Supporters Of Article 13, After Denying It's About Filters, Now Say It's About Regulating Filters Which They Admit Don't Work
from the get-your-freaking-story-straight dept
As the EU Parliament gets ready to vote on the EU Copyright Directive and Articles 11 and 13, the desperation from the supporters of these laws is reaching a fever pitch. It's gotten to the point that their own arguments no longer make any sense and are totally inconsistent with what they've been saying for months. Late last week, a new group sprung up with a website called Manifesto4copyright.eu. It is an astounding document in so many ways, not the least of which is it admits that Article 13 is about filters, while also admitting that filters don't work.
It starts off with a huge misrepresentation: that the authors supporting it are for an "open and fair internet without censorship." Except that's belied by the rest of the "manifesto," which makes about as much sense as any other ranting internet manifesto:
We all live among the digital revolution. We want to shape it, not prevent it. Authors must be paid. Therefore, the internet needs good rules. There is no freedom without rules! Otherwise, only the strongest will prevail as has happened with the internet-giants. We are no technophobes. We want good governance for the digital world. We want an open and fair internet.
Authors are paid. If they sell their works to willing customers, they get paid. Nothing has changed. Indeed, artists are making more money than ever before. Also, what's with the Orwellian "there is no freedom without rules" line in there?
Of course, the next paragraph suggests who might actually be behind this particular manifesto. See if you can figure it out by looking at the "myths" they claim they are busting:
The criticism we have is merely of the myths and fighting talk, which are poisoning the current debate: A free internet at no charge, publishers as evil exploiters, authors ripped off by collecting societies, the enforcement of copyright as censorship.
Wait, who's asking for an internet free of charge? No one that I know of. And also, if you don't believe that copyright is frequently and regularly used for censorship, you simply have not been paying attention and have no place in this debate. You are ignorant.
But, let's focus in on the other one: complaining that it's a myth that publishers and collection societies rip off those they supposedly represent. I'm guessing that this manifesto was put together by those very collection societies. And since they insist this is a myth, let's go for a little walk down memory lane about collection societies.
- There was the Spanish collection society, SGAE which was raided by the police after its top execs were accused of stealing $550 million from artists.
- A UK government-backed inquiry into abuse by collection societies received so many entries from people so angry that it felt it needed to block their release.
- In the US, ASCAP both announced that it was taking in more money than ever and that it was cutting payments to artists on the same day.
- In India, courts had to step in to block collection societies from collecting money from concerts they had no right to collect money from.
- In Germany, GEMA told musicians that they were simply not allowed to offer music for free as it would violate GEMA's rules.
- In Peru, another corruption scandal found that a collection society there was diverting revenue from artists to friends.
- In Kenya, a collection society was found to be paying less than one-third of the money it was supposed to be giving out. That resulted in a court having to step in and bar the collection society from continuing to collect.
- In France, the local collection society made bands pay the collection society in order to make their own albums, and again in order to get paid the money they are owed.
So, gee, I wonder where we get the idea that collection societies rip off creators?
And, from there, things get even weirder in the manifesto:
Google and Facebook are already using filter algorithms. They filter not only – as intended – illegal content (e.g. pornographic or terrorist content), but also completely legal content (e.g. photos of naked bodies). They do so arbitrarily and without democratic regulation. The new directive, however, will regulate filters. At the same time, the platforms currently earn their money by making third parties’ content accessible and advertising it, without paying appropriate fees to the creators of this content – photographers, musicians, authors, graphic artists. This is where the new directive on European copyright law comes in: Article 13 regulates how licensing works for platforms. Platforms should pay creatives fair and reasonable remuneration by obtaining licences for the global repertoire. If they have such flat-rate licences from collecting societies, they do not need to filter content.
Um, what?
Google and Facebook are already using filters. We agree. But then... it admits that the filters don't work, because they work "arbitrarily." And then they admit that Article 13 will "regulate filters" which apparently no one told them they're not supposed to admit to until after Article 13 becomes law. Indeed, every time we mention that Article 13 will require filters, someone shows up in our comments with some demand about how the law says nothing anywhere about filters. Yet here, whoever is behind this manifesto appears to be arguing the following:
- Google and Facebook already use filters.
- Those filters are arbitrary and block legal content
- Article 13 will "regulate filters"
- And then they don't need to use filters any more.
The manifesto goes on from there, with some other nonsense -- such insisting that "Memes are safe!" -- but it's really not worth spending more time on it, other than to suggest that if this is truly the best that collection societies could do with their propaganda, perhaps next time they should pay their writers more to write something coherent, and which doesn't disagree with basically all the other lobbying messaging about Article 13.
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, censorship, copyright, eu copyright directive, filters, manifesto, upload filters
Reader Comments
The First Word
“That's not Orwellian at all, really. Their application of it to this specific scenario is pretty atrocious, but the statement that "there is no freedom without rules! Otherwise, only the strongest will prevail" is right on the money. What they're describing is the principle of the rule of law, where placing restrictions on the use of various kinds of power and force allows civilization and freedom to flourish at higher levels.
I've heard the analogy made to flying a kite. At first glance, you might think that the kite's string is keeping it down, which is technically true. It won't fly any higher than the length of string permits. But at the same time, the tension on the string is also what is holding it up, and if you cut the string, it will be at the mercy of the wind, with no restrictions to keep it stable, and immediately come crashing down.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The Golden Era of the Gatekeeper
First, for that to be true, it would only apply if a site could be guaranteed that it was even possible to license every possible bit of content ever. Which it is not. And thus, they would still need to use filters. Which lead to mass, automated censorship.
There is actually a way for their idea to be true, but it's not a pretty one, and would gut the very sites they are talking about while creating gatekeepers with more power than ever.
The only way to make sure that only licenced content was posted would be to prohibit any content not licensed, such that if someone wanted to post to the likes of YT they would first need to sign with a licensing group(or a label/studio...), and then have them upload it(you know, when they got around to it).
Now I know what you're thinking, 'that sounds a lot like tv, where a handful of large companies get to decide what to show, and if you want your stuff to be shown then you have to go through them', and the reason for that is... it's pretty much exactly what it would be like. The label/studio/publisher gatekeepers of before would not only be back on their thrones, they'd have more power than ever before, and if you think a shift back to the gatekeeper model would be beneficial to the smaller creators that flourish under the current system... well, all I can say is treasure that naive innocence, you won't have it for long.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Golden Era of the Gatekeeper
Not everyone uploads third-party content.
