Clash Of EU's Poorly Thought Out Laws: German Data Protection Commissioner Warns That Article 13 Might Violate GDPR
from the fight-fight-fight dept
As we've been noting recently, the EU really seems to be bending over backwards to pass poorly thought out laws about the internet (sometimes, though not always, with the best of intentions). For example, the GDPR certainly seems to have good intentions behind it, but in practice it has been a disaster in many specific cases, where it seems obvious that those who crafted the law simply ignored warnings about how it would intersect with real world situations -- especially those regarding free speech. Then, of course, there's the EU Copyright Directive and Article 13, where as far as I can tell, the EU is rushing forward with this effort, knowing that it's awful, because the entire point of the law is to be so awful that internet companies are pressured into grovelling before Hollywood not to sue them for violating a law with which it is literally impossible to be in compliance with.
Of course, in a bit of irony, at least one German official is recognizing that the intersection of these two laws may, in fact, cause some significant concerns. Despite what supporters have said about Article 13, it will require that most online platforms use upload filters. While supporters insist the law does not say that, when pressed on this issue, they only note that filters are one way to try to comply, and basically say that tech companies might need to "nerd harder" to come up with alternatives. However, in all practicality, this law is a giant government handout to filter companies. Indeed, as we noted, some of the strongest lobbying in favor of Article 13 came from Audible Magic, which is the recognized leading independent upload filtering company (many, many other companies use its technology, with the one major exception being Google, which built its own filtering tech).
TorrentFreak points us to a letter to the EU Parliament from Germany's Data Protection Commissioner (basically, the person in charge of enforcing the GDPR), warning that since there are so few filter companies, and Article 13 will more or less mandate their usage, it will raise significant concerns about all the data those companies (really: Audible Magic) will collect on people and their internet habits. The letter was first translated into English by Florian Mueller, who received an official "approval" from the German Federal Commissioner that his translation was accurate.
The letter starts off by brushing away the silly claim that Article 13 won't require filters:
The Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information, Ulrich Kelber, therefore warns against the potential consequences of the reform in question: "Even though upload filters are not explicitly mandated by the bill, they will be employed as a practical effect. Especially smaller platform operators and service providers will not be in a position to conclude license agreements with all [copy]right holders. Nor will they be able to make the software develoment effort to create upload filters of their own. Instead, they will utilize offerings by large IT companies just the way it is already happening, for one example, in the field of analytics tools, where the relevant components created by Facebook, Amazon and Google are used by many apps, websites, and services."
From there, Kelber notes that with so few filter vendors on the market, significant data protection concerns are raised about the government mandating these companies basically sift through the entire internet:
"At the end of the day, this would result in an oligopoly consisting of a few vendors of filtering technologies, which would then be instrumental to more or less the entire Internet data traffic of relevant platforms and services. The wealth of information those vendors would receive about all users in the process is evidenced by, among other examples, current media coverage of data transfers by eHealth apps to Facebook."
Therefore, the Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information sees a clear and present danger of a further concentration of data in the hands of an oligopoly of vendors as an adverse effect of the present EU proposal. Against the background of the decision the Federal Cartel Office [Germany's national antitrust authority] handed down against Facebook a few weeks ago, the objective should actually be to achieve the opposite [of such concentration of data].
Ulrich Kelber calls for further steps to be taken to avert the previously-outlined scenario: "If the EU believes platform operators can meet their new obligations [under the proposed copyright directive] without upload filters, it must make a clear showing. That is why I am awaiting with great interest the [European] Commission's forthcoming recommendations. In the other event, data privacy considerations require a thorough overhaul of the bill. Notwithstanding the need to update the protection of author's rights in our times, such a measure must not harm or compromise the protection of Internet users' data."
In other words, it looks like Article 13 in the EU Copyright Directive might run headlong into the GDPR's restriction on the collection and use of data. This kinda feels like something that should have been thought out way earlier, but seems consistent with the slapdash manner in which the EU is regulating the internet these days: with little to no understanding of how the internet actually works, demands to do the impossible, and threats of massive fines for any company that then fails to do the impossible. This is no way to actually regulate, but apparently it's par for the course in the EU right now.
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 13, copyright, data protection, eu, eu copyright directive, gdpr, germany, monopoly, upload filters
Companies: audible magic
Reader Comments
The First Word
“I'm not a pirate. I don't steal content. I'm posting this under my real, legal name. And you're a moron.
I don't want Article 13 for two basic reasons, one philosophical, one practical.
To make an analogy, did you know about the universal disease cure? We've had one for a long time now. You can take a patient with cancer, HIV, ebola, the common cold, or whatever else, and destroy the disease entirely. 100%. All you need to do is throw the patient in an incinerator, and the disease will be wiped out. But there's a good reason why we don't do that! If you can imagine what it might be, you can also understand why Article 13 is a bad idea.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
And to think, they wanted to push up the vote for Article 13!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I've always found that if something is bad, the people wanting to implement it anyway will go to any lengths to get it even though a majority are against it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That is called US political science!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"That is called US political science!"
