News EU Article 13 (End of Internet)

[Black Sun]

Say goodbye to the internet on June 20-21. Nobody knows about this because there is media black out and the world cup is distracting.

More information:

https://saveyourinternet.eu

 

[Tonstad39]

not my problem (Lives in America)

 

[Bugsy]

To quote one of my favourite characters:

"Aw crap." -- Sam Axe, almost every season of Burn Notice.

 

[Corrosion]

Meh, I don't live there.

 

[Black Sun]

You will be affected by it. The whole world will. The internet is not split into regions.

 

[Axel The Englishman]

Don’t worry lads. I can make my own memes, and I’ll allow you to use them for free.

 

[2Bornot2B]

Time to get out the good ol VPN

 

[Black Sun]

First round of vote voted Yes to the bill.

 

[Tonstad39]

First round of vote voted Yes to the bill.

!

 

[Imaginarium]

This is blown out of proportion quite a bit.

Quotation for review and criticism, for example, is still perfectly possible.

Article 11 of the proposal states in Art 11 § 3:

Articles 5 to 8 of Directive 2001/29/EC and Directive 2012/28/EU shall apply mutatis mutandis (this means "After what needs to be changed has been changed") in respect of the rights referred to in paragraph 1

Art 5 § 3 d of Directive 2001/29/EC ( unchanged by the proposal, see art 17 § 2 of the proposal ) states:

Quotations for purposes such as criticism or review, provided that they relate to a work or other subject-matter which has already been lawfully made available to the public, that, unless this turns out to be impossible, the source, including the author's name, is indicated, and that their use is in accordance with fair practice, and to the extent required by the specific purpose;


Conclusion: The existing copyright law in this regard, thus, remains entirely unchanged. The changes made a more of a clarrification of research and teaching.



Art 13 of the proposal ( the so-called upload filter)

Art 13 states only that rightholders ( aka the person(s) owning the copyright) must be provided with adequate means to enforce their copyright over people who are using their work in a manner that doesn't fall under the exceptions of art 5 2001/29/EC. The article in no way speaks of an upload filter. It references content recognition technology. This can take many forms. It doesn't impose the use of an upload filter by any means.

In short:
As a service provider granting access to large amounts of data:

• Give people a means to enforce copyright ( such as the current youtube copyright strikes)
• Inform people of how these tools work and when they are deployed/changed
• Work together with stakeholders to define best practices.
• Keep technology and the nature of the services in mind ( aka don't make it unworkable)

That's what it says. This is not the end of the internet.


Sources:

Proposal: Eurlex link
DIRECTIVE 2001/29/EC : Eurlex Link

Edits: I editted the layout a bit to make it easier to read.

 

[Black Sun]

This is blown out of proportion quite a bit.

Quotation for review and criticism, for example, is still perfectly possible.

Conclusion: The existing copyright law in this regard, thus, remains entirely unchanged. The changes made a more of a clarrification of research and teaching.

That's what it says. This is not the end of the internet.

This is going to sound harsh, but needs to be said. I know your kind of person. You are unable or unwilling to read between the lines of legalities and what is being said. This bill has nothing to do with copyright laws, it's about giving policy makers and the EU a way to remove uncomfortable content without raising political censorship alarms. If they are accused, they can just say "it's copyright claim." This isn't conspiracy, either, as those who live in the more politically correct countries of Europe has suffered under this kind of tactics for quite some time now.

 

[Imaginarium]

This is going to sound harsh, but needs to be said. I know your kind of person. You are unable or unwilling to read between the lines of legalities and what is being said. This bill has nothing to do with copyright laws, it's about giving policy makers and the EU a way to remove uncomfortable content without raising political censorship alarms. If they are accused, they can just say "it's copyright claim." This isn't conspiracy, either, as those who live in the more politically correct countries of Europe has suffered under this kind of tactics for quite some time now.

This is going to sound harsh, but you don't know what you're talking about and neither does that youtuber you've linked. You fell for clickbait.

Nothing in this proposal gives anyone a claim to remove "uncomfortable content" in any way they couldn't do the very same thing right now.


Edit: You most certainly do not know 'my kind of person'.

 

[Black Sun]

This is going to sound harsh, but you don't know what you're talking about and neither does that youtuber you've linked. You fell for clickbait.

Nothing in this proposal gives anyone a claim to remove "uncomfortable content" in any way they couldn't do the very same thing right now.


Edit: You most certainly do not know 'my kind of person'.

You're allowed to have your opinion, just as I am. If you've followed European politics since 2015, at least, and lived there as a native, you'd see what everyone else sees. As an outsider, you couldn't possibly understand.

 

[Axel The Englishman]

When you’re waiting for Parliament to get it’s shit together for Brexit but realise that won’t happen within your mortal lifespan

 

[Imaginarium]

You're allowed to have your opinion, just as I am. If you've followed European politics since 2015, at least, and lived there as a native, you'd see what everyone else sees. As an outsider, you couldn't possibly understand.

I live in Belgium, as close as you can get to the politics in Brussels. You should take your assumption game down a notch. It's not doing you any favours.

What you are doing now is simply ignoring facts, ignoring how a legal system works and being very salty about having your conspiracy theory refuted. As for 'everyone else' apart from some uninformed internet cringelords writing up bullshit articles, nobody has given this minor legal update a second look.

 

[Black Sun]

I live in Belgium, as close as you can get to the politics in Brussels. You should take your assumption game down a notch. It's not doing you any favours.

What you are doing now is simply ignoring facts, ignoring how a legal system works and being very salty about having your conspiracy theory refuted. As for 'everyone else' apart from some uninformed internet cringelords writing up bullshit articles, nobody has given this minor legal update a second look.

Living close to Brussels doesn't automatically make you knowledgeable in this matter.

Are you educated in reading and interpreting legal documents and its systems? It sounds like you think you are, so you would agree that much of the regulations proposed in the bill are extremely vague. You haven't refuted anything here. Every news outlet, credible and not credible, that has covered this bill have noted its potential destructive consequences. So, you should take your assumption game down a notch. It's not doing you any favors.

Anyway, we're done here. You might be right, you might be wrong. Nobody will know until this inevitably passes parliament.

 

[Imaginarium]

We are indeed done here. You have nothing to actually bring up in the argument. The legal texts in question are up there for everyone to read. If you have any factual evidence to support your claims, please enlighten us all.

Directives are always vague, because they are not directly applicable law. They're a set of rules that have to be transposed into national laws of member states. They are not exact because the EU wants to leave the member states room for implementing their own national rules. If you knew anything about EU legislation, you'd know this.

Finally, your little game of trying to call me out is pointless.