14 ms·

UKIP and the Green Party joined forces to prevent Article 13 from getting rammed through without a public discussion. It was a good first step, but here we are,

UKIP and the Green Party joined forces to prevent Article 13 from getting rammed through without a public discussion. It was a good first step, but here we are, 2 months hence, and it was passed with virtually no amendments to the original text. This is an abhorrent decision by people who have no idea how the internet works. Markus Meechum (aka Count Dankula) was at the hearings, and reported that MEPs voting on the issue could not, or refused to, explain why they supported the bill. You can see him discussing the result in the immediate aftermath here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISyiTcA6RIw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISyiTcA6RIw If you want a quick example of why this is bad take a look at fair use and YouTube. Article 13 would make YouTube liable for copyrighted content on its service. Much of YouTube content is (perfectly legal) remixes, responses, or criticisms of other YouTube content that embeds part of the referenced video in their own video. There is more content uploaded to YouTube than can possibly all be manually reviewed. Aggressive automated content filtering to comply with Article 13 would mean that these videos would straight get filtered out.

buboard 8y ago
I think they know how the internet works, but they want to change it
- loa-in-backup 8y ago
  I think it's going to work like jaywalking - it's illegal, but I've done it, and it's fine as long as it doesn't cause a bigger issue, and as long as enforcer isn't overzealous. It's true though, that it's a weapon waiting to be used for political reasons, and the perspective of that happening is no good for anybody.
  - buboard 8y ago
    No individuals or companies can gain money from suing you for jaywalking. This is different.
    - laumars 8y ago
      Yes, the OP did also state that point as well. The comparison was just to illustrate that this law is unenforceable at large scale so people might just disregard it. The danger is, as he and yourself have both stated, you then have a situation where the law becomes a weapon to be abused rather than legislation to safeguard businesses or consumer interest.
      - int_19h 8y ago
        Unfortunately, it's quite enforceable. That's the whole point of this legislation - it goes after those entities that it can be enforced against (businesses), forcing them to turn around and enforce it against the smaller fish in their domain.
        laumars 8y ago
        You're missing the point being made. We are not saying "it cannot be enforced, period". What we are saying "you cannot police every single website on the internet." Thus what will happen is this law will be used as a weapon to target sites that publish reviews that paint a particular product in a bad light, or user contribution sites that compete with big social networks. Or even, in the worst case scenario, forums which are critical of a particular government party.* A law like this can and likely will be selectively enforced since it will be impossible to police every single independent thought published on the internet. * I appreciate those points may not be in breach of the new legislation per se. But there is a pretty good chance that some content on sites of those style would be in breach. So it's a little like police using a broken tail light as an excuse to stop and search a car.
        betterunix2 8y ago
        You cannot police every website on the Internet, but you certainly can scrap the Internet. It is easy to forget how much regulation surrounds the physical infrastructure of the Internet and how easily the government could just shut it all down. A key property of the Internet is that there is a single public IP address space; there is no technical reason why the address space could not be divided into "client" and "server" addresses, with only "servers" being allowed to host applications, and we are already halfway there with NAT (IPv6 does not help either, as it could easily be fragmented and we already have things like ULA). It would be easy to require a special license to receive a "server IP address" and I can see the EU doing exactly that based on their recent pattern of behavior. Europe has a long history of doing such things when confronted with new, disruptive technologies: the effort to license printing presses in various European countries is what eventually led to copyright law as we know it today.
  - chatmasta 8y ago