Still better than what goes on in the EU where politics apparently took science out the back and shot it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the whole aim of what is going on in the EU and basically world wide really is to hand the Internet over to massive industries, corporations and governments so they can use it as they want. if anyone else wants to use it, they must then first get permission off of those above and ensure that whatever it is they are doing conforms to the rules those above instill on us. remember that this is all going on on something that none of those above had anything to do in the creation of the Internet and World Wide Web and those that did gave it to everyone, to be used by everyone, for whatever they wanted, forever, FOR FREE!! the situation we now are in has mainly been brought about by the greedy fuckers in the movie, music and news industries. they wanted absolutely nothing to do with the Internet until they realised how popular it had become and how much money they could make simply by extending what they wanted out of it on to everyone else! now we have nothing but a total shit show that will ruin the internet in general and stop the use by ordinary people unless permission is gained. remember the number of school children that rely on it, the number of unrelated businesses. then think back to what is at stake, and how the rich, the powerful and the famous want to be able to do what they want while making sure no one knows, but they are able to keep tabs on everyone else. in other words domination, the likes of which have only been seen as a result of wars, but this time, not a shot has been fired!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: like I said, fuck them all.
This is war. The media industries are the enemy. We can't treat them like human beings as long as they are the enemy. We need to go back to the good old days when people rose up against fucks like these, dragged them out to the streets, and put then onto guillotines! The enemy must be destroyed. That is the only way to deal with the enemy in times of war. Its destroy them or else they will destroy us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: like I said, fuck them all.
Law enforcement has a file for postings like the one to which I am replying.
Inciting violence against government officials is definitely actionable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: like I said, fuck them all.
Please tell me how that is working out for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: like I said, fuck them all.
Actually...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: like I said, fuck them all.
Well? We're waiting...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: like I said, fuck them all.
You sure make a lot of threats about reporting people to the police for Techdirt posts. They never seem to come to anything, which suggests either you never actually do it, or you do and the police don't take you seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: like I said, fuck them all.
Inciting violence against government officials is definitely actionable.
Just to add some actual facts to this discussion, you're incorrect. The above post, while really dumb and thoughtless, in no way reaches the clearly established standards for "inciting violence."
A key case on this: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/25/opinion/la-ed-threat-20110725 That speech was much more direct and threatening than anything above, and still was deemed protected. Inciting violence requires imminent violence against specific individuals. Nothing in the comment above goes anywhere near that.
You should, perhaps, learn about the law before spreading false notions about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: like I said, fuck them all.
Possibly a three day stay in a cold room courtesy Secret Service is always an inviting outcome for threatening some hot shots in dc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hollywood is run by unions and guilds who ensure that the talent gets paid up front. Internet videos, by contrast, are "hope labor" that pays off for a few. One of the reasons Hollywood unions and guilds are so strong is to prevent exploitation of those seeking fame. Financial exploitation is simply not possible given the rules of SAG-AFTRA.
Lyft and Uber destroyed the value of taxi medallions which were in place to regulate the number of people driving around trolling for fares. In the Depression, there were over 100,000 cabs roaming the streets of NYC. Piracy destroys the investment made by Hollywood in producing works for which the talent was paid, and paid generously, in favor of a "give it away or make it unprofitable or we'll just steal it."
This is the FOURTH article bashing Article 13 that has appeared on this site in the past twenty-four hours. All this noise will be for naught, as Article 13 will pass, just as FOSTA did, and the world will be a better place for it. The Kraft arrest recently shed light on how those "spas" treat their "workers":
https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2019/02/26/robert-kraft-human-sex-trafficking-pros titution
Article 13 will stop piracy because pirates, by definition, won't be able to comply with the law. Access to their sites will be shuttered, and those who attempt to enable violations of Article 13 will face deservedly stiff punishment. The rest of the internet will not "break" but I suppose to those who steal content rather than create it, their internet will deservedly be broken, as it should have been a long time ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Pirates already aren't complying with the law, moron. How's another law going to change that? What it will do is cause immense collateral damage to legitimate sites such as YouTube.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Heck of a mouth you got there for an internet coward.
The tantrums about Article 13 suggest that the pirates know it will put them out of business, and then they can carry out their threats not to purchase the content they risk prison or lawsuits to steal.
Too bad for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's seems you are a coward too.
And can you tell me exactly how article 13 is going to stop "pirates" ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not the one calling others names they'd never have the nerve to use to someone's face.
Article 13 will stop piracy because pirates cannot comply with the law any more than Al Capone could declare his income on his tax return.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Pirates already don't comply with the law. What will change about that if Article 13 passes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have no problem calling someone a coward to their face or any other fitting description. If they have a problem with that it's not my problem.
Uhm, they aren't complying with the law now so what will change? Figuratively speaking, waving your arms in the air screaming "because reasons" isn't a logical reason for piracy to magically disappear due to article 13.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course you'd call people names to their face. That's why you hide online. In the real world, you talk like that, you are ostracized and/or thrown out of any venue.
Masnick is the ultimate coward for allowing this, of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't hide online, I sometimes go online and tell idiots like you that in my opinion they are cowardly idiots among other things. Deluded blowhard also fits I think.
And if I think someone deserves it, I will call them idiot to their face. The thing is, most people think it's a positive experience because the people I done it to usually really deserved it. Funnily enough, you remind me of most of them, they where all loudmouthed blowhards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's why you hide online.
As an additional level of irony, Sanford remains Anonymous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You never know what others might think YOU deserve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're not even brave enough to sign your name to your online namecalling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're a yodeling douche canoe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
... said the person who couldn't even go as far as the one they're insulting did and post under a name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"... said the person who couldn't even go as far as the one they're insulting did and post under a name."
