16 ms·
Four Wikipedias to ‘Black Out’ over EU Copyright Directive
- hansflying 8y agoThis law was strongly pushed by the "Axel Springer" company. This company is so evil that there are even browser extensions to just block their websites (see Axel Springer Blocker in chrome extension store)
- xiphias2 8y agoThe interesting part was while not the whole EU does the protest? It would send a clearer message.
- funkythings 8y agoThe EU started as a union to promote freedom of movement, peace and trade inside Europe. Since then, it has grown to be an oversized bureaucracy that restricts the freedoms of European citizens. Everyone who criticize it is immediately labelled as a right winger.
- jjjjjjjjjjjjjjj 8y agoRegarding being labelled a right winger: not necessarily the case. The most left-wing political party in Sweden are against the EU, the Euro, and have a long term goal for Sweden to exit the EU. They "criticize EU for prioritizing the European single market's interest over the environment, public health, worker and consumer interests" [0] [0]https://www.vansterpartiet.se/politik/eu/ https://www.vansterpartiet.se/politik/eu/
- jimmy1 8y agoI am not sure why you are being down-voted. I know people have a distaste for political insights in general here, but it seems apt to have comments like these on an article about protesting a governing body. Why is German Wikipedia having to have a blackout? They are unhappy with the EU restricting their freedoms.
- p1necone 8y agoI downvoted it because the comment has no substance besides "EU bad". It adds nothing of value to the discussion. Explain why the EU is an "oversized bureaucracy".
- ar0 8y agoI also don't see the link to the topic at hand: It's not the (debatable) "oversized bureaucracy" that has drafted and works on passing Article 13: It is national governments (see the French / German "deal" on this topic) and the European Parliament (and particularly the EPP) that are the source of Article 13 and the frustration that lead to this blackout.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago" It's not the (debatable) "oversized bureaucracy" that has drafted and works on passing Article 13: " Article 13 is 100% an EU law. Pointing to the fact that maybe it's really just in the interest of specific French and German entities really only serves to highlight possible existential issues of legitimacy of that body politic. Also, the fact that Wikipedia and other entities have to take such drastic action, never before seen, leaves no doubt as to how out of touch and unrealistic this legislation is. Together with the $1.5B in fines today, and of course recent special French taxation legislation intended to get around the fact they view Ireland/Ducth systems as 'havens' ... well it would seem there are indeed some existential problems. A 'winning' position would be to have something like Google based and operated on the Continent somewhere, generating real returns and exports as well. All of this is good for discussion, but ultimately they're moves of players with a weak hand. If long term conditions were set appropriately, the tables would be turned and the problem would be Trump threats on imports (as he does with Volkswagen). Those are 'good problems' to have.
- Carpetsmoker 8y ago> Everyone who criticize it is immediately labelled as a right winger. Guess the Dutch Socialist Party and hard Green Party (PvdD) are right-wing now
- reaperducer 8y agoThe EU started as a union to promote freedom of movement, peace and trade inside Europe I thought the EU started as a means to regulate industrial production, then later evolved into what you describe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Coal_and_Steel_Community https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Coal_and_Steel_Commun...
- snazz 8y agoI cannot scroll the white-on-black text at all in MobileSafari. Although I “should” be using the mobile site, this edge case should still be accounted for.
- est31 8y agoThe big websites participating in the blackout like Wikipedia or some porn sites do have vast access to eyeballs across europe, and would be affected directly and adversely by the new rules. As the lobbying fight has already been mostly won by the local publisher industry, they use their access to those eyeballs to fuel democratic protests of the rule. I hope they win and that Article 11 and 13 will be removed. I think this is an important moment in the birth of EU democracy, because it feels to me that one of the first times, there is a big public discussion about an issue and the people at the center aren't national politicians like Merkel or Macron but EU MEPs, namely Voss vs Reda. The EU has rightfully been criticized of not being democratic enough, and this discussion feels like it's very much democratic.
