EU copyright laws/article 13

  • JoeBlade 17 Feb 2019 14:50:22 5,714 posts
    Seen 30 minutes ago
    Registered 18 years ago
    Apparently there's (still) no thread about this? I tried searching, to no avail.
    I know this could become far less relevant for many of you if the Brexit happens but it's definitely food for thought for us over in mainland Europe.

    Anyway, the final version of the controversial new copyright law was agreed upon a few days ago and almost every news site has at least one article on the topic. For those who don't know: the EU decided the copyright laws are largely outdated, particularly with regards to the internet.

    The fundamentals are difficult to argue with: artists, journalists and other professionals who produce works that can be transferred digitally see a large portion of their income elude them as the material in question has often become almost public domain. Almost, in that it is freely available, except that's not legal and the creators often don't get a cent for their efforts.
    Article 13 in particular would make the parties that host content responsible, even if they did not create said content themselves; they must make a "best effort" to take down copyrighted content.

    Some parties are strongly opposed to the proposal though and very vocal. Particularly Google, who have referred to the proposal as 'the end of the internet as we know it' (oooo, ominous!)
    A bit odd IMO since the only real practical implementation of the proposal would be the sort of content flagging algorithms they've already implemented on YouTube anyway.

    The opposition primarily fears the flagging algorithms - that would then become widely adopted - would most likely be very brute force and flag content willy nilly rather than risk letting copyrighted material slip through. Some even claim copyrights is an archaic concept altogether and new views on ownership of such content should instead be investigated (ideally ensuring the creators still get their dues)

    Also, attempts have been made in the past with fairly disastrous results: Germany and Spain for instance implemented similar laws at some point. The consequence was a huge loss of revenue for online newspapers and the likes due to loss of visibility. They were practically begging to revoke the laws, which ended up happening in both cases.

    As a software developer I am in two minds. I don't currently produce distributable software products but I have in the past and I'm not particularly fond of anyone being able to use my creations without compensation to my employer, i.e. the people who pay me. On the other hand I'm very much in favor of open source.
    A similar debate was also already held back when Napster gave rise to digital distribution of music and the platforms were mostly cracked down upon, hard. Two decades later Spotify, Netflix and similar services are more popular than ever before and entirely legal. People are clearly willing to pay, as long as the service is good, easy to use and convenient. I for one haven't bought one physical copy of a game anymore since Steam appeared.
    Counter-point is that even current copyright laws already very frequently lead to exclusivity deals (among others), which are arguably never in the best interest of consumers. Pick ten series you'd like to watch and there's a non-negligible chance you'd have to subscribe to five different streaming services to do so legally.
    Additionally, I think it's rather ironic news sites in particular have been pushing for new laws all while frequently including posts from Twitter, Facebook et al in their articles.

    So all in all it doesn't have to be bad, depending on the practical implementation. But it could also indeed give rise to overly zealous forms of censorship and end up hurting the people the laws are meant to help more than anything else. Not to mention severely limit our access to digital content.

    Bleh, lots of words. But I'd like to hear your thoughts :)
  • RyanDS 17 Feb 2019 15:24:24 13,676 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    I donít know enough to comment. But those of my friends in the technical side of things say this is Iíll thought out and terrible legislation.
  • JoeBlade 17 Feb 2019 15:52:22 5,714 posts
    Seen 30 minutes ago
    Registered 18 years ago
    @RyanDS I can very well imagine it could be.

    For instance, I've not seen it mentioned explicitly on news sites and can't be arsed reading the text myself but I can't shake the feeling it's based around dubious ideas like 'every time content is shared on internet the creator loses revenue', the same argument anti-piracy advocates have brandished in the past.

    There's no proof for that. In fact, the German and Spanish examples at least strongly suggest the opposite.
    Sharing creates exposure. Exposure attracts users. Users generate revenue.
  • ChocNut 17 Feb 2019 15:57:40 2,471 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 18 years ago
    Iím all for this. The internet has become a shithole anyway so may as well privatise the entire thing.

    Iíve been a digital artist for about 15 years and Iíve never abused copyright while everyone else on the planet does it seems.

    As a creator of original content Iím at a disadvantage.
  • Deleted user 17 February 2019 23:00:08
    Post deleted
  • Dirtbox 17 Feb 2019 23:32:40 91,951 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 18 years ago
    It's shortsighted and open to abuse. You can bet your bollocks some cunts are pouring through the fine print to see how they can extort every single website under the sun.
  • Deleted user 18 February 2019 00:20:16
    This is just another heavily-lobbied cash grab by the entertainment industry. What we need is reform of copyright legislation and what we get is more entrenchment.

    Copyright laws were designed to protect individual artists, not massive global corporations.
  • ChocNut 18 Feb 2019 08:31:08 2,471 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 18 years ago
    @TheRealBadabing Artists work for global corporations.
  • Lukus 18 Feb 2019 10:27:34 23,999 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    ChocNut wrote:
    @TheRealBadabing Artists work for global corporations.
    That's a bit of a blanket statement. Not particularly helpful in a proper discussion.
  • Deleted user 18 February 2019 11:57:31
    Post deleted
  • Deleted user 18 February 2019 17:33:28
    ChocNut wrote:
    @TheRealBadabing Artists work for global corporations.
    And their creative output then becomes the property of that corporation. You are not seriously trying to say this sort of legislation protects artists like that, are you?
  • ChocNut 18 Feb 2019 18:27:00 2,471 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 18 years ago
    Corporations pay. When media is thrown around by others for free, corporations see less value in it.
  • dominalien 18 Feb 2019 18:43:33 10,216 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    Hereís a point of view about it:
  • Load_2.0 26 Mar 2019 12:28:44 32,507 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 18 years ago
    Just passed.

    On a positive note hopefully this limits the growth of youtube celebrities.
  • rep- 26 Mar 2019 14:13:48 132 posts
    Seen 2 years ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Excuse the ignorance.

    How does this impact a site such as EG who pulls most of their news from other outlets/twitter/reddit?
  • y2rich 26 Mar 2019 14:15:41 3,501 posts
    Seen 3 months ago
    Registered 14 years ago
    I'm not sure any of it makes much difference. It'll need to be enforced country by country and its so imprecise its pretty much unenforceable
Sign in or register to reply

Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.