...Because Bobmail/blue/whoever gets banned for being a delusional and irascible asshat every time he actually has to create a nick.
Me, i'm guessing his angry kitten troll generator finally ran out of unbanned random nicks.
Probably why he isn't around on Torrentfreak anymore, since they implemented a disqus-only login requirement to post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not a pirate. I don't steal content. I'm posting this under my real, legal name. And you're a moron.
I don't want Article 13 for two basic reasons, one philosophical, one practical.
To make an analogy, did you know about the universal disease cure? We've had one for a long time now. You can take a patient with cancer, HIV, ebola, the common cold, or whatever else, and destroy the disease entirely. 100%. All you need to do is throw the patient in an incinerator, and the disease will be wiped out. But there's a good reason why we don't do that! If you can imagine what it might be, you can also understand why Article 13 is a bad idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except I wasn't replying to you. Lots of people seem to have your name though. Either way, that makes you a "limited purpose public figure" once you enter a public-interest debate.
If you don't like "extrajudicial" enforcement of copyright, don't complain when these companies just go to court and refuse to settle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Does that really matter, on an open discussion board?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It does when you quote something that wasn't directed at you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry bud, but it's an open discussion board. That means literally anyone can participate - as evidenced by your frequent tantrums on here.
While you don't have to listen to Mason, that doesn't mean he can't talk. In this particular case, though, I'd recommend listening to Mason - he provided an insightful post with relevant opinion and thought that you might want to consider.
You won't, because you are willfully incapable of considering any opinion that is not in support of Article 13, but you should.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except I was replying to someone who was posting anonymously.
It's not a "tantrum" to disagree with an author of several articles a DAY at times all railing against Article 13, or writing articles about how piracy isn't such a bad thing, etc.
It's definitely cowardly when some little cluster***k tries to gang up on anyone that disagrees with its groupthink.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Correct. It is not a tantrum to disagree.
It is a tantrum to simply repeat the same nonsense over and over, call everyone a bunch of whining toddlers over and over, refuse to ever acknowledged points made about the deleterious secondary effects of the Article, and insult the authors of the articles, the operators of the site, and the other commenters repeatedly because, oh no, they happen to disagree with you, and they call your out on your bullshit.
You are only "ganged up on" because of your own personal actions and the manner in which you choose to interact with the people on this site.
Put another way: "Talk shit, get hit."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you don't like "extrajudicial" enforcement of copyright, don't complain when these companies just go to court and refuse to settle.
You realize that the above scenario rarely ever happens, right? Seriously, look at the number of Malibu Media that ends in a court judgement. Most of the time when a judge looks at the cases brought forward the companies run like hell. Why? Because the standards of their evidence gets called into question.
Judges increasingly suspect that "judicial" enforcement to copyright fanatics means nothing more than rubber-stamping extortion letters for them. You can thank the likes of your hero John Steele for fucking up your gravy train.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's a really foul mouth you have there, one you'd never run like that to anyone's face.
Too bad the IQ tests put me in genius territory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your behavior on this board makes this difficult to believe.
However, it is true that IQ only tests a certain level of intelligence, and certainly doesn't really test critical thinking or social acumen.
Whatever the actual results of your IQ test, you remain an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your argument is flawed, but that's no shock.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Lots of people share his name. Bet he'd deny being anyone specific with that name. Internet cowards are like that.
Just another example of Masnick tolerating cyberbullying when he isn't using "free speech" to justify letting other commenters physically threaten government officials who didn't sound as amused as some here might have thought when shown the site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Blah blah "masnick" blah blah "I'm being repressed" blah blah.
Do you have anything new to present?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Threats against government officials create probable cause for the records of any website which allows them.
Once they start digging, who knows what they might find?
Masnick doesn't mind the comments so having them put on blast shouldn't bother him either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah right, the legal enforcement wet dream. How is that progressing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
All I can do is report them, beyond that it's out of my hands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, no then.
How's that Paul Hansmeier defense fund coming along, Jhon Smith? Copyright is doomed if you don't save Prenda Law!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As far as I've heard, Police don't like to be fed false claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"To make an analogy, did you know about the universal disease cure? We've had one for a long time now. You can take a patient with cancer, HIV, ebola, the common cold, or whatever else, and destroy the disease entirely. 100%. All you need to do is throw the patient in an incinerator, and the disease will be wiped out. But there's a good reason why we don't do that! If you can imagine what it might be, you can also understand why Article 13 is a bad idea."
The problem here is that according to bobmail, incinerating the patient is not only a good idea but will work and enable the patient to resume living a productive life. Or at least that's a close analogy to what he keeps claiming.
Along the way incinerating an AIDS patient will also prevent hurricanes. That would be the analogue to how he claims article 13 will stop piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Refrigerators destroyed the business of ice sellers, and if the Internet destroys Hollywood and the labels, so be it, they are being replaced by other businesses.
Oh, by the way, all creation is hope labour, except for people hired by the creator, and there is no law that says a Hollywood movies have to earn a cent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There ARE laws that prohibit privacy, while refrigerators are legal.
The internet does not have some inherent immunity to prosecutions for theft.