- sveme 8y agoI agree. It actually demonstrates nicely that there is a European community, that isn't organizing itself via the media, but through social media like reddit and twitter (and partially facebook). r/europe, for example, is a surprisingly influential entity with lots of AMAs with proponents and opponents of Article 13. And many less interesting meme chains as well...
- TomMarius 8y agoI don't think it's democratic at all. In case of my small country, almost literally no one wants this law - but that doesn't matter, we're a small country. The whole thing feels terribly wrong - 10 million people, the 100% majority of this rather big geographical location that is even separated by mountains on all sides, are just overruled, while they don't even understand the language these politicians are talking in...? Why couldn't we have our own rules regarding copyright, like up until now? Democracy doesn't just mean that there is some voting, it means that the people rule. In my country, our people no longer rule, now the Germans and the French rule our country (because we have less than 2% of votes in the EU parliament) and there is absolutely nothing democratic about that, the polar opposite actually. We're no longer a country, we've been reduced to a lowly region, and you people praise the EU for that while my grandfathers died for us to be sovereign and have a say in our matters. It feels sickening. I truly hope this law passes and it significantly reduces everyone's high opinion of the EU so we can finally talk about fixing this. The funny/sad thing is that my people had more say over our country during the communist regime than we have today. The Soviets at least accepted bribes. BTW yes, most people here would rather be poor and sovereign than the EU alternative. And we had no idea this is what we're joining back in 2004, and no one asked us when it changed - in fact, significant pressure that I deem absolutely unethical was made on our politicians to not let our people decide in a referendum.
- IdiocyInAction 8y agoAs an EU citizen, I hope large portions of the internet will just block us. A couple of days without YouTube, Wikipedia and other services would create sufficient outrage to put pressure on the EU for introducing these idiotic laws. I mean, GDPR is bad enough for start ups, but Article 13?
- jaifraic 8y agoGDPR is just fine, if you've got your shit together and has some actual benefits for users, like being able to request all my saved data and its deletion. And of course disallowing websites handing my data to every possible ad network without my consent.
- confounded 8y agoArticle 13 is terrible not because it’s terrible for start-ups, it’s terrible because it’s terrible for people. I’m pretty close to the rough-end of GDPR in my current job, but it represents real benefits for millions of people. If you asked them what’s a reasonable way to treat their data, I believe the GDPR is close-ish to what a lot of Europeans would want. Or, at least a shift in the right direction. Article 13 on the other hand is what you get if you ask rights-holders groups what they want, and poses a direct threat to freedom of expression for millions of Europeans.
- orangecat 8y agoIf you asked them what’s a reasonable way to treat their data, I believe the GDPR is close-ish to what a lot of Europeans would want. I'm pretty sure that if you asked people whether they would prefer to pay for Facebook and Google with cash or by sharing data for ad targeting, most would choose the latter. The GDPR specifically forbids that option. Article 13 on the other hand is what you get if you ask rights-holders groups what they want, and poses a direct threat to freedom of expression for millions of Europeans. And it demonstrates the impossibility of having a powerful bureaucracy that does only the things that you want.
- sametmax 8y ago
- austincheney 8y agotldr; Subcommunities have the flexibility to take independent action regarding policy position. No so interesting. I was hoping to get a deeper dive into why they disagree with the upcoming law.
- cf498 8y agoWhy they disagree with censorship? Its a great firewall with the enforcement being pushed to every last person running a website. Its a totalitarian grasp for the control of the internet as a whole. The protection fee for publishing houses is just an added bonus for a few corrupt institutions on their deathbed.
- austincheney 8y agoIs enforcing copyright censorship? I am not being antagonistic as I have actually no idea what is in this new law.
