Quote:

---

The most important parts of this are Articles 11 and 13. Article 11 is intended to give publishers and papers a way to make money when companies like Google link to their stories, allowing them to demand paid licenses. Article 13 requires certain platforms like YouTube and Facebook stop users sharing unlicensed copyrighted material.

Critics of the Copyright Directive say these provisions are disastrous. In the case of Article 11, they note that attempts to “tax” platforms like Google News for sharing articles have repeatedly failed, and that the system would be ripe to abuse by copyright trolls.

Article 13, they say, is even worse. The legislation requires that platforms proactively work with rightsholders to stop users uploading copyrighted content. The only way to do so would be to scan all data being uploaded to sites like YouTube and Facebook. This would create an incredible burden for small platforms, and could be used as a mechanism for widespread censorship. This is why figures like Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales and World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee came out so strongly against the directive. – The Verge

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

The most important parts of this are Articles 11 and 13. Article 11 is intended to give publishers and papers a way to make money when companies like Google link to their stories, allowing them to demand paid licenses. Article 13 requires certain platforms like YouTube and Facebook stop users sharing unlicensed copyrighted material.

Critics of the Copyright Directive say these provisions are disastrous. In the case of Article 11, they note that attempts to “tax” platforms like Google News for sharing articles have repeatedly failed, and that the system would be ripe to abuse by copyright trolls.

---

Ideas work best when they're shared. Imagine how far we would have gotten if the alphabet was copyrighted! IMHO, it should be OK to use copyrighted material, provided that you cite the source.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
We're talking two major things here that you're not making your opinion clear on though.

The first is that every time we link an article here on FFF.net, if we lived in the EU, we could be subject to a tax for doing so. (I haven't even heard what would happen if we pasted the article but didn't even bother linking it).

Even if that turns out not to apply to the individual citizen on message boards, it will certainly shut down any EU based websites similar to the likes of Vox, MotherJones, Drudge Report and Breitbart. It might also cause websites like Facebook and Youtube to outright discontinue offering their services in the EU, rather than shoulder the burden and responsibility of policing everything.


The more Orwellian thing here though is the content filter. Websites will be required to scan all uploads for copyrighted content. Every single byte.


DMCA is an after the fact process. It's how the law is supposed to work. Being able to get justice after somebody has committed a crime.

Article 13 is based off the assumption that everyone is a potential criminal and we need Big Brother to verify every single contribution before it even has a home on the internet.

With all the revelations of tech and surveillance and privacy violations in 2018 and you still doubt that this would be possible?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Yes I sure do. There aren't enough people at enough terminals to monitor all of this - it's impossible. LINKS are the life blood of the 'net - off site links are never going away because they simple can't. The protests and LOSS OF INCOME would be so extreme that governments would die. But it won't get that far.

It for sure would never work here.

Guess we'll see.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Yes I sure do. There aren't enough people at enough terminals to monitor all of this - it's impossible. LINKS are the life blood of the 'net - off site links are never going away because they simple can't. The protests and LOSS OF INCOME would be so extreme that governments would die. But it won't get that far.

It for sure would never work here.

Guess we'll see.

---

I would agree, if people were necessary to do this. These are your mother's "dumb" terminals.

And if huge firms like Google decide that it's worth keeping YouTube around in Europe in spite of this, security firms the specialize in this type of surveillance will be crawling out of the woodwork for a piece of that pie that didn't exist before.

Game companies saw the writing on the wall when the Christian Conservatives came at them about censorship and decided to put serious time into developing the ESRB in their own industry rather than allow the Government to create laws dictating what can and can't be in video games. Everybody won in that situation.

Do me a favor and try to upload a music video to youtube and watch what happens. You won't even get a copyright strike, if it's your first notice, but the video will not be uploaded and you will be told that it's because you tried uploading copyrighted material.

Your answer shows your lack of knowledge of computers and is typical of the replies I would get when I told people back when the Patriot Act came out that the tech existed to record and store all of our phone calls. People couldn't wrap their mind around that idea and thought I was crazy. Most of them probably don't even remember me talking about it after Snowden came out and told everybody that was exactly what they were doing.

