MEMES ARE BANNED

 
 
Flee
| Marty Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Flee
IP: Logged

15,741 posts
 
No they're not. Stop listening to people who couldn't even tell you what copyright is but are convinced this is the end of the internet because someone on Facebook said so.


A Handful Of Nothing | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Ingloriouswho98
IP: Logged

13,244 posts
 
Picture of an American sneering smugly while glancing at his computer screen. He is endowed in a civil war uniform and surrounded by stereotypical American wares such as a musket, beer, and a bald eagle. He is drawn in a way that is typical of the “feels guy” meme except in this picture all he feels is pride in his superior alpha country


MarKhan | Heroic Unstoppable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: MarKhan54
ID: MarKhan
IP: Logged

2,277 posts
Apathy is death
I feel a deja vu


 
 
Flee
| Marty Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Flee
IP: Logged

15,741 posts
 
I feel a deja vu
It was a surprisingly good stream. We had 50+ viewers just watching me go over the new Copyright Directive until Rapha and Vengeur started streaming. Good stuff. :)


MarKhan | Heroic Unstoppable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: MarKhan54
ID: MarKhan
IP: Logged

2,277 posts
Apathy is death
I feel a deja vu
It was a surprisingly good stream. We had 50+ viewers just watching me go over the new Copyright Directive until Rapha and Vengeur started streaming. Good stuff. :)
No, I mean you did a simillar titled thread before, I think it was in september


Genghis Khan | Heroic Unstoppable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Karjala takaisin
IP: Logged

1,934 posts
 
Youtube blocked for EU users.


 
 
Flee
| Marty Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Flee
IP: Logged

15,741 posts
 
I feel a deja vu
It was a surprisingly good stream. We had 50+ viewers just watching me go over the new Copyright Directive until Rapha and Vengeur started streaming. Good stuff. :)
No, I mean you did a simillar titled thread before, I think it was in september
Oh yeah, you're right. Well now it actually happened so I figured we'd do a re-run.


Ásgeirr | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL: ossku
PSN:
Steam: ossku/Oss
ID: Ossku
IP: Logged

13,466 posts
The angel agreed to trade a set of white wings for the head of another demon. Overjoyed, the demon killed one of his own and plucked the head right off its still-warm body.

The angel then led the demon to heaven, where he underwent centuries of the cruelest tortures imaginable. Finally, the pain was so great that he lost consciousness - at which point his dark wings turned the promised shade of white.
Say i meme some corps advertisement and put in on youtube, could they not take it down?


MarKhan | Heroic Unstoppable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: MarKhan54
ID: MarKhan
IP: Logged

2,277 posts
Apathy is death
Say i meme some corps advertisement and put in on youtube, could they not take it down?
They shouldn't.
Spoiler


Ásgeirr | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL: ossku
PSN:
Steam: ossku/Oss
ID: Ossku
IP: Logged

13,466 posts
The angel agreed to trade a set of white wings for the head of another demon. Overjoyed, the demon killed one of his own and plucked the head right off its still-warm body.

The angel then led the demon to heaven, where he underwent centuries of the cruelest tortures imaginable. Finally, the pain was so great that he lost consciousness - at which point his dark wings turned the promised shade of white.
Say i meme some corps advertisement and put in on youtube, could they not take it down?
They shouldn't.
Spoiler
But thats just a basic copyright law, what is this new article then


Batch | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL: Sips
PSN: Fucking
Steam: Tea
ID: Batch
IP: Logged

8,151 posts
 
Say i meme some corps advertisement and put in on youtube, could they not take it down?
They shouldn't.
Spoiler
But thats just a basic copyright law, what is this new article then
More rights for corps, less for you.

Easier to claim your stuff even if it isnt theirs under more legality.


