European Governments Approve Controversial New Copyright Law (arstechnica.com) 96
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: A controversial overhaul of Europe's copyright laws overcame a key hurdle on Wednesday as a majority of European governments signaled support for the deal. That sets the stage for a pivotal vote by the European Parliament that's expected to occur in March or April. Supporters of the legislation portray it as a benign overhaul of copyright that will strengthen anti-piracy efforts. Opponents, on the other hand, warn that its most controversial provision, known as Article 13, could force Internet platforms to adopt draconian filtering technologies. The cost to develop filtering technology could be particularly burdensome for smaller companies, critics say.
Online service providers have struggled to balance free speech and piracy for close to two decades. Faced with this difficult tradeoff, the authors of Article 13 have taken a rainbows-and-unicorns approach, promising stricter copyright enforcement, no wrongful takedowns of legitimate content, and minimal burdens on smaller technology platforms. But it seems unlikely that any law can achieve all of these objectives simultaneously. And digital-rights groups suspect that users will wind up getting burned -- both due to wrongful takedowns of legitimate content and because the burdens of mandatory filtering will make it harder to start a new online hosting service.
Online service providers have struggled to balance free speech and piracy for close to two decades. Faced with this difficult tradeoff, the authors of Article 13 have taken a rainbows-and-unicorns approach, promising stricter copyright enforcement, no wrongful takedowns of legitimate content, and minimal burdens on smaller technology platforms. But it seems unlikely that any law can achieve all of these objectives simultaneously. And digital-rights groups suspect that users will wind up getting burned -- both due to wrongful takedowns of legitimate content and because the burdens of mandatory filtering will make it harder to start a new online hosting service.
Time to leave Europe... (Score:2, Insightful)
Thank goodness for the Brexit!
Corporations can't handle.. (Score:3, Insightful)
.. that they can turn digital files into scarce property. They hate hate hate that nature defies capitalist logic in the digital realm. Supply can now always meet demand and they want us to live in some stone age corporatism of false scarcity to extract tribute from their serfs.
Re: (Score:2)
Commenting to undo a wrong moderation. I wanted to mod up this comment as insightful, because it brings up a great point.
Re: paying to watch our rights being shredded (Score:2)
I'm beginning to doubt all the propaganda we were taught in "history"
I'll feed the troll: lies are "assembled" using bits of truth.
In any case, the virtual non-existence of actually Semitic Jews (i. e. Sephardic Jews) should be a good indicator that the Holocaust was a real thing, despite the obvious shadiness of those pushing the narrative the hardest.
Wrongful Takedowns (Score:1)
I was going to say something about wrongful take-downs but self-censored the post out fear of unpredictable and automatic Youtube-take-down.
Guess I'll need to find (Score:5, Insightful)
1) A way to block EU access to my servers
2) A large retainer for lawyers to issue copyright takedowns for any EU access to my comments on any social media, which I own the copyright to.
3) A tax shelter for all the sweet sweet profit.
Re:Guess I'll need to find (Score:5, Informative)
But this is much worse: it's a first step to a priori censorship. MEPs are already contemplating using these filters to also stop the spread of terrorist ideology. Which at some point will also include extremist views. Which at some point will also include populist views. Which at some point will also include "fake" news. Which of course already includes any opinion not "fitting the narrative" of those in charge.
Re: (Score:2)
1) Is not that hard. When the GDPR came into effect, people feared that a lot of non EU sites would opt to simply block EU traffic instead of taking steps to comply. In practice I have only seen one such site... as it turns out, complying with the GDPR is not hard or costly for most sites, and for many it takes no effort at all. But this is different. I expect a lot of smaller operators to block EU access or at least block them from uploading anything.
But this is much worse: it's a first step to a priori censorship. MEPs are already contemplating using these filters to also stop the spread of terrorist ideology. Which at some point will also include extremist views. Which at some point will also include populist views. Which at some point will also include "fake" news. Which of course already includes any opinion not "fitting the narrative" of those in charge.
