Article 13 is voted by the Europian parliament on September 2018. It is not a law but could become one after 2 years. This will change the internet as we know it and not in a good way. The idea of this article is to protect intellectual property, to help copyright holders in protecting their content online. Which is a very good idea, but definitely not in the way, in which its text exists currently. If approved, the directive will result in many blocked and removed videos from Youtube, as posts from social networks such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter etc. Many videos (and content in general) in the EU will not be approved for uploading due to complex or undefined copyrights. It will affect affiliates/business/advertisers from all around the world, as they will lose huge existing and potential audiences in the EU. As an example - people would not be able to upload a photo if the said photo is not theirs for sure and if they can not prove that. This goes for videos, articles, memes even etc. Do you think that there is a better way do ensure copyrights and to protect creators? YouTube | #SaveYourInternet - Article 13
Another euro-net-nanny unrealistic regulation -- as far as I am concerned. Placing over broad and burdensome regulations on internet sites is ridiculous. The Courts will probably strike or narrow such regulation anyway -- so what is the point? Don't shoot the messenger because you do not approve of (like) the message. So, long as there is not a criminal conspiracy to infringe on copyright by the site operator -- the users should be liable -- period. What we are looking at is the dying breath of the dinosaur copyright holder. The digital revolution of the internet changed the traditional control of copyright and also all knowledge -- ADAPT or DIE! It has been that way since the beginning of time -- crybabies! Did drug laws stop drug abuse? No When Gutenberg invented the printing press did the Monks and Scribes scream: *save the world!* to the King? LMAO. If they did -- it did no good. Really we are revisiting the same subjects of millennia past ... The EU may have to set up its very own Internet and charge an admission fee ... Will you pay for it? source:Proposed EU law could threaten the internet -- and memes, experts say In an open letter to the president of the European Parliament, tech experts and prominent figures -- including World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee and Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales -- said Article 13 presented an "imminent threat" to the future of the internet. "By requiring Internet platforms to perform automatic filtering all of the content that their users upload, Article 13 takes an unprecedented step towards the transformation of the Internet from an open platform for sharing and innovation, into a tool for the automated surveillance and control of its users," the letter states. Authors of the letter also wrote that they doubt the legality of Article 13, saying it goes against the European Charter of Fundamental Rights.
The EU is blatantly demanding we (other countries) deploy their policies upon our non-EU businesses. Most of us will tell them to "go suck an egg"! Fuck the EU regulations at this point. I am not going to rely on the EU for any part of my businesses. I have shut them off, blocked them. More and more, we here in the states with small businesses will be blocking them. Maybe we should start a coalition called "Block the EU". There is a ton of countries out there, we don't need to play ball with the EU. I simply ignore them now. I follow U.S. copyright laws everyday, they are sufficient and fair. All you have to do is follow the U.S. with copyrighted material and you will do fine without the EU!
I think Article 13 requires some domicile and jurisdiction. A person whose copyright in infringed upon has to sue in the infringer's domicile. If I have a business in the USA the EU has no jurisdiction. Where this becomes an issue of relevance is when you operate in multiple jurisdictions e.g.; your web servers are in the EU (in rem) or you have a branch office in London (and a bank account) or something of that nature. Any court judgement made extraterritorial by default is waste paper unless you have assets in that jurisdiction. The US Federal Court for Eastern Texas also claims extraterritorial jurisdiction if a foreign international would act against the rights of a resident of that court's district. Good luck serving your complaint and motions on the Defendant. Even should you prevail; collecting your judgement in an extraterritorial jurisdiction is a whole new ballgame
Correct! However, if your business has been found in violation, even though your business is not present in that country, you will run into that violation/conviction if you decide to open a business there in the future. The way around that is to block them from the beginning. If they are lawfully blocked as a geo, then the courts cannot, and will not, rule against you as that would be a violation of their own accords. We do follow that constraint in the U.S. The U.S. does file those complaints, but never against any business that employs lawful measures to prevent it. They would not have "intent" or "willful disregard" available to them both of which are required to acquire a subpoena and/or an indictment. As I understand it, of course.
CDA Section 230 & Immunity for Online Intermediaries - TechFreedom Here in the USA; the CDA 230 immunity has been legislated out by the recently passed FOSTA and SESTA laws. Now these statutes are to do with online escort websites and classified ads for escorts and prostitution so called: *human trafficking* -- now that is easy to hate. That is not the point: there are federal and state criminal laws forbidding this sort of activity. These laws were enacted for the purpose of making the internet site that had previously had safe harbor ,when users were using their Internet businesses illegally, criminally liable; 5 - 25 year federal felonies for any owner or corporate officer indicted. This has not been in court yet so these laws are not supported by any court decisions ... So, if you operate a social media type internet site and some hookers start working the site; if it can be alleged that you had some knowledge of this; you could be criminally indicted. OK sounds reasonable --but-- if your prior knowledge is alleged -- that YOU KNEW one particular sub forum was problematic and you moderated users -- you had prior knowledge could be alleged. You can argue this is not likely but if *they* are out to get you -- this is a good excuse. And what of yet to be claimed as crimes against the state? In much of the world they can imprison you for some vague crime against the state. So is this the direction the EU is heading in? They just enacted a *link tax* to use snippits "in fair use" of new stories on the internet. Google News is threatening to withhold its news aggregation service A.K.A. Google News from the EU jurisdiction. It gets worse: Trump wants a national television network I don't think that he has in mind NPR or the BBC --- more like the Ayatollah Newscast The Internet media is becoming an organ of the people and the powers that be are scared shit
I back up on anything that is fair, but it always goes both ways. So as long as it ensures the rights of the copyright owners without crashing the EU online community. But as i haven't read it yet, i'd prefer to not give a wider known opinion.
