Getting Upload Filters Wasn't Enough: EU Copyright Industry Starts Stealth Campaign To Demonize Internet Companies Even More

from the won't-somebody-think-of-the-children? dept

The EU Copyright Directive was supposed to bring copyright into the digital age. Instead, it turned into an attack on the Internet ecosystem by companies that once dominated analog media, and which are still struggling to accept the arrival of online services with a global reach. For example, the upload filters that are unavoidable under Article 13/17 of the Directive are really directed against Google, which ironically won't be much inconvenienced by them. Ordinary people, by contrast, may find their perfectly legal uploads forbidden without explanation. You might think the EU copyright companies would be pretty satisfied now they have this powerful new right to block uploaded materials using automated filters as their proxy, without needing a judge's approval. Not a bit of it. The German Web site Netzpolitik has obtained a leaked document revealing a coordinated campaign by copyright companies to hammer home the message that Internet companies are today's baddies:

politicians at national and European level, as well as officials and judges who have to make decisions and judgments against the five digital monopolists Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple and Microsoft, need to be supported indirectly. The successful enforcement of our rights as broadcasters and press publishers depends on precisely these authorities and court decisions (Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection, EU Competition Commission and [Court of Justice of the European Union], Regional and Higher Regional Courts). The importance of continued information to the wider public has been demonstrated by the adoption of the EU Copyright Directive.

Here are the specific aims and how the copyright companies hope to achieve them:

Objective: To influence the formation of public opinion on dealing with digital monopolists and the resulting indirect training of officials, politicians, judges and decision-makers to make judgments and decisions that ensure that the digital monopolists once more comply with the law. That is: antitrust law, data protection law, laws protecting children and adolescents, tax law, equality laws and the protection of intellectual property.

Selected path: The concerns of originators and their copyright holders, composers, music and press publishers, authors as well as broadcasters and their individual authors, are mentioned, but not highlighted. This problem is presented as one of many, perhaps even larger ones. Only in this way we avoid the comment of critics that we are only concerned with the economic interests of our media companies, rights owners and authors.

So the EU copyright companies want to pretend the campaign is about tackling society's big challenges -- and not about boosting their own profits. After all, that lie worked well enough when used during the vicious lobbying in support of the worst aspects of the Copyright Directive, so why not try it again, but on a larger scale? The new campaign has its own Web site, "Fair Net", which turns the "OK Google" command into a "Not OK" theme. For example:

Not OK, that profits are more important than freedom of speech and the press.

That's rather rich coming from the companies that helped ram through Article 13/17 and Article 11 in the EU Copyright Directive, which do precisely that -- putting copyright companies' profits ahead of freedom of speech and the press. The site's final argument is a classic:

Not OK, that the Internet giants are not doing enough to protect the little ones.

Resorting to this tired old kind of emotional blackmail pretty much sums up this shoddy campaign. It shows that there is no dirty trick that the copyright industry won't stoop to. And it confirms that no matter how many special privileges they are given to ride roughshod over the rights of citizens in an attempt to prop up their outdated business models, they always want more.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter, Diaspora, or Mastodon.

Filed Under: antitrust, article 13, article 17, copyright, for the children, internet companies, propaganda, upload filters


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2019 @ 3:49am

    Not OK, that the Internet giants are not doing enough to protect the little ones.

    Funny, but the Internet giants are doing much more to enable people to get the words published and found, and make money from their efforts, than the legacy industry. The legacy industry are very much in the game of deciding winners and losers, and keeping as much of the income generated by the winners to themselves as they can.

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

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      HELL STORM INCHES TOWARD... ocean in BIG fizzle..., 4 Sep 2019 @ 4:11am

      Re: "AC", if actually believe what you wrote, you are insane.

      Let's take GOOGLE for specific.

      GOOGLE does not produce content.

      GOOGLE is advertising, at best, which is sheer overhead: may be kind of necessary, but should be suppressed because simply parasitic.

      GOOGLE / YOUTUBE are now major gatekeepers which are actually picking winners and "deplatforming" any they choose, based on whatever corporate goals, and which are in Masnick's view, totally unaccountable to The Public.

