Where the average number of monthly unique visitors of such service providers exceeds 5 million

Except there is absolutely no way of filtering everything. Maybe if your name is google.

Guess large companies win again. Why even try anymore?

Google and Facebook are probably the only ones even capable of complying with this. But the law applies to EVERY platform older than three years OR with more than five million visits per month OR with more than ten million profit. Including Jow Forums if it continues to make itself accessible to Europeans.

Fuck off, jewish trickster. There's a reason why Facebook and Google are fighting this for all its worth and sending their top lawyers to Brussels.

>22 million unique visitors per month
So that's 2 million visitors if you remove all the IP switching and ban evading (VPN, mobile, and even desktop)

Clearly they aren't fighting it, otherwise it wouldn't have passed this easily. A bunch of dinosaur print publishers and CD labels don't have more political power than Google and Facebook.

>Clearly they aren't fighting it, otherwise it wouldn't have passed this easily
It hasn't even passed yet, wtf are you talking about. And Google is fighting it, they threatened to close down Google News in Europe over it.

those are quotes from the official article 13 website

Attached: apu_read.jpg (655x527, 51K)

What does this even mean?

The parliament was the last step, you fucking clown.

Google and Facebook can easily cope with this. Google has had "ContentID" for eons.
Doesn't work, but suffices to rid itself of responsibility.

Sites like Jow Forums are fucking dead in Europe after this. I care about that.

Eyyyy ayeee

Attached: java (2).png (523x800, 258K)

You are wrong about it being the last step, but yeah, it's over.

>NZfags and AUSfags banned from Jow Forums
>Eurofags banned from Jow Forums
Fantastic, now we just need to ban leafs and all the shitposters will be gone

>Google and Facebook can easily cope with this
>literally only Google and Facebook will get affected and the reason why they are making thinly veiled threats and REEEEEing all over the place
Suck the zuck, big boy

Attached: zuck-big-boy1.png (847x560, 936K)

>Fantastic, now we just need to ban leafs and all the shitposters will be gone
The USMCA has provisions to make it so you can't do that for an American site actually.

Do a 180 and

By banning all forms of uploading/user created content entirely.

The EU is mandating that the internet become television.

interesting view but that will never happen

Attached: unite.jpg (540x636, 47K)

You already need some sort of TV license in Germany if you do live streams on the internet.

>Clearly they aren't fighting it, otherwise it wouldn't have passed this easily.
Google has absolutely no power over European politics. That's why they've been getting fined left and right.

>Guess large companies win again. Why even try anymore?
What? Only large companies will have to submit to this copyright filtering charage. This will fuck Youtube/Facebook/Twitter/Reddit and the like. Your shit blog with 50 viewers a month is completely out of the radar.
For everyone else it's your standards copyright laws that have been in place for ages.

Who cares?
It will never come to the US because only big copyright holders benefit from it and the biggest companies that own copyrights aren't American.

Did you finish that sentence?
>When the average number of monthly unique visitors of these service providers exceeds 5 million, calculated on the basis of the last calendar year, they shall also demonstrate that they have made best efforts to prevent further uploads of the notified works and other subject matter for which the rightholders have provided relevant and necessary information.
It says that if it exceeds 5 million it has to ALSO provide "proof" that it did it's best not that if you are under that number you are not required to follow the new rules. Also that site is really biased and misleading. You would not really believe a "official facebook site" when you look for stuff abut facebook would you?

I remember that case. I think there was something special like the streamer doing it on a schedule, so it was deemed comparable to regular TV.
I'm not saying this is okay, it's fucking retarded, but you are trying to make it sound even worse than it already is.

The first part means it only affects big sites like youtube and fb, demolishing the main argument google shills have that it will affect startups.
Also there is this part
>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 the availability of suitable and effective means and their cost for service providers
which means that if removing them is too hard or too expensive then they are not fined.

The second part means that memes, parodie channels, reviews etc are not affected, because copyright laws do not apply to them in EU. Which means the only people who are actually affected are the ones uploading arianna grande songs without her permission.
But guess what? This is already not allowed. The only thing that changes is that now the burden lies on jewtube to stop them and not on publishers.

