EU passes Internet Copyright Law.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

The EUs a fucking shithole. Ever since America fell we're the last bastion of the free world and do me make any effort to keep it that way? No, we pull this shit. Fuck capitalism, fuck Europe and fuck our national governments. I'm an internationalist, proudly so, but the way the right is appropriating its particular perversion of globalism, where copyright laws get increasingly draconic while Nazis are allowed to run wild in the national parliaments is a disgrace and a travesty.

PsychedelicDiamond:
The EUs a fucking shithole. Ever since America fell we're the last bastion of the free world and do me make any effort to keep it that way? No, we pull this shit. Fuck capitalism, fuck Europe and fuck our national governments. I'm an internationalist, proudly so, but the way the right is appropriating its particular perversion of globalism, where copyright laws get increasingly draconic while Nazis are allowed to run wild in the national parliaments is a disgrace and a travesty.

So you agree with Mister Metokur about this on the EU, who is gloating on a Stream right now.

And his streams mind you pretty much expose him for the Anti-semetic, white supremcist Edgelord that he actually is.

Samtemdo8:

PsychedelicDiamond:
The EUs a fucking shithole. Ever since America fell we're the last bastion of the free world and do me make any effort to keep it that way? No, we pull this shit. Fuck capitalism, fuck Europe and fuck our national governments. I'm an internationalist, proudly so, but the way the right is appropriating its particular perversion of globalism, where copyright laws get increasingly draconic while Nazis are allowed to run wild in the national parliaments is a disgrace and a travesty.

So you agree with Mister Metokur about this on the EU, who is gloating on a Stream right now.

And his streams mind you pretty much expose him for the Anti-semetic, white supremcist Edgelord that he actually is.

I agree with him on some specific points for vastly different reasons and from a vastly different viewpoint. MisterMetokur is a piece of smug Yankee trash who has, in the past, expressed support for the absolute worst of the European political landscape and even back when I identified as a hardcore libertarian (and also was a teenager, but that should go without saying)I realized just what an absolute git he was.

Nevertheless, I'm not gonna defend an objectively harmful development just to save myself the embarrassment of having to agree with him.

Now that's just objectively bad on all levels. The EU once again invites loads of bad press against itself and for what? Aping one of America's worst bills ever? This is a scenario where the EU loses heavily without gaining even a single thing of merit.

So is there anything stopping people from refusing to give licensees to news outlets, essentially shutting down almost all online news sites in the EU?

As far as I'm aware, Australia already has something like article 13 in place. If you're pirating, the victim can shut down your access to the internet. In fact, the TPP was a new way for Americans to enforce their "copyrights" in Asian countries that would have been pretty strict too.

I thought Article 11 was about not straight copying off news sites, which I thought was fine. Is there a further problem?

Silentpony:
So is there anything stopping people from refusing to give licensees to news outlets, essentially shutting down almost all online news sites in the EU?

That is exactly what will happen. They tried the same thing on country level and eventually the media companies had to cave in because the lost traffic was way to severe.

The linking stuff is pretty much irrelevant. Still stupid and lobby driven and badly worded but without any teeth. The upload-filter thing might be really harmful. But so far no one has any idea how that is supposed to work in practice because building such extensive filters is far from trivial and whoever does needs all the copyrighted material that to build said filter.

trunkage:
I thought Article 11 was about not straight copying off news sites, which I thought was fine. Is there a further problem?

It is mostly about previews and text snippets you can see before you click on a link. Media companies want royalties for that.

Ok let's all take a deep breath. Is this not good? Yes. Is it the end? No. This isn't the law of the land yet. It has a lot of steps to go before that happens where it can be changed and shot down. There's still time to act.

Because that law isn't effective outside EU, yet. (and OPs should have more than "here is an hyperlink. Discuss")

It's really weird. Usually EU is more pro-consumer when it comes to these laws, isn't it?

It's so stupid and pretty much impossible that it will ever work. They're just gonna have to find out how stupid they are the hard way, I guess.