    I think this is spot-on. Laws like this are inherently unenforceable at a global scale, and therefore are selectively enforced. The enforcement agencies have limited resources and therefore will focus on politically strategic targets. This is a political weapon. Unfortunately, the downstream effects will hurt everyone else.
    - teget 8y ago
      No enforcement agency is required to enforce this law. Rightholders will sue non-filtering platforms over potentional lost sales due to their "wilful negligence". And if the offending platform has any business in Germany (or another country with similar laws) this will be a gold mine for any law business issuing cease and desist letters in the name of competing plattforms.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - chrisweekly 8y ago
    perspective -> prospect :)
  - PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
    And as long as you aren't of the wrong demographic. Laws that are selectively enforced allow racism and sexism to flourish among the police. In consistent enforcement of a law should be a valid defense of violating the law, and a very cheap one to employ.
Retr0spectrum 8y ago
The likes of YouTube will be affected the least. They already have aggressive copyright enforcement measures in place, and they can afford to do that. Smaller, more independent platforms will not be able to afford to implement compliance with these new regulations, and will potentially be driven out of business.
- kakarot 8y ago
  Yes, the Googles and Facebooks of the future will be affected the most. This is consolidation of power, finally locking down the Free Internet just as we've done with every other industry. Stripping the power to change from the small. And what are we doing about it?
  - sparkzilla 8y ago
    While I agree that regulation favours big companies, potential competitors will base themselves offshore, or create distributed apps that have no jurisdiction.
    - jonathanstrange 8y ago
      Both strategies have been tried and are unlikely to hold up in court.
      - sparkzilla 8y ago
        A bit challenging to sue a project when it has no owners and no jurisdiction. PS: Jonathan Strange: Great books and even better TV.
        mosselman 8y ago
        Nor customers/users. The problem is that 'normal' people don't know how to use most distributed/encrypted/stick-it-to-the-man products, nor do they care.
lorenzobr 8y ago
Yeah, it seems to me UKIP has good track record of things "getting rammed through without a public discussion" by now, like the 350 million for the NHS with Brexit.
- gaius 8y ago
  Interestingly, Farage wasn’t actually a part of that, BoJo wouldn’t let him join the official Leave campaign. So you can blame UKIP for lots of things, but not the bus.
  - dtf 8y ago
    Correct. Boris owns the bus, Nigel owns the poster. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/16/nigel-farage-defends-ukip-breaking-point-poster-queue-of-migrants https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/16/nigel-farag...
  - beaconstudios 8y ago
    > So you can blame UKIP for lots of things Such as what? I hear UKIP demonised a lot, but I genuinely don't know of anything they've done that is bad that wasn't simply political disagreement (wanting to leave the EU) or talking about contentious issues in a clumsy and ham-fisted way (immigration).
    - lorenzobr 8y ago
      For a starter, "wanting to leave the EU" without having a clue of how to do it or proposing practical solutions is not the finest thing to do. And also the entire immigration discussion was some bs considered the non-EU migration is been higher than EU one for decades https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/ https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/
      - ericdykstra 8y ago
        I disagree, I think it's perfectly fine to want to leave the EU on principle. For example, the principle of not wanted to be ruled by unelected oligarchs who can pass laws like Article 13 which affect UK citizens.
throwaway-hn123 8y ago
Oh no, MEPs refused to talk to an internet troll. Flow my tears.
Shaddox 8y ago
