EU Puts An End To The Open Internet: Link Taxes And Filters Approved By Just 5 Votes

from the a-sad-day-for-the-open-internet dept

Well, it was a nice run while it lasted, but the EU Parliament has just put an end to the open internet. By the incredibly thin margin of just five votes, the Parliament voted against any amendments to the proposal — which was a necessary step to fixing or deleting Articles 11 and 13. After that, they voted to approve the EU Copyright Directive, including the terrible versions of both Article 11 and 13. This is an inauspicious day and one that the EU will almost certainly come to regret. While we now need to see how each of the member states will implement the actual laws put forth in the Directive (meaning the damage in some states may be more mitigatable than in others), on the whole the EU Copyright Directive requires laws that effectively end the open internet as an open communications medium. Sites that previously allowed content creators to freely publish content will now be forced to make impossible choices: license all content (which is literally impossible), filter all content (expensive and failure-prone), or shut down. Sites that used to send traffic to news sources may now need to reconsider, as doing so will inexplicably require payment.

At best, the EU–for all its complaints about Google and Facebook–has just locked both companies into a dominant position. They can afford this. Others cannot. And, the legacy gatekeepers in the media and entertainment business will quickly pivot to seeking to export this model elsewhere.

The MEPs who voted for this are up for election in two months, and hopefully the EU shows them the door, but in the meantime, today is a sad day for the open internet. I am sure that some will be celebrating on the false belief that this will magically “help artists.” It will not. You just handed more power to giant companies, and took it away from creators. In time, one hopes, those who mocked the protesters and activists and actual experts will come to realize just how much they destroyed today.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , , , , ,

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

Comments on “EU Puts An End To The Open Internet: Link Taxes And Filters Approved By Just 5 Votes”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
358 Comments
Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re:

"BRAVO!!!!"

The EU just turned the european online environment into an oligopoly run by, mainly, Google. And to pirates.

I don’t really see why you’re cheering, Baghdad Bob, because from where I’m standing that’s a rocket straight into your own camp.

From here on out what we’ll be seeing is a massive surge in piracy and VPN european users while european independent artists end up having to launch their offers through the non-EU parts of youtube and patreon only.

Well, it sucks for the legitimate side of the internet, but for those of us who remember this is just a throwback to the good old days before anyone figured out how to make money online. Everything will be gotten from the torrents.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:hey john bob guess what?

We are just going to repeal it in the future when the people who passes it are out of power and people who hate it get in.
And if you don’t think that won’t happen. Just remember: enough people used to be in power to stop change over here in the US as well.
Then enough people who wanted it got in power eventually. And it did not matter.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

That’s assuming you never want to visit the EU.

If GDPR has taught us anything, is that the EU will use their laws to go after anyone who facilitates their citizens violating said laws.

So if you go into VPN service, don’t plan to visit the EU or do other business with the EU any time soon.

Anonymous Grande and Cox says:

Five votes, huh. This whole fight failed at five votes.

A’ight. What needs to be done next is not to vote for any of the MEPs who brought this thing into sight. Also, any corporations that lobbied for them must suffer from a mass boycott. No exceptions. No "but this movie is great," or "everyone’s playing this game." Please, do not reward them for passing both Articles. Continuing to vote for or buy from them will just end up mudding our message.

mephistophocles (profile) says:

Re: Re:

The solution to this kind of thing is not to stop voting for the people who championed it, guys. Assuming those votes are counted, it doesn’t matter – if voting could change anything, it wouldn’t be allowed.

The internet is dead – long live the internet! Find another way to communicate – a new free way that allows free speech. Yes it can be done. The internet didn’t exist 30 years ago. People still communicated just fine. Anyone who had told me, 30 years ago, that the internet as it exists today would be in place in 2019, I probably wouldn’t have believed them. What will exist in 30 years that doesn’t today, and that you would think is crazy if someone told you?

I’m not excusing those who made this directive, but this is the natural way of things, or has been for at least 100 years. Innovation occurs, it has a "free" period of use, regulation begins to grow and eventually takes over, then then there’s a period of high regulation before the thing dies (and is reinvented as something unregulated).

Anonmylous says:

Re: Re: Re:

But there isn’t any regulation here. Regulations have tightly defined definitions and rules. They spell out the exact steps and processes and goals that must be achieved. Articles 11 and 13… don’t. They are vaguely worded rants screaming "Pay us money" and nothing more. Pay us money for our stuff, don’t use our stuff, get off my lawn.

Hell half the wording leads the casual reader to believe these people literally have no idea how the internet actually works. Somehow this is the fault of said internet and not the fault of myriad businesses that have failed to keep up with the market.

The result of these two articles when added to the whole of European copyright law means that no sight can allow user posts. NONE. Because in the EU you are granted a copyright automatically upon creation of a work. You do not need to file. Every user post is copyrighted. Quote the poster above you and now you’ve committed copyright infringement. The website is now legally liable, and if the OP doesn’t like your reply, they can demand the post be removed. Since removing the quote is tedious, they set can either set up a system to automatically accept such submissions and delete content, spend thousands of man-hours manually removing such content, or simply stop allowing comments.

That’s also why there will be no more social media, giants or otherwise. The potential hassle is simply too great. Hosting your own becomes too big a potential risk, after all anyone can claim they own copyright on your stuff too, and the only way to prove them wrong is spend a lot of money taking them to court.

That is not regulation. Regulation requires a standards body somewhere to determine compliance with the rules and punish those who break them. There is no body for this, its all on the courts to decide in the end. That is not regulation. There are not ombudsmen, regulators, inspectors or anything else involved in first-line compliance checking for the standards body (that again, does not exist).

This is greed by decree. This is an attempt to force the market to bend to the whims and wishes of a small group with outsized monetary representation by another group with an inferiority complex and a chip on their shoulders regarding the home country of the primary market leaders.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: "vaguely worded rants screaming 'Pay us money'"

The problem is, can people be sued or thrown in prison for violating such vagueries?

That’s how we end up with police states and prison states. If you’re important and have power, but someone pissed you off without breaking any clear laws, you have ICE bust them for conspiracy and espionage and they go to prison anyway, or fight an expensive suit, or even pay some adjudicated award.

I know the US, not the EU and you guys may already have convenient laws so that monied entities can destroy non-monied ones they don’t like. But these might become additional such laws, or vectors for IP troll business models. (They thrive here in the States).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

He is telling the truth. The vote to amend failed by 5 votes. The vote to pass the entire legislation passed by more than that. But 5 votes the other way would have nixed A11 and A13.

But just goes to show you can’t even tell the truth about something as easily checked as a vote count.

What was that about karma?

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Erm, that article is from nearly 6 months ago and not written by anybody inside Google, just an opinion post by someone linking to it.

