While that might be a good intention, its unfortunate that most wide ranging laws have unintended consequences. We had in Australia an attempt by the government to legislate a internet filtering scheme that was only to filter out the really bad illegal content. But as time when on and many bright minds in the nation got into the discussions it was shown how the legislation could be totally abused and how history showed it would be. EDIT: forgot that also some departments were lobbying the minister to include other content types to the legislation that wasnât even written yet.
Now the final outcome after many years of debate was that the media companies could ask a judge to authorise a block on a site that has IP infringement as its majority purpose. This also showed the real reason for that attempt at introducing the filtering legislation. Now the government copyrights all its memos and papers etc etc. So then the government can block any site that publishes leaked information. Then it legislated data retention for 2 years and has already gone after journalists and their sources identified by the data retention when they publish any info from leaked documents. At least one journalist is in jail because of this. And they claim we have a healthy democracy.
So while the EU may have the intention for protecting artists, for what 75 years now, there will be a lot more the legislation will be used for. And it will not bode well from the example of history.
What will this law develop into over the years?
what will be tacked onto it?
Will EU governments copyright their internal documents so they can block leaked documents from being viewed?
How long will âfair useâ survive?
Who is going to pay for the expense of reviewing material, or will the companies adopt block when reported then only review when someone complains about the block?
then I can censor someone just by reporting the content and by the time its reviewed (if anyone complains about the block) its old news. That is effective censorship if for economic reasons the companies adopt block automatically on first report.
Just some thoughts by extension of what happened here and the extensive discussions we had decade or so ago.
Oh yes another issue brought up was that film makers take a lot of material from the public domain and incorporate it in the work. While this is fine, it does make some of that public domain effectively copyrighted since each scene its used in has other material in it, but as far as copyright is concerned if you use that bit public domain material it now constitutes a significant portion of the scene and thus copyrighted.
BTW not all public domain stuff can be demonstrated to have existed prior even if its known to have.
with the recent shooting in New Zealand, all sorts of forums and sites (even zerohedge.com) were suddenly blocked by the government here without warning or due process. Voat, and the chans are still blocked. So yes, we need SAFE.
I have no objection to complete freedom of polite and non-abusive speech. However, in this case it was because he named me as âRichard H. Underwoodâ the author of âGaslight Lawyersâ. I am not Richard H Underwood and I am not the author of âGaslight Lawyersâ so the post was directed at the wrong person.
This is indeed the law of unintended consequences. The intention was initially good, but the unintended consequences are terrible.
Unfortunately almost all laws have unintended consequences whatever the initial intention, so what is important is not so much the âgoodâ but poorly worded law, but how the law is immediately amended once the âbadâ consequences have been noted.
Public pressure shouldnât be needed for this to occur, but usually is. So I fully agree that there needs to be forceful (but polite) argument and lobbying whenever bad consequences occur. In short, itâs not how you start, but how you end up, that is important. Lawyers and legislators rarely get it right first time and itâs up to the the rest of us to remain alert and use the knowledge we have to make our lobbying effective.
But who decides what polite and non-abusive speech is? What might be non-abusive to you could be unbearable to somebody else. Best solution for me is if I donât like what Iâm watching I turn over the TV, if I donât like a book Iâm reading I put it down and if I donât like something online I close the page. Donât need any supervision or permission from anybody.
Just give me a platform where I can have freedom of speech, and where people have freedom to walkaway and not listen - a choice each person makes individually just as in real life meatspace.
Voluntary white and black lists, see pi-hole project for a great example of voluntary blacklist subscription.
Without one central censor controling my incoming information.
Of course. It is completely subjective. One persons terrorist is another personâs freedom fighter
And of course, if in my opinion it is impolite to me or abusive of me, I can just walk away.
It would be a boring world if everyone thought and acted the same, so we all generate to those with similar views to our own. The real joy of Safe is that we will all be able to say whatever we like, and we will all be free to ignore anything said by others that we donât like.
The real difference is that those choices will be ours, and not imposed by big businesses or big government.
And thatâs the way it should be and should always be. Unfortunately we are a very long way from this today and legislation/law like article 11/13 will take us even further away from this.
There is no reason a system like SAFE couldnât be used to replace copyrights. The persistence platform Iâm building would allow an author to register a âcopyrightedâ work with our identity system and then allow a relationship with an endpoint to retrieve the work, after paying, possibly an appropriate fee to the author, et al. The HTML link would be the identity of the work to be retrieved from the persistence platform with fee declarations, fair use, etc.