      You have all exactly backward.

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

      • icon
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 4 Sep 2019 @ 4:26am

        Google refusing to list a site in its search engine’s results or refusing to host a video on YouTube is perfectly legal, you know.

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

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
          icon
          Zof (profile), 4 Sep 2019 @ 4:40am

          Re:

          And making fake dossiers is legal too. And cheating at your golf game is legal too. And every unethical piece of garbage on Earth talks about legality when they know they are doing something wrong they should be ashamed of.

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

          • icon
            Stephen T. Stone (profile), 4 Sep 2019 @ 4:43am

            Please explain how a refusal to host speech you don’t want to host on a platform you own is unethical.

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

            • icon
              Gary (profile), 4 Sep 2019 @ 6:29am

              Re:

              You'd think by now Blue Balls would have his own site to prove he can do this better.

              Seems pretty simple - start a blog and proclaim it a free speech zone. Prove that everyone that called him a spineless coward was wrong.

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

              • icon
                wereisjessicahyde (profile), 4 Sep 2019 @ 6:33am

                Re: Re:

                How do you guys always know it's him?

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

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2019 @ 7:59am

                  Re: Re: Re:

                  The speech patterns and unclever random names he uses to post are dead giveaways.

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

                  • identicon
                    Blue Balls, 4 Sep 2019 @ 8:11am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Ultimately, doesn't matter. If one troll or a group of them all make the same repetitive false claims the answer is still the same.

                    Any poster that isn't signed in is a "new" person. They show up, make one post, and are never seen again. Anyone can make a new comment with any damn name they like.

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

                • icon
                  That One Guy (profile), 4 Sep 2019 @ 12:36pm

                  Re: Re: Re:

                  Stick around TD long enough and you start to pick up the tells, and if Blue has one 'positive' feature it's that their particular tells are really obvious.

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

          • icon
            PaulT (profile), 4 Sep 2019 @ 8:18am

            Re: Re:

            It sounds like you should start using and promoting ethical competing platforms if this bothers you so much.

            Oh, what's that? You use Google anyway and just whine that they won't confirm to your personal wishes? OK, then...

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2019 @ 3:29pm

            Re: Re:

            Now zof don’t hate that you have competition that’s willing to fight lol

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2019 @ 6:39pm

          Re:

          Google refusing to list a site in its search engine’s results or refusing to host a video on YouTube is perfectly legal, you know.

          It's also literally one of the main demands of the RIAA through the DMCA.

          Wait, did out_of_the_blue just claim that removing Pirate Bay search results from Google is illegal?

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2019 @ 4:38am

        Re: Re: "AC", if actually believe what you wrote, you are insane

        The big platforms set simple rules, and allows anybody to publish via the platform, so long as they follow the rules. That is you do not have to do more than crate an account to be able to publish on the platform. Compare that that the legacy publishers, where you have to gain the attention of an editor before a decision as to whether you can be published will be made.

        GOOGLE does not produce content

        I never claimed that it did, but then neither do legacy publishers, although in the film/video world, they may fund production.

        As to being deplatformed, you have to be producing obnoxious content to achieve that, but then there are other platforms that accept such content.

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

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        icon
        Zof (profile), 4 Sep 2019 @ 4:39am

        Re: Re: "AC", if actually believe what you wrote, you are insane

        Well said

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2019 @ 6:31am

        Re: Re: "AC", if actually believe what you wrote, you are insane

        "GOOGLE does not produce content"

        No. They host it and help you find it, in exchange for the user putting up with a few adverts. And that is OK.

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

      • icon
        bhull242 (profile), 4 Sep 2019 @ 8:00am

        Re: Re: "AC", if actually believe what you wrote, you are insane

        How is Google Search, specifically, acting as a parasite?

        Seriously, I can think of how YouTube can be considered a parasite even if it’s not much different from Facebook for videos except that it actually pays some of the uploaders. Not to mention the fact that it doesn’t actually earn Google any actual profit. Even though I don’t agree with it, I can understand the logic behind the idea.

