Article 13 Was Purposefully Designed To Be Awful For The Internet; EU Moves Forward With It Anyway
from the just-admit-it dept
As was widely expected, even if it's unfortunately, on Friday evening the EU Council voted to move forward with the latest draft of the EU Copyright Directive, including the truly awful "compromise" version of Article 13 hacked out by the Germans and the French. This happened despite the fact that there's basically no one left who supports this version of Article 13. The public is widely against it. The internet companies are against it. And, perhaps surprisingly, even the legacy copyright companies -- who pushed so hard for this -- are still angry about the result, which they insist is too lenient on the internet.
I've been left scratching my head over why the copyright holders are still pushing for more here. To be clear, the version that the EU Council approved last week would fundamentally change the internet in a massive way. It would, effectively, make it nearly impossible for any website to ever host any user-generated content. In nearly all cases it would require expensive and problematic upload filters. In the few "exceptions" to that, it would still require a massive amount of concessions from internet platforms to avoid liability.
However, the reality here is simple: Article 13 (and, to a lesser extent, Article 11 with its snippet tax) is purposely designed to be awful. The supporters of these efforts keep insisting that it's not going to harm the internet at all, and that it's just about "closing the value gap" or "making the playing field even" or other nonsense along those lines. They insist that it won't create any harm to user-generated content platforms, or to legitimate, non-infringing works. Given that we've already seen how these kinds of systems work in practice, everyone knows that's a laughably false proposition.
However, a bit of truth came out a few weeks back, when Axel Voss, the MEP pushing this Directive forward, put out a "Q and A" page attempting to defend both Articles 11 and 13. We walked through that page sentence by sentence to debunk it, but I kept thinking about why the EU and Axel Voss would push such utter nonsense. Normally, politicians at least try to put forth a flimsy attempt at pretending they're based in reality. But not here.
However, in rereading the "answers" to the questions in the document, the whole thing makes sense under one, and only one, condition: if Articles 11 and 13 are purposefully designed to be internet-destroyingly awful, then the belief is that it will force internet platforms to negotiate some sort of "global licensing" deal. Professor AnneMarie Bridy made this point last month, in noting the following:
Reading #Article13, it's almost as if the EU Parliament imagines that the entire universe of rightholders with which/whom online platforms would have to conclude licenses is somewhere around, idk, a dozen.
— Annemarie Bridy (@AnnemarieBridy) January 15, 2019
But, as you read through Articles 11 and 13 and Voss's "answers" and the comments from the legacy copyright players, it all "makes sense" if you believe the entire point of these bills is not to set up a system whereby the internet companies are installing actual filters and blocking infringing works. Rather, they only make sense if the goal is to make things so goddamn awful for the internet companies that they pay the legacy copyright holders not to sue them. Indeed, the Q&A comes the closest to saying exactly this:
Large online platforms and news aggregators will have more reason than currently is the case to strike fair remuneration (licensing) agreements with artists and media houses who would have identified themselves beforehand as the owners of a piece of work. A platform or news aggregator will be further incentivised to strike such agreements because, in the absence of them, it would be directly liable if it hosts a piece of work with an unpaid licence fee. The current legislation offers more wiggle room for platforms to absolve themselves from this liability.
As we pointed out last time, this is utter nonsense, as nothing in the draft actually sets this up. But it does make sense if the entire point of the bill is to be so onerous as to be impossible -- creating a shotgun situation in which the platforms feel the need to pay off the copyright holders not to sue them (jokingly referred to here as "licensing agreements.") This is why the copyright holders are so upset about any form of safe harbor or any way in which platforms might avoid massive, crippling liability. Because if there's a path to abide by the law, then there will be less incentive to pay off Hollywood not to sue. It goes on:
The draft directive will not be the source of censorship. By increasing legal liability, the draft directive will increase pressure on internet platforms/news aggregators to conclude fair remuneration deals with the creators of work through which the platforms make money. This is not censorship.
Again, this makes no sense, as the entire point of the draft directive is increased censorship... unless every internet platform pays off Hollywood to leave them alone.
And, again, as Prof. Bridy rightly points out above, all of this only makes sense in the context where there is a fairly small number of rightsholders and an even smaller number of internet platforms, who can gather together and hash out "don't sue us" deals (i.e., "licenses" < -- sarcastic quotes implied). And, again, that only works if the actual provisions of Articles 11 and 13 are so laughably stupid, so ridiculously onerous, so painfully destructive, that the internet platforms are left with no choice (well, that, or shut down, which many would likely have to do).
And thus, it would be better for all involved if Hollywood, the big news publishers, and the record labels just admit this upfront. The entire point of Articles 11 and 13 are that they are awful and destructive to the internet. It is a form of regulatory extortion. "Pay us, or we destroy your internet." At least admitting that would be intellectually honest.
Still, given that, wouldn't it be better for Axel Voss and others to just do what clearly is intended here and write a law that is a lot more honest and just says "Google and Facebook need to pay &euro:X amount to satisfy these flopping legacy industries that failed to innovate." At least that would be much more direct and honest. But, alas, it appears that's wishful thinking. Instead, the EU Parliament will now gather with the EU Council and EU Commission for a new round of "trilogue" negotiations, where everyone will pretend that there's some good reason for this set of regulations, when even the key rationale in support of the effort is that following the law will be so painful and so destructive that the internet platforms will pay off copyright holders to avoid having to comply.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: article 11, article 13, copyright, eu, eu copyright directive, eu council, licensing
Companies: facebook, google
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Then we don’t have to believe you when you make a supposedly fact-based claim, Sanford.
made the First Word by Gary
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I wonder if the people who wrote Articles 11 and 13 ever even use the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Probably yes - but they either don't understand the effect this will have, or consider the effect this will have to be a good thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: they know what they are doing
Do not think of them as ignorant old farts who dont know anything about what they are doing. These criminal trash know EXACTLY what they are doing. They are trying to establish a fascist regime in Europe by destroying the last realm of free speech on this Earth, the internet. These filth of humanity, morally depraved to the same level as nazis, rapists and serial killers are simply evil incarnate. They are trying to destroy OUR internet simply to cause as much harm to millions of people as possible. This is yet another war between freedom and fascism, and fascism needs to be destroyed yet again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: they know what they are doing
It’s so funny how you guys think the internet is only about obtaining other people’s creations without having to pay for it, like the internet will be ruined if you can’t do that anymore. Seriously, get a life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: they know what they are doing
It's so funny how you think lying about what people think, say, and do is actually a good comeback.
Seriously, get a life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: they know what they are doing
It's funny and telling that the only thing they have is dishonesty and lies, along with apparently the belief that if they just lie more suddenly people will believe them.
That or they're a troll merely fishing for reactions. Auto-flag either way really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think it's the latter. There's a lot of people out there (including myself at times) that think Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other social platforms are a net negative on society.
If articles 11 and 13 prove to be truly disastrous, then they can always be reverted or modified. Remember when the right to be forgotten was going to destroy the internet? Turns out it hasn't really been a problem yet...
Articles 11 and 13 have flaws but it's worth trying something because just about anything is better than the status quo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“We must be seen doing something!”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They really couldn't make things worse than they are now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
...is "at least things can't get any worse" not a sitcom cliche in Europe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I don't know about Europe in general, but it sounds like something that would hear on the BBC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You underestimate people with power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Out of the gloom the voice said smile and be happy, for things could be worse; so I smiled and was happy, and lo thing got worse,.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
See TVTropes: Tempting Fate.
Things can always get worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, things will get worse for Silicon Valley billionaires. They'll be fine though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Articles 11 and 13 have flaws but it's worth trying something because just about anything is better than the status quo.
I vehemently disagree with you, because I believe that the Status Quo is a hell of a lot better than the result Articles 11 and 13 will have, and also I call buuuuuullshiiiiiiit on the idea that these articles will be able to be rolled back.
Miss me with this nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Since all the previous extensions to the duration of copyright have proven disastrous to the proliferation of the public domain, the development of derivative works, and the archiving of old works, can we then revert those first before doing this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
...did you really just do a "Something must be done; this is something; therefore this must be done"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Articles 11 and 13 have flaws but it's worth trying something because just about anything is better than the status quo."
Then you are just as much a piece of trash as the rest of the human disease that is pushing for article 13. We should hold corrupt politicians like Trump, Ajit Pai, and Axel Voss to the same standards as rapists, serial killers and Pedophiles. They are trash and trash belongs in the incinerator.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
reaction.
Of course not, the old guard do not want a discussion or a negotiation of conditions. They just want to keep on moving goal posts and making demands until the newcomers fall in line.
Like damming a river and still charging for rain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: reaction.
The demand is that internet companies stop enabling criminal conduct, i.e., piracy.
For these laws you can blame sites like The Pirate Bay, for being so brazen, just like sports bettors can blame the "catch me if you can" poker players who ruined online betting by bragging about how nothing could be done to stop them until the recent Supreme Court decision legalized it.
Smaller companies will thrive in this new environment. Thieves will not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: reaction.
Not when the legacy industries demand that they buy an expensive annual blanket license or else. They will not care how careful a site is to avoid infringing content, but will make a license a necessryt condition of having a website.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: reaction.
Which is why the Articles in question will end up entrenching the major players in the field rather than putting them on “even ground” with the smaller companies: Those major players can already afford to pay for those “conditions”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: reaction.
Or -- or -- we could blame badly-written laws on the people who actually write and pass them.
You're not big on personal responsibility, are you, Johnny? It's always somebody else's fault. Legislation isn't the fault of the lobbyists who write it or the legislators who pass it; it's the fault of those filthy, filthy pirates. Your books don't sell poorly because you're a half-literate twit who spends all day writing stupid shit in Internet comments sections instead of writing more books; it's the fault of those filthy, filthy pirates. Sensing a pattern here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: reaction.
My writing has nothing to do with piracy being wrong, though a lot to do with you being exceptionally rude.
You sound angry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: reaction.
My writing has nothing to do with piracy being wrong
What writing? The writing that you would have earned millions on, but it got stolen by pirates? The writing that you have flat refused to prove exist? That writing?
Because that writing has been presented as an example of the effects of what you call piracy, and a reason why Article 13 should be passed, so, yeah, it's got a lot to do with this discussion.
Except, you know, you refuse to prove it exists, so I must assume you're just lying about it, Sanford.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: reaction.