I may be naive in saying this, but I believe the law is made with good intentions in mind. The real problem lies in the laws it relies on, namely the extremely stringent copyright laws and the weird fair use. > Much of YouTube content is (perfectly legal) remixes, responses, or criticisms of other YouTube content that embeds part of the referenced video in their own video. As weird as it sounds, you are wrong. In a short summary: 1. Fair use is a very small exception to some very broad rights. 2. Fair use almost definitely does not apply to most youtube content : if you use content other people made (video games or music immediately come to mind) you are infringing copyright holder rights. 3. If you rely on fair use rights, then you might find yourself in trouble. What's even worse is that right holders can pick and choose who to bust, and they don't need to be consistent about it. So even if they rarely go after small groups, they can still shut down bigger ones. I have a childhood friend who is now a copyright lawyer and I sometimes jokingly ask him whether something is copyright infringing. Other than yes, the most frequent answer I get is "I don't know, it depends. Both sides have arguments so ultimately it's down to the judge." It's just bad law. The only difference between then and now is that now we have the technology to actually enforce it.
- simias 8y ago
  That's an interesting point. It's true that the issue wouldn't be quite as terrible if IP laws were more reasonable to begin with. We shouldn't have to wait for literal centuries before a work becomes public domain for instance.
- zaroth 8y ago
  Fair use (in the US) is actually designed to provide for the ability to comment on, or criticize another work. You can’t do that effectively without showing the subject matter you are discussing. There are absolutely well defined “fair use” exceptions which a stringent filter will block. > Other than yes, the most frequent answer I get is "I don't know, it depends. This is the only answer a lawyer will basically ever give you.
- ericdykstra 8y ago
  I don't believe this is true. Every legitimate YouTube fair use case that I've seen go to court has gone in favor of the fair user. The biggest name one so far is the H3H3 trial.[1] One that looks to be settled soon is Akilah Hughes suing Carl Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad), where all that Benjamin does is edit together two of Hughes videos with the only original addition being a new title. This is almost certainly going to go in favor of Sargon, yet YouTube's algorithms turned up to the nth degree would almost certainly have blocked it.[2] If you go outside of YouTube, fair use law in the United States is very broad. Just look at what Richard Prince does with others' art. [3] edit: added links 1. http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/41037631/youtube-stars-h3h3-win-landmark-court-case-against-matt-hoss http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/41037631/youtube-stars... 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LMgGBDZbJY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LMgGBDZbJY 3. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/18/instagram-artist-richard-prince-selfies https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/18/instagram...
servs 8y ago
> Much of YouTube content is (perfectly legal) remixes, responses, or criticisms of other YouTube content that embeds part of the referenced video in their own video. That actually isn't legal in many countries and is e.g. why regional wikipedia sites don't show movie posters.
- MoBattah 8y ago
  This is just plain stupidity. Sometimes I feel like the whole world is ruined by ignorant people in power. As for the Internet, it is exclusively being ruined by ignorant actors in positions of state power. All the while, armies of good people make the Internet better every day.
mcintyre1994 8y ago
If those were the only interested parties against it in the UK then that doesn't bode well for us getting rid of it in a few years, even if we don't negotiate away our right to. Shame.
pjc50 8y ago
> Markus Meechum (aka Count Dankula) Do we really not have anyone better as a source than the Nazi dog guy? http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/8/1962/PF-v-Mark-Meechan http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/8/1962/PF-v-Mark-Meecha... (Perhaps someone from Open Rights Group or EDRI?)
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- ericdykstra 8y ago
  He was the first one to report the decision on Twitter, and was literally livestreaming in that link I provided before the news was reported anywhere. I'm sorry that he's not on your approved list of people to report on this event.
- briandear 8y ago
  Nazi Dog Guy is a perfect example of what’s wrong with the EU/Britain. He got in trouble for offending people. That is ridiculous that there are laws against offending people.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - throwaway-hn123 8y ago
    Cry more, snowflake.
phkahler 8y ago
>> If you want a quick example of why this is bad take a look at fair use and YouTube. Article 13 would make YouTube liable for copyrighted content on its service. What exactly is wrong with that? Seriously.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- briandear 8y ago