Article 13 is an attempt to rebuild the internet from the ground up, which will shake the foundation of those who relied on UGC and third-party content as their (now obsolete) business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have news for you: Even if you own the content you plan to upload, if you upload it to a platform that you do not own, that content is still third party content.
Ah, yes, and what exactly will that accomplish, given that it sounds a lot like trying to turn the Internet into a broadcast medium where only those with the most money and visible fame can transmit their content to the widest possible audience and everyone else can go fuck themselves with a rake?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
More like a broadcast medium where third parties can't dilute the value of content uploaded by those who legitimately own it.
Authors have spoken of how their serial books do well on the first release, then the second is pirated, and no third is produced. Many users who pirate also make clear they wanted to read the offerings but didn't want to pay for them.
The vote will occur, and life will go on either way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, the value of a song I already have in my MP3 collection and my Spotify playlists is totally diluted by its existence on YouTube~.
Please name these authors and link to where they have said such things.
So what? Pirates gonna pirate. If they somehow convert to paying customers, great, but they can otherwise be ignored (or at least taken into account when designing a business model).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They can also be imprisoned for stealing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No, they can get caught and pay damages to the rightsholder since we already have laws for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Laws which allow for imprisonment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You mean like the one Japan was supposed to have?
That didn't turn out so well did it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copying is not theft. Copying can be an illegal act if it violates someone’s copyright, but it cannot be theft because copying a digital file neither erases nor “steals” the “master copy”.
Oh, and the “potential sales” argument — which I am sure you were going to use — is a lame argument because the potential for someone to buy a creative work is not the equivalent of someone buying that work, and someone not buying that creative work (regardless of whether they “pirate” said work) is not the equivalent of someone taking money out of the hands of an artist. I could potentially buy a copy of, say, Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse on Blu-ray at any point in the future; if I decide not to buy it, that decision does not take money out of the hands of the filmmakers because my money was never in their hands in the first place. They had no guarantee to my money just because they released a (goddamned spectacular) film.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Plus, of course, there are many legal ways for you to enjoy the film without ever paying a cent to the originating film studio. These guys always forget that part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's theft of the digital copy which is not authorized, and theft of one member of the audience that is diverted to organized crime.
Stopping criminals from making money is an equal or greater public interest than even protecting IP rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That is not theft; that is copyright infringement. The two are not the same thing, which is a point that even the Supreme Court of the United States got right.
Good lord, are you legit comparing piracy to the goddamn mob?
I have no issue with shutting down commercial copyright infringers. Where you and I seem to differ, however, is on the bullshit idea that all copyright infringers make money from their infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The record industry is the mob.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Impotent*
*copyright infringement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: do it bro
Lol you gonna put dancing baby and parents in jail John man?
Go ahead make my case son lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/mar/06/i-can-get-any-novel-i-want-in-30-seconds-can-book-pira cy-be-stopped
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And yet literally millions of people continue to actually BUY books every year.
Bringing up the fallacy that no one will pay for something they can get for free yet again only demonstrates your own unwillingness to be honest in this discussion, or at least to learn what's actually happening out in the world and instead stick to your false narrative despite the mountains of evidence against it.
Yes piracy exists. No it cannot be stopped, but more importantly no it isn't what's destroying these industries. They're own unwillingness to adapt to new technologies and other changes in the marketplace is what's bringing them down. That's a normal process that has been going on since the dawn of civilization. The dying industries whining about it is also nothing new. Their complaints are no more legitimate today than they've ever been.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I did not write the Guardian article, nor was I interviewed for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
We know bro. You aren’t famous enough to be interviewed by a kid pretending to be a reported much less a real newspaper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The troll is just butthurt because no one wants to buy his email scammer list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Those en mass newly empowered gatekeepers aren't going to bother honoring or even checking on current and legitiment music licenses so we all lose a ton of our music to this mayhem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You mean, where third parties can't dilute the value of "approved" content by offering their stuff for free or cheaper.
And some authors release some of their previously published books for free which makes the whole series sell better as actual printed books.
The thing is, those who read books go out of their way to buy a dead tree variant if they can.
Heck, there are some publishers that give away tons of books for free and regularly post 1/3 to 1/2 of new books online because it drives actual sales.
It's a novel idea, give people want they want and somehow it makes sales increase. /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And some authors release some of their previously published books for free which makes the whole series sell better as actual printed books.
'On Basilisk Station' by David Weber. I can safely say that it was only because I found that book online, and was able to read it for free that I have not only that one but a good number of books from the series currently sitting on my shelves in dead-tree format.
If you've got good content, something that people will actually want more of, and you offer it in an easy and reasonable manner 'first try is free' can be a very effective marketing strategy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To wit: The original Doom became a smash hit precisely because it was a good game that people wanted more of after the shareware demo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Which is up to the game's creator, not a pirate, to try.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Fun fact: the full version of Doom was also pirated, yet ID software still made a lot of money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And then there is the mod scene for the original Doom — which is still going strong after 25 years — which technically modified the game in illegal ways. An argument could be made that such mods extended the lifespan of the game to the point where people still play it (and mod it) a quarter-century after its release. (Similar arguments could be made in re: randomizer mods for games such as The Legend of Zelda and Super Metroid.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's true, and a hell of a lot of early mods would be riffing on copyrighted content. Nobody ever lost money from those mods, and a hell of a lot of modern games creators first cut their teeth in the mod scene, but that doesn't get through to a lot of these people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why even bring this argument up? No one here is disagreeing with you on this, although even copyright is not nearly as one sided as you present here.
Fighting piracy is not more important than maintaining freedom to speak and express ourselves. You don't imprison the entire world just because there are a few people that won't respect reasonable laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't forget "orphaned" works, out of print forever, hard copy can't be found.
I've got several in my library, EE Doc Smith, Fritz Leiber, Ray Gallun, etc. that have on the title page "Scanned from a ratty old paperback I found at the bottom of a box from a garage sale" that I'd never even heard of - some of the Leiber is Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser novels from the forties and fifties that have never been reprinted.