Those "replacement" businesses will be just as anti-piracy as the "legacy" they supposedly "replaced."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
*piracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
**copyright infringement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So why do we need more laws that doesn't help against the particular problem of piracy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Australia just passed such a law, mandating breakable encryption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's a typo. It should be piracy, not privacy - but on the other hand it's kind of related due to the bureaucrats mantra of "nerd harder" to a complex problem that's not easily solved without massive collateral damage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, but government the world over are as determined to destroy privacy as they are to destroy piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
7-11 still sells ice. Not exclusively, anymore, but they still sell it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But that would be ice to keep in a fridge, and not a block of ice to keep an ice box cold full of food cold., or a theatre cool. The ton rating of air conditioning comes from the tons of ice a day it saved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
you don't ever use a cooler(ice chest)? I use them to transport my week-end food. I've heard people use them to chill their beers as well.
wasn't aware they quit selling blocks of ice as I haven't bought one in almost 20 years. Blocks last much longer than cubes. Still have the ice box as it works very well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The internet isn't destroying Hollywood. PIRACY is just ILLEGAL.
Those who are opposed to Article 13 are incredibly desperate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did you fail to mention the pirates who pass the laws that rob people blind and gut their liberty and freedom?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, because, you see, he supports theft and piracy when the legacy gatekeepers undertake it. He won't call it that, of course, because that would undermine the last vestiges of his message, but that's what actually occurs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If piracy is illegal, why do we need another law for it?
Btw, IMHO you are a certified idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Article 13 will stop piracy because pirates, by definition, won't be able to comply with the law. Access to their sites will be shuttered, and those who attempt to enable violations of Article 13 will face deservedly stiff punishment."
A shame you're too cowardly to put your real name to that prediction. Obviously because you know, people would be rubbing it in your face soon enough for failing completely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Article 13 will stop piracy because pirates, by definition, won't be able to comply with the law. Access to their sites will be shuttered, and those who attempt to enable violations of Article 13 will face deservedly stiff punishment."
Article 13 will do none of those things because even in its most draconian version article 13 couldn't even take down a torrent index page - which is the obsolete and redundant part of filesharing most of us wouldn't mind seeing in a museum soon anyway.
Since article 13 won't affect pirates in any way shape or form, your entire argument somehow falls flat.
What Article 13 WILL impact is legitimate users - those independent creators who use youtube to make a living.
"Internet videos, by contrast, are "hope labor" that pays off for a few."
And because it does pay off for those few the labels want that venue GONE. We know. The only victims to article 13 will be the legitimate users.
Here's a hint - trying to link copying files to sex trafficking only demonstrates that you've got nothing other than lies, fallacies, and cheap rhetoric supporting your side.
"This is the FOURTH article bashing Article 13 that has appeared on this site in the past twenty-four hours."
And every time we find you coming out with full-blown rants containing a large packet of red herrings and outright lies at the end of which you keep making that claim that "Soon, all the bad bad pirates will be gone". Apparently in the belief that no one will call you on your bullshit, all prior evidence to the contrary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I had a very prolific dream in the late eighties. I was flying around above treetops just outstretched arms for flight and came down below the trees landing on a sidewalk. I hollered to some people and told them about a new thing that was coming that was real cheap and was like viewing into a video screen like a game machine and you could go anywhere in the world.
I didn't realize it then, but it was a dream about the World Wide Web.. the Internet! It was an invitation. I was invited!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The New Tower of Babel
Except this time it isn't God come down to change the plan of the people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hollywood is run by unions
Hollywood accounting at its best.
The unions came into being to protect actors from exploitation both economically and physically. Before then actors were owned by a studio and were luckey to get paid enough to survive and not spend time on the casting couch ..... yeah sexual exploitation in Hollywood was so common that it was a given.
So what happened? Enough of the high paid actors pulled themselves away from their mirrors and hot together to protect the newer generations which happened to include their kids.
The shitshow that is Hollywood and the rest comming to light will continue till they clamp down on the net and prevent all this hoong into the public eye.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hollywood is run by unions
Free speech isn't going anywhere.
Piracy is just ending.
Article 13 is great.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hollywood is run by unions
"Piracy is just ending."
LOL - sure it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hollywood is run by unions
An attitude which ensures that laws even stronger than Article 13 need to be passed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hollywood is run by unions
Let's just pass a law, that will fix everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hollywood is run by unions
Sure, make another law. Every legislator in the world wants his/her laws on the books for posterity.. for history. Like the vane vikings who sought fame and fortune pillaging and plundering in an episode of The Vikings, third season! It never stops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hollywood is run by unions
Piracy is already illegal, you can pass how many strong laws you want - it won't change that fact but it will cause massive collateral damage.
Btw, IMHO you are a certified idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hollywood is run by unions
A rebuttal of equal value, greater when taken in context with actual current events:
Free Speech is being destroyed.
Piracy isn't going anywhere.
Article 13 is terrible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hollywood is run by unions
"The shitshow that is Hollywood ..."
This characteristic is not unique to Hollywood, it is pervasive throughout society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if Only content that is screened by a filter that blocks all content
that might be owned by old legacy companys will be displayed ,than that wipes out things like fair use, reviews of film,s ,tv drama,s , parodys, memes, That means alot of free speech will be blocked ,
Young people uses meme,s , quotes , links to random images
on forums, to communicate .
Article 13 does not stop piracy,
i can think of lots of ways to pirate without even using the web in the eu.
If I wanted to.