This is that law that was going to make Internet memes illegal, right?

Well, I may have to pay out the nose for my healthcare, but on this day, I'm proud to be an American

Let's hope this law goes no further.

CM156:
This is that law that was going to make Internet memes illegal, right?

Well, I may have to pay out the nose for my healthcare, but on this day, I'm proud to be an American

Let's hope this law goes no further.

Are we not fucked by Net Neutrality being gone?

Samtemdo8:

CM156:
This is that law that was going to make Internet memes illegal, right?

Well, I may have to pay out the nose for my healthcare, but on this day, I'm proud to be an American

Let's hope this law goes no further.

Are we not fucked by Net Neutrality being gone?

You need to pay Comcast an additional $5 a month to view this shitpost.

So yes.

CM156:

Samtemdo8:

CM156:
This is that law that was going to make Internet memes illegal, right?

Well, I may have to pay out the nose for my healthcare, but on this day, I'm proud to be an American

Let's hope this law goes no further.

Are we not fucked by Net Neutrality being gone?

You need to pay Comcast an additional $5 a month to view this shitpost.

So yes.

Fortunantly I don't pay for Comcast here.

CM156:

Samtemdo8:

CM156:
This is that law that was going to make Internet memes illegal, right?

Well, I may have to pay out the nose for my healthcare, but on this day, I'm proud to be an American

Let's hope this law goes no further.

Are we not fucked by Net Neutrality being gone?

You need to pay Comcast an additional $5 a month to view this shitpost.

So yes.

So... Freedom to pay for speech. That actually sounds pretty American.

Also, if it was a choice, healthcare over Freedom of Speech for me. But I have a far dimmer appreciation of the latter than you, blaming many of societies current ills on FoS in its current form.

Satinavian:

trunkage:
I thought Article 11 was about not straight copying off news sites, which I thought was fine. Is there a further problem?

It is mostly about previews and text snippets you can see before you click on a link. Media companies want royalties for that.

Yeah, I remember now. They were even taxing hyperlinks which was just stupid. Apparently you can link now without being taxed? And apparently Germany has this law in place already and its killed small journalism entities. And it hasn't help boost big journalism entities' revenues, so it's pointless.

Also, how did they not learn from Hollywood and the music industry shenanigans over the last few decades.. Cracking down leads to no difference in sales.

This isn't about copyright, it's about people in power fearing the democratizing influence of the internet and its ability to diffuse power into the hands of the many.

I'm very glad I moved away from the EU when I did. This is a dark day.

Samtemdo8:

CM156:
This is that law that was going to make Internet memes illegal, right?

Well, I may have to pay out the nose for my healthcare, but on this day, I'm proud to be an American

Let's hope this law goes no further.

Are we not fucked by Net Neutrality being gone?

Net neutrality is something that companies will use to make money, not something that governments will use to squash dissent and force propaganda down people's throats. It's not good, of course, but it's not on the same level.

trunkage:
So... Freedom to pay for speech. That actually sounds pretty American.

Freedom to pay for speech has existed in the USA for quite a while now (That's basically what you do when you buy books). Whether or not that's a good thing is an entirely different matter. Or if it's good in this form.

Also, if it was a choice, healthcare over Freedom of Speech for me. But I have a far dimmer appreciation of the latter than you, blaming many of societies current ills on FoS in its current form.

That's really neither here nor there though.

The western world has no tomorrow.

There's going to be a rise in VPN usage.

Samtemdo8:

Are we not fucked by Net Neutrality being gone?

Now that is more an American thing. EU still has net neutrality and is keeping it.
Still might hurt if servers are in the US though.

CM156:

That's really neither here nor there though.

Don't you guys still have the Espionage Act and the Patriot Act ...? Say what you like, FoS means nothing if the government can just bug the homes of anyone it considers a 'political dissident' on spurious grounds or simply trying to create an actual communist party that people can vote into power if they so choose.

trunkage:
As far as I'm aware, Australia already has something like article 13 in place. If you're pirating, the victim can shut down your access to the internet.

