bring these technologies to life as quickly as possible and will propose standards that will reconcile the respect for intellectual property rights, European sovereignty, and the defense of a free and open Internet.”

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Only when it's honest

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.

Seegras (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Only when it's honest

I slowly get the impression all the Pro-Uploadfilter posts here are done by the same outfit, namely astroturfer "Europe for Creators".

Apparently launched around 2018-08-18:
https://societe.sacem.fr/en/press-resources/per-publication/press-releases/europe-creators-launches-campaign-support-eu-copyright-directive

There is this lobbying-agency involved: https://elanedelman.com/

And it’s probably run/commissioned by GESAC: http://authorsocieties.eu/

Anonymous Coward says:

An Open Letter to Techdirt

15 March 2019
After almost three years’ worth of in-depth examinations and negotiations involving the three EU Institutions, 28 Member States, 751 MEPs, and thousands of experts and stakeholders, the European Parliament is about to take a formal decision on the directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market.
The aim of one of the main provisions of this directive – Article 13 – is to ensure that platforms such as Techdirt fairly compensate the creators whose works are made available through their services. In other words, to play fair and respect the creators who made Techdirt what it is today.
We believe that the Copyright Directive will create a level playing field for the European Digital Single Market, with fair and equal rules for all.
Techdirt has been actively using its own services to influence public opinion, often with misleading or false information
There is ample public debate around this directive and your right to defend your position, as a concerned party, is not in question. Indeed, the positions you have taken in the media or through your own videos against Article 13 are well known and nourish the public debate.
However, since the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly on Sept. 12 to approve its version of the Copyright Directive, YouTube has been actively using its own services to influence public opinion, often with misleading or false information.
You have taken advantage of your considerable influence over 1.8 billion monthly users as the biggest media entity in the world to:
Circulate your own message to video makers and YouTubers
Create a uniquely formatted page, similar to SaveYourInternet, on Youtube.com
Create a portal comprising all videos defending your position on Article 13
Run banners, pop-ups and push notifications on YouTube defending your point of view and directing traffic to your unique YouTube.com webpage

This is unprecedented and raises ethical questions.
Moreover, YouTube enabled the propagation of misinformation – such as the claims that Article 13 would lead to the shutting down of YouTube channels, kill European startups, put an end to memes and gifs and harm freedom of speech. In other words: change the Internet as we know it. Such scaremongering deliberately ignores the special protections provided in the text and misleads public opinion.
We believe our views also need to be voiced to your audience. That is what freedom of speech is all about.
It interferes with the democratic and balanced debate that all European citizens are entitled to. We believe it is totally unfair and unacceptable that your service, which dominates the online market, is exclusively used as a media company to promote your own commercial interests in a debate over European legislation.

You advocate freedom of expression but what we have seen is a media service dedicated to the promotion of its own views, based on false information and scare tactics. We believe in pluralism and open, democratic debate. We believe our views also need to be voiced to your audience. That is what freedom of speech is all about.
This is why we are asking you to let us, over the week of March 18-24:
send a message to the same YouTubers so we can share with them our vision of article 13 – the one we promote on our website, http://www.article 13.org.
publish banner ads on YouTube as you did for the “saveyourinternet” campaign
Acting as a media company requires responsibility and accountability to ensure democratic debate.
Best regards,
EUROPE FOR CREATORS
DOWNLOAD THE LETTER
We have gathered information on how YouTube used its dominant network to influence users and Members of European Parliament. Please read it – our Democracy is under attack.
ACCESS THE YOUTUBE CASE
They speak about this initiative:

https://theindustryobserver.thebrag.com/european-creators-slam-youtube-for-pushing-false-information-and-scare-tactics-over-copyright-directive/

https://musically.com/2019/03/18/pro-article-13-bodies-ask-for-access-to-youtube-promo-tools/

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: An Open Letter to [Insert company here]

You know the really interesting thing about Article 13? Is nearly IMPOSSIBLE to find Pro-13 sites using Google, but REALLY EASY using other search engines. Sure, they’re not as polished as Google, but they actually are FAIR in their searching, with a combination of positive and negative references.

That’s so refreshing!

Paul Brinker (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 An Open Letter to [Insert company here]

No one cares.