Bottom line is absolutely nothing will change. All major websites are already removing copyright violating content. This directive is absolutely meaningless. The only thing that has changed is the burden of proof now lies on jewgle to prove that they did their best to remove copyright stuff.
Absolutely nothing has changed, except who pays more for lawyers.

People already know the laws don't affect parody, people don't have faith in the bots/filters the tech sites will implement. We are expecting false positives because even after hundreds of millions of dollars contentID on youtube for example is a shit show. Bots and Filters that will be used to comply don't understand exemptions

>biased and misleading.
I'm the (You)
I completely agree. I just pointed out that OP was quoting that shill website.

Attached: apu_fren.jpg (1024x518, 53K)

So you are saying people don't have faith in google.
And your solution is to give google more power.
Your IQ must be phenomenal.

>On Monday, Germany’s FAZ newspaper reported that Germany and France struck a deal, under which the former would lend its support to the Copyright Directive if the latter supported a loophole in the new EU Gas Directive allowing the German-backed Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline to Russia to go ahead.

Daily reminder that it was a setup.

oh no! europeons won't be able to shitpost on 4channel! :^(

>give google more power
I don't want to give google anything, not making google liable is not giving them anything that is how it has been for years, I want the status quo to remain the same when it comes to platform liability vs person using the platform

what shill website you moron.
I was quoting the offical EU site.
europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2018-0245-AM-271-271_EN.pdf

They should start hiring retired politicians.

>Gerhard Schröder
>He is currently the chairman of the board of Nord Stream AG and of Rosneft, after having been hired as a global manager by investment bank Rothschild

>Google has absolutely no power over European politics.
They have. Just not the way you mean it.
Google could invent a pig capable of giving milk, eggs and wool ("Eierlegende Wollmilchsau"), and the EU would ban it simply because it's by Google.
Alphabet is really no good Samaritan, by far not, it's currently comparable to Microsoft in the mid-to-late 90s. I'd love for there to be proper competition, but there is none and it's really not Alphabet that's to blame here.

>The European Coal and Steel Community
>a setup
oh shit, who could have foreseen this happening?

but this doesn't change anything for users.
It just increases platform liability. (slightly)
That's all it does.
Shifting the burden of proof.
Before if Disney went to court with Google, it was Disney who had to prove that Google violated their rights.
Now if they go to court, it's Google who has to prove that they did their best to not violate them.
This is all that has changed.
The consumer is unaffected.
And the fact that we all do, proves just how much power Google has in sending the whole world in an up-rage for something that doesn't affect any of us.

*I meant the fact that we all care

>Disney who had to prove that Google violated their rights.
disnee uwu googoo touched me desu (ू˃̣̣̣̣̣̣︿˂̣̣̣̣̣̣ ू) *sniff*

Attached: weeeeeeeee.gif (400x225, 254K)

>but this doesn't change anything for users.
again, we know the law has exemptions

The platform is currently not liable under US law, unless in the case of child exploitation, sex trafficing, etc thanks to FOSTA/SESTA

>Now if they go to court, it's Google who has to prove that they did their best to not violate them.
>did their best
this is the problem, googles best, contentID, fucking sucks, both because it doesn't catch enough copyrighted content and it catches content that would follow fair use, because it (the filter/bot) doesn't understand exemptions

Google will get sued for copyright, they will keep trying to prove they are doing their best by making a more aggressive bot, which will keep getting more false positives, literally just look at tumblr's porn catching bot keeps hitting false positives too, it doesn't understand exemptions, it understands naked person and thinks that is porn, again bots do not understand exmemptions, that is what people are afraid of, companies not as wealthy as google will have shittier bots or equal, which have shit results even today.

>The consumer is unaffected.
the more aggressive bots will be implemented on more websites that want to comply with EU law, or they will be blocked in the EU

The EU is the reason your phone uses USB.
The EU is the reason you have a SIM card.
The EU is the reason you aren't using Internet Explorer right now.
The EU is the reason you have a reasonable expectation of privacy online in 2019
When has the EU ever passed a law that was harmful to Internet users?
The only people who are butthurt about this are Brits, Conservatives, and Americans. KYS

Attached: 1547255582498.png (1280x1280, 510K)

If it's a live stream and more than 500 people could technically watch it you need a license.