MarKhan | Heroic Unstoppable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: MarKhan54
ID: MarKhan
IP: Logged

2,277 posts
Apathy is death
Say i meme some corps advertisement and put in on youtube, could they not take it down?
They shouldn't.
Spoiler
But thats just a basic copyright law, what is this new article then
Well, from what I understand, basically it's a directive to update to earlier laws and it's done to adapt 2k something year's laws to todays situation with internet and what it changes is it makes online content sharing platforms be responsible for copyrighted material posted on their services. Article in it's initial state was terrible, it required authorisation from rightholder to use their material and what does it meant was that users could post copyrighted material and platform hosting would be responsible for it. In this case platforms would probably had to implement hard filters and it would lead to mass censorship basically.
However obviously there was backlash and under few years article was rewritten. At this moment, for a platform to be responsible to copyright infringment, it needs to not obtain an authorisation to use copyrighted material AND to receieve and ignore proper request from rightholder AND not remove copyrighted material from a platform. And even then rightholder can't sent platform to court right away, court is the last resourt. Also size of punishment and whether service receieves one depends on type, audience and size of it, meaning that if service can't prevent copyright infringment, then it won't be punished and it cannot be expected from it to prevent it.
This article applies only to commersial services, it doesn't apply to Wikipedia and GitHub for example.

That's how I understand it. There are other stuff in article worth mentioning, most of them are "safeguards" so directive wouldn't go too deep, but at the core of it it's this.
Last Edit: March 28, 2019, 04:48:25 PM by MarKhan


MarKhan | Heroic Unstoppable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: MarKhan54
ID: MarKhan
IP: Logged

2,277 posts
Apathy is death
If anyone is interested in reading it, here is the link
Also Article 11 and 13 are now 15 and 17 respectivelly. Article 15 is page 116, Article 17 is 120.


Ásgeirr | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL: ossku
PSN:
Steam: ossku/Oss
ID: Ossku
IP: Logged

13,466 posts
The angel agreed to trade a set of white wings for the head of another demon. Overjoyed, the demon killed one of his own and plucked the head right off its still-warm body.

The angel then led the demon to heaven, where he underwent centuries of the cruelest tortures imaginable. Finally, the pain was so great that he lost consciousness - at which point his dark wings turned the promised shade of white.
So it looks like a blanket solution to copyright infringement? Instead of pointing at the infringer they point at the platform, how is this a sane idea?

Its absolutely prime grounds for shady shit even if it doesnt affect everyday antics


MarKhan | Heroic Unstoppable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: MarKhan54
ID: MarKhan
IP: Logged

2,277 posts
Apathy is death
So it looks like a blanket solution to copyright infringement? Instead of pointing at the infringer they point at the platform, how is this a sane idea?

Its absolutely prime grounds for shady shit even if it doesnt affect everyday antics
Well, platform basically has only to remove content and only when rightholder notified platform, gave platform all specific info about content in question and give a reason. This is already present in E-commerse law from 2001, so current form of article doesn't change anything here really. Also if platform can't do this or if it ruins it's business, platform won't be responsible. 


MarKhan | Heroic Unstoppable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: MarKhan54
ID: MarKhan
IP: Logged

2,277 posts
Apathy is death

Article however requires from rightholder to justify takedown, making spamming takedown requests hard. Article also requires from EU countries to implement mechanisms to solve problems w/o court. And article requires from service to implement an effective system for user to dispute claim and/or give an explanation to user on a situation.

As I said, this article is just an update to keep up with times.
Last Edit: March 28, 2019, 05:48:54 PM by MarKhan


 
 
Flee
| Marty Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Flee
IP: Logged

15,741 posts
 
More rights for corps, less for you.

Easier to claim your stuff even if it isnt theirs under more legality.
The law actually contains several provisions to protect users and give them more ways to afeguard their own stuff.


Genghis Khan | Heroic Unstoppable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Karjala takaisin
IP: Logged

1,934 posts
 
Does anyone wanna tell me why we need the EU? All the bad things about it are apparent.


 
 
Flee
| Marty Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Flee
IP: Logged

15,741 posts
 
So it looks like a blanket solution to copyright infringement? Instead of pointing at the infringer they point at the platform, how is this a sane idea?

