Major Labels Split On Support For Article 13; As Music Publishers Whine That They Can't Make Money From Parodies
from the say-that-again dept
Billboard Magazine reliably publishes the views of folks inside the music industry, so a recent column exploring various views regarding Article 13 in the EU Copyright Directive is enlightening. As we've discussed, the record labels released a letter saying that they no longer supported Article 13 because it "no longer meets the objectives" they originally wanted -- which was basically "Google cough up all the money."
However, Billboard notes that there's significant disagreement among the three major labels concerning their views on Article 13:
Of the three major labels, industry sources say Universal is the most opposed to the final version; Warner largely favors it, though executives think the text contains flaws; and Sony Music is between the two.
It still feels like the "opposition" from legacy copyright companies is mostly for show. When discussing Article 13, they all seems to freak out any time anyone points out reasons to drop it -- so it feels like the "oh, we oppose it" has mostly been an attempt to see if they can go for broke and make the law even worse. However, if Universal Music really opposes Article 13, it should speak up.
The even odder bit in the Billboard piece is watching some execs whine that in trying to respond to (accurate) claims about how Article 13 will stifle memes, it will mean they might not be able to get money from people making parodies of their works:
At present, in markets where parody exceptions do not exist, rights holders are able to monetize music parody videos. If passed, Article 13 potentially shuts down that source of revenue.
"I don’t think you’ll find many rights holders who will come out and say they like [Article] 13.5. In territories where they don’t currently have these exceptions, you are potentially reducing revenues for a particular use of content," says one exec.
Cry me a river. Oh, you can't make money if someone parodies your song. What a shame.
Of course, what's odd, is that later in the same damn article, they quote someone saying that Article 13.5 doesn't actually let this happen, even though that's the claim earlier in the article:
"Is what we’re giving away something we can live with? The general reaction among rights holders, labels and publishers is yes," agrees John Phelan, director general of international music publishing trade association ICMP, which had previously joined IFPI and IMPALA in opposing an earlier, weaker version of the directive. He says the final text fixed many of those issues. A key revision was the removal of language that suggested platforms would not require licences or be liable for user-generated content that fell under the categories of caricature, parody or pastiche.
"It was critical that was changed," says Phelan. "If that provision was included, we couldn’t have supported Article 13, nor the directive."
So, uh, wait. Under Article 13.5, are memes and parodies allowed for free... or not? If you look at the actual text, it shows how this game is being played:
The cooperation between online content service providers and rightholders shall not result in the prevention of the availability of works or other subject matter uploaded by users which do not infringe copyright and related rights, including where such works or subject matter are covered by an exception or limitation.
Member States shall ensure that users in all Member States are able to rely on the following existing exceptions and limitations when uploading and making available content generated by users on online content sharing services:
a) quotation, criticism, review,
b) use for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche.
Let's be clear: there are all sorts of problems with this. First off, it only applies in states that already protect parody and such, so parodies and memes and the like will be blocked in countries that don't have those exemptions already under the law. That's a pretty big deal.
Second, this paragraph is nonsense. The law requires that platforms don't allow any copyright-covered material be uploaded (which is why everyone will need to use filters). How the hell does a filter determine if it's for quotation, criticism, or review, or a caricature, parody or pastiche? The draft bill is entirely silent. All it says is "don't let that stuff be blocked." It's the ultimate in "nerd harder." Basically block everything, except the stuff that looks identical to the other stuff, but if you get anything wrong we'll fine you out of business. Anyone who understands the first thing about platform liability recognizes that the only way to stay on the right side of this law is to block things -- even if they fall under these exceptions.
This clause serves literally no purpose other than for those who support the law to point to in an attempt to blunt criticism of the impact of Article 13. Yet none of them can explain how this part of the law would work in practice, beyond some "nerd harder" mumbling about how the tech companies will have to "figure it out."
