/eu/ - Article 11 and Article 13

What do you mean? This is already happening now, just on a smaller scale.

It doesn't sound like overreaction..Small sites simply can't technically comply with these sorts of laws. Small sites will simply close.

It's back to the 70's, with top-down news feeds from a few approved sources.

farage is the leader of the efdd.

gdpr was similar. although it's great from a consumers point of view, compliance is a bitch for smaller companies. the only people who profited were lawyers and larger companies.
regulation is literally designed by lobbyists to keep the small guy from catching up. the EU is worse than the US when it comes to this kind of shit.

I still haven’t seen sources for that “link tax” bullshit, and the “censor machines” seem blown out of proportion - it would require the court to take such an absurd stance interpreting the law that they could do the same with existing law.

I hope it removes Europeans from Jow Forums. You can obsess about Americans on jeuxvideo or nu.nl or wherever you're supposed to actually be.

We'll just be sitting here with our pisswater beer, ribbing Aussies and dealing with Canadian snark. Oh, and also correcting Latin Americans that "American" exclusively refers to the USA in the English language, and making them buttmad. It will be utter fucking paradise.

the fucking anti-EU parties are supporting it lmao

>I still haven’t seen sources for that “link tax” bullshit, and the “censor machines” seem blown out of proportion
What do you mean? The proposed texts are freely available online. Here is the last proposal from May on ARticle 13 and 11. If you are really interested in, just read it and then see yourself what it means.

politico.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Copyright-compromise-amendments-V6.pdf

Everyone thought the same thing would happen when that bill to kill neutrality passed but you're all still here
Don't get your hopes up

So that in turn they can whine about EU being totalitarian police state trampling on dem freedoms. Quite a smart move, really.

net neutrality*

Net neutrality doesn't police copyright content you retard. This does. Learn about your own laws if you're going to be in the EU.

farage voted against it dummy
libetarian right is often aligned with the left, but yes, ofc actual facists would want this

That is why if this law passes I will support the destruction of EU. It has become a force of evil.

Here is the relevant provision - as you can see there are only two exceptions to the requirement of a license to publish a link to a press article: A. if you ONLY publish the hyperlink, so no other information (not the title or the subtitle or a picture or any information from the link) and B. for so-called "legitimate private and non-commercial use", i.e. if you host your own blog on a website outside of any commercial platform and you do not run ads for it and do not receive any remuneration whatsoever from running this blog (but e.g. posting things on Jow Forums or wikipedia would not be non-commercial).

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-06-22 at 10.04.53 AM.png (469x450, 168K)

And there is nothing there about tax of any kind. Unless of course the demagogue is using the “tax” term inappropriately to make it seem like government oppression when the matter is question of property law enforcement which is why I figure right wings and conservative reformists are in favour while pirates are not.
Furthermore “small news sites”? You mean parasitic aggregators that provide no content of their own and merely repost articles from other services, except maybe twisting it for clickbait purposes. The actual news sites would be insane to demand payment for mere linking and referencing which brings people to their sites.

>- it would require the court to take such an absurd stance interpreting the law

What court? What absurd stance? The requirement for pre-ccensorship of all user uploaded content is directly in the proposal.

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-06-22 at 10.09.52 AM.png (495x335, 150K)

Who cares about Farage, dummy? He'll be leaving EU soon, anyway.

But these "fascists" of yours don't want it for itself, they want it, so that they could destroy EU. Wait a while and they'll be using it as a propaganda against the union, mark my fucking words.

>And there is nothing there about tax of any kind. Unless of course the demagogue is using the “tax” term inappropriately to make it seem like government oppression when the matter is question of property law enforcement which is why I figure right wings and conservative reformists are in favour while pirates are not.

"tax" is used under quotation marks. You could also say "stated mandated license fees for linking to press articles" if you please. Whether or not that is a "tax" or not, is subject to debate. The point is that the legislation wants all information which is posted by a user that includes a hyperlink to NOT include information from the linked article. How this can be technologically accomplished is beyond me - the only two solutions are A. you pre-filter the user post that includes the hyperlink by checking out the linked article and comparing the information there with the information posted by the user and if there is no overlap, then you allow the post ... or B. you just censor all posts which include hyperlinks to be on the safe side.

>Furthermore “small news sites”? You mean parasitic aggregators that provide no content of their own and merely repost articles from other services, except maybe twisting it for clickbait purposes.
Yeah, like Google News... or some innocent link to a press article like the following:

"EU votes for copyright law that would make internet a 'tool for control'"
theguardian.com/technology/2018/jun/20/eu-votes-for-copyright-law-that-would-make-internet-a-tool-for-control

would violate Article 11.