Its absolutely prime grounds for shady shit even if it doesnt affect everyday antics
Well, it only applies to certain online platforms and does nothing to diminish the liability of the infringers as well, so there's that. Definitely not supposed to be a blanket solution or anything. Also, the Directive consists of over 30 articles that talk about other aspects of copyright as well in order to better protect artists and copyright holders. Only 2 of them are controversial.

The idea behind it is pretty straightforward. Say you're an artist or content creator who makes videos, music, literature, animations, design, pictures, paintings or anything like it. It doesn't matter if you're a small independent artist on Soundcloud or Deviantart or a huge corporation or label putting out major shows, movies or pop songs - you own the rights to your creations. Imagine now that someone steals your video, song, animation or content and uploads it on Youtube themselves. I'm not talking about fair use like in a meme or review, but just blatant stealing and reuploading your content as their own. In this case, you're not going to be making any money off of it even though you deserve to be compensated for your work, and neither is the person who stole your content. So who does make money here? Youtube. Because the platform runs ads on just about every video and thereby makes (100% of the) revenue every time someone watches your content without any obligation or requirement to compensate you as well, even though it's making money off of your work. This is what the Directive aims to address by requiring platforms like Youtube to try and get a license with you to distribute part of the money they make from your content, and to work with you to stop unwanted infringements on their platform.

I personally don't agree with all of it but it's a lot more nuanced than what some people make it out to be.


 
 
Flee
| Marty Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Flee
IP: Logged

15,741 posts
 
My man, I'm proud of you. You've got a future in law if the programming doesn't work out for you. :p


Aether | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL: BirdTHUG
PSN:
Steam: Sofles_Yo
ID: DemonicChronic
IP: Logged

6,578 posts
theaetherone.deviantart.com https://www.instagram.com/aetherone/

Long live NoNolesNeckin.

Ya fuckin' ganderneck.
So some MEPs apparently accidentally voted the wrong way. Enough to have changed the outcome to have the two articles in question removed, I hear. Are politicians/bureaucrats really this inept or are these guys just doing some kind of damage control and trying to distance themselves from something so negatively viewed by the public? smh


Ásgeirr | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL: ossku
PSN:
Steam: ossku/Oss
ID: Ossku
IP: Logged

13,466 posts
The angel agreed to trade a set of white wings for the head of another demon. Overjoyed, the demon killed one of his own and plucked the head right off its still-warm body.

The angel then led the demon to heaven, where he underwent centuries of the cruelest tortures imaginable. Finally, the pain was so great that he lost consciousness - at which point his dark wings turned the promised shade of white.
So it looks like a blanket solution to copyright infringement? Instead of pointing at the infringer they point at the platform, how is this a sane idea?

Its absolutely prime grounds for shady shit even if it doesnt affect everyday antics
Well, it only applies to certain online platforms and does nothing to diminish the liability of the infringers as well, so there's that. Definitely not supposed to be a blanket solution or anything. Also, the Directive consists of over 30 articles that talk about other aspects of copyright as well in order to better protect artists and copyright holders. Only 2 of them are controversial.

The idea behind it is pretty straightforward. Say you're an artist or content creator who makes videos, music, literature, animations, design, pictures, paintings or anything like it. It doesn't matter if you're a small independent artist on Soundcloud or Deviantart or a huge corporation or label putting out major shows, movies or pop songs - you own the rights to your creations. Imagine now that someone steals your video, song, animation or content and uploads it on Youtube themselves. I'm not talking about fair use like in a meme or review, but just blatant stealing and reuploading your content as their own. In this case, you're not going to be making any money off of it even though you deserve to be compensated for your work, and neither is the person who stole your content. So who does make money here? Youtube. Because the platform runs ads on just about every video and thereby makes (100% of the) revenue every time someone watches your content without any obligation or requirement to compensate you as well, even though it's making money off of your work. This is what the Directive aims to address by requiring platforms like Youtube to try and get a license with you to distribute part of the money they make from your content, and to work with you to stop unwanted infringements on their platform.

