EU Copyright Directive

[The Baker]

Going to the following web site allows for easy contact and communication with your MEP/MEPs Try to do this today as the vote is on this coming Wednesday.

https://www.writetothem.com/

 

[SammyInnit]

Terrible move. I really do hope articles 11 and 13 get voted down.

 

[sodthisforfun]

It's a good idea in a way - people will post any content, photo's, film, music, art etc without permission and/or without paying the person who created it and this isn't acceptable. There is a common misconception that if it's on the internet, it's fair game to use. We all do it.

But to stop a link to something like a newspaper article or expect to pay for even that is going too far as well as what in real terms, censoring the internet. Common sense out the window as there isn't a one size fits all solution to this.

 

[mattylad]

It might stop certain people on here posting links to any old crap that they found on the internet recently

 

[SammyInnit]

It's a good idea in a way

It isn't. I can see the point you're trying to make but when you break it down it erodes the basis of what the internet was founded on, the ability to share information.

The system currently in place where takedown notices are issued for genuinely infringing content works. The only people the new system will inevitably benefit are media copyright holders as it will free them up from doing the legwork. Everyone else will have to suffer the AI filters put into place that will disregard fair use entirely.

https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/08/what-you-need-to-know-ahead-of-the-eu-copyright-vote/

 

[sodthisforfun]

The system currently in place where takedown notices are issued for genuinely infringing content works.

And how do people find the work that has been taken? It's not always that easy. Apps and websites say that they can find things but they don't work so well.

If you'd quoted what I'd said in it's entirety, I did say that this isn't a one-size-fits-all solution and I said it censors the internet. I wasn't disagreeing with you, nor saying it was actually a good idea as a whole, just in a way - I understand that copyright is an issue, an issue that isn't taken seriously enough imo.. Sharing information, as you say is the whole thing about the internet, without permission it is stealing.
Taking photo's, vids, articles, whatever is something many, if not all of us regular users of the net are guilty of. Even my avatar is theft! I didn't take the photo and I doubt you took yours either. It's a very difficult problem to solve.

 

[SammyInnit]

And how do people find the work that has been taken?

A photo taken or shared without permission, is theft

Your basing your argument on a misunderstanding.

Fair use allows limited use of copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder for purposes such as criticism, parody, news reporting, research and scholarship, and teaching.

https://www.baylor.edu/copyright/index.php?id=56543

If you'd quoted what I'd said in it's entirety, I did say that this isn't a one-size-fits-all solution and I said it censors the internet. I wasn't disagreeing with you, nor saying it was actually a good idea as a whole, just in a way - I understand that copyright is an issue, an issue that isn't taken seriously enough imo.. However, I can understand that copyright issues are a problem, a big problem. Sharing information, as you say is the whole thing about the internet, however without permission is stealing.

See above and you may understand why I didn't see it necessary to quote you in entirety.

You're disregarding context and fair use and presuming you need permission unconditionally which is incorrect.

 

[sodthisforfun]

Your basing your argument on a misunderstanding.



https://www.baylor.edu/copyright/index.php?id=56543




See above and you may understand why I didn't see it necessary to quote you in entirety.

You're disregarding context and fair use and presuming you need permission unconditionally which is incorrect.

Please use a link that is from the UK as our copyright rules are different to the USA.

 

[SammyInnit]

Please use a link that is from the UK as our copyright rules are different to the USA.

Most sharing platforms don't adhere to UK law so it makes no odds but we also have exceptions much inline with US fair use terms

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright

 

[sodthisforfun]

Most sharing platforms don't adhere to UK law so it makes no odds but we also have exceptions much inline with US fair use terms

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright

Actually you will find our UK laws are stricter than the USA.
And yes, while social media platforms are largely not in the UK it doesn't mean that the musician, the photographer, the film maker from the UK has to put up with it.

 

[SammyInnit]

Actually you will find our UK laws are stricter than the USA.
And yes, while social media platforms are largely not in the UK it doesn't mean that the musician, the photographer, the film maker from the UK has to put up with it.

I think you have your wires crossed.

The type of piracy and copyright infringement you're talking about is illegal and these articles will do nothing to tackle the sharing of said files. It's already illegal, people go to jail for it; it's not the same thing as disregarding fair use.

People aren't uploading two hour long films to YouTube. If they are they're already getting removed. This will do nothing to prevent piracy, only erode the foundation of the internet and make it harder to share genuine information.

 

[sodthisforfun]

See above and you may understand why I didn't see it necessary to quote you in entirety.

Actually it would've helped because you would have seen that I agree with the fact that this ruling up for vote tomorrow is a bad idea. Instead of telling me what I mean and that my concerns for artists is incorrect.
I feel like you're just trying to make an argument for the sake of it tbh. I am all for protecting hard working artists and their work from being spread all over the internet for zero reward. Zero reward doesn't pay the bills, a byline or a link doesn't pay the bills.

Could you imagine a builder or a plumber being told that they weren't going to get paid, however they will happily put a notice outside the house and say who did the work? Or a line on facebook to say who did the work on their house? It's the same thing and yes, I will say that I think it IS a 'good idea in a way' because I understand protecting the artists. The internet has made things so very easy to share, by its very design, but I do not see why anyone should gain off other peoples hard work. It is also a bad idea because it's not the solution to the problem as it does, indeed censor the internet.

That is my stance.

Edited to add:
From your link YOU put up:
"Backers of the proposal see it differently, of course. These people tend to be creatives whose professional existence depends upon being paid for the sharable content they create, such as musicians, authors, filmmakers and so on.

Their counter argument is that, as it stands, their hard work is being ripped off because they are not being fairly recompensed for it".

As I already said:

And how do people find the work that has been taken? It's not always that easy. Apps and websites say that they can find things but they don't work so well.

 

[motorbiking]

People should be focusing on efforts to moneytize their content, not bitch and moan if its embedded in to other works. If you don't want people to develop or embed your works, don't publish it in a way that allows them to. However, there are some monopolies that need to be sorted out. Youtube for example stopped paying small producers ad-revenue in order to pay the bigger channels more. As a result, less and less specialist useful content is uploaded as makeup vlogs get the clicks.

A standard defence to a copyright challenge is to argue the content is not original works. Very little is nowadays.