The total idiocy of the enactment of Article 13 represents a fundmental failure of European society and an existential threat to SAFE.
If the carrying out of Article 13 is not made technically completely impossible prior to its taking effect in 2 years (or less) SAFE and similar efforts will have become illegal, the population of Europe stripped of speech and stripped of human rights as rights assertions will be impossible for lack of speech and therefore exercise of rights will cease and we will enter a new tech reinforced totalitarian dark age that will spread across the planet. This will add momentum to anti-speech anti-neutrality efforts in the US.
Politically at the same time there should be a consequence including charter revocation and IP liquidation for the firms and entities that put their idiotic greed above humanity and human security and instead are putting everyone literally at risk with such destabilizing action. Its literally an attempt to steal everything from society starting with liberty. We also need to know who the entities pushing this were so that society through legal means can hold them accountable- because this a a coup against free society deguised in aggravating greed. All the lobby groups all the companies and every other entity.
No politician that voted for this should be allowed to continue in politics. Its a breach of the public trust and of the societal contract- love to see movement started demanding the immediate resignation of each. Some may be good people but theyâve obviously been compromised if they voted for a total police state without free speech- and they canât claim they didnât understand this obvious highly opposed slippery slope.
The EU is apparently an economic union, to make sense it needs a political union added to it and apparently that second part was the hope and the goal of starting with an economic union. The world is safer with the EU member states together in a strong union but this Article 13 is suicide. No politician that signed onto that should be allowed to continue in politics, its a gag order on the peoples of Europe and by extension an attempt at gagging all people. Its thought police level stuff under the pretense of protecting ill gotten gain, an idiotic elimination of first in line political speech to protect last in line commercial speech. Its like announcing they are rounding everyone up for work camps because it has the same effect on freedom.
Well the economic union isnât looking too flash and the world is slowing down economically. Europe has too many socialist governments who only know how to spend. I doubt it will last as a union
Itâs important to point out that it wasnât âthe EUâ that voted through this, the European countries did. And the margin was very small, to the point that had the Social Democrats here in Sweden not voted for it, it (maybe) wouldnât have passed. Please blame the countries that actually voted for it instead.
Sadly it passed because there are plenty of countries in Europe who wants it, and itâs been lobbied for during a long time. Very noticeably âOld Mediaâ has been a strong supporter here in Sweden.
Had it not passed at the EU-level it would have gone through at the national level in many countries
It will not mean this at all. What it does mean that the content added to all these platforms will have to be your own original content, or original comments about other content.
Nobody in the EU is trying to censor anyone. You can add any content you like ⌠as long as it is your content, not someone elseâs.
As an author myself, I object to my words being reproduced on any of the above platforms without my permission. If you want to copy an excerpt from any of my published work, and add a critique about it, thatâs fine. But to put the whole of my work on such platforms is simply theft.
Oh, yes, my bad. But just in case, remind me, how many seconds of video are uploaded to youtube every second? Are you getting something like 24300? Now could you give me a ballpark figure of how much human effort it would take to scan these for copyrighted material? Are you getting the same result as I would, that it would require 24300 people to watch youtube videos, without breaks, without shifts, non-stop? And that if we do it in 8 hour shifts without breaks, we need around 72900 employees to filter youtube alone? Now would you please tell me what that would work out to be in wages? Letâs say they outsource it to India, they just establish Youtube city, where those 72900 people live⌠The median wage in India is 616 dollars. Thatâs about 45 million dollars a month JUST for the bare minimum number of moderators. Half a billion a year. Moderators who have to be intimately aware of every single piece of copyrighted content. So realistically we can double or triple that number because of the fact that these people will be chewed through and burn out within months. Moderators who will not literally go insane are not human. Totally doable, right?
AI you say? Well, tell me, how effective is Youtubeâs AI right now? You can find SO much copyrighted content on there that it isnât even funny, and they actually have a horrible record of false positives. The AI to police youtube for all copyrighted content does not exist. It just does not.
So tell me again, what is the correct course of action for Youtube? Geoblock all EU citizens, or pay an amount of money that is between a third and literally all of their profits and then some per year to satisfy this draconian requirement?
Again, sorry for the tone, but you are talking with âLetâs ban illegal guns!â -levels of naivete and misunderstanding of basic reality.
@gearblocks has called me ignorant and a greedy tyrant.
When film makers spend millions making feature films, is it not wrong for people to copy those films on their mobile phones and put it on Youtube. If that happened to every film, then nobody would make them.
When authors make their living from writing novels, is it not wrong for the whole of those novels to be copied onto free platforms by others.
If I decide to write free content, as I sometimes do, thatâs fine.
If I also decide to write non-free content, as I sometimes professionally do, should I not be able to do so without fear of my work being placed on a free platform by someone else?
But they are advocating censoring on the front end and then being able to sue speech distribution platforms for other peopleâs associated work. And wanting a link tax so you have to pay to link. This destroys the interconnectivity of the web and liquid open info sharing and horribly quells speech and gives them the possibility of outright censoring things governments donât like- oops that copyrighted or opps the hard right in the US doesnt allow that Wikileaks material on the US manipulating French elections to install the hard right in France to be viewed by the French.
I feel the only sustainable solution to these problems is smaller, more independent, distributed decision making.