Sort of, not really.

Australia has historically fumbled with implementing a web filter, with the most notable boondoggle being Stephen Conroy's sweeping and abortive mandatory content filter (the one which would have blocked, among other things, pornographic images of women with small breasts.) What eventually got implemented was sort of a watered-down version which allowed for the court-ordered blocking of websites that primarily facilitate copyright infringement; this is why searching for the Pirate Bay on an Australian IP address will get you a FCA notice.

Article 13 is different. It strips the operators of content websites of the "mere conduit" defence against copyright infringement - the idea that they're just providing a vehicle that is being misused to infringe copyright, and therefore aren't personally responsible - and requires those operators to make their "best efforts" to actively filter out copyrighted content from anything that is uploaded to their website. So, for example, if I wanted to upload an image or video to Wikipedia, Wikipedia would have to run and maintain an algorithm that scanned whatever I uploaded for any copyrighted content. This is generally and correctly regarded as both completely unworkable in practice and also an intolerable burden on the operator of the website, some of whom - like Wikipedia - are actually quite small and short-staffed.

If you want to know what an Article 13 web filter might look like, imagine a captcha program that scans anything you upload - music, video, images, spoken words - and tries to find out if it's too similar to something that's been copyrighted. If it's not satisfied as to the content's originality, it gets blocked. What that will trigger is a sort of arms race where the people uploading content make minor and purposeless tweaks to try and fool the captcha, and the captcha casts its net increasingly broad when defining whether an upload is "too similar" to something that's been copyrighted. It's a nightmare for transformative content artists that rely on fair use, such as livestreamers, film and television reviewers, commentators, machinima artists, people making a satirical dub (think Yu-Gi-Oh Abridged), or an amateur guitarist trying to upload a video of them playing Stairway to Heaven. All of those people would find their uploads proactively blocked by the filter, which is a massive shift of the procedural burden from the parties that can afford it (the corporations who own the content licence) to the parties that cannot (the amateur Youtubers who just want to cut together Skyrim voice clips into funny swears.)

Now because such a web filter would be so unworkable in practice, what Article 13 will actually likely do is just create a chilling effect, which is where people basically get too scared to upload content in the first place. See, when it comes to the legal liability of companies like Youtube and other user-uploaded content websites, it's like a pendulum swinging from one extreme to the other. Youtube started out doing nothing to monitor copyright infringement, and as soon as there was a legal framework that could hold them accountable for it to any degree whatsoever, they swung super-far in the other direction and started enforcing policies that were as draconian as possible. When there were no consequences, they did nothing; as soon as there were even minor consequences, they did everything possible to avoid them. Article 13 will likely push the pendulum further to that extreme, to the detriment of uploaders whose content gets caught in a false positive.

trunkage:
I thought Article 11 was about not straight copying off news sites, which I thought was fine. Is there a further problem?

It is and it isn't. Like a lot of intellectual property law, the concern isn't over how the law operates when working as intended and more about how vulnerable it is to unforeseen exploitation.

What Article 11 does is grant publishers direct copyright over any online use of their press publications by information service providers. Previously, the copyright was (correctly) vested with the author of the publication, who would then have to assign those rights to the publisher in order for the publisher to try and take down a plagiarised publication (such as a news article or satirical commentary, which are very commonly copy-pasted from reputable websites and reproduced on shady overseas websites as their own original work.) The publisher also had to demonstrate assigned copyright for every article they sought to take down.

Article 11 changes that by automatically granting the publisher the direct copyright over anything they publish. Conceptually speaking, that is copyright heresy; the right to reproduce a work is and always should be vested in the creator of the work, who can then voluntarily assign those rights to a publisher to allow for the work's mass publication. To mitigate this, Article 11 publisher copyright has an expiry date of one year.