>The actual news sites would be insane to demand payment for mere linking and referencing which brings people to their sites.
This is not how Article 11 works. Every single website would need to conclude a license agreement with every single news site to allow links to these particular news sites. This is not theory, this has happened in practice in Germany and Spain in a precursor law.

>not already supporting the destruction of the EU
>not recognising it is a force of evil by design

The text states the principle, the technical shit is your interpretation of it and seems like purposeful misconstruction of intent.

As for the forum thing, the same shit already applies in regards to other copyright holders, I.e. authors, Why are not they abusing it to bully public forums?

>The text states the principle, the technical shit is your interpretation of it and seems like purposeful misconstruction of intent.
What technical shit? What interpretation. It says right there that hyperlinking is exempt. It also says legitimate private and non-commercial use is exempt. Everything else isn't. Where is my interpretation?

>As for the forum thing, the same shit already applies in regards to other copyright holders, I.e. authors, Why are not they abusing it to bully public forums?
No, it does really not exist. Jow Forums cannot be held accountable for users' copyright infringement, not in the US nor in the EU. This is the whole point of the debate. The EU copyright proposal wants to make the platform liable for users' copyright infringements. Which in turn results in censorship... or the complete shutdown of services. This is not rocket science. It is right there in the proposal, you can read it yourself if you would bother.

>appropriate and proportionate
>while non-infringing works...
>authors rights are not touched

I understand you are expecting the law to be abused, but if the authorities actually used it for actual censorship, it would not be good for their popularity.

>license fees
So the state gives news services right to demand payment for their work.
Btw I personally don’t like the concept of intellectual property as exclusive access to information very much but there doesn’t seem to be viable alternative to it.
>innocent news would violate art. 11
That’s what you say.

>this has happened in Germany
Post case.

That would be mighty stupid of them as they’d be on record voting for it.

Your interpretation is what consists of “hyperlinking”. Nobody can possibly be autistic enough to consider heading hyperlink with a title to amount to infringement of the linked content.

And again with censorship. Enforcing intellectual property rights is not censorship.
However I see your point where services may opt to shut down, especially if they lived off providing pirated content.

I also see that it gives rise to valid concerns regarding anarchic nature of internet communication.

Even so, your estimation of the effects on actual communications seem exaggerated to me.

I do sincerely hope that pirate parties are leading this campaign out of legitimate concern for freedom of speech and not just to abuse the concept to fight against Concept of intellectual property or even at behest of commercial file sharing services. I want to believe an alternative model will emerge but one first to be conceived before attacking existing paradigm through underhanded means.

It's the net neutrality all over again. Last time I checked americans still have internet, sadly

>Nobody can possibly be autistic enough to consider heading hyperlink with a title to amount to infringement of the linked content.

The copyright regulation includes a definition of what a hyperlink is. It is the link itself. Anything apart from the link forms part of the press article linked to. If you can find some "fair use" provision in Article 11 or anywhere in the proposal that allows you to copy parts of it, e.g. the title, be my guest and provide that part to me. Here in Germany the exact same law already applies since 2014 to large companies like Google and the law states, only the link itself is protected, and using the title of an article without license is a copyright violation.

>Enforcing intellectual property rights is not censorship.
I never said that. The point is that if a user violates property rights, the property rights holder should be able to sue this user. I have no problem with that. I also have no problem with copyrighted content being taken down upon a complaint.

But here is what Article 13 demands - it demands that BEFORE anything is posted, the platform has to make a decision whether something is copyrighted or not. E.g. if I quote from the 1977 Star Wars script (which is still copyrighted) and Disney (now the owner of the Star Wars franchise) has made a blanket claim for all Star Wars scripts and films to all the relevant user content sharing websites, the AI in the upload filter will have to make a decision whether my quote is a copyright violation or protected free speech. This is impossible from an AI perspective - not even lawyers can provide definitive answers on when copying a piece of a script to a website post is a legitimate quote and when it is a copyright violation. Hence, what will happen is that upload filters will just censor out even allowed content.

If you do not want to here these arguments, fine. But then at least try to read up on these things.

>It's the net neutrality all over again

It has very little to do with net neutrality and everything with copyright. The closest we have to the discussion is ACTA from 2012... only that ACTA was way more "directed" and ARticle 11 and Article 13 are indirect ways to censor.