Well burning books to keep people ignorant doesn't work anymore. So this is the next worst thing they could do, /s?
Re: Guess I'll need to find (Score:1)
A whole bunch of US news sites block EU visitors because of GDPR. Maybe 1 in 20 articles on fark.com
Re:Guess I'll need to find (Score:5, Interesting)
I regularly run into US news sites that block EU visitors because of the GDPR.
What's much worse IMHO is that a lot of sites have these fucking useless popups. Which means I need to allow Javascript or they won't load. With Javascript comes loads of tracking bullshit and security risks. GDPR effectively made it easier to track people who don't want to be tracked.
There were also a few hobbyist sites that shut down their forums, etc because they didn't have the time or resources to deal with it. That's a big consequence of all these EU regulations: they make it harder and harder for small companies and private citizens to be anything but consumers, thus concentrating the Internet in the hands of big corporations.
Re: (Score:1)
For no fucking reason other than they want to please ad companies who as usual are the ultimate troublemakers for the entire fucking network.
No-one would need to "comply" with GDPR or North Korean edicts or whatever if they weren't tracking user behaviour and selling it wholesale to international megacorps who want it all sanitized for later business back in the EU. If people weren't running all these shitty ads and sleasy practic
Re: (Score:2)
"Oh but then who will pay for the web?!". I don't know, maybe everyone who paid up front to host their own website with providers for years before most of the worlds population ever heard of email? Maybe the people who don't need to spend billions of CPU cycles, hundreds of database requests, and tend of megabytes of bandwidth in add and shit to serve 100KB of text content? Maybe people who are willing and able to exist in a world which doesn't need to be funded by sleazy ad companies and snooped on by megacorps and who understand that we are moving o a world where people will be able to host websites on their fucking cellphones.
"Who will pay for the web?" Who fucking pays for email you greedy shits?!
The comparison in volume between a popular website and a non-spammign email user is not even close. Paying for hosting up front works fine as long as your hobby site doesn't generate too much traffic. When a website gets popular data fees for the person running it skyrocket and the person maintaining it has three choices - put it behind a paywall (which usually kills the site), take it offline, or start hosting adds. Many a great, free, content-driven site has been knocked offline because it became a vic
Re: (Score:2)
The solution is NoScript. Of course, that also means Firefox,but anyone really concerned about privacy is already running that. NoScript only helps the client, not the server, and it is sometimes annoying to figure out how to get some sites to work on occasion, but if you want the javascript web to work, it's the best answer I have found.
I do see that they have a test version for Chrome, so it may soon be available even for those foolish people
Re: (Score:1)
Most website don’t comply with GDPR.
The EU pop-ups that say “if you are reading this then you consent to xxx” don’t count.
Re: (Score:3)
When I am in the EU and try to look at US sites I constantly run into GDPR blockage, so much so I setup a VPN in the US just so I didnt run into this.
I wonder if this means even more will join ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody can seem to answer this question. Why does a US based site need to comply with the GDPR? What happens if they don't?
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody can seem to answer this question. Why does a US based site need to comply with the GDPR? What happens if they don't?
The EU sues them if they have a legal presence in Europe. If you are a big company that is quite likely. If you just make revenue from EU companies, that money could be siphoned off as a fine.
Re: (Score:2)
as it turns out, complying with the GDPR is not hard or costly for most sites, and for many it takes no effort at all.
I thought it required businesses outside the EU that serve the EU, such as US-based toy sellers that ship to the EU, to hire a representative pursuant to GDPR article 27 at a substantial cost per year, even if they don't do anything dodgy with users' personal data and otherwise comply.
You don't own shit on social media (Score:2)
That's cute. From https://www.facebook.com/legal... [facebook.com]:
"Specifically, when you share, post, or upload content that is covered by intellectual property rights (like photos or videos) on or in connection with our Products, you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, and worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicl
Re: (Score:1)
Participation in the European Union definitely means you're not a sovereign nation. Not being a sovereign nation means that you do not have an actual government, you have the local authorities. You know your nation is not sovereign because there are laws you cannot enact within its borders, such as limiting the freedom of movement to and from your nation from other nations that are in the agreement as well.
