Huge Protests Across Europe Protest Article 13; Politician Lies And Claims They Were Paid To Be There

from the not-bots dept

As expected, people took to the streets in the EU this week to protest the EU Copyright Directive, the censorship filters of Article 13, and the snippet tax in Article 11. Most of the protests took place in Germany, where reports are that over 150,000 protesters showed up to let their elected officials know that this law is a disaster (other reports put the number closer to 200,000 protesters).

Indeed, things got so crazy, that the Berlin police announced that there were way more people than expected, and protesters needed to change their planned route to roads that could better accommodate such a large crowd.

Many of the signs included memes, or the statement "we are not bots," which appears to have confused some in the media, such as DW.com, which claimed people said: "banners included the phrase "We are not bots," a reference to robotic-like social media posts." Uh, no. The reference to "we are not bots" is in direct response to supporters of Article 13 lying and claiming that all of the arguments against Article 13 were simply coming from internet bots as a way to discount the concerns of millions of EU residents as well as those of us around the world.

Of course, what happens when the politicians who insisted it was "just bots" arguing against Article 13 have to contend with the fact that at least 150,000 real live humans showed up on their doorstep to protest? They just keep lying. German MEP Daniel Caspary, who chairs the large CDU/CSU group in the EU Parliament told a German publication a completely made up lie -- reminiscent of the kind of "fake news" propaganda that has been used elsewhere, that all of the protesters were actually paid to be there. He literally called them "bought protesters" and said that a non-profit organization offered protesters €450 to show up at the protest. And then insisted that this was all a threat to democracy (per the translation):

"Now it is obviously being attempted to prevent the adoption of copyright even with bought protesters. Up to 450 euros are offered by a so-called NGO for the demonstrators. The money seems to come, at least partially, from major American Internet corporations. When American corporations with massive use of disinformation and bought protesters try to prevent laws, our democracy is under threat. "

Think about that for a second. A major political leader is so infatuated with his false belief that real people couldn't possibly be upset about the plan to fundamentally move away from an open internet, that he insists Google must have paid the protesters €450 each to show up. That's insane, and nothing that any elected official should be saying. Journalist Emanuel Karlsten looked into the details of this and found that Caspary had taken a completely different bit of information and used it to attack the integrity of all the protesters. What had really happened was a few weeks earlier, the digital rights organization EDRi had offered to cover travel costs for a small number of activists to come talk to MEPs. It was not for the demonstrations, but for a small group of activists, who otherwise could not afford to meet the MEPs in person, to travel. Somewhere around a dozen such grants were made and it allowed this small group of folks to meet with MEPs last week, totally unrelated to the protests.

As more and more people started calling out Caspary, he refused to correct his misleading statement for an entire day, before insisting that everyone misunderstood him and he never really meant that all demonstrators got paid. However, the "statement" he links to is simply more pro-Article 13 propaganda, insisting that the protesters cannot be taken seriously because some idiot sent Axel Voss a death threat. Meanwhile, Caspary's own thread -- that he insists is clarifying his position -- then immediately says we should still criticize financial support for those seeking to lobby politicians. He says that as if the lobbyists in favor of Article 13 didn't also provide "financial support" for some musicians and creators to go lobby them as well. It is standard practice for NGOs to pay travel costs for activists to present their position before elected officials, because otherwise politicians would only hear from lobbyists, and not from the actual people. This happens on all sides of every issue -- and it's not paying them for their testimony, but for their travel expenses to get somewhere they couldn't otherwise go.

So I'm curious if Caspary will now agree to discount any lobbying he heard in favor of Article 13 from artists who received travel support to go see him too? Or does his position only cover the other side?

Meanwhile, as Communia noted, in quite a contrast, at the same time as these protests were happening across Germany and elsewhere, in France, supporters of Article 13 -- the execs from collection societies who stand to profit (literally) the most from the passage of Article 13 -- gathered to drink champagne and hold up little yellow pieces of paper in support of the law:

You really should click to open the images and to see the contrast. Thousands upon thousands of people take to the streets to protest against a law that will close off the open internet, while those who will profit from such a closed internet sip champagne at a private party and smile meekly while holding up pieces of paper in support of screwing over the public. How nice.

Either way, no matter what lies politicians tell themselves, they might want to think about so many people coming out to protest over this issue, especially given that the next EU Parliamentary elections are in just a few months. Or will they just claim that Google paid them to vote, too?

All images in this post come from Netzpolitik, which says they are free for anyone to use -- which may only be true until Article 13 is enacted into law, at which point, it would be an impossible liability risk to continue posting them on most sites.

Filed Under: article 11, article 13, bots, copyright, daniel caspary, eu, eu copyright directive, filters, germany, protests


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 12:59am

    Ah yes, when you can't say what you mean...

    [i]"major American Internet corporations"[/i]
    Pretty sure that's at least 50% likely to be just the latest euphemism for "Jews", right? Given the context of the rest of the claims?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 1:03am

      Re: Ah yes, when you can't say what you mean...

      Pretty sure if this were the US, Caspary would already have made the claim that Soros is one of Google's biggest shareholders.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 1:29am

        Re: Re: Ah yes, when you can't say what you mean...

        If it was the US, Clinton News Network (CNN) would be claiming Trump had Putin send Russians over to protest.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 1:55am

        Re: Re: Ah yes, when you can't say what you mean...

        Actually Hungarys Orbán probably already does. Because he's the fascist bastard that started all these conspiracy theories about Soros.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 3:09am

      Re: Ah yes, when you can't say what you mean...

      "Pretty sure that's at least 50% likely to be just the latest euphemism for "Jews", right? Given the context of the rest of the claims?"

      Probably not. Caspary grew up in west germany where being too interested in neo-nazi or antisemitism might end you in a jail cell but certainly wouldn't get you a political career.

      he's just your normal everyday crooked politician bought and paid for by vested interests. Or he's an inept sheep blindly following the party line.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Call me Al, 25 Mar 2019 @ 4:20am

      Re: Ah yes, when you can't say what you mean...

      For the record I think most Europeans have more of a problem with Americans then they do with Jews. This isn't anti-Semitic. This is anti-USA.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        JoeCool (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 6:35am

        Re: Re: Ah yes, when you can't say what you mean...

        They hate us for our freedom! ;)

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 6:41am

          Re: Re: Re: Ah yes, when you can't say what you mean...

          "They hate us for our freedom! ;)"

          PRISM, xKeyscore, etc...
          ...what "Freedom"?

          More like this is about EU government leaders tiffed that their citizenry has the unrepentant gall of using american tools to watch american movies, rather than go to a nice cinema and watch the latest psychological dramatization from <insert famous name here> which isn't understandable without half a bachelor's degree in liberal arts and french history.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 10:01am

      Re: Ah yes, when you can't say what you mean...

      "censorship filters" LOL Desperate much?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 10:19am

        Re: Re: Ah yes, when you can't say what you mean...

        They will be called censorship filters when white nationalists are censored and they will be called copyright filters when common folk have legit complaints about class warfare.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 1:22am

    Many support Article 13

    A number of figures in the music industry have come out in support of the new copyright law, arguing that the framework would protect the rights of artists over their creations. Former Beatle, Sir Paul McCartney, has published a letter urging MEPs to support the copyright mandate.

    "Today, some user-upload content platforms refuse to compensate artists and all music creators fairly for their work while they exploit it for their own profit," reads the letter.