You’re an idiot
Do you know that those provisions France and Germany agreed to are impossible to fulfill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: reaction.
Sorry wrong comment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: reaction.
You’re an idiot Do you know that those provisions France and Germany agreed to are impossible to fulfill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Extra Extra
Old man yells at children to stop playing on his lawn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright is not "legacy." New copyrights are registered every hour, if not more frequently. Copyright protects the creators of not just creative works, but corporate writing, advertising, textbooks, and a host of other creations.
The problem with piracy is that, even if not a single downloader were to purchase something, they carry value to advertisers in pop-up advertising, and especially in the mailing list, as well as in the pirated works themselves, into which ads are often inserted. This costs creators millions of dollars, while enriching criminals. The intransigence of the pirates and the illegal downloaders has been such that Article 11/13 became necessary.
If websites cannot host user-generated content that complies with the law, then they are the ones who need to change their business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You got anything new, or are you gonna just spout the same drivel over and over just so you can have your ass handed to you again by people who know what the hell they’re talking about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Your attempt proof-by-assertion and slanted language are logical debate flaws.
You're also awfully rude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That’s a “no”, then. Fuck off, Sanford.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You'd have to KILL me to silence me, and you're a little short on courage or muscle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Rut roh looks like we got us a bonafied internet badass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just pointing out you won't be silencing me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Too late to walk back your big talk now, boy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't have to silence you, when nobody who reads what you have to say believes you.
We ain't listening, bruv.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just pointing out, we're still gonna report your stupid ass on any post. You're welcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Alternate idea:
Don't make this a law. Then nobody needs to comply with it, and the imaginary problems it was created to fail to solve can be ignored, like they should be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
oh, and while I'm at it:
The problem with piracy is that, even if not a single downloader were to purchase something, they carry value to advertisers in pop-up advertising, and especially in the mailing list, as well as in the pirated works themselves, into which ads are often inserted. This costs creators millions of dollars, while enriching criminals. The intransigence of the pirates and the illegal downloaders has been such that Article 11/13 became necessary.
Back up your assertions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The value of marketing to a mailing list or those who visit a website needs proof?
Interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes. Also, your claims of the effect of piracy need proof. The cost you claim that piracy incurs needs proof. The claim that article 11/13 is necessary, or will even effect what you claim it will, needs proof. In fact, in order for that latter claim to be valid, you would need to actually address every single objection that is in the articles provided, and that everyone else has brought up to you in all the other comment threads.
Actually discuss, actually provide evidence instead of blindly asserting, and actually address the arguments of those discoursing with you, or you will be roundly ignored (and roundly mocked in the process).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Proof much like his genitals is something he’s awfully short on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't have to prove anything. I'm not the one trying to stop Article 13. I think the EU is doing a fantastic job stopping these pirates.
You're the one who wants people to listen and change their opinions. How's that working for you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then we don’t have to believe you when you make a supposedly fact-based claim, Sanford.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm lost, where's the 'Sanford' bit referencing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It was suggested in a different article that our mailing list bro here might be the Spam King:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanford_Wallace
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ah, makes sense now, thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why not both?
Oh I thought it was referring to Fred Sanford’s get rich quick schemes and general old man sthick from Sanford and Son.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why not both?
That works, too. At least then, we can refer to him as a big dummy. 😁
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are rigging the game, by making claims that you will not provide evidence for, but you claim justify a law, and than stating other need to disprove your claims. Those are the tactics of snake oil salesmen,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
...and EU regulators, unfortunately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How’s being a crybaby on an “insignificant” internet blog working out for you brah?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't have to prove anything.
Correct. You don't have to, as long as you're fine with people calling you a liar for refusing to.
You are a liar. If you don't want me to call you liar, prove you are not a liar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, yes. there are valid questions if a mailing list of people who aren't paying for content is in fact valuable.
Also, I'm not aware of a major pirate site that requires emails to access torrent magnet links. I am also unaware of a pirate site that keeps logs of visitors. That tends to be against the whole point.
Also, There are also claims of 'enriching' criminals which are not backed up by data, given how most torrent sites are set up to avoid the site or its creators from actually performing any infringement, and that there is no evidence that pirate sites actually pull in any profit in the first place.
And in no case has any of that proved that Articles 11/13 are necessary, given that the entertainment industries seem to be making record profits overall.
There is a lot more than claims of the value of a mailing list that need to be addressed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not free to send spam to people, electronic or physical. Sure email spam is cheaper but you still have to waste time writing the email, curating the content, and figuring out how to get around the spam filters. Or you waste resources printing out garbage for others to throw away.
All that effort just for someone to ignore your message. Judging from the amount of time you waste posting hidden comments I guess for you time doesnt equal money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Flag on the play!
AC associates Legacy with copyright when the intended association in the phrase "legacy copyright industry/industries" is between legacy and industry.
ALSO:
AC impunes some right to gather a mailing list as part of copyright. Access to a mailing list is not a right granted my copyright.
ALSO:
AC is expressing theoretical value pirate sites might get from piracy as an equivalent 'stolen' value from the copyright holder, without evidence. Studies have shown that modern common forms of infringement don't generate any monetary income for the pirates.
Play is declared dead. AC is assessed a 15 yard penalty to their reputation for transparent attempts to willfully misunderstand the arguments in play. It is now second down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Many pirates have gotten rich off piracy. I know of one such "bay" site that was designed for a single niche that generated about $10 million a year for its owner.
The loss of a mailing list is not speculative, even if one assumes that not a single pirate would have purchased (if so, then there's no point designing a business model for non-customers).
Article 13 is the reality at the end of Piracy Road.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Knowing that you will never provide proof for such statements, why do you keep coming back and spewing more bullshit, then cry when everybody calls you out on your bullshit sewing.
And if it was that easy to make $10 million dollars, then why didn't the copyright cartels just design their own "bay" site such that they can earn that money themselves?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Added to this: the people who provide those electronic scooters aren't stealing from shoe manufacturers, even though they provide ways for people to move their shoes around without the wear and tear that makes them go out and buy new ones regularly.
Finding a single niche and exploiting it is what entrepreneurship is built on top of. Of course, that should be both a legal and ethical niche, but some people choose to take the risk -- like, for instance, UCE spammers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, so where is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[citation really fucking needed]
…okay seriously, th’fuck is with you and mailing lists lately, Sanford? Pirates don’t tend to keep track of other pirates. It defeates the whole point of torrent trackers and illicit download sites.
Napster. Limewire. TPB. All have fallen to the vengeful hand of the MPAA, RIAA, and other similar legacy copyright-holding industries¹. And yet, “piracy” remains. What makes you think Article 13 will do what the MPAA, the RIAA, and all their bought-off legislators have not been able to do with a full-on frontal assault that has lasted for 20 years?
¹ — Just want to make sure you can comprehend what we’re talking about here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You really should provide “proof” to the cops. They would love to.... ahahahha sorry we both know you’re full of shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Investigations have ranged that site's 2006 revenue between $169,000 and $1.4 Million (USD). You might be confused, because the estimates were issued in SEK, the local currancy, and the high end estimate was 10 Million SEK. But you used the $ symbol, and SEK does not use that currency symbol, and lacking clarity I assume you were suggesting the 10 million was in USD, so you definitely appear confused. Being off by an order of magnitude in your revenue claims really hurts your position.
Now, that is only revenue, and like a lot of people you fail to understand that there are expenses that need to be deducted to know if you make money. The defense lawyers for that site in the 2009 criminal case estimated an approx $8,000 USD loss in 2006. The revenue value used by the prosecution at trial (far less than the SEK 10 Million) does express a surplus in 2006 revenue (profit) over the defense's expense estimates, but prosecution assumptions about what was revenue might have lead to higher expense calculations as well, (under the IGAP principles of expense/revenue matching). Accounting when dealing with an unincorporated entity like the pirate bay can be complex. The trial made no determinations of what the actual profit was, and not enough information is public to make this determination as a armchair lawyer.
This is the core issue you face Sanford - you have made claims, but don't actually have any evidence, and show you only have the most cursory understanding of the information at your disposal. If you don't understand the difference between revenue and profit, you shouldn't try talking about someone being 'enriched' by a business which might not be making money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If, as you will put it, someone wants to go out of their way to create a site or app whose sole purpose is to help facilitate copyright infringement, they're going to do so. Article 13 would only add the liability they already face when they do so, and I'm not even sure it's going to do that. If you think that those that run sites like TPB are going to stop operating if Article 13 passes, then you've got another thing coming. The DMCA in the US didn' stop piracy, and you think passing another law in another region is going to change that? Copyright infringement is already illegal, but the "pirates" behind the "piracy" don't care, and they could care less about how copyright law is going to change.
All Article 13 will do is take sites that aren't trying to help its users infringe copyright, follow the DMCA to the letter, and even has a plethora of user-generated content that is wholly original, and make them liable if even 1 second of an infringing upload is found. Sites like YouTube, Facebook, Tumblr, and many more have WAY more to worry about with Article 13 than TPB. YouTube's copyright system is broken to the point where abusive Content ID claims are almost laughable at this point, and if Article 13 passes, not only will Content ID be here to stay, but it will likely be made a billion times worse. I wouldn't even be surprised if all monetization claims are blocked in the EU because of this.
So no, Article 13 won't be the end of Piracy Road. Piracy will continue unscathed, while the rest of the Internet gets screwed over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Article 13 is the reality at the end of Piracy Road."
If you really think piracy will stopped by this you're even more stupid than expected. And that's a really low bar...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're either legitimately failing at reading comprehension, or you're being intentionally disingenuous.
The phrase is "legacy copyright companies". Three words. Not two. The word "legacy" is clearly meant to describe copyright-owning companies whose business model relies on a pre-Internet conception of copyright law.
That is extremely clear from both the phrase and the context. So either you're bad at understanding plain English -- entirely possible; you're certainly not very good at writing it -- or you understand just fine and you're merely pretending not to.
Which is it, John -- are you stupid, or dishonest?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can’t it be both?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Copyright is not "legacy."
No, copyright is not legacy. However, the giant gatekeepers who were set up solely to extract the copyright from actual creators, AND to take the vast majority of the profits from those copyrights... are very much legacy industries.