I will appreciate it if they do fight back in a way that will get people talking to their representatives for once, but I wouldn’t base my opinion on the future on what’s written there if I were you.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

When that happens, start buying stock in VPN companies. I think that VPN services are about to get a big boost in their business

And even more so, being that on April 1, adult/porn services that do not have age verification up to certain standards will be blocked by the United Kingdom, by HM Government.

On one adult chat room I go to, people I have chatted with have already signed for VPN services, so they can continue to chat, since the admin of that site does not consider his site subject to EU laws, because he lives in California and his servers are in Chicago.

And using a VPN to bypass geoblocking, contrary to popular opinion, does not break any laws either the US, UK, or EU

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

there is also the fact that each country now has to pass a version of these articles laws to comply with their own….as mike said, this could mean that the damage is mitigated.

And thats if it gets past the council…they said they’d pass it but that was before massive protests and giant petitions.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

"Google has to now pay musicians"

Again – unlike the recent situation, where they pay so much that the RIAA decided to shut down their Vevo service and host solely on YouTube?

It’s weird how you never come up with a logical response to that. Almost as if you’ve unthinkingly bought into some propaganda that doesn’t bear the weigh of factual examination…

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

My response is the same now as it was before: just because you state it means something, the reality is that it has nothing to do with anything, and you’re a moron.

If you weren’t such dumbass you’d read up on how YouTube has 50% of the streaming market, but doesn’t pay anything remotely close to what Apple and Spotify do. Because until now, musicians had no negotiating leverage. Now, if YouTube wants to continue streaming music, they’ll have to pay what the MUSICIAN asks for, not whatever pittance they feel like paying.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

Putting music on YouTube is voluntary, and the musicians can take it down if they want, or put it in ContentID if someone else posted it, assuming of course that they are independent publishers, if they are signed with a label, the labels control what appears on YouTube, and how much of the YouTube inco0me goes to the musicians. Also YouTube will not stop them using more profitable channels to distribute their music as well as on YouTube.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

Sigh… more childish namecalling and a refusal to answer the question.

Leaving aside the fundamental differences between YouTube and the others you mention in term so what they do (not, they’re not comparable as "streaming services" in the same way you can’t directly compare the costs of train, planes and buses because they’re all "transport"), you’re just refusing to answer the question of why if they don’t pay as music the major labels not only decided to host their music there, they shut down their own platform to do so.

Between all the other crap you spew, your fundamental argument is based of skewing facts and ignoring the reality of what’s happening.

"Now, if YouTube wants to continue streaming music, they’ll have to pay what the MUSICIAN asks for"

Again with the idiot binary choices. They have many other options. For example – they can block independent music video uploads completely and insist they only host music from the major labels who they have already negotiated a fee with which they’ve been happy enough to exclusively host their videos.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

Huh, that’s funny. All the numbers I’ve seen say something a bit different.

For instance, I assume the "50% market share" you are talking about is all content, music and video. But Youtube splits revenue with its content creators 45/50. That’s not really comparable to XX money per stream and isn’t really apples to apples comparison with strict music streaming sites like Spotify or Pandora, but I’d say that’s more than what artists get paid per stream.

Now if you are looking at just music streaming, Spotify has a vastly larger market share than Youtube does. Youtube doesn’t even come close.

Because until now, musicians had no negotiating leverage.

They still don’t. Not really, not unless they are a mega superstar and can throw their weight around to get Youtube to make special rules just for them. Which, isn’t really all that fair is it? An open platform that has set the terms of use and compensation for revenue for all users, makes special exemptions for artists if they are "big enough" to demand otherwise? Seems to me they should suck it up and deal with it like the rest of the world instead of having their every whim catered to. They don’t have to put their music on Spotify, Youtube, or other streaming platforms if they don’t want to.

Now, if YouTube wants to continue streaming music, they’ll have to pay what the MUSICIAN asks for, not whatever pittance they feel like paying.

No, that’s not how this works. Youtube is already paying them, nothing in A11 or A13 requires Youtube to kowtow to their specific price demands. It just says they have to license their content, not at a specific price. And if it were just about licenses, then why do they continually submit DMCA notices to Youtube for content that they have already licensed? Your arguments make no sense.

John85851 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

"Google has to now pay musicians"

I know some people will argue this is semantics, but still:
When has Google, Apple, or Spotify ever paid musicians? Don’t they pay record labels or rights holders? Although some people may think paying labels is the same as paying musicians (I’m looking at Taylor Swift), the point is that Apple and Spotify pay the correct, contracted amount to the labels, so it’s not their fault the labels aren’t paying the musicians.

So please explain again how Article 11 and 13 benefit musicians? Granted, I haven’t read the entire articles, but I really don’t think there’s a clause that says anything to the effect of "… and labels shall raise their royalties to musicians so musicians can make money also".

Thad (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Mike could have perhaps worded it better

It probably could have used more explanation in the article body, yeah, though the headline is accurate. "Link Taxes And Filters Approved By Just 5 Votes" is correct; that was the vote not to amend (and remove articles 11 and 13).

Mike has often noted that he doesn’t oppose the rest of the Copyright Directive, only those two portions of it. Therefore, it’s not the 348-274 vote that’s important, it’s the 317-312 one.

Anonymous Coward says:

Or, and here’s an alternative option, they can just stop doing business in the EU. Stop hosting servers there, stop obeying ANY of their laws, and tell the EU "Haha, fuck off, we’re US companies, any business your citizens conduct with us was done outside your jurisdiction"

OFC, they’d have to return to the US from their tax haven countries like Ireland first, but that sounds like a good thing for the US.

Thad (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Or, and here’s an alternative option, they can just stop doing business in the EU. Stop hosting servers there, stop obeying ANY of their laws, and tell the EU "Haha, fuck off, we’re US companies, any business your citizens conduct with us was done outside your jurisdiction"

It must be nice to think global economics is so simple.

PaulT (profile) says:

Well, as with all these things we shall see how it actually turns out and how dumb things get. At least the public record of the opposition to this rubbish and the closeness of the initial votes will help move things when it becomes obvious how different the reality is to what they were told they were voting for.

As we’ve seen from numerous recent stories, what the law demands and what they think it says are two very different things.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

My hope is that Article 13 will be enforced logically, not overburden any sites, allow for swift review of blocked content, etc., and maybe even a registration system similar to YouTube’s partner system that ensures the partners (presumably) are obeying the law, with a good-faith exemption (like if a YT partner infringes, it is presumed to be accidental).

The main target of this law is piracy, and it should remain the primary target. Memes, free speech, and fair use should not "break."

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

and there lies the problem with article 13. You must know of copyright trolls, who have been known to actually go after creators themselves. Article 13 has made it alot easier for them to issue false takedowns and the like.

Thats why people didn;t like it. Its TOO VAGUE and vague laws are what copyright trolls rely on to prey on people.