    "The value gap is that gulf between the value these platforms derive from music and the value they pay creators. The proposed Copyright Directive and its Article 13 would address the value gap and help assure a sustainable future for the music ecosystem and its creators, fans and digital music services alike."

    UK Music CEO Michael Dugher has also come out in support of the copyright law, accusing Google of “behaving like a corporate vulture feeding off the creators and investors who generate the music content shared by hundreds of millions on YouTube.

    “Instead of mounting a cynical campaign, motivated entirely out of its self-interested desire to protect its huge profits, Google should be making a positive contribution to those who create and invest in the music. MEPs should ignore the big money lobbying from big tech and back fair rewards for creators.”

    Robert Ashcroft, CEO of PRS for Music, similarly argues in a blog post that internet giants such as Google have "whipped up a social media storm of misinformation about the proposed changes in order to preserve their current advantage".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 1:31am

      Why yes, gullible people and those that believe that they stand to benefit would come out in favor of the bill, and continue to use debunked talking points doing it.

      (Seriously, the 'Let's blame everything on Google' talking point gets dumber and dumber each time it's repeated.)

      However, if you want to argue that 'some people support it, so you should too', maybe scroll up a bit, because it looks like the handful that the supporters of the bill can dredge up are vastly outnumbered, and I imagine that a good number of those people are going to be voting in the near future, something you can be sure politicians are going to be weighing when it comes to deciding which way to vote this time around.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 10:08am

        Re:

        How much does Google make when they run an ad before a music video? How much of that money goes to the rightsholder? Squat. That's how much.

        This about them having to be transparent and pay musicians fairly. They just don't wan't to do that. Google's lies just don't hold any water anymore.
        Sorry.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 10:22am

          Re: Re:

          "This about them having to be transparent and pay musicians fairly. "

          I don't think so Tim. What is their track record wrt honesty and why should anyone believe them this time?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Thad (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 10:40am

          Re: Re:

          How much does Google make when they run an ad before a music video? How much of that money goes to the rightsholder? Squat. That's how much.

          You're such a ridiculous liar, Coward.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 10:50am

            Re: Re: Re:

            Posting links to avoid answering the question?
            Let's try again:
            How much does Google make when they run an ad before a music video? How much of that money goes to the rightsholder?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Rocky, 25 Mar 2019 @ 10:59am

              Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Can you tell me how much a band pays for youtube to host their video?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 11:14am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Yet more attempts at changing the subject and avoiding the question.
                Let's try again:
                How much does Google make when they run an ad before a music video? How much of that money goes to the rightsholder?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Rocky, 25 Mar 2019 @ 11:32am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  It's totally irrelevant since the band or their label willingly put the video there with the understanding that Youtube will monetize it and from which they get a cut unless the band or the label turn off monitization which means no ads will be played.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 11:37am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    No it’s not totally irrelevant. Answer the question.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      TFG, 25 Mar 2019 @ 11:40am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Answer: Enough for rightsholders to upload their own content. For more details, read the thing you were linked earlier:

                      https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/technology/03youtube.html

                      Now, I have a question for you:

                      How much does Google make when they run an ad before a music video? How much of that money goes to the rightsholder?

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 11:55am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      How much does Google make when they run an ad before a music video? How much of that money goes to the rightsholder?

                      I don't know, and I don't know. I don't work for Google, and I don't work for the rightsholder. Do you? If so, can you tell us? I for one am honestly interested in that number.

                      However, it is irrelevant, because lots of industries take advantage of other people's stuff and (arguably) don't pay a proportionally reasonable amount for it. How much of a drug's revenue goes to the doctors/chemists that created it? How much of a college basketball team's revenues go to the players? How much of Red Dead Redemption 2's revenue goes to the programmers? And more to the topic at hand, how much of a record label's revenue goes to the artists?

                      If you want to argue why it is specifically relevant re: Google vs. Hollywood, you should at the same time address why it isn't relevant anywhere else (or if you claim that it is, where's the legislation to close those value gaps)?

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 2:23pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        Of all ad revenue, Google keeps 45% and the uploader gets 55%. A lot of things impact the net-per-view such as duration of the ad, whether it was skipped, how many ads are shown during the video, etc. But a typical rate is around $7.60 per thousand views. So a video that gets 500,000 views makes $3,800. Just for that one video. Many YT content creators regularly get 10-20 million views and they produce a lot of videos. These guys are buying Ferraris at age 20.

                        So please, quit with the bullshit that Google isn't paying these creators. It's paying them plenty.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Rocky, 25 Mar 2019 @ 1:03pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      It is irrelevant, just because you don't understand the economics doesn't make it relevant.

                      It's quite simple, the musicians earns more by putting stuff on Youtube than having their own site which makes it irrelevant how much Youtube makes.

                      Otherwise, why put it on Youtube in the first place? Why would for example Sony/ATV's EMI sign a global publishing deal with YT?

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              R.H. (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 2:32pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Ok, I'll bite. The split between Youtube/Google and the uploader is 45% for YouTube and 55% for the uploader. If the uploader doesn't own the rights to all the content in a published video and a claim is made against it then the owner of the unlicensed content can choose one of three options; do nothing at all, take over monetization (in this case that 55% cut goes to them), or issue a takedown for the video. Does that answer your question?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 11:18am

          Re: Re:

          "How much of that money goes to the rightsholder? Squat. That's how much."

          I mean, this is demonstrably false, but even in terms of your narrative, I'll ask the same question posed several times - if the major labels get nothing when a song is hosted on YouTube, why did they opt to close their own Vevo service and host it solely on YouTube?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 1:28pm

          Re: Re:

          I think you have confused Google with labels and collections societies.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Karl (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 5:23pm

          Re: Re:

          How much does Google make when they run an ad before a music video? How much of that money goes to the rightsholder? Squat. That's how much.

          By all accounts that I have found, Google pays rights holders 55% of the advertising revenue from YouTube, keeping 45% of it for themselves. They have been doing that for as longs as I've looked at the numbers.

          If rights holders get "squat" then Google/YouTube gets "20% less than squat."

          Some (non-Google) sources:
          https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/032615/how-youtube-ad-revenue-works. asp
          https://variety.com/2013/digital/news/youtube-standardizes-ad-revenue-split-for-all-partners-but -offers-upside-potential-1200786223
          https://www.thestreet.com/technology/how-much-do-youtubers-make- 14743540

          More are available if you bother to search using your favorite search engine, like DuckDuckGo.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 1:54am

      Re: Many support Article 13

      Again with the dinosaurs and corporate drones. Is there any musician who had their success in this century who supports this?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 2:01am

      Re: Many support Article 13

      Where many is something like a few hundreds. Whereas the others are millions of people, most of them creators, that just don't have publishers.

      And no, the conspiracy theory that "internet giants" are behind the protests is completely bogus. Lies. In fact, most of the "internet giant" would profit from this new anticompetition law.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Rocky, 25 Mar 2019 @ 2:22am

      Re: Many support Article 13

      That a number of figures in the music industry supports the new harmonization effort isn't strange, since they would directly benefit from it.

      That a number of figures in other industries doesn't supports the new harmonization effort isn't strange, since it would massively increase operating costs for wholly legal businesses.

      And the talk about value gap is just a refusal to understand that when something is commoditized people don't want to pay more than what they perceive it's worth. Some industries at that point try to control that market segment by introducing an artificial scarcity so they can increase prices. A good example of this is Luxotica - have you ever wonder why your glasses is so expensive?

