Copyright Law Could Put End To Net Memes (bbc.com) 176
An anonymous reader shares a report: Memes, remixes and other user-generated content could disappear online if the EU's proposed rules on copyright become law, warn experts. Digital rights groups are campaigning against the Copyright Directive, which the European Parliament will vote on later this month. The legislation aims to protect rights-holders in the internet age. But critics say it misunderstands the way people engage with web content and risks excessive censorship. The Copyright Directive is an attempt to reshape copyright for the internet, in particular rebalancing the relationship between copyright holders and online platforms. Article 13 states that platform providers should "take measures to ensure the functioning of agreements concluded with rights-holders for the use of their works." Critics say this will, in effect, require all internet platforms to filter all content put online by users, which many believe would be an excessive restriction on free speech. There is also concern that the proposals will rely on algorithms that will be programmed to "play safe" and delete anything that creates a risk for the platform.
Let me refer you to Lt. Cmdr Data (Score:5, Funny)
Here is his reaction after hearing about this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Let's hope Slashdot and/or Youtube have made sure to get the proper permissions to show such a video ...
Memes will survive... (Score:2)
Re: Memes will survive... (Score:1)
They won't even react to this.
I'll believe copyright can stop meme "piracy" when it manages to stop any other piracy.
The whole point of memes is they spread on their own so stopping them is entirely preposterous.
Re: (Score:2)
This.
Re: (Score:3)
Memes will not even change. Nobody that creates them, mostly teens and young adults give two shits about some EU law. An those that even know about it will simply ignore it.
No, it won't (Score:1)
Just like it hasn't stopped copyright violations in any other area.
Copyright law globally is becoming impossible (Score:5, Insightful)
The US is facing a bill to extend copyright another 70 years. And to prevent much 'old' content from going into the public domain.
Corporations are wrecking copyright by claiming rights for their 'lifetime', which for virtually every corporation is 'forever'.
Digital content is also virtually perpetual, which makes perpetual rights both rational (if you believe that) and possible. Physical media such as paintings will eventually face the problem of being replicated to be preserved, and then the inevitable fight over rights of this 'perpetual' replica as a replacement.
And the Internet has thrived on fair use, which was tolerated until it became widespread and actually practical to use.
We need to reconsider letting copyright become perpetual, that it become limited to reasonable protection, and see if Mickey Mouse actually fades away...
Re: (Score:1)
Corporations are wrecking copyright
Government is wrecking copyright. They make the laws. Talk to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You either don't know how government really works, or are simply being disingenuous.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Life of author of work for hire; Bridgeman v Corel (Score:5, Informative)
The US is facing a bill to extend copyright another 70 years.
Copyright in which works? All works, or just pre-1972 sound recordings that are already subject to copyright-like rights granted by the several states? Besides, the sound recording copyright is among the easiest to design around, as once copyright in the underlying musical work has expired, it's fair game for your cover version.
Corporations are wrecking copyright by claiming rights for their 'lifetime', which for virtually every corporation is 'forever'.
For purpose of the U.S. copyright term in works other than pre-1972 sound recordings, the life of the author of a work made for hire is reckoned as 25 years after first publication or 50 years after creation, whichever comes first. This part of the copyright term formula has remained unchanged since the Copyright Act of 1976, even though a 1998 amendment to the statute extended the post-mortem period from the Berne minimum 50 years to 70 years to match that of the European Union.
Physical media such as paintings will eventually face the problem of being replicated to be preserved, and then the inevitable fight over rights of this 'perpetual' replica as a replacement.
Unlike Australia, the United States does not recognize "sweat of the brow" as extending a copyright term. When copyright in an original two-dimensional work such as a painting expires, copyright in all faithful reproductions thereof expires along with it. Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
The US is facing a bill to extend copyright another 70 years. And to prevent much 'old' content from going into the public domain.