I'm saying people are acting like it's the end of internet again. Just because the law allows to do something it doesn't mean it's going to happen.

>I'm saying people are acting like it's the end of internet again. Just because the law allows to do something it doesn't mean it's going to happen.

This is certainly true. Neither you nor I know if things end up changing anything. But from the plain reading of at least Article 13, it could definitely end up resulting things like pic related (which is the result of GDPR on various smaller news sites, which cannot be made GDPR compliant).

I understand various non-EU websites like the Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, New York Daily News and Orlando Sentinel have stated they will not complying with the GDPR going forward and so will remain permanently blocked to EU residents (which do not use a VPN).

I just don't see how Article 13 won't lead to many more of those range blocks from services which do not see Europe as an important revenue source.

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-06-22 at 1.45.25 PM.png (1042x408, 337K)

>smaller news sites, which cannot be made GDPR compliant
Why is that? I was under the impression the only barrier was "don't track visitors to the site and sell off the info you get on them"

Based nige

Attached: 1491933816440.png (1291x935, 2.83M)

The GDPR requires a lot of things. It is 110 pages long. For instance any data you store (e.g. ip-addresses) and process, needs to be either cryptographically saved or you need to otherwise show you are implementing either encryption or other data security "by design" (a term of art the GDPR uses several times).

There is a reason it costs a lot of time and money for websites to get to GDPR compliance. Jow Forums, e.g. is non-compliant, but it does not have any assets in the EU, so it is apparently just waiting for any potential lawsuit and is thus continuing to work without being compliant.

Other things are e.g. you need to provide a settings area where users can object to any terms and data saved. You also need to allow people to download any personal information and to permanently delete that information. Then there is age veritifiation (which is still unclear how it is going to be implemented), Google analytics, storage of cookies or localStorage, emails, email settings etc.

Globally, costs have been around 30bn for the internet industry to comply with GDPR up to now.

I see
Is it not fair to say that it's not the fault of the GDPR that these small websites aren't able to comply, though? These sorts of things should be mandatory just on ethical and reputation grounds, I would have said
I feel as though this is comparable to shutting down small butchers because they can't guarantee good hygiene standards and remain profitable - I am of course against any additional powers to megacorporations and the like, but you can't just have no regulations.

>upload filters (that censor content)
Is that even possible on a HTTPS'd connection?

>Is that even possible on a HTTPS'd connection?

Not sure if you are kidding. But it is not some third party government upload filter, the term "upload filter" means that the social media platform or other user content platform has to put in place a technological solution to filter out copyrighted information from user uploaded information. E.g. if you upload a picture to Facebook, that picture will then be scanned for characteristic markers which will be, through an AI, be checked against a database of copyright claims. If there is a reasonable match, your picture gets censored before it is published to the world.

Of course, the AI cannot decide whether a copyright exception is available, so there is no way to e.g. decide whether you have posted a parody, or a legitimate criticism of a movie which includes a quote from the movie etc.

Once the upload filter has censored your upload, you - under the EU envisioned process - can file a complaint which then gets forwarded to the copyright holder which will have a chance to reply whether or not your use of the copyrighted material should be persued further. Then you can make a statement and the social media platform can then decide on the case. A few weeks later, your picture may then appear on the site.

Of course, this is all unworkable, so at the end things will just shut down.

>Not sure if you are kidding. But it is not some third party government upload filter, the term "upload filter" means that the social media platform or other user content platform has to put in place a technological solution to filter out copyrighted information from user uploaded information.
Ah, okay. No, I wasn't kidding. I was thinking the filter would be applied by the ISP, not by individual websites.

>E.g. if you upload a picture to Facebook, that picture will then be scanned for characteristic markers which will be, through an AI, be checked against a database of copyright claims. If there is a reasonable match, your picture gets censored before it is published to the world.
Pretty sure YouTube already does this, at least with audio.

>Once the upload filter has censored your upload, you - under the EU envisioned process - can file a complaint which then gets forwarded to the copyright holder which will have a chance to reply whether or not your use of the copyrighted material should be persued further.
I'm guessing there's no legal obligation for them to actually respond to this complaint?

Also, what impact, if any, does this law have on P2P (e.g. torrents)?

There's a huge difference between a removal of regulation and an increase of regulation.

>Pretty sure YouTube already does this, at least with audio.
Yes, Youtube does it... but it is not required to do so. It does it in order to limit the amount of "take down" requests from the music and film industry. Under Article 13, these filters would then be made mandatory for everyone.