I personally don't agree with all of it but it's a lot more nuanced than what some people make it out to be.
You make it sound like its just a copyright law extension with means of stopping platforms benefiting from others works. But then why is everyone up in arms about it? If its too long and nuanced you dont have to go into it.


Batch | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL: Sips
PSN: Fucking
Steam: Tea
ID: Batch
IP: Logged

8,151 posts
 
So it looks like a blanket solution to copyright infringement? Instead of pointing at the infringer they point at the platform, how is this a sane idea?

Its absolutely prime grounds for shady shit even if it doesnt affect everyday antics
Well, it only applies to certain online platforms and does nothing to diminish the liability of the infringers as well, so there's that. Definitely not supposed to be a blanket solution or anything. Also, the Directive consists of over 30 articles that talk about other aspects of copyright as well in order to better protect artists and copyright holders. Only 2 of them are controversial.

The idea behind it is pretty straightforward. Say you're an artist or content creator who makes videos, music, literature, animations, design, pictures, paintings or anything like it. It doesn't matter if you're a small independent artist on Soundcloud or Deviantart or a huge corporation or label putting out major shows, movies or pop songs - you own the rights to your creations. Imagine now that someone steals your video, song, animation or content and uploads it on Youtube themselves. I'm not talking about fair use like in a meme or review, but just blatant stealing and reuploading your content as their own. In this case, you're not going to be making any money off of it even though you deserve to be compensated for your work, and neither is the person who stole your content. So who does make money here? Youtube. Because the platform runs ads on just about every video and thereby makes (100% of the) revenue every time someone watches your content without any obligation or requirement to compensate you as well, even though it's making money off of your work. This is what the Directive aims to address by requiring platforms like Youtube to try and get a license with you to distribute part of the money they make from your content, and to work with you to stop unwanted infringements on their platform.

I personally don't agree with all of it but it's a lot more nuanced than what some people make it out to be.
You make it sound like its just a copyright law extension with means of stopping platforms benefiting from others works. But then why is everyone up in arms about it? If its too long and nuanced you dont have to go into it.
Everyone is up in arms because it is beefing up copyright but will never be monitored by people.  Lets use Youtube as an example,  so someone steals your video, thats easy sure, but what if its a review,  a parody, background music, hell what if you terribly sing a song for 10 seconds, theres the strike.

Its a system that will be easily and legally abused and the content creators who use other peoples content legally under the right context will suffer.

BECAUSE,  this wont be monitored by people, it will be checked off by algorithms which dont understand context, and this will be abused and used to siphon money from people who make measly pennies.

And finally even if it isnt being abused the content could just be taken down because the automatic systems dont understand that most of this content does not breach copyright.
Last Edit: March 28, 2019, 09:46:53 PM by Batch


MarKhan | Heroic Unstoppable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: MarKhan54
ID: MarKhan
IP: Logged

2,277 posts
Apathy is death
So it looks like a blanket solution to copyright infringement? Instead of pointing at the infringer they point at the platform, how is this a sane idea?

Its absolutely prime grounds for shady shit even if it doesnt affect everyday antics
Well, it only applies to certain online platforms and does nothing to diminish the liability of the infringers as well, so there's that. Definitely not supposed to be a blanket solution or anything. Also, the Directive consists of over 30 articles that talk about other aspects of copyright as well in order to better protect artists and copyright holders. Only 2 of them are controversial.

The idea behind it is pretty straightforward. Say you're an artist or content creator who makes videos, music, literature, animations, design, pictures, paintings or anything like it. It doesn't matter if you're a small independent artist on Soundcloud or Deviantart or a huge corporation or label putting out major shows, movies or pop songs - you own the rights to your creations. Imagine now that someone steals your video, song, animation or content and uploads it on Youtube themselves. I'm not talking about fair use like in a meme or review, but just blatant stealing and reuploading your content as their own. In this case, you're not going to be making any money off of it even though you deserve to be compensated for your work, and neither is the person who stole your content. So who does make money here? Youtube. Because the platform runs ads on just about every video and thereby makes (100% of the) revenue every time someone watches your content without any obligation or requirement to compensate you as well, even though it's making money off of your work. This is what the Directive aims to address by requiring platforms like Youtube to try and get a license with you to distribute part of the money they make from your content, and to work with you to stop unwanted infringements on their platform.