        I can also understand why people think of Google and YouTube are considered the major gatekeepers nowadays, even though they are far, far more permissive than any previous gatekeepers in journalism or entertainment, and much of the “gatekeeping” and publishing decisions are largely automated.

        However, when people are saying that Google’s search engine is a parasite, I get confused. How? Sure, they make money, but not in any way that deprives anyone else of anything.

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

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 4 Sep 2019 @ 8:17am

        Re: Re: "AC", if actually believe what you wrote, you are insane

        "GOOGLE does not produce content."

        Yes they do, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_original_programs_distributed_by_YouTube_Premium

        Although as a business they're more interested in creating original code than screenplays. You know that's content created by people as well, right? Or, are you only interested in certain types of creativity when it suits you?

        "GOOGLE is advertising"

        In part because people like you love using their free services and don't wish to pay. I bet you're not paying them for their ad-free services when you use them, you little hypocrite you.

        "GOOGLE / YOUTUBE are now major gatekeepers"

        With LOTS of competition in all their markets, at the same price point. Now, if only you whiny shits would start using them instead of complaining that you have to make some effort to make the free market do their job.

        "in Masnick's view, totally unaccountable to The Public."

        They're perfectly accountable to the public. It's just the accountability means the free market, not the government control you're demanding.

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

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 4 Sep 2019 @ 4:20am

      Re:

      That statements becomes even funnier if the 'little ones' it's talking about are smaller online platforms, because the law that those pushing this garbage supported will do more to damage those platforms than the 'internet giants' could have dreamed of.

      The likes of Google and Facebook can deal with filters and all the fun they involve, but smaller platforms? Not so much.

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

      • icon
        techflaws (profile), 4 Sep 2019 @ 4:37am

        Re: Re:

        Nope, they're specifically talking about the children who must be protected to end on "an emotional note". BTW, those fucks already reacted to the leak, saying they were "misunderstood" and having they gall to say this with a straight face:

        "VG Media was and is far from influencing the decisions of legal politicians, civil servants and judges, whether directly or indirectly. It goes without saying that VG Media wants the aforementioned groups and authorities to make their decisions and judgments neutrally and independently, on a well-informed basis of knowledge."

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

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 4 Sep 2019 @ 4:40am

          VG Media wants the aforementioned groups and authorities to make their decisions and judgments neutrally and independently, on a well-informed basis of knowledge.

          “…that we deliver to their desks via beautiful young female pages wearing skimpy clothing.” — what they left off, probably

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

          • icon
            That One Guy (profile), 4 Sep 2019 @ 4:56am

            'Clearly if you were well-informed you'd agree with me.'

            That's one interpretation to be sure, but I'd say the trick in that line is at the very end, 'on a well-informed basis of knowledge', where they could claim(badly, but that's hardly stopped them so far) that they aren't trying to influence the public and government via laughable propaganda, they're merely trying to educate people so they make decisions based upon 'well-informed basis of knowledge' that just so happens to align perfectly with their positions.

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

        • icon
          That One Guy (profile), 4 Sep 2019 @ 4:52am

          'Counter-point: Your own document literally says the opposite.'

          Nope, they're specifically talking about the children who must be protected to end on "an emotional note".

          Ah yes, the good old 'won't someone think of the children', for when you want to make really clear just how weak your position is.

          BTW, those fucks already reacted to the leak, saying they were "misunderstood" and having they gall to say this with a straight face:

          Damn, if they're going to go into damage control and lie their asses off they really need to do a better job if that's the best they can come up with.

          'It doesn't matter what we wrote, clearly what we meant was the exact opposite of that. That we had listed as an objective the goal of influencing both the public and judges and legislators doesn't mean we intended to influence those groups, and to think otherwise is just silly.'

          They'd have had much better luck finding some intern to throw under the bus and claiming that it was just a document said person had written up without any outside consultation; trying to claim that their intentions aren't what they literally wrote is just downright pathetic as lies go.