So if the New York Times publishes a news article, and I copy-paste it onto the Escapist and claim it's my own work, the New York Times can immediately and swiftly lodge a complaint with the Escapist as if they were the owner of the copyright themselves (who, in this context, would be the person who authored the article for the NYT.) To prevent the NYT from abusing that, their direct copyright expires after one year; so, if I copy-paste a NYT article from 13/09/2017, the NYT can't automatically lay claim to the copyright. They have to default to the old system, where they get in touch with the author who then asserts their God-given right as the creator of an artistic work to stop me from plagiarising it.

All in all - that's not the end of the world. It's another step in the perversion of basic copyright law principles, sapping authority away from the creator of the work and towards the large corporations that benefit from the fruits of his labor, but that's all it is. The real worry amongst critics is that this system might be abused by copyright trolls. That's where a publisher might commission a number of low-quality clickbaity trash publications that prioritise attention over artistic merit, put them on Google, and then say to Google that in order to show a page preview - something like the headline that Google displays in its search results - then Google has to pay them royalties.

Or, a troll might masquerade as the content owner for a particular publication when they are in fact just a nobody, and benefit from the presumption that the publisher possesses direct copyright to take down an artist's reproduction of their own work on their own website. Or, a publication might discreetly fire an author over a pay dispute - think Milo Yiannopolous commissioning articles and then stiffing the authors - and then claim direct copyright over anything they produced during the last year of their employment, at least until the direct copyright expires.

These scenarios all involve flimsy-as-balls claims on the part of the copyright troll, but the genius of copyright trolling is that the system is increasingly designed to favour the presumptions of the side claiming copyright infringement. There's little transparency, oversight, or room for appeal, so a copyright troll can do a lot of damage before the system corrects itself. That's not the intended effect of article 11, and hopefully it won't be the actual effect, but the fact is that intellectual property law is a classic double-edged sword - it can be used to stifle creative expression just as easily as it can be used to empower it. That's always been the case, and it's why these dramatic expansions of copyright law are so hazardous to freedom of expression on the Internet.

I understand the attempt to support investigative journalism by trying to make sure people don't just read copies of the articles elsewhere and actually view the page. This is a moronic way to do that, however. As for the 'guilty until proven innocent algorithms' that I know and hate from youtube, where algorithms will check for copyrighted material and then the process to actually check whether the material is copyrighted is the responsibility of the person charged with violated copyright... As for those, wtf, EP?

Some interesting political considerations: It differs by country and political leaning how many EMP's voted in favor of this law. Swedish EMP's were all opposed or neutral whereas French and Finnish EMP's were mostly in favor of the new law. The very large christiandemocrat/conservative EPP was in favor almost everywhere. The liberal/democratic ALDE was against almost everywhere. Greens where broadly against and the leftwing S&D was rather fickle but more against than for as far as I can tell. You can see on the following site which countries were in favour and against: https://saveyourinternet.eu/ .

Also, I'm a bit miffed I only hear about this now. What does my house have two newspapers for if I don't know this until it's rather late? If my national government did something like this I'd have heard about it.

Whilst accepting the risk of overreach and a chilling effect on web content in this law, I am highly sympathetic to the notion that the tech giants leverage their position to screw creators out of money that their work should merit.

Pseudonym:
I understand the attempt to support investigative journalism by trying to make sure people don't just read copies of the articles elsewhere and actually view the page. This is a moronic way to do that, however.

Possibly. But it is perhaps something of an inevitability when there is a perceived problem, and the source of that problem keeps circumventing rules designed to deal with it, eventually someone swings a massive, overkill hammer at it. Without endorsing this specific law, I'm all in favour of legislators looking at, experimenting with, new ways of doing things.

Many news organisations for instance have expanded their reach and seen their income decline because tech giants are hoovering up all the advertising revenue. And let's bear in mind tech giants are profiting in substantial part by displaying and piggy backing off the creator's work whilst minimally paying for it. And the tech giants have near-monopolistic power to leverage, too. Lots of smaller creators have essentially no power. The tech giants have no motivation to be "fair" - they're profit-seeking enterprises.