      Article 13 will in a sense introduce an artificial scarcity on digital content since the net effect will be that the cost to market will increase drastically which means less content to higher prices for consumers which also mean less sales. This is just basic economics.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 10:23am

        Re: Re: Many support Article 13

        harmonization ... lol
        is that what ya call it?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Rocky, 25 Mar 2019 @ 11:02am

          Re: Re: Re: Many support Article 13

          It's what the new copyright directive from EU is all about.

          Perhaps if you read up on it you would understand the term instead of making uninformed posts.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      MathFox, 25 Mar 2019 @ 2:31am

      Re: Many support Article 13

      Former Beatle, Sir Paul McCartney, has published a letter urging MEPs to support the copyright mandate.

      Famous artist from previous century. When did he last create a new work?

      UK Music CEO Michael Dugher has also come out in support of the copyright law, accusing Google of “behaving like a corporate vulture feeding off the creators and investors who generate the music content shared by hundreds of millions on YouTube.

      Translation: Google is too big for us to control and a threat to our comfortable position as middle-man.

      Robert Ashcroft, CEO of PRS for Music, similarly argues in a blog post that internet giants such as Google have "whipped up a social media storm of misinformation about the proposed changes in order to preserve their current advantage".

      Pot meets kettle.
      I see the "traditional" publishers fear the potential that Internet offers for self-publishing. The equipment for professional sound recording (and mixing) is cheap enough for an artist to posses. He does not need a record studio to make his recordings. An artist can sell his music via his own website or use one of the existing "stores"... No record companies needed.
      If record companies provided value to their artists they would not fear a little competition.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 3:24am

        Re: Re: Many support Article 13

        "When did he last create a new work?"

        I had to check but he is one of those people who still works for a living - the album Egypt Station was released last year.

        But, that's not really relevant so much as the fact that the vast majority of his work, and much of his most successful work was created before the internet existed. The names that keep coming up here - McCartney, Debbie Harry, ABBA - all have that in common. It's very suspicious that these are the people we keep being told to listen to due to their success, while we never see artists who grew up with the internet being brought up as supporters.

        That's a gigantic red flag to me. It may because the news stories surrounding this are being written by and for people of an older generation, so a big name from the current music scene doesn't have the same impact. But, it might just be that nobody who actually understands the internet can honestly support article 13.

        I'm always open to honestly discussed counterpoints, but "listen to these rich people who made their fortunes before most of you were born" is not a good argument in favour of changing how we use current technology. Especially when the rules being pushed would clearly harm everyone.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          That One Guy (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 3:31am

          If the truth is on your side you've no need to lie. If not...

          But, it might just be that nobody who actually understands the internet can honestly support article 13.

          Given all(or near enough as to make no difference) of the support I've seen for it has either been a lie, based on one, or otherwise dishonest in some fashion that sounds about right.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 3:40am

          Re: Re: Re: Many support Article 13

          Yes, it seems clear you don’t want to listen to the generation that Invented the Internet. And invented the high density data storage that enables digital content to be stored economically. And the high speed digital transmission technology that gets the data to where it needs to be. And the protocols that manage the delivery of digital data and detects and correct errors. And the silicon that makes it all economical. And the music we were listening to as we did all that.

          What did you invent again? Whining like a child about things you are not educated enough to comprehend? Nope, that was invented before your time. Your whining is totally unoriginal.

          Oh, Yeah, Now I remember - you invented the “Green New Deal”. And you invented the line of thinking that Piracy is a Good thing. That’s right. You invented the Pirate Party, that has contributed so much to the world. You invented the Streisand effect, right, and censorship of well spoken opposition. You invented the idea that there is a SINGLE POINT OF VIEW, YOURS.

          I have grandchildren smarter than you.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 3:49am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Many support Article 13

            "Yes, it seems clear you don’t want to listen to the generation that Invented the Internet. And invented the high density data storage that enables digital content to be stored economically."

            Except that all of the techies of the last generation who invented all of the internet background and infrastructure are usually among the first to criticize copyright legislation such as SOPA, Acta, and Article 13.

            Which leaves copyright cultists such as you crying that we should listen to the part of the older generation who today still don't know what the internet is or how it actually works.

            The copyright cult - for when you need some inept asshole to feed you a straw man argument or false assumption on how a bunch of gormless morons who are completely ignorant about the topic at hand should be heard as "expert advice".

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 8:23am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Many support Article 13

              Furthermore, the internet that was first created had absolutely zero protections built-in for copyright. Web sites appeared with blatant copy+paste of copyrighted content. Others allowed and even encouraged sharing of copyrighted material.

              It seems to me that the younger generations have fixed or at least addressed a lot of the copyright-related problems the original inventors of the internet either didn't envision or didn't have time to address while inventing the foundations.

              So thank you, original inventors of the internet, you've done us all a great service. Your contributions will not be forgotten. Now please have a seat as the next wave of inventors and builders have a go at building and improving on what we were provided. Just, please, take all your contemporary politicians with you to Stone Gardens Retirement Haven. They really don't have a clue.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                MathFox, 25 Mar 2019 @ 9:27am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Many support Article 13

                Copying data is intrinsic to the way the Internet and computers work. So, both computers and the Internet are good at copying data. Faster than printing presses, record presses, etc. It is just how computers work, deal with that.

                And if you think that you can program computers to distinguish between "legal" and "illegal" copying of copyrighted works, please give me an algorithm to determine if a certain piece of data is a copyrighted work or just some random data.
                If you've succeeded in that I'll ask you the harder questions, about algorithms to determine whether a certain use of a copyrighted work is non-infringing under the differing copyright laws of the world. And lastly, algorithms for interpreting licenses.

                BTW, An implementation of all that code should not slow down streaming/playing of my legally obtained high definition videos.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 2:29pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Many support Article 13

                  That's an interesting read of my post. My words were in defense of the younger builders, countering the assertion that the original builders of the net were infallible. Deal with that, I guess.

                  Nowhere did I state that filtering was practical or even possible. But you do you.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 10:26am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Many support Article 13

                "Now please have a seat as the next wave of inventors and builders have a go at building and improving on what we were provided."

                lol - building and improving?
                That's rich.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 2:26pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Many support Article 13

                  So you think the gen Y and Z are incapable of improving the internet? If so you're ignoring pretty much every business operating in and on the net today. "Myopia" doesn't begin to describe your world view.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            PaulT (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 3:55am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Many support Article 13

            "Yes, it seems clear you don’t want to listen to the generation that Invented the Internet"

            Oh, I will listen to anyone who was actually involved in that. But, the vast majority of that generation did not, and many of them still don't understand it.

            Do you have quotes from anyone with relevant experience, or do we just need to ignore people who know what they're talking about because they weren't hatched in the same decade as some celebrity millionaire?

            "Yeah, Now I remember - you invented the “Green New Deal”"

            Did I? Huh, I thought that was a younger woman living on the other side of the planet.

            Oh, and funny how you're attacking me based on presumptions about my age. I bet whatever number you're thinking of is completely wrong, as are all of your claims.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Rocky, 25 Mar 2019 @ 4:00am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Many support Article 13

            Yes, it seems clear you don’t want to listen to the generation that Invented the Internet.

            It was not artists and the legacy copyright industry that invented the internet, it was scientists, researchers and programmers that did that.

            Perhaps you want to listen what the inventors of the internet actually have to say about Article 13 instead of putting your words in their mouths:
            https://www.eff.org/files/2018/06/13/article13letter.pdf

            Also, I have to ask - what have you invented that changed the world? Because you make the assertion that unless you invented something your viewpoint doesn't count.

