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 - "eu copyright law"
-
GDPR: great law, except for those who use technology (JS blockers, tracking protection, etc etc) to fight other technology (cookies, trackers, etc etc). Welcomed by the general public, but for content publishers it is a royal pain in the ass. Because did the EU provide non-legalese explanations as to how to become compliant? Of course they didn't. Why would they? But of course lawyers jumped on it like it's the best thing in the world. "GDPR-experts".
Now, article 11 and 13 again. Copyright law taken to ridiculous levels, impossible to implement, except for maybe Google, Microsoft and Facebook. Anyone else? Of course not. Again, a lot of money has to be involved with it. Does anyone want this thing? Of course not. And why the fuck is this still a thing even?! Did direct lobbying to the EU Parliament members a few months ago not teach them anything?! Senile pieces of shit. Should those old fucks really be able to decide about the future of the internet?4 -
Now the new EU copyright directive is getting closer, Google does A/B testing to comply with article 11.1
-
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 -
The new EU copyright reform (article 13, etc.) is getting comical.
After even the big copyright holders retracted their support for the law, it seemed to have no chance and was "put on ice".
After short while it was warmed up again by negotiating some trade offs (which are apparently hated by everyone) and it may or may not be passed in the next few weeks.
So far so idiotic.
It seem that even the initiator - Axel Voss - will not vote for the law. Unfortunately for wrong reasons. Why? It is not strict enough for him.
Anyhow, the longer text he used to present his view he he seems to - copy - his argumentation from Bertelsman (German media group).
It could be funny, if all of that wasn't so sad as there is still the possibility that this stupid law passes. -
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 -
So the EU plans to make an "upload-filter"-law.
Actually this means that every service, every provider literally everyone has to check everything which is going to be uploaded on a webpage if there is an copyright violation and so on.
Thanks to my european government for slowing down the digital evolution in a absolutely shit way.2 -
Well, while I still I can, I just want to say that fuck the whole EU and its fucking new shitty assfucking copyright law, which is definitely gonna completely fucking destroy internet if that crap passes.
THEY REALLY FUCKING DON'T HAVE ANYTHING BETTER TO WORK ON EXCEPT MAKING SHITTY FUCKING DUMB LAWS TO ANNOY AND CONTROL PEOPLE. FUCKING CUNTS. GG
PS: Devrant will have to remove this rant when this law passes...and probably 90% of the joke category...
Edit: This would be worse than Russia blocking websites. New fucking communism5 -
Guys. Seriously. Get a grip. I get it. The new laws are not perfect. Some will even say that they suck. But you cannot tell me that the current laws were okay and covered all bases on copyright. Getting it under control is a process and it will require us as citizens to make meaningful choices with our votes. But simply repealing the law outright is not necessarily the best choice. We need to get a good idea on what is right and just, what is legitimate and then criticize the law. Being against it because it's a trending topic is not cool. It's moronic. E.g. Wikipedia won't die over this. Public content won't die over this. Some content will be more restricted because the copyright owner wants it to be. The implementation will be difficult but this does not mea that it will hurt liberties of the citizen. If anything quite the opposite. It's kind of amusing seeing people call privacy i to this. Privacy laws are unchanged. I'm all in favor of activism (and hacktivism) but let's do it right.19