The new digital era has thrown up a lot of challenges that old laws really are perhaps not fit to cope with. The tech giants possibly are exploiting what are to all intents and purposes now "loopholes" from the old days to the detriment of a lot of other people, and making old laws ineffectual at achieving desired social impacts.

Agema:
Possibly. But it is perhaps something of an inevitability when there is a perceived problem, and the source of that problem keeps circumventing rules designed to deal with it, eventually someone swings a massive, overkill hammer at it. Without endorsing this specific law, I'm all in favour of legislators looking at, experimenting with, new ways of doing things.

Hmm. Well point taken. I'd still prefer being careful with experiments that might harm our ability to refer to one another. Maybe this'll work out reasonably well. There are still quite a few steps before we have an actually implementable law so maybe some of the rough edges can be blunted a bit by the member states.

Still hate the part where large websites are now obligated to have content-ID systems, though.

Well, I'm certainly glad that here in the UK we're taking back contrblooooooooooooooooooooo.

Alright. Here's a big thought I've had for a couple of years now... Is copyright fundamentally broken? Should it be abolished or just amended?

The more I see copyright being amended, leading to unintended consequences, the more I'm believing the best course of action is abolishing copyright. And we've all paid heaps for DRM and companies using profits to change laws, and taxes fighting those changes. Surely this money had been wasted and maybe a new course should be chartered. But then I'm a consumer. So I would be biased

Boooooooo.

Of course, they want money from American companies.

Also no more memes...

trunkage:
Alright. Here's a big thought I've had for a couple of years now... Is copyright fundamentally broken? Should it be abolished or just amended?

After everything I've read and the classes I've taken on the matter: Copyright on anything and everything should last, at most, 30 years or so. Patents don't even last that long, and people who make something productive can generally make their money back. But this won't happen, because it would put massive amounts of stuff in the public domain.

Let me get my popcorn... maybe i should kick the hornets' nest more.

https://gizmodo.com/the-eu-suppressed-a-300-page-study-that-found-piracy-do-1818629537

EU suppressed a 300 page paper in 2010 on the degree piracy/broken copyright material hurt the industry. They found no correlation between lost income and damages to the industry. The document is squashed and people in the EU have no idea it had taken place. Ironically, Years later the EU ignores what they found in 2010 about copyrighted material and decided to past sticker laws.

CM156:

trunkage:
Alright. Here's a big thought I've had for a couple of years now... Is copyright fundamentally broken? Should it be abolished or just amended?

After everything I've read and the classes I've taken on the matter: Copyright on anything and everything should last, at most, 30 years or so. Patents don't even last that long, and people who make something productive can generally make their money back. But this won't happen, because it would put massive amounts of stuff in the public domain.

Sadly your information is a little behind the times, in 2015 the copyright laws changed. It is now the life of the author plus 70 years after.Then can be renewed again by a family/corporation for their life plus fifty years after that. It was originally 30 years till George Lucas,Steven Spielberg, brought a action to change the law. Star Wars was about to go into public domain and good George didn't want that to happen. So he and Steven spent time in Washington D.C to change the laws stating how bad the 30 year thing was.Now less and less things will go into public domain than has in the last century.

https://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/index.html

CM156:

trunkage:
Alright. Here's a big thought I've had for a couple of years now... Is copyright fundamentally broken? Should it be abolished or just amended?

After everything I've read and the classes I've taken on the matter: Copyright on anything and everything should last, at most, 30 years or so. Patents don't even last that long, and people who make something productive can generally make their money back. But this won't happen, because it would put massive amounts of stuff in the public domain.

This, basically.

The problem with copyright law, essentially, is the existence of copyright protection that extends past the lifespan of the creator. (Usually in the form of "death-plus" limits, such as "seventy years past the death of the creator".) This is a system brought about largely by massive entertainment companies - Disney is the prime example - who cannot sensibly claim to be the artist that created a particular IP, but who have inherited the rights and want to continue making money off of it.