            And if we are going to go with that assertion, only a handful of artists then have a valid viewpoint in regards of Article 13.

            You are just a whiny old fart that can't make one honest compelling argument for what you believe.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 4:12am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Many support Article 13

              You guys are hilarious.

              Let’s see if you can pass a kindergarten level of data transmission theory:

              Tell me why differential pairs are used for high speed data transmission.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Rocky, 25 Mar 2019 @ 4:17am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Many support Article 13

                Because the noise introduced in the line cancels out.

                Which has what relevance to the discussion? Did you invent TP?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 4:20am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Many support Article 13

                  Explain the areal density advantages of shingled magnetic recording.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 4:28am

                    Please explain how this has any relevance to Article 13, you JAQ-off.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      PaulT (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 4:33am

                      Re:

                      At a guess, he's trying to build an argument around the idea that some tech was invented for the music industry. So, we should take internet orders from people who happened to be born at the same time as the people who invented it, rather than more knowledgeable people who weren't born then.

                      It's an astoundingly dumb argument, but since he's trying to argue from an authority the quoted musicians do not possess, he has to stretch somewhat.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 10:31am

                        Re: Re:

                        Nothing about the internet design had anything to do with music, its design treats all data equally.

                        Changes made since its inception have attempted to bastardize the inner workings to increase ones own bottom line at the expense of everyone else. How they justify this can become quite humorous.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      That One Guy (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 4:34am

                      Re:

                      Oh that's simple, it's - Look, a distraction!

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 4:47am

                      Re:

                      Sometimes I wonder if your head hurts, Stephen, from being so stupid.

                      An assertion was made that the “old people” don’t understand the Internet.

                      “Old people” invented the internet, that is, they created something new. Do you honestly think they don’t understand it?

                      My point was you don’t understand ANYTHING about what the Internet actually is. You couldn’t build one to save your life. You can’t answer the simplest questions about the underlying technology.

                      If you want to say that only people with an understanding of the Internet should make decisions about the Internet, then YOU, by demonstration, should SHUT THE FUCK UP.

                      That was my point.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        PaulT (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 4:57am

                        Re: Re:

                        "An assertion was made that the “old people” don’t understand the Internet."

                        Where? If you're talking about my posts, you should read them again because they don't say what you're claiming.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 5:09am

                        An assertion was made that the “old people” don’t understand the Internet.

                        No, the assertion was that the artists who are coming out in favor of Article 13 are all artists who had their major success prior to the Internet — and generally lack a knowledge of how the Internet works — which leads them to believe that turning the Internet into another broadcast medium with pre-Internet copyright rules forced onto websites is the best possible outcome of Article 13.

                        My point was you don’t understand ANYTHING about what the Internet actually is. You couldn’t build one to save your life. You can’t answer the simplest questions about the underlying technology.

                        …so what? The people who did build the Internet tend to oppose legislation such as Article 13, SOPA/PIPA, and FOSTA/SESTA. I would listen to them well before I listen to one of the Beatles on such matters.

                        If you want to say that only people with an understanding of the Internet should make decisions about the Internet, then YOU, by demonstration, should SHUT THE FUCK UP.

                        People do not need a technical understanding of every little detail of how the Internet works to understand the general principles of how the Internet works. Anyone who lacks that knowledge, or willfully misrepresents/misinterprets that knowledge, has no business in trying to govern how the Internet works for the rest of humanity. Which means, in no uncertain terms, that I can safely ignore musicians who made their fame and fortune decades ago when they say “the Internet has to change so we can get rich people welfare until we die”.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Rocky, 25 Mar 2019 @ 4:40am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Many support Article 13

                    Since you pack the data tighter by partially writing over existing magnetic records the storage density increases.

                    The has the disadvantage of needing more read/write operations to preserve the data on the disk for some operations, especially if the disk is nearing the capacity.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 6:48am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Many support Article 13

                    "Explain the areal density advantages of shingled magnetic recording."

                    Here's the link you grabbed that from. Pretending you're a highly educated techie again, Baghdad Bob?

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shingled_magnetic_recording

                    It's fucking hilarious how you've kept trying to pretend you're a businessman, successful artist, educated tech, lawyer/paralegal, burgeoning millionaire and, most pathetic of all, a "genius-level iq" for so many years - in front of a crowd which has had to suffer your pathological lying for all that time and are quite used to it by now.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  That One Guy (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 4:22am

                  The goal-post 100 meter pick-up and dash

                  "Pay attention to the experts!"

                  "The experts say you're wrong."

                  "Forget the experts!"

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 4:26am

                    Re: The goal-post 100 meter pick-up and dash

                    What the limits of K+T Reed Solomon Error Correction Code.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      That One Guy (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 4:32am

                      Re: Re: The goal-post 100 meter pick-up and dash

                      An irrelevant red herring.

                      Nice(well, not really) try to change the subject though.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                        identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 4:34am

                        Re: Re: Re: The goal-post 100 meter pick-up and dash

                        Explain the purpose of 8B/10B encoding, basic to many high speed data transmission technologies.

                        Contrast embedded vs. dedicated servo surfaces in magnetic storage devices.

                        Oh wait, I forgot - you don’t know a fucking thing about data storage, data transmission, data protocols, or really ANY of the technology underlying the Internet.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          That One Guy (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 4:37am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: The goal-post 100 meter pick-up and dash

                          By all means, keep trying, and failing. It's not going to get any more effective, but it is entertaining to watch someone desperately try to change the subject after they were trounced by the very tactic(argument from authority) they tried to use.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Rocky, 25 Mar 2019 @ 4:49am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: The goal-post 100 meter pick-up and dash

                          You copying stuff from Wikipedia doesn't make you knowledgeable, it just makes you an ineffective copying meat-machine.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 1:16pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The goal-post 100 meter pick-up and dash

                            The best part is if article 13 passes, Wikipedia will be shut down and he will have nothing to copy his screens from.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 6:28pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The goal-post 100 meter pick-up and dash

                              John Smith has the sort of jilted ex-lover schtick when it comes to Wikipedia.

                              Contrary to what the copyright fanboys claim and that SOPA would be written into law privately and secretly (they weren't wrong, at least about the private and secret part), the death of SOPA broke their twisted little hearts.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 6:53am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: The goal-post 100 meter pick-up and dash

                          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8b/10b_encoding

                          Are you done mindlessly tossing wikipedi entries at us any time soon?

                          Good grief, you would think a self-confessed "genius-level iq" would have realized that tossing out trivial pursuit-questions grabbed directly from that same wikipedia that you've been demonstrating to everyone is your chief source of knowledge might have been giving the fucking game away.

                          But apparently not. Seems as usual your deceptive practices remain on the level of a cantankerous twelve year old, Baghdad Bob.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Rocky, 25 Mar 2019 @ 4:45am

                      Re: Re: The goal-post 100 meter pick-up and dash

                      How about you explain WHY there are limits?

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                nasch (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 8:22am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Many support Article 13

                Your kindergarten taught data transmission theory?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 5:14am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Many support Article 13

            Considering Shiva Ayyadurai's furious reaction against Vint Cerf, apparently you don't want to listen either!

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 7:07am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Many support Article 13

              "Considering Shiva Ayyadurai's furious reaction against Vint Cerf, apparently you don't want to listen either!"