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

          • icon
            techflaws (profile), 4 Sep 2019 @ 7:46am

            Re: 'Counter-point: Your own document literally says the opposit

            Agreed. The problem is our politicians are either clueless or corrupt (and afraid of bad press) so they will believe all that BS.

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

        • icon
          bhull242 (profile), 4 Sep 2019 @ 8:10am

          Re: Re: Re:

          “Think of the children!”

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

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      icon
      Zof (profile), 4 Sep 2019 @ 4:38am

      Re:

      "The legacy industry are very much in the game of deciding winners and losers, and keeping as much of the income generated by the winners to themselves as they can."

      And YouTube works for them now. CBS and NBC and ABC and MSNBC and even Fox sometimes get their content promoted over actual content providers that helped build the platform. You'll click on one one of these pointless videos from CNN, see it has all of 200 views and 30 upvotes on YouTube. Meanwhile they aren't promoting videos from content providers with millions of views.

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

      • icon
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 4 Sep 2019 @ 4:41am

        With all apologies to Ron “R-Truth” Killings…

        IT’S A C-O-N…SPIRACY!

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2019 @ 4:42am

        Re: Re:

        Don't use YouTubes landing page, and look at at recommendations from channels that you like, and that becomes a non issue.

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

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 4 Sep 2019 @ 4:45am

          Better idea: Pause and delete your watch history (and your “Liked Videos” history, if possible). It’ll generally stop algorithms from recommending you a bunch of bullshit. I don’t “like” videos on YouTube so I can avoid triggering as many algorithms as I can.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2019 @ 7:16am

        Re: Re:

        And YouTube works for them now.

        Pfft. They wish.

        CBS and NBC and ABC and MSNBC and even Fox sometimes get their content promoted over actual content providers that helped build the platform.

        That's how algorithms work you know. If I recall, not all content creators that "helped build the platform" were all that great. Why should they get promoted? Some aren't even actively producing content anymore.

        You'll click on one one of these pointless videos from CNN, see it has all of 200 views and 30 upvotes on YouTube. Meanwhile they aren't promoting videos from content providers with millions of views.

        That's how algorithms work you know. They aren't perfect. Just like humans.

        Do try and keep up.

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

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 4 Sep 2019 @ 8:28am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Also, why is it a problem that they're promoting videos people haven't seen over those that people have seen? That's surely how it's meant to work..

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2019 @ 12:50pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          That's how algorithms work you know. They aren't perfect. Just like humans.

          One can't accurately speak of algorithms and humans as two distinct groups. The algorithms themselves likely are perfect, in that a computer can run them and gets exactly the same results every time. Any "imperfection" can be traced back to a human: because they set the wrong goals, or made an error translating the requirements into code.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2019 @ 12:57pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Or the humans are being asked to write a program to do the impossible, and that results in flawed implementations because they simplify the problem to where they can write an algorithm. Contentid is bad not because it cannot recognize a tune, but because it cannot recognize fair use, and those who pushed for its use only recognize fair use when forced to by a court.

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

            • identicon
              Sharur, 4 Sep 2019 @ 1:30pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              To be fair...no, to play devil's advocate, Fair Use is an affirmative defense(), and worse its a "I know it when I see it" affirmative defense. Additionally, Fair Use is determined by courts, so you

              A few things that I can think of to help alleviate the Fair Use/Copyright problem we're having:

              Change the qualitative analysis with one or more strict black and white, yes or no criteria.
              Institute SLAAP like penalties for fail claims and takedown notices
              Require takedown notices to be posted with a bond, to be forfeited if a case is dismissed or not filed

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

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2019 @ 1:40pm

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

                Fair Use is an affirmative defense

                Wrong, fair use is a right, and being taken to court in most cases is an attempt to kill fair use or remove criticism etc. Also, fair use is often denied by corporate copyright holders, because few people can afford to fight the court case.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2019 @ 2:59pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Contentid is bad not because it cannot recognize a tune, but because it cannot recognize fair use

              I haven't seen any evidence that its developers even tried. A machine-learning model that can say "this looks like fair use" will suck, but it would be better than the status quo of not asking the question.