- DanBC 8y agoCopy right law normally have exemptions for things like fair use or fair dealing or for research. Article 13 includes those exemptions. Publishers like YouTube can't cope with those exemptions and have implemented a baffling system where copyright material is either: - freely available and monetised to the uploader not the rights holder - freely available and monetised to the person claiming to be the rights holder (they may not be the rights holder) -available with restrictions ("not available in this country") - blocked completely, with copyright strikes against the uploader, even if the upload carefully obeys copyright laws. This is mostly a problem with lazy publishers, but complex and inconsistent international laws don't make it easy.
- koonsolo 8y agoLet me give you a clear example. Look at this: Exit light Enter night Take my hand We're off to Never—, Neverland Now I lay me down to sleep Pray the Lord my soul to keep If I die before I wake Pray the Lord my soul to take These are the lyrics of Metallica "Enter Sandman". YCombinator can now get sued because they didn't filter out my post. They unlawfully published copyrighted material. Without this law, I would be liable. With this law, YCombinator is liable too.
- knight17 8y agoIt is interesting to me that only four of them are protesting—German, Czech, Danish, and Slovak—by blacking out their sites on 21 March 2019 in opposition to the proposed EU Copyright Directive. Why is it that other EU Wikipedia language editions like French, Italian, Polish, Portuguese and Spanish not joining in the protests? Did they come up with a different conclusion on the potential impact of the new copyright directive? Can people who know about the politics of other EU language Wikipedia comment whether they had discussed of joining this black out?
- bArray 8y agoI support their point of view and agree with their protest, but one reason against this could be the potential politicizing and weaponisation of Wikipedia. Do you want one of the largest collectives of human information to take sides (in any debate) and selectively remove its service? I think I would prefer a banner or a landing page more as it doesn't introduce any barrier to the information they provide.
- tdb7893 8y agoI assume Wikipedia is protesting because it directly affects them. I don't see how it's problematic to advocate for themselves sometimes.
- krageon 8y agoBecause it is expected that they are as neutral as possible. People should advocate for encyclopedias, but they should not have opinions themselves. That impression can be argued to be wrong, of course.
- silvester23 8y agoWell, it is explicitly stated in the linked statement that > “Wikipedia’s articles are neutral, [but] its existence is not.” You might disagree with that position, but if you expect Wikipedia as a platform to be neutral, you have not been paying attention.
- bArray 8y ago"Fixing" the page (return to normal): 1. In the style sheet, remove: color: #111 !important; background: #111 !important; border: 1px #111 solid !important; 2. In the HTML, remove: background:#000;color:#000 That's all I could find on a few page visits.
- mqus 8y agoalternatively: use reader mode on firefox. this may not enable everything but is at least you can read it... (I'm somewhat conflicted on using and/or helping circumventing wikipedias efforts)
- MrGilbert 8y agoI'm a bit disappointed that they didn't remove the content completely, using 302-redirects. I'm using uBlock origin, and the whole website looks like a mess. It doesn't even show the "call-to-action" banner, which is required for Average Joe to understand why Wikipedia looks the way it looks. They could have done better.
- neeeee 8y agoOr just use a script as a bookmark: javascript:(function(){ document.getElementById("centralNotice").outerHTML = ""; document.getElementsByClassName("mw-parser-output")[0].className = "";})();
- MR4D 8y agoI think this is great, but I think it would be funnier to just replace all the words with Klingon. That way, things would look like they work, but upon closer inspection, not actually work. The effect would be frustration, and could be made worse if done for a random amount of time.
- MR4D 8y agoWhoever voted me down on this should understand the regulation and why my response was stated as it was. ( for reference, a good critique of the law is here [0]. ) My main issue is that the offenders are basically no longer really in trouble, but the networks (google, FB, reddit, et al) now are. (yes, that's a simplification, but bear with me). This is akin to punishing the telephone company whenever someone makes a call on their network as part of a crime. So, at first glance, everything is normal, until it isn't. Hence my comment about replacing the text on a page with Klingon instead - it looks fine, right up until it doesn't. This mirrors the effect of the law - something looks fine, right up until it's determined to be illegal, and then you are f'ed. So if you disagree with me, then fine, but at least understand why my comment is there - it is supposed to be insidious, because the law is insidious. [0] - https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/02/final-version-eus-copyright-directive-worst-one-yet https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/02/final-version-eus-copy...