Many of the videos i watch on youtube use short video clips to comment on tv, films ,game,s .
i doubt if All those users have permission from abc, cbs, fox etc
to use those video clips ,they use short clips under fair use .
I don,t think every single twitch user that play games for hours
and stream them have got permission from ea, blizzard, ubisoft etc
to stream their games ,
They just buy the games and stream a playthrough .
I doubt if they have legal documents to show i got permission for company x to play their game for 30 hours on twitch or youtube .
EU websites will simply block most user upload,s because the risk of being sued is too great .
It only took one lawsuit to close down gawker .
All eu websites will need to keep a list of all content uploaded by all users ,
in case they might be sued for ip infringement .
They could get sued for a single image or if someone uploads a short
video that has music in the backround .
This law means that all eu websites have to record all
user content uploads and keep the data in case theres any legal case
by any ip holder or creator in the future .
This has issues in regard to the rights of users to privacy and free speech .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's a lot of speculation over a law that has yet to pass, and which has provisions for noncommercial uses.
The aim of Article 13 is to stop piracy and to ensure proper compensation for those who actually create content rather than those who create internet infrastructure. TV Guide is not supposed to get rich while television producers go broke. That's about what we have now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'll ask again, explain in detail how article 13 will stop piracy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The same way tax laws stopped Al Capone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
tax laws stopped Al Capone...
from engaging in murder, theft, extortion, and smuggling (among other activities).
By that logic, you would need to go after the pirates for some violation of law unrelated to piracy in order to stop piracy, which is pretty much the opposite of what Article 13 seeks to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The tax laws related to Capone's income, just like the pirates can't make money they can't report.
The anti-copyright brigade is getting extremely desperate. Can't be much longer before they lose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The anti-internet folks certainly do like to pull irrelevant nonsense out of nowhere, and engage in shady tactics and deliberate misrepresentation to get their way.
It's almost like they are desperate and fearful of the groundswell of public anger at their idiocy and dishonesty. I hope they come to their senses and abandon their current course before they suffer humiliation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Odd, then, that Article 13 is on the eve of passing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can claim this all you want. That doesn't make it true.
The actions of its supporters betray a very real fear. You don't try to speed up a vote if its likely to pass anyway.
If the worst happens, and it does pass? Then I look forward to the massive increase in piracy that will occur, as the current legal methods of acquiring content start closing down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If piracy increases, they'll just start suing individual downloaders and locking up the uploaders.
Copyright law is well established.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Correct, it is well-established! And these actions you have said will be taken are already being taken under existing laws! Since these are already being done, why is Article 13 necessary?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If anyone is truly smart here, they will invest in the business of PRISON CONSTRUCTION!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know Johnny English was a movie and not a documentary, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Laws that stopped Al Capone were not any different that the syphillus that took him in the end. Its all something you don't want messing with your life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Btw, IMHO you are a certified idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nice mouth for an internet coward who'd shit his pants before talking like that IRL.
Too bad your side is losing, I know. Don't take it out on me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nice mouth for an internet coward who'd shit his pants before talking like that IRL.
And once again we have an excellent self-description by Sanford. 10 points, folks, knocked out of the park.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're the namecaller, and the coward.
Masnick's the one who enables this by not moderating verbal aggression or personal attacks.
I bet there are some things I could post here he'd just delete, because, well, he'd HAVE to (not by law but because of who would be named and what would be said).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, but you only get one point for knocking it out of the park. Its called a run, one run. Unless there are base runners. You could score up to Four (points) for bases loaded!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Said the coward...
Btw, IMHO you are a certified idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The creators of content include people who upload original content to the Internet as self publishers, and as a group they are strongly against article 13 because it will restrict their ability to publish, and nothing to increase their compensation. Indeed it will reduce their compensation by making it harder for them to publish, and because more of the platforms income will be diverted to the legacy copyright industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Copyright is not "legacy" but protection against theft.
Artists are already not making money en masse and don't need the advice of the pro-piracy movement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And the last thing thy need is to be forced back into the arms of the legacy publishers, because that means most of them will never have any chance to make any money, because their works will not be selected for publication.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Independent publishers have thrived throughout time.
You've never heard of mail order?
Look up Slim Whitman sometime. Ron Popeil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Okay.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slim_Whitman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Popeil
We have a successful singer and an informercial guy. I see nothing that invalidates the criticism that Article 13 will force the majority of self-publishing individuals back into relationships with predatory legacy gatekeeper entities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And Usain Bolt can run 100M in less than 10 seconds, but that does not mean that a lot of people are capable of the same feat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Those were the few that had the business skills to do that, and not the mass of creators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Artists don't need people who don't want piracy stopped giving them advice on how to stop being ripped off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Artists don't need people who want them to be forced into hope labour for legacy gatekeeper corporations giving them advice on how to stop being ripped off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No one is required to be a performer or an artist. Those who make that choice can always go the independent route.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, they do no need the advice of someone who wants them to be forced into hope labour for legacy gatekeeper corporations, or fail to ever find a venue via which to make money through independent means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Self professed genius doesn't understand the English language, is labeled idiot by internet denizens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The aim of Article 13 is to stop piracy and to ensure perpetual residual income for those who own content rather than those who create it. There - fixed that for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Those who own content already paid good money to the people who create it, and have every right to expect that money back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Those who purchase content from creators have the right to own that content, and nothing more.
