4 ms·
> like sharing links to news articles Aren't there repeated statements in the text that links are not covered? > the use of existing content for creative new
by IanCal 8y ago
> like sharing links to news articles
Aren't there repeated statements in the text that links are not covered?
> the use of existing content for creative new purposes (r/photoshopbattles, anyone?) would suddenly become questionable under the law
What's actually changed about the law here? AFAIK the rights for fair use aren't changed, and using copyrighted content otherwise is already legally questionable.
- vorticalbox 8y agoThe problem is the liability will now fall on the host rather than the uploader.
- Semaphor 8y agoAnd even with less extreme rules we already had YT ContentID which errs on the side of the possible rights holder even if they aren't actually holding the rights.
- IanCal 8y agoA13 seems to require that users can dispute things (and that rightsholders have to justify the takedown), requirements of proportionality and I think also requires an independent body setup by member states to raise these issues up to if not properly solved.
- Semaphor 8y agoYeah, but it still leads to overbroad takedown through filters first, maybe corrections after. Because everything else is simply too much risk for the platform.
- yifanl 8y agoAnd it should as long as the host profits from the uploader's work.
- scarejunba 8y agoI think the real problem is that we allow Intel to make CPUs that pirates can use. If we had it happen at that level, we could effectively end piracy. Intel is profiting so they must police.
- PunchTornado 8y agoexactly, I don't understand how a company like reddit could promote this FALSE idea. Links are not covered. Why do they do this?