You yourself most likely searched lots of anti 13 searchers on Google training it to show you anti 13 results. It’s the same reason I can search for chief and get AWS and my mom gets cooking results.

But seriously, no one cares that you can’t use a search engine correctly.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: An Open Letter to [Insert company here]

Google tends to change results based on user feedback and selection. If you can’t find anti Article 13 sites from it, you suck at using google. It is also fairly easy to publish google results for others to verify your claims. Just like this site, your comments and viewpoints are filtered out so the rest of us don’t have to see them after the first dozen or so people have flagged you. Same thing for Anti article 13 sites. They are badly written, have almost no actual message or valid arguments, but sure, you can’t find them so it must be a conspiracy. I bet you hate how far down flat earth sites are as well.

If you are mentally unwell, you will tend to find most of the world doesn’t share your views or opinions. That doesn’t mean we are all conspiring against you, it just means you don’t understand how the real world works and blaming everyone else is always a losing proposition.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 An Open Letter to [Insert company here]

Well, it does explain the mindset of some of these people. Since they don’t know what Google actually is or how it actually works, it’s not surprising they support things that are utterly idiotic or insane in reality. It’s just a shame that there’s enough of those ignorant people in power…

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: An Open Letter to [Insert company here]

Also forgot to replace it everywhere:

You have taken advantage of your considerable influence over 1.8 billion monthly users as the biggest media entity in the world to:
Circulate your own message to video makers and YouTubers
Create a uniquely formatted page, similar to SaveYourInternet, on Youtube.com
Create a portal comprising all videos defending your position on Article 13
Run banners, pop-ups and push notifications on YouTube defending your point of view and directing traffic to your unique YouTube.com webpage

That would be some very impressive feats from TechDirt.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: An Open Letter to your mom

"Mike why are you more popular than The king of pop ever was?"

In the eyes of Baghdad Bob/Blue/Jhon "Mike" is the shadowy leader of a global conspiracy capable of commanding a multiple-million army of demonstrators and coordinate several multinational IT companies, all in order to ensure that artists starve in the streets because their owners aren’t getting paid enough.

And if Baghdad Bob only manages to convince enough people of this Saddam will keep reigning over Iraq.

Loki says:

What really amuses me is the people pushing this agenda telling everyone with a vested interest in the matter that they are just misunderstanding the matter. Well it’s the job of people with a vested interest to understand the matter, so the people pushing this agenda are either A) outright lying, B) the ones who really don’t understand what they are talking about, or C) suck so bad at their jobs nobody knows what the hell they are talking about. None of these options motivate me to support this agenda.

Anonymous Coward says:

It would be wise of them not to ignore us

Between all of this, the question now remains: will the EU Parliament ignore all of these voices? Ignore all of the over 5 million people who signed a Petition against Article 13? Will it ignore all the companies who have said that Article 13 will put them at a disadvantage compared to Google? Will it ignore of the content creators who rely on platforms like Twitch and Patreon?

If they do ignore us, it would be the biggest gift to right wing nationalist and populist Euroskeptics. They often speak of how much of a den of corruption the Union is, and with campaign season coming up, it would proving the Euroskeptics right to ignore the will of millions of people and embolden the likes of Italy and Poland to lead their little "European Spring" against the likes of France and Gernany…

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: It would be wise of them not to ignore us

"If they do ignore us, it would be the biggest gift to right wing nationalist and populist Euroskeptics."

That’s probably the saddest outcome here. With every established and traditional political falling all over themselves to exculpate every excess of corruption coming from Brussels the only ones to pick up a healthy dose of EU-skepticism is…the brownshirts and ultranationalists.

We only have to look at the UK – Farage may be a bigot in charge of a party of bigots, but all he had to do was be the only one revealing that the emperor in brussels was naked and he suddenly established more credibility than the rest of the UK’s political parties could muster.

The same holds true in the rest of europe as well. The EU is already eating itself. Looking at every time through history that European Unification has been the agenda, this should come as no great surprise.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Preemptive projection in a failed attempt at defending their dishonesty perhaps?

