User37935

Neophyte
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
0
The issue is that companies need to take direct action when copyrighted material is uploaded.

My comment was more from the angle that the latest revision stops search engines from quoting pretty much any excerpt of news without proper permission for this (ie. paying) and the implications for those making forum content from other sources in a similar manner, not to mention end users quoting (cutting and pasting) from news stories... though if you generate content from RSS the assumption is the source is happy, as the RSS output being there in the first place.
 

feldon30

Adherent
Joined
Jun 7, 2013
Messages
480
My comment was more from the angle that the latest revision stops search engines from quoting pretty much any excerpt of news without proper permission for this (ie. paying) and the implications for those making forum content from other sources in a similar manner, not to mention end users quoting (cutting and pasting) from news stories... though if you generate content from RSS the assumption is the source is happy, as the RSS output being there in the first place.
Why do I doubt EU courts will find that the existence of an RSS feed is consent to do anything?
 

we_are_borg

Administrator
Joined
Jan 25, 2011
Messages
5,604
Believe me RSS feeds will be impacted too because the newspapers will sue people that they needed a license. Google all ready said they will close down news like they did in Spain.
 

feldon30

Adherent
Joined
Jun 7, 2013
Messages
480
If this passes, the smartest thing Google can do is to completely shut down their services within the EU. No Google Docs. No Gmail. No Search. No Maps. No YouTube. No Google Fonts or APIs on your websites. No Google Translate, Hangouts, Wallet, or Photos. The entire population would lose their sh!t and protest in the streets until this is reverted.

It wouldn't be a tantrum. Any site that allows user-submitted content cannot operate without safe harbor rules without hiring thousands of moderators. Between the EU Copyright Directive and GDPR, any site which allows user submitted video would have to charge users $25 a month just to cover its costs. Google shutting down would be a completely accurate observation that no website can operate under these rules.

And it's not like any smaller operator will step in and replace Google. Would you launch a business with a $10 million profit ceiling and a ticking clock on how long you can operate?
 
Last edited:

we_are_borg

Administrator
Joined
Jan 25, 2011
Messages
5,604
And it's not like any smaller operator will step in and replace Google. Would you launch a business with a $10 million profit ceiling and a ticking clock on how long you can operate?

Not many companies would do that you need to invest lots of cash and the moment you'll make 10 million and 1 dollar you need to have the same software as bigger companies that make billions. Think of photo sites that are there for photographers after 3 years they need to invest in software that they never be able to buy.
 

feldon30

Adherent
Joined
Jun 7, 2013
Messages
480
I remember the initial howls of negativity about the Communications Decency Act here in the US. But the Safe Harbor provisions are literally the only way user-submitted content websites can function on the free internet. The EU may not have bright orange hair and a spray-on tan, but it certainly seems to be busy trying to build a Wall.
 

feldon30

Adherent
Joined
Jun 7, 2013
Messages
480
One step closer to this sh*t show taking effect. How many forums are going to hire a team of content moderators just to keep from being sued/arrested?
 

Joel R

Fan
Joined
Nov 24, 2013
Messages
846
Can someone bring the rest of us up to speed on the EU Copyright Directive that was recently passed? From what I understand it still needs to be approved by member states.
 

zappaDPJ

Administrator
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
7,507
From what I understand it still needs to be approved by member states.

That's correct. Next month there will be another vote which requires a majority of EU member states to approve the final text before it becomes law. The directive then has to be implemented by each member state as they see fit, within two years.
 

feldon30

Adherent
Joined
Jun 7, 2013
Messages
480
Can someone bring the rest of us up to speed on the EU Copyright Directive that was recently passed? From what I understand it still needs to be approved by member states.
It erases the Safe Harbor provisions upon which the internet has been able to function since 2003. When this law goes into effect, owners of sites that make $10 million or have existed for at least 3 years become responsible for ALL uploaded content as if they'd uploaded it themselves.

Cue the apologists and armchair barristers who will be here shortly to tell us how this will be a good thing for artists. 30 years of expansions and increased enforcement of copyright laws have benefited publishers without putting another penny into the tip jar of artists. But this time it will be different, right?
 

Deebs

Aspirant
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
34
They have majority so the law will come it cant be stopped. The rules are going in to effect in 2021 read more here https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47708144
Well that is not quite true. The European Commission has to approve it as a directive before the EU members then have 2 years to put into law what they think the directive is.

What needs to taken into account is that the internet (in Europe at least) has erupted in rage and many of the younger generation are looking to vote against the MEPs who passed this in Parliament in the May elections. So, hopefully, this will frighten the EC enough to revoke one of the most stupidest things the EU Parliament has ever passed (not withstanding speed restrictors and car data loggers sigh).
 

we_are_borg

Administrator
Joined
Jan 25, 2011
Messages
5,604
The EU has sided with news outlets and other lobbies, the biggest statement that can be made is by Google. Google needs to close Google News and trough out all that lobbied for this same with Microsoft and Bing.
 

Deebs

Aspirant
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
34
The EU has sided with news outlets and other lobbies, the biggest statement that can be made is by Google. Google needs to close Google News and trough out all that lobbied for this same with Microsoft and Bing.
Yeh but what you said is wrong. It can still be revoked. The EU Parliament can only propose laws. The law has NOT passed yet...
 

we_are_borg

Administrator
Joined
Jan 25, 2011
Messages
5,604
Yeh but what you said is wrong. It can still be revoked. The EU Parliament can only propose laws. The law has NOT passed yet...