I can think of a lot of examples of fantastical ideas in tech that I'd see in Sci-Fi movies when I was a kid that were actually possible by the time I was in my early twenties, and that list of stuff gets smaller every decade.

Money, and the loss of it, is the only way out of this.

This is similar to my example of the Soda Tax in Cook County, IL, and because of the current situation you may be right on this point. If this was a worldwide initiative, everybody would be screwed and have nowhere else to go. Not only do EU countries have America to base their business, but they also have some non EU countries in Europe, China and *gasp* Russia!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Yes I sure do. There aren't enough people at enough terminals to monitor all of this - it's impossible. LINKS are the life blood of the 'net - off site links are never going away because they simple can't. The protests and LOSS OF INCOME would be so extreme that governments would die. But it won't get that far.

It for sure would never work here.

Guess we'll see.

---

I would agree, if people were necessary to do this. These are your mother's "dumb" terminals.

And if huge firms like Google decide that it's worth keeping YouTube around in Europe in spite of this, security firms the specialize in this type of surveillance will be crawling out of the woodwork for a piece of that pie that didn't exist before.

Game companies saw the writing on the wall when the Christian Conservatives came at them about censorship and decided to put serious time into developing the ESRB in their own industry rather than allow the Government to create laws dictating what can and can't be in video games. Everybody won in that situation.

Do me a favor and try to upload a music video to youtube and watch what happens. You won't even get a copyright strike, if it's your first notice, but the video will not be uploaded and you will be told that it's because you tried uploading copyrighted material.

Your answer shows your lack of knowledge of computers and is typical of the replies I would get when I told people back when the Patriot Act came out that the tech existed to record and store all of our phone calls. People couldn't wrap their mind around that idea and thought I was crazy. Most of them probably don't even remember me talking about it after Snowden came out and told everybody that was exactly what they were doing.

I can think of a lot of examples of fantastical ideas in tech that I'd see in Sci-Fi movies when I was a kid that were actually possible by the time I was in my early twenties, and that list of stuff gets smaller every decade.

Money, and the loss of it, is the only way out of this.

This is similar to my example of the Soda Tax in Cook County, IL, and because of the current situation you may be right on this point. If this was a worldwide initiative, everybody would be screwed and have nowhere else to go. Not only do EU countries have America to base their business, but they also have some non EU countries in Europe, China and *gasp* Russia!

---

"Your answer shows your lack of knowledge of computers and is typical of the replies I would get when I told people back when the Patriot Act came out that the tech existed to record and store all of our phone calls. People couldn't wrap their mind around that idea and thought I was crazy."

^ Great example of your fanciful bulls*t wild ass presumptions just to try and build yourself up. And honestly, dear, your "Scifi becomes real! No, they can record everything!" is built on pretty basic 101 sh*t, so don't pat yourself too hard.

Otherwise, you're talking about 2 different things. I said off site links would be impossible to manage/police - it would kill the Internet. I also said, "there a reason we have copyright laws" and told about having to have my photos taken down because someone used them without my permission. I've been there. I'm happy to hear that you can't just upload someone else's work and make money from it up until and IF you notice it being pirated. Hell, I was against copying cds until it was obvious that A) you couldn't stop it, and more importantly B) it turned out that artists actually benefitted from having their works pirated. Who saw that coming?

In the end the creators should have sole authority over how their works are used. If Google is doing this now then they feel the need to put a check on it, whether due to pressure from artists or other outside influences. Think about it: Google looses money on this! Think of the ad clicks lost because someone can't use a Taylor Swift song to mock Ted Cruz, or other "funny" uses. As I have said, the Internet is still young, still experiencing growing pains. I doubt some little youtube video (that uses someone else's music) that has only had 1000 views would be targeted because: Time and Resources. Just look at all the things a convicted felon campaign manager got away with until he got large enough to attract attention?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Your reply was a lot better about 30 minutes ago before you edited it and added the first paragraph. Now that I had some time I was going to post a thoughtful reply, but after reading your edit I don't feel the need to bother.

---