- titanix2 8y agoIt's good big well known brands like Wikipedia are doing something but seeing the language list (German, Czech, Slovak, Danish) only German is in the top 3 of languages spoken in EU (except English, which will not count in near future anyway). There is missing Swedish and French, and given how French are into protesting, it's sad they didn't join this initiative.
- Arkanosis 8y ago“French are into protesting”{{refnec}}
- black-tea 8y agoIt must have been ten years ago now that I first listened to Richard Stallman's talk called "Copyright vs Community". It's a really enlightening talk and makes it clear how much worse copyright has become over the years. It makes me incredibly sad to see it now regressing even further. We're already at a point where copyright severely restricts our ability to share our own culture. A couple of years ago we lost what was, by far, the greatest music collection ever put together. Meticulously maintained by people who love music, but destroyed by people who love money. It pains me that people can't even put up YouTube videos with certain music in the background. People can't record their actual lives because parts of their life are owned by other people. Copyright belongs in the day of the printing press. It has long out stayed its welcome.
- testuser2131 8y agoMaking content providers liable about the content they publish seems to me essential to have an healthy internet: I don't understand all the problem about censorship; Am I missing something?
- honzzz 8y agoConsider the difference "making content providers liable for the content they publish" vs "making platforms liable for the content others publish".
- testuser2131 8y agoYes, but currently content providers are making money (not in case of wikipedia, I know) over content that could be against the law (it could be hate speech, harassment, copyright infringement or whatever). For example how are online content providers any difference from traditional newspapers, where the director is accountable for all content published in the newspaper?
- honzzz 8y agoI believe that people should be responsible for what they do, not for what other people do. That is the key difference between the traditional media and platforms - traditional newspapers are under your control, written by your employees, you are able to read all the articles before you publish them etc. A platform is something you create for other people to use it. If we accept that platforms should be responsible for what their users do, where do we draw the line? If I slander you over the phone, should phone company be responsible for it? Using your argument, they made money on that slanderous call so they should be, is that right?
- aequitas 8y agoIf content providers in the online medium are to be the same to traditional providers like newspapers internet as we know it won't be any longer and we will have just that, online traditional newspapers. Making money by breaking the law should not be allowed I agree. But currently these laws (copyright) are more due for a refactoring than the medium (internet) itself. As these laws are not well balanced between all parties involved, especially with all the possibilities in the current age.
- josteink 8y agoWhy only four? We need all of Wikipedia to black out. For everyone. If you want to raise awareness, why do a half-assed job?
- koonsolo 8y agoHere are part of the lyrics of "Enter Sandman" of Metallica: Exit light Enter night Take my hand We're off to Never—, Neverland Now I lay me down to sleep Pray the Lord my soul to keep If I die before I wake Pray the Lord my soul to take YCombinator is now in violation of article 13. Some filter should have prevented me from posting this. That is what article 13 is about.
- xxs 8y agoImagine you have translated it to another language of the EU member states (not the one official for the UK [still], Ireland or Malta) Yep, the article 13 is beyond dumb.
- avar 8y agoArticle 13 is bad enough without needing to make up absurd interpretations of it. EU law is enforced on the basis of proportionality, and the wording of the proposed directive already covers that. There's never going to be some legal obligation to remove something like the quote you just posted. Furthermore, since it's a directive each member state will need to implement it in a way that's compatible with both the directive and its own laws. The countries in the EU all have some sort of concept that's analogous to "fair use", even if that's not what they call it.