The problem with piracy is that, even if not a single downloader were to purchase something, they carry value to advertisers in pop-up advertising, and especially in the mailing list, as well as in the pirated works themselves, into which ads are often inserted.
You keep saying this. Yet, if it were true that those things (especially the mailing list) were so valuable, um, wouldn't you be better off ditching copyright, and giving the work away in exchange for the email? You'd end up with a much bigger list that you claim is so valuable.
The intransigence of the pirates and the illegal downloaders has been such that Article 11/13 became necessary
Nothing in either of those Articles helps such a situation. It only puts the internet giants in an even stronger position.
If websites cannot host user-generated content that complies with the law, then they are the ones who need to change their business model.
You keep repeating this line as well, despite it not making any sense at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Seems to make perfect sense to the EU.
Artists who sign over their copyrights are usually very well-compensated for doing so. Some are not, but "blame the shady businessperson" not the copyright vehicle.
The mailing-list example does incentivize SOME free material, but the author should control that, and the criminals should not profit. I've seen valuable internet companies decimated by having their entire catalogs posted "free" online where they couldn't even defend themselves. They lose money, the government loses money, people lose jobs.
The internet giants will be strong regardless, and even in your oligopolistic scenario, they become an umbrella for letting creativity thrive, and make money for many artists, as YouTube, Snapchat, and Instagram have definitely done. Those umbrellas can deal with Article 13 while the average user is actually freed from compliance, just like they are now free from needing their own domains (I let all of mine expire).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Artists who sign over their copyrights are usually very well-compensated for doing so.
You have no idea what you're talking about. This statement alone discredits basically everything else you've said.
Most record labels require artists to give up their copyrights for a tiny loan, which then needs to be "recouped" such that they never earn any money and never get their copyright back.
Most book publishers require the copyright for a miniscule "advance" and then take upwards of 70% of any sales.
The mailing-list example does incentivize SOME free material, but the author should control that, and the criminals should not profit. I've seen valuable internet companies decimated by having their entire catalogs posted "free" online where they couldn't even defend themselves.
This suggests something weird. The people likely to support a pirate version over a FREE, AUTHORIZED VERSION from the ORIGINAL AUTHOR, are not likely to be particularly valuable on a mailing list. So, I am again under the educated belief that you don't know the first thing about what you're discussing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Most record labels require artists to give up their copyrights for a tiny loan, which then needs to be "recouped" such that they never earn any money and never get their copyright back”
Wow. Just wow. This is a blatant untruth. Why did you post such a thing? This is a bad look for you, Mike, to post something so ridiculously non-factual.
Do you honestly think so many of us artists would be mobilizing for our rights if we did not have skin in the game?
If you’re misinformed about how we musicians are paid, I’ll be happy to enlighten you, because you clearly are sharing the truth about how things work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I’ll listen to TLC on that subject, thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're conflating instances of artists having a bad experience, and the standard, everyday modus operandi of the record business. Artists with bad experiences often have to sue; if that was the case for every artist then there would be no business and the government would have likely already stepped in.
Sorry, but the only reason to post an untruth such as the one Mike did is for agenda based propaganda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Do you have evidence to prove he is wrong other than your say so as a completely anonymous person on the internet?
Mike is simply stating the facts as they are happening in the real world. What you are saying is that something is not happening that actually is.
Or would you care to dispute facts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recording_contract
https://indepreneur.io/blog/5-reasons-never- sign-record-deal/
https://www.theroot.com/the-music-industrys-funny-money-1790880088
https://www.the balancecareers.com/how-does-a-record-label-decide-advance-2460963
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/ 20100712/23482610186.shtml
It could be you are the one who had an outlying good experience with record labels compared to the majority. Or maybe you are the one spouting agenda based propaganda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You're not really using logic here. If all the links you show above were the standard way of doing business, then no one would sign with a record company, would they? No one would ever get royalties, would they?
It is up to the artist to make sure they don't sign a bad contract, just like it is up to any other person in life not to sign a bad contract; no one is holding a gun to their head.
No one is denying that there have been numerous shady deals done in the past in the record business; in fact they still continue to this day with people gullible enough to sign away their life. But saying this is the usual way of doing business is just not true. I think Mike knows this. But he has an agenda, and talking points that he enjoys using, whether they're factual or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well actually I am. I looked up the facts, the facts said you're wrong so logically I'm siding with the facts. So the question becomes, where are your facts?
I can provide more if you want but I figured that was enough of a sampling to prove my point. Additionally, those links include primary data based on recording industry audits and publicly available information. Such as the chart showing that artists get, at best, maybe 13% if they are a solo act, but out of that 13% they still have to pay their managers, lawyers, producers, etc... So, yes, that is the standard way of doing business. Show me one artist signed by a major record label that gets 100% of sales of their work.
Until the internet came along and made self-publishing actually feasible for the masses, signing with a record company was the ONLY way to make it in the music industry. And now that it has, more and more artists are going with self-publishing than signing a recording contract. Your argument is invalid.
Well, actually, a lot of artists signed with record labels don't, or if they do it's a minuscule fraction of the overall profits of sales of their work. The bulk of that profit is skimmed by record labels unless the artist is big enough to demand a better cut, which most aren't.
Right, but only up until recently. Like I said, before the internet it was either sign with a label or nothing. Gun, meet head. Sadly that perception still persists today, though it is starting to change as more and more artists realize they can self-publish utilizing tools and services on the internet.
On this we agree.
Or those who haven't been exposed to the alternatives/have been given bad advice/believe all the hype the record labels continue to spew that they are the ONLY way to get noticed and make it big. Please, stop insulting people's intelligence.
You have proof then? Please provide it. I have provided links to analysis of the record label industry based on publicly available and independently verifiable information. I am open to being proved wrong but you have to provide hard evidence that contradicts mine. Otherwise you are spouting hearsay and anecdotes at best and lies at worst.
So far the only one who has not provided factual talking points is you. All of our individual talking points provided so far are backed up by easily checked data available to the public. You have not provided a single shred of publicly available data to back up your assertions.
The burden of proof and ball is in your court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I have provided links to analysis of the record label industry based on publicly available and independently verifiable information."
You provided links, yes, but none of those prove that is the standard way business is done.
Like I said, logic dictates that if that were the norm, no one in their right mind would sign to a label, and labels would be in court defending themselves all day.
My royalty checks are proof the record label system works. I'd like to share them, but I enjoy being anonymous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is the norm, because there was no alternative.
Until the internet came along and made self-publishing actually feasible for the masses, signing with a record company was the ONLY way to make it in the music industry. And now that it has, more and more artists are going with self-publishing than signing a recording contract. Your argument is invalid.
As he noted earlier. The links provided speak to this being the norm. You have a single example - your own royalty checks (which we just have to take your word for). That is a single data point. You are more likely to be an outlier, operating off of a bias of your personal experience, than you are to be the norm.
Start providing some actual data, or get used to the idea that people are going to consider your arguments to be invalid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually yes, it does, because that analysis was done on the normal standard way record labels deal with artists, as TFG has already noted. The fact that you fail to accept reality is not my fault.
Then explain why the majority of signed artists get paid crap compared to how much money the record labels get paid for selling their work. Actual logic would like to have a word with you.
Then you can also enjoy no one believing a word you say if you refuse to provide any proof. You come off as a schoolyard kid who can't get his way so he resorts to "Yeah well I'm smarter than you, nyah!".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Many artists signed with the labels when they could sign and get published, or not sign and remain in obscurity. Also, well before the Internet, the Grateful Dead gave fans with tape recorders a feed direct from the mixing desk at the concert, because as far as they were concerned, recordings, official or bootleg, were advertising for their concerts, which is how they made their money.
Also self publishing on the Internet for music, as a viable distribution method, is only about 14-15 years old, back when Jamendo and YouTube were created.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Check the lifestyles of the top artists.
Look up how much money Chuck Mangione made from "Feels So Good," his only hit, or how much Sid Prosen (who most wouldn't have heard of) made from writing his songs.
Some singers do sign away their rights but that's on them. Billy Joel made a horrible deal that took eight years to undo. On the flip side, Psy has done pretty well even without "Gangnam Style."
Music publishers take huge risks and spend a lot of money on A&R, production, etc. Complaints about the business side of music isn't germane to copyright anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I like how the usual critics think that the fact that rich people exist is a damning gotcha for whatever agenda they wish to push.
If the status quo is so damn profitable, why Article 13?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You are confusing me by conflating all those different subjects; piracy, downloading and advertising; in one paragraph. My answers are:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm sure many things confuse you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyrights best and brightest on display today
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm pretty sure this has been explained to you before: The term "legacy copyright holder" is not referring to the idea that copyright is "legacy." It's referring to the established corporations (the "legacy" corporations, that is) that are trying to abuse copyright law by legislating their way to profit instead of innovating.
Legitimate UGC websites do everything they can to comply with the law, including substantial efforts to remove infringing content. The problem is that it will never be enough to satisfy the legacy corporate interests. That's why Article 13 is now requiring up-front licensing from platform providers, even if there's no evidence that said content is even present on the site. "Pay us in advance to be covered just in case there's a violation later." That's not a license, it's infringement insurance. Of course, for the legacy corporations, it's also income assurance.
It's also been pointed out several times that the idea of intermediary liability is utterly ridiculous when applied to real-world situations (e.g., holding a car manufacturer liable when the car is used in a crime) so, why does it suddenly make sense for platform providers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The platforms can directly eliminate the illegal activity while preserving the legal uses of their product, unless of course their business model relies on this criminal conduct.
Bookstores have been held to distributor liability for defamation for centuries, and vicarious and contributory copyright-infringement are well-established legal doctrines, even standalone torts.
Reality seems at odds with your assertion. Product-liability law also assigns liability to manufacturers whose products cause harm. Just ask the makers of the Pinto.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hypothetical: A person posts a video to YouTube that contains footage from a currently popular videogame. (Let’s go with Apex Legends for the hell of it.) Now, how do YouTube’s automatic filters differentiate between someone uploading only direct gameplay footage, someone uploading that footage with commentary attached, and someone uploading that footage as part of a longer video about multiple videogames that contains commentary and cultural critique about videogames in particular and pop culture in general?