As for fair use…again…article 13 made it easier for countries where…fair use may not be popular as it lets their critics speak out, to censor them or, if they decide to when implementing these new laws, lock them up.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

"My hope is that Article 13 will be enforced logically"

Remember that the people who have just passed this are the people who said that it wouldn’t require automated filters. They will now be demanding magical filters that literally do the impossible, as that’s the only way to comply.

"maybe even a registration system similar to YouTube’s partner system that ensures the partners (presumably) are obeying the law"

So… a logistical and presumably financial burden on independent and individual creators while giving a fast track for corporate content? That is kind of what we were afraid of…

"Memes, free speech, and fair use should not "break.""

There is no way to fully enforce this without breaking them.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

yes…exactly. There are filters but they are buggy messes. I work with a group on facebook that helps debunk doomsday theories to help panicked people feel better and its not a day without sunshine (sarcasm) that the filter bot doesn’t something I;m linking to help some person calm down.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

"sites will need to program in filters"

The main problem isn’t whether or not filters exist, although this does place an undue burden on smaller companies and assures that only the current giants can compete without spending huge amounts on a 3rd party system.

The problem is that because it’s so vague, they are likely to being asked to filter based upon criteria that it’s impossible for an algorithm to account for.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

No, there will be no logical enforcement. Some countries might disregard it, or be rather lax in the enforcement (not likely though). I for one live in a country where it will most likely be enforced in the most draconian way possible, as Sweden often tends to go way above what any regulations says (when it suits the politicians. In other places they will defy what the EU court has said; see data retention-laws and mass surveillance).

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re:

The main target of this law is piracy, and it should remain the primary target. Memes, free speech, and fair use should not "break."

The entire point of the law is to force upload filters and link taxes upon Internet companies. Only those companies with the money to afford paying for those things could stay open in the EU. The sites that cannot afford to pay those costs would need to either geoblock the EU (thus cutting off a sizeable chunk of potential users), disable UGC altogether (thus destroying the usability of its services), or shut down to avoid bankruptcy. Any one of those outcomes would “break” the Internet.

Even the companies that can afford to stay open would need to deal with expensive filters and licensing agreements that would take an astounding amount of time and money to properly implement. And those filters and licenses could still generate “false positives” in re: copyright notices — and that would include notices on content that uses copyrighted/“unlicensed” content under the principles of Fair Use.

“Piracy” (read: large-scale copyright infringement) will not be stopped by this law because “pirates” (read: copyright infringers) already disobey and ignore the law. The only people who will be directly and primarily affected by this law are people who are already participating in what are currently legal activities, including what you believe should not “break”: Fair Use and free speech.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Except for the fact that this makes linking completely illegal. This directive means you can’t link unless you get a license. So Joe Schmoe on Facebook can’t post a link to his favorite website in his status saying "Hey I love this website, here’s the link!" unless he first gets permission and a license to post that link.

Sorry but you can’t make a legitimate business model out of something that has been defined as illegal. In other words, companies will just not link because it’s impossible to get permission from EVERY SINGLE SITE/CREATOR/AUTHOR on the internet to CYA so you don’t get sued from linking to something you don’t have a license for.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

So Joe Schmoe on Facebook can’t post a link to his favorite website in his status saying "Hey I love this website, here’s the link!" unless he first gets permission and a license to post that link.

That is not how article 13 is worded, it say that Facebook must filter Joe, unless Facebook has obtained a license for the link. Joe cannot get the licence to allow Facebook or Twitter, or Goole/YouTube etc. to host his link. This article is little more than an attempt at armed robbery by legacy industries,

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Pirates already disobey and ignore the law

No legitimate system of the people would allow for rent seeking of the magnitude facilitated by current intellectual property laws in place, ergo the states that enforce copyright, patents and trademarks as they currently stand are, themselves illegal and forfeit. It’s not a system of consent, but a system of force, enforced by fines and cannon. We see this by the overreach of copyright litigation transcending works to styles and ideas creeping well into expression.

And as noted recently, limiting the means of free expression by all in order to protect the alleged rights of a handful of aristocrats.

Also it is not like the gatekeepers have been fair and consistent in the rules they set. The whole Hollywood accounting thing aside (which is cruel but well explained elsewhere) the IP owners regard issues as licenses ormedia as it it bests suits their own pocketbooks without a care for consistency.

There was chest on chest of Spanish gold
With a ton of plate in the middle hold
And the cabins riot of stuff untold,
And they lay there that took the plum
With sightless glare and their lips struck dumb
While we shared all by the rule of thumb,
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

"The main target of this law is piracy, and it should remain the primary target. Memes, free speech, and fair use should not "break.""

Piracy was never the target of this law – in fact, piracy can not be touched by this law in any way. So given that this law will not touch any pirates other than those rare few who upload movies to youtube, what sort of wishful thinking are you indulging in?

You keep harping on how this is a law against pirates. Is that because you think it’s an incantation from Harry Potter and sreaming "Article 13!!" will cause lightning to strike some guy copying a file somewhere?

On the contrary, article 13 will indeed break fair use, leaving piracy once again as the sole convenient source of entertainment. We’re basically back to the 1990’s.

"My hope is that Article 13 will be enforced logically, not overburden any sites, allow for swift review of blocked content, etc., and maybe even a registration system similar to YouTube’s partner system…"

Enforcing article 13 logically will break all of those examples you refer to. Youtube may be able to keep operating because they have the money and filtering tech…anyone else will have to buy clearance from filtering companies, most of which means – youtube.

You can hope all you wish but the reality is that legitimate use of the internet has become crippled and that leaves piracy to carry all the slack.

No skin off my nose, Baghdad Bob, but come tomorrow I’ll be watching for your hysterics when the only outcome of this is a sudden surge of VPN use concomitant with the collapse of the european indie market.

Cdaragorn (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

The problem with what you’re saying is that you’re being either dishonest or ignorant.

Search engines already block linking to sites known to exist for no other purpose than illegal piracy. And what on earth do you even mean by "register and pay tax"? That doesn’t make any sense at all. If they don’t register they don’t get a domain name. Perhaps you could provide an example of a site you think is a "pirate site"? I’m willing to bet it will end up being a perfectly legitimate site that just has some users that have used it for piracy. That’s not a pirate site. Blaming it for the acts of users on it that it didn’t actively encourage is the same as blaming the mayor for any crime committed in the city they’re over.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Most people, particularly women, like those gatekeepers like YouTube and Patreon because they no longer have to register anything in their own name, except to the intermediaries, thus offering them a much higher level of privacy. Same for the adult-themed sites like Clips4Sale and StreamMate or Niteflirt. Some of them take 20-40 percent mostly because they are selling privacy as much as they are selling a platform.

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:

My hope is that Article 13 will be enforced logically

Who in their right mind thinks article 13 is going to be enforced "logically"?!?

