eff.org/deeplinks/2018/09/today-europe-lost-internet-now-we-fight-back Today, in a vote that split almost every major EU party, Members of the European Parliament adopted every terrible proposal in the new Copyright Directive and rejected every good one, setting the stage for mass, automated surveillance and arbitrary censorship of the internet: text messages like tweets and Facebook updates; photos; videos; audio; software code -- any and all media that can be copyrighted.
Three proposals passed the European Parliament, each of them catastrophic for free expression, privacy, and the arts:
1. Article 13: the Copyright Filters. All but the smallest platforms will have to defensively adopt copyright filters that examine everything you post and censor anything judged to be a copyright infringement.
2. Article 11: Linking to the news using more than one word from the article is prohibited unless you're using a service that bought a license from the news site you want to link to. News sites can charge anything they want for the right to quote them or refuse to sell altogether, effectively giving them the right to choose who can criticise them. Member states are permitted, but not required, to create exceptions and limitations to reduce the harm done by this new right.
3. Article 12a: No posting your own photos or videos of sports matches. Only the "organisers" of sports matches will have the right to publicly post any kind of record of the match. No posting your selfies, or short videos of exciting plays. You are the audience, your job is to sit where you're told, passively watch the game and go home.
This won't last, the kind of companies that would have been lobbying for this type of garbage will realise soon enought that they're destroying the same thing they worked so hard to build. Mass communication and normie shitposting (the majority of what this stuff pertains to) is their bread and butter. Companies get free exposure off plebs reposting on SM sites and all that.
Adam Allen
Who makes all these pictures and websites I don't think these are some underground "freedom fighters", they seem to be made by pros. Just compare them to the level of linux or any other "basement" and open source projects.
Also why are we shilled almost 24/7 against EU but pro-NN? As a social sciences graduate I can tell you, OP isn't a random upset citizen.
Samuel White
> who are the EFF
Nicholas Reyes
we did it reddit :) :) :)
Kevin Parker
>Today, Europe Lost The Internet. Now, We Fight Back. >muh we have to do something about this >he thinks he can affect global-wide trends in any way shape or form Hello R*ddit.
The picture is made by the EFF, the post is probably from them to, no guarantee that they're the ones who posted though. Could be just a fan of the EFF. They are fairly legit, if you haven't read/researched them and the work they do, then you should.
Blake Gutierrez
>I don't think these are some underground "freedom fighters" Yes, they're not underground, there's a link in the OP if you're actually dim enough to not know who EFF are while posting on a tech board. >shilled almost 24/7 against EU but pro-NN Everyone praised EU's GDPR not too long ago, because it's an actually good law even if not perfect. >As a social sciences graduate I can tell you I'd rather you finish making my frappucino and go back to rebbit, touristbro.
>implying (((you))) aren't the actual EU shill agent heh. nice try cuck.
Eli Moore
>All but the smallest platforms Not necessarily true. The proposal says that the "copyright filters" adopted by platforms need only be "effective and proportionate" with respect to a) nature and size of services and audience; b) amount of copyrighted content actually uploaded; c) cost of "copyright filters" as current, from a set of "best practices" decided by and on an European and State scale. Furthermore, this only applies if the plaform is for-profit. >will have to defensively adopt copyright filters Larger platforms will. Smaller plaforms only need to prove they removed it as soon as possible. >examine everything you post and censor anything judged to be a copyright infringement. Sadly this is true.
>Linking to the news Hyperlinking is expressly allowed. >using more than one word from the article is prohibited Individual words cannot be prohibited. Prohibition can only be applied from short excerpts onwards, and even then only if all of these apply: a) the article was published after this proposal was adopted; b) the article was published less than ~2 years ago; c) the purpose of citation isn't criticism, review or any other exemption from copyright law (see 2001/29/EC, artt. 5-8 and 2012/28/EU); d) the State you're in has decided that such a kind and amount is not "insubstantial." >unless you're using a service that bought a license from the news site you want to link to. Or you have access to a license. >News sites can charge anything they want for the right to quote them or refuse to sell Again, sadly true. >giving them the right to choose who can criticise them. False. Criticism is one in a long list of copyright exceptions. >Member states are permitted, but not required, to [...] They can't do anything as far as 11 is concerned.
12(a) is so wrong I'm not even going to quote it. The actual 12(a) states that, if States wish to do so, publishers are allowed to get a share of the author's revenue coming from certain exceptions to copyright law.
David Martinez
so basically, they're trying to destroy 'fair use'?
Kayden Bailey
OI! DO YOU HAVE A LICENSE FOR THAT PICTURE OF A MEDIA ARTICLE?
Carter Lee
really ayy slav so not in eu i though this shit was dead
Juan Wilson
I legit got a bit paranoid about this. I wasn't able to post for a few hours today anywhere, including my phone, because of them fucking captchas always failing.
Christopher Flores
Same thing happened to me before.
Daniel Allen
>quote full article >add "this arricle is shit" at the end ez bypass
>Who makes all these pictures and websites I don't think these are some underground "freedom fighters" A lot of them are, a lot of the very common ones are either from pol or the dailystormer
Jordan Brooks
loneex fundation website looks p professional to me this isnt 1999
Jason Jackson
Fair use has been abused into oblivion
The only ones to suffer are going to be streamers, jewtubers and wikipedia editors
Fair use is so anti OC that i welcome the AI machine learning overlords to purge the internet from these abominations where everything is a copy of a copy
Benjamin Bell
Well I do know that those "fight for the future" chumps are soros funded, so thats one group of them.
Who cares? The CPTPP is menacing to destroy free software, and nobody's batting an eye!
Ian Harris
Compared to the shitposting around here, normie shitposting is a good way to get free publicity or income. Something as simple as a song being overused for low tier memes in social media could mean a decent income to artists, which also means income to higher levels. Basically companies will be shooting themselves in the foot (again) if they enforce those new regulations too much.
Camden Evans
Oh no, shitty artists and companies will die! Oh the huge manatee!