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, eu, eu copyright directive, labels, parodies, upload filters
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Fair Use
Parody is part of Fair use. Labels hate fair use so it has to go. An the maximalists will cheer,
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
More interesting is what will happen with sports and other forms of IP which are ongoing and more perishable.
Will the internet companies just begin curating their own content? Google and other tech companies could put the NFL out of business tomorrow if it wanted. If they own the product, there's no infringement. Same for music and news. Are we entering a "Westinghouse" era?
The law of unintended consequences will definitely apply here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's an article from Seeking Alpha on the consequences for big tech's profit margins:
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4243085-link-tax-eu-will-seriously-hurt-google-facebooks-p rofit-margins
To quote someone, "cry me a river."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Financial analysts on copyright directive
The entire article however is based on the misconception that you can believe to what an European Parliament press release says this directive is about.
For instance, on article 11 the author didn't even understand that it's a right for publishers rather than authors: "Since I am a European citizen, Google must start paying me after 2020 for linking to this article too" (or maybe he was just being hyperbolic, if you want to be charitable).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Financial analysts on copyright directive
Publishers can only get rights which are willingly assigned by authors.
Many advances run in six or seven figures, and government gets a cut of that, plus that money creates jobs. Piracy (and UGC) destroy that.
If internet users had demanded a piece of the action from the get-go, the internet would have been built more like YouTube is now, with the creators of the content getting 68 percent, and Google acting as the broker who pulls in whatever the market will bear. That's a much more sustainable model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Financial analysts on copyright directive
You didn't even try to read article 11, did you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Tech giants whine that they can't make money from user-generated content."
Looks like the free ride is over. Might be time to "big short" the tech companies actually.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Looks like the free ride is over. Might be time to "big short" the tech companies actually."
Oh, the tech companies will live. Unlike media companies they know how to adapt.
The services everyone enjoys for free right now? THOSE will be gone. So the losers when article 13 comes along will be the common consumer and the independent artist. And the european branches of media companies which will cripple their marketing.
The tech companies will keep sailing smoothly. The same way they did when they still didn't have all these extra options.
And of course pirates won't be affected - or rather, with a sudden lack of content on youtube, will go right back to filesharing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If your business model depends on copyright infringement to make money, then you really don't have much of a business model, do you?
Your problem, not mine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And you business model was to spam email scams at innocent people. So yeah bro, maybe you might want to take a back seat on this one before you embarrass yourself some more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Uh, wut?
Btw, cool article here:
https://onezero.medium.com/the-sharing-economy-was-always-a-scam-68a9b36f3e4b
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The claim is that their business model results in incidental piracy which they aren't at all dependant on, blocking 100% of that incidental piracy is impossible, and the fines for the incidental piracy that slip through will ruin them. I know that you disagree with that claim, but you should at least represent it accurately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well in that case, buh-bye, MAFIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"If your business model depends on copyright infringement to make money, then you really don't have much of a business model, do you? "
Assuming that anyone out there actually has copyright infringement as a business model which is, frankly speaking, akin to trying to sell water to tourists in front of the world's largest and cleanest drinking fountain.
At least come up with a straw man which makes sense, Baghdad bob.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Looks like the internet won't break after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Looks like the internet won't break after all."
Not for pirates. Nor for anyone using torrents to get their content.
Legitimate users, however, and independent artists - for them the internet will certainly be broken if article 13 passes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How long before Google Films, Google Music, et al. become reality?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because cementing Google's position in the EU was your plan all along?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Google is already dominant, and probably will remain that way.
If anything, independent creators should benefit a great deal because if their content is profitable, people will license it. At this point, we'll get to see what happens and won't have to speculate. Article 13 is about to become reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"If anything, independent creators should benefit a great deal because if their content is profitable, people will license it."
Not hardly. Any independent profitable enough to make a living today will tomorrow not have that profit margin any more.
We don't have to wait to see what happens because it's the way things worked for independents before the internet came along. Not very well at all, in other words.
"Article 13 is about to become reality."