  You're making the paper producer liable for what someone writes on it.
  - shady-lady 8y ago
    using your analogy, youtube would be the paper maker and most importantly, the newspaper that publishes those words. rightly, they're going after the newspaper. it's disingenuous to suggest youtube only makes tools for video content distribution whilst omitting the fact that they are the only consumers of those tools.
    - caf 8y ago
      Do you think that if I wrote a Letter to the Editor of the Times that included plagiarised content, that they could, should and would detect that prior to publishing?
- hannasanarion 8y ago
  Read the next sentence. "even legal uses of copyrighted content" In practice, this constitutes the abolition of the "fair use" doctrine on the internet.
- virmundi 8y ago
  This can have a chilling affect on content creation, and thus the dissemination of ideas. YouTube will have to create a filter that covers their liability. They might be able to automate, but it depends on the jurisdiction. For example, the US has fair use laws. A person may copy a segment of a copyrighted work to comment on it. There are territories in the EU where they can't. How does YouTube filter this? If the new product was produced in the US and references material from the EU, should YouTube allow the content to go public? According this and GDPR, the EU has the ability to cross territorial boundaries. So YouTube now has to ban such a work in the US even though our legal system allows it. Essentially, YouTube will have to create a new process where by all content must go past the censors, who are probably people and not machines. Otherwise YouTube will quickly die due to death by a thousand fines. So much for a free and open exchange of ideas.
AriaMinaei 8y ago
The 'against' camp is badly misunderstood. We're taken for pirates. And not the good kind! Example of a tweet chat with Howard Goodall: https://twitter.com/ariaminaei/status/1039856894893010945 https://twitter.com/ariaminaei/status/1039856894893010945
tynpeddler 8y ago
So if ISP's are required to install monitoring software, what does that mean for HTTPS, or other end-to-end encryption schemes, that prevent the ISP from doing packet inspection?
- GuB-42 8y ago
  Probably nothing. This is just a guess but I don't think ISPs are expected to do any form of DPI. The most likely question they will have to answer is "who is this IP address assigned to?" and possibly "who communicated with that IP?". Neither require any form of packet inspection that goes beyond what is needed to perform routing.
linuxftw 8y ago
> This is an abhorrent decision by people who have no idea how the internet works. Same sad song as it ever was. Keep giving more control to the government and they'll keep ratcheting down the screws on you. An economic union should be about tariffs and the free movement of goods, not an entirely unelected bureaucratic federal government. Centralizing authority only benefits the well connected political class.
- Joeri 8y ago
  An economic union should be about tariffs and the free movement of goods, not an entirely unelected bureaucratic federal government. The vote that occurred today was by the EU parliament, which is entirely elected. The directive was prepared inside the JURI committee, which also exists entirely out of elected representatives. Also, you can't have a single digital market without a single copyright regime. The economic union implies the single market which implies a single copyright directive. I agree that the contents of that directive is lamentable, but the need for one is clear, even for those opposing this particular directive, provided you buy into the notion that single markets should exist at all.
  - linuxftw 8y ago
    I don't believe in copyright or patents, those are solely institutions of the government and primarily tools of the well connected political class.
  - adrianratnapala 8y ago
    > Also, you can't have a single digital market without a single copyright regime. The economic union implies the single market which implies a single copyright directive. Why?
    - majewsky 8y ago
      It's sort of like arbitrage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrage If, for instance, the left side of your single digital market has a copyright duration of 70 years after the death of the artist, and the right side has 90 years instead, then in effect, it's 70 years even on the right side because anyone can just go to the left side, trade copies of the expired works without paying licensing fees, then come back to the right side with those copies (because it's a single market). So in effect, the regulation of the whole market is the weakest regulation of any part of it.