If people point out that they are lying, then they are on the defensive and have to prove that what they are saying is honest and true. Since, as is very clear by this point they can’t, it’s much easier to accuse others of lying and try to shift the burden of proof away from themselves.

Anonymous Coward says:

Between all of this, the question now remains: will the EU Parliament ignore all of these voices? Ignore all of the over 5 million people who signed a Petition against Article 13? Will it ignore all the companies who have said that Article 13 will put them at a disadvantage compared to Google? Will it ignore of the content creators who rely on platforms like Twitch and Patreon?

Sighs Probably.

Anonymous Coward says:

Tell me again your criterion for censoring (hiding) comments. Many of the hidden comments above simply present a different point of view about Article 13. They are not defamatory, they are not stupid, the are reasonably well written and interesting.

Why are they hidden again?

Oh yeah – I get it. We all get it.

There is no opinion but your own that is allowed to be viewed on this site.

Fascist site that this is, not surprising.

You are fascists and cower, tremble and hide like cowards in the face of any view but your own.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 A mystery, truly

"Have you ever considered we want to be censored so we can take measurements?"

When everyone forced to listen to you ends up booing and hissing at you that doesn’t make it censorship.

It means everyone is, apparently, thinking that you are a lying douchebag and decides to tune you out.

But I guess for a copyright cultist such as yourself Vox Populi is high heresy, right?

Toom1275 (profile) says:

Re: Re:

censoring

[Asserts facts not in evidence]

Many of the hidden comments above simply present a different point of view about Article 13

[Asserts facts not in evidence]

they are not stupid

[Asserts facts not in evidence]

There is no opinion but your own that is allowed to be viewed on this site.

[Asserts facts not in evidence]

Fascist site that this is

[Asserts facts not in evidence]

You are fascists and cower, tremble and hide like cowards in the face of any view but your own

[Asserts facts not in evidence]

Objective News Reporter says:

Blondie Supports Article 13

Some people don’t think Article 13 is good. But artists have voiced their support for the online overhaul.

Film director Pedro Almodovar and Abba’s Benny Andersson are among some of those who favour Article 13.

Writing in The Guardian, Debbie Harry, the lead singer of Blondie said the law would "significantly improve the ability of the creative community to secure fair deals for the use of their work by user-uploaded content services such as YouTube."

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Blondie Supports Article 13

That is disappointing, but it’s also worth noting that those people had their heydays pre-internet. People who grew up with and understand the internet seem to have far less of an issue with it. Which, in itself, is a good argument against article 13 – if the only people who support it are those who don’t understand what it actually does, then why listen to those people?

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Blondie Supports Article 13

I’d also add that my exposure to the works of those people happened because of either piracy of sharing. The first album of Abba’s I listened to was borrowed (though, my musical tastes changed rather severely since then!). I watched Videodrome for the first time on a pirated VHS as it was heavily cut in the legal UK version, while Almodovar’s Talk To Her I watched in Spain at a language class but the teacher had copied it for use in the classroom rather than having to keep bringing a copy in class.

I’ve since bought Videodrome at least 3 times since then, while I also have a fairly comprehensive Almodovar DVD collection. Even if article 13 was effective at what it’s claiming to do (and it absolutely won’t be), these people are literally asking people not to become fans of their work.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Blondie Supports Article 13

Would it be fair to say that they see the advantages of Article 13 that you don’t see? Or perhaps they don’t look at the situation in the same way you look at the situation? Maybe they have a legitimate reason for their view that you have not thought of? Is it possible that both their view and your view are both legitimate but very different?

Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Wait! It is possible that the AC is right. There might be some way for Blondie and other over-the-hill artist’s where they might be able to leverage their legacy gatekeepers into increasing the cash flow to the artist through Articles 11 and 13 or 17 (as some are now calling it for some reason I cannot fathom as the explanation came without proof). Like maybe agreeing to not sue the shit out of them for withholding royalties due.

Without knowing the details of their contracts or of ongoing negotiations, we might not know about such ‘opportunities’. There may be other opportunities as well, but none of them would benefit anyone other than the over-the-hill artist’s and/or the legacy gatekeepers, in their struggle to claw back the money wasted when they were rich and foresaw unending income possibilities that…ended. That goes for both the gatekeepers and the over-the-hill artists who no longer do live shows.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 'You know, those advantages... those vague, unnamed ones...'

