This is the END of the INTERNET as we know it.

memes are ILLEGAL

you did this

Quote from: Aether on September 14, 2018, 10:53:14 AM

The new regulations seem pretty awful for fair-use content creation and the sharing of information, regardless of how you want to spin it.

I don't particularly support the Directive myself but be aware that there's two sides to this story. You're concerned with content creation, which is a legitimate concern, but you should realize that plenty of organizations representing artists, authors, musicians, photographers, videographers and so on have voiced their support for the Directive, arguing it will help content creators receive more and fairer renumeration and address people misusing and plagiarizing their work. I know several small time visual artists who are quite happy with the outcome for just that reason.

We'll have to wait and see what the outcome will be but I don't see it being anywhere near as bad as some would have you believe. The latest version of the law has been thoroughly amended and contains additional safeguards for individual users / SME's as well as serious redress mechanisms, requirements to respect copyright exceptions like fair use and requests not to blanket block or ban content.

I, personally, just don't see having to pay a fee for hyperlinking to be a good thing in any shape or form. The concept seems absolutely ridiculous. Hyperlinking is one of the most basic features of the internet and is essential for the sharing of information.

And I don't think it's a good idea to make platforms liable for their users having posted copyrighted material. My concern is that sites will create vast overreaching AI driven filters to remove or block copyrighted material that will not be able to distinguish between content that has been transformed through fair-use, all just to avoid getting fined.

Recital 33: " This protection (being that of publishers and authors' content) does not extend to acts of hyperlinking".

Recital 38: "...the responsibility of online content sharing providers pursuant to Article 13 does not extend to acts of
hyperlinking..."

Article 11 paragraph 2a: "The rights referred to in paragraph 1 (which is the rights holder being able to claim compensation for use) shall not extend to mere hyperlinks which are accompanied by individual words" (meaning that hyperlinks are exempt from tax, fee, licensing or any claims of renumeration).

Quote

And I don't think it's a good idea to make platforms liable for their users having posted copyrighted material. My concern is that sites will create vast overreaching AI driven filters to remove or block copyrighted material that will not be able to distinguish between content that has been transformed through fair-use, all just to avoid getting fined.

The Directive makes no mention of any fines. There is no European or national authority that will look for copyrighted material being posted and then fine the platform it's on. The Directive calls for licensing agreements to be concluded between the platforms and the rights holder which will settle the details of any liability issues that might arise. It also instates thorough redress mechanisms in the event that material was unduly removed, states that automatic blocking of content shouldn't happen and requires non-infringing material (such as fair use material) to remain freely available.

Article 13.2a:  "...shall not lead to preventing the availability of non-infringing works or other protected subject matter, including those covered by an exception or limitation to copyright."

Article 13.2b: "Any complaint filed under such mechanisms shall be processed without undue delay and be subject to human review."

Article 13.": "Special account shall be taken of fundamental rights, the use of exceptions and limitations as well as
ensuring that the burden on SMEs remains appropriate and that automated blocking of content is avoided."

I agree that there are genuine concerns but much of this is exaggerated and few who raise your arguments have taken the time to actually read the law or understand what's actually in it. Hopefully this helps you understand it better.

My understanding of article 11 was that it would be regulating links that display the title of an article and a bit of info underneath. Like those you see on Facebook when linking to any external news site. Which is not something I agree with.

As for article 13? If there are no fines then how are they going to hold platforms accountable for the copyrighted material on them? Why will they spend the money creating the automated systems or employing people to impose the regulations? If the laws are simply that the rights holder has the right to file a claim against something posted on a platform, then how is it really any different than what sites like YouTube already do? Where is the improvement here and how exactly are they going to actually impose the regulations on platforms?