              Don't forget that in Baghdad Bob's little world Shiva invented e-mail.
              ...Or was that Saddam?

              Either way Vint Cerf apparently isn't worth listening to about internet technology and how it works when technological heavyweights like Paul Bloody McCArtney are chiming in. You know, that "prior generation who built the internet and modern technology".

              Personally I didn't peg Paul as a technician since last I checked he was a Beatle, but hey, who am I to object to what "Bobmail/blue" is thinking?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 1:33pm

          Re: Re: Re: Many support Article 13

          Perhaps "Listen to the other 99.999% of musicians who were also pretty good but could not catch much of a break in the old system or have been outright screwed by it" would be a better idea.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 6:21am

      Re: Many support Article 13

      "Today, some user-upload content platforms refuse to compensate artists and all music creators fairly for their work while they exploit it for their own profit," reads the letter.

      "The value gap is that gulf between the value these platforms derive from music and the value they pay creators.

      Those are a non sequitur, as it makes the assumption infringing content generates most of the value, as that the vastly larger amount of new works uploaded have no value.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Hugo S Cunningham (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 7:35am

      Re: Many support Article 13

      Former Beatle, Sir Paul McCartney, has published a letter urging MEPs to support the copyright mandate.

      I am sorry to see Paul McCartney besmirch his legacy this way. (But he has accomplished enough elsewhere that this will be forgotten.) It reminds me a little of Sony Bono, who will be remembered only for extending US copyright from a greedy life-plus-fifty-years to an ultra-greedy life-plus-seventy-years.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 9:09am

      Re: Many support Article 13

      I see that you copy/pasted this from another source. Do you have a license for that? Are you the copyrightholder?

      Based on the concerns around Article 13, should it pass, I may need to delete this.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 10:30am

        Re: Re: Many support Article 13

        You're such a ridiculous liar, Masnick.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Thad (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 10:37am

          Re: Re: Re: Many support Article 13

          Yes, but I came here for an argument!

          Oh! Oh, I'm sorry! This is abuse!

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 10:38am

          Re: Re: Re: Many support Article 13

          What is the lie.
          Be specific.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 10:47am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Many support Article 13

            Article 13 wouldn't force Masnick to remove quoted text. Anyone can read Article 13 and see that.
            You people just enjoying lying because you think it might help you and Google's agenda. You're not fooling anyone.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Rocky, 25 Mar 2019 @ 11:09am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Many support Article 13

              It wouldn't force him, but from a liability standpoint it would be prudent which is why he used the word may, not force.

              Since you didn't include a source from which you copied the texts there is no way to know what license it's under which means that under Article 13 it doesn't satisfy paragraph 4(a) and 4(b).

              Is that clear enough for you to understand?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 11:20am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Many support Article 13

              There are fair uses that A13 doesn't prevent. However, how does Mike know which uses are fair and which aren't? He's legally liable under A13 if you post something infringing whether he knew about it or not. It's safer/easier for him to just delete your post.

              The only alternative (aside from paying for infringement insurance, er, licensing) is to use an upload filter which would kill legit uses as well as infringing uses, and then manually review each comment to make sure nothing got past the filter. Even on a site such as this one, there would be thousands of comments that would need to be reviewed to ensure nothing infringing was posted. It's not practical. So again, it's safer/easier to just delete your post.

              Precisely that effect on content is one reason why A13 is bad.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 12:04pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Many support Article 13

                There are fair uses that A13 doesn't prevent.

                Since when has fair use stopped the copyright owners suing and forcing people to expend time and money to protect the right to fair use. Any site has to consider the legal risks, and judge whether the copyright owner will admit to fair use, or force them to prove it via the courts.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 12:13pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Many support Article 13

                  Since when has fair use stopped the copyright owners suing and forcing people to expend time and money to protect the right to fair use.

                  It hasn't. And the rest of my post supports that.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Mike Masnick (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 5:46pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Many support Article 13

              Article 13 wouldn't force Masnick to remove quoted text. Anyone can read Article 13 and see that.

              You are wrong. The punishment for not blocking infringing content under Article 13 is massive. The mere threat of liability would likely mean I need to remove this to avoid any such risk. On top of that, at the risk of great liability, I would need to invest in expensive filters that would prevent you from reposting such possibly infringing material.

              I don't see how I can avoid this, at least without being will to incur bankrupting litigation.

              What is the solution since you seem convinced it won't be a problem?

              How about you put your money where your mouth is and agree to indemnify this site should we get sued for such things in the EU? Would you sign a contract agreeing to pay for any such litigation since you're so sure it won't cost you anything?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 10:45am

          Re: Re: Re: Many support Article 13

          You're such a ridiculous liar, Masnick.

          What is the lie?

          In the meantime, I take it this means you did not license this content? Let me know, because I need to make sure it's not infringing or I could face significant liability according to the rules you are supporting.

          Also, where can I buy a filter that will catch this kind of copying? Since it's so easy, you must know.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 10:48am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Many support Article 13

            See above, liar guy.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 11:00am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Many support Article 13

              Gotta love when your only response is liar liar pants on fire!! Instead of actually, you know, providing proof as to that which you think is a lie!!!

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 11:12am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Many support Article 13

                We already went around on this nonsense this weekend.

                But Techdirt readers censored it.

                Article 13 spells it out. Anyone can read it:

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

                (a) quotation, criticism, review;

                (b) use for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche."

                Masnick knows this.

                He lies about it because he hopes it will further his and Google's agenda.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Rocky, 25 Mar 2019 @ 11:43am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Many support Article 13

                  Is there a upper limit for how much you can quote? Can you quote whole articles from a site? (which article 11 kind of frowns on)

                  Since it's not defined in article 13 a site must use the most stringent definition it can which means the easiest way to avoid liability is to delete the offending post.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 12:19pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Many support Article 13

                  (a) quotation, criticism, review;

                  (b) use for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche.

                  Yes, that's what A13 says, but the question becomes, how does a website owner know when somebody has posted something wether or not it has a license or is "use for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche" Since there is such great liability put upon the site operator, without being 100% certain, it will be removed as to avoid any liability by the site operator.

                  And just because it may be fair use, doesn't mean that the copyright owner will not file an infringement suit against the site anyway, as the Universal vs Lentz points out, Universal sought to remove the need for taking fair use in account before filing a takedown. So, instead of playing Russian roulette with copyright infringement, most sites will opt for the easy route and just remove anything that could potentially come back and bit them.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    PaulT (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 10:31pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Many support Article 13

                    "Yes, that's what A13 says"

                    Assuming any kind of honesty on the part of some of the supporters here and there's very little real evidence of that, the disconnect between arguments is this - these guys are blindly looking at what the law says*. Most people opposing it are looking at both the practicalities of doing what it says and applying lessons learn from the history of these kinds of laws being passed.

                    No matter what the intent supposedly is or the guarantees supposedly in place, the reality of what will happen is that independent creators will suffer and control of content handed completely to major corporations, including Google. That a few lines can be quoted that are intended to prevent that makes no difference if it's not possible to fully implement those exceptions for most organisations.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 1:00pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Many support Article 13

                  That's part of the problem...

                  Filters don't have that context, they only have what is right in front of them.

                  And if what's in front of them matches something in the filter's system, they take it down.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 1:20pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Many support Article 13

                  “We already went around on this nonsense this weekend.”

                  You are right. You lied all weekend and we pointed at laughed at you. A good time was had by all.