Oh no, europoors will be removed from a large portion of the internet. How terrible.

I would rather google block EU ip addresses too, I was just pointing out that we already know the law has exemptions, people are freaking out not because they think meme's are illegal, they are freaking out because bots are fucking stupid and will over police their memes AS IF they were illegal even though they will be entirely legal

>When has the EU ever passed a law that was harmful to Internet users?
literally not an argument
and anyway, all copyright law is harmful to internet users

This law will force all of EU internet to be like German shitfest - half of youtube geoblocked and predatory private law firms extorting money from regular citizens for 'possible' copyright breaches.

No, thank you. It was enough to suffer the nightmare internet in Germany. I don't want this everywhere.

>this is the problem, googles best, contentID, fucking sucks, both because it doesn't catch enough copyrighted content and it catches content that would follow fair use, because it (the filter/bot) doesn't understand exemptions
but why should I care about google's problems?
If google or any other website, becomes too aggressive I will stop using google.
> companies not as wealthy as google will have shittier bots or equal, which have shit results even today.
companies not as wealthy as google are not affected. the law is specifically targeted towards big tech. It clearly says that small companies and companies who do not have the economical and technical capabilities of big-tech are not affected.
This is a fight between mega-corps. None of us should care at all.

God bless america.

Attached: 1532993000536.gif (241x328, 3.89M)

test

Attached: 1537095752936.gif (800x800, 127K)

The exception you are quoting only applies to services that are less than 3 years old.
Dirty lying EU shill

I love Europe, I love the idea behind the EU, but the EU really shat its bed tod^hyesterday.
Article 11, Abolishment of the Central European Time Zone, Article 13/17...
There is no way this is going to end well.

>reasonable expectation of privacy online in 2019
Hohoho, you also believe it's Santa that's bringing you the presents for Christmas, right? Nah.

When they have had an annual turnover more than 10 million for the last 3 years.
Fuck off google bot.

spmeone got a link to the actual articles?
I'd like to read them.

europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2018-0245-AM-271-271_EN.pdf
Ctrl-F article 17. They changed it from 13 in the final version.

>why should I care about google's problems
>europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2018-0245-AM-271-271_EN.pdf
"Where no authorisation has been
granted to service providers, they should make their best efforts in accordance with
high industry standards of professional diligence to avoid the availability on their
services of unauthorised works and other subject matter, as identified by the
relevant rightholders. "
>in accordance with
high industry standards of professional diligence
Is why it is likely to spread to midsize platforms, not just stay at big

I may be getting it wrong but as far as I understand it, the ones that are exempt are the ones that meet all 3 criteria not just one of the 3, (under 10 million euro annual revenue, less than 5 million unique monthly visitors, less than 3 years old), Jow Forums is older than 3 and has more than 5million unique visitors a month

The bots/filters will become cheaper, albeit less sophisticated, and thus understand exemptions even less than the "top of the line" ones

wrong.

Attached: Capture.jpg (854x640, 82K)

you know you are quoting a recommendation and not the actual law right?
EU shills absolutely BTFO

I hope you have authorization from Matt Furie to use an image of "Pepe the Frog", otherwise Jow Forums will suffer the consequences of your potentially illicit actions.

Pic related is copyrighted by me.
It is not a quotation, criticism, review, a caricature, parody or pastiche.

How is 4channel supposed to determine if I actually own the copyright or have acquired the right to upload the picture from the copyright holder? Is 4channel supposed to filter the picture under the new regulation?

Attached: copyrighted by me.jpg (2048x1536, 1.37M)

>exceptions for satire, fair use, memes
Ah yes, because these are qualities intrinsic to the properties of the media that can be inspected by the algorithm. It just needs to activate its quantum brain to become self aware and able to process non-literal interpretations of information so it can comprehend "irony", then through the miracle of quantum processing acquire enough cultural awareness in a span of nanoseconds to parse the metatextual discourse in which the image is used to determine if it is in fact fair use or merely pretending to be fair use or else being used ironically for humorous purposes by examining the larger context in which it is used. And it can do this millions of times a day to keep pace with the rate at which people post things to the internet.