While individual governments had an opportunity to reject this nonsense, it happened anyway, dragging the rest with it. Economies of scale may help economies, but there is more to life than businesses making money.
I shudder to think about the idea of an ever closet political union for the EU; people are powerless enough as it is, without moving more power further away.
A fundamental rethink of how society is governed is required. Responding to every problem with a new law is wrong footed. More carrot, less stick, please!
Who are these laws for? Big business or the average person?
It is high time we took a fresh look at IP law and decided whether it was fit for purpose. There are so many technologies and techniques to use instead of the brute force of law.
I agree there are difficulties, but having read the articles concerned, should they ever become law, as I understand it, it will only apply to already published public information.
Its only intention is to provide some security to film makers, journalists, photographers, authors, song writers, musicians etc. It provides no security for governments, just artists.
You can comment about films, newspaper articles, published images, published books, songs, etc. as much as anyone does now. At present it is becoming increasingly difficult for any of the above artist to make a living because their âartâ is immediately distributed completely free on the internet whether they like it or not.
Taken to extreme you would end up with the only newspapers available to read, books to read, music you could listen to at a gig, films you could watch on TV, would be amateur in nature, and IMHO this would be a shame.
We can just put it all in the shovel ware public domain and tip it as the 8 billion people we are if we see fit. It is much better to think in platonic terms where ideas appear in 3s and there isnât any special issue with a orifice other than priming it our supplying the laxative. Couldnât matter less relative to core centrality of protecting political speech if high end movies go away.
I think what this is really about is trying to protect sponsorship and useless elite serving control over law, narrative and discourse. This is pro-censorship, pro-injustice and pro radical arbitrary inequity.
SAFE as you may know has proposed a solution in their pay the producer intents. Its complicated and it seems on again off again and is tied to the coin. I think its optional.
I would like to see the solution one of the pirate bay people came up with where there was a super efficient means of micro tipping (single click) or paying to the actual producer any amount one chose especially to encorage future works. In exchange the artist producer gets maximim exposure and maximum reach and possible direct contact with those who appreciate their work. It makes sense as an after-the-fact model and a minimum friction model and it makes more sense at huge scale. A single click might be a bit like a âlikeâ but may or may not depending on end user preference and comes with a quick incrementable micropayment and possible private or public critique depending on wishes of artist etc. It also preserves fair use and access for those who cannot afford but can still benefit and benefit society by exposure.
And are the new systems meant to try to kill peer to peer? Seems they would have to be. ISP has pretense to lock your account for dectecting p2p refers you to police? We should remember the history of offenses of the RIAA in the states. Slippery slope.
Donât worry. Be happy. It is never bad enough that you need to be angry and anxious.
Many things during my past seventy plus years have made me angry and anxious. All of them have gone without any effort on my part.
In my lifetime I never thought I would see the end of the Berlin Wall, or the end of the Troubles in Northern Ireland, and I never thought I would live through the threat of imminent nuclear war in the 60âs (when I was in the Air Force).
Yet here I am. Life goes on. There are things worth getting angry and anxious about, but our anger and our anxieties rarely make any difference. Be happy
Its not a balance issue its a gagging censorship issue. Its about monetizing censorship and hiding behind creatives. Its the same arguement that was used to destroy the US by saying media firms did not have to cover elections for free as a condition of retaining a broadcast license but could instead use their greed to cover the bribery of sponsorship to effect censorship on behalf of the rich. We ended up with highest bidder arbitrary sponsor bribery based law.
This could be a way forward and there is in fact nothing in the proposed articles which would prevent it. âArtistsâ would probably agree to this if it became the norm and their agreement would mean that the platforms would not be committing any potential offense as the âartistâ has agreed to such use.
It would be a new way of working, but it would certainly be a way in which people could publish anything, and in which the originator could be recompensed. As things stand at the moment content is pirated, that content then makes advertising money for the platform or for the person who has done the pirating, but the person whose work originally created that content gets nothing. Somehow, there needs to be a system that ensures free speech, rewards âartistsâ, and provides income for the platform providers. It does, though, need to be a system that benefits all three, not one out of three or two out of the three,
I donât necessarily disagree with your sentiment, but unfortunately, reality is not currently in line with the ideology. Pirates will always pirate, an EU law isnât going to stop that.
One argument I hear from producers is that pirates are losing them sales. The evidence of that is just not there. In fact, a lot of evidence points to the contrary. Most pirates fall in two camps, they canât afford the product, or they want a âtry before they buyâ experience. The first of those group werenât going to buy the product anyway. The second is a possible sale, but not guaranteed. The upside to piracy is that their exposure to your product, if they enjoyed it, leads to free word of mouth advertising for your product. Most people either donât have the technical know-how to pirate, or simply donât want to for their own moral reasons. The rest were unlikely to buy your product, anyway.
Pirates are surprisingly âmoralâ about what they do as well. There was large pushback from the pirating community over those distributing the Witcher games on pirate networks because CD Projekt Red releases their games with no DRM, and are largely consumer friendly. While the Witcher was pirated, and available readily DRM free from those networks, it still saw huge PC sales.
Patreon and Twitch are other examples. People have proven that they will voluntarily give to those producing content they enjoy. Most people WANT to pay for what the consume. I think there still runs a natural sense of fairness in most cultures today. There are some cultures that fly in the face of that sentiment too, like China, but you probably werenât going to get money from there anyway.