The United States of Europe is more accurate.
Re: (Score:1)
Participation in the European Union definitely means you're not a sovereign nation
Lies, bullshit lies.
Every nation is the EU is sovereign. At any point they can choose to not adopt one of the EU's laws. The choice is always implicitly all the same: adopt the rule or leave the EU. The choice to leave is ALWAYS on the table, so countries are sovereign. By contrast, Aabama is not a soverign nation. It tried to leave the US (with some others) and they got shot at until they stopped leaving.
Now of course no coun
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
You're 'free' to leave.
Yes.
They'll just do everything in their power to sabotage and punish you for doing so. See Brexit.
Jesus Christ, Brexiters are entitled. So far the "sabotage" and "punishment" has simply not been getting all the stuff we got when we were in the EU. No fucking shit, sherlock! If you leave a club and stop paying your dues, you can't use the pool or sauna. The only reason Brexiters think this is "punishment" is because they are possibly the most whiny, entitled and shortsighted people on
Don't link back to taxation and tyranny. (Score:2)
If the EU does not like the net and links, be aware of every link used.
Find the same link outside the EU, use that one.
Can only find a link into the EU?
Tell the world why you are not linking into the EU.
Re:Don't link back to taxation and tyranny. (Score:5, Insightful)
Or just fucking link to them, if you're not in an EU country.
What are they going to do, extradite you?
Don't be a pussy. This isn't even civil disobedience if you're not in their jurisdiction. Link the fuck out of them.
If the laws aren't enacted in your country, then they're not your laws to follow. Link to the EU, take off your burqa, live like a person in a sovereign nation should live.
Re:Don't link back to taxation and tyranny. (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't know wtf my fellow sheep are doing voting for these assholes.
This is exactly the problem. All our problems are self inflicted. But we do need a way to protect the minority from the majority that wants to fuck them.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they are. Whether you realize it or not, they are a perfect reflection of how much people care.
Re:Don't link back to taxation and tyranny. (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't know wtf my fellow sheep are doing voting for these assholes.
Which arseholes? Or rather what's the alternative? Who should you vote for who you know will stand against a yet undisclosed issue lobbied for by corporations?
Stupidity like this directive doesn't get created in a legislative vacuum by the people you vote.
I vote pirate party all the way, but feels like I am the only one.
The pirate party has a currently sitting MEP (Germany). You're definitely not the only one. But fundamentally the problem with parties like the pirate party is that they are single issue parties made up of people with different backgrounds and opinions on other things not core to the pirate party. That will forever keep them as a minority player.
Re: (Score:1)
You vote for pirate party.
Their entire platform is copyright reform for the benefit of the user.
Re: (Score:2)
( Posting AC to preserve moderation to other comments )
The expected outcome is to prevent companies from making money off someone else's intellectual property. This makes sense; however, we will have to see if this can be implemented.
"Intellectual property" is an invented term used to frame the conversation in a light most favourable to rightholders and to the detriment of society at large. The original intent of copyright was to make an incentive to create by giving the creators some limited, and time-limited, exclusivity with regard to their works, not to treat those works as "property". The excuse was that it would end up enrich the public domain, which would be a net benefit t
It's the anti-DMCA. (Score:1)
The DMCA enabled all large platforms that have user-contributed content by absolving them from liability in return for notice-and-takedown. Even though it is a much-hated law, this safety from liability is the foundation of the internet as we know it. The European copyright law is the complete opposite: It shifts liability from the people who upload back to the platforms, who can only avoid it by trying to get licenses for everything their users might upload. This will make sure that the internet in Europe
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that's what some people are saying about it, but the language they use seems to be functionally the same as the DMCA.
We won't know until we see the final wording. Reporting is based on leaked draft that uses unclear wording. You're construing, or rather repeating, that the sky will fall and the meaning has to be the most-disruptive-imaginable. That seems like an unwise method of interpretation.