THE ANSWER MAY SHOCK YOU!
the answer is that the filters can’t do that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: breaking the filters
First, let's change the game being depicted in the footage -- instead of some random title grabbed from the shelves of the game store, lets use Battle for Wesnoth. In this case, instead of being under a typical shrinkwrap EULA with a single publisher holding the copyrights, we are talking about a game whose copyrights are distributed across a worldwide team of volunteers, and licensed under a mix of GPL-compatible licensing agreements. (The code's GPLv2 or later, along with some older art, and newer art is CC BY-SA 4.0.)
Now, let us suppose that we have two videos, both based on custom campaigns (Wesnoth fully supports this). Video maker #1 supplies full source code for the campaign along with basic instructions for recreating the setup, while video maker #2, however, supplies none of that.
Is video maker #2 violating copyright? Possibly! That older art is GPLv2 (or later) and as a result, the video itself could be seen as a GPLed derivative work, and the video maker would be distributing it in a way that's not GPL compliant if they don't give someone a fighting chance at recreating it, leaving them with no copyright leg to stand on. (It's greyer than most cases of "here's the binaries but we won't give you the sources" GPL violations, but it's within reason, given the way copyrights on video games are being interpreted in this thread.)
Now, what are the filters supposed to do about this? How can they tell the two videos apart, given that video #1 is fine under just about any reasonable interpretation of copyright you can think of (it's likely itself a GPLed work by way of being a derivative work of a partially GPLed work under the theory of video game copyrights espoused in this thread, which is odd, but not problematic as long as you stick to the GPL's terms), while video #2 is quite possibly (albeit not definitively!) a copyright infringement due to being a potentially violating derivative work of a partially GPLed work? And that's before you add whatever fair use/fair dealing arguments such a video creator may make to the picture!
Moral of the story: COPYRIGHT IS COMPLICATED. Unlike some other things that people wish to police on the net (such as CP, which is a simple strict-liability crime and thus easy to hunt with hashes), figuring out if something is copyright infringement requires knowing all the licensing details for the work in question (which can get into a spiderweb-like tangle quite fast), as well as knowing what falls under the scope of fair use/fair dealing (which requires quite a bit of context in and of itself!), waivability of rights, and more.
Or in short, show me the magic AI that can tell the two videos described in this hypothetical apart, then I will believe what you say. Until then, I'll keep looking at you like you asked me to launch a manned mission to the surface of the Sun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The filters would flag it, and the user would appeal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And there lies the problem. Thanks for supporting the argument that Article 13 and 11 needs to go away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And they do so, as I mentioned above.
True, to a point:
CDA 230 covers this for the USA. Law has recognized the difference of scale between pulling a few books off of a shelf and reviewing millions of uploads. The law has updated, now rightsholders need to do so as well. They're just trying to pull off in the EU what they couldn't do here, although they continue to try.
Not the same situation. To follow that line of reasoning, that would be similar to the provider themselves uploading infringing material. And they're already liable for such conduct. CDA 230, the DMCA, and the E-Commerce Directive offer no protections in that case.
The provider's product isn't causing harm. The uploader's improper use of the product is causing the harm (if any exists). YouTube isn't responsible for people uploading infringing video, the uploader is. Chevy and Budweiser aren't responsible for a drunk driver running over a child, the driver is. Barnes and Noble isn't responsible for selling a defamatory book (unless they keep selling it after they know it's defamatory, as per above), the writer is. Sony isn't responsible for a VCR being used to copy a movie, the user is.
I don't think it's me that reality (or the law, for that matter) that is at odds with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
SONY can't de-index or remove content from VCRs the way platforms can regulat their content.
Distributor liability for defamation, and vicarious/contributory infringement, are well-established law.
Note in your B&N example that Section 230 prevents on the internet (allowing defamation to continue after being put on notice). Section 230 needs a notice-and-takedown equivalent to protect the reputations of individuals.
My guess is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, after what happened to her this weekend, will be taking a long look at Section 230. Some of the people who have been targeting her do not live in glass houses, that's for sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
SONY can't de-index or remove content from VCRs the way platforms can regulat their content.
And the platforms can't possibly automate the process of distinguishing non-infringing UGC from infringing UGC.
Distributor liability for defamation, and vicarious/contributory infringement, are well-established law.
Proof of assertions, please. Which cases, also please ensure you have a viable logical link between those cases and their applicability to Youtube or the internet in general.
Note in your B&N example that Section 230 prevents on the internet (allowing defamation to continue after being put on notice). Section 230 needs a notice-and-takedown equivalent to protect the reputations of individuals.
No it doesn't. Prove me wrong.
My guess is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, after what happened to her this weekend, will be taking a long look at Section 230. Some of the people who have been targeting her do not live in glass houses, that's for sure.
I hope she doesn't, because I actually like her, and I'd hate to think she's an enemy of open communication and freedom of expression.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How could that ever be implemented without encouraging and facilitating the same litany of abuses that plague the DMCA’s notice-and-takedown system?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
the DMCA hasn't broken the internet. Section 230 has broken it, as with women and revenge porn (the conviction was for a site which was involved in the uploading, most of the others got off scot-free).
Revenge-porn victims should be able to sue the websites that enable it. Section 230 made that impossible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not an answer. How could a notice-and-takedown system in re: personal reputation and Section 230 ever be implemented without encouraging and facilitating the same litany of abuses that plague the DMCA’s notice-and-takedown system?
No, what 230 did is put the liability where it belongs: On the people who committed the misdeed. If the people behind sites known for revenge porn openly solicited/personally published/directly helped facilitate the publication of revenge porn, they can (and should) be held accountable. But the primary issue you have with this setup is you think a platform should be held accountable for any and every misdeed performed by third-parties — i.e., if someone uploaded a defamatory video to YouTube, both the uploader and the platform should be sued even if no one at YouTube solicited, personally published, or directly facilitated the publication of that video.
The whole reason you hate 230, Sanford, is that it doesn’t allow you to automatically extort money via legal threats from the biggest bank account involved in an illicit act. If 230 did allow for that, you would have absolutely no complaints.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not a good idea. If a statement isn't defamatory but the target of the speech doesn't like it, all they have to do is send a defamation claim to the provider, who (in most cases) will take it down rather than risk liability. It's far too easy to suppress legitimate speech in that manner.
Now, if a court has already found the speech to be defamatory, I don't have a problem with there being a requirement for some form of action - if not removal, then maybe at least a notice that the material was found false/defamatory/whatever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
She’s not gonna fuck you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yet you're the one who made the inappropriate, sexualized remark.
Come to think of it, she should probably be made aware of this site and its stand on Section 230, plus the ties of certain people who frequent it with certain other people who have done some REALLY nasty things to her. Maybe she'd care, maybe not, but it's just an e-mail. All provable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except we all know you’re deadly allergic to proof. Speaking of you should totally show her the results of all the police investigations and private detective and undercover journalist exposes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not "removing millions of uploads," but removing defamatory content from a website, which can be done very easily.
Distributor liability is still the law of the land. The Supreme Court has never affirmed Section 230 immunity. Why not? Wouldn't it be simpler for them to have done this by now since everyone seems to think they already have?
I was told years ago, by lawyers, that the Supremes were deliberately leaving 230 in place until such time as the internet was fully built out, at which point they'd toss it. Maybe they were right, maybe not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Considering the sheer amount of hours of video uploaded to YouTube every second, and the fact that not every claim is valid, it’s statistically plausible that YouTube might have to deal with millions of videos that would be claimed for copyright infringement, trademark infringement, defamation, fraud, false advertising, false light, etc. if CDA §230 was modified as you suggest. That’s a lot of claims to go through, and it can’t exactly be automated. So no, it’s not that simple.
If the Supreme Court hasn’t affirmed §230 immunity, that’s only because there hasn’t been a case on the issue of its constitutionality that has been appealed all the way to the Supreme Court that they decided was worth ruling on. If anything, the fact that every Circuit’s Appeals Court, for the most part, agrees that §230 immunity is the law of the land, and the Supreme Court hasn’t decided to overturn that, suggests that the Supreme Court has no problem with that particular statute. I’ve never heard of a case where the Supreme Court bided its time as you suggest.
Regardless, the Supreme Court can’t decide cases that are never appealed that far. They don’t go through each law and decide whether it’s constitutional or not; it first has to be called into question in a case that makes its way through the courts, and then one side or the other has to ask the Supreme Court to overturn or modify a ruling or order by the highest of the lower courts. Even then, unless the lower court made a huge mistake or there is a genuine confusion over what the law says among the different Circuits, the Supreme Court will generally decide not to review the case as not being needed to resolve any uncertainties or massive wrongs. For them, not reviewing a case is the easiest way to deal with things, and they need a reason to actually do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
To use a well-worn UK phrase.......COBBLERS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Pre-internet" copyright law still applies, which is why Article 13 needs to be passed. There is no "legacy copyright company," but many copyrightholders who need the laws properly enforced on the internet, as they generate billions in revenue, many jobs, and enabling criminal enterprises is never a good thing.
There's a reason your side continues to lose this fight. Only a few echo chambers on the internet, some with hidden agendas and puppeteers, make any noise against Article 13.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You said this already. Go talk in one of the threads you said this in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'll post where I want, thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If article 13 is passed you wont.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Says you. So far, you're wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please enumerate all instances where I'm wrong, or are you going to slink away and refuse to comment as you do when the inconvenient truth can't be denied?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Post where you want, we'll click report on your bullshit anyway. You're welcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then why the hell do we need Article 13? Isn't that, you know, redundant?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If the courts would enforce it as pre-internet law, we wouldn't need Article 13.
You can thank Perfect 10 for all but eliminating vicarious and contributory infringement liability from the internet. They tried to stop all this fifteen years ago. The courts were wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You mean the guy who, upon losing, had all his assets transferred away in an attempt to file for bankruptcy and avoid paying his court-ordered fines? Yes, truly, an epitome of respect for the law.
What a shame for you that the lines between copyright supporter and scam artist are so often blurred. You really only have yourselves to blame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You just said "Pre-internet copyright law still applies". Now you're saying it doesn't because the courts don't enforce it. Well, I have news for you, that's a courts problem, not a law problem. It's like saying "well the law says it's illegal to murder someone no matter the circumstances or methods used but we still need a law that says it's illegal to murder someone with a knife specifically".
If there is already a law on the books that makes something illegal, then you don't need another law reiterating that fact. If the courts refuse to enforce the prior law, what makes you think they will enforce the new law since it's just redundant?