Looking back, any tool given so far to the legacy copyright industry and copyright trolls, they have considered to be a hammer and from their perspective everything has looked like a nail. Even dancing babies.

Since no liability is placed on "rightsholders" for misrepresenting what they own it’s going to be open season for abuse.

The main target of this law is piracy,

You know very well that the articles doesn’t go after piracy, but as usual you can’t stop yourself from lying.

JMT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Any time you use the words "eliminating piracy" you’re immediately on a fool’s errand. The investment required to do so has rapidly diminishing returns. You only have to look at the decades of effort put into it that have achieved relatively little.

The only thing that has proven to be consistently effective is listening to your customers and meeting their needs. Anti-piracy laws do not ever do that. Legitimate customers invariably end up worse off, money is wasted, piracy continues.

Like most people I consumed a mix of legitimate and infringing content, but since the likes of Netflix and Spotify came along that infringing component has shrunk considerably. Laws did not change this. Moralizing advertising campaigns did not change this. Bleating from grotesquely corrupt studios and labels did not change this. Innovative and reasonably priced services did, because they meet my needs better than piracy even though I have to pay for them.

David says:

Re: Re:

Expecting the council to fix this is like expecting the fox council to vote for a hen house’s roof after the ducks have been persuaded by the wolves to let it go.

The EU parliament, however misguidedly at times, represents the people. The EU council represents industry expertise. There may be the surprise Tom Wheeler in such a congregation sometimes, but they’ll not be part of a majority and not part of the council for long.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re:

"…the EU council has only to have one of their people flip to no and the whole thing gets derailed."

It’s not encouraging when the hope in question relies on one of the people to use every shady trick in the book to get a given pos legislation implemented, suddenly changing their minds…

That said we can already foretell the outcome. Either the law becomes a toothless paper tiger and nothing at all changes because the law can not be enforced…
…or the law has some effect, the first of which will be that it shoves a red-hot poker straight up the poop chute of all the sheeple who have hitherto not given many fucks about what’s going to happen with their youtube videos and icanhascheezburger memes and gifs.

Come the second option we can look forward to a very broad spate of copyright reform sentiment emerging in the general citizenry.

Anonmylous says:

Re: No, they actually can't.

Stupid thoughts behind Articles 11 & 13: We’ll just force them out and make our own!

No, they won’t. People made Google and Facebook popular, not governments. They can sponsor theirr own Google and Facebook alternatives, but they cannot make people use them. Oh wait they can’t do that, because they’ve actually made it incredibly difficult if not downright illegal to do it themselves with the GDPR.

That’s right, they can’t legally collect all the data Google and Facebook hold on their citizens, the data that is needed to run the ad networks their news outlets depend upon for income.

Even if they repeal it and build their new services, they can’t make people use it. And even if the people begin to switch, they are still a full decade behind today anyways. They’ve literally set themselves back a decade (maybe more) with these moves.

But let’s say they start getting data sources somehow, illegally becuase we know they are not going to repeal the GDPR. How much do you think their new Google and Facebook are going to cost? Whatever you are thinking, multiply it by at least 10, and then withdraw that money from their banks and just burn it. It’ll much faster than waiting another decade for it to be declared a failed project riddled with corruption and cost overruns, and shuttered.

Oh hey, by the way, which EU country is going to host and control those? I mean, they’re all gonna say "Can’t someone else do it?" when the idea comes up, and try to shove it off on "the rich members" to do, then demand an equal share in any revenue becuase "We’re all equal members". Not to mention at least 12 of them will start grumbling anytime things begin to look like they might actually happen becuase they’re jealous and see it as a rise in power. So I guess add stupidity, laziness, and greed to the list of reasons this project will get shuttered.

tl:dr – They won’t build their own because any monkey that tries to climb the ladder will get yanked down by the rest.

Anonymous Coward says:

told you so

I told you guys that your "regulate all the things" are going to back fire on you. Just keep up the government and regulation worship.

I warned you that the power you give government to "save you" from big bad business, will only be used to stab you in the back.

I hope you enjoy it… especially you PaulT. I told you many times to be patient… the corruption you laugh about in America is already in your back yard and that you will be feeling it soon enough.

Enjoy folks!

PS. It is going to get a little worse, and you are going to help it gets worse too. I have already told you how that is going to happen as well. But please, don’t let me stop you from smashing your own face into the wall… that would be "mean" and "ignorant" of me to try.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

When have we Americans seen "sensible government regulation?"

How about every time you go out to a restaurant and eat a meal, it’s nice knowing that there is a gov’t health inspector visiting on a regular basis to make sure that the restaurant is fully conforming to food safety regulations, and if not, they are marked for it. Where I live the restaurant has to post their most recent inspection results on their front widow.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Except "pirate" waiters will mess with your food if you deserve it, such as by showing up with a date they’d rather be with themselves.

I am guessing that you must have been one of these "pirate" (WTF??) servers as who the fuck would think that it is OK to mess with somebody’s food just because they are sitting with a date that you know is way too good for you and that you would never have a chance in hell with. And why would you think that they "deserve" it, just because their date is better than anything you could dream of? You must have lived a lonely and sad youth.

And what the fuck is your problem where you have to have everything related to being a "pirate"?

And what the FUCK ALL does that have to do with food safety regulations that are there to protect the patrons of the restaurant from food borne illnesses. AFAIK, servers don’t have easy access to things like salmonella that they can just put on your food.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Never messed with anyone’s food and had plenty of chances to. Never served anything that shouldn’t have been served, either.

Also cook for dates and take them out either to high-turnover Chinese places, or to 7-11, for hermetically sealed food that can’t be messed with.

You never heard of stained-apron.org? It was a confessional for servers. Swore off restaurants with waitstaff immediately after viewing it. Disgusting, though a useful lesson in abuse of power.

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

There is a lot of regulation that you don’t notice because you take it for granted.

It’s the big things that stick out that makes some people complain that "government regulations is bad" while others say "some government regulation is good".

The thing is, some of the big ticket items in regards of regulation in the US the last decades has either been stopped or implemented and the outcome of those decisions has been bad from the perspective of the public good since industries with vested interests have hi-jacked the political process in different ways.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: told you so

As I’ve said before – if you think it’s bad when things are not government regulated, just wait till you see complete deregulation!

It’s a shame that you still have to lie about what everybody else says, but since you’re demanding that your country also suffer just so some corporation can be doing the screwing, let’s see who suffers first.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: told you so

I really dislike how in every conversation about specific regulation, there are people talking about regulation in general. Regulating everything is totalitarianism, and regulating nothing is anarchy. Most rational people should know that it is best to be somewhere in the middle. Some regulation is good, some regulation is bad, and the details are important to make a decision.