I personally don't agree with all of it but it's a lot more nuanced than what some people make it out to be.
You make it sound like its just a copyright law extension with means of stopping platforms benefiting from others works. But then why is everyone up in arms about it? If its too long and nuanced you dont have to go into it.
Everyone is up in arms because it is beefing up copyright but will never be monitored by people.  Lets use Youtube as an example,  so someone steals your video, thats easy sure, but what if its a review,  a parody, background music, hell what if you terribly sing a song for 10 seconds, theres the strike.

Its a system that will be easily and legally abused and the content creators who use other peoples content legally under the right context will suffer.

BECAUSE,  this wont be monitored by people, it will be checked off by algorithms which dont understand context, and this will be abused and used to siphon money from people who make measly pennies.

And finally even if it isnt being abused the content could just be taken down because the automatic systems dont understand that most of this content does not breach copyright.
Everyone up in arms, because apparently people think that older version of article was passed. I didn't see anyone mention that article was renamed from 13 to 17, which might imply that people just didn't notice that it was updated. Older versions of article might have monitoring as a requirement, however current version of article explicitly states that application of this article does not lead to any general monitoring obligation.
Spoiler


MarKhan | Heroic Unstoppable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: MarKhan54
ID: MarKhan
IP: Logged

2,277 posts
Apathy is death
My man, I'm proud of you. You've got a future in law if the programming doesn't work out for you. :p
It's not hard to be jack of all trades, it's hard to master something.


 
 
Flee
| Marty Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Flee
IP: Logged

15,741 posts
 
So some MEPs apparently accidentally voted the wrong way. Enough to have changed the outcome to have the two articles in question removed, I hear. Are politicians/bureaucrats really this inept or are these guys just doing some kind of damage control and trying to distance themselves from something so negatively viewed by the public? smh
As far as I know, there was a bit of confusion surrounding the order of the amendments. It's embarassing and unacceptable either way. If these people really misvoted (which I'm not sure is likely since this rarely happens to this extent) then it would be a huge screw up, so I'm guessing that at least some of them are using this to backtrack.


 
 
Flee
| Marty Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Flee
IP: Logged

15,741 posts
 
You make it sound like its just a copyright law extension with means of stopping platforms benefiting from others works. But then why is everyone up in arms about it? If its too long and nuanced you dont have to go into it.
Basically, people are up in arms about this for two main reasons. One, there's definitely legitimate concerns and genuine criticism of the Directive, but two, it's been convoluted and exaggerated by an absolute shit ton of misinformation and bullshit being spread around. This copyright reform has been years in the making. Public consultation and shareholder talks started years before the first proposal was introduced back in 2016. These early versions of the law were a lot more extreme than the final one and resulted in a lot of opposition from experts (including myself - my own institution is on the open letter by academic institutions that voiced concerns) as well as from other activists. Unfortunately, online activists don't always care about nuance and facts. You don't get the average person riled up with a fair and balanced analysis of copyright law. Much more effective is presenting worst case scenarios as fact and making exaggerated speculative claims.

This then gets pushed by sites like Youtube who don't want to share their revenue with creators or risk liability and is picked up by influencers, vloggers, creators and such who couldn't even tell you what copyright is and haven't read a single word of the actual law, but are eager to jump on the bandwagon and convince even less informed people than themselves that the EU is going to ban memes, that everyone will have to pay a tax when they share links, that mandatory upload filters will have to approve everything you post on the internet, that small internet companies are all going to perish because they can't afford to pay millions for licenses and AI filters, that content creators and small artists are going to be blocked from uploading videos and songs, that it's the end of free speech online, and all sorts of bullshit like that. It doesn't matter that the proposed law has been changed several times to be less strict, dispell several concerns and include a bunch of new safeguards for users and platforms - once you've convinced the average internet user that the ominous sounding "article 13" means the end of memes and the free internet, there's next to nothing that'll change that first impression.