                  By the way. Since you did none of the above Mike would still have to remove you copy pasted horseshit. Funny how you rely on fair use to lie about the limits that would be imposed on it.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Rocky, 25 Mar 2019 @ 11:11am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Many support Article 13

              Just because you don't understand the proposed law doesn't mean those explaining it to you are lying.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 2:32pm

          Re: Re: Re: Many support Article 13

          You're quite dense, aren't you?

          Maybe you should shut the fuck up long enough to read the proposed law yourself instead of relying on the (totally incorrect) alt-right crib sheets.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Thad (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 10:06am

      Re: Many support Article 13

      A number of figures in the music industry have come out in support of the new copyright law, arguing that the framework would protect the rights of artists over their creations.

      Of which your copypasta names three. I fact-checked it, and you're right: three is indeed a number.

      Of those three, you quote to industry executives and only one musician. While I don't deny Sir Paul wrote some truly wonderful music, I wouldn't personally appeal to his authority on business matters, where he hasn't always made the best decisions.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 2:37pm

        Re: Re: Many support Article 13

        Metallica demonstrated exceedingly publicly just how tone-deaf a member of the music industry can get back when Napster was a thing.

        McCartney is apparently just as tone-deaf.

        Must be all the drugs.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 10:35pm

          Re: Re: Re: Many support Article 13

          It's always worth noting that Metallica actually listened to fans and very much changed their tune after the backlash, for which they deserve full credit. They've gone from trying to shut down any free sharing of their music to sharing recordings of every single concert on their website - and I don't believe that either album sales or tour attendance has suffered as a result.

          They deserve all the criticism for their initial actions, but people should give them credit for what they did later when they realised it was a mistake.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      ECA (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 12:28pm

      Re: Many support Article 13

      "The value gap is that gulf between the value these platforms derive from music and the value they pay creators. The proposed Copyright Directive and its Article 13 would address the value gap and help assure a sustainable future for the music ecosystem and its creators, fans and digital music services alike."

      Love all the quotes, can you give a reference to Each of them?
      Because I THINK the persons in this forum can give a History of WHAT HAS HAPPENED, over the comments you have posted. From Recording industry, that Owns all the Business and charges the Artist to use it, then gives less then 10% back to the artist from a sale to distributors(which they are).. Ever bought an Album for $20 and Know that the Artist got less then $1 for it?? Most times it Less then $50..
      Insted of CREATING a new distribution system of their OWN, they Sued, and filled lawsuits against all of the services that Popped up.. Finally settled and Gave contracts ONLY to certain companies. And that was a LONG process because they DIDNT want to do it.. Even after the logic of the Internet, could make the Distribution $0.00 they wanted the SAME prices they were paying(to themselves). they thought it would fail, but it went Gangbusters...Full distribution to ALMOST anywhere in the world, At anytime of the day..

      Have you seen the BS that Hulu went threw?? to get Videos to show on the net? The contracts changed every few months, they would not Lock the contracts

      WELL, go ask itunes the fun of this, as they went to court over 1 of the contract deals, where if the Audio industry Dropped a songs contract they Should/could REMOVE it from the persons(consumers) system, even tho they paid for it.. that got apple in REAL hot water. The Music is DRM'd also.

      the Music industry Wants more money. And are willing to pay for it. And NOT to the consumer. They made the mistake of letting other services SHOW if it would work or NOT.. And they are loosing(nothing really)..
      If you count the cost of Shipping and receiving, Labeling, Artwork and all of it, and the STORE needing room to display ALL of this. The Music industry is getting away CHEAP.. They also are getting hit HARd because People are going independent, and Getting THEIR music to the people, who MIGHT/WILL hear it and want more..which creates Their Own market..

      "Up to 450 euros are offered by a so-called NGO for the demonstrators. The money seems to come, at least partially, from major American Internet corporations."

      For all that is being said...I think its the Pot Screaming, the kettle is Black.. Who do you think is PAYING the Gov. representatives to DO ANYTHING..

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 1:25am

    Your point about the protesters is meaningless

    It’s not hard to get people to come out and protest - just look at the number who came out to wear pink pussy hats and listen to Madonna talk about blowing up the White House.

    There is an almost limitless supply of interconnected Internet Idiots that couldn’t spell copyright.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Rocky, 25 Mar 2019 @ 2:06am

      Re: Your point about the protesters is meaningless

      There is also an almost limitless supply of interconnected Internet Idiots that couldn't reason themselves out of a wet paper bag even if their life depended on it.

      I do hope you from this point on you don't protest anything, since according to you protesting is a meaningless gesture.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 1:21pm

      Re: Your point about the protesters is meaningless

      Coming from someone who can’t even spell his own name right...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 1:41am

    Brexit protesters: "Hold my beer".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 1:44am

    'These are not the protesters you're looking for!'

    The increasing desperation and dishonesty from those defending the bill would be downright funny if it didn't have the potential to cause so much damage.

    Try to dismiss online protests by claiming that they were nothing but 'bots'.

    In response, somewhere between one hundred and fifty and two hundred thousand people take to the streets to protest.

    Rather than admitting that maybe the 'bot' claim was baseless, they double-down and claim that obviously the only reason they could be there is if they were paid to show up.

    The fact that even now they have nothing but lies really showcases how grossly dishonest and unsupported even they know their positions are.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 2:58am

    Pirate Party in the News

    I see that the Pirate Party has made the news. Mike and Wendy are both members of the Pirate Party here, right?

    In remarks following the vote in Parliament this morning, MEP Axel Voss, who has led the charge on Articles 11 and 13, thanked his fellow politicians “for the job we have done together.” “This is a good sign for the creative industries in Europe,” said Voss. Opposing MEPs like Julia Reda of the Pirate Party described the outcome as “catastrophic.”

    Despite these disagreements, what’s clear is that if the Copyright Directive receives final approval by the European Parliament, it will have a huge, disruptive impact on the internet, both in the European Union and around the world. Exactly how the legislation will be interpreted will be up to individual nations, but the shift in the balance of power is clear: the web’s biggest tech companies are losing their grip on the internet.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 3:19am

      Re: Pirate Party in the News

      "but the shift in the balance of power is clear: the web’s biggest tech companies are losing their grip on the internet."

      So the people competent at building and maintaining the net will be motivated not to do that any longer if article 13 passes.
      That's not a step ahead. That's making sure the EU will become part of the 3rd world online.

      It's not sensible regulation of privacy invasion, not is it sensible market regulation. This is just loading the online media market with a keg of explosives and scuttling the whole thing, all the while crowing gleefully that "Now that it's sunk Google can no longer captain the boat".

      A good thing that for any consumer with a VPN the sources outside europe will remain, even if any independent european artist will be shut down.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 3:39am

        Re: Re: Pirate Party in the News

        "This is just loading the online media market with a keg of explosives and scuttling the whole thing, all the while crowing gleefully that "Now that it's sunk Google can no longer captain the boat"."

        It's not even doing that. It's ensuring that nobody but Google and similar sized corporations can compete. They think they're locking Google out of the bridge, but they're actually locking everybody else out.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 6:36am

          Re: Re: Re: Pirate Party in the News

          "It's not even doing that. It's ensuring that nobody but Google and similar sized corporations can compete. They think they're locking Google out of the bridge, but they're actually locking everybody else out."

          True enough. Article 13 may scuttle the ship with everyone aboard..but Google actually does have the resources and the know-how to quietly build a new boat and sail around, fishing anyone who can pay or - at best - isn't outright an asshole - right out of the drink.