- koonsolo 8y agoI could copy an entire blog post here, taking credit myself, instead of referring to it with a link. Would that be "fair use" too, and in which countries? If that would happen, and the blog owner would sue, to which extend would the proportionality relate to real money? $50, $500, $50000?
- honestoHeminway 8y agoThere is however a legal requirement to get a license- or have a licensing service get the microtransaction necessary to pay to metallica or the lyrics owner his due.
- belorn 8y ago
- porsager 8y agoFor anyone in Denmark, here are contact details for the MEPs: - Margrete Auken - +4561625450 - margrete.auken@europarl.europa.eu - https://twitter.com/MargreteAuken https://twitter.com/MargreteAuken - Bendt Bendtsen - bb@bendt.dk - https://twitter.com/BendtEU https://twitter.com/BendtEU - Ole Christensen - +4522200830 - ole.christensen@europarl.europa.eu - https://twitter.com/oleeu https://twitter.com/oleeu - Jørn Dohrmann - +4561623349 - jorn.dohrmann@europarl.europa.eu - https://twitter.com/mepdohrmann https://twitter.com/mepdohrmann - Rina Ronja Kari - +4526701816 - rina@folkebevaegelsen.dk - https://twitter.com/rinakari https://twitter.com/rinakari - Rikke-Louise Karlsson - rikke-louise.karlsson@europarl.europa.eu - Jeppe Kofod - +3222837463 - Jeppe.Kofod@ep.europa.eu - https://twitter.com/jeppekofod https://twitter.com/jeppekofod - Morten Løkkegaard - +4521608001 - morten.lokkegaard@europarl.europa.eu - https://twitter.com/loekkegaard_mep https://twitter.com/loekkegaard_mep - Morten Messerschmidt - +4561624232 - Morten.Messerschmidt@ft.dk - https://twitter.com/MrMesserschmidt https://twitter.com/MrMesserschmidt - Morten Helveg Petersen - mortenhelveg.petersen@europarl.europa.eu - https://twitter.com/mortenhelveg https://twitter.com/mortenhelveg - Jens Rohde - jens.rohde@europarl.europa.eu - https://twitter.com/rohde_jens https://twitter.com/rohde_jens - Christel Schaldemose - +4540768626 - christel.schaldemose@ep.europa.eu - https://twitter.com/schaldemosemep https://twitter.com/schaldemosemep - Anders Primdahl Vistisen - +4553860080 - anders.vistisen@europarl.europa.eu - https://twitter.com/AndersVistisen https://twitter.com/AndersVistisen
- testuser2131 8y agoI was not able to find these phone numbers online, where did you get them from?
- porsager 8y agoThey were all found on their parties website.
- bemmu 8y agoWhat specifically should one ask them to vote against? I'm sure they have a lot on their plate, so what's a good way to make it easy for them to understand which vote this is about?
- jhabdas 8y agoRe Article 11 foundation states for-profit information aggregators will be restricted to snippets. This is good for liberating information as it will help increase the breadth of useful search results for original content. Re Article 13 and placing increased pressure against the DCMA, you'll probably stop seeing so many 1080p movies on YouTube (hence NewPipe) when you search for "x264 YIFY". That sucks.
- Sujan 8y agoShame that the CTA of e.g. the German Wikipedia is so weak: "Kontaktieren sie ihre Abgeordneten " (translted: contact your representative) which links to https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/de/home https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/de/home. Besides the site being super slow right now, I couldn't even figure out how to actually find _my_ representative. Is my representative the one of the city where I live? How can I search by city? Is this even by city? Doesn't seem so. So now I have a list of 96 random people. Which ones can actually influence this? Or which one actually need their opinion changed? I also wouldn't really know how to contact them - just send an email and write that I hate that the make so bad politics that Wikipedia had to shut down their site in protest? Politics is hard :/
- lostmyoldone 8y agoJulia Reda usually posts the good links, so go to her site and have a look around!
- horriblePun 8y agoSurprised not to see the Catalonian Wikipedia on that list.