Terrible for independent artists, bad for the media giants, even if they're too inept to know it, a bit "meh" for google, an outright killer for small platforms, and no change at all for pirates.
The only outcome I can see is that it will make the EU bureaucracy and copyright as "popular" among the EU citizenry as a whole as GEMA is in germany.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
When the easy, affordable access to legitimate content stops being available, the black flags will rise. If it gets forced off the internet (which even that won't happen, it'll just go back to sneakernet.
The main difference between sneakernet now and sneakernet then is that portable storage can store a hell of a lot more.
"Piracy" as it has been termed, has existed since before the internet - it was just called Bootlegging back then. Article 13 will do literally nothing to stop it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
FidoNet is still active in some parts of the world, and could expand its reach again. Also, it would not be that difficult to use it with Sneakernet as the communications medium.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah that'll work, just like people who met on AOL used to disconnect and dial each other's modems directly to avoid paying the $2.95 an hour just to IM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
fideoNet is useable across the internet, the current fideonet network is Fsxnet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've never had an issue with people who know each other sharing my work. The only times I've ever enforced my copyrights have been when one can find pirated copies of it through search engines. My concern, at least, has been shutting off the marketing. I've never used DRM specifically because I don't want some paying customer locked out of their own purchase.
As for those who think we need "legacy" publishers, you'd be surprised at how much work is self-distributed. I once produced some audio recordings that grossed about $16,000 for one day of recording. Not a fortune, but not exactly chump change either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exactly! The legacy publishers are being made obsolete, so Article 13 is being proposed to force people to use them again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What are those copyrights you own again? I'm interested in seeing what you write when not here. (Are you the 230 guy, or one of the others?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've never had an issue with people who know each other sharing my work.
Except that these are the people whom copyright enforcement goes after the most option because they're more easily intimidated and more likely to pay up. Try again.
The only times I've ever enforced my copyrights have been when one can find pirated copies of it through search engines.
Which... you continue to refuse to name. Nice job!
As for those who think we need "legacy" publishers, you'd be surprised at how much work is self-distributed.
The need for "legacy" anything has been your persistent tune all this time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"When the easy, affordable access to legitimate content stops being available, the black flags will rise. If it gets forced off the internet (which even that won't happen, it'll just go back to sneakernet."
Well, we've seen, multiple times before when new types of media and media transmission were invented, just how prohibitions pan out. A few years of desperate copyright cult CEO's bombast ever more hyperbolic doomsday commentary and then finally the copyright cult's traction is legislated right out of the new medium.
Public libraries, VHS, Tape cassettes, the DVD, the MP3, DeCSS...by now you'd think we'd have learned enough that the body politic should just skip right to the end and drop copyright as a whole down the dark hole where they put the Red Flag Act and the Common salt Tax.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
nobody is going to,license shit. Either uploads of ANY copyrighted content by third parties will blocked or the platforms will shut down. THAT is what is going to happen.
More money for creatives, paricularly of the independent variety is off the table with article 13.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reverse psychology
The majors' opposition to the non-exception for parody is absurd. Did they believe to the press release by Voss which claimed there was an EU-wide exception? Do they actually worry about the "revenue" in the countries where the exception already exists? Are they just opposing anything that is even remotely close to the real world and common sense? Or is it all a game to make us believe that they oppose article 13.5, therefore it must be good and everyone else should support it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Most american sports get most of their revenue from tv rights deals,
and maybe streaming services / apps which are paid for by subscription,
Where does google have power over this ?
Why would google go after sports ,this law is being lobbied
for music,tv,film, legacy corporations .
It might decrease the revenue of sports organisation,s
since there may be only a few online platforms, websites in the eu
which can show their content online .
The eu say memes, parodys will still be legal,
but theres no automatic filter that can tell fair use parody, from
infringing content ,
So most of it might still be blocked anyway .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The problem is fans who link to or upload videos of sporting events, the need to police this, etc. Much simpler would be to just take over sports, news, music, films, etc. This could lead to an even greater Balkanization of content.