Of course, when something drags those stories back into the light, Smith and Leiber don't get a cent, what with being dead and all...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I love that series. If you haven't read it I highly recommend it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which is up to the author and publisher, not a pirate, to try.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The books will be pirated with or without article 13. It's the independent authors who will be hurt, not pirates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I will link this Dilbert here.it somehow seems appropriate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Never before have I seen such a perfect summation of so many people that frequent or are written about on TD in a single comic strip.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hush little baby don’t say a word
Shhhhh everyone. Looks like crybaby Jhon finally whines himself to sleep. No one mention the p word or you’ll wake him right up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Your mailing list analogies continue to be terrible, Jhon.
There is nothing in Article 13 that will protect your mailing list.
Unless you'd like to mention where in Article 13 where it states "mailing list".
I'll wait.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You sound terrified
But you were just saying the other day it was a done deal bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ah, yes, and what exactly will that accomplish,
Pretty sure you just answered your own question there...
given that it sounds a lot like trying to turn the Internet into a broadcast medium where only those with the most money and visible fame can transmit their content to the widest possible audience and everyone else can go fuck themselves with a rake?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"given that it sounds a lot like trying to turn the Internet into a broadcast medium where only those with the most money and visible fame can transmit their content to the widest possible audience and everyone else can go fuck themselves with a rake?"
You mean like Twitter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If that's honestly how you think Twitter works you've just proven you don't understand the current state of things at all and need to go learn the basics before you can have any kind of reasonable or informed debate about them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh but jhon went to an advanced kindergarten where they teach data storage and transmission classes.
(https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190323/23460741858/huge-protests-across-europe-protest -article-13-politician-lies-claims-they-were-paid-to-be-there.shtml#c420)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The Internet was designed as a network of peers, where no node was inherently [*] more important than another. You can see it as an egalitarian society of computers, where each of the connected computers could provide services to any of the other connected systems. It was designed without inherent gate-keepers, whether you call them moderators, censors or editors.
The publishers, the "gatekeepers of culture and opinion", (thanks to copyright law and monopoly practices: buy or destroy the competition) did not have a grip on the Internet like they have in the traditional media. That's why copyright law has to be extended and the Internet has to be brought under control.
[*] Systems can have different roles in the network, but that's not inherent in the Internet Protocol.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Actually, gatekeepers (including reviewers, who have no ownership stake) are kept alive by the public, who demands a "book deal" or a "record deal" for legitimacy, even if both are no longer necessary. Why did e-books not become "cool" until Kindle when anyone could have published them fifteen years earlier?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"(including reviewers, who have no ownership stake)"
Erm, reviewer aren't gatekeepers, at least not in the context provided here.
Why did e-books not become "cool" until Kindle when anyone could have published them fifteen years earlier?"
I presume because it's much less easy to read books on a standard LCD screen as opposed to an e-ink screen and people don't like lugging a laptop to the beach. I know I didn't bother with them until I bought my first Kindle, for that very reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exactly.
There were thousands of "ebooks" available before household internet. Most BBS sites had a few, just about all of them had "1500_SF_books.zip" or the like.
It was a tremendous PITA to read them on even SVGA monitors.
It was much more genre-specific back then as well - almost entirely SF&F, no bored housewife wanted to sit in front of a computer all day reading the latest "romance" novel.
Then along came the Kindle. Which spurred many new formats for eBooks. So that now I read them on an old 7" tablet. Almost exclusively - why buy a hard copy to fill up shelves? My "old" library was about 2,000 hardcovers and three times that many paperbacks. Ate an entire room. My "library" is roughly fifty times that size now and fits on a drive smaller than a deck of cards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I hate reading fiction on a standard computer screen, always have. My first Kindle was the 3rd gen, I believe (the one with a full keyboard), and I've never looked back. The tipping point for me was being in an airport and paying over the odds for a new book to read on my return flight. Then choosing one that barely interested me because I found the choice rather lacking, and realising I could have been carrying every book I actually wanted to read with less weight and space.
I do still own physical books, but I got rid of most of the non-hardback or particularly valuable books when I moved to a different country and have rarely felt the urge to buy a physical paperback since (the only books I've bought in recent years are larger art or reference books).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Last book I read on-screen was a Terry Pratchett novel. Because books have release windows too - it came out in the UK two years before it was slated for US release.
When it finally came out in the US, I bought a copy - mainly because it was such a PITA reading it on-screen that I couldn't enjoy it.
"Airport Books" is a genre in itself - based on how flashy the publisher can make the cover to catch the eye.
Most of the hard copy books I still own are old reference and text books. If you stumble across a Physics or Chem text from the fifties, give it a read. Even if you don't have much background in either field, you'll spot a LOT of things that have been proven WRONG since the book was published.
And you're not likely to find "pirate" editions of such.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
""Airport Books" is a genre in itself - based on how flashy the publisher can make the cover to catch the eye."
Yes, and I rather suffered as a result as I tend to judge a book's interest based on what's on the back rather than the front ;) Had I just been looking for the prettiest picture to choose my purchase, I probably wouldn't have been so disappointed in the available selection.
"And you're not likely to find "pirate" editions of such."
Generally speaking, things that are not currently popular are a lot less likely to get pirated than those that are. If you look at, say, the list of the most pirated movies and compare them to the current box office, they will generally line up. If there's no demand for something, people usually won't bother with making it available.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Actually the kindle cam along at about the time that the Internet matured itself into a medium suitable for distribution. 15 years prior we are talking about dial up, and overnight downloads for a complete book. It like YouTube came along when it did,because broadband had become widespread, and capable of streaming video.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I doubt it was download speeds that was the main factor - the average eBook is about the same size as an MP3, if not smaller and iTunes was definitely a big thing 15 years ago. Definitely not an overnight download requirement.
What changed was the reading technology, which was still in relative infancy 15 years ago. The Kindle was the first mass market ereader to offer the right tech at the right price backed by a comprehensive library, which is why it took off when it did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Convenience.
As TechDirt notes repeatedly, the best way to fight piracy is a combination of price and convenience.