buboard 8y ago

I think they know how the internet works, but they want to change it

loa-in-backup 8y ago
I think it's going to work like jaywalking - it's illegal, but I've done it, and it's fine as long as it doesn't cause a bigger issue, and as long as enforcer isn't overzealous. It's true though, that it's a weapon waiting to be used for political reasons, and the perspective of that happening is no good for anybody.
- buboard 8y ago
  No individuals or companies can gain money from suing you for jaywalking. This is different.
  - laumars 8y ago
    Yes, the OP did also state that point as well. The comparison was just to illustrate that this law is unenforceable at large scale so people might just disregard it. The danger is, as he and yourself have both stated, you then have a situation where the law becomes a weapon to be abused rather than legislation to safeguard businesses or consumer interest.
    - int_19h 8y ago
      Unfortunately, it's quite enforceable. That's the whole point of this legislation - it goes after those entities that it can be enforced against (businesses), forcing them to turn around and enforce it against the smaller fish in their domain.
      - laumars 8y ago
        You're missing the point being made. We are not saying "it cannot be enforced, period". What we are saying "you cannot police every single website on the internet." Thus what will happen is this law will be used as a weapon to target sites that publish reviews that paint a particular product in a bad light, or user contribution sites that compete with big social networks. Or even, in the worst case scenario, forums which are critical of a particular government party.* A law like this can and likely will be selectively enforced since it will be impossible to police every single independent thought published on the internet. * I appreciate those points may not be in breach of the new legislation per se. But there is a pretty good chance that some content on sites of those style would be in breach. So it's a little like police using a broken tail light as an excuse to stop and search a car.
        betterunix2 8y ago
        You cannot police every website on the Internet, but you certainly can scrap the Internet. It is easy to forget how much regulation surrounds the physical infrastructure of the Internet and how easily the government could just shut it all down. A key property of the Internet is that there is a single public IP address space; there is no technical reason why the address space could not be divided into "client" and "server" addresses, with only "servers" being allowed to host applications, and we are already halfway there with NAT (IPv6 does not help either, as it could easily be fragmented and we already have things like ULA). It would be easy to require a special license to receive a "server IP address" and I can see the EU doing exactly that based on their recent pattern of behavior. Europe has a long history of doing such things when confronted with new, disruptive technologies: the effort to license printing presses in various European countries is what eventually led to copyright law as we know it today.
- chatmasta 8y ago
  I think this is spot-on. Laws like this are inherently unenforceable at a global scale, and therefore are selectively enforced. The enforcement agencies have limited resources and therefore will focus on politically strategic targets. This is a political weapon. Unfortunately, the downstream effects will hurt everyone else.
  - teget 8y ago
    No enforcement agency is required to enforce this law. Rightholders will sue non-filtering platforms over potentional lost sales due to their "wilful negligence". And if the offending platform has any business in Germany (or another country with similar laws) this will be a gold mine for any law business issuing cease and desist letters in the name of competing plattforms.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- chrisweekly 8y ago
  perspective -> prospect :)
- PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
  And as long as you aren't of the wrong demographic. Laws that are selectively enforced allow racism and sexism to flourish among the police. In consistent enforcement of a law should be a valid defense of violating the law, and a very cheap one to employ.

Retr0spectrum 8y ago

The likes of YouTube will be affected the least. They already have aggressive copyright enforcement measures in place, and they can afford to do that. Smaller, more independent platforms will not be able to afford to implement compliance with these new regulations, and will potentially be driven out of business.

kakarot 8y ago
Yes, the Googles and Facebooks of the future will be affected the most. This is consolidation of power, finally locking down the Free Internet just as we've done with every other industry. Stripping the power to change from the small. And what are we doing about it?
- sparkzilla 8y ago
  While I agree that regulation favours big companies, potential competitors will base themselves offshore, or create distributed apps that have no jurisdiction.
  - jonathanstrange 8y ago
    Both strategies have been tried and are unlikely to hold up in court.
    - sparkzilla 8y ago
      A bit challenging to sue a project when it has no owners and no jurisdiction. PS: Jonathan Strange: Great books and even better TV.
      - mosselman 8y ago
        Nor customers/users. The problem is that 'normal' people don't know how to use most distributed/encrypted/stick-it-to-the-man products, nor do they care.

lorenzobr 8y ago

Yeah, it seems to me UKIP has good track record of things "getting rammed through without a public discussion" by now, like the 350 million for the NHS with Brexit.

gaius 8y ago
Interestingly, Farage wasn’t actually a part of that, BoJo wouldn’t let him join the official Leave campaign. So you can blame UKIP for lots of things, but not the bus.
- dtf 8y ago
  Correct. Boris owns the bus, Nigel owns the poster. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/16/nigel-farage-defends-ukip-breaking-point-poster-queue-of-migrants https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/16/nigel-farag...
- beaconstudios 8y ago
  > So you can blame UKIP for lots of things Such as what? I hear UKIP demonised a lot, but I genuinely don't know of anything they've done that is bad that wasn't simply political disagreement (wanting to leave the EU) or talking about contentious issues in a clumsy and ham-fisted way (immigration).
  - lorenzobr 8y ago
    For a starter, "wanting to leave the EU" without having a clue of how to do it or proposing practical solutions is not the finest thing to do. And also the entire immigration discussion was some bs considered the non-EU migration is been higher than EU one for decades https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/ https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/
    - ericdykstra 8y ago
      I disagree, I think it's perfectly fine to want to leave the EU on principle. For example, the principle of not wanted to be ruled by unelected oligarchs who can pass laws like Article 13 which affect UK citizens.

throwaway-hn123 8y ago

Oh no, MEPs refused to talk to an internet troll. Flow my tears.