My guess is the concerns about blocking are overblown. The focus will be on the outcome, and there are ways to protect legal uses for content. Aggregation and piracy are the primary targets of Article 13.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the whole idea is to block everything unless the entertainmentindustries say it is ok, provided some sort of fee is paid for the permission. then add in that everyone is going to be blocked unless they have good reason to want to go on to the Internet, pay an admission fee and can prove they're not going on the hunt for anything damning of the rich, the powerful, the famous, of politicians or of governments! in other words, the intention is to keep the ordinary people off the net for fear they will uncover whatever these lying fuckers above are up to, but want to keep hidden! remember the ridiculous law 'The Right To Be Forgotten'!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually, with Article 13, creators can just keep the rights and profit directly, probably even moreso than now.
Why sell the rights to something popular if you know they have to pay you for it? Sounds like a boon to smaller websites. Might explain why Google is signal-boosting this site's articles as "News" when it's really just a "blog written in juvenile style with slanted language and an obvious editorial bias."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Only if existing platforms continue to exist, and do not block use generated content because of the fear of lawsuits. If the self publishing platforms are severely restricted by the results of article 13, creators will suffer, either because they lose their outlets, or because they have to sign rights over to a publisher.
Note also, that while the politicians hope that sites can come to some accommodation with the legacy industries, that is not written into the article 13, which only gives the legacy industries the ability to go nuclear on any website that accidental has infringing content on it. Also, reaching any accommodation will be likely limited to large sites, as smaller site cannot afford the legal bills of any associated negotiations.
As for it becoming more profitable for creators, that is very unlikely, as the bills faced by sites for legal representation and possible licensing reduces the money that can be passed on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
YouTube has agreements with its creators, who are not anonymous, and who get paid for what they upload. Smaller or new sites can do the same.
The point of Article 13 is recognizing the value of linking to other content, which has previously been treated as though it doesn't warrant compensation. Whatever the outcome, the internet will not break.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As soon as there is any requirement to pay any form of link tax, you break the Internet because a majority of sites cannot afford the time or expense to deal with link taxes. Also any Link tax will impact those making money from YouTube, because the link tax will come out of the money they would otherwise receive, and none of it will go to small creators as dealing with the distribution would cost more than the amount to be distributed. All it will do is transfer money to the legacy publishers,, and while the labels might pass a tiny bit of that on to their biggest stars, the rest will disappear into the corporate coffers.
These proposals will rob the poor to pay the rich.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You mean EXISTING sites won't be able to afford actually paying for what they use.
They will be replaced by sites which find a way to adapt. All that "obsolete business models deserve to die" stuff.
The era of stealing content is over. Thank God.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fixed it for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As soon as you force sites into formal contracts with content creators you limit the ability of content creators to use the Internet make a living, as such sites will only be able to deal with a limited number of creators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And just how much do you think the value of links on this site are compared to the commentary, and why should somebody commenting on the news be forced to pay a tax to be able to do that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When it comes to the 'value' of linking to something it's worth pointing out that the ones being linked to also gain value from it, as can be demonstrated crystal clear when other publishers whined about how Google was 'stealing' from them by linking to them and providing excerpts, only to throw an epic tantrum when Google stopped linking to them/providing excerpts.
They know damn well that they benefit, and significantly at that, from being linked to and the free traffic it gets them, they're just greedy, self-entitled parasites who demand to be paid for it too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you really believe that then you have no idea how the internet actually works. Here's a tip: HTTP stands for HyperText Transfer Protocol. HyperText is defined as text containing more than just words, i.e. graphics, videos, audio and links. Much of that graphic, video and audio content is supplied via links, e.g. embedding a tweet in your blog post. This is what would die in the EU with Article 13. It would most certainly not die anywhere else in the world so I fail to understand right wing zeal to see this go through. Only Europe would suffer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Until trade treaties spread the madness world wide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hypertext is fundamentally text that contains cross-references to other materials that can be accessed as easily as turning a page (as opposed to tracking down the other book oneself).