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

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2019 @ 3:36pm

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

                Match segments of sound is possible for a clever enough algorithm, while analysing the surrounding context for fair use is well beyond current software capabilities and therefore effectively impossible. A simple approximation to probable fair use, short segments, say less than 30 secs, would make a big difference, but is almost certainly unacceptable to corporate copyright holders.

                Also, Contentid is not helped by a lack of any means of validating copyright ownership, especially such things as including other works under license or fair use, or including natural sounds, and uploading the whole work to Contentid.

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

              • icon
                That One Guy (profile), 4 Sep 2019 @ 4:30pm

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

                If they never tried it's because it would be effectively impossible, given fair use is determined by context rather than content, where the exact same file can be infringing or not infringing depending on how it's used and/or by who.

                Might as well blame developers for not wanting to throw money at a program to find unicorns.

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

          • identicon
            Rocky, 4 Sep 2019 @ 3:34pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            The algorithms themselves likely are perfect, in that a computer can run them and gets exactly the same results every time.

            Not at all. Not all algorithms are deterministic, this is basic CS. And when we are talking about complex filter and/or classification algorithms I can definitely say they are non-deterministic which means it's unlikely they will produce exactly the same result if run twice.

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

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 4 Sep 2019 @ 8:27am

        Re: Re:

        "You'll click on"

        Why are you clicking on them if you don't want to watch them? You do know that one thing YouTube uses to recommend videos to you is your search history, right? I never see news videos, let alone ones from CNN - because I don't have them in my search history! Amazing!

        Also, congratulations, you also worked out how advertising works. Companies will promote things to you that they were paid to show you, and not the ones they weren't. This isn't hard, although obviously your intellect isn;'t up to working . it out on your own.

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    HELL STORM INCHES TOWARD... ocean in BIG fizzle..., 4 Sep 2019 @ 4:06am

    Media is not the message, pirate minion.

    an attack on the Internet ecosystem by companies that once dominated analog media,

    Sheesh. Whatever "media" is NOT the important part, kid: it's the CONTENT. And those companies "dominate" it by delivering actual products, unlike the second-handers you next refer to:

    and which are still struggling to accept the arrival of online services with a global reach.

    DOUBLE sheesh. They've no problem with the "services" as such, it's the EASY THEFT of CONTENT that makes ANY producer's business model impossible. -- Advertising is sheerly parasitic, and less of it, the more producers have, besides the less bothered consumers are by total surveillance and tracking mega-corps.

    After piracy is greatly reduced by the imminent criminal penalties then content producers will be able to get on with other aspects.

    And NO, doesn't matter that you kids will try to continue stealing, nor how much you scream and yell: PIRATES DON'T MATTER. You are at best PESTS in the system of trading values.

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

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 4 Sep 2019 @ 4:35am

      They've no problem with the "services" as such, it's the EASY THEFT of CONTENT that makes ANY producer's business model impossible.

      Any business model that can be destroyed by the existence of the Internet deserves to be destroyed. Adapt or perish — the world won’t stand still for you.

      After [copyright infringement] is greatly reduced by the imminent criminal penalties then content producers will be able to get on with other aspects.

      And if you think any reduction of copyright infringement rates will immediately lead to a huge uptick in sales of any (or all) content on any (or all) media, you’ve deluded yourself. Hardcore illicit filesharers — the kind of people who pirate because they don’t want to spend money on movies or music or books or whatever — will move their operations further underground to avoid detection, while the “casual” filesharers who only download a handful of things per year will both stop downloading and avoid buying the content they would’ve downloaded.

      PIRATES DON'T MATTER.

      For what reason, then, are you giving them so much attention? 😁

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2019 @ 6:40pm

        Re:

        I recall the time when antidirt, horse with no name and out_of_the_blue ranted that adblocking was stealing.

        Not that those three chucklefucks being closet parasite supporters is surprising.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2019 @ 5:52am

      Re: Media is not the message, pirate minion.

      Advertising is sheerly parasitic, and less of it, the more producers have

      Interesting, considering the sheer amount of advertising the TV producers include in their product, including speeding up playback of their product so they have time for additional advertising.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2019 @ 3:02pm

        Re: Re: Media is not the message, pirate minion.