And if the courts won't enforce the law (or were wrong), then you need new courts. Not new laws.
Your logical reasoning is seriously broken. I suggest immediate remediation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
“The courts were wrong.”
How pathetic you are
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More than any payments, the most important things are to ensure that us ordinary folks dont find out what two faced, lying, cheating, self serving assholes the rich, the famous and the powerful are and what they're up to and to ensure tgat tge legacy entertainment industries are paid, continuously, for doing fuck all! What gives yhe EU or these industries the right charge anyone for using a free service, a free information service, yhat also has the ability to distribute any type of media, when it had no input in its development, is totally beyond me! As is yge usual case, the road to follow is yo find out who is being paid to get these disastrous desires into law that will do the World so much damage rather than a couple of bone idle industries any good!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even if article 13 go,es into law ,piracy will continue, Creators who want to upload, art,video,s ,music will use youtube ,or facebook, most of the small websites will simply block user uploads . Artist,s and creators will use patreon ,but they will only have a very limited no of websites to show their work on, to attract fans . If you look at the web in europe now most small artists /creators can make a living without dealing with old legacy companys , they can live on subs and donations or sell their work directly
to the public. Pirates will ignore the law or simply use servers outside the eu . I regard it as censorship since article 13 means only a website that
can afford millions to spend on filters can still operate
and even then it will still be open to being sued . eg many small websites that support user uploaded content or small artists will
simply close down at least in the eu. So it sounds like the big media companys just want google to take out a license to all ip ,music,video, etc or else face being sued
by 100,s of companys .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And if each demands 0.5% of their profits, they will not be able to stay in business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
New, LEGAL business models will spring up. A big competitor to the big companies will offer competition to the artists who use those big companies as an umbrella, which saves on compliance for the average artist due to the economy of scale.
The only people who can't stand Article 13 are pirates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, your comment has been held for review until such time that strong AI has been invented which can definitively determine whether or not your comment is in violation of some one's copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Not if they are overwhelmed with licensing demands as insurance against any infringing content appearing on their site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They shouldn't have relied on a royalty-free model then.
Their business model will be obsolete and something else will have to take its place. People will either have to do without content or -- gasp! -- start PAYING for it.
Fine with me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And what of the people who use the content of others as part of new works — e.g., a video essay about videogame culture that uses footage from various games — and give away those works to build up an audience who might then monetarily support such creators through, say, Patreon? What will happen to creators such as them, who rely on Fair Use principles but still technically infringe upon the copyrights of others? How badly should they be punished for their “piracy”, hmm?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Article 13 would have to have a counter-notification provision much like the DMCA. If it doesn't, a court will make it so it will, or it should be amended, but not abolished.
One can obviously appeal a filtering decision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's still completely backwards. The standard of in dubio pro reo (aka the presumption of innocence) has been around since Aristotle. If someone wants something taken down, they need to prove that it shouldn't be up before it gets taken down; putting the burden on the contributor to prove that it actually is valid after it's been taken down is a legal absurdity that we need to do away with, not reinforce!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Piracy is the legal absurdity.
Article 13 should work much like the DMCA but with ContentID added. It's not difficult.
Bravo to the EU for finally wiping the smug smirk off the face of the pro-piracy movement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Liar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're bitter, and rude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
An excellent self-description.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not the one namecalling, and I'm certainly not bitter, internet mindreaders notwithstanding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're still a liar. If you would like to prove me wrong, all you have to do is provide some evidence of the things you have said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh please you are the absolute master of projection. It’s almost scary really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Doesn't make his statement any less true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
you are a grade-A idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're incorrect, and awfully rude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The latter? Maybe. The former? You've yet to provide any evidence to the contrary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Should? SHOULD? Are you so incredible stupid that you use the word "SHOULD"? I'll bet you haven't read the proposal for article 13 because your choice of words tell me you haven't one shred of clue what's going on, you just believe.
You also have NO CLUE on how ContentID works, and WHO can use it. Also, ContentID is not a generic product that anyone can use - it's specific to youtube and SELECT COMPANIES. Unless you are one of the big media companies you don't have access to ContentID.
In other words, you are a clueless wonder that can't tell facts from fiction.
And I know for a fact that article 13 will cause financial harm to the company I work for because we have products that we have to change to the tune of a several thousands of man-hours to avoid liabilities due to article 13 plus our customers are going to get an inferior product compared to what they originally bought - which they will complain about.
You don't burn down houses to get at the cockroaches (well, you do if you are a stupid ass).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The DMCA’s counter-notification provision puts someone a single step away from an actual lawsuit from the copyright holder. What should become of someone who could justify their upload under Fair Use principles, but would lack the money and time to fight a lawsuit carried out by a company with far more resources at its disposal? How badly should that person be punished for what is technically copyright infringement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Using other people's registered works should put one at risk of a lawsuit. One can always ask for permission and the submit the permitted work as licensed.
Article 13 sounds great if it's ticking off the pro-piracy crowd this much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Guess what: using other people's registered works does put one at risk of a lawsuit. Copyright infringement is already illegal.
Article 13 just proproses to break the internet to the point that only a few people can do anything on it. The crowd that's pissed isn't pro-piracy - it's pro-freedom of expression.
But really, at this point, talking to you is worse than talking to a brick wall. A brick wall doesn't spout absurdities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is no evidence that Article 13 will "break the internet" any more than the DMCA or ContentID have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yet, they have :
Content ID
DMCA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah, we speak evidence. That thing that you have yet to provide to support any of your assertions.
If we're talking about evidence, where is yours? For anything?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Considering the broken mess that the DMCA and ContentID have given us, this is hardly helping your case!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's partly because Article 13 hasn't been enacted and enforced.
And yes, DMCA has broken things. Maybe not the internet, but companies have become devious and are saying any tampering with their product is an automatic DMCA violation and is punishable. Even if such "tampering" is repairing. Just look at John Deere and their new tractors, which requires an EULA that forbids unlicensed repair and modification.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In the same way that diphtheria and smallpox haven't broken the human race, sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And what of the people whose work would be protected under the principles of Fair Use, but who cannot afford to go through a lengthy “licensing” process or do not want to lose control of their derivative work — what should happen to them if they produce a work that is technically infringing upon someone else’s copyrights?
No, seriously, what should happen to individual YouTube creators such as Lindsay Ellis, Jim Sterling, and Maximilian Dood, or YouTube channels such as Wisecrack, Death Battle (formerly Screw Attack), and Pop Culture Detective? They upload compelling and entertaining videos that often use footage from existing copyrighted works as part of a broader whole. But even if their work could fall under Fair Use protections, their videos are still technically infringing. What fate, then, should they all suffer for daring to be “pirates” — for daring to upload their videos without first working out a licensing deal with every possible copyright holder?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
These artists are already risking lawsuits. Article 13 is a nonissue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not an answer. What do you believe should be done to those kinds of creators, who rely on Fair Use principles but are still technically infringing on the copyrights of others? What punishment do you, someone who despises infringement, believe should be visited upon such “pirates”?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Since when did licensing demands depend on the actual material involved, rather than just the activity. You publish on the web, you need to buy our license will be the model. Just like, a band cannot perform in public without the venue buying a public performance license, covering label own music, even if the band only play their own original material and are not sighed to a label.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A band need not pay a license to perform its own original work. A COVER band might, or a band that has writers who are not performing.
I see the anti-copyright people are getting really desperate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How does the venue know, with the certainty of God, whether a band is playing its own original songs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A website would, and that's what relates to Article 13.
A venue can just ask, and sue those who lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As a hypothetical, assume I upload a digital illustration to DeviantArt. How could DeviantArt staffers possibly know, prior to my submission and with the certainty of God, whether I am the creator of/copyright holder for that piece?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh look, you're wrong again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And to think John Smith believes that human gatekeepers can solve the problems that faster AI overlooks by taking on their tasks completely.
It'd be hilarious if we didn't already know that the humans running this scam have a soul full of dog shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's ASCAP, not Article 13, and smart shop owners will ignore the invoices. Perhaps one of these activist lawyers can get a ruling that puts a stop to it.
Blame the abuser of process, not the process.
Piracy is intolerable no matter what. It can be eradicated or pushed way underground like child porn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the process can be so easily abused without proper consequences for the abuser, I will damn well blame the process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Argument reversal time!
Blame the abuser of the platform, not the platform.
OR
If Article 13 enables abuse, then it should be held responsible for the abuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ermmm... no.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2017/jul/04/beatles-song-rights-dispute-paul-mccartney-and-sony-a tv-work-it-out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Being the original creator doesn't automatically grant you copyright, QED.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It already did. It's called the internet. You may have heard of it. Free or dirt cheap marketing and self-publishing for the masses.
So what you are saying then is that the world's population at large is just a bunch of filthy pirates, since those are the people who are against A13. The only ones for A13 are legacy entertainment industries.
Given that (according to you) pirates never pay for anything and all the world's population are pirates, please explain how these legacy companies manage to make ANY money at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Entertainment is not a legacy industry. New works are released constantly.
They had an offline rally against Article 13. Seventeen people showed up. Internet astroturfing at its worst.
Independent creators will still be able to self-publish (though without a "book deal" many in the audience view the work as worthless and therefore okay to pirate), and they might even get PAID more money now that mass-piracy sites won't be around.
Let's see what happens with Article 13 before passing judgement on it. It does have an appeals process, and lots of enforcement discretion which even takes into account the size of the website. If only Google and big tech can afford to comply, they will become the umbrella under which indies can thrive, especially on a piracy-free internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So apparently Google is big, nasty and evil but will suddenly start accommodating indies because they have to pay your copyright industries?
You think Article 13, specifically aimed at taking money from everyone to fuel Hollywood, is suddenly going to start make Google willing to spend more money on smaller individuals, when their finances are already taking a blank-check hit from Hollywood.
Yeah, let's include that with the other things you don't understand, such as the "discretion" employed by copyright enforcement. The guys who have so much "discretion" they sue dead people without batting an eyelid...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The companies/corporations that were a thing before the Internet changed distribution methods forever and arguably destroyed the very concept of copyright, however, are “legacy industries”. Disney, Fox (before Disney’s buyout), Marvel (before Disney’s buyout), Warner Bros., Nintendo, Sony, the big book publishers, the major record labels — all “legacy” by virtue of being around before the Internet as we know it today existed.
