Join devRant
Do all the things like
++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatar
Sign Up
Pipeless API
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power real-time personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple API
Learn More
Search - "article 17"
-
There's a hole in the world like a great black pit
and the scum of the world inhabit it
and its morals aren't worth what a pig can spit
and it's filled with people who are filled with shit
and it goes by the name of EU...
At the top of the hole sit a privileged few
making mockery of the vermin in the lower zoo
turning beauty to filth and greed...
by passing shit like article 11, 13, and 17.
for the corruption of men is as wondrous as Perurant article 13 license: poetic probably illegal in the eu now joke/meme musicals are the best eu article 11 lyrics article 17 sweeny todd5 -
Maybe this ever tightening straight jacket of surveillance and restrictive legislation is pushing the internet in the right direction. We might end up with a proper free and anonymous interwebz.
Personally, I'll start worrying when they ban the operation of Tor nodes... And that will probably pass easily since regular folk don't know the implications. The smear campaign will be ez mode: just call it a hotbed of pedophilia and criminal activity and push the new laws as something along the lines of Put an End to Naughty Individuals and Scumbags (PENIS) act. Done and done.
I mean... if they can threaten to take away the memes without being stopped then there's nothing they can't do, lol.3 -
Regarding Article 13 (or 17 or wherever it moved to now)… Let's say that the UK politicians decide to be dicks and approve the law. After that, we need to get it engineered in, right? Let's talk a bit about how.. well, I'd maybe go over it. Been thinking about it a bit in the shower earlier, so.. yeah.
So, fancy image recognition or text recognition from articles scattered all over the internet, I think we can all agree.. that's infeasible. Even more so, during this lobby with GitHub and OpenForum Europe, guy from GitHub actually made a very valid point. Now for starters, copyright infringement isn't an issue on the platform GitHub that pretty much breathes collaboration. But in the case of I-Boot for example, that thing from Apple that got leaked earlier. If that would get preemptively blocked.. well there's no public source code for it to get compared against to begin with, right? So it's not just "scattered all over the internet, good luck crawling it", it's nowhere to be found *at all*.
So content filtering.. yeah. Nope, ain't gonna happen. Keep trying with that, EU politicians.
But let's say that I am a content creator who hates the cancer of joke/meme because more often than not it manifests itself as a clone of r/programmerhumor.. someone decides to freeboot my content. So I go out, look for it, find it. Facebook and the likes, make it easier to find it in the first place, you dicks. It's extremely hard to find your content there.
So Facebook implements a way to find that content a bit easier maybe. Me being the content creator finds it.. oh blimey! It can't be.. it's the king of freebooting on Facebook, SoFlo! Who would've thought?! So at that point.. I'd like to get it removed of course. Report it as copyright infringement? Of course. Again Facebook you dicks, don't make it so tedious to fill in that bloody report. And look into it quickly! The videos those SoFlo dicks post is only relevant in the first 48h or so. That's where they make the most money. So act more quickly.
So the report is filled, video's taken down.. what else? Maybe temporarily make them unable to post as a bit of a punishment so that they won't do it again? And put in a limit to the amount of reports they can receive. Finally, maybe reroute the revenue stream to the original content creator instead. That way stolen content suddenly becomes free exposure! Awesome!
*suddenly realizes that I've been talking about the YouTube copyright strike system all along*
… Well.. maybe something like that then? That shouldn't be too hard to implement, and on YouTube at least it seems to be quite effective. Just imagine SoFlo and the likes that are repeat offenders, every 3 posts they get their account and page shut down. Good luck growing an audience that way. And good luck making new accounts all the time to start with.. account verification technology is pretty good these days. Speaking of experience here, tried bypassing Facebook's signup hoops a fair bit and learned a bit about some of the things they have red flags on, hehe.
But yeah, something like that maybe for social media in general. And.. let's face it, the biggest one that would get hurt by something like this would be Facebook. And personally I think it's about time for that bastard company to get a couple of blows already.
What are your thoughts on this?5 -
I just saw a news article (nope, not sharing it...don't want them to get the clicks) where they said it's now considered passive-aggressive to use the following emojis (the percentage is a non-specific n-value and N-value...probably 3...of how many younger folks think it makes you look "old" to use these):
1 - Thumbs up - 24%
2 - Red love heart - 22%
3 - OK hand - 20%
4 - Tick - 17%
5 - Poo - 17%
6 - Loudly crying face - 16%
7 - Monkey eye cover - 15%
8 - Clapping hands - 10%
9 - Lipstick kiss mark - 10%
10 - Grimacing face - 9%
I previously only ever used thumbs-up and checkmarks to signal that I understood the message sent to me. My new goal is to use as many of these as possible when messaging anyone under 30. If you are so butthurt by ANY emoji, then you certainly deserve what's coming to you.18 -
I've just noticed something when reading the EU copyright reform. It actually all sounds pretty reasonable. Now, hear me out, I swear that this will make sense in the end.