A decent implementation will support transclusion (what we’d now call embedding or inlining, for things like pictures or quotes that are shown directly from other sources rather than having been copied into the initial hypertext document) and linking to other materials outside the control of the author.
It doesn’t have to be mixed media, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"YouTube has agreements with its creators, who are not anonymous, and who get paid for what they upload."
And with article 13 all of those will be gone because none of those creators can afford paying in order to continuously prove they own the copyright to their own work, nor does youtube have the resources to hire enough manpower to control every licensed production.
It's a bit sad from a european view but if Article 13 does pass the US will possess ample evidence of why safe harbors will be necessary to keep in their DMCA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There is still the problem of either legacy copyright industries, or other bad actors, claiming copyright over some independents' creation. The way things are now, the independent is at a disadvantage (at least financially) in fighting such claims. I am not sure how Article 13 is supposed to cure this, but I doubt it will as the point of the NGO's pushing for it have their cash flow in mind, and nothing else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The way things are now, the independent is at a disadvantage (at least financially) in fighting such claims. I am not sure how Article 13 is supposed to cure this, but I doubt it will as the point of the NGO's pushing for it have their cash flow in mind, and nothing else."
Article 13 heavily incentivizes the platform to shut the independent down without a hearing since any unlicensed production to get past the filters and on to youtube means massive fines.
Youtube will either have to geoblock all of europe or somehow make sure that their filter, under no circumstances, EVER allows a licensed work to be uploaded. And that second part won't happen.
So the independents will be gone from any online platform.
Of course what the labels aren't considering is that the same holds true for them. All it takes is a few copyright trolls and they too will have to drop all online presentation outside of closed-client subscription services. That'll put them straight back to where piracy truly started surging back in the 90's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This is why I suspect Google and other big tech companies will be putting the NFL out of business. It might be cheaper to just do that than to worry about running afoul of the NFL's intellectual property.
Smaller sports leagues that develop a following can build their own portals, and then all the indies can LINK to each other, with some type of compensation model that doesn't "break the internet."
The IOT (Internet Of Thieves) needs to be broken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Actually, with Article 13, creators can just keep the rights and profit directly, probably even moreso than now."
An outright lie. Article 13 will ream every independent currently making a living but not extravagant profits off their youtube/vimeo/vevo channel. This puts them right back to where independents were before the internet - in indentured serfdom to Sony and BMG or trying to make it big through a thousand minor gigs in bars.
Try not to deny history too obviously when you come out astroturfing for article 13 hmm?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Except none of this will happen.
Yawn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then why does article 13 put strict liability on third parties, giving the legacy industries the ability to financially cripple any site (except the very biggest) that they choose to attack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Except none of this will happen."
Since article 13 mandates exactly that then all of that will happen since no online platform will dare to let users upload anything without a hypothetical all-covering filter which can't logically exist..
Honestly..."yawn"? Your arguments are so shot to shit by now that you're out of even your usual straw men, red herrings, reductio ad absurdum argumentation and even your ad homs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If there is a tax on linking to these independent creators' content then people will simply avoid linking to that content to avoid the tax. This will harm independent creators but dramatically reducing their exposure. It sure as hell won't help them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Thems is some bitter bitter grapes bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The "right to be forgotten" is simple privacy as a human right.
We have the opposite in America: Section 230, which allows a single person with an axe to grind to destroy the reputation of a business or person, often for competitive advantage in business, socially, or romantically (man lies about a husband to get with his wife, for example, or a competitor who breaks laws lies about a business that complies with them, using the money generated from the lies to overwhelm the competitor, etc.).
