Guys. Seriously. Get a grip. I get it. The new laws are not perfect. Some will even say that they suck. But you cannot tell me that the current laws were okay and covered all bases on copyright. Getting it under control is a process and it will require us as citizens to make meaningful choices with our votes. But simply repealing the law outright is not necessarily the best choice. We need to get a good idea on what is right and just, what is legitimate and then criticize the law. Being against it because it's a trending topic is not cool. It's moronic. E.g. Wikipedia won't die over this. Public content won't die over this. Some content will be more restricted because the copyright owner wants it to be. The implementation will be difficult but this does not mea that it will hurt liberties of the citizen. If anything quite the opposite. It's kind of amusing seeing people call privacy i to this. Privacy laws are unchanged. I'm all in favor of activism (and hacktivism) but let's do it right.

  • 5
    Out of curiosity: How does the directive increase the liberties of the citizens?
  • 10
    The problem is, that you can't replace shit with other shit and say that it's better because now it's a new shit.
    Those articles are full of flaws from the ground-up, and no amount of tweaking would make them better.

    Upload filters, and blaming content providers for user mistakes? Dumb idea.
    Link tax? Other countries already tried, it failed hard. How is repeating the same thing on a larger scale going to make things better?
    Restricting partial use of copyrighted material for people who want to make commentaries which include sources, or reviews, or even remixes? That's so bordering on censorship, it's not even funny. Especially with how loose some of the definitions seem to be.

    Imho, the whole conception of those two articles was flawed from the start. Best solution? Scrap that shit and restart from scratch, even if it means staying with the old system for a little longer.
  • 0
    The rants I've seen so far lament a decrease of the liberties. I do not see such a terrible decrease to warrant all this attention. I like that this attention exists but I'm concerned that this happens because the theme is "cool". People can now ask Facebook to remove content they own from their site. Besides the fact that the main issue would be what ownership of content means I fail to see how this would impact my life in a meaningful way.

    If no amount of tweaking can make them better then no better laws can be built. Erasing a law and starting over is still tweaking it. Technically. I doubt that's the case but I'm a bit sick of people telling me how they will go "underground" over this and "fight the man". I appreciate the issues this law raises but some responses are a bit out of measurem
  • 2
    My farts are copyrighted. If you copy them, you'll go to jail. If you let them sink in your nostrils, you have to pay. If not, you still have to pay. Welcome to Germany. GEMA/GEZ will deal with you unpaying undemocratic non-CDU voting swine.
  • 4
    @darthkebab don't worry. You can keep your farts for yourself. Any unsolicited transmission of your farts will be considered spamming and be treated as such under the current laws.

    Returning serious this is a EU law. Which means that it's essentially a guideline. Let's see how the countries in the EU implement it.
  • 3
    @Pickman this is the most important aspect. Implementing the guideline. Remember the climate protection guideline? Well, Germany ignored it for far too long. Everyone bought diesels happily. Now the people have been expropriated as their cars' value sunk below zero and they cannot go to several places they may have to. Such as work.

    The businesses don't have to feel it yet as they've got exceptions.

    I don't think the new law will have any big impact on the big companies as intended. But on the smaller ones, and maybe private persons and one-man businesses.

    Comparable to GDPR implementation, new businesses will arise and existing ones will have to pay for proper respectation of new laws.

    IMHO, this is nothing but a big scam, where only big companies and governments will profit, and the smaller ones will be screwed. Nothing special.
  • 3
    @darthkebab and nothing new.
  • 10
    You're out of touch with reality.
  • 3
    @Pickman You can't just ask Facebook to remove the copyrighted content, Facebook has make sure that uploaded content isn't copyrights *before* putting it online and when it is, make sure that proper licenses or however you call those are in place.

    If there aren't any and the material is copyrighte it may not be uploaded/put online.
  • 0
    @linuxxx well. That would be a great mess of grandfathered public content. Also not how the law is (currently) worded.
  • 0
    @darthkebab that is an opinion I can respect.
    P.s. also the importance of the national implementation cannot be stressed enough.
  • 1
    @Pickman (about the comment to @linuxxx): Do you mind quoting this from the law? I see it a bit different.
  • 0
    @sbiewald in (61) the interpretation of article 13 is laid out to not force rightholders to conclude licensing agreements or to give authorization. However in the case where the rightholder does not intervene to say that his material is protected in its totality the assumption is that it is not. On the other hand if the content is protected in its totality nothing of it can be uploaded not only by the users but also by the rightholder itself (e.g. trailers) as such it's quite unlikely that we will see a tight interpretation of the laws on social networks and search engines. What article 13 really hits is streaming sites. It does not even hit p2p sharing (already covered in other laws) as the public platform in that case does not share the content itself. Of course technologically is a mess because a filter has to be implemented. But the desired effect is not that far-reaching at all.
  • 0
    @Pickman Thanks.

    Unfortunately, interpretations are just optional. A court can respect them, but isn't required.
  • 0
    @Pickman Are you sure if a right holder refuses licencing, nothing can be uploaded not even by himself?
    Can't he make special licenses, just allowing e.g. trailer?

    What do you mean with streaming sites? The illegal ones which won't remove streams after being told? I'm those cases, the platforms were liable previously.
  • 0
    @sbiewald it's not a license. It's a licensing agreement. The other party can refuse. And yes those sites were already responsible if they received notice. But now after the first time they are responsible for all the times someone uploads the same content again. In practice this would mean that service providers should do like Youtube which has already a (rather fallible) filter. For streaming and file-sharing sites this could be somewhat harder to implement but it's a technological problem not a "human rights" problem.
  • 0
    @sbiewald true but I expect the high court to sentence in favor of the most reasonable option. The law does not require the actions to be preventive so the law does not say that. Of course if a court or a nation decides that they should it's rather important. But it's also taking things a step further. At the with the new law moment the content that can go on a service is agreed between bothe the licenser and the provider. The big news is that the service provider cannot allow content that he now knows he can't host to be uploaded. In order to know that he needs to be told so just as in any other situation (e.g. in most situations you're not responsible if you drive in a private street if there was no sign telling you it was private). It is a technological nightmare but not such a great limitation of users' rights.
  • 0
    @Pickman Unfortunately, the YouTube filter isn't that reliable. Examples: A sleeping cat, white noise, and public domain images have all been falsely identified as copyrighted content. If filters have to be more strict with the new legislation, won't there be more false positives?
    Yes, the law does not restrict human rights directly - but if the only practical way to follow, is to accept false positives, then the law does.

    As the internet != YouTube, how can smaller platforms something with the same reliability?
  • 0
    @sbiewald i know that's the issue here. It's a technological one.
Add Comment