They're required to respond to take-down requests with a "best effort," either to get a license, or to make
Define "relevant and necessary information" (Score:2)
The other big difference is the requirement to ensure unavailability of unlicensed works based on information provided about works.
And that's a big question mark. How does the directive define "relevant and necessary information"? Is it just URLs and hashes, as seen in notices of claimed infringement pursuant to 17 USC 512? Or is a copyright owner permitted to say "block anything that looks like these keyframes and sounds like this recording"? The latter would require a counterpart to YouTube's Content ID.
Copyright is a tradeoff (Score:5, Interesting)
If the cost of enforcing copyright exceeds the benefit of copyright to society, then the tradeoff is no longer worth it. That is, copyright has outlived its usefulness, and should be abolished. But the simplest way to make this determination is to make sure that the copyright holder bears the full cost of enforcing that copyright. Then they can simply look at how much money they're making from copyright, compare it to how much they're spending to enforce copyright, and decide whether or not copyright is worth it.
If you shift copyright enforcement costs onto someone other than the copyright holder, then you make possible a solution where copyright becomes a net drain on society, yet we retain it because we have no easy way to determine that it has become a net drain on society. So it is imperative that the copyright holder be liable for all enforcement costs. The only two choices here that make sense are the copyright holder bears the enforcement costs, or we abolish copyright.
So shifting enforcement costs onto others is stupid, because it destroys your only direct means of determining if copyright is still worth it. If the copyright holder believes enforcement by ISPs is beneficial to copyright, then they should be paying ISPs to enforce copyright. That will make it obvious if the enforcement costs has exceeded the value of copyright to society, meaning copyright is no longer worth it and should be abolished.
Re: (Score:1)
And we somehow moved to:
* The public has no rights.
* Laws are there to protect and increase government power first, and then corporate profits.
* Politicians are not afraid because they know they can get increasing number of votes from immigrants and other tax dependent subjects.
False takedown (Score:2, Interesting)
And FINES for FALSE TAKEDOWNs, how about 5,000 if the takedown initiate by a private and 50,000,000 if by a company.
After all, these are budgets to make a video (private) or a movie (company), and 80% of the fine should go to the victim of the false takedown.
If it is in the LAW, it has to be respected.
Defamation of title (Score:2)
And FINES for FALSE TAKEDOWNs
Some legal systems have a tort called "defamation of title" or "slander of title" [wikipedia.org]. Recklessly claiming you own copyright in someone else's work looks like a case of defamation of title. Which EU member states' legal systems have this?
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't Article 13 (or hypothetical foreign counterparts) make your web hosting service liable for your infringement?
EU is a lost dictatorship ruled by the plutocracy (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyway. And they don't care.
The fewer the platforms the fewer to enforce their rule on.
Europeans isn't supposed to talk or rule themselves anyway. The elite got better ideas.
Lose memes? GOOD! PeopleÂs post aren't visible or they are removed from the platform? GOOD!
And if you don't agree you're a threat to democracy and Europe!"#ÂRT
Not the end of the world, yet (Score:2)
The devil will be in the implementation details and the interpretation of the law. A harsh rendering of the law would be something to worry about, but a tech-friendly rendering would require only minor adjustments.to what is now done.
Re: (Score:2)
Despotic governments all over the world: Don't worry about this law, we'll only use it on really bad people.
Also despotic governments: We don't like you, here's 20 laws that you violated. Enjoy prison.
Some good stuff over here .... (Score:2)
... and some bad.
The GDPR is really good and gives authorities leverage over the large internet Megacorps that couldn't give a f*ck and now face bazillion Euro fines if they don't play ball and follow the law. Very nice.
This new copyright law however is total bullshit and something like Europe equivalent of the DMCA. It doesn't impact private people as much as it does impact corps and I expect a lot of anonymous forum activity to move overseas but it still is established by institutions that don't seem to h
Re: (Score:2)
Could this backfire? (Score:2)
Maybe people will get so disgusted they will seek alternative means to get their content?
This is great news (Score:1)