Because America has no RTBF, people who have been unfairly targeted will just drop out of socializing with others, with the "others" presuming superiority. In reality, the "others" are laying down with dogs, don't realize one day they will wake up with fleas, while the targets are smart enough to isolate, be productive, get rich, maybe famous, and become exactly the type of person the "others" seek out to kiss up to. At some point, someone's going to realize that they were misled into avoiding someone they wish they hadn't avoided, perhaps missing a job, a business opportunity, or even a film role. It's already happening, but Google isn't forwarding the memo. Even if they did, no one would care. People are just stupid that way. Let the verbally abusive types show their faces and run their mouths like that; they don't, obviously, because they're cowards who couldn't survive any type of scrutiny.
There are lawyers who set people up to be sued by having their cyberthugs put lies all over the web, link to anyone predisposed to believing those lies (like right in the middle of a social-media flamewar), and then stepping in to collect fees while gassing up the patsy with "free speech!" and basically telling them not to fear lawsuits which they themselves engineer. A crime like that requires too much intelligence and targeting for the average person to care so most just blissfully go along, and if they aren't "troublemakers" (whistleblowers) they generally have nothing to fear.
This site allows massive verbal abuse and that destroys a lot of Masnick's credibility as someone decent or running a decent site. If the sponsors allow it there's not much one can do about it but that doesn't make it a good thing. I've seen several calls to actually murder legislators as if people making those posts can't be locked up, or even blaming ME for reporting it to law enforcement.
Hopefully Article 13 will soon pass and all the scaremongering will stop. As for Section 230, conservatives are seeing the light about how cancerous it is to free speech (it harms speech because anyone can be bullied into silence by those who are immune, see above). We have internet gatekeepers who have been misleading the public and censoring truly open discussions to the point where we might as well just go back to USENET.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The "right to be forgotten" is simple privacy as a human right.
Not in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
'"The "right to be forgotten" is simple privacy as a human right."*
That you can squeeze that turd out on paper only means you don't know what "privacy" means. Privacy means you have a right not to have people looking into your private life.
It does NOT mean matters you yourself put in the public record should be conveniently removed from it.
And your wordwall on how things look like in tort-happy US has no bearing whatsoever on how things work in Europe where litigation is deliberately difficult in order to ensure you only use it for real, actual grievances.
"Hopefully Article 13 will soon pass and all the scaremongering will stop."
And here we have the axe you were grinding all along.
By all means let it pass. It won't do one damn thing you think it will do (as if that wasn't abundantly clear after the hilarious parallell you drew between US and EU tort).
It WILL harm legitimate users, but my sympathy for copyright holders who were too dumb to oppose it is almost nonexistent.
It will also make absolutely every european currently used to watching and using youtube make like the Germans under GEMA - get a VPN subscription and circumvent the desolate online environment of the EU.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, the RTBF means just that. The internet has made EVERYTHING "public" so lines have to be drawn.
Even defamatory content stays up in America, and those gullible masses written about so often will search for it, read it, believe it way too often, repeat it, and get sued for it. Cui bono? The lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's crap. The RTBF is revisionist history in action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
RTBF is some assole coming in and trying to infringe on the reader's right to decide what is relevant to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Actually, the RTBF means just that. The internet has made EVERYTHING "public" so lines have to be drawn."
SO DID NEWSPAPERS!
This is actually the way freedom of information and freedom of speech was always supposed to work. The internet has, in that regard, only enabled a statute long cherished and held as sacred in constitutions all over the world.
Just that in the old days when someone made a public spectacle of themselves you actually needed someone with access to a large publication to get the word out. You don't, any more.
The right to be forgotten is, in effect, just an attempt to let proven public assholes with convictions or otherwise on paper as betraying the public trust sink back into anonymity. No wonder so many politicians voted for it.
And from your usual argumentation around here I'm not too surprised as to why you would want a way to escape from your own public image.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: either way it’s assleas chaps all the way down
Oh we’re back to the cyber-lawyer hacker fantasy. Just to clarify. Should I wear my tragically hip 90’s hacker gear or my pouty 00’s trench coat and leather.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: either way it’s assleas chaps all the way down
Of course it's a fantasy. Couldn't possibly be true, even if they all interact out in the open in social media and have ganged up on several targets over a period of several years.