Before the Kindle, ebooks were a niche market due to a number of factors. Tablets that did exist were backlit, which were hard to read outside and caused eyestrain and made sleeping harder. They were expensive. As were the books, priced at the same level as dead tree counterparts. In sum, they were inconvenient and expensive, eliminating a lot of the value of ebooks had over paper.
The original kindle took off because of timing. The non-backlit screen replicated the paper book experience, which helped transition paper fans. It was inexpensive, relatively. Amazon started a ebook-price fixing scheme at the same time, bringing down ebook prices. The changes Kindle made allowed the convenience of e-books to outshine the market's resistence to change. It came out right as eThings 2.0 mania was in full force with smartphones becoming common.
It wasn't the publishers. It was Amazon disrupting the market just enough for things to take off. And it nearly didn't. If I remember correctly, it took a partnership with Barnes & Noble to get it physically in peoples hands for them to really recognize the value.
Interesting note there. At the time Borders was seen as the dominant bookstore. It was growing explosively. But Borders refused to partner with Amazon, whom they saw as competition, for good reason. But Borders was not the book store chain that survived. By Embracing Amazon and their own place in the market, Barnes and Noble has managed to survive in the online marketplace era.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"The publishers, the "gatekeepers of culture and opinion", (thanks to copyright law and monopoly practices: buy or destroy the competition) did not have a grip on the Internet like they have in the traditional media. That's why copyright law has to be extended and the Internet has to be brought under control."
The problem here being that Perry Barlow's cyberspace manifesto still applies in practice. The only "control" you can bring to the internet is that of pulling the plug. And that is especially true when the citizenry as a whole has a vested interest in not letting that plug be pulled.
History isn't short of desperate Red Flag Acts, the most renowned one to date probably being either the British Tea Tax on the american colonies or the Common Salt Tax in India.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I fail to see why copyright law has to be extended, or why the internet has to be “brought under control”. At the very least, your post doesn’t explain why that is very well. Not to mention that those assertions are incredibly vague.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's all about the Benjamins
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, that's second party content (or first party, depending on the perspective). The platform is one party, and you are the other one. There is no third party. The problem is, the platform cannot tell the difference between original content and third party content, so in an Article 13 world they would have to assume it's third party and filter it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In General, the convention in content distribution
Content produced by the distributor or its subsidiaries would be 'First Party' content. (Mircosoft Studios is a First party XBOX developer)
Content produced for the distributor in a contractually exclusive arrangement while financially independent would be 'Second Party' content. (Colloquial, Really only in use for video games and internet distributed content)
Content produced by entities is 'Third party content'.
USG is, by this standard, almost always "Third Party Content". In relation to YouTube as a distributor, YouTube would exercise publication control over First or Second party content, and therefore is not just a host of the content, but the publisher which changes the whole discussion over responsibilities. Third Party Content on the other hand is not published by the Third Party on YouTube, but YouTube does not have the publication control it does over first or second party content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I get you, party 1 = platform, party 2 = viewer. That makes sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is indeed where the labels of First and Third Party content come from, the perspective of the consumer interacting with the content medium, as opposed to the consumer interacting with the content. That analysis can work to understand the meaning of those two terms but "second party content", which is a consumer invented hybrid label.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Golden Era of the Gatekeeper
Not everyone uploads third-party content.
Name a list of copyright holders who care.
Fair use doesn't exist in your world.
You'll sue a laser printer and the corpse of a grandmother given the opportunity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Golden Era of the Gatekeeper
Worse yet, its exactly the rightsholders who do care about things like fair use/fair dealing and not screwing customers over who will get screwed over themselves by Art. 13.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Golden Era of the Gatekeeper
Why would the EU want to get rid of user generated content?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Golden Era of the Gatekeeper
Because the parasites/gatekeepers can't control and monetize it, and therefore it's got to go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Golden Era of the Gatekeeper
Yep. Article 13 will basically prevent users from ever acting as creators, and also prevent third parties acting as creators. Only network owners will be able to safely upload their own directly-commissioned content that they directly own the copyright to.
The intent, as you correctly point out, is to turn the internet into a broadcast medium.
That's pretty much what we're complaining about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The sky is faaalliiiing!
"Won't somebody think of the poor middlemen! They have families to feed, private jets to fuel, cocaine habits to feed! If they're not allowed to parasitise artists, through a legally enforced process of "representation", how will they ever make ends meet!?!?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The sky is faaalliiiing!
"Won't somebody think of the poor middlemen"
What's funny is that you think it's the anti A13 side who are arguing that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The sky is faaalliiiing!
No, it was obviously a parody of the shit the pro-A13 arseholes behind this "manifesto" keep coming out with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The sky is faaalliiiing!
Poe's Law - it's impossible to tell parody from reality at this point when dealing with supporters of this rubbish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The sky is faaalliiiing!
Cole's Law is tastier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The sky is faaalliiiing!
He put it in italics and quotation marks, alluded to cocaine habits, and used the word "parasitise".
That's not Poe. It's everything short of a giant flashing neon sign saying "this is sarcasm."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The sky is faaalliiiing!
(Stupid accidental submit click)
Anyway, it's criticising the terrible arguments in the "manifesto" of how the various gatekeeper industries in music, tv, etc are "unfairly" maligned,
"The criticism we have is merely of the myths and fighting talk, which are poisoning the current debate: A free internet at no charge, publishers as evil exploiters, authors ripped off by collecting societies, the enforcement of copyright as
censorship."
when all they want to do is "help" artists, by mandating that they get to take a cut instead of artists being able to directly market their work to their customers.
" Platforms should pay creatives fair and reasonable remuneration by obtaining licences for the global repertoire. If they have such flat-rate licences from collecting societies, they do not need to filter content."
Translated: "Won't somebody think of the poor middlemen! They have families to feed, private jets to fuel, cocaine habits to feed! If they're not allowed to parasitise artists, through a legally enforced process of "representation", how will they ever make ends meet!?!?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The sky is faaalliiiing!
We jest, but honestly at this point it's only a matter of time before a recording industry exec puts up a gofundme for their medical bills citing "greedy" musicians wanting to keep 100% of the profits off their work as the causal factor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who is behind?
Well, according to the page, it's https://helgatruepel.de/ (the embarassment of the greens) and judging from the amount of confusion, she probably even wrote the texts herself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Redress mechanism
If you want to be charitable, the "regulation" and "certainty" about filters is about the "requirement" that online services also implement an appeal/redress mechanism for mistaken takedowns.
