Join devRant
Do all the things like
++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatar
Sign Up
Pipeless API
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power real-time personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple API
Learn More
-
How are these EU-Upload Filters even practical for anyone except google? This seems like the most unrealistic specification by non-tech bosses in history to me 😭 What do these people expect the upload filters should compare the uploads to? How the fuck should, say a blog website, ensure that none of the uploads are copyright inflicting? Are quotes copyright inflicting? Or only when I copy paste an entire book and write my name under that? How will that get detected? Do we have a database with all the copyrighted works somewhere, that every company has access to? This shit can basically only work for companies like google which have enough data to implement such filters and thats why they already had an upload filter on youtube anyways. This entire amendment is so fucking ridiculous that it basically has to fail, no doubt. In a few months still nobody is going to have upload filters, watch...9
-
I think I have to leave the EU.
This is the straw to break the camel's back finally.
I am very disappointed, EU parliament.
Maybe Swiss, or Norway... or the moon, hmm...10 -
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
It passed.
https://torrentfreak.com/eu-parliam...8 -
I hoped I would write about other things than EU internet regulation... But I hoped wrong.
The new online antiterror regulation is flawed, too.
What will the new regulation change?
The EU plans stricter anti terror laws for online platforms. In a nutshell, reported terroristic content has to be removed in <1 hour> after reporting. While automated filters are not required (the EVP party and the EU commission wanted those, but couldn't get a majority in the perliament), but it is unclear how to fulfill the regulation without.
What is the current progress of the regulation?
The EU parliament approved the draft, the trialogue will begin after election. The parliament has to approve the final trialogue result again and might reject it then. The characteristics of the regulation might change, too.
Who (platforms) will be affected?
All platforms, "offering servicd in the EU, independent of their business address" (free translation from German).
Will there be exceptions (e.g. for smaller or non commercial platforms)?
No.
At the very first report, the platform will have 12h time.
What are the consequences of not following?
Regularly breaking the law _constantly_, up to 4%/of the total yearly revenue.
Sources?
- The "fact sheet" of last year (upload filters were still a requirement): https://ec.europa.eu/commission/...
- The law proposal itself (also outdated): https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-con...
- Proposed changes by the EU parliament (I'm not sure which ones were approved): http://europarl.europa.eu/doceo/...
- German news article: https://golem.de/news/...2 -
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.
http://europarl.europa.eu/doceo/...13
Top Tags
Weekly Rant
View