Quote from: MarKhan on March 28, 2019, 12:28:58 PMI feel a deja vuIt 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.
I feel a deja vu
Say i meme some corps advertisement and put in on youtube, could they not take it down?
Quote from: Ásgeirr on March 28, 2019, 03:35:24 PMSay i meme some corps advertisement and put in on youtube, could they not take it down?They shouldn't.Spoiler
Quote from: MarKhan on March 28, 2019, 03:45:30 PMQuote from: Ásgeirr on March 28, 2019, 03:35:24 PMSay i meme some corps advertisement and put in on youtube, could they not take it down?They shouldn't.SpoilerBut thats just a basic copyright law, what is this new article then
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
Quote from: Ásgeirr on March 28, 2019, 05:02:18 PMSo 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 anticsWell, 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.
Quote from: Flee on March 28, 2019, 07:20:59 PMQuote from: Ásgeirr on March 28, 2019, 05:02:18 PMSo 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 anticsWell, 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.
Quote from: Ásgeirr on March 28, 2019, 09:00:06 PMQuote from: Flee on March 28, 2019, 07:20:59 PMQuote from: Ásgeirr on March 28, 2019, 05:02:18 PMSo 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 anticsWell, 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.
Quote from: MarKhan on March 28, 2019, 05:21:14 PMMy man, I'm proud of you. You've got a future in law if the programming doesn't work out for you. :p
Quote from: Ásgeirr on March 28, 2019, 09:00:06 PMYou 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".
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.
MEMES ARE BANNED