As many have written, that's irrelevant because they will just say something has been removed for ToS violation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Damned if you do, damned if you don't
If you want to be charitable, the "regulation" and "certainty" about filters is about the "requirement" that online services also implement an appeal/redress mechanism for mistaken takedowns.
If that is what they mean then that's a rich bit of trying to have it both ways, first holding platforms liable for user submitted content such that(assuming they continue to allow it at all) they are heavily incentivized into pulling anything even remotely questionable, and then hitting the platforms again in having to add a system to address takedowns, of which they have ensured there will be many.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Damned if you do, damned if you don't
If they are fined for not filtering, and fined for over-filtering, they obviously will have to consider stopping all user-submitted content.
The censorship loving shills flooding the comment sections the past week can't wait to see the end of comment boards. Censor all the things!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your cesspit has turned into Toxic Waste Dump.
As anyone but the totally biased fanboys see.
Anyhoo, I'm betting that within 30 hours you'll be announcing lost this one too.
However, with the lack of substance here and the usual smoke screens paid for by easily-gotten billions, I'm going to bet that this "briar patch" is indeed exactly what Google wants. Whether Masnick knows that is doubtful, but that exact talking point being out is indicative that Google rushed it out to defuse real resistance.
However, it's too well-covered and too complex to dig into, and why should any American care if and how Europe destroys itself? (IF Masnick is right.)
And on other hand, if actually enforces copyright, then it's another win for me.
Only the pirates fanboys lose -- and they won't for years yet even grasp that they've been betrayed.
[subsitute for horiz rule 'cause Techdirt took it away]
(Reminds me that "John Fenderson" defended Google's spying here and I said he wouldn't be around to take the blame for it, which turned out accurate for the site, he just decamped.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your cesspit has turned into Toxic Waste Dump.
Just pointing out that when it comes to internet uploads, if it affects Europe, it affects the world. Also, if it passes in Europe, there’s a good chance it’ll be brought to America, with supporters saying it’s important to have same/similar laws Re:IP and the internet.
So yeah, just because it’s Europe doesn’t mean Americans shouldn’t care, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Your cesspit has turned into Toxic Waste Dump.
Oh, I think that too, just as alleged massacre in New Zealand last week somehow has implications for MY 2nd A rights, because the same globalists are behind all. But I bet you don't even believe in globalists, that's just a "conspiracy theory".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Your cesspit has turned into Toxic Waste Dump.
Anyone else surprised that out_of_the_blue's biggest takeaway from a shooting tragedy is that someone might tell him guns kill people?
Is there a single copyright fanboy that does not have a soul full of horseshit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Your cesspit has turned into Toxic Waste Dump.
Actually, his biggest takeaway appears to be that if we keep getting countries who prove that effective regulation stops innocent kids from being murdered, someone might take his toys away. That tell you all you need to know about his priorities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The bodies in those mosques are not “alleged” to have died, you ghoul.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's quite telling what kind of person he is and what kind of sites he frequent, since no one right in their head would use that phrase.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Your Cabbage
But I bet you don't even believe in globalists, that's just a "conspiracy theory".
I believe that is just your way of saying you hate Jews.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why is white trash always racist?
Come down to Christchurch and say that shit to anyone. I fucking dare you. You will be lucky to just get the stupid slapped out of your idiot head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your Cabbage Law
Mr, Herup, thanks for the on-point commentary on horizontal lines. Obviously a top concern.
Still waiting on your explanation of what Laws TD is breaking. (As you have invoked many times.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Your Cabbage Law
First, don't assume sex. For all you know I'm a bot. And if you were a UK serf (as your use of "favour" twice implied), then mis-gendering is a serious offense.
Anyhoo, yes, it IS a major concern for here. Article 13 is almost certainly on rails, won't be affected no matter how protested.
Well, Techdirt hasn't been exonerated by the lack, as the rabid libs / Dems are now shrieking about Trump. The investigation goes on, TD still under a cloud.
Overall, I give you a snark rating of 0.7, Timmy. You're just not up to it, only provide me hooks for far better. For instance, the "Cabbage Law" bit? It's stupid for start and no one understands that if not long time reader! (New readers should know that Timothy Geigner aka "Dark Helmet" does the "Gary" and "Scary Devil Monastery" astro-turfing.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A bot would be better than you at writing a coherent argument.
Pretty sure clowns like you said the same thing about SOPA/PIPA. How did that turn out, again?
And if you could name what law(s) Techdirt is charged with breaking, this statement might mean something.
Prove it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt has written that SOPA/PIPA put in place by stealth.
It's in place and alternatives are going up all the time.
First, thanks for the mere "clown" pejorative. Several steps up from your usual vileness.
Second, so what if wrong on a prediction? It's still the right MORAL case: you pirates deserve to be jailed for your thefts of content.
That's obvious to anyone who'll read through their comment histories. You cannot explain that "Scary Devil Monastery" made one comment and then was dormant for over five years, then took off at 400 per year rate. -- Similarly "Gary" took off from 6 a year, but are now among the most prolific here. It's a conclusion but firm. -- And this isn't a court of law, it's teh internets where the savvy can see the obvious and they stay away by the millions from this site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Techdirt has written that SOPA/PIPA put in place by stea
Every post of yours is an excellent argument against the position you hold. It's fascinating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt has written that SOPA/PIPA put in place by
Thanks!
For all you know I'm on your side, then?
But every post of yours shows how empty "your" side is, mere ad hom, no substance. It's certain then, that my views, consistent and actual argument will win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
…says the guy who is so outclassed that he has to accuse other posters of being astroturf sockpuppets because he cannot otherwise make a solid argument in favor of his own positions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Gah. Flag him and move on.
He's hijacking every article with nonsensical missives just to get the replies.
Flag him and move on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How hard you hold onto that position if it meant you would go to jail for violating a copyright by accident? After all, watching an unauthorized upload of a movie clip or a song on YouTube is technically violating someone’s copyright…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "you pirates deserve to be jailed for your thefts of content
I'm a hard bot. But you are as always taking off with a couple words and paraphrasing to falsify an extreme, which is LYING. STOP THAT. Stick to what I write.