They have zero right to force profit from that content. They may have the right to attempt to profit from that content, but there is nothing that forces others to purchase it from them.
If people don't want the schlock they're peddling, then they can suck it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They have a right to stop people from STEALING this content they claim not to want (which of course also refutes the "potential sale down the road" argument).
Many "noncommercial" pirate sites make a great deal of money on advertising and marketing, and theft of a distribution list is separate damage.
I just post here as a counterweight to an obviously biased website. The governments are on the right side of this issue, and all the whining in the world isn't going to stop Article 13.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They have a right to stop people from STEALING this content they claim not to want (which of course also refutes the "potential sale down the road" argument).
Copyright is not theft, and no it doesn't. I look forward to your failure to successfully show how it does.
Many "noncommercial" pirate sites make a great deal of money on advertising and marketing, and theft of a distribution list is separate damage.
Provide examples. Also, the lack of a distribution list is not theft. I look forward to your failure to successfully demonstrate how it is theft, and your refusal to provide examples.
I just post here as a counterweight to an obviously biased website. The governments are on the right side of this issue, and all the whining in the world isn't going to stop Article 13.
You post here to spout bullshit. You serve as a counterweight to nothing, as your arguments have no substance and you serve as nothing more than an annoyance to most and entertainment for some. The governments are on the wrong side of the issue, and all the whining in the world isn't going to make you right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Traffic has monetary value, according to the courts. Distribution lists definitely have value, and pirates have no right to siphon it.
Parasites who want to take what others make REALLY hate Article 13, which suggests it's a good law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And, as expected, you fail to provide examples, fail to show copyright is theft, fail to show the Potential Sale Down the Road Is Not Actual Revenue argument is invalidated, and fail to actually show how a lack of a distribution list is theft.
Parasites who want to take what other makes REALLY want article 13 to pass, which just shows how terrible of a law it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copyright isn't theft, piracy is, at least under the law.
I remember how all those protests were going to stop FOSTA. Article 13 is a nice way for America to pass the same laws and blame Europe. Quite ingenious!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
FOSTA wasn't protested because there was no consultation or vote.
Based on the testimony of police officers, the people FOSTA was supposed to be helping, FOSTA made it much harder for them to hunt pimps and human traffickers.
Your gleeful claim is the equivalent of blowing your own foot with a shotgun and calling it a victory because now you get to sit in a wheelchair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Look, it seems like you were standing behind the door when they showed the accounting figures which detail how MAJOR movies or recordings have "failed to make a profit", thus the artists will be paid nothing.
However, if this is not true, please show us the details of those who you claim have been handsomely rewarded, starting with Spinal Tap and Lyle Lovett.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The artists are paid scale wages, up front:
https://www.sagaftra.org/production-center/contract/818/rate-sheet/document
$900 a day or more isn't exactly chicken feed. Actors get paid regardless of whether or not the work makes a profit.
Unprofessional, non-union artists may work for less, but the "legacy copyright industry" is run on professionalism, proper compensation, and a safe working environment. That entertainment is so top-notch it's viewed by millions, and stolen by the millions more who are having internet tantrums over Article 13.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The legacy copyright industry is run based on the theft of creative works from their creators, and the refusal to ever honor the actual terms of profit-sharing contracts via shady and under-handed accounting tactics that magically erase all profits.
If there really were never any profits, you'd think these places would have gone under.
That artists get paid up-front does not mean they aren't screwed out of their fair due, no matter how much you wish to believe that Hollywood is a shining beacon of morality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Some of those musicians who write the songs these industry lawyer labels are contracted with are lucky to make 3% off their songs. Yet you hear little complaint coming from them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are athletes paid nothing?
Their content is pirated as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Piracy is not free speech.
Congress in the US could stop Article 13 by explicitly making liable any webhost, search engine, or payment processor who commits contributory or vicarious infringement (effectively overturning the Perfect 10 decisions). That would require that they ignore takedown requests.
Intransigence by pirates and the courts are what has given us Article 13. America will definitely sign on to it, since they can just blame Europe for doing the deed and cite treaties.
Quite brilliant, actually.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Mass censorship of this scale would be impressive. Not exactly brilliant. Such harsh penalties on vicarious or contributory infringement would need mandatory filters, and would chill all speech.
But you aren't being paid to acknowledge that, eh mate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Vicarious and contributory infringement require knowledge that the material is infringing, as with the DMCA, so no censorship is required.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Article 13 requires upload filters, so censorship is a required secondary effect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Reverse the Perfect 10 decisions in the US and Article 13 becomes unnecessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Article 13 is already unnecessary, and the Perfect 10 decisions were entirely correct.
Instead, please reverse the outrageous intercession of copyright into the creation of culture, so that we can all create and live in peace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Under one Perfect 10 decision, a payment processor who knowingly processes payments for pirated material is not liable for contributory or vicarious infringement. With physical goods, this would not be the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No such case exists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're trying to use the case brought forward of a man who, upon receiving unfavorable judgement, transferred all of his property in a tax dodge to avoid paying his dues.
That's the hill you want to die upon? Par for the course...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Gawker invaded Hulk Hogan's privacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No it didn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
A jury said it did. Their opinion counts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Correct. Their opinion counts.
But you see, I am currently engaging in your own tactics.