It is like if a discussion about a diet, someone says that food is important, and if you don’t eat food you die. Then someone else counters with the fact that most things will kill you if you eat them, such as lead paint. No one in the original conversation was proposing eating literally nothing, or literally anything. They were discussing what specific things to eat in what specific quantities.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: told you so

Yes, that is all true – however … we also all know how things get screwed up by shiny objects and those who are easily distracted.

You are asking people to think about things, use their brain and stuff like that. Many people are too busy paying bills to educate themselves and business likes it that way.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: The village idiot speaks

I told you guys that your "regulate all the things" are going to back fire on you.

Except nothing has backfired. Politicians were bribed into voting for it against the wishes of the masses.

Just keep up the government and regulation worship.

This is just blatantly false. Proof please.

I warned you that the power you give government to "save you" from big bad business, will only be used to stab you in the back.

So regulation bad. I guess we should get rid of all government and go to anarchy then, according to you, since government, by definition, needs to have power to regulate. Grab your torch and pitchforks boys!

Enjoy folks!

Well I do enjoy folks. It’s good to have friends. Oh you meant something else, sorry, I live in reality where grammar matters.

It is going to get a little worse

Wait, I thought this was going to usher in a utopia? If even you are admitting that things will get a little worse, then it’s definitely bad and shouldn’t have been voted for in the first place.

I have already told you how that is going to happen as well.

Really? Do tell, I don’t recall any such predictions. All I remember is you saying "Once this passes you PIRATES will FINALLY be SHUTDOWN once and for ALL!!! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!", followed by much rabid drooling and more maniacal laughter.

But please, don’t let me stop you from smashing your own face into the wall

But you just said we would make things worse, now you’re saying we can’t do anything about it. WHICH ONE IS IT!!!

that would be "mean" and "ignorant" of me to try.

It really doesn’t matter, you’re mean and ignorant no matter what you do. So do as you wish, we’ll continue on as normal in reality.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I’ll say the same thing I always say when this kind of thing comes up – if you think that the UK government, especially the Tories, aren’t capable of coming up with similar or much worse on their own, you haven’t been paying attention for a long time. Anyone who thinks that Brexit will reduce abuses against the citizenship is deluded, they just won’t have the big boogeyman to blame next time.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Why not, if the UK isn’t a part of the EU, then sites hosted outside the EU won’t have to geoblock them."

For most EU member states, escaping the EU might mean more freedom.

For the UK it means more freedom to oppress it’s citizenry. Cameron and his predecessors all thought "1984" was an instruction manual on good governance and nothing tells me theresa May (or any of her likely successors) will realize that error.

If anything I’d expect to see the CCTV network pushed into people’s homes because…uh, terrorism, child abuse and drugs.

Mason Wheeler (profile) says:

Well, it was a nice run while it lasted, but the EU Parliament has just put an end to the open internet.

Well, it was a nice run while it lasted, but the open internet now has to put an end to the EU Parliament. (Or at least the members thereof that sold the open internet down the river.)

Make a list of all the people who voted yes to this abomination, and implement a special geoblocking where all anyone from Europe can see of your site is "this content is not available in your country because of Articles 11 and 13 of the Copyright Directive. These are the people who voted for it. Until they are gone and the law is fixed, we are unable to offer service in your region."

See how long they last if a few key sites pick up on that idea.

cpt kangarooski says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

Mailing lists are a collection of facts which isn’t covered by copyright

That depends. The rule there is that copyrightability hinges on creative choices in the selection and arrangement of facts. Arrangement is a non-issue; such a list will either be alphabetical or won’t be sorted at all. Selection could be. If you put together a list of 100 people you felt were influential on this subject, that might be enough, though it’s very thin, and wouldn’t stop someone else from preparing a list of the same overall pool of people on the same criteria which might result in an identical list. But it might stop outright copying of the list.

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

If it is just a list of mailing addresses, no matter the selection process or the arrangement of the addresses it is still just a collection of facts.

If the list is expanded for example with information on each persons reading habits, purchase history and other information that makes it unique, it may be copyrighted but that does not preclude anyone from copying just the addresses themselves which still is just a collection of facts.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

"A mailing list constructed from one’s own free material is NOT spam"

Do you provide a clear way to unsubscribe, and do you send you con artist pitches at a reasonable frequency? If the answer to either of these is no, then it’s still spam.

Also, I have a feeling that the reason you’ve been failing is because you’ve been depending on your magical mailing list while your customer based has moved to social media and other non-email forms of communication, not piracy. Well, that or the fact that people have gotten wise to your get rich cons and won’t fall for them any more.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

"A mailing list constructed from one’s own free material is NOT spam. It’s the opposite of spam…"

Off your meds again, are you, Baghdad Bob?

The ONLY times when "mailing list" and "free material" do not qualify as spam is if every user on the mailing list has requested said material.

"…and yes, it has a monetary value that piracy erodes."

Nope.

First of all the claims that it has monetary value at all is dubious. I could claim my farts are all worth ten bucks a piece and have just as much validity in that statement as you have in yours.

My offhand guess is that the actual market will have the same offer for both the named examples.

And "piracy" can not erode whatever value the list would hypothetically have, simply because manufacturing a copy of said list is completely useless. If someone has hacked the server you stored said list in and used it while pretending to be you then I’d argue damage has been done. But through fraud and computer intrusion, NOT piracy.

The only way "piracy" could erode the value of that precious little list of yours is if it was used for fraud in the first place and someone else spamming those addresses somehow gave the game away.

But hey, actual facts have never been your thing, so why would you change an eternally losing concept…?

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 What’s your follower count bro?

"Its hard to get followers when all your posts get blocked."

So basically you’d have plenty of followers…except that the only places you can try to get some is on forums where the normal community regularly flags your posts as offensive, stupid, and/or insane?

You know, Baghdad Bob, every time I think your responses and arguments can’t get any dumber and more self-destructive, you just lower the bar that one more inch…

Anonymous Coward says:

best see how much they were paid would be a better option! corruption in the EU is more rife than even here in the USA! may just as well shut the Internet down now because those who started this ball rolling, the entertainment industries, who couldn’t bear to lose a single penny in revenue, who wanted to charge the same for downloads as buying from High Street shops, who wanted to ensure that what was bought, anywhere, was never owned and couldn’t be format shifted or transferred to other devices (even in prison!) and those who instigated the ridiculous ‘Right To Be Forgotten’ law already in place in the EU (and being considered in the USA now) just so as to be able to do and say whatever they want without being called out over it, have it all now! i sincerely hope that all the MEPs who voted this in are made to suffer significantly by the loss of their positions at the new vote in a few weeks time! i also hope that there are some serious consequences come out of it and that the loss of the Internet as we know it causes all sorts of companies to fold up leading to massive revenue losses to all EU countries and serious increases in unemployment!! all these companies and industries lost just to please a greedy, self-important bunch of cunts in places like Hollywood, simply because they refuse to adapt and join the digital and Internet age!! and the best of it? artists will be worse off and the industries responsible will screw things up even more, just like they did when the MP3 player and home video recorder came out!!