As practical matter, prosecutors (actual gov't not civil) should go after hosts: Pirate Bay, MEGA, the many streamers, whatever others are gaining money off content they don't make.
Read Torrent Freak of late, that's on-going, though far too sparse.
Oh, and TOPIC, Article 13? BIG INCREASE. Seems that many legislators agree with me. Odd, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I quoted you directly; the context is available in your post. And by the by, you were the one who went “extreme” by saying — and I quote — “you pirates deserve to be jailed for your thefts of content”. Since you believe copyright infringement is theft (an opinion you have made abundantly clear over the years), and you believe “pirates deserve to be jailed for your thefts of content”, the logical conclusion to be drawn from those propositions is that you believe anyone who infringes upon copyright — i.e., commits “theft of content” — should go to jail. The question remains: How hard would you hold onto that belief if you were the one being sent to jail over an accidental act of what you believe is “theft”?
And what of the people who “pirate” but do not make money from said infringement? They are still “pirates”, and as you said, “pirates deserve to be jailed for your thefts of content”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Techdirt has written that SOPA/PIPA put in place by stea
Repeat after me: Correlation is not causation
But I guess someone that is as internet savvy as you don't understand that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt has written that SOPA/PIPA put in place by
Okay. "Correlation is not causation." I even added a period for you.
But it's irrelevant.
Now, you try "Evidence requires an explanation." -- And then try to supply an actual explanation for the DOZENS of "accounts" with gaps of FIVE YEARS and up, other than the obvious: astro-turfing.
You have no explanation, just try diverting with a canned phrase.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not everyone hangs out here all day because they have nothing better to do. And not everyone who reads/comments on this blog does so on a regular basis. I was laid up in the hospital for over a week not too long ago and had no access to my Techdirt account as a result; does that gap in my commenting history make me a sockpuppet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt has written that SOPA/PIPA put in place
You claimed something which means you have to present the evidence.
But as usual you try to weasel out of providing evidence.
And as I suspected, you can't even comprehend what "correlation is not causation" means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Techdirt has written that SOPA/PIPA put in place by stea
Alternate explanation: user signs up for an account to leave a comment on a single article because of interest in that topic. Other articles on TD at the time were of no interest to them, so they don't hang around to read it every day; just a drive by commenter who bothered to make an account. Years later, another article that interests them on TD. However, this time there's other articles on the site which interest them, which gets to to check TD every day for new articles, and thus they become a regular.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As always the fact that they are spinning conspiracy theories around the fact that not everyone is as obsessed with the site as they are is both telling of their mental state, and funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Your Cabbage Law
"(New readers should know that Timothy Geigner aka "Dark Helmet" does the "Gary" and "Scary Devil Monastery" astro-turfing.)"
They should also know that you constantly make such baseless accusations without offering a shred of proof.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Your Cabbage Law
Not baseless. The evidence is available to every reader in their histories. "Gary" and "Scary Devil Monastery" took off from 6 per year and 5 year GAP respectively, to both over 400 per year rate now. That's OBVIOUS astro-turfing.
New readers should know that "PaulT" has admitted gets paid to sit online and astro-turf this site -- in effect, since only busy every half hour. He's spent literally a work-year making comments here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Your Cabbage Law
"That's OBVIOUS astro-turfing."
No, it's a thing that has a number of different explanations, you've just chosen the one that fits your narrative. Do you have any actual proof of what you're claiming, or do people need to take the word of a man who still hasn't worked out that a spam filter is not operated by a human being?
"New readers should know that "PaulT" has admitted gets paid to sit online and astro-turf this site "
No, I've admitted to posting my opinion here while I'm in the office, since my job often has short spaces of waiting for things and I sometime choose to fill that time discussing things here.
Lying about what I actually do and say won't win you brownie points. It just makes the intelligent reader wonder who is paying you and to wonder if they know they're getting such poor value for money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Your Cabbage Law
I thought you said there where no new readers, that everyone here where paid astro-turfers and that TD was dying because everyone was leaving.
How about you just settle on one of those since it makes you look like a crackpot when you contradict yourself every other post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Your Cabbage Law
Gee Mr. Mid-West values. I didn't know "Dishonesty" was a core of the mid-west.
The crux of your fantasy is that I make more posts than I used to. Yup, I do. There ya go. However, this only proves that you clearly don't understand what the word "Proof" means. It doesn't show a connection to Tim, or really anything at all. I'm not even going to bother offer an explanation - why would an uptick in posting even be suspicious? And why do you rule all the many mundane reasons in favor of your conspiracy?
And yet, you do frame it as a conspiracy - against You.
Still waiting to hear the "Law" TD is breaking when they downvote your sorry bot butt. Please cite!
Your love of global censorship is astounding. Copyright is just corporate censorship. The dissonance is astounding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Your Cabbage Law
Well there is a "Gary Geigner" in Illinois:
https://nwnews-consumer.public-record.com/person-search/details/geigner/gary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And you did it for free
Bro you admitted to spending a decade here and managed to change; hold on let me pull out my list of the things you bragged about the other day.
1) line breaks (which is probably just user error)
2) The length of titles
3) Brought attention to an outdated page
Ten years bro
Ten years
Ten
Years
Of
Your
Life
Bro
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Your Cabbage Law
Hello Mr. Herup. I would like to thank you for support of the protests of Article 13. Your posts are exceedingly useful examples of why this particular piece of legislation should not pass, as they serve as a demonstration of the excellent quality and logic that is used in support of them.
I tip my hat to you for all the work you have done to convince people that this legislation is morally bankrupt and will serve none of the purposes that it is claimed to serve by its supporters. I have little doubt that you, and your compatriots, have convinced many readers that these articles, and copyright in general, are too dangerous to be allowed to exist.
Well done, sir.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Your Cabbage Law
Weak, "TFG" who writes bombastically like Geigner too.
Try again, Timmy.
By the way, if you fanboys had any sense, you'd follow the old advice and just IGNORE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Your Cabbage Law
But if I ignored you, what meaning would your life have?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It’s more fun to poke at you and make your blood pressure boil, since you are obviously angry about being outclassed by a bunch of “pirates” in any and every argument you start.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There's a word for people who enjoy "poking fun" at others: Bully.