Article 17p4 states the following:
If no authorisation [by rightholders] is granted, online content-sharing service providers shall be liable for unauthorised acts of communication to the public, including making available to the public, of copyright-protected works and other subject matter, unless the service providers demonstrate that they have:
(a) made best efforts to obtain an authorisation, and
(b) made, in accordance with high industry standards of professional diligence, best efforts to ensure the unavailability of specific works and other subject matter for which the rightholders have provided the service providers with the relevant and necessary information; and in any event
(c) acted expeditiously, upon receiving a sufficiently substantiated notice from the rightholders, to disable access to, or to remove from, their websites the
notified works or other subject matter, and made best efforts to prevent their future uploads in accordance with point (b).
Article 17p5 states the following:
In determining whether the service provider has complied with its obligations under paragraph 4, and in light of the principle of proportionality, the following elements, among others, shall be taken into account:
(a) the type, the audience and the size of the service and the type of works or other subject matter uploaded by the users of the service; and
(b) the availability of suitable and effective means and their cost for service providers.
That actually does leave a lot of room for interpretation, and not on the lawmakers' part.. rather, on the implementer's part. Say for example devRant, there's no way in hell that dfox and trogus are going to want to be tasked with upload filters. But they don't have to.
See, the law takes into account due diligence (i.e. they must give a damn), industry standards (so.. don't half-ass it), and cost considerations (so no need to spend a fortune on it). Additionally, asking for permission doesn't need to be much more than coming to an agreement with the rightsholder when they make a claim to their content. It's pretty common on YouTube mixes already, often in the description there's a disclaimer stating something like "I don't own this content. If you want part of it to be removed, get in touch at $email." Which actually seems to work really well.
So say for example, I've had this issue with someone here on devRant who copypasted a work of mine into the cancer pit called joke/meme. I mentioned it to dfox, didn't get removed. So what this law essentially states is that when I made a notice of "this here is my content, I'd like you to remove this", they're obligated to remove it. And due diligence to keep it unavailable.. maybe make a hash of it or whatever to compare against.
It also mentions that there needs to be a source to compare against, which invalidates e.g. GitHub's iBoot argument (there's no source to compare against!). If there's no source to compare against, there's no issue. That includes my work as freebooted by that devRant user. I can't prove my ownership due to me removing the original I posted on Facebook as part of a yearly cleanup.
But yeah.. content providers are responsible as they should be, it's been a huge issue on the likes of Facebook, and really needs to be fixed. Is this a doomsday scenario? After reading the law paper, honestly I don't think it is.
Have a read, I highly recommend it.
http://europarl.europa.eu/doceo/...13 -
Eu article 13/17/...
Can anyone post a link to summarized explanation what these are? I'm on mobile so long texts won't do
tia39 -
"Falsehoods programmers believe about names" is old, brilliant and mysteriously missing from the search results. It's 40 points in all so read the full article over at https://kalzumeus.com/2010/06/...
-
Yeah sure...article 17 sucks. But the EU parliament has also decided to abandon EU summer time and I refuse to program that.3
-
So what’s this EU article 13/17 that everybody’s posting about? All I picked was - websites will have to remove copyrighted contents. I don’t see what’s so new about that. Like fb YouTube etc already remove copyright content.10
-
I've just found an article that states that MS Office 2016 can now be installed on Ubuntu using CrossOver, which is the version of wine one has to pay for.
Is there some version of wine or an alternative which is free and allows me to do this?
Yes, I know the alternatives of online MS, google docs, libre office and whatnot, so spare me these comments please.
(ref: https://omgubuntu.co.uk/2017/12/...)7 -
I found this article today ( http://thenextweb.com/apps/2016/... ) and within minutes my team started abusing poor scorebot on slack. Didn't take long until we had to uninstall.
-
Cool article about systemd coming to WSL
https://theregister.com/2021/11/...
Learnt about distrod from it11 -
So I just found out that QWANT (some european search crapgine) is not against Article 13/17. WOW, what a cunts. Glad I never used it.1