Strangely enough that’s a question that never seems to be answered, or if it is the answers are quickly exposed to be fatally flawed in any number of ways.

They are of course more than welcome to put forth what they think those ‘advantages’ are for people to examine and dissect them to see how they hold up under scrutiny, but honestly I don’t expect much, if anything, at this point.

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re: Blondie Supports Article 17

Would it be fair to say that they see the advantages of Article 13 that you don’t see?

There is no advantages to be found in Article 17, unless you are a licensee-broker or have some filter-technology you want to sell.

Also, artists aren’t generally remembered for their brilliant thinking – so I wouldn’t bet any money on them being right.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Blondie Supports Article 13

"Would it be fair to say that they see the advantages of Article 13 that you don’t see? "

That’s possible. But, if they have, they need to tell us what those are. All I’ve read so far is delusional nonsense that requires complete ignorance of how the internet actually works to agree with.

"Is it possible that both their view and your view are both legitimate but very different?"

No, they’re pretty much mutually exclusive, again unless there’s something that not been mentioned yet that I’m missing.

Rocky says:

Re: Blondie Supports Article 17

The ones supporting article 17 has managed to bamboozle a lot of people that it’s just about youtube paying it’s fair share.

And for some reasons the ones lobbying the articles has tried their damned best to make it all about Google and Youtube, which is extremely disingenuous since it affects every site with UGC.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: 'You owe me more for the free platform you gave me!'

The ones supporting article 17 has managed to bamboozle a lot of people that it’s just about youtube paying it’s fair share.

I’d put ‘fair share’ in quotes personally, because as far as I can tell they already go above and beyond that point. People choose to post their stuff on YT, at no cost to them, if they get a cut of the money YT makes from the content that should be seen as a bonus, not their ‘dues’ or something they are owed.

If they think they can get more elsewhere, or think that YT’s not sharing the money as much as it should they are welcome to remove their content from YT and try it themselves(perhaps try the traditional labels, see how well that works out for them), see how much they make then, but demanding that the platform they are granted at no cost to them pay them what they think they should get demonstrates an entitled mindset, as though being allowed to use the platform gives them the right to decide what their cut should be.

MathFox says:

Re: Blondie Supports Article 13

In other words: Some established (retired) artists support the directive because they think it will increase their income.

If new and innovative artists are restricted from building an audience, that means that the old artists (and their heirs) can rest on their old glory, while still receiving money.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Blondie Supports Article 13

Well that was certainly worth a chuckle.

‘Value gap’, no mention of anything but Google and Youtube, making the downright laughable claim that Youtube is taking the livelihoods of musicians away

I swear, it’s like a mixture of fractal wrongness and the repeatedly debunked talking points that have been kicked around for the trainwreck all rolled into one.

Natalie Hill says:

Re: Re: Blondie Supports Article 13

We will all “go over to the dark side” when we get old. We’ll all expect things to continue to be the same way they were when we were young, and fall into backwards thinking as a result. That’s why I hope I decide to take up completely new interests when I get old.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Well, I might hazard a reply. Perhaps Blondie thinks that when she considers her own situation, and her own collection of property that she has accumulated over the years, and how to market that properly to her best advantage, she sees a better opportunity to meet her goals with Article 13. Maybe she is right, maybe she is wrong, maybe you are right, maybe you are wrong. The future is a very unpredictable place, we all have trouble predicting it accurately, if at all. She has her view, you have yours. She is a notable artist, you are a fuckwad nothing nobody embarrassing yourself in public.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

"Perhaps Blondie thinks"

…perhaps what Debbie Harry thinks is wrong. The success you salivate over was achieved before the web existed, so why her success has any bearing on knowledge of how the internet works is left to the imagination of childish idiots. I assume there’s a reason why we only see people who had their heyday in the 70s and 80s supporting this.

If you wish to provide an actual argument, preferably backed with evidence and not just you parroting who major corporations tell you to listen to, I’ll be happy to discuss it. But, if all you have is lies, name calling and blind celebrity worship, I can happily ignore you.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

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

Comment Options:

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

What's this?

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

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

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