The fun stops when the bully encounters a stronger target who fights back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And if you were anything but an impotent liar, I might have an ounce of fear in me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Fear your own miscalculations of your adversaries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Fear your own miscalculations of your adversaries.
Yes some of the AC's here do seem like they are a threat to the safety of themselves and those around them. They especially lose their shit when we point out the fallacies of their arguments, their contradictions, and outright lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: emphasis on IMPOTENT
Well it’s not like we fear you and your impotent threats bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The bullies have, indeed, found stronger targets who fight back. Some dismantle their arguments, others turn their own tactics against them, and others simply ignore them.
It's not much fun for Bully Boy Blue and his compatriots, but it certainly is fun for the rest of us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Like one who threatens to rape other people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Your Cabbage Law
TFG, Tim "Fuckingwitu" Geigner, haven't you made the connection yet Out of The luBe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Your Cabbage Law
This has been sooooooo much fun to watch. OOTB cracked the code on me.......by finding my Cousin Gary?
Definitely a Beautiful Mind we're working with here....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your cesspit has turned into Toxic Waste Dump.
If it's well-covered, perhaps you could provide links to the coverage for us so we can judge for ourselves how complex it is.
(doesn't hold breath)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Your cesspit has turned into Toxic Waste Dump.
I should have written "well-hidden", but you'll find something to object there too.
And since you're evidently resolved to not see / find what's obvious, you won't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If it is so obvious, what is the problem with you directing us to it? You said the subject was “well-covered”; I want to see you back up that claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(still not holding my breath)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's not Orwellian at all, really. Their application of it to this specific scenario is pretty atrocious, but the statement that "there is no freedom without rules! Otherwise, only the strongest will prevail" is right on the money. What they're describing is the principle of the rule of law, where placing restrictions on the use of various kinds of power and force allows civilization and freedom to flourish at higher levels.
I've heard the analogy made to flying a kite. At first glance, you might think that the kite's string is keeping it down, which is technically true. It won't fly any higher than the length of string permits. But at the same time, the tension on the string is also what is holding it up, and if you cut the string, it will be at the mercy of the wind, with no restrictions to keep it stable, and immediately come crashing down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A somewhat similar analogy would be to speech, believe it or not: Restrictions on what and where someone can say certain things — only by private entities and not by the government, naturally — can give people whose voices would normally be marginalized or unheard the ability to speak freely. A platform that bans anti-gay speech, for example, can give gay people more freedom to talk about their life experiences without having their voices drowned out by a bunch of homophobic bullshit. (Incidentally, this is the original idea behind the concept of “safe spaces”.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yet Section 230 chills speech by making those with unpopular opinions defenseless against reputation-ruining defamation, as it did with female victims of revenge porn, for example.
If straight stereotype gay men the way women stereotype straight men, it wouldn't be called "homophobia." So basically a guy who calls out a male friend who happens to be gay and preying on him a predator, he's the villain. Got it.
What do women call straight men who make similar advances?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You still don't know what section 230 actually says, do you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Section 230 protects platforms from legal liability if a third party posts illegal content without the foreknowledge and direct aid of that platform’s owners/operators. The liability for defamation remains where it should: upon the people who made the defamatory comments and those who published said comments despite either knowing or having a good idea that those comments were defamatory. If people dunk on you because of your unpopular opinion, that is not defamation — that is people telling you that, in their opinion, your opinion makes you an asshole.
I hate to break it to you, but homophobic straight men already stereotype gay men as predators. And that does not even get into the bullshit that is the “gay panic” defense.
It is one thing if a gay guy flirts with a straight guy and leaves the straight guy alone after being told the guy is straight. It is another thing if a gay guy flirts with a straight guy and continues to pursue the straight guy after being told the guy is straight. The first situation is an honest mistake; the second situation is predatory behavior. But in all likelihood, a homophobic straight man is likely to think of both situations as predatory behavior.
Creeps, assholes, and incels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So straight men should call gays who hit on them the same names.
"Incel" is an interesting insult. Isn't that taunting someone for their lack of privilege? How many times does some woman's boyfriend or husband (not an incel) wind up shooting up her workplace and killing innocents? Do we taunt fat or ugly women (or old women) because they'll never be loved? Do we wave money and food in front of the starving and laugh at them? People are awfully proud of their cruelty at times.
By immunizing platforms, Section 230 allows people to be drowned out by harassment, defamation, etc. just like the lack of speech controls (which Section 230 effectively is) does the same as you claim above. It also allows for disinformation to spread (anti-vaxxer propaganda is another example), and since sites can't be sued for false advertising, their sponsors can't really be trusted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And what, then, is your solution to the so-called “problem” of Section 230 — or rather, what solution do you have that would avoid either chilling the speech of others, forcing platforms into hosting content that they would otherwise refuse to host, or both?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A notice-and-takedown scheme would work. Search engines shouldn't be allowed to permanently spread defamation that began in some isolated corner of the internet. Female victims of revenge porn have been called into their HR departments to "answer" to something a malicious ex posted about them. Too bad the HR people didn't get fired.
It really is people's fault for believing what they read online, but too many do, trusting Google as if it were a vetted background check when it's more like a bathroom wall (for which the bar owner would be liable btw).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A notice-and-takedown scheme would chill speech by making it possible for the malicious and vindictive to file a takedown notice against someone they dislike over what would otherwise be legally protected speech. If such a system were designed in a manner similar to the DMCA takedown system, the “guilty party” (as you would call them in this example) would have to file a full counternotice and pray they do not get sued. Who would dare to post speech on a third-party platform if they knew they stood a chance of getting censored/sued by some pissed-off dumbass with a grudge?
Search engines do not publish information — they aggregate where information is found and point people to those locations based on relevance, popularity, and other factors. Google should not be held legally liable for defamation if some jackoff on Twitter defames you and Google’s search engine indexes the defamatory tweet.
Assuming this little anecdote is true: That sucks for them, but suing people who had absolutely nothing to do with the uploading of said revenge porn will not fix the problem.
If it is a person’s fault for believing what they read online, what makes Google liable for their gullibility?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because, absent 230, Google would be a distributor of defamatory content. They are the ones doing the harm by spreading the lies, just like when links to revenge porn sites show up. Notice and takedown would fix this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please explain how the Google search engine is anything more than a content aggregator.