If you release movies digitally they will be copied -- that is a fact and ownership or right or wrong cannot stop a copy from being made. Same for music or images and books too. So, they have played whack-a-mole games with counterfeiters and copyright infringers for years now and nothing has changed. Maybe, we should start executing people for organized copyright theft to make an example That's ludacrious, never going to happen. Netflix and Amazon Prime included videos are good examples of offering a pay format for copyright material. The only realistic alternative is inexpensive use of copyright materials by very large numbers of people at low costs.
Oh my god, I'm getting tired of all this attempt to control every corner of the internet, already. How can really they police this stuff? Our government now regulates emails but it still boils down to somebody has to complain before they bother. Last I heard, anyway. I've had content stolen, if you'd asked me then I woulda said yes. But I would just tell them to either link back to the original page, or take it down, depending on what kind of site it was on. Only one time that didn't work because the site had been abandoned. Never needed legal action, just had to say something. Nobody's panties got in a knot. @Katya , I can't check one of your poll choices, as my opinion is that copyright is important but I don't think government oversight of it is necessary (infringement is already illegal, so that's in place) and I think they're trying to take it too far. It essentially strangles and restricts an easy user experience when you can't upload the picture of a tree without having proof of ownership. Guess that's a simplification. Moderation good; loss of freedom/Big Brother oversight bad.
Exactly - there shouldn't be anything wrong with that. And there always will be torent sites from which you could download those free books, movies etc. The fact is that this way a lot more people will actually get to see/hear the products, thus a lot of them will become fans and likelly to buy something else by the creator in the future. And even if they don't - the product will become more and more popular this way, increasing the popularity of the artist. Things always have at least two sides and many obstacles surrounding them, so sucuh a strict and one-sided directive is bulshit. That's already marked as illegal tho in the EU, and also sharing/copying of everything that has copyrights so a new law which censors this big percentage of the Internet is definitely not needed. Which is totally insane and unnecessary. The correct direction, IMO, is the one that already exist - people should just mention the source they took the image from or link back to this source. Its not so hard and I dont imagine that the holders would mind that. The law will actually censor many artists too - like the talanted people who make covers of famous songs, the ones that do parodies or reviews. It really seems more and more like Big Brother, which is the exact oppsite of what the internet should be about.
>>>QUOTE If you release movies digitally they will be copied -- that is a fact and ownership or right or wrong cannot stop a copy from being made. Same for music or images and books too.<<< I wasn't in agreement with the practice other than in *fair use* Copying someone's work in its whole without license or some other permission for any redistribution is unlawful. However, from a practical standpoint: You cannot prevent it. Only attempt to punish it by statute -- after the fact. -------- Article 11 ------ What is Article 13 and Article 11? The EU's "meme ban" copyright plan explained | WIRED UK Article 11 is in effect a news link tax So, if I want to point to some news story, and quote a paragraph (in fair use), the EU will sent me a tax bill -- LMAO However, will the owners of this forum be bullied into paying that tax bill? (I am assuming to the jurisdictional government of the complainant?) This is not workable. My voice and expression is preempted. That is a 1st Amendment claim (free speech) under US constitutional law. Under the rights in each EU nation (EU Directives must be enforced by member nation's laws and comply with any of that nation's guaranteed rights) there will be many conflicts enacting this Directive too. So, this whole schema may be unworkable or its enforcement watered down to some petty penalty that will be ignored .... People here beg for solutions to create traffic so that their voice can be heard and their work seen. What point is publishing news that may be seen by fewer people ? How will news outlets support themselves with advertising with less traffic. And more importantly, how will any new voice be heard? Without user editorial recommendation by link sharing and content endorsement -- How will the new voices become known? This is just counter-productive and throwing a bone to incumbent news outlets <<<the established press>>>
If you sell it yourslef or project it for mass usage, or present it as your own - yes, but if you just download a book for example I really dont think that it should be market as illegal. I do realise that authors in this case make their lifellyhood by selling their books, but having the option to download them for free is not a bad idea. Online library which gives acces even to books, which are not issued in the said country or in a particular language. Its a lot similar to the public librarys, where you do pay a fee but the fee does not go the authors. In my opinion, of course. An interesting example for a creator who actually agrees with this practise is Paulo Coelho - who is not against his books being published on the internet. And as a result he observed an icrease in the sells of his books, not a decrease. That article 11 sounds crazy too - I really hope they wont be approved. What should be incriminated is, if someone copy/pastes another persons work (whatever it is) and present it as its own - plagiarism.
Module 4: Rights, Exceptions, and Limitations - Copyright for Librarians Were I live the library is fee-free. My property taxes support both the city and county (local district) library systems for all residents. Here, by law: Libraries buy (or are granted) the media's copyright once and have an exemption for lending the media temporarily to patrons of the library. No one pays the licensing fee for internet sharing and it is unlawful to redistribute copyright material without licensing rights. Netflix buys the licensing rights to the movies they distributes as an example. Youtube may buy license the same way. However, when a user posts content that is copyright without license -- who is distributing? That's the real argument here. Youtube has safe harbor in the US statutes. They need only comply with an authentic DMCA Notice and remove user posted copyright infringing content. Porn tubes and other Movie and audio bootleg sites stand accused of creating pseudo users and criminally organizing the posting of fraudulent claimed user copyrighted content.