          It's a good thing I've ceased to care very much for what happens to media companies and many of the independent artists. If article 13 passes the EU will be a place even more internet-hostile than Russia - and even more culture-hostile than Soviet Russia.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            PaulT (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 7:19am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Pirate Party in the News

            The way I see it is that the worst thing that can happen to YouTube, for example, is that they're forced to go from a blacklist to a whitelist setup. That is, the service stays the same but they can only accept content from pre-approved accounts rather than the current system where anyone can upload but get booted off if they get caught misbehaving. The service will suffer massively, but it will still be fine. The problem is everybody else, sites that don't have that kind of option will need to cease operations, while the bar to entry will become prohibitive for most others, possibly even impossible for certain types of currently legal content.

            Hopefully things won't go that far, but anyone who thinks that it's somehow beneficial for anyone other than giant corporations is smoking something pretty heavy.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 7:53am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pirate Party in the News

              Are you sure it will not go that far. Article 13 assigns strict liability on the sites, and suggests, but does not define,but only suggests that licensing may be a means of compliance. What is to stop the MAFIAA insisting on a white list, where they approve who is on it, as a licensing condition?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 3:35am

      Re: Pirate Party in the News

      "the web’s biggest tech companies are losing their grip on the internet."

      No, they really aren't. What you're demanding is that power be transferred to them completely.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 9:23am

      Re: Pirate Party in the News

      You appear to have copied this from an article from the Verge. Are you the copyright holder? Do you have a license?

      If Article 13 passes, due to the risk of liability, I would likely need to delete this comment.

      Can you show me the license you received to repost this? Alternatively, will you pay for a filter to block such comments in the future?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 1:22pm

      Re: Pirate Party in the News

      I thought you didn’t care about article 13 bro.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 3:32am

    Copying Is Theft After Article 13 Passes

    You are going to need some new T-Shirts.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Rocky, 25 Mar 2019 @ 4:04am

      Re: Copying Is Theft After Article 13 Passes

      Copying isn't theft. Perhaps someone needs to draw a Venn-diagram for you explaining this but I don't have high hopes that you will understand it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 4:15am

        It still wouldn't be theft even with Article 13, but I think the point they were going for is that if the train-wreck does pass then the simple act of copyright would be infringement.

        At least, I hope they were going for humor rather than actually, honestly repeating that long-debunked lie.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 4:58am

          Re:

          Which long debunked lie?

          I seem to recall a discussion of some very old court cases about maps, and people copying copyrighted maps, and a lot of legal discussion that likened copying maps to copying music and copying data and copying movies. Am I misremembering that? We went through this before. There are hundreds of years of case law, some of the earliest of which is European and based on the value of Maps used for exploring the New World that made it crystal clear that in many cases, COPYING IS STEALING. FOR A LONG TIME! EVEN NOW!

          Remember?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 5:16am

            Re: Re:

            I remember a judge ruled that Shiva Ayyadurai didn't invent email.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            That One Guy (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 5:17am

            Re: Re:

            First, [Citation Needed].

            Second, I find it kind of funny that you apparently had to reach all the way back to nautical maps in an attempt to back up your point.

            As to court cases on the matter, may I direct your attention to Dowling v United States where the 'copyright infringement is theft argument' was tried and failed.

            (If Wikipedia's not your thing, you can also check our Karl's take on it when someone else tried to conflate the two a number of years back.)

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 5:40am

              Re: Re: Re:

              Actuall, it wasn’t me that pinpointed this area of reference for copyright law, it was my friend David Nimmer. No Kidding. Look It Up.

              https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N72TsEIyjB8

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                cpt kangarooski, 25 Mar 2019 @ 6:13am

                Re: Re: Re: Re:

                The linked video doesn’t support your contention in the least, also doesn’t talk about maps and charts.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  PaulT (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 6:16am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Someone making a dumb argument posts a YouTube video instead of his own words when challenged, and it turns out it doesn't say what he claimed?

                  I'm shocked. Truly shocked /s

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 7:02am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  I didn’t say he pinpointed the map reference in this particular video.

                  If it’s true that you had the patience to actually witness a genius for the 15 minutes that were required, then you heard his conclusion:

                  The central dogma of Copyright can be found in language itself - when you create a work, you author it. Implicit in that relationship, you also authorize the use of your work by others. This is both an incentive to encourage people to author new works, and a natural relationship that exists between the creator of art and the art itself, or a “moral right”.

                  All Article 13 is doing is reinforcing authorship, that is, the right of an author to control his work. To authorize others to have it or not have it.

                  I know you are against that, but you are in the wrong, and there is at least six centuries of history to consider, which Davis does elegantly (if only on the surface).

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    PaulT (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 7:22am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    The fact that you expected everybody reading this thread to watch a random 15 minute video rather than present any of your own thoughts is enough evidence of how honestly you're arguing here.I mean, you're dead wrong and the things you support will have the exact opposite effect for the majority of creators, but the fact that you can't even argue for it honestly shows everybody how badly reality is stacked against your claims.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 7:33am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Can you somehow defend your position with respect to the word “authorship”.

                      David points out that the word itself is derived from a root that implies control over an original work. That is, the author can authorize others access to his work, or not.

                      Do you not think authors should be able to authorize access to their own works?

                      Do you not want to incentivize original authoriship?

                      Do you not recognize the relationship between the author of a work and the work itself as a “moral right”?

                      Do you think instead that OTHERS should have rights to original works?

                      Like forcing people to publish their maintenance manuals?

                      Or letting people host stolen content without consequence?

                      Is that what you want?

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 7:57am

                        Do you think culture should be locked up behind a wall called Copyright for over a century, leaving the public domain to shrink in both the absence of any new additions and the likelihood that major corporations will undoubtedly try to reëstablish a copyright on works already in the public domain?

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 7:59am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        For the purpose of this post, let's assume I am a resident of the EU (I'm not) Let's also assume that I wrote this post (I did). I then try to post it to some website within the EU. The upload filters deny my upload for whatever reason (it could be that someone else claims my post or it could be that the filter merely made a mistake). How am I to prove that I am the original author of this post? What effort is reasonable for me to go through to prove I wrote this post? Why should I have to go to any effort to prove I wrote this post?

                        To me, it appears that Article 13 would require that I should have to go through some kind of shenanigans to prove I wrote this post and did not copy any part of it from anyone else thereby depriving them of some income. Income I am not looking for, nor getting. The fact is, Article 13 assumes guilt, not innocence. While innocent until proven guilty is more of an American concept, and I don't think it exists as a matter of law in the EU (I could be wrong about that) it is still a despicable point of view. Especially when the act isn't criminal in nature.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        PaulT (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 8:05am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        "Can you somehow defend your position with respect to the word “authorship”."

                        That is irrelevant. My position is that the real world result of what is being planned will gut the options available to independent artists and lock everything up in the hands of major corporations. This is not controversial, except for liars who like to pretend that anyone who opposes these things must be in favour of piracy.

                        If you want a genuine discussion, you have to start with the genuine words of the people who against this crap.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 7:58am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    All Article 13 is doing is reinforcing authorship,

                    Wrong, it is reinforcing gatekeeping. Anybody with the slightest experience of the Internet will realize that authorship does not further encouragement, as the big sites are full of works of original authorship by their users.