        Interesting, considering the sheer amount of advertising the TV producers include in their product

        "Producers" is a term that could have several meanings here. The writers might hate that the people whose job title is "producer" are selling product placement. Both those groups might hate that the distributors are speeding up the show.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2019 @ 6:07am

      Re: Media is not the message, pirate minion.

      Advertising is sheerly parasitic,

      Just how do you propose that everybody gives a small donation to producers?

      Advertising costs are built into selling prices, and make the collection of small amounts, say a cent per sale, a viable way of paying for adverts and things supported by advertising revenue.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2019 @ 12:57pm

      Re: You put the ignorant in *ignorant motherfucker*

      “EASY THEFT of CONTENT“

      Show me the statute where it says that.

      “After piracy is greatly reduced by the imminent criminal penalties then content producers will be able to get on with other aspects”

      Even the zomboids at the RIAA don’t repeat that bullshit manta anymore.

      “PIRATES DON'T MATTER”

      A decade of you shitting up this website begs to differ.

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

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 4 Sep 2019 @ 4:17am

    'Unless it's OUR profits of course...'

    Not OK, that profits are more important than freedom of speech and the press.

    Which of course is why they fought tooth and nail against copyright filters being required, as such filters will have a serious impact on massive amounts of free speech(including reporting) thanks to filters having a terrible track record and pesky things like 'fair use' being attacked left and right such that it's much safer for sites to take down content if it even might be infringing.

    No? They did the exact opposite of that, pushing a law that would require filters on sites large and small? I guess the profits of some groups are considered to be 'more important than freedom of speech and the press'.

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Zof (profile), 4 Sep 2019 @ 4:42am

    Shame On Google

    What trash they have become.

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    musical clowns, 4 Sep 2019 @ 5:01am

    moronic dead

    the only way to get rid of this plague on our society which is the mpaa and all of their tentacles around the world is to kill them all now with guns down their throats. kill them now people kill them all now dead all of them killed and dead now.

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

  • icon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 4 Sep 2019 @ 7:00am

    We get to, you don't

    "Objective: To influence the formation of public opinion on dealing with digital monopolists and the resulting indirect training of officials, politicians, judges and decision-makers to make judgments and decisions that ensure that the digital monopolists once more comply with the law."

    While in a world of free speech they have a right to speak, but, when that influence is about 'training' officials, politicians, judges and decision-makers who are responsible to the public they serve, rather than 'copyright monopolists', any 'training' direct or indirect should be public and take place only after 'uninfluenced' public opinion has been applied. The issue is the 'copyright monopolists' want to influence in a vacuum, and without any dissenting opinions. That they want to influence public opinion is OK, but since they are trying to do so with upload filters, it means that public opinion is being suppressed, rather than influenced, which means the only public opinion that is allowed is public opinion that agrees with them. This is NOT OK.

    That the 'training' will look more like canine training (good doggie, here's your cookie) is also to their shame. That the 'copyright monopolists' have the wherewithal to pass that cookie along, when the general public does not, makes for an unbalanced playing field. Kind of like how the current state of copyright came about, with influence (aka money) helping the 'deciders' to choose the influence over responsibilities to constituents.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2019 @ 9:27am

      Re: We get to, you don't

      Free speech is severely limited in Europe, in the grey areas it's likely just freedom of unvoiced opinion. Case in point: Their propaganda campaign could be sued claiming Volksverhetzung, a law created after WW2 in response to Nazi propaganda campaigns. I've never seen it threatened against rich and influenceful organizations of fucks, however. It wouldn't be a good strategy however, as it's a weapon of speech suppression and speech is the holy cow

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

  • icon
    Gary (profile), 4 Sep 2019 @ 8:19am

    Compound Interest

    I don't see what the big deal is. Copyrights only serve corporate interests.

