4 ms·

GDPR and Article 13 (in The Directive on Copyright) are totally different and unrelated things. I happen to be a small business owner in the EU and I have many

GDPR and Article 13 (in The Directive on Copyright) are totally different and unrelated things. I happen to be a small business owner in the EU and I have many customers who are the same. We all have registered with the ICO (UK) for something like £60 pa and filled in a short questionnaire. We have read the clear guidance on what records to keep and what to not keep - it's not rocket science. That is GDPR for most small businesses. Now, if your business is predicated on building profiles on people or pestering them on the phone or flogging ads etc then I can't help you there - it may be a pain. Now Article 13: It is designed to try and make the likes of YouTube responsible for not carrying copyrighted works by putting the onus back on them. I believe they hide behind carrier status. I understand that A13 looks a bit like an anti-meme effort but it isn't because that is generally covered by parody or reasonable use regulations. In the end, are you really sure you want the world to block us?

dleslie 8y ago
> In the end, are you really sure you want the world to block us? Yes. Let's end the cycle of pretending that we can prevent information from being free. Copyright is a dinosaur of an idea that belongs in the annals of history and out of the present.
- okr 8y ago
  Unless someone has some work of their own, that other people start to use and make money off it. Then that one wants copyright. Then its no longer information flying free for everyone.
  - drywater 8y ago
    That is more on the side of licensing.
- dingaling 8y ago
  > Copyright is a dinosaur of an idea that belongs in the annals of history and out of the present. Then don't copyright the content you make, just release it out into the public domain. Be the change you want to see. But let's be honest, the people most vocal against Article 13 are those who want to leech other people's creations for free. Not those people actually creating the content.
  - furi 8y ago
    > the people most vocal against Article 13 are those who want to leech other people's creations for free. Why would such people be at all concerned about Article 13? Torrent sites and swarms have been in flagrant disregard of the law since forever, one more law isn't going to change much. Likewise the other popular pirate mechanism, the old "upload an archive with the content to Mega or similar" technique, already frequently uses encrypted archives to make sure only people coming through the right channel (often an ad laden website + several even more ad laden URL shorteners) get access to the content, making a filter requirement ineffectual there as well.
    - mrep 8y ago
      Torrents aren't really good for small things that quickly change like news whereas websites like reddit are and I'm pretty sure the people who are pushing for articles 11 and 13 are news agencies. Here is my thought process: News agencies know they are using dark patterns to skirt by GDPR while still using targeted advertising but since they know the fines will eventually start hitting, they want to move to paywalls. However, A paywall for a news company is practically useless as any major story one makes gets linked to and paraphrased by dozens of other news agencies within minutes. Users won't pay for a news website when they can get practically the same stories only slightly delayed at a free one that just paraphrases and links back to the original. Article 11 solves that problem and article 13 is to prevent 1 user who does pay for a website from copying the entire article and pasting it in a comment (I see that and archive/outline links all the time here and on reddit).
  - krageon 8y ago
    > the people most vocal against Article 13 are those who want to leech other people's creations for free If we're going to be completely honest here, this is constructed as a personal attack and therefore doesn't merit the storage it takes up.
  - zaarn 8y ago
    In the EU you can't easily release content into the public domain, in Germany it's impossible to do that.
- rutthenut 8y ago
  Copyright is far from a dinosaur. It may be disliked by freeloaders but that doesn't make it wrong. I know of numerous photographers who find their work ripped-off; without copyright protection they would have no comeback on that.
  - TuringTest 8y ago
    In a world where everyone has a copying machine in their pocket more powerful than anything built by mankind ever before, the economic value of a copy is zero. Copyright is a power grab around that fact. It wouldn't matter as much if they didn't extend it to a duration of two lifetimes.
onli 8y ago
> I understand that A13 looks a bit like an anti-meme effort but it isn't because that is generally covered by parody or reasonable use regulations. That's exactly the problem. Stuff of that is protected, and with good reason. But upload filter that would be mandated by article 13 can't detect that fair use. By enforcing them for all platforms like Youtube all of this will vanish from the european internet.
- krageon 8y ago
  You don't and can't know this and it is obvious because you are speculating about a future fact. It would help all of us if you couched it as such so that no reader can be deluded into thinking you have based your arguments on the kind of certainty that they seem to be based on.
  - honzzz 8y ago
    We can predict some things with a reasonable amount of certainty. For example, if companies have one high-risk high-cost option (relying on sophisticated solutions able to distinguish edge cases like fair use) and low-risk low-cost option (blocking everything that is suspicious), we can expect them to chose the later.
  - koonsolo 8y ago
    I'm building a platform that allows anyone to make games, and share them on the web. Do you think I will stay in Europe with my company if this bill passes? You must be crazy.
- jaifraic 8y ago
  This is why A13 requires the platform to have an actual human being revise the decision if something is wrongfully blocked. I think it's in chapter 4 or 8 of the article IIRC.
  - mrep 8y ago
    Wow, so not only do you have to spend millions of dollars to create an automated filter (YouTube reportedly spent 60), you also have to spend $X on humans to review false positive claims and $Y on copyright infringement cases in which your automated filter wasn't good enough. Talk about barriers to entry.
raverbashing 8y ago
> I understand that A13 looks a bit like an anti-meme effort but it isn't because that is generally covered by parody or reasonable use regulations. Yes, you just need to find a way of convincing filters your parody is a parody (or other types of fair use) and not C.I. Oh wait there's no way
StreamBright 8y ago
> In the end, are you really sure you want the world to block us? Well this is a double edge sword. EU still produces something like 20% of the global GDP and if a company can ignore such a market than let it be. There will be many alternative projects spawn to fill the market need (if there is a real one, not talking about surveillance capitalism products here). Is this that bad for the EU? I don't think so.

