Article 13
So it is basically done. There is still something about April 9 to vote against it by a key part, but that wont change anything.
Welcome to the new Internet
I doubt they'll be able to enforce this
They already did tho.
Have they already dispatched special forces to deal with the scoundrels in middle school who have uploaded Spongebob memes?
Im not in Middle School anymore. But they are probably on their way
Reading the synopsis on the bbc the list of exceptions is common enough that it matters not to sites like facepunch and there is nothing in the form outlines as to who exactly is responsible for making sure of all this and what counts as sufficient compliance.
It's less than "unenforceable" its borderline pointless, the worst I can see coming from this is youtube keeping your video unlisted till its sure its not just an entire episode of family guy.
So does this mean Steamed Ham memes are dead?
problem with that: The article states that if the webside (for example youtube) detects copyright stuff in your video, they straight up DELETE your video. Not unlisting or anything. Instantly delete it, before even finishing the upload or making it puplic
Don't be surprised if Google et. all take this to court for Article 11. The link tax is up there in a long list of dumb taxables.
Some positives could come from this, Facebook would leave a paper trail when linking polarizing and/or biased political news into their feeds, and YouTube would need to catch copyrighted content *before* it gets uploaded, solving the issue of copyright claimants hijacking monetization from video uploaders. Ideally not the best solution to YouTube's issue, but it would be an early warning system for video uploaders so their shit doesn't get retroactively flagged and their monetization sucked out of their pockets with a proverbial vacuum cleaner.
It doesn't entirely excuse the downsides, but if Facebook and Google are afraid of this law going into effect, maybe there's a silver lining. EU has a long history of consumer protection laws, and on that note YouTube's copyright gestapo has been shitting over video creators for quite some time now, since when do our interests as internet users align with massive tech giants?
I'm not totally sold on article 11 and 13 being positive, but I'm going to reserve my judgement until we start to see the unpredictable results of this. Google, Facebook and YouTube have been massive evil shitlords recently, and EU's goal here is to take power away from them, maybe the outcomes will be positive?
I see this as being either unenforcable or, if they do manage to enforce it, it will create such a large backlash that a good number of governments will probably just ignore it.
I could be wrong though, so we should still firmly oppose this.
The EU can't help but shoot its self in the foot, it's just gonna fuel more euro-skeptics to go out and vote in the upcoming election.
My county has it's own problems, but theirs some truth to "big government" when you see stuff like this happen.
Didn't YouTube basically state they were going to segregate content if this passes, i.e. outside of the EU, you see everything, inside the EU, shit will be blocked first then fixed later.
there was a major problem. The upload filter will not just be used on europe youtube. They gonna use it worldwide
wtf i love brexit now
This does not affect memes.
No they didn't. Even if they did, that's not a side effect of any of the clauses in the articles, that's their own decision.
It's just a much better EU version of the DMCA.
Snippets are not affected.
This does not affect memes
This does not affect memes. In any way shape or form.
Then read the actual current Article 17 text (It used to be 13, it's 17 now.). The ones responsible are the large content aggregation sites.
I posted the actual text they voted on here:
Article 13 to go to final vote tomorrow
Give it a read. It's not a fucking meme ban, it doesn't affect news aggregators, it doesn't affect young websites or those with a revenue of under 10 million a year.
It's a LOT bigger now than it was when it was first proposed as A13.
Even in this thread and in the other, I can not find any proper qualitative analysis of why the letter of this law is bad. It's just fear and crying and hysteria but without any actual references to the fucking text.
I guess the memes about PornHub being the new video platform will become true.
Day 20
I thought I got enough. I packed a folder with twelve gigabytes of memes. I thought that would last me forever. But then the neighbor came over. "Just one more!" he kept saying. Now I am down to a couple days supply of fresh memes, at best. What has this world come to? I heard there is someone who got a massive stockpile, but last week the police raided his house. My only option now is to find someone else to exchange with. It's shady, but it's what we have to do now.
Parody is specifically protected. Its one of the many exceptions that it has.
So steam as many hams as you like.
there are 2 answers to that. short and long. Short: Not at all
Long:
Machine Learning. The problem is, only huge companys like google, facebook etc. are able to create such ML filters. Every smaller webside cant. So they either have to buy them from google etc. for HUGE prices, or shut down their webside...
do they use ML filters on it already? Wow thats crap.
EU skeptics were a driving force for this though.
I know you're just kidding.
So it's good that sites with less than 10 million annual turnover aren't affected.
Member States shall provide that, in respect of new online content-sharing service providers the services of which have been available to the public in the Union for less than three years and which have an annual turnover below EUR 10 million, calculated in accordance with Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC, the conditions under the liability regime set out in paragraph 4 are limited to compliance with point (a) of paragraph 4 and to acting expeditiously, upon receiving a sufficiently substantiated notice, to disable access to the notified works or other subject matter or to remove those works or other subject matter from their websites .
Actually, now that I read that again, it says "Services which have been available for less than three years AND which have an annual turnover below"
Wait what the fuck
wait what the fuck
Yo I completely misread that first, I thought it was >OR< which have an annual turnover or bla bla
I change my mind, I'm against this article. If they were to change it to OR have instead of AND have then I'll be for it. This currently forces old small niche communities to comply with
youtube/google probably would have had a much stronger argument against this if they weren't already utilizing an absolute abortion of a copyright strike system
There's more wrong with this article than just the fact that it applies to small businesses but whatever I guess you're there in the end even if it's for like 1/99 of the correct reasons.
In the EU, if a Member of the Parliament presses the wrong button on a vote, they can have the record amended to show what their true intention was, but the vote is binding.
Fuck me
Are you telling me these people aren't capable of pressing the button they want to press.
Well shit list them then. It's not like I'm religiously attached to any of this, but just going "BAD BAD BAD MEME BAN" and "FUCK FUCK FUCK NOOOO" like these threads did these past few days isn't really gonna cut it.
So, you don't like that it applies to small businesses.
I'm making the following assumptions about what you believe, but feel free to state otherwise:
You don't want it to apply to small businesses
You believe that it shouldn't apply to small businesses because they don't have the resources to handle such a task
You believe that Google/Facebook/etc. do have the resources to handle such a task.
Filters are not required; they simply must make "best efforts"
In the absence of filters, manual human review must be done
However, you're forgetting some things:
The size of the business has to do with the size of the userbase; ergo, the amount of work required increases proportionally to the size of the business.
Therefore, Google and Facebook are in the same boat as a small business, given that they have proportionally similar problems to tackle.
The same reason you don't think it should apply to small businesses, then, applies to big businesses as well: what article 13 demands businesses do is outside of the scope of ANY business impacted, simply due to how large the numbers are relative to the size of the business.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