Thank god we have all this amazing, unbelievable technology or this entire proposal would be a completely unworkable fantasy concocted by fucking idiots with no idea how the field they're regulating works. Imagine how asinine this law would be in that alternate reality.

Its not, the law doesn't describe how specifically each member state is supposed to implement it. the obvious choice is a bot the the law doesn't specifically say a bot.

Jow Forums could preemptively have copyright deals with copyright holders which is unlikely
Jow Forums could block EU members which I hope happens
or they could just implement a bot/filter that scans and compares to known copyrighted material

Just create more jobs bro. Muh jobs.

Not just muh jobs, but infinite job security. Each moderator will have a backlog of posts to keep them busy for the rest of their life in the first two months on the job.

>a bot/filter that scans and compares to known copyrighted material
every single picture ever uploaded to the internet is copyrighted... so it needs to filter everything?

Jones creators over there in Yurope.

as best it can yes, but mainly from the companies that are likely to sue them. So it is unlikely such a database would need like the Wikipedia logo

Who says I'm not going to sue 4channel for having distributed a picture of mine?
You could make a living just suing websites for hosting your shitty holiday pictures.

>*Ahem* Due to new EU regulations every user is now a Jannie

Attached: smuglife.jpg (408x660, 20K)

This affects github code, too

That is a point of contention, afaik, currently if there is a copyright violation you sue the uploader after it (if you want), after its been reported, the law wants entities to preemptively prevent material from being uploaded, and make the platform liable.

I doubt, or at least hope, you cant make a living off of that but I do seem to recall a story about twitch partners that make most of their money just claiming reuploads on other places, so I am sure someone will try it

And it still doesn't say what you said.

>How is 4channel supposed to determine if I actually own the copyright or have acquired the right to upload the picture from the copyright holder? Is 4channel supposed to filter the picture under the new regulation?
They aren't really. The copyright holder needs to provide the site with all the info and the site needs to proof that they did their best to prevent it being uploaded (which is absurd, how does one do that) and needs to react right away. The big problem is that basically anything is protected by copyright. Think about photography I could travel to let's say the Eiffel Tower and take a picture. That picture is copyright protected but there is probably millions of almost identical photos and how does one determine that I have the right to the one I uploaded on imgur. They say this whole thing is to protect small "creators" but the only people that have proof that they are the right holders are big corporations that focus on such things. If you want your anime drawings to be protected you would need to join such a company but that basically means giving up the rights to them which is not something you'd want. But it helps small companies because they have the time and money to do long lawsuits right?

You could in theory it's all that vague and flawed

I simply hope this will drive enough people to the vote in May.

Look up how the people from your country voted, and vote accordingly yourself.

Does this mean that under A13, if I upload pirated movies to facebook, I'm not liable anymore but FB is?

It gets more complicated. Copyright varies by country even within the EU.
Pictures of the Eifel Tower at night are violating the copyrights of the architect who did the current lighting of the monument. You have no right to upload it. This shit is actually enforced in France but not necessarily other countries en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama)

So the uploadfilter would have to check which fucking building or sculpture you photographed before allowing you to upload it.

Attached: Taking-Photos-of-the-Eiffel-Tower-at-Night-Is-Actually-Illegal—Here’s-Why_539965834_Tom-Eversley (1024x683, 46K)

FB will delete your account/ban you, they aren't likely to sue you unless you really keep doing it or make accounts dedicated to streaming movies, I don't think this will transfer all the blame to FB, I think it just makes both of you vulnerable. Also in the USA you'll still be liable

You remain liable for the upload.
Facebook "simply" also becomes liable for allowing you to do that on their service.

One of the reason this law exists is because film and music companies got tired of suing have-nots like you who they can sue for 10 million in damages but never actually get any money out of.
Instead they will sue Facebook which actually has money they can take.