Reminds me of a few folk who used to be very brave when they posted online way back when, only to have those old e-mails tied to their real names down the road.
Patience and observation go a very long way. So does the ability to connect the dots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: either way it’s assleas chaps all the way down
That’s your excuse this time? What about all those SWAT raids you were gonna call down? Oh a d who’s funding the expose of which brand of OJ Mike drinks?
Your lies are as busted as your dick Jhon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
About time
Well one upside of 13 will be shutting down these annoying spam-bot AC posters. Anonymous speech is an assault on the human rights, because it might be defamatory.
a single person with an axe to grind to destroy the reputation of a business or person
Anonymous speech would be the first thing to go if Smith got his way, eh? How could people be called accountable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple Solutions
Has no one thought of this?
Can't the Music Publishers simply write the legislation in a way that they and only they are not subject to this law?
It's simple. Efficient. Fair in their eyes. Overreaching. Draconian. It seems like a perfect solution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Simple Solutions
"Can't the Music Publishers simply write the legislation in a way that they and only they are not subject to this law?"
That's more or less what the music publishers thought they did with the DMCA - and now, with article 13.
Since they're completely inept when it comes to anything happening outside of their walled gardens, naturally, it turns out that in neither case did they get what they wanted - which is why they're trying to "article 13" the DMCA by having safe harbors removed.
The joke keeps on being on them though. As history has demonstrated amply through the centuries, human nature isn't amenable to putting convenient technology back in the box just to protect a failing business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Scary Devil Monastery" zoomed up to over 400 comments per year!
This ZOMBIE "account" picked up on 8 Aug 2018 after 65 month gap to first and only comment 1 Mar 2013!
You can't explain that as a real person. ONE comment over 5 years ago, then takes off at over 400 per year? BALONEY. These are most likely dug out to appear old and genuine. Administrators of course can see / change passwords. My bet on why done that way instead of start new accounts is to avoid giving email addresses that might be traced.
With so many comments, and getting careless (justifiably since the fanboys don't care...), "Scary Devil Monastery" has provided good evidence by showing long familiar with not only Techdirt but Torrent Freak:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190304/15233741731/supporters-article-13-briefly-tr ied-to-move-parliament-vote-up-before-scheduled-protests-now-deny-plan-that-they-clearly-had.shtml#c 617
So ardent fanboy, highly interested in copyright, recognizes people from other sites, YET made no comments with the account for FIVE years, then suddenly one of the most prolific? BA. LONE. EY.
"Scary Devil Monastery" is undoubtedly astro-turfing. Only question is WHICH of the minions do it.
Since same aggressive defender of Techdirt as Timothy Geigner, aka "Dark Helmet", aka "Gary", that's my bet.
But JUST the 65 month gap should be enough warning for new readers. This site is for entertainment purposes only.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Scary Devil Monastery" zoomed up to over 400 comments per y
Yawn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hi, blue. I was wondering when John Smith would let you up for air...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Scary Devil Monastery" zoomed up to over 400 comments per y
Fuck off. Nobody cares.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Scary Devil Monastery" zoomed up to over 400 comments per y
Actually this site has provided a key link that reveals an entire chain of individuals many would not realize are acting as a group.
It's pretty clear where Masnick is getting his money now. Patient archiving into dossiers pays off, though often not for several years. It's amazing what one can piece together if they do this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Scary Devil Monastery" zoomed up to over 400 comments p
Your tinfoil hat is on way too tight. It's cut off the circulation to your brain. Better loosen that up to slack on the crazy for a bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Scary Devil Monastery" zoomed up to over 400 commen
Oddly, your insults make me chuckle, since I know the truth, which makes you hurl insults.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Scary Devil Monastery" zoomed up to over 400 co
It's only "truth" in your mind. Critical thinkers know otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You revealed that this site has an international audience. Whoopee. What an accomplishment. Maybe you could write a self-help book about this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can’t counter the message, huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Scary Devil Monastery" zoomed up to over 400 comments per y
"But JUST the 65 month gap should be enough warning for new readers. This site is for entertainment purposes only."