I think youâre going to be stuck with payment after the use of the product and on a completely voluntary basis. Otherwise the product will be in freefall propagation short of spying on everyone all the time. It may or may not mean leas money for creative works but it may also involve more people and be less winner take all. Even if it reduced everything to shovelware thatâs small price give the unacceptable surveilance based speech and rights killer proposition. I think we need to change term copyârightâ because its not a true right. And drop the term ârights holderâ because it conflates business âsleightsâ with actual rights which is an outragious insult. We donât balance the sleights of so-called ârights holdersâ against the absolute right of the public which more than ouright owns all markets, we recognize that markets exist to serve the public PERIOD! And the enrichment of people who consider themselves creative is only a pump priming afterthought essentially for the sole benefit of the public. Anything less is an attempt to defraud and oppress the public- a crime. I think attempts to water these principles down should be properly recognized as crime and pursued- literally the public needs military article 92 style blanket recourse against politicians and puppets tampering with essential freedoms.
What we have so often now are puppet politicians righteously calling for laws that encourage enslavement to benefit private concentrations of power and wealth. These are laws that encourage the highest kind of theft.
Whar ever we call it, conspiracy, collusion we need to be able to go after it.
What we do is allow a relationship with an endpoint only after the terms have been met before allowing access to the work. The work is stored in our persistence layer controlled by the relationship owner. The work is shared one-to-one thru the relationship.
Thats called enclosure and whether in the cloud or not its nothing new. Its just a toll road and in aggregate its a loss of commons Restrict access to inflate price. The contents will be copied and distributed. Will the source code? I donât think it matters as that can be reverse engineered without a copy.
There is an axis of intention and attention. Intention comes down to how we focus attention and that is the new system of valuation. Theft of attention is a subversion of will. And these access pay wall systems are not onlt walled gardens they also tend to demand theft of attention e.g. modal ads (which completely corrupts media and law with sponsorship) and drives puffery and the shfting of the burden and risk of product match onto the buyer (where it doesnât belong) and creates a layer of alienation between buyer and seller.
I see unsponsored uncorrupted search- stuff smarter and less corrupted than what Google offers as completely disintermediating things to the point that we donât need any intermediaries save for a functioning legal system and sound conventions. Also the walled model goes against open source.
(Iâm not sure this is the best place to post this, but could not find any other reference to Article 13 in the forum. If there is a forum topic better suited to international legal ramifications of Maidsafecoin/Safecoin, moderator is welcome to move this there.)
Hereâs an article I read today:
If this has implications for the Safenet project, I would welcome some of the project leadership with legal backgrounds (not me!) to expound on what such implications may be.
Thanks!
No, not really. It could replace the storage of copyrighted works and yes, it could also host a store with payments for such works.
However, the access control methods you outlined cannot work because it is easy to create a copy and then share or resell it freely and without possibility of any recurse from the original seller.
The Safe Network can also not replace the legal system that upholds the rights of copyright owners but thatâs largely irrelevant since copyright works only because there is a way to catch the thief and catch the consumer (at least in theory), both of which are going to be impossible on the Safe Network. I suspect lawyers on this field will have to find another job.
The world after the Safe Network is a world after copyrights, for better or worse.
Hoe far percentage wise are we towards alpha 3. Iâm a follower of the weekly which gives some good insight of what has been done. Given that iâm no developer I have no clue how to interpret against all objectives for fleming
I donât have the qualifications youâre after, but this question is easy to answer based on the simple truth that no law can be enforced without having somebody to apply it to.
Whatever you do on the Safe Network is unknown and unknowable unless you decide to make it public. In other words, there can be no evidence of wrongdoing against you unless you provide such evidence on purpose.
Nobody will have the power to change (or even find) anything they donât already have information about, and that includes the knowledge about who has information about what.
The above applies to apps as well since they are just data that contains executable code: nobody can know which app is made by whom (again: unless the makers decide to make it public) so thereâs no way to enforce any rules about them.
Finally, the Safe Network will be a lose connection of computers connected via a common protocol. It will be owned by a crowd of people scattered across the globe (without the slightest idea about the actual content they host, I may add) so there will be no individual to turn to if one wanted to stop it or change the network. It would require coordinated global action against encryption in general to pull that off.