So what? At least those 17 people had the courage to stand for something they believe in. When’s the last time you got off your ass for that, you big dummy?
Two things.
Being able to self-publish is not the same as being able to self-publish through major vendors such as Amazon.
Or the people who would have pirated that author’s work anyway will simply…not buy it. You believe so hard that the only options are “buy their shit” or “pirate their shit” that you fail to see the third option: “ignore their shit”.
Let’s not and say we didn’t.
I’m sure it does. Now, how many regular jackoffs do you think would be able to take advantage of what would likely be a costly, time-consuming process, and how many successful Internet services and corporations would be able to do so?
The RIAA sued children, grandmothers, dead people, and a woman who had a thirty-second bit of a Prince song playing in the background of a video of her baby dancing. “Discretion” does not exist when it comes to the legacy copyright-holder industries.
And that just turns the Internet (which will never be piracy-free, no matter how much you want to believe it will) into another gatekeeping bullshit menagerie like the film, music, art, and literature worlds pre-Internet. Some artists may like that idea; I can assume that many, many more would disagree with Google becoming another RIAA/MPAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, it is, but that’s not the point. We’re talking about movie theaters, the selling of albums on vinyl or CD, physical copies of books, and physical copies of games.
What you’re saying is similar to someone saying that the horse-and-buggy industry complaining about these newfangled cars is a legacy industry, with you responding, “Transportation is not a legacy industry.” Yes it is, and you’re missing the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Honesty
"Google and Facebook need to pay &euro:X amount to satisfy these flopping legacy industries that failed to innovate."
Don't be silly - they want a blank cheque, not one with a number on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As this is an extortion racket, Google et al. should directly call it out as such. As a law codifying illegal behavior, it should be deemed invalid and nonbinding and utterly ignored by the individual governments of the EU. If enough of them do this, the law will fail because hardly anyone will be left to enforce it. If all the rest of the EU turns against France and Germany in this regard, it can happen. Those two can't enforce it all on their own, not across the whole EU.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fight fire with fire
or extortion with extortion.
All non-EU based platforms IP-block the entire EU for a day. All EU-based platforms shut down for a day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fight fire with fire
That could be a breach of contract with their advertisers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fight fire with fire
So tell us, how do you know what every internet company has in their contracts with their advertisers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fight fire with fire
How, pray tell? I can see a refund situation coming up if there are insufficient ad impressions to cover a pre-paid contract, but because the ad algorithms are so automated, I don't see how they would leave out a refund clause if the algorithms can't find enough appropriate ad impressions to cover the billing rate.
Plus, it's just one day. They can make it up with volume the other days of the week/month.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pfff thinking.
It's well known (among 5 year olds) in a "Not-uh/yeah-huh" war, the person who screams the loudest is the winner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pfff thinking.
I am rubber you are Glue Trumps being the Loudest. If your going to play by playground rules, you got to know the game!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pfff thinking.
Pretty sure the logic content in that (sparse though it maybe) restricts it to children of 7-8 years old.
Although to be honest, I haven't interacted with children under say 15 years old in quantities greater than 2 for 10 years or so. So my opinions are not backed by anything like riggorous studies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Pfff thinking.
7 and 8 year olds are still more fair and logical then Article 13. Try telling Billy he cant show off his macaroni picture because he did it on a Craft Mac and Cheese box.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Pfff thinking.
Where is the evidence this will happen, as if someone should care about some brat using a brand name in his video.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pfff thinking.
Oh, so now asking for evidence is a thing? So when are you going to provide some evidence of your own assertions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pfff thinking.
Sooooooo much projection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pfff thinking.
Be careful! It may get you too!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pfff thinking.
An AI will detect a brand name in the video and then block it automatically because why would the site want to be sued by Kraft.
I'm sure no person will care, but the bot will just block it anyway because it doesn't know the difference between fair use and copyright/trademark infringement.
Exactly why we don't support article 11 and 13.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Flip it around
Let's flip this around: it's now your brat that does this. His video is taken down and he gets arrested. But since he's underage, you are now in jail and are found guilty of violating copyright. What do you do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Flip it around
Cool story!
Won't ever happen because of Article 13, but it was fun to read!
They're not going after memes or even UGC, just MASS PIRACY. Boy the freeloaders (or those who don't care enough to stop them) can't stand this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Define “they”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Flip it around
Cool story!
Won't ever happen because I can't find another member of the human race that will procreate with me and let me keep the full copyright of the creation, but it was fun to read!
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Flip it around
Hmm. Muat have missed that part about a copyright violation leading to jail time. Especially where no court was involved. Interesting. Can i have more details on this change?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pfff thinking.
You evidently haven't seen the lengths that corporations will do to weasel out a copyright claim for imaginary statutory damages.
Or maybe you do, which is why any suggestion that statutory damages might need some review for sanity's sake makes you have a seizure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pfff thinking.
Works for Pres. Trump, so why not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google : organized gang stalking 13
I have covered this extensively, but not exhaustively .
There are documented links between CIA seed capital /NGOs /Narrative control /banksters and the number 13.
Google: mass shooters, and 13
Or: transatlantic crime initiative and 13
But these people (whoever “they ” are ) use that number to signify many things...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google : organized gang stalking 13
Well shorty Jhon. Looks like you aren’t the craziest asshole in this thread.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google : organized gang stalking 13
Google it, asshole.
I have covered this extensively, but not exhaustively .
There are documented links between CIA seed capital /NGOs /Narrative control /banksters and the number 13.
Google: mass shooters, and 13
Or: transatlantic crime initiative and 13
But these people (whoever “they ” are ) use that number to signify many things...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
By all means, Mr. “I have covered this extensively”, give me a few details about the logistics of this conspiracy — specifically…
How large is the supposed conspiracy?
How many people are part of this conspiracy?
Are there enough of them to carry out the plan?
What infrastructure and resources does it need?
How much time and money did it take and where did this money come from?
If there are many thousands of conspirators, how are they organized?
Where are the secret conferences held?
How do they keep track of membership?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Google : organized gang stalking 13
Did you just learn that there is this gang called MS-13 and because Trump said they are bad hombres you think they are responsible for all the bad stuff online?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Google : organized gang stalking 13
Sorry bro. My tinfoil hat is at the cleaners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google : organized gang stalking 13
Wild numerological conspiracy theories ahoy!
Pics or it didn't happen, bruv.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google : organized gang stalking 13
Numbers..... NUMBERS EVERYWHERE!!! ... O-O
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google : organized gang stalking 13
Google it, dipshit, or this one month old hamster dies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Google : organized gang stalking 13
Is that a threat? If it is it’s the most pathetic one I’ve ever seen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Google : organized gang stalking 13
Then it dies. I will not do your research for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Copyright extortionists? Pff, amateurs...'
Sounds like the idiots in the EU are taking copyright trolling/extortion and cranking it up to 11 in their attempt to kill an open internet and/or put the parasitic gatekeepers back in control.
Now it's not simply a matter of 'we've accused you of infringement, pay up or we'll drag you to court' it's straight up mafia extortion on a mass scale. 'Nice site you got there, be a shame if something were to happen to it. 'course, you could avoid all that if you just paid your dues, that's sure to keep you safe.
I think at this point mass protests like what killed off SOPA are not a 'good idea', but will end up necessary to put the fear of the voters into the various politicians involved, as they seem hellbent on doing everything they can to utterly destroy an open internet in the EU, and I've no doubt that if they manage it over there parasites in other countries like the US will try to implement it elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Copyright extortionists? Pff, amateurs...'
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Copyright extortionists? Pff, amateurs...'
Doh, can't believe I missed out on an opportunity like that. Nice catch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Copyright extortionists? Pff, amateurs...'
Nice fantasy. The day of freeloading content from the internet is fast ending, and the public doesn't care enough about the criminals to make an issue of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I watch Jim Sterling videos regularly; he posted an exceptionally good one today. The video contains footage of numerous videogames in addition to screencaptures of text from news sites and screenshots from a few cartoons, often used to bolster Jim’s points. And rather than accept ad revenue from YouTube, he keeps his videos ad-free and accepts money via merchandise sales and his Patreon account.
But he is still a “pirate” because he infringes upon the copyright of others. What should be done with that criminal, then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Article 13 won't stop that. The actual law is targeted against mass-piracy sites. There is no intent to "break the internet."
The sky is not falling except for the pirates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How do you know, with the certainty of God, that YouTube won’t ax Jim Sterling’s channel in its entirety after Article 13 becomes a thing, seeing as how Jim has infringed on dozens — maybe even hundreds — of copyrights across all of his video essays? You believe Article 13 exists to stamp out “mass piracy”, so please explain how Jim’s mass infringements do not count as mass infringements — and how YouTube’s automated tools could ever tell the difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And therein lies the problem.
Those automated tools CAN'T tell the difference, which is exactly what is wanted. Because they don't care about the collateral damage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Then companies which rely on automated tools instead of humans will find their business model is obsolete. Too bad for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Install human gatekeepers, as you propose, will silence the majority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
More like it will ensure compliance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
With human gate keepers, most of the works submitted never get looked at, and so remain unpublished regardless of their actual quality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Relying on automated tools... you mean like every single copyright enforcement effort ever, and their IP address harvesting mechanisms? Sure, those corpse-suing wastes of space can go first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not every enforcement.
I found my work was pirated (three separate times in a bundle of almost a thousand works that were being sold for about $40 each, to get a mailing list worth millions), when I was investigating something else. The copies of my work had the title, author's name, and cover art changed. They had been downloaded tens of thousands of times from this one site alone. Each of those downloaders was then used in a mailing list, and hit with pop-ups, AND a good hundred or so of the "pirated" works were actually disguised advertising copy for the people who were running the site. That's about as criminal as it gets, and it cost lots of people money. The celebrities whose books were in there were already rich and had sold many copies through "legacy" channels so they weren't impacted. The indies who otherwise could have made a nice living, were.
Article 13 will eliminate sites like the one mentioned above, and that's a good thing. Criminals should not be enriched by a faulty internet that doesn't protect creators from being the ones to earn from their creations. Funding criminals leads to more crime and more harm to the public.