Yes and No if you look at what happened in the past not many directives where overturned. Lets hope that some countries have a back bone because that is the point that they can try to stop it.
 

Deebs

Aspirant
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
34
Yes and No if you look at what happened in the past not many directives where overturned. Lets hope that some countries have a back bone because that is the point that they can try to stop it.
No the point it simple. The law is NOT passed. That is a fact. Until the EC passes it then it is simply a recommendation. Nothing you say can change that.

Germany looks like the most likely to veto it and hopefully they do. Plus the threat of a swing to the anti-eu parties by those affected by this stupid law.
 

Joel R

Fan
Joined
Nov 24, 2013
Messages
846
Can someone summarize:
- to what kinds of organizations does the law apply? For eaxmple, is it to all online organizations or only those of a certain type / size?

- how is anyone supposed to pre-moderate their content and media and check for copyright??
 

zappaDPJ

Administrator
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
7,507
Can someone summarize:
- to what kinds of organizations does the law apply? For eaxmple, is it to all online organizations or only those of a certain type / size?

- how is anyone supposed to pre-moderate their content and media and check for copyright??

Article 11 states that search engines and news aggregate platforms should pay to use links from news websites and Article 13 holds larger technology companies responsible for material posted without a copyright licence excluding cloud storage services, parody, memes and GIFs.

The EU expects pre-moderation to be facilitated by filtering content before it gets uploaded otherwise sites will be liable.

How might this apply to forum owners? At this stage your guess is as good as mine. Until the directive passes into law in each individual state that's a question nobody can answer as far as I'm concerned.
 

Sophos

Aspirant
Joined
Nov 25, 2018
Messages
13
Here's a ridiculous fact on how the vote in favour of articles 11 (15) and 13 (17) passed!!!

The vote in question was not passed unanimously but rather went through by five votes. Now, some members of parliament from Sweden have stated that they didn’t mean to vote of the legislation and tapped on the wrong button.

They claim that their intention was only to open a debate on the subject and regret the outcome. While it would seem odd that a member of the European Parliament would vote on legislation by pushing the wrong button, the outdated method of voting has to be taken into account.

First, one must consider the way the question was framed. Members of parliament were asked to vote in favor of voting down in favor of passing the entire Copyright Directive bill without any further debate. The vote was, in essence, to not refrain from voting on articles 13 and 11 and instead pass the entire directive at once. What they thought they were voting on was to not vote on the entire bill being passed without review.

This, on its own, would be confusing to most people, even members of the European Parliament. Unfortunately, it seems that the votes cannot be changed or recalled and that motion will pass.

This does go to show the flawed nature of the political system when a bill that will affect all of Europe is passed uldue to poor framing of a question and the pushing of the wrong button.

Article 13 News: Swedish Legislators Say They Passed the Directive “by Mistake”

''Members of parliament were asked to vote in favour of voting down in favour of passing the entire Copyright Directive bill without any further debate.''???

It was definitely one of the most important votes since the creation of the internet and the person who formulated the question unintentionally or intentionally framed them?


The Guardian also has a say on this:

Before the final vote on the directive, MEPs had a vote on whether to allow one last batch of amendments. If that vote had passed, a separate vote on articles 11 and 13 would have been allowed, in which MEPs could potentially have voted to remove the controversial clauses from the final directive.

The vote on whether to allow the batch of amendments failed by five votes, 312 to 317. But shortly after, in the European parliament’s official voting record, 13 MEPs asked for their vote to be recorded differently: 10 said they meant to support it, two meant to oppose it, and one meant to not vote at all. If those were counted, the result would have gone the other way. Despite the updated record of votes, however, the initial result still stands.

Since no vote was held on the specific amendments, there is no way to know whether MEPs would have removed the controversial provisions if they had had the chance to. But opponents of the copyright directive, and of articles 11 and 13, are angered by the error. “The vote they clicked on is the vote they got,” wrote Mike Masnick, of the tech culture site TechDirt. “It is frustrating beyond all belief that we ended up killing the open internet through tricking a bunch of MEPs by switching the voting order.”

MEPs accidentally vote wrong way on copyright law


It's covered much better on TechDirt:

What happened was that in the middle of a sitting meeting, it was decided to make an adjustment in the order of voting in itself. This did not appear in a clear way where the President was also somewhat confused.
Indeed, soon after that some others admitted to voting incorrectly, believing they were voting for something else.

A few hours later, the EU put out the official voting record which includes an astounding 13 MEPs who said they voted incorrectly. Ten of them said they meant to vote for amendments. Two of them said they wanted to vote against it. And one did not want to vote. As you can see in the screenshot below, everyone next to the "+" would have voted for the amendments if they had actually realised what they were voting on.

4D2EFZH.png


All told, that would have shifted the vote and allowed for a vote on amendments. By a slim majority, the law would have been opened up to deleting Articles 11 and 13. In other words, whoever changed the order of the vote pulled a fast one and got the EU Copyright Directive approved... despite the EU Parliament not clearly agreeing on that. If you're wondering what can be done now... the answer is not much. According to the EU:

MEPs may still issue corrections to their vote in case of mistakes, which will however not change the outcome
The vote the clicked on is the vote they got. It is frustrating beyond all belief that we ended up killing the open internet through tricking a bunch of MEPs by switching the voting order. Incredible.

Enough MEPs Say They Mistakenly Voted For Articles 11 & 13 That The Vote Should Have Flipped; EU Parliament Says Too Bad
 
Last edited:
Top