Mark Jeftovic (user link) says:

This is why we can't have nice things.

This is the sort of reason why I argued, when GDPR came out, that non-European companies with no operations (or tax sheltered headquarters) in the EU should simply ignore it and comply with the data privacy laws of their home jurisdiction.

( https://easydns.com/blog/2018/05/28/gdrp-why-should-any-non-euro-companies-care/ )

When everybody (domain registrars and ICANN) tripped over themselves to comply with GDPR they set themselves up to be expected to comply with this.

In reality, absent some treaty between the EU and the countries where every other tech company is based, nobody outside the EU should care, or comply what the EU laws dictate.

Anonymous Coward says:

Well now that the EU Internet has been handed to Google and Facebook, I wonder which type of greed we’ll get from them?

Greed 1: Yes! no other company will be able to afford to compete with us! The EU and all of its profits are ours for the taking! Mwa ha haaaa!

Greed 2: What? We have to pay millions to improve our filtering and/or pay for licensing fees? That’s ridiculous! It’ll kill our profit margin! Geoblock the EU!

I can hope for type 2, but I’m not optimistic.

charliebrown (profile) says:

We Can Be Happy Underground

At the end of the day, everybody is just going to carry on doing on the internet what has always been done. Anything illegal will just move underground. The so called dark web will get a bit brighter. Some activities may get a bit harder to do, but they will still be done. Everything that can be circumvented is eventually circumvented. (Side note: Subject title refers to a 1996 song by Ben Folds Five)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: We Can Be Happy Underground

No ones going to be able to ignore this. I don’t see these articles lasting.
Universal took somone to court becuase a baby was dancing with prince music in the background.
Try getting a license everytime somone filming on the street passes by a car and it’s playing Kendrick Lamar.

Anonymous Coward says:

the 5 vote difference was just to whether to bring in amendments. the actual vote was 76 more to bring this shit law into being, just to accommodate an industry that cannot, will not and doesn’t have the balls or decency to adapt to the digital, Internet age! bunch of wankers! hopefully, those who voted this in will pay for doing so with their jobs in a few weeks time when MEPs will be plying for votes! the people wont forget what has happened today and the people who have caused this monumental fuck up need to be reminded, constantly of what they have done!

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

His business model is literally impossible under Article 13.

I have to disagree with you there, he can still do sponsored videos for example.

But the original point about Pewdiepie is wrong, it’s like saying that, for example, because Paul McCartney is a billionaire everyone can easily become a billionaire by making starting a band.

The situation we have now is that those who where "first to market" and ended up on top will still be on top while extremely few new people will even have the chance to try to make it to the top.

TFG says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Please note that I didn’t say PewDie can’t make money, I said "his business model is literally impossible under Article 13."

That business model, as I noted, is the Let’s Play, which is unsponsored game footage.

If he switches to a Sponsored model, that’s a different business model, and does nothing to invalidate what I said. I agree with you overall, Rocky, but I didn’t say what you disagreed with.

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

It should be said that some game publishers explicitly allow streaming of their games but many doesn’t (ie it’s not explicitly mentioned in the TOS/UA) although they kind of turn a blind eye towards it because they know exposure sells.

There is some complications though, some in-game music is only licensed to the game and isn’t allowed to streamed.

On the whole though, unless explicitly allowed (which still allows for some nasty pitfalls) you are correct that the business model fails.

Shufflepants (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

But under article 13, you won’t be able to post your video just because the game company just "allows" it. YouTube would need to explicitly get a license from that particular game company and have some one explicitly verify that all the game footage in your video is from companies they have a license for before allowing you to post it or else risk massive fines. So, given the rate of videos being uploaded to Youtube, they should be able to have your new video approved for posting some time in the year 2384.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

True, but that seems like a drawn out and expensive process that will make it hard for an new incoming service to have any hope of competing, of course.

Which is what we’ve been saying – for any content that’s not effectively outlawed, you’ve just handed the internet over to Google and Facebook because nobody else has the resources to set up the licencing.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

"The video game companies could partner with YouTube for the 68 percent cut, and then partner with the users to split that cut."

They could…
…and after the legal departments on either side were about halfway done the proposal would no longer fall into a good place on the cost-benefit analysis.

The same holds true for any youtube production which isn’t a predictably persistent gold mine.
So that youtube channel which was good enough to live on for a person of modest means? Gone.
As are a number of blogs, vlogs, and other means used as tools for independents to live on their art rather than having to flip burgers.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

How did that get translated into being free ?

Because it is free.

Fortnite’s base game is free. There are additional modes and features you can get if you pay for them but it is not required to play the base game.

The reason why they are mocking the original poster is because they apparently don’t understand that. And apparently, neither do you.

Please chaperone the lemmings on their runs.

Don’t choke on that crow and foot in your mouth on your way off the cliff.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

"I love how Jhon can’t help but destroy what little point he has with every example he tries to give. It’s funny in a “dig up stupid” kind of way."

Baghdad Bob is funny that way. His original claims and comments are bad enough, but then someone counters his insane dribbling…

…and his knee-jerk response is to completely bomb one or more of his long-held prior claims right off the map.

One example being where he claimed that "small platforms could be moderated by letting the users willing to do so get paid for the privilege" while missing the fact that he just advocated a solution where he’d be paying to post here, and that money would go to those of us regulars then willing to fully censor his demented gargling.

Anonymous Coward says:

No Deterrence

Well in the past Internet horror near misses, there was no voter backlash against the politicians with the "yea" votes. If there had been mass political career endings as a result of "yea" votes, all politicians everywhere would have been put-on-notice. That did not happen. Instead it appears that the public outrage doesn’t last long enough to be a consequence. We have done it to ourselves by not demonstrating that we actually do care enough.

TheResidentSkeptic (profile) says:

Need the companies to start NOW

Jump on it right away – remove ALL snippets from news links – just link all EU news sites in alphabetic order with a link to the root of their site – never to an article (after all, the title would cause the fee to be applied!); block all uploads from EU; block all comments – actually, comment forms should be replaced by something like

"please email any comments to LettersToTheEditor@mydomain.com and upon careful review, they might be added to this page".

Go ahead and implement what the end game is before the final vote so the real impact can be seen.

Shufflepants (profile) says:

Re: Need the companies to start NOW

Because of Article 11, even the links themselves, not just the snippets from the articles, are subject to fees/licensing. So, they won’t even be able to just list the EU news sites in alphabetic order without paying them, and nothing in the language would imply that this only applies to just the article endpoints and not also the root of their site.

zippy says:

Anonymous needs to expose all the secrets of everyone who voted for this thing. Or at least find some way to make their digital lives miserable until they rescind it with no possibility of reinstatement. Anonymous has been sitting on their duff for far too long letting things like this go on without doing anything to hamper them. When was the last time we heard of them actually doing anything? And where were they during all this?