If the internet is such a great thing as it stands now, one would think the world wouldn't have become so messed up during the early internet era, and this is very early. Twenty years is nothing against a future which will run for many, many centuries if not longer. The internet can and will be rebuilt. Google will either survive or it won't, or maybe it will lose influence. Same for any other company.
Stealing is wrong, and there are no other ways to stop it. Aggregating has also enriched tech companies at the expense of those who produce the aggregated content. Users give away their content because they have jobs that are basically sponsoring or are a patron for that content. This is what has reduced much in entertainment to a hobby, OR a marketing device for something with an inflated price tag due to it.
Governments obviously side with me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This might shock you, but the entire aim of piracy is to not pay a dime. If someone else is flogging your shit for an actual, monetary price, that's not piracy in the context of the Internet.
Never mind that you have yet to provide a single citation for how and why mailing lists are worth that much money.
If spamming random emails was worth that much dough why not just write mailing lists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
These are targeted mailing list with a 1-2 or even 10-20 percent response rate.
Anyone in mail order knows the value of these lists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So even after they're designed specifically to target desired audiences... you're still dealing with a list that has a 80% failure rate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He’s proud of being a scam artist. It’s kinda sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If article 11 and 13 actually did what you want it to do like you describe above (only pirates are affected, content owners receive payment for their creations, everyone thinks all artist's creations are important and valuable) most people would be in support of the two articles.
The reality is that neither measures will stop piracy. Instead they will cause mass collateral damage to websites and artists and to works that are legally posted to sites all over the Internet. Also the valuation of any goods on the Internet won't suddenly increase or be paid for just because more laws are written.
The way the Internet functions is to spread data far and wide as reliably and quickly as possible. This can be leveraged by companies and individuals equally and easily for both good and bad purposes.
What we keep saying and you keep ignoring is that most of the people on this planet enjoy what the Internet does and how it does it. They don't want a few gatekeepers determining what, where, when, and how they use the Internet. This model of the Internet has problems like illegal activity but the benefits of this model far outweigh the bad (in the majority of people's opinions). So this is why article 11 and 13 are bad, as far as they are written today.
What you desire is a new Internet that more tightly controls where information goes and who has control of it. While this model will undoubtedly be desired by some, the majority will not like it, nor switch to it willingly. This model is similar to tv broadcasting. And even under that paradigm people still pirated content and will always do so no matter what you do to stop it.
For citations of all statements above read: technical specs, networking RFCs, consumer reports, properly conducted studies, past actions by people on other Internet altering law attempts like SOPA, the informed writings of others on this blog, actual artists and writers, and real PhD recipients in the fields of engineering, math, law, technology, and science.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Cool story bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are conflating the problems of the world with the rise of the internet. This is laughably absurd to say the least. Though mildly flattering that you think the internet is such a powerful tool.
Never underestimate the human capacity to screw over the world on their own merits. No help from the internet needed.
LOL! So you intimately know the details of how this pirate site works, along with whether or not the downloaders used their actual email address (or any email address at all since pirate sites generally don't require ANY form of identification because that would defeat the entire purpose) and also whether or not these downloaders do or do not use pop up blockers, like those built into modern browsers by default or additional extensions to block said content. Hmm, kind of sounds like you have insider information, maybe you are actually running the pirate site and are distributing RAT malware along with your downloads?
Well, you're half right. It is wrong but there are other ways to stop it. If there weren't then bank robbers would never have been put in jail until now. But regardless, you will never stop theft completely. Also, copyright infringement is not theft.
The US government didn't. And the China government pirates and steals everything. So there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How much money do you think YouTube would have to sink into hiring enough people to pre-filter uploaded content, train them to filter with anything coming close to pure 100% objectivity in re: “community standards”, and keep them on the job full-time? Because lemme tell ya, none of those things are happening, if onlybecause Google would literally have to hire several million people to act as “filters” for YouTube.
And then there are sites like Tumblr, Twitter, Facebook, and Imgur — they rely on UGC just like YouTube does (for now). How much of a possibility is their matching YouTube in terms of setting up a “human filter”?
And that still avoids the big question: How are smaller companies meant to build their own “human filters” without breaking their own banks?
Automated tools get results for cheap, even if some of those results are false positives. Why the hell else would YouTube use ContentID?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
UGC is parasitic even without piracy.
How do these sites stop child porn? They most definitely do.
That's the idea behind leveling the playing field. If I write a book that a million people want to read, I should be paid more than Google gets for putting bots up on the internet. People don't surf the internet to find search engines. Human-edited links can be used, and contrary to what we see here, there is a hyperlinking exemption in Article 13.
UGC is fine as long as it doesn't enable piracy. Perhaps sites can sue users who infringe for exposing it to liability.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Child porn is child porn in any and every context. Infringement, on the other hand, can be illicit or legally protected, depending on factors such as the Fair Use principles. How can a site know whether a specific act of infringement is legal or illegal just from the same glance that would tell them a specific image of child porn is gotdamn child porn?
…the fuck
Human-edited links on search engines would be UGC and thus make your idea untenable.
And what about UGC that is infringing in and of itself, such as memes or video essays about specific works or written-out quotes from movies/TV? It is infringement. You keep saying infringement must be stamped out. For what reason should any site accept UGC if even one bit of UGC would be enough to trigger Article 13 and send the entire site into the digital void?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He can appeal if they try, assuming what he does is legal.
I don't really care as much as you, because my side won this one. Any injustice can and should be addressed, of course.
"Sue the original publisher" doesn't work either btw. No one seems to care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Doesn't work"?
Then what was all the cheering by the RIAA and MPAA for when the Pirate Bay trial, IsoHunt trial, etc. happened? Did those not work?
Never mind that despite your claims that bay sites make "millions", the MPAA admitted in their pursuit of Gary Fung that they knew even one million was enough to bankrupt the fucker and make sure he'd never pay back that fine in his lifetime.
Even your own fucking data shows that these are not moneymaking operations! Gads, you're insufferable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This wasn't the Pirate Bay. The site that pirated my work made about $10 million a year off its marketing list alone. The courts made it almost impossible to stop that site. A lot of its money was eventually cut off but it survived, sort of. Had to take bitcoin and drop a lot of its titles.
Article 13 is necessary, as is SOPA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Name the site, then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is it? From your very statement, sounds like existing legislation worked. Perhaps if more copyright holders used existing laws to protect them as all citizens need to and do on a daily basis, then perhaps millions of dollars would not be wasted on grandiose extortion schemes. It seems you have been hoodwinked into believing this has anything to to with piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And what if he cannot afford to appeal the “guilty until proven innocent” decision to remove his content?
You don’t care if someone’s (very) arguably protected expression of ideas gets yanked down, without due process, because it happens to use snippets of someone else’s copyrighted materials?
Says the guy who just said he doesn’t care about a potential injustice because “his side won this one”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Anyone who uses "others' copyrighted materials" is taking a legal risk, with or without Article 13. All Article 13 does is hold platforms liable. It doesn't impact actual infringers, who can be sued anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Didn't you just complain that Article 13 was needed because suing "the original publisher" didn't work? Or the reason why your mailing list initiative failed was because the name behind it was too big to sue? Now actual infringers "can be sued anyway"?
Consistency - who needs it, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I was referring to impractical solutions like 230 immunity, or platform immunity, and how those who say the appeals process wouldn't work don't care when suing the publisher of defamation also does not work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because your standards of evidence are terrible.
Example: your refusal to present any and expect everyone else to take your word for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We do not hold car manufacturers liable for deaths caused by drunk drivers. We do not hold gun manufacturers liable for deaths caused by assholes who shoot up schools, churches, and workplaces. We do not hold media outlets liable for suicides caused by so-called “suicide contagion” (i.e., media outlets reporting on suicides).
For what reason should a platform for speech and expression be held liable for a user infringing upon someone else’s copyright? And how would sites like DeviantArt, Newgrounds, YouTube, Tumblr, and even FurAffinity survive if they had to face legal liability for even the smallest of infringements?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Vicarious infringement Contributory infringement Distributor liability for defamation (e.g., bookstores)
All very well-established in case law.
Once again, the platforms can stop the harm that they themselves enable. Different situation, and the law reflects this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you truly believe that, you can answer this: How can an automated filter tell the difference between legally-protected infringement and illicit infringement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There is no "legal infringement."
There is fair use and licensing.
If something is flagged, there is a review process. Protocols can be set up to account for derivative works, etc., while any rightsholder would have the responsibility to list its licensees, etc. A license # would do that.
The rabid pro-piracy voices on this site will just have to deal with Article 13. Their epic temper tantrum is falling on some very deaf government ears.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jim Sterling posts a lot of videos about the gaming industry and gaming culture. His videos just so happen to use copyrighted material in addition to his own original writing/footage. What should happen to him and his works if they get dinged by filters and he cannot afford the costs necessary to secure either the numerous licenses necessary to make his works legally “all clear” or a legal appeal against the copyright holder(s) in question, even though he would have a clear-cut Fair Use defense?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The difference between illegal infringement vs. fair use and licensed use is not something that can be distinguished using automated tools. That requires more context than a mere automated tool like that can detect. Incidentally, the same goes for things like defamation; it’s a context-sensitive inquiry.
That’s setting aside the fact that not everything gets the same amount of copyright protection, or even any copyright protection at all. Some things are in the public domain, some follow a “copyleft” scheme, others aren’t covered by copyright law anyway (such as facts and statistics, as well as ideas, scenes a faire, and generic stuff), and still others aren’t original works but are themselves copied or derivative. These things too cannot be distinguished by automated filters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually the doctrine of "implied license" means that he's not a criminal unless he ignores a DMCA complaint. That is the same doctrine which allows Google to archive the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
With Jim Fucking Sterling Son(gotta use the full name) it's even better, because he's admitted in the past to deliberately use clips that he knows will get flagged as infringing specifically to screw over those trying to screw him over.
Despite the fact that fair use allows him to use clips of things freely, he knows(as anyone paying attention would) that there are numerous parties that will look at it and decide, 'Doesn't matter, my stuff, pay me money' and try to monetize his videos. In response, he posts clips that will get multiple parties claiming the video, and since none of them are going to let the other get that sweet unearned money when they can't, it results in the 'copyright deadlock', where attempts to abuse the system by parasites instead result in none of them getting anything, and the videos remaining ad-free.