dleslie 8y ago

> In the end, are you really sure you want the world to block us? Yes. Let's end the cycle of pretending that we can prevent information from being free. Copyright is a dinosaur of an idea that belongs in the annals of history and out of the present.

okr 8y ago
Unless someone has some work of their own, that other people start to use and make money off it. Then that one wants copyright. Then its no longer information flying free for everyone.
- drywater 8y ago
  That is more on the side of licensing.
dingaling 8y ago
> Copyright is a dinosaur of an idea that belongs in the annals of history and out of the present. Then don't copyright the content you make, just release it out into the public domain. Be the change you want to see. But let's be honest, the people most vocal against Article 13 are those who want to leech other people's creations for free. Not those people actually creating the content.
- furi 8y ago
  > the people most vocal against Article 13 are those who want to leech other people's creations for free. Why would such people be at all concerned about Article 13? Torrent sites and swarms have been in flagrant disregard of the law since forever, one more law isn't going to change much. Likewise the other popular pirate mechanism, the old "upload an archive with the content to Mega or similar" technique, already frequently uses encrypted archives to make sure only people coming through the right channel (often an ad laden website + several even more ad laden URL shorteners) get access to the content, making a filter requirement ineffectual there as well.
  - mrep 8y ago
    Torrents aren't really good for small things that quickly change like news whereas websites like reddit are and I'm pretty sure the people who are pushing for articles 11 and 13 are news agencies. Here is my thought process: News agencies know they are using dark patterns to skirt by GDPR while still using targeted advertising but since they know the fines will eventually start hitting, they want to move to paywalls. However, A paywall for a news company is practically useless as any major story one makes gets linked to and paraphrased by dozens of other news agencies within minutes. Users won't pay for a news website when they can get practically the same stories only slightly delayed at a free one that just paraphrases and links back to the original. Article 11 solves that problem and article 13 is to prevent 1 user who does pay for a website from copying the entire article and pasting it in a comment (I see that and archive/outline links all the time here and on reddit).
- krageon 8y ago
  > the people most vocal against Article 13 are those who want to leech other people's creations for free If we're going to be completely honest here, this is constructed as a personal attack and therefore doesn't merit the storage it takes up.
- zaarn 8y ago
  In the EU you can't easily release content into the public domain, in Germany it's impossible to do that.
rutthenut 8y ago
Copyright is far from a dinosaur. It may be disliked by freeloaders but that doesn't make it wrong. I know of numerous photographers who find their work ripped-off; without copyright protection they would have no comeback on that.
- TuringTest 8y ago
  In a world where everyone has a copying machine in their pocket more powerful than anything built by mankind ever before, the economic value of a copy is zero. Copyright is a power grab around that fact. It wouldn't matter as much if they didn't extend it to a duration of two lifetimes.

onli 8y ago

> I understand that A13 looks a bit like an anti-meme effort but it isn't because that is generally covered by parody or reasonable use regulations. That's exactly the problem. Stuff of that is protected, and with good reason. But upload filter that would be mandated by article 13 can't detect that fair use. By enforcing them for all platforms like Youtube all of this will vanish from the european internet.

krageon 8y ago
You don't and can't know this and it is obvious because you are speculating about a future fact. It would help all of us if you couched it as such so that no reader can be deluded into thinking you have based your arguments on the kind of certainty that they seem to be based on.
- honzzz 8y ago
  We can predict some things with a reasonable amount of certainty. For example, if companies have one high-risk high-cost option (relying on sophisticated solutions able to distinguish edge cases like fair use) and low-risk low-cost option (blocking everything that is suspicious), we can expect them to chose the later.
- koonsolo 8y ago
  I'm building a platform that allows anyone to make games, and share them on the web. Do you think I will stay in Europe with my company if this bill passes? You must be crazy.
jaifraic 8y ago
This is why A13 requires the platform to have an actual human being revise the decision if something is wrongfully blocked. I think it's in chapter 4 or 8 of the article IIRC.
- mrep 8y ago
  Wow, so not only do you have to spend millions of dollars to create an automated filter (YouTube reportedly spent 60), you also have to spend $X on humans to review false positive claims and $Y on copyright infringement cases in which your automated filter wasn't good enough. Talk about barriers to entry.

raverbashing 8y ago

> I understand that A13 looks a bit like an anti-meme effort but it isn't because that is generally covered by parody or reasonable use regulations. Yes, you just need to find a way of convincing filters your parody is a parody (or other types of fair use) and not C.I. Oh wait there's no way

StreamBright 8y ago

> In the end, are you really sure you want the world to block us? Well this is a double edge sword. EU still produces something like 20% of the global GDP and if a company can ignore such a market than let it be. There will be many alternative projects spawn to fill the market need (if there is a real one, not talking about surveillance capitalism products here). Is this that bad for the EU? I don't think so.