                    Also, it will do nothing to ensure that authors have an income, but rather limit that possibility to those authors blessed by a gatekeeper, and that is and always has been a minority of authors.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    cpt kangarooski, 25 Mar 2019 @ 8:08am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Nimmer’s no genius. He inherited a copyright treatise from his dad and has kept it going. It’s a widely cited resource, but the purpose of it is to sum up what the law is so that it’s easily digestible. It also didn’t hurt that for a long time it had no competition.

                    What he said — and it turns out he’s a terrible public speaker, I haven’t actually seen him present before, but I prefer to read rather than hear lectures — was that the economic copyright model of copyright in the English tradition that the US follows may someday breakdown in a post-scarcity economy, and that subsequently it should shift to a moral rights model as in the French tradition.

                    I disagree; aside from the underlying premise being largely irrelevant (we do not yet live in a society where people can be full-time artists at will without concern for their personal finances), there is no reason to believe that control over one’s creative output would still be desirable. He really begs the question.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 7:19am

            Re: Re:

            "Which long debunked lie?"

            Copying being theft is a long-debunked lie.

            Debunked, in fact, by several court judgments, including a few made at the supreme court level.

            But hey, don't let the greatest authorities on national and international law in the world stand in the way of your own personal definition of how to define the word "theft", Baghdad Bob.

            Man, after reading a few of your comments it seems likely that eventually you'll start claiming that Saddam still rules Iraq. And honestly think people will believe you as long as you insert that tidbit in enough irrelevant angry-sounding garbage.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            bob, 25 Mar 2019 @ 7:45am

            Re: Re:

            But before you said copying was theft, now you wrote copying is stealing. The details matter according to the law.

            The shirts are fine.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 1:23pm

            Re: Re:

            Prove it. Cite the law.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 4:30am

      If copying is theft, from whom am I stealing if I make a copy of a digital file that I created?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Professor Ronny, 25 Mar 2019 @ 5:35am

    I don't understand why this is true

    All images in this post come from Netzpolitik, which says they are free for anyone to use -- which may only be true until Article 13 is enacted into law, at which point, it would be an impossible liability risk to continue posting them on most sites.

    I see why this would be true for any site located in Europe but for a site located in the US with nothing physical in Europe, why would this still be true? Were I to post them on say my faculty webpage here in good old Georgia, how would European law affect me?

    I know this post sounds trollish but I don't mean it that way. I really am asking because I simply don't understand.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 5:39am

      Re: I don't understand why this is true

      Best guess, just because a lawsuit would almost certainly fall flat on it's face doesn't mean it wouldn't be expensive to deal with it, and with even the chance of ruinous fines for using any 'unlicensed' EU content it would be safer simply to avoid it entirely.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 5:58am

        Re: Re: I don't understand why this is true

        Excuse me, fear monger much?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          That One Guy (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 6:10am

          Re: Re: Re: I don't understand why this is true

          Not unless you can point out what I got wrong, because last I checked lawsuits are expensive even if you win(unless you can manage to get, as part of your ruling, that the other party has to pay all your costs), copyright infringement fines can indeed reach insane levels(and while I can't say for sure offhand, assuming decent memory I seem to recall that article 13 has some truly nasty potential fines for violations), and I'm not aware of anything that would prevent someone from the EU from suing TD should they use content by an EU citizen without a license should the trainwreck that is Article 13 pass.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 6:24am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't understand why this is true

            Even being awarded costs does not compensate for the time and stress in fighting a lawsuit through the years and appeals it will take to win.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 7:27am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't understand why this is true

            The same logic could prevent you from driving your car or taking a trip or going to work or buying and selling anything of value. Any interaction with the rest of the world can leave you open for a lawsuit.

            Fear monger much?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 7:40am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't understand why this is true

              Except that all interactions with copyright enforcement are the equivalent of John Steele and Fox Rothschild.

              Try again.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Rocky, 25 Mar 2019 @ 8:31am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't understand why this is true

              Please provide an example for how someone in EU could sue you for driving your car to work in the US.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              nasch (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 8:35am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't understand why this is true

              Here's a better car analogy if you want one of those. You have the choice of driving your own car, or borrowing your friend's. Your friend has a very nice car, and yours is very basic. Borrowing the friend's car has a probably small but unknown chance of costing you hundreds of thousands of dollars every time you drive it. How often would you drive your friend's car?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 6:10am

          Re: Re: Re: I don't understand why this is true

          That's not fearmongering at all, actually. There's still US-based sites I'm told I'm not allowed to go to because the site is still unclear on how to comply with GDPR, so they just block European IPs. It's bound to happen with other sites in reaction to this, even if they likely don't have to.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            That One Guy (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 6:16am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't understand why this is true

            Between overblocking 'just in case' it turns out they are bound by the law, are in violation of it in some way, and can be held liable versus underblocking and finding those things out the hard way, while it may not be an easy choice to make the legally and financially safe choice is pretty obvious.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 8:38am

          Re: Re: Re: I don't understand why this is true

          "Fear mongering" is a buzzword, used solely to attack opposing viewpoints when, in fact, it is impossible to "monger fear" regarding what corporations and governments can and will do given the slightest opportunity.

          Laws must be very clear and concise; Say what they mean and mean what they say. The vast majority of laws are overcomplicated, perhaps due to impotent minds trying failing to be clear, or perhaps to malice intentionally obscuring loopholes. The EU's current effort is likely an exemplary of both.

          It is ludicrous to believe that governments (with corporate aid) create laws to protect the people. Modern laws protect and empower the governments and corporations. The people must stand up for themselves as they have done with regard to Articles 11 and 13. Naturally the government tries to downplay that demonstration. The people must stand and stay standing until the government bends to the will of the people it is intended to serve.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 7:26am

      Re: I don't understand why this is true

      "I know this post sounds trollish but I don't mean it that way. I really am asking because I simply don't understand."

      If you post a picture on your faculty webpage and that webpage is then accessed from europe - that is when an enterprising european copyright troll can start bombarding you with claims according to article 13.

      And in the US you can rightly ignore these. Just don't travel to an EU member state before checking whether there's suddenly a european warrant out on you over not paying a copyright holder. There's a real risk your absence or silence in form of counterclaims will result in default judgment.

      The reverse of this has happened once or twice over software patent claims, so the liability is real enough if you assume you'll ever set foot in europe.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Zof (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 5:45am

    I can not think of a better way to prove you aren't a bot than voting them out of office.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 5:55am

      Re:

      I dunno, that sounds suspiciously like something a Google-bot would say and/or do, that being the only thing that could possibly object to this glorious piece of legislation and the paragons of virtue and generosity that are fighting hard to pass it...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    TFG, 25 Mar 2019 @ 9:33am

    Actual Advertising person?

    This comment is actually ... relevant. You're not a bot, are you? Do you actually get paid good money to randomly shill a gambling website?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 9:43am

    Ah “internet company paid protesters”

    the “9/11 was an inside job” of Arguments for your side.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 2:11pm

    I'm obviously placing my workforce in the wrong job.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 10:18pm

    Article 13 must-pay possible half-loophole

    On the off chance Article 13 passes, couldn't smaller news sites with financial altruism get around the "must be payed/licensed" clause by only charging 2 cents ever for another site to repost all their content? Or is there something in the Article pre-empting even that from working?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 10:38pm

      Re: Article 13 must-pay possible half-loophole

      There will almost certainly be set rates to avoid just that from occurring, as otherwise the non-idiotic will simply give blanket permission to post/repost all their stuff, and thereby get all the traffic, while the greedy will demand money and in turn be ignored, watching their traffic plummet.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.