>I'm guessing there's no legal obligation for them to actually respond to this complaint?
Rightsholders have no obligation, correct. The social media platforms do have an obligation to process your claim, but it would take quite some time to do so (depending on how many claims are made per day)

>Also, what impact, if any, does this law have on P2P (e.g. torrents)?
Torrents aren't social media platforms. And any copyrighted material shared is already a copyright violation int he US and the EU.

>the EU will be destroyed my lefti-

>Euroskeptic Conservatives
THE FUCK?!
I thought libtards would support that shit, not conservatives!

Liberals do support it. It's the social democrats, greens, hard left-wingers, and euroskeptic populists who are against it.

Although I am pretty surprised that euroskeptic conservatives would support it.

>I thought libtards would support that shit, not conservatives!

Attached: 1510495219219.jpg (751x649, 97K)

Why would the liberals support this? Aren't they supposed to actually be for freedoms?

>farage voted against it dummy
But the ENF didn't
Neither did the ECR nor the EPP

cringe

>Why would the liberals support this? Aren't they supposed to actually be for freedoms?

Yes, thet are supposed to be for freedoms. But not in Europe

What did he mean by this.

In Europe, liberals stand for what’s good for corporations - laissez-faire capitalism.

So they want a truly free market? Nice.

>Also, what impact, if any, does this law have on P2P (e.g. torrents)?
not much i'd say : sharing copyrighted material through P2P is already illegal (via .torrent or magnet)

>but if it was left up to europe tech would have stagnated a long time ago.
It HAS stagnated a long time ago.
The big European tech companies like Nokia are flat on their asses, there's no equivalent to Silicon Valley or Shenzen in Europe (except maybe Sophia Antibes, which is a fucking joke) and Macron's investment to make France a 'leader' in AI is but a small portion from what Apple invests in AI. Except Apple is a private company and Macron is using taxpayer money.

European tech is DEAD. The only thing we can really do is develop apps compatible with Chinese and (especially) American tech. This is why we don't have an Apple but we do have Musical.ly, or why we don't have a Windows but we do have Ubisoft.

This is what happens when you get a bunch of B-list politicians who couldn't cut it in national politics together, disconnect them entirely from the population they're supposed to represent, surround them with the second largest lobby system in the world and give them excessive power. You get a system where power is expanded for the sake of expanding power, meaning overregulation. They destroy market freedom while in the same breath touting freedom as one of the great "European" values (except everything West of the Elbe didn't embrace those values until fucking 1990).

Correction: East of the Elbe.

A truly free market for very large corporations yes, with all competition from small companies eliminated.

But that's not a free market, that's crony capitalism where the large corporations bribe the government to intervene in the free market and effectively "kick the ladder down".

The problems start arising when idiots think this is how free market capitalism works, call it "late stage capitalism" and become socialists. Because then they vote to solve the problem of excessive government intervention with... excessive government intervention.

Like shit in the OP for example: it effectively destroys the ability of small and decentralized news outlets to compete with the big boys.

who is forcing "small and decentralized" news outlets to publish copyrighted content?

have you ever heard of sarcasm

"publish copyrighted content" in this context can be as simple as linking to another news website or using video footage that under current legislation would be classified as "fair use". In other words, if you cannot afford to have a camera crew on the scene, you cannot report on it.

This arbitrarily introduces a very high barrier of entry to the market, which is effectively "kicking the ladder down" as I described earlier.

Poe's law, m8. Sarcasm is indistinguishable from heartfelt idiocy on the internet.

Remember when people freaked out about "net neutrality" in the USA? And then it was repealed and everyone was in despair? And then nothing happened and nothing changed?

Same thing here. Who cares. Worse comes to worse EU makes it so nobody wants Europeans on the internet anymore.

making money of someone else's recording without their consent is not "fair use"

if "small and decentralized" "news" "outlet" wants to deliver report it is free to use its own resources, it doesn't need to steal work of others.

btw you are right that corporations gain "unfair" advantage over small enterprises, both as a natural consequence of having more resources to spend on regulatory overhead as well as having more resources to spend on influencing those regulations in their favour. It's just that "news outlets" are not really ones at risk here, at least not any sort that would be missed.