Also, a list of everyone who voted to destroy EU’s open internet should be posted on the main page of every single EU-facing website for all to see so those MEPS have nowhere to hide and so all will know exactly who sold them out. Also note their corporate donors next to their names on the list. And make it clear to the MEPs that these lists will not be removed until 11 & 13 are rescinded with no possibility of reinstatement. These MEPs must be punished in every way imaginable and their lives made completely unbearable until they revoke the decision they made today.

This is why a one-day online protest isn’t enough. Such protests have to go on for multiple days or even at least a week to stay in the public eye and be most effective. The blackout should have lasted until after the vote. A single day can be forgotten, but a blackout of a whole week or even more is less easily pushed aside.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Too many of them were locked up. They branched out and mostly work for lawyers now, targeting opposing litigants on behalf of large corporations, also running the defamation scam that uses litigious targets to bait unsuspecting enemies of these targets into defaming them, then rushing in to monetize the lawsuits they helped create.

Bamboo Harvester (profile) says:

Re: Re: It appears...

Not what I meant by "market", and yes, it’s overbroad if you want to include things like Business Licenses, local Code requirements, etc.

When a local market attempts to extort from you, you cease doing business with them. You won’t lose sales if you have an in-demand product, as the people living in the area you aren’t selling in will travel to where you are selling.

Cut off Google and Facebook to any EU country for a month and see if there there’s a raw-count usage drop. It’ll be minimal, as the people who live on facebook figure out how to access it from other countries or install a VPN.

Sok Puppette says:

"There is great disorder under Heaven. The situation is excellent". — Not Mao

However, most of those aren’t really ready for prime time, and all of them have been starved by the commercial "platforms". They need some love.

"Cypherpunks write code" — Eric Hughes

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Question...

It’s hard to say for sure, as the EU members now have to take the articles and interpret them according to their own laws. But, the fact that they’re so vague, and many platforms will take the hardline approach rather than risk any legal culpability means that it’s a very real possibility that this will be the effect in some places, even if the laws passed don’t actually state such a thing.

Shufflepants says:

Re: Question...

Well, you can still cite a source, you’ll just have to do it the old fashioned way like it was a bibliography.

You can’t provide the link like
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190326/05584741869/eu-puts-end-to-open-internet-link-taxes-filters-approved-just-5-votes.shtml
But presumably you could still provide:

Masnik, Mike. "EU Puts An End To The Open Internet: Link Taxes And Filters Approved By Just 5 Votes" 2019-03-26

Or would the title and author constitute a snippet? I guess the EU has made even talking about copyrighted material illegal on the internet…

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Question...

Article 13 doesn’t work like that. The site must still verify that each and every comment doesn’t contain content belonging to someone else than the poster AND they then need to get a license for it or block it.

If the comment is deemed to fall under the exceptions for quotation, review etc it may possible to let it through, but the language in article 11 is also unambiguous for links and excerpts of news. Quoting “single words or very short extracts” from news will require a licence and there are no exceptions to that rule – no matter the size of the site or who runs it.

If a site doesn’t do their due diligence as set forth they will be breaking the law according to Article 11 & 13.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Question...

" A comments section would have an implied license within itself. Implied license may also reduce the impact of Article 13."

Wrong on both counts.

Article 13 does not mention anything directly about implied licensing but in practice implied licensing has ceased to exist for 3rd parties. No platform will be dumb enough to run a legal exposure which has to rely on "maybe no one will care enough to sue us".

And that’s also why implied licensing can’t "mitigate" article 13/11. Platform self-censorship will not allow implied licensing to exist except in the few cases where the platform can be absolutely sure that no one will mention anything which could be covered under copyright.

Article 11 isn’t just going after google. It’s going after everyone any of a thousand copyright trolls can find online.

Bruce C. says:

A fourth option?

It would require a complete revamping of the way internet platforms work, but it would keep platforms in business, even if it’s probably what the proponents of the directive actually want to achieve.

If platforms act more like normal "publishers" where they manually review/edit/curate content before it gets exposed on the internet, they can avoid the risks of a completely open platform while still staying in business.

For example, say a platform has a billion user submissions in their slush pile. The platform doesn’t really care which ones are successful, they just want enough of them to generate enough views to do business. So they have some sort of a crude filter for copyright and objectionable content that cuts things down by say 80%. Of the remaining 20% they can use any algorithm from a random lottery to subject-matter filtering to select candidates for manual review and potential publication. Just walk through the list until the days quota of content has been approved and published. Depending on incoming volume, they can discard the remaining items in the 20% or roll them over to the next day.

Of course this will still destroy the open internet as we currently know it. In particular the long-tail and the spontaneous growth of memes and personal tailoring will disappear. By forcing internet platforms to become publishers, legacy publishers will restore "control" to the market and increase their power, even if they don’t get a single penny from link taxes or copyright lawsuits. And the technical difficulties of crappy content filters are still there, just with less legal exposure. Algorithms can be pretty decent at detecting duplicates, but they may not be able to distinguish someone trying to flood the queue vs. a bunch of people interested in the same topic.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: A fourth option?

If platforms act more like normal "publishers" where they manually review/edit/curate content before it gets exposed on the internet, they can avoid the risks of a completely open platform while still staying in business.

That would destroy many platforms, as a significant part of the attraction to users is an ability to post their own content as a response. It would also disenfranchise those who use such platform as a way of staying in touch with family member spread around a country or the world.

That approach destroys the Internet as a communications system, and turns it into a broadcast system for a selected few, while consuming a large amount of a companies income in reviewing content.

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re: A fourth option?

What about the fan-sites?
Or hobby-sites?
The local animal-shelter site where pet owners can discuss the ailments of their loved ones?
Or the site where the local musicians hangs out sharing their latest songs?

Those kind of sites apparently doesn’t enrich peoples life-quality in your world if we judge them according to your post.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: A fourth option?

That’s brilliant!

They could do that with news, books, music and other forms of media, too. Imagine only having to read a random collection of 20% of War & Peace’s content to then be able to say you’ve read it. Surely 80% of the news is pointless so the remainder should be sufficient if the random 20% retained happened to be the correct 20%. And 6 minutes is far too long for a song. 72 random seconds of a song should be plenty.

No limit to the success achievable with this idea. Quick! To the patent office!

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: A fourth option?

I’m not sure offering to roll back the entire world to 1960 will be a viable proposition.

Not when there are so very many means to circumvent hamfisted governments and maintain a public space with, admittedly, far less moderation and regulation than we’ve gotten used to.