As I said, I definitely don't support every part of the Directive myself and think that there are valid concerns of abuse and the law being too vague on some points, but much of the outrage really boils down to most people just being uninformed and basing their views on what some memes, social media posts or youtube videos had to say about the whole thing. I'm convinced that many of the people who oppose the entire thing would have a very different opinion if someone were to walk them through the law and explain it in a more neutral and fair way than "EU MEME BAN".


Я люблю наркотики | Heroic Posting Rampage
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: WOOKIE ON CRACK
IP: Logged

1,349 posts
Who paid you to look at this?
I really do appreciate this thread. I had to come here of all places to get a full, unbiased understaning of what the hell was going on with all of this. All I'm seeing elsewhere, as has been mentioned, is that the internet is dead, memes are banned etc. It's quite sad seeing how fast and how far misinformation is/can be spread.


Ásgeirr | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL: ossku
PSN:
Steam: ossku/Oss
ID: Ossku
IP: Logged

13,466 posts
The angel agreed to trade a set of white wings for the head of another demon. Overjoyed, the demon killed one of his own and plucked the head right off its still-warm body.

The angel then led the demon to heaven, where he underwent centuries of the cruelest tortures imaginable. Finally, the pain was so great that he lost consciousness - at which point his dark wings turned the promised shade of white.
You make it sound like its just a copyright law extension with means of stopping platforms benefiting from others works. But then why is everyone up in arms about it? If its too long and nuanced you dont have to go into it.
Basically, people are up in arms about this for two main reasons. One, there's definitely legitimate concerns and genuine criticism of the Directive, but two, it's been convoluted and exaggerated by an absolute shit ton of misinformation and bullshit being spread around. This copyright reform has been years in the making. Public consultation and shareholder talks started years before the first proposal was introduced back in 2016. These early versions of the law were a lot more extreme than the final one and resulted in a lot of opposition from experts (including myself - my own institution is on the open letter by academic institutions that voiced concerns) as well as from other activists. Unfortunately, online activists don't always care about nuance and facts. You don't get the average person riled up with a fair and balanced analysis of copyright law. Much more effective is presenting worst case scenarios as fact and making exaggerated speculative claims.

This then gets pushed by sites like Youtube who don't want to share their revenue with creators or risk liability and is picked up by influencers, vloggers, creators and such who couldn't even tell you what copyright is and haven't read a single word of the actual law, but are eager to jump on the bandwagon and convince even less informed people than themselves that the EU is going to ban memes, that everyone will have to pay a tax when they share links, that mandatory upload filters will have to approve everything you post on the internet, that small internet companies are all going to perish because they can't afford to pay millions for licenses and AI filters, that content creators and small artists are going to be blocked from uploading videos and songs, that it's the end of free speech online, and all sorts of bullshit like that. It doesn't matter that the proposed law has been changed several times to be less strict, dispell several concerns and include a bunch of new safeguards for users and platforms - once you've convinced the average internet user that the ominous sounding "article 13" means the end of memes and the free internet, there's next to nothing that'll change that first impression.

As I said, I definitely don't support every part of the Directive myself and think that there are valid concerns of abuse and the law being too vague on some points, but much of the outrage really boils down to most people just being uninformed and basing their views on what some memes, social media posts or youtube videos had to say about the whole thing. I'm convinced that many of the people who oppose the entire thing would have a very different opinion if someone were to walk them through the law and explain it in a more neutral and fair way than "EU MEME BAN".
thanks EU man


MarKhan | Heroic Unstoppable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: MarKhan54
ID: MarKhan
IP: Logged

2,277 posts
Apathy is death
    It doesn't help that final text of article is hard to find either, I tried to look for it on my own yesterday and I really had to go out my way to find it. You would think that it would be somewhere on a frontpage of EU parlament website, but I had to go on EU parlament site -> News -> Copyright -> "European Parliament approves new copyright rules for the internet" -> Further info under this article -> Q&A and there was a link to it.

    At least wikipedia provides link to the article too now.