Thanks for posting.
On the other hand it could mean less content consumed, even paid content.
BRAVO!! Our society has become far too lax when it comes to copyright law.
I know my Diocese has instructed all parishes to be aware of copyright infringement and offered to teach staff how to understand what is and what is not “public domain”/“fair use” etc.
Ah yes. Ever closer tyranny.
Copyright law has long held that publishers are responsible for infringement by authors, in addition to the authors themselves. YouTube can be considered a publisher. So this seems reasonable and in line with long standing practice. Unless you don’t believe in copyright law.
Don’t Come After My Memes
I do, also we all lived before watching videos on YouTube, I’m sure if the number of them on there dropped we’d live somehow. Very much the definition of ‘first world’ problem to me.
Kind of a click-bait title. It could also read “Europe just passed sweeping new copyright rules that Big Media loves.” That sort of encourages people to read it in a different way.
. . . . The much-criticized ‘upload filter’ and ‘link tax’ will soon become law . . .
If these kinds of ideas are imported here to America,
the news clips that we post right here on CAF,
may be subject to approval by BIG Corporate interests (or payment to them or both)
before they can be posted.
And the quotes, etc. may be subject to taxation too by BIG Government.
(There is that “wedding” of
too-BIG Business with
too-BIG Government again.)
That will decimate discussion forums down to opinion vrs. opinion
(except for people who can pay CNN etc.
Or are WILLING to pay so that they can post.
Naturally “conservatives” won’t be allowed. At least the most influential conservatives.
“Hey! It is “private”. CNN doesn’t need to give reasons WHY FauxNews is not allowed to quote them much less the restrictions they have put on the peons on forums like CAF!”).
That’d be me. And you.
At least in news areas.
The war on free speech continues on.
Europe’s controversial overhaul of online copyright receives final approval
The Verge 26 Mar 2019
The much-criticized ‘upload filter’ and ‘link tax’ will soon become law in EU nations
The European Parliament has given final approval to the Copyright Directive, a controversial package of legislation designed to update copyright law in Europe for the internet age. . . .
. . . The Copyright Directive has been in the works for more than two years, and has been the subject of fierce lobbying from tech giants, copyright holders, and digital rights activists. . . .
. . . Advocates of the directive say it will balance the playing field between American tech giants and European content creators, giving copyright holders power over how internet platforms distribute their content. But
critics say the law is vague and poorly thought-out, and will end up restricting how content is shared online, stifling innovation and free speech. . . .
. . . Article 11 lets publishers charge platforms like Google News when they display snippets of news stories, while Article 13 (renamed Article 17 in the most recent draft of the legislation) gives sites like YouTube new duties to stop users from uploading copyrighted content.
In both cases, critics say these well-intentioned laws will create trouble. Article 13, for example, could lead to the introduction of “upload filters” that will
scan all user content before it’s uploaded to sites
to remove copyrighted material.
The law does not explicitly call for such filters, but critics say
it will be an inevitability
as sites seek to avoid penalties. . . .
. . . The possible effects of the link tax are equally tricky to predict.
The law is mainly focused on services . . .
. . . which show snippets of NEWS articles. . . .
Copywrite law has its place, but what is being attacked here is free-use and also just common interactions. What the EU just passed is that if I told you about a story I read in the Times I would have to pay a tax for just mentioning it. So every link on this website would be taxed.
Is this law really that severe? That seems pretty extreme and unwieldy. Fair use has it’s place in copyright laws, too. It seems overkill to tax a site for having a link and even a brief snippet of a story. That’s how the internet works: people travel from site to site via links.
I think you are grossly misrepresenting what the EU passed, which makes this a strawman argument.
Joe_5859 . . .
Is this law really that severe? . . . Fair use has it’s place in copyright laws, too.
This “law” hones in not on mere copyrights across the board.
It focuses on NEWS.
It includes provisions to implement a new TAX so the Government has its hand out every time you put up a quote or a link. At least potentially.
Even with “fair use” waaah laah". Now you owe the Government more tax money to “fairly” use this information.
It reduces information to a mere commodity.
And it includes permission provisions for companies not to allow their content to be shared. It does this under the guise of “copyright infringement”.
These things will be enFORCED.
And it ALSO allows leeway for companies to refuse permission for some organization or person to SHARE these stories.
(You didn’t think that the censorship would stop against Alex Jones did you?)
These are just SOME of the reasons why the Verge brings out these types of concerns in its article.
Klobuchar: Taxing Tech Companies on Data Usage ‘Could Easily Happen’
I was amazed that Klobuchar would say . . . .
Then, if your data is used, there should be a tax, not on the consumer but on tech.
Any businessman or woman will tell you when this happens (an assessment against a business like this), . . .
. . . . the cost just gets passed on to the consumers.
I recall talking to a land lord friend of mine.
(He is a liberal Democrat).
He was complaining about the Government raising his taxes on the land on his rental units.
I asked him: “What did you do about it?”
He said: "I just passed the extra cost on to my renters. I am not going to take a financial hit."
Either Klobuchar is attempting to fool the taxpayer.
Or she just has not had enough business experience (or other experience?) to be aware of such things.
The tax that “should” be “on tech” gets passed on . . . to YOU.
Despite ringing denunciations from small EU tech businesses, giant EU entertainment companies, artists’ groups, technical experts, and human rights experts, and the largest body of concerned citizens in EU history, the EU has concluded its “trilogues” on the new Copyright Directive, striking a deal that—amazingly—is worse than any in the Directive’s sordid history.
Article 11, which allows news sites to decide who can link to their stories and charge for permission to do so, has also been worsened. The final text clarifies that any link that contains more than “single words or very short extracts” from a news story must be licensed, with no exceptions for noncommercial users, nonprofit projects, or even personal websites with ads or other income sources, no matter how small.
read it all:
What am I misrepresenting?