Essentially there is no fourth option. The european internet has just gone back to 1990 where law did not exist at all online.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

The only problem is if countries en-masse resort to geoblocking, what happens if it becomes seen as acceptable and that the internet becoming a series of walled off communities is seen as a norm?

Whatever happens needs to be clearly seen as "this is broken and not OK" so that this can be fixed immediately. Perhaps by ensuring our legislators are capable of demonstrating a basic understanding of how the internet actually works.

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:

The only problem is if countries en-masse resort to geoblocking, what happens if it becomes seen as acceptable and that the internet becoming a series of walled off communities is seen as a norm?

Don’t you think that people will scream bloody murder and demand their politicians do something about it?

What do you think will happen to politicians who ignore that many people who are dependent on their daily internet fix?

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

We've read this tale before...

You curse a society and make them outlaws, and they go underground and operate in the dark, and make friends with pedophiles, lunatics and terrorists and all sorts of sundry seedy folk who the state has rejected. When the state has rejected a people, they cease to concern themselves with the welfare of the state.

Here in the states pirates hide in the shadows, but in Europe, the sharing community is a movement. It’s even a political party.

If the states reject the freedom of the internet, the internet will see censorship as damage and route around it. They may kill electronic media distro only to drive the common household to torrents and magnets.

Sail beneath the skull and bones
Pay no heed to crowns and thrones
No more greedy princes lying
When you come sail with the black flag flying

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: We've read this tale before...

Except I support a piracy-free internet where creators can distribute to the masses at a reasonable price. This business model was destroyed by piracy, such as that 800+ book file that was sold for pennies by criminals, with many of the "stolen" books mere marketing material for high-priced (piracy-proof) seminars run by get-rich-quick scammers and the like. Those who relied solely on e-book revenue were unable to thrive due to piracy.

Porn stars no longer make money on their films, but on "fan events" that occur in private, one fan at a time. Their work is now an advertisement for prostitution.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 We've read this tale before...

"Except I support a piracy-free internet"

You support a fiction. The WORLD hasn’t ever been piracy free, even before the internet existed.

What a shame that you want to destroy the careers of so many other people to protect a fantasy.

"Those who relied solely on e-book revenue were":

…being told they need to adjust their business model to 21st century communication practices.

Also, once again – scam artists like you do not represent the bulk of creative people. You are an anomaly. Most people don’t depend on upselling people to buy their content, unless the content is crap.

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:2 We've read this tale before...

I know of several authors that thrive because of e-books, but then they don’t write self-help books (which incidentally has an atrocious customer retention factor).

All of them see the problem of unauthorized copying but they also understand that screwing over your best customers because some people illicitly download copies of their books is a bad move. They also understand the importance of balance by giving their customers what they want while trying to protecting their works in a way that isn’t inconvenient.

They also realize that a downloaded copy doesn’t equal a lost sale, instead they see it as a potential customer checking out their products. Some of them have actually gone to sites that make their works available for free leaving friendly comments that if people like the books and have the means that they should go out and buy them. Not everyone will go and buy they book because of that, but some do.

Also regarding porn stars, citation needed.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

This business model was destroyed by piracy

No business model has ever been destroyed by piracy alone. Napster existed; now iTunes does. ROM sites exist; so does Steam. Ebook piracy continues apace; so do sales of ebooks on Amazon. The only real effect piracy has ever had on any business model was to make people see that a specific business model may be flawed in the age of the Internet.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: We've read this tale before...

What is with your love affair with pewdiepie? His tripe is no more protected than anyone else’s. Hell, he’s a has-been, aged out of the demographic of kids who cared about his rambling stupidity. Many of his videos contain material belonging to others, too, thus contributing to the problem you seem to think 11/13 will solve. If anything, his income stream is about to die the death it deserves but for all the wrong reasons.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 We've read this tale before...

"Shutting down big tech returns the internet to where it was in 1997"

That;’s a positive thing for you?

Yeah, I suppose if the only value of your product is to hard sell things to people who ended up on your mailing list because it has no intrinsic value of its own, you would want to stop the better alternative ways people have to communicate outside of email now.

Also…pssst – piracy also existed in 1997!

"Indies did just fine if not better back then."

Lol

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 We've read this tale before...

"Shutting down big tech returns the internet to where it was in 1997."

wait…you’re grand idea here is that shit will get better for you because closing down Big Tech is about to roll the internet back to what we who remember like to term The Age Of Piracy?

Back when everything was underground and indies almost didn’t exist unless they were hardnosed enough to scrape a living rubbing shoulders with the peg-legged beparroted gent on the next ship?

Back when the real surge started for torrent index sites? When more people thrived beyond the law than under it?

Yeah, you know, Baghdad Bob…I think you want to check your memory. And go back on your meds.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Artists catering to the wealthy

Seriously? This just shows you’ve never actually seen Firefly and know nothing about it.

It was profitable (and arguably still is based off DVD sales alone), the problem was Fox didn’t go off revenue streams, they went off viewership numbers. Except they stuck it in one of the worst possible time slots, refused to air the pilot, and aired other episodes out of order. The fact that it continues, to this day, to have a large and active fan base despite Fox practically deliberately killing it, is a testament to how good the show was and that it could have easily stood on its own.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Artists catering to the wealthy

Sometimes the talent just moves on etc.

Also, the talent didn’t move on, they were fired. The cast and crew LOVED working on Firefly. Nathan Fillion, to this day, said if they picked it up again, he would come back in a heartbeat, and even considered buying the rights to it for a while.

ECA (profile) says:

DEAR EU..

"The MEPs who voted for this are up for election in two months, and hopefully the EU shows them the door, but in the meantime, today is a sad day for the open internet."

Understand something Strange…
YOU ARE THE EMPLOYER…FIRE THEM, RESTRICT THEIR WAGES FOR INCOMPETENCE, DECLINE all bonus’s and RETIREMENT,.
Its the same thing they would do to US, if we screw’d the corp we worked for..

Thad (profile) says:

Re: And now the fun REALLY begins

That won’t happen immediately, because (as I understand it) the EU member states still have to pass their own individual laws to comply with the directive.

So expect to see the trolls trot out their usual "see? the Internet didn’t break overnight like you said it would!" strawmanning. The effects of bad legislation are not instantaneous; sometimes they take years to be fully felt.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: 'Oops, how'd that happen...'

So at best you’ve got two politicians who can’t figure out the super complex system of ‘push the button that aligns with what your vote is’, and alternatively you’ve got two politicians who are trying to cover their asses by voting for it while claiming that they really meant to vote against it.

Yeah, both of them need to be replaced.

Thad (profile) says:

Re: Re: 'Oops, how'd that happen...'

As I noted downthread, they should be voted out of office because they’re Sweden Democrats. How they feel about copyright is rather beside the point.