Copyright has always been intended to protect the right of the author to control the reproduction of their own artistic work. This right becomes essentially irrelevant upon the author's death, in much the same way that people cease to own real estate once they are deceased. The inherent conflict in copyright law is between the people who think that copyright should exist to protect the artist's individual rights to control the reproduction of a work and therefore cease upon the artist's death, and the people who think it should be treated more like other forms of property - as something tangible that can be inherited, assigned, traded, and kept within the dynasty like a family manor. This second view is the one that has become most prevalent, which is why we are rapidly hurtling towards a new status quo of unlimited-duration copyright.

Consider: if copyright lasted thirty years or until the death of the creator, which is the framework that I think makes most sense, then Batman, Mickey Mouse, King Kong, James Bond, Lord of the Rings and Star Trek would all be in the public domain by now. All of those names are big media franchises worth billions of dollars; there is simply no way that a company would ever give any of them up. It has nothing to do with protecting the rights of the artist anymore; it has everything to do with protecting the right of a big media publisher to continue milking money off of a cartoon character that was first drawn nearly a century ago.

RobertEHouse:

CM156:

trunkage:
Alright. Here's a big thought I've had for a couple of years now... Is copyright fundamentally broken? Should it be abolished or just amended?

After everything I've read and the classes I've taken on the matter: Copyright on anything and everything should last, at most, 30 years or so. Patents don't even last that long, and people who make something productive can generally make their money back. But this won't happen, because it would put massive amounts of stuff in the public domain.

Sadly your information is a little behind the times, in 2015 the copyright laws changed. It is now the life of the author plus 70 years after.Then can be renewed again by a family/corporation for their life plus fifty years after that. It was originally 30 years till George Lucas,Steven Spielberg, brought a action to change the law. Star Wars was about to go into public domain and good George didn't want that to happen. So he and Steven spent time in Washington D.C to change the laws stating how bad the 30 year thing was.Now less and less things will go into public domain than has in the last century.

https://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/index.html

For clarity: I'm saying "Should" to mean "I would like this to be the case."

I'm well aware of how absurdly long it currently lasts.

bastardofmelbourne:
Consider: if copyright lasted thirty years or until the death of the creator, which is the framework that I think makes most sense, then Batman, Mickey Mouse, King Kong, James Bond, Lord of the Rings and Star Trek would all be in the public domain by now. All of those names are big media franchises worth billions of dollars; there is simply no way that a company would ever give any of them up. It has nothing to do with protecting the rights of the artist anymore; it has everything to do with protecting the right of a big media publisher to continue milking money off of a cartoon character that was first drawn nearly a century ago.

Never forget that there was a massive court battle over if the Happy Birthday song is still under copyright.

CM156:
Never forget that there was a massive court battle over if the Happy Birthday song is still under copyright.

It was ridiculous. A folk song is one of the purest examples of a public domain work imaginable.

CM156:

After everything I've read and the classes I've taken on the matter: Copyright on anything and everything should last, at most, 30 years or so. Patents don't even last that long, and people who make something productive can generally make their money back. But this won't happen, because it would put massive amounts of stuff in the public domain.

I was wondering about two things:

Firstly, I agree that copyright should last a lot less: I'd say the length of the creator's lifespan, though. Actually - it's just occurred to me that's problematic. No doubt some twat corporation is going to create a stupid loophole where they assign a 3-year-old as a part-creator. Maybe 30 years is okay. Perhaps 50.

Perhaps more importantly, for both copyright and patent, remove the ability of creators to outright block others using it, but oblige anyone who would use it to pay for it. So for instance someone designs a new drug; anyone else can make it or a derivative chemical analogue of it, but they have to pay a licence to the original patented creation.

The licence fee should be proportional. So for instance, if you write a song that's 50% a sample of another work, you hand over 50% of the profits - none of this rank stupidity where someone grabs a sample and the entire take of the song goes to the prior creator.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here