So, no it didn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"In other words, it looks like Article 13 in the EU Copyright Directive might run headlong into the GDPR's restriction on the collection and use of data. This kinda feels like something that should have been thought out way earlier, but seems consistent with the slapdash manner in which the EU is regulating the internet these days: with little to no understanding of how the internet actually works, demands to do the impossible, and threats of massive fines for any company that then fails to do the impossible. This is no way to actually regulate, but apparently it's par for the course in the EU right now. "
This sounds like governments everywhere, not just the EU and the Internet. Best laid plans of mice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"This sounds like governments everywhere, not just the EU and the Internet. Best laid plans of mice."
Yes and no. It's true that governments in general are running shit-scared of the online environment which keeps chronicling their bloopers for years on end...
...but the EU takes the price on being hamfistedly stupid about it.
First ACTA and now Article 13 have been surrounded by such enormous and repetitive shit-shows of outright illegal political maneuvers that it demonstrates that everyone involved in writing this type of legislation is completely incompetent about the basics of EU law.
You generally don't see that happening outside juntas where the dictator can put any garbage he wants on paper because no one will dare show him what he's suggesting isn't legal.
Yet in the EU it happens because no one is competent enough to realize what they're attempting to legislate is illegal, until a court has to tell them so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
popcorn.gif
YAY all of their different insane rules are going to make them feast on each other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I wonder if we could get them into a coliseum type environment for that event. We could let a few lions loose for those left standing. It would be a great show, and I am sure profitable. The biggest issue with the above proposal is how to keep it out of Big Copyrights™ hands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Colliseum comment.. Best Comment on this article!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clash Of EU's Poorly Thought Out Laws
Is this a new mobile game?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah... who would have thought that laws that enforce based on mindless bot surveillance would have run afoul of existing laws that enforce against mindless bot surveillance?
Then again, copyright fanatics have never been able to think past the edge of their noses. Which are usually shoved up the rectum of whichever politician they're trying to fluff...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Given how the EU magically decided that the GDPR didn't apply to them I figured that'd simply employ this logic again: The GDPR applies to everyone and by everyone we mean everyone except for the government, and now, the filtering companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EU laws are permitting hunters to kill more than 52,000,000 (52 MILLION) BIRDS ANUALLY.
THAT IS FUCKED UP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Irrelevant...
In the United States, approximately 9 billion chickens are killed for their flesh each year... but that is not the subject today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Irrelevant...
Bad laws in the EU IS the subject today. These are birds in the wild killed by hunters. Not talkin chickens bred for dinner in the US. Why do so many of you people have to scold people so often? That should be a subject here at TECHDIRT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Irrelevant...
Bad laws regarding copyright and privacy is the subject today, especially as to how they relate to the operation of the internet. Thus, they do fall into the body of reporting that Techdirt engages in.
Laws regarding hunting of wild-fowl, on the other hand, do not.
Of course, if you would like to submit a story for consideration, there are links to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Irrelevant...
All gender aside, you are supporting evidence that there are too many PRICKS on this site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Irrelevant...
Indeed. How sad that you've joined their ranks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Irrelevant...
That's the nicest thing anyone has said to me today! LOL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Irrelevant...
I was using microprocessor technology in the seventies onboard fishing vessels in the Gulf of Alaska before most of the world even knew what a computer was. I've been reading and commenting on Techdirt long before your Momma was through spanking you.. I'll bet a thousand bags of peanuts. You sound like the insulant dicks I've been having to deal with in the government for forty years. So you know why I make this comment now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Irrelevant...
You are not my Mum. So Bugger off.. you're botherin me!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why exactly does the EU give one jot for what "Hollywood" wants anyway? That industry is 1000 times worse than Google or any other enterprise on the face of the Earth at valuing the "human condition". Google is far more trustworthy than Hollywood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Many people with very important jobs place a very high value on their entertainment, much of which is supplied by "Hollywood."
Sports leagues also vigorously enforce their copyright.
These industries make money, create jobs, pay lots of taxes, and don't steal the way pirates do.
The only thing Article 13 will do is make piracy extremely difficult. It's why the protests have no legs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
For once, we agree: these industries have their own methods of stealing, and they can't stand that people have found ways to avoid having their stuff stolen by these industries.
So they came up with Article 13 to force people into their theft machines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Aww, desperately putting words in my mouth.
It's not possible to steal from performing artists who are in unions or guilds, since scale wages more than compensate them. Producers invest a lot of money in paying those wages and have every right to protect their work product from the parasitic thieves Article 13 will help put out of business.
Kind of like all that opposition to FOSTA that went nowhere, so will the opposition to Article 13.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The industries engage in theft of culture, locking up the creations of artists and authors and denying the public their due. They force artists and authors into terrible contracts, and the up-front payments are barely anything compared to the true payout the long tail gets the distributors.
This is theft. You can call it what you want, but it is theft. It's legalized theft, because copyright maximalists have also engaged in theft of the legislative process through that legalized form of bribery called lobbying.
Producers and distributors have become parasites, and are worthy of no respect. Article 13 is the latest iteration of their parasitic nature, and everyone should hope it fails.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The producers take the RISK and pay the talent UP FRONT. That YOU don't respect this doesn't mean governments need to lose jobs and tax revenue to theft. Don't forget sports: athletes who make $30 million a year or who get a pension after ONE game in the major leagues aren't exactly exploited.
Now let's talk about how much money a CEO makes compared to those who do the grunt work.