    We the People have spoken and don't support corporate censorship. Anyone that promotes strong copyright is really just shilling for large corporations.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2019 @ 8:47am

    when is it going to actually dawn on people that thw hole intent of the entertainment industries is to take control of the Internet? it's the best media distribution platform invented so far, it is supposed to be free for all but these industries want it all for themselves! they are going to get it too, because no government has done a single thing except help those industries to get closer and closer to their goal, in return for being given as much information about as many individuals, in as many countries as possible, all gotten with these same governments blessings! all who think the Internet is going to remain free for everyone to use forever, is in cloud cuckoo land! governments and their 'friends' are backing the surveillance and court cases brought by the industries because they want to know as much as possible about as many as possible but dont want us to know a damn thing about all the shady deals and back stabbing they are doing! the obvious best way of doing this is to help as much as possible but look as if they are squeaky clean. when shit hits fan as it inevitably will, the industries will be where the blame goes. getting closer to this scenario every day. wont be that long now!!

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2019 @ 9:10am

    Beware politician s who say the word,s its for protecting the children,
    thats code for massive censorship , content blocking,restrictions of free speech,
    If every website has to block content ,or posts, or opinions that might be be offensive to children or the average 12 year old.
    then we can say the open internet is almost gone in europe .
    And these laws are being lobbied by old legacy companys .
    fim, tv, music corporations who want more control and the ability to force
    google and facebook or any online portal to license all their content.
    Its confusing because many main stream tv and film content is rated r or over 18
    with sex and violent acts which would be way beyond anything
    a young person would see on youtube or facebook or instagram .
    Will their be some barrior to streaming websites like cbs,
    hbo, fox, and disney in europe in order to stop teens or children
    watching programs that are 18 rated .

    Or will it just be click this box, to indicate you are over 18.
    Many european tv providers , for instance bbc uk tv ,c4 tv, etc stream all their content
    which can be acessed anytime by any web user at least in the uk.
    regardless of what age that user is.

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

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 4 Sep 2019 @ 10:08am

    I WANT...

    A connection between the RIAA/MPAA, and publicize it..

    Every nation has its OWN laws/regulations. And NOW they are trying to consolidate Nation(s) into 1 BIG conglomerate, so they can control the laws in those countries as a WHOLE, rather then individual.. This is worse then the fun with Canada..(and we see nothing from Mexico).

    they have already Jumped to India, Asia, and I think entering China(I think Hon Kong is still fighting), Japan, but with residual hold outs.
    Between forcing other nations to CowTow to Copyrights, and Movie/music recording agencies we are doing a Dis-service to the world at large. These should be Corporation Problem, NOT OURS.. THEY should go over and TRY to take over those markets AS they have Crushed those in the USA that have Ever tried to Make things better.
    These are not PART of trade agreements and never should be. LET those corps go fight it out with THOSE nations other companies and corps.
    I dont think they want to. I REALLY think they would end up being Stomped on, by those governments. TRY being a Capitalist in a nation that has socialism, or Full Gov control over everything.
    QUIT having our Gov. back these Corps. In Capitalism they are supposed to do the WORK THEMSELVES.. But I have to call Foul on USA corps, all they want is the money, they are Bill collectors, NOT BUILDERS. They dont like to compete, they Love a 1 sided fight, and will bring anything and payoff anyone to make the balance TOWARDS themselves. And that seems as we have gotten this far, we have 2 choices, FIX capitalism or FIX the nation.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2019 @ 3:19pm

    I completely agree with this campaign.

    So much so that I’m wondering who Europe’s version of Katy perry is Becuase I want to help struggling artist get that sweet lawsuit money from those evil corporate pirates who stole from them Becuase they should have known it goes both ways 😈

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

    • icon
      ECA (profile), 5 Sep 2019 @ 10:20am

      Re: I completely agree with this campaign.

      I always wonder, Where the money went/goes to, after the gov Wins a battle with corps.. All those fines and fee's...
      I figure by NOW, I should have a Few hundred thousand in my pocket. OR that the IRS should have the BEST computer systems around. OR our representatives Should be educated enough to pay off their Student loans.

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

  • identicon
    Hopinkus, 11 Sep 2019 @ 1:47am

    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
Special Affiliate Offer

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.