With such blatant 'copyright infringement' Jim Fucking Sterling Son's videos would absolutely be on the chopping block, and if, as I'm fairly sure is the case, that's his gorram job, that means the law designed to 'protect creators' will have instead driven one out of business, along with countless others that would be impacted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Copyright extortionists? Pff, amateurs...'
No, but they will raise holy hell when they discover that they can't upload their pictures to facebook and the vacation videos to youtube. The level of public backlash is going to be epic when you break something that a majority of them use daily.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 'Copyright extortionists? Pff, amateurs...'
Except there's no indication that any of that will happen.
The law allows for appeals, and for discretion in enforcement. It's designed to stop mass-piracy, and apparently will do so, given the opposition I've seen to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Copyright extortionists? Pff, amateurs...'
Umm... it. has. already. happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Copyright extortionists? Pff, amateurs...'
"Now, the video is still available despite the copyright claims because the four different entities filing these five complaints against it -- one, incredibly, filed twice for two different "compositions"-- chose to simply monetize Tomczak's video instead of having it taken down."
Anyone who monetizes a video for which they don't own the copyright would be committing a felony. Perhaps the claim wasn't so bogus.
Much as you might like to think all existing creative works don't sell (they do), and wouldn't sell more after Article 13 (they will), "your work sucks" isn't justification for enabling internet piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Copyright extortionists? Pff, amateurs.
Dream on, as 90 plus percent of creative works never find a large enough audience to recoup the time spent in their creation.
YouTube has about 600 hours of video uploaded a minute, almost all of it non-infringing, and almost all of it a labour of love by the creator.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Copyright extortionists? Pff, amate
You can't do it, therefore no one else can. Got it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Copyright extortionists? Pff, a
Well, you'd been asked to name some of these "somebody else", except all you ever give are vague threats of lawsuits. Last we checked those weren't hitting the Top 40.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Copyright extortionists? Pff, a
Every photo, video clip, bit of music or essay made is a creative work. The urge to share and engage with culture is present in most people, Are you saying that people shouldn't engage n these acts if they will not sell?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Copyright extortionists? Pff, amateurs.
More like YouTube's broken content ID doesn't give him any more options to fight it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Copyright extortionists? Pff, amateurs.
Re Tomczak's video
Uhm, it's was a 10 hour video with white noise. The claims where bogus, but it's telling that you dismiss it with 'Perhaps the claim wasn't so bogus.'
It's like claiming an empty canvas for copyright infringement..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Copyright extortionists? Pff, amate
It's like claiming an empty canvas for copyright infringement..
Ah, so you've seen my famous work: pre-stretched canvas mounted to board.
You can buy my work at any art supply store in many sizes. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Copyright extortionists? Pff, amateurs...'
When the only way of winning an appeal is take it to court, how many will be able to do that, and for those who do, how many years will it take?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Copyright extortionists? Pff, amateurs...'
"Sue the original publisher" doesn't do anything to stop defamation, but those who support Section 230 don't even recognize the practical difficulty of suing someone who is judgment-proof, though oddly the "IP doesn't prove authorship" argument is never raised as a catch-all defense against libel as it does to some against copyright.
It did not say the appeal is to a court, could even be to the intermediary or a regulatory body.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Copyright extortionists? Pff, amateurs.
IP address evidence against copyright enforcement has a significantly better challenge, especially since it was proven that given the opportunity, copyright enforcers will sue the Vatican and a laser printer.
If IP address evidence was so watertight the RIAA should have sued themselves based on their own IP addresses triggering their own flags.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Copyright extortionists? Pff, amate
If IP is so unreliable, why is it never challenged in defamation actions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Copyright extortionists? Pff, a
If IP is so unreliable, why is it never challenged in traffic accidents?
Have you a single example of defamation cases where prosecution solely relied on IP address evidence to make their call, without looking at other factors such as writing analysis?
I'll file your response under the evidence you've yet to present...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Copyright extortionists? Pf
Many defamation cases begin with prefiling discovery to unmask a poster, such as in the James Woods case. Why not just say they don't know who posted it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Copyright extortionists
Tying an email address to someone is not quite the same as tying an IP address to someone.
Most people don't use separate emails for social media, and email addresses are often publicly available information that makes it easier to put 2 and 2 together.
IP addresses are a different story, as in every single copyright trolling case such as Prenda Law.
Trying to equate standards of evidence used in defamation versus your average copyright trolling attempt is an apples to shotguns comparison because the latter has absolutely terrible standards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Copyright extortionists? Pff, amateurs...'
First you say this about me suggesting people will raise holy hell:
Then you suddenly say:
First, it's not designed to stop copyright infringement, it's designed to leach money from everyone except the legacy copyright industry.
Second, if no people would care if implemented there would be even less opposition to it - wouldn't it?
There is no appeals - just that there as to be some "complaints and redress mechanisms", and discretion of enforcement? I'll just mention Lenz v. Universal Music Corp here for anyone thinking the legacy copyright industries is discreet in their enforcement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Copyright extortionists? Pff, amateurs...'
Copyright isn't a legacy, and Article 13 definitely has an appeals mechanism.
It will stop mass infringement AND ensure that creative works are not exploited as they have been for a generation. Those who actually create content are pleased; those who take and usurp it are not. Too bad for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Copyright extortionists? Pff, amateurs.
The bubonic plague has a cure, so I'm pretty sure you won't mind having a sample of the germs injected into your bloodstream.
What's that? The cure is a bitch to get, is inaccessible, and you can't afford the treatment process? Sucks to be you then, don't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Copyright extortionists? Pff, amate
Except no one will die of content filters.
Piracy will stop, which seems to anger many. Too bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Copyright extortionists? Pff, a
If you repeat it enough times do you think it will magically become true? Just like all those police investigations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Copyright extortionists? Pf
You sure are fixated on this site and people who post here, rather than just the debate.
Masnick repeats his views constantly. Someone has to post the counterarguments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So when will you start posting actual counterarguments?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Copyright extortionists
You sure are fixated on this site
Whined the guy who gloats about the same site never being able to influence legal policy but posts like a triggered YouTube commenter at every possible opportunity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:Al always a direct light into your brain.
“You sure are fixated on this site and people who post here, rather than just the debate.”
How many times ou posted in this one thread alone bro?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:Al always a direct light into your brain.
Not fixated enough to keep score.
Some people seem so INVESTED in what is posted here, and by whom. Rather telling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:Al always a direct light into your brain.
The fact that you're here, an apparently Hollywood award-winning writer, pissing and moaning about losses he refuses to prove exists despite constantly boasting about how easy it would be to do so, on a site he openly detests with the intensity of a thousand Suns - now that isn't just fixation, it's obsession.
Shiva Ayyadurai losing his case really curdled your milk, didn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:Al always a direct light into your brain.
Oh you know it just burns in his guts every day. His loss in court was almost as embarrassing as his loss the the “real” Indian in the senate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:Al always a direct light into your brain.
“Not fixated enough to keep score. Some people seem so INVESTED in what is posted here, and by whom. Rather telling.”
Youre the best projectionist in Hollywood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Copyright extortionists? Pff, amateurs.
Let me translate:
And this:
Can you explain how the mechanism is supposed to work? I'll even supply the relevant link to the document in question: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52016PC0593
Are they? UGC far outstrips ANY other type of copyrighted content, and UGC is on the chopping block here. OR are you perhaps saying that some works are more important to protect than others?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SO in other words
So, Mike, you're saying that the EU is taking the Poison Pill "USFL Sure Deal Approach", and hoping it doesn't blow up in their face? Like this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Football_League#USFL_v._NFL_lawsuit
Good Luck with that...I wonder if a court would be as kind to them in the EU as they were to the USFL here after that disastrous suit? IN any case I guess we'll have to hope the EU gets as badly f**ked as the USFL did..and by their own hand too...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The French have been pinching women in the asses for centuries. That they should be directing anyone with article 13 is truly offensive. And Germany? I don't think we even have to comment there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The actual paid shills are in full force in this thread. Luckily, each and every one of them will be up against the wall when the people finally rise up, just like their masters. We already know they won't go down peacefully.
Savagery must be repaid with savagery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free market capitalism and how it works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free market capitalism and how it works.
(Apparently, hitting enter posts the post...)
This is a bad deal for everyone involved. So why would these large behemoths of old want it? Easy, because in free market capitalism it is a competition. And it's not a competition against yourself or your own past actions, but it is a competition against others. And there are two ways to win such a competition. One is to improve yourself and get ahead of your opponent that way. The other is to hurt your opponent, so they get slowed down which means you will get further ahead by comparison.
And it's getting harder and harder to keep up on the internet as it grows quickly and it's very cheap and easy for new actors to get in on it compared to how it was before the internet existed. And the giants of old don't like all this new competition. For customers however, it's great, because that's how free market capitalism works. Companies compete with each other to provide the best products with the best services and at the best price and customers gets to choose that which they like best.
But the giants of old don't like all this new competition since this means they now have a lot of young, energetic opponents with new ideas. So this entire deal is about hurting everyone. Because hurting everyone is a good business deal as long as it hurts your opponents more than it hurts you. Yes, you get hurt yourself but this is a competition and hurting yourself is perfectly fine as long as you hurt your opponent more than yourself because it means you will get ahead of the competition.
Remember the old joke about two lawyers in Africa who suddenly got chased by a bunch of lions. One of them picked a pair of sneakers out of his briefcase and begins putting them on. The other one just looks on and shakes his head and says "you'll never outrun a lion", and the first lawyer calmly replies "I don't have to run faster than the lions, I just have to run faster than you".
That's what this is about. Get ahead by throwing your competition to the lions.If you are the only one left, you win by default.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Last Word
“Actually, yes. there are valid questions if a mailing list of people who aren't paying for content is in fact valuable.
Also, I'm not aware of a major pirate site that requires emails to access torrent magnet links. I am also unaware of a pirate site that keeps logs of visitors. That tends to be against the whole point.
Also, There are also claims of 'enriching' criminals which are not backed up by data, given how most torrent sites are set up to avoid the site or its creators from actually performing any infringement, and that there is no evidence that pirate sites actually pull in any profit in the first place.
And in no case has any of that proved that Articles 11/13 are necessary, given that the entertainment industries seem to be making record profits overall.
There is a lot more than claims of the value of a mailing list that need to be addressed.
made the Last Word by Gary