Shaddox 8y ago

I may be naive in saying this, but I believe the law is made with good intentions in mind. The real problem lies in the laws it relies on, namely the extremely stringent copyright laws and the weird fair use. > Much of YouTube content is (perfectly legal) remixes, responses, or criticisms of other YouTube content that embeds part of the referenced video in their own video. As weird as it sounds, you are wrong. In a short summary: 1. Fair use is a very small exception to some very broad rights. 2. Fair use almost definitely does not apply to most youtube content : if you use content other people made (video games or music immediately come to mind) you are infringing copyright holder rights. 3. If you rely on fair use rights, then you might find yourself in trouble. What's even worse is that right holders can pick and choose who to bust, and they don't need to be consistent about it. So even if they rarely go after small groups, they can still shut down bigger ones. I have a childhood friend who is now a copyright lawyer and I sometimes jokingly ask him whether something is copyright infringing. Other than yes, the most frequent answer I get is "I don't know, it depends. Both sides have arguments so ultimately it's down to the judge." It's just bad law. The only difference between then and now is that now we have the technology to actually enforce it.

simias 8y ago
That's an interesting point. It's true that the issue wouldn't be quite as terrible if IP laws were more reasonable to begin with. We shouldn't have to wait for literal centuries before a work becomes public domain for instance.
zaroth 8y ago
Fair use (in the US) is actually designed to provide for the ability to comment on, or criticize another work. You can’t do that effectively without showing the subject matter you are discussing. There are absolutely well defined “fair use” exceptions which a stringent filter will block. > Other than yes, the most frequent answer I get is "I don't know, it depends. This is the only answer a lawyer will basically ever give you.
ericdykstra 8y ago
I don't believe this is true. Every legitimate YouTube fair use case that I've seen go to court has gone in favor of the fair user. The biggest name one so far is the H3H3 trial.[1] One that looks to be settled soon is Akilah Hughes suing Carl Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad), where all that Benjamin does is edit together two of Hughes videos with the only original addition being a new title. This is almost certainly going to go in favor of Sargon, yet YouTube's algorithms turned up to the nth degree would almost certainly have blocked it.[2] If you go outside of YouTube, fair use law in the United States is very broad. Just look at what Richard Prince does with others' art. [3] edit: added links 1. http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/41037631/youtube-stars-h3h3-win-landmark-court-case-against-matt-hoss http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/41037631/youtube-stars... 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LMgGBDZbJY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LMgGBDZbJY 3. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/18/instagram-artist-richard-prince-selfies https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/18/instagram...

servs 8y ago

> Much of YouTube content is (perfectly legal) remixes, responses, or criticisms of other YouTube content that embeds part of the referenced video in their own video. That actually isn't legal in many countries and is e.g. why regional wikipedia sites don't show movie posters.

MoBattah 8y ago
This is just plain stupidity. Sometimes I feel like the whole world is ruined by ignorant people in power. As for the Internet, it is exclusively being ruined by ignorant actors in positions of state power. All the while, armies of good people make the Internet better every day.

mcintyre1994 8y ago

If those were the only interested parties against it in the UK then that doesn't bode well for us getting rid of it in a few years, even if we don't negotiate away our right to. Shame.

pjc50 8y ago

> Markus Meechum (aka Count Dankula) Do we really not have anyone better as a source than the Nazi dog guy? http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/8/1962/PF-v-Mark-Meechan http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/8/1962/PF-v-Mark-Meecha... (Perhaps someone from Open Rights Group or EDRI?)