No one is required to do business with any producer, and most celebrities are also wealthy because they too get paid up front. The system actually WORKS. Those who actually create popular content rather than whine about their inability to steal it thanks to Article 13 know this.
Keep whining...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The producers take the RISK and pay the talent UP FRONT.
So do a lot of industries.
What other industries aren't allowed to do is then sue the public because they're not as rich as they want to be after their product bombs in the box office like Elf-Man did. (Technically the government could still bail them out, but that doesn't exactly endear them to the public either.)
And if the system works as is, why all the effort in bending over backwards to protect it if it's that robust?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sports leagues also vigorously enforce their copyright
Right... the guys who think that an animated gif showing a 30 second clip is somehow so damaging to their 90 minute game that they have to throw the books at everybody.
If you have to stoop to singing the praises of guys who claim 1/180th of a work violates fair use... well, you sure picked a fine hill of horseshit to make your last stand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Much and probably the most piracy of hollywood movies has been happening in Europe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In hard copy for sale that is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In Europe we actually have regulated ISP's so we don't need to buy physical media anymore, we rent or buy our stuff online these days without the fear of usage caps and other blatant cash grabs.
The European millennial's for example, they hardly know what physical media is - in their mind, if you can't find it on the internet it doesn't exist.
In my city - there's ONE store renting out DVD's - they make their money by selling snacks and candy to the punters. 5 years ago there where 3 stores, 10 years ago there where 10 stores.
Nobody wants to deal with physical media, because it's cumbersome and dated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It does however, still have it's perks, namely that it's rather difficult for someone to yank it back over a contract/license dispute, as opposed to digital where that's a very real possibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
True except for the fact BD players have the DRM key management where they can revoke keys by adding metadata to newer discs which may revoke the playback key for a player or older discs. AFAIK it hasn't been used but I haven't really looked up any info on it either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As an anecdote, Our middle-aged BD player refused to recognize an in-good-physical-condition copy of Deadpool 2.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All I can see.
" they only note that filters are one way to try to comply, and basically say that tech companies might need to "nerd harder" to come up with alternatives."
this is interesting. we are talking about Persons that generally have little programming or site building exp.. HOW can they say this, and not understand?
I think they had help. There Could be ways to handle this, and I could name a few, but there is so much aggregation, that just sending a friend a link could get a person in trouble.
Some of what is mentioned is great and clears a few things up... But how about we look at this as Anti-piracy.. Insted of creating a specific law, they are hitting everyone. And doing the same thing they do with movies/music.
A bar that wishes to play music to the public, MUST have a license. This also goes with Movies.. and it seems the same agencies are going to be Gathering the money.
and about 1/2 of the money collected, does NOT goto those concerned...IT STAYS IN THE POCKET OF THE COLLECTOR...
Who is incharge? Who is behind this?
In the USA the music/movie industry is a closed loop. The Movie.music industry owns it all and controls who can do what. the only thing they Dont do is Create music/movies, its hired out.
The internet was/is the best thing to happen to the music.movie industry... it removed over 2/3 of the processing and shipping of goods around the world. Yes, the Whole world. Charging $20 in the past compare to $20 now with over 66% less Outlying fee's and charges..its a TON of money.
Now lets get into the information market. Lets do the same with News, from papers, to TV.. For he Whole world. Yes the Whole world, because aggregating the news is the biggest thing there is.. and then pay back to those agencies 1/2 of allthe money we get, FROM the rest of the world..
Pure money grab.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All I can see.
Sites that host content can make users identify themselves and indemnify the website. Article 13 should give THESE sites immunity. Then any individual infringers can easily be sued.
"Hollywood sucks" isn't a justification for piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: All I can see.
try it..
the site is 3rd party 90% of the time.. and has little to do with the ISP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sports are often pirated as well.
Are the athletes who make $30 million a year taken advantage of?
Get real, folks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techdirt is starting to look like a heavily redacted document with all the flagged comments! Tell me, how many flags does it actually take? Is it the same little squirt flagging so many comments? Or is there one flag that is bigger than the little flags? LOL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, it takes more than one flag. I suspect that it doesn't take as many flags to knock an AC however, since there are a few AC's that decide to post "Buh copyright good, pirate bad" 50 times and those get flushed quickly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Do you think those 50 xs comments are coming from FCC? !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I think Smith, Hamilton and Blue_Balls are going berserk. And apparently hang on my every work, for some stupid reason. (or a good reason - paid astroturfing.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can I get paid?/
who is paying..
I can do it under the table...pleeeaaassseee
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The amount of sockpuppeting from Hamilton and Jhon Sanford Smith is hilarious.
You'd think that if Article 13 was such a slamdunk their panties wouldn't be this knotted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, it solely depends on the idiocy of the points made. The stupider it gets the faster more people will click. Simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It definitely takes more than one flag. I flag my own comments on a regular basis, and they wind up staying up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The very comment which declared Techdirt's flagging system that makes this site look like a heavily redacted document got flagged! I want to see hands and numbers or I call bullpucky on this generation of spoiled whiny technuts!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I flagged it. Flagged your latest, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Last Word
“Mass censorship of this scale would be impressive. Not exactly brilliant. Such harsh penalties on vicarious or contributory infringement would need mandatory filters, and would chill all speech.
But you aren't being paid to acknowledge that, eh mate?