3 ms·
In the real world, people are being fed misinformation about what's going on by people who didn't read the actual text of the article. That's the point. I did.
by ABCLAW 8y ago
In the real world, people are being fed misinformation about what's going on by people who didn't read the actual text of the article. That's the point.
I did. I've followed every public draft of the language as its developed.
The article does not do what people are claiming it does. The internet is not dead. Small content creators are not being wiped out. The big tech giants are not creating yet another regulatory moat.
There are plenty of real problems with Article 13 that deserve discussion and elaboration so that when the first cases come out, they get decided properly, but this isn't a nuclear bomb that blows up the net and makes it a corporate-only zone.
- oska 8y agoI keep on seeing you say how you're better informed than most people in this thread but I've yet to see you make any concrete points drawing from the actual text of the law.
- ABCLAW 8y agoSorry, I'm confused. Did you not notice that almost every post of mine is referring to specific limiting provisions - that everyone else is ignoring in creating their doomsday scenarios - in the text?
- koonsolo 8y ago> I did. I've followed every public draft of the language as its developed You clearly didn't. From the text itself: "for less than three years and which have an annual turnover below EUR 10 million" Do you see the "and" there? This means that ANY business that is older than 3 NEEDS to comply with filters. I read the text, because it directly impacts my platform. The solution is: start a foreign corporation. Your comments here, and in your other posts where you think that streamers have "legal" problems, clearly indicate that you have completely no clue what you are talking about. Small content creators will be filtered out, and small platforms will need to comply to all the different laws of each EU country. This is crazy.
- ABCLAW 8y ago>You clearly didn't. I did. I wrote at length about it in the previous thread, and provided links to the language of the articles as well as the elements that were ignored. You need to read ALL of the language to understand how the proportionality requirement impacts the scope delimitation requirement you're listing. If you don't do that, you end up with a broken understanding of how the gears fit together. The legislation does have holes in it, but they aren't that 'small content creators will be filtered out'. People aren't going to litigate against small content creators in the first place. They're going to get smacked by Content ID, which is already ruining livelihoods, but which is a completely separate issue from the EU legislation.
- deltron3030 8y ago>The article does not do what people are claiming it does. Its about the implications, how it relates to the status quo online and how the digital economy works. What they're trying to enforce is just irrational and goes against the natural flow of things. They're nuts.