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ericdykstra 8y ago
He was the first one to report the decision on Twitter, and was literally livestreaming in that link I provided before the news was reported anywhere. I'm sorry that he's not on your approved list of people to report on this event.
briandear 8y ago
Nazi Dog Guy is a perfect example of what’s wrong with the EU/Britain. He got in trouble for offending people. That is ridiculous that there are laws against offending people.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway-hn123 8y ago
  Cry more, snowflake.

phkahler 8y ago

>> If you want a quick example of why this is bad take a look at fair use and YouTube. Article 13 would make YouTube liable for copyrighted content on its service. What exactly is wrong with that? Seriously.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
briandear 8y ago
You're making the paper producer liable for what someone writes on it.
- shady-lady 8y ago
  using your analogy, youtube would be the paper maker and most importantly, the newspaper that publishes those words. rightly, they're going after the newspaper. it's disingenuous to suggest youtube only makes tools for video content distribution whilst omitting the fact that they are the only consumers of those tools.
  - caf 8y ago
    Do you think that if I wrote a Letter to the Editor of the Times that included plagiarised content, that they could, should and would detect that prior to publishing?
hannasanarion 8y ago
Read the next sentence. "even legal uses of copyrighted content" In practice, this constitutes the abolition of the "fair use" doctrine on the internet.
virmundi 8y ago
This can have a chilling affect on content creation, and thus the dissemination of ideas. YouTube will have to create a filter that covers their liability. They might be able to automate, but it depends on the jurisdiction. For example, the US has fair use laws. A person may copy a segment of a copyrighted work to comment on it. There are territories in the EU where they can't. How does YouTube filter this? If the new product was produced in the US and references material from the EU, should YouTube allow the content to go public? According this and GDPR, the EU has the ability to cross territorial boundaries. So YouTube now has to ban such a work in the US even though our legal system allows it. Essentially, YouTube will have to create a new process where by all content must go past the censors, who are probably people and not machines. Otherwise YouTube will quickly die due to death by a thousand fines. So much for a free and open exchange of ideas.

AriaMinaei 8y ago

The 'against' camp is badly misunderstood. We're taken for pirates. And not the good kind! Example of a tweet chat with Howard Goodall: https://twitter.com/ariaminaei/status/1039856894893010945 https://twitter.com/ariaminaei/status/1039856894893010945

tynpeddler 8y ago

So if ISP's are required to install monitoring software, what does that mean for HTTPS, or other end-to-end encryption schemes, that prevent the ISP from doing packet inspection?

GuB-42 8y ago
Probably nothing. This is just a guess but I don't think ISPs are expected to do any form of DPI. The most likely question they will have to answer is "who is this IP address assigned to?" and possibly "who communicated with that IP?". Neither require any form of packet inspection that goes beyond what is needed to perform routing.

linuxftw 8y ago

> This is an abhorrent decision by people who have no idea how the internet works. Same sad song as it ever was. Keep giving more control to the government and they'll keep ratcheting down the screws on you. An economic union should be about tariffs and the free movement of goods, not an entirely unelected bureaucratic federal government. Centralizing authority only benefits the well connected political class.

Joeri 8y ago
An economic union should be about tariffs and the free movement of goods, not an entirely unelected bureaucratic federal government. The vote that occurred today was by the EU parliament, which is entirely elected. The directive was prepared inside the JURI committee, which also exists entirely out of elected representatives. Also, you can't have a single digital market without a single copyright regime. The economic union implies the single market which implies a single copyright directive. I agree that the contents of that directive is lamentable, but the need for one is clear, even for those opposing this particular directive, provided you buy into the notion that single markets should exist at all.
- linuxftw 8y ago
  I don't believe in copyright or patents, those are solely institutions of the government and primarily tools of the well connected political class.
- adrianratnapala 8y ago
  > Also, you can't have a single digital market without a single copyright regime. The economic union implies the single market which implies a single copyright directive. Why?
  - majewsky 8y ago
    It's sort of like arbitrage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrage If, for instance, the left side of your single digital market has a copyright duration of 70 years after the death of the artist, and the right side has 90 years instead, then in effect, it's 70 years even on the right side because anyone can just go to the left side, trade copies of the expired works without paying licensing fees, then come back to the right side with those copies (because it's a single market). So in effect, the regulation of the whole market is the weakest regulation of any part of it.