Except the US government represents the people of the united states. The EU's "government" represents underqualified, power hungry bureaucrats with no connection to the fantastical figment of imagination known as "the European people". They are also extremely devoted to making Europe a single superstate whether we like it or not. This goes as far back as implementing a common currency without a common fiscal policy, which is a recipe for disaster which would in turn be "solved" by creating even more power for the EU. Which is what Merkel and Macron agreed to a few days ago: it's now decided that the EU WILL have a "rainy day" fund.

>making money of someone else's recording without their consent is not "fair use"
You know youtube effectively entirely operates on fair use, right? Not just the news outlets I spoke about, but also such things as Let's Plays, reviews, parody videos et cetera et cetera. Under current legislation it's all covered under fair use as long as they're a transformative effect (meaning you're not just presenting the material as is, but 'making it your own' by adding something to it).

>t's just that "news outlets" are not really ones at risk here, at least not any sort that would be missed.
Indeed, the powers that be would barely miss any kind of dissenting views. They'd rather have everyone consume from the same MSM clique with the same few people in charge who are already in bed with politicians. This is like Germany's "fake news" laws on steroids.

>Except the US government represents the people of the united states. The EU's "government" represents underqualified, power hungry bureaucrats with no connection to the fantastical figment of imagination known as "the European people".
that must be why the guy who lost the popular vote is now president of the US right :)

>I have no idea how the electoral college works or why it was implemented in the first place
Let me guess, you also believe the US Senate is unfair too.

So you claim this is law that is supposed to ban parody, streaming etc. Is that what you're saying?

>powers that be would barely miss any kind of dissenting views
you can't even have a dissenting view without copypasting an article and posting your under your name?

How election works in the USA is that every state has a # of representatives. So imagine if EU voted on president of EU. Malta has 1 vote, Vatican has 1 vote, San Marino has 1 vote, Czech Republic has 20 votes, Germany gets 60 votes, etc.

Point being that you get all the points regardless if you win by 50.0001% or 99.9999%. Points are the same. So Trump squeaks by getting tiny tiny victories in a lot of states, and gets all the points for them. Meanwhile Clinton gets a ton of extra votes in California etc. but it doesn't help her past the 50.0001% mark (bad strategy but she thought the Rust Belt was safe due to some bad polling).

We not just 1 monolithic country but 50 individual states.

It's you who are arbitrarily autistic about standards of democracy here by calling people you yourself helped elect into office "undemocratic".

EU = Nazi Union with a smile

I was memeing the guy. I realize it's possible to lose popular vote and still win the whole thing over there. In fact my respect of US democracy rose by the fact that even someone like Trump can make president there if the people will it.
My point was that user's portrayal of the contrast was retarded.

>So you claim this is law that is supposed to ban parody, streaming etc. Is that what you're saying?
Not only that. Merely LINKING to another website on platforms like facebook and Jow Forums could be subject to a "link tax".

>you can't even have a dissenting view without copypasting an article and posting your under your name?
You don't understand the scope, do you? Like I said, you can't even link to other shit.

I still have a hard time imagening how those laws are actually supposed to be applied, and if they are applied, how anyone can still say they actually care about privacy and freedom within the eu.

>Article 11: Link Tax
How is this supposed to work? Following scenario:
>be 30 y/o boomer on facebook sharing the newest boomer memes along with the newest boomer articles
>with this law, sharing an article on facebook will actually cost facebook money (I hope I understood this correctly here)
This means that facebook can actually afford such a law (although they will operate at a loss within the EU? I don't see how still being active within the EU can be profitable for them if this laws goes into action) but smaller websites such as forums for example or websites that do not really generate any kind of money are basically fucked if their users post links to different websites since lawyers can then sue them for copyright infringement which will cost them a shitload of money.
Basically this law, as it stands now, is a huge negative impact for smaller websites that aren't as populated as facebook for example.

>Article 13: Upload filtering
Smells like censorship from the get go. And I don't know how they want to control EACH upload of any user and still proclaim themselves to be some kind of "freedom loving and privacy caring" entity. This law is such a stark contrast compared to the DSGVO that was passed recently (which also fucks over smaller businesses imo, but hey who cares about the backbone of any economy right?). Imagine the following scenario where every state, as you already mentioned, will implement it's own rule for the upload filter. What will stop them to add some weird rule that allows them to supress certain material once deemed unwanted by the government? People say the great firewall of china is bad, but this is equally worse imo.
Fuck those bastards that actually vote for this shit. Nothing good came from the EU in recent years, total shitheap.

>Like shit in the OP for example: it effectively destroys the ability of small and decentralized news outlets to compete with the big boys.

That is intentional

It always is.