Please explain how Google is the publisher of defamatory content that was published by, and is hosted on, a third-party site that the Google search engine happened to index.
Please explain how Google should be held liable for revenge porn hosted on a third-party site if no one at Google actively solicited/created/published/promoted/directly aided the publication or promotion of said revenge porn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Really, the only difference that Jhon would personally see if 230 suddenly stopped existing, is that he'd have even larger sums of for his opponents' legal fees he'd be forced to pay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I have to ask since I've never seen one or searched for one, but how do you get revenge porn links in your search results unless you specifically search for it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Do you honestly think if you spread the lie about revenge porn it’s suddenly gonna make it true? Or is this some white knight incel shit?
Never mind I just answered my own question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You seem to have a fascination with gay rape. Anything you want to tell the class. Like perhaps you have a reputation as a bit of an too aggressive bear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'd say the issue with the phrase is the inherent appeal to authority present in the argument. That the Rule of Law is beneficial is not being debated here. The issue is that the "manifesto" appeals to the need to for law in general to explain why Article 13 is necessary. I don't think it quite begs the question, but it comes close.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well, I'd certainly hope not, but seeing the notion that rules enable greater freedom labeled as "Orwellian" provides enough of a seed of doubt that some clarification becomes worthwhile...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Do remember that for all the claims of the Trolls, Mike is generally Anti-Regulation. Support for net neutrality only came from over a decade of market abuse, and Tom Wheeler expressing a clear, concise set of light touch rules that if anything didn't go far enough.
Saying "some rules are good therefore more rules" is going to be seen as a ridiculous appeal to authority, particularly when the rest of the justification lacks any relation to truth and history. Given to totality of the manifesto, the statement certainly seems Orwellian, in context.
Out of context, it certainly seems to make sense. "Some rules are good" isn't Orwellian. "Rules are good", by contrast, starts taking an authoritarian air. "Rules are good, therefore more rules is gooder" is most certainly Authoritarian. Combined with a facts optional explanation of those new rules and their likely effects, it gets Orwellian.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
To extend the Kite metaphor:
A string is necessary for the kite to function. But adding a second string is only helpful if you work to make sure the strings are balanced. If they are, you get a far more controlled kite, capable of things the single string kite could never do. If they are not balanced, the kite won't fly again.
And then if you add a Third string? At best, it doesn't help, even balanced, because you can't effectively control that third string.
The article defends adding a second string to the internet kite, but doesn't discuss how to balance the first string to keep the kite in the air.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another arrogant BLUE BOY paying for attention.
For those new to the site, "blue" and "out_of_the_blue" refer to those arrogant commentors who pay for the privilege of putting their deathless wit in Techdirt's unique "First Word" and "Last Word", the highlighting done by hyper-links (hence the name "out of the blue"), usually large and always annoying. You see those only rarely because reviled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For those with an ounce of intelligence, “blue” and “out_of_the_blue” refer to a longtime troll who used to post with the name “out_of_the_blue”, but no longer does so because he foolishly believes posting anonymously makes spotting his trollish posts nigh-impossible to spot. You see his posts only rarely because everyone flags his dumb bullshit on sight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another arrogant BLUE BOY paying for attention.
You’re so jelly I could spread you on toast. Except you’d taste like your full of shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only one filter needed...
Filter out the EU government entirely.
It's the only way to be certain!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You really missed out on selling T-shirts for this, Maz!
Some wit mentioned that in prior piece, bears repeating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tell me again why I should fear "upload filters" instead of...
the everyday de facto my mere bits of text being censored, already. On a discussion site that solicits public input with plain HTML and touts "free speech".
Sheesh.
And after your panting and shrieking, WHAT are you going to do tomorrow night if passed? (And again, I'm not exercised and cannot lose by what happens in Europe, so don't bother to nag me now or later if doesn't pass!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tell me again why I should fear "upload filters" instead of.
If this passes in the E,U,it will come to country near you by way of copyright harmonization in a trade treaty. When that happens,trade treaty will become the reason that politicians cannot undo the damage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I imagine this, if passed, will be used for censoring ones critics.
Do they have the "hot news" silliness in the EU? I can see how some geniuses will claim this copyright on the stories of the day thus preventing anyone from posting anything critical ... until tomorrow. How will they stop follow up reporting on the hot news items which may be critical of them? Poor babies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Helga Trüpel
Oh, look, the manifesto's footer shows a copyright by Helga Trüpel. Not CDU but almost as bad as Axel Voss when it comes to misrepresenting the current state of affairs and articles 11 + 13. You just need to listen to Sascha Lobo's interwiew with her:
https://soundcloud.com/user-728223693/angela-merkels-digitalpolitik-witze-ubers-eigene-versagen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
there is one good-ish thing...if the MEP's do vote it through, I heard on the grapevine that wikipedia will LITERALLY out the ones who vote yes on their wiki pages, saying who voted yes or no (the only exception is people who abstain from the vote or are otherwise absent)
Anyone voting yes this close to their election might as well retire as they will have commited political suicide and if we get enough people voted in who DO get the internet, there is the small chance they'll try to repeal article 13.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Step up or get out
there is one good-ish thing...if the MEP's do vote it through, I heard on the grapevine that wikipedia will LITERALLY out the ones who vote yes on their wiki pages, saying who voted yes or no (the only exception is people who abstain from the vote or are otherwise absent)
Honestly on something this important unless they've got a really damn impressive excuse(like 'had to go to the hospital for themselves or a family member'-level of serious) those abstaining should be lumped right in with those voting for it. Yeah they're not voting directly to screw the public over, but they are choosing to stand by while others attempt to do so, and 'representatives' like that the public can do without.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everyone ready? A-one-two-three-four!
There once was an out of the blue
Who hated the process of due
Each law that he'd paid
Was DMCAed
And shoved up his ass with a screw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait, article 13 will force Google and Facebook to allow pictures of naked bodies?
"Google and Facebook are already using filter algorithms. They filter not only – as intended – illegal content (e.g. pornographic or terrorist content), but also completely legal content (e.g. photos of naked bodies)."
Now we know why people support article 13.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]