Do all the things like ++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatarSign Up
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power real-time personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple APILearn More
Search - "copyright reform"
Internet has been saved in Europe... for now...
EU Parliament voted against the new Copyright directive.
Fuck you European union. You cunt smelling, ass licking, pieces of dog shit. Thank you so fucking much for taking yet another step towards closing the 'Web and making it harder for smaller people to exist on it.
I wish you all a slow and painful death just like the death you are sentencing the free 'Web to.
The new EU copyright reform (article 13, etc.) is getting comical.
After even the big copyright holders retracted their support for the law, it seemed to have no chance and was "put on ice".
After short while it was warmed up again by negotiating some trade offs (which are apparently hated by everyone) and it may or may not be passed in the next few weeks.
So far so idiotic.
It seem that even the initiator - Axel Voss - will not vote for the law. Unfortunately for wrong reasons. Why? It is not strict enough for him.
Anyhow, the longer text he used to present his view he he seems to - copy - his argumentation from Bertelsman (German media group).
It could be funny, if all of that wasn't so sad as there is still the possibility that this stupid law passes.
I've just noticed something when reading the EU copyright reform. It actually all sounds pretty reasonable. Now, hear me out, I swear that this will make sense in the end.
Article 17p4 states the following:
If no authorisation [by rightholders] is granted, online content-sharing service providers shall be liable for unauthorised acts of communication to the public, including making available to the public, of copyright-protected works and other subject matter, unless the service providers demonstrate that they have:
(a) made best efforts to obtain an authorisation, and
(b) made, in accordance with high industry standards of professional diligence, best efforts to ensure the unavailability of specific works and other subject matter for which the rightholders have provided the service providers with the relevant and necessary information; and in any event
(c) acted expeditiously, upon receiving a sufficiently substantiated notice from the rightholders, to disable access to, or to remove from, their websites the
notified works or other subject matter, and made best efforts to prevent their future uploads in accordance with point (b).
Article 17p5 states the following:
In determining whether the service provider has complied with its obligations under paragraph 4, and in light of the principle of proportionality, the following elements, among others, shall be taken into account:
(a) the type, the audience and the size of the service and the type of works or other subject matter uploaded by the users of the service; and
(b) the availability of suitable and effective means and their cost for service providers.
That actually does leave a lot of room for interpretation, and not on the lawmakers' part.. rather, on the implementer's part. Say for example devRant, there's no way in hell that dfox and trogus are going to want to be tasked with upload filters. But they don't have to.
See, the law takes into account due diligence (i.e. they must give a damn), industry standards (so.. don't half-ass it), and cost considerations (so no need to spend a fortune on it). Additionally, asking for permission doesn't need to be much more than coming to an agreement with the rightsholder when they make a claim to their content. It's pretty common on YouTube mixes already, often in the description there's a disclaimer stating something like "I don't own this content. If you want part of it to be removed, get in touch at $email." Which actually seems to work really well.
So say for example, I've had this issue with someone here on devRant who copypasted a work of mine into the cancer pit called joke/meme. I mentioned it to dfox, didn't get removed. So what this law essentially states is that when I made a notice of "this here is my content, I'd like you to remove this", they're obligated to remove it. And due diligence to keep it unavailable.. maybe make a hash of it or whatever to compare against.
It also mentions that there needs to be a source to compare against, which invalidates e.g. GitHub's iBoot argument (there's no source to compare against!). If there's no source to compare against, there's no issue. That includes my work as freebooted by that devRant user. I can't prove my ownership due to me removing the original I posted on Facebook as part of a yearly cleanup.
But yeah.. content providers are responsible as they should be, it's been a huge issue on the likes of Facebook, and really needs to be fixed. Is this a doomsday scenario? After reading the law paper, honestly I don't think it is.
Have a read, I highly recommend it.
Just tried to read this the frequently asked questions about article 13.
I don't think you need to read it, since you learn nothing from it besides that these people don't even care anymore. Everything is written in a "wishful" mode, even their goals.
You can just go to the next trash can, take an item and compare it with that. Unfortunately, you will have to realize that the item you just picked up was more useful to society than everything you'll read in these "answers".
They basically dodge every single question vague to the point that someone as the amount of drugs these people take in order to think they are making realistic proposes.
"We aim to blah blah", "Our aim is blah blah", "We want to blah blah". Might as well sue me for copying their content in that paragraph.
If anybody ever tells you that you have unrealistic, stupid goals or dreams just remember: there's a whole continent lead by people who have no fucking idea what they are doing and still think they are doing a good job. And because they have no idea what they are doing they just offload all the work to companies.
Plattform: Ok, what do we have to do?
EU: lol, just "put in place, in collaboration with right holders, adequate and proportionate technical measures." (#2 P4)
Plattform: can you be a bit more specific?
EU: Look, this proposal just "requires platforms which store and provide access to large amounts of copyright-protected content uploaded by their users to put in place effective and proportionate measures." It's not that hard to understand, you dummy (#3 P3)
Plattform: So we need to monitor all user-generated content?
Eu: are you stupid or something? You "would not have to actively monitor all the content uploaded by users", just the copyrighted content. (#4 P1)
The rest is more or less the same, just them imagining the outcome, without taking turning on their decomposed brains in order to apply common sense.
Jumping off this "union" seems be pretty lucrative 🤔1