Wow. Taking a hiatus over life issues is, apparently, being an astroturfer.
That said, nice try. I'd have to state that astroturfers would be far more suspicious if they turned out to be - oh, brand-new nicknames sockpuppeting for someone else, or one-man armies.
If I was an astroturfer I'd be remarkably shit at it since I present the opinion of only ONE person. Unlike you, Mr. John/Jhon,/bobmail/baghdad bob/out_of_the_blue who keeps leapfrogging between accounts until, when you find someone actually being persistent enough in calling you on your bullshit, you decide to launch some lame attempt at marginalization.
Now go back to your angry kitten troll kit and have it roll you a new account so you don't accidentally get your little rant linked to any of the umpteen other sock puppets you've been dragging around here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Major Labels Split On Support For Article 13; As Music Publishers Whine That They Can't Make Money From Parodies"
Funny how some who carp about others taking their creations without compensation, complain about how they are not allowed to enrich themselves off the creations of others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Funny how some who carp about others taking their creations without compensation, complain about how they are not allowed to enrich themselves off the creations of others."
It's what copyright was always about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no law...
"the record labels released a letter saying that they no longer supported Article 13 because it "no longer meets the objectives" they originally wanted -- which was basically "Google cough up all the money."
No law should be created that is not Fair and balanced and FOR EVERYONE...not focused on 1 group.
"in markets where parody exceptions do not exist, rights holders are able to monetize music parody videos."
It finally comes out. they want to TAKE the money that is created by OTHERS, when they create something NEW from something OLD.. Isnt that Favoritism?? and giving money for nothing?
God, lets kill off all the creativity of the world..
Lets MAKE everything have a Value, and give that Value to ANYONE except the artist...
this would be a GREAT court case.. but I think its explained long ago..With OUT parody and other forms of expression, you would NOT have innovation..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: no law...
If eventually Youtube, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and basically most of these sites shut down due to unrecoverable bankruptcy (due to Article 13 forcing them to lose millions of dollars), then someone’s trying to close the internet up. Perhaps someone who said he wanted to close the internet up when he ran for president. The same person who put Ajit Pai into office (which led to the repeal of Net Neutrality).
Someone by the name of...
DONALD TRUMP!
(And by the way, I’m not democratic or republican.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair Use
Parody is part of Fair use. Labels hate fair use so it has to go. An the maximalists will cheer,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google has all the money because they haven't had to pay fair value for their traffic. That era is over.
If they can survive this, fine, if not, oh well someone will take their place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sure. That was never in question.
Just don't piss and moan when Google decides it's had enough and pulls out.
The news companies' collective whines were deafening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You know, the best thing Google could do is pull out - wait for the new companies screech fest and then offer to index them again, for a fee...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
'If any action that results in gaining a benefit from someone else needs to be paid for, we feel it only fair that anyone who wishes to benefit from the traffic that results from being listed on our service pay for the privilege. If you don't like it, hey, maybe should have thought of that before you tried to shake us down again.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Adding shakedowns to a business model is already dumb enough...
...but shaking down the guy whose willing participation is already vital to your existing business model?
That takes a special kind of stupid, i think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Google Pullout
Agreed.
The best thing Google (and by extension Youtube) can do is pull out of the EU. However, they should do it now and just put up a web page explaining that they can't expose themeselves to the massive liability that Article 13 would create, while also mentioning the link tax, GDPR, RTBF, etc. as other reasons. If Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and the rest of them followed suit, the resulting outcry across the EU would be enough to stop article 13 in its tracks and probably force the repeal of all the other things as well.
Failing that, maybe they should all put up a 'warning page' that shows up before users from the EU get to the main page indicating that they'll be shutting down in the EU if article 13 passes due to uncertanty around the liabilities it will create.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]