There's a way both to allow copyrights to potentially be extended and to get stuff into the public domain at the same time. I've posted before on this. The problem is that if these copyrights are so valuable that they simply must be extended, then why is Congress doing so for free or a mere pittance? Allow for renewals once the initial copyright expires but limit those to renewal to a much shorter period, say, 10 years. Charge $1 million for the first renewal. I mean, if these copyrights are valuable,
Re: (Score:2)
Another proposal along similar lines is a property tax. Beginning several years after first publication of a work, a copyright owner assesses the value of the copyrights it owns and remits a fraction of that value to the Copyright Office every year. Anyone else can put a work in the eminent domain* by paying the copyright owner that amount. To prevent this sort of taking pursuant to the Fifth Amendment or foreign counterparts, a copyright owner can pay more tax on a higher self-assessed value.
Those who disa
Re: (Score:2)
Public domain. Eminent domain is something else entirely....
Re: (Score:2)
It's eminent domain leading to public domain. In this property tax proposal, the Copyright Office pays the owner-assessed "just compensation" to the owner for a taking pursuant to the Fifth Amendment. (That's the eminent part.) Then the Office formally abandons said copyright. (That's the public part.)
Re: (Score:2)
That would be terrible for non-commercially viable, however still valid copyrights. Major example would be OSS.
I might want to keep copyrights to my library and distribute it for free, or for a small fee / consulting opportunity. A big company might steal it with that proposal for peanuts.
Implementation cost (Score:5, Insightful)
Critics say this will, in effect, require all internet platforms to filter all content put online by users
I run a forum. I already have to deal with the occasional spam that gets through the registration system, and now I have to check everything my users say to see if someone else has already said it? No, thanks.
I've also built a few web applications, some of which accept user-submitted content. Do I now need to integrate that with a third-party scanning tool to enforce filtering? I'd really rather not, just from a licensing and contracting perspective...
I also note this comes hot on the heels of the GDPR. I guess it's time for another new privacy policy update, to tell folks that the information they submit (which might possibly be personally-identifiable) will now be handed off to a copyright scanner and checked to see if they dared to have an unoriginal thought...
With all due respect, fuck that.
Re: (Score:3)
As Stalin might have said, it is not important who controls the platforms, but rather the filters...
"unoriginal" will also include "unapproved", such an infrastructure will not be used for copyright alone.
Re:Implementation cost (Score:5, Interesting)
I run a forum as well. The penalties for violating copyright are $200 to $150,000 per work infringed. Even if one item slipped by me and I was hit with a $200 penalty, that would be devastating. That's essentially half of my small forum's yearly budget. And that's if they go on the low end. If the copyright owner went for what seems to be the standard RIAA amount of around $2,000, my forum would permanently be shut down and I'd be in bad financial shape. If they went for the maximum, I'd need to personally declare bankruptcy. All because someone uploaded a screenshot from a movie without getting express permission for that one still. Meanwhile, the financial cost of using one still from a movie without the company's permission is literally $0. (Who looks at a meme image and then decides "Well, guess I don't need to buy THAT movie now!")
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
EU's proposed rules (Score:3, Insightful)
That's cute: they think they are a relevant governing body.
This kills the Internet (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
A free internet, if you can keep it...
Apparently we can't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Poor YouTube... (Score:1)
Copyright is just about (Score:5, Insightful)
That is why these corporations are willing to buy the right copyright laws from the politicians. It is a one time cost now for huge profit with little effort later.
I do not think it can be stopped because politicians are corrupt and will always take the money.
Just my 2 cents
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that is why we need a reasonable and practical concept of fair use.
While it sometimes does negatively impact the copyrights owners, the actual net for fair use is often positive because all publicity is good publicity in the world of entertainment.
Re: (Score:2)
But unfortunately I think here in the US the politicians are being paid to make our copyright laws even worst.
Mickey Mouse has loads of dough to protect himself, and plenty of corrupt politicians of both parties to buy.
Just my 2 cents
False premise (Score:1)
The story with disaster girl was her literal dad in real life worked very hard to research this and make it happen.
The upshot is if it sticks as a meme (after any potential law jungle-ry) then the courts aren't going to bring it down.
So there's really no potential for our beloved comrade Stalin to rescue the memes held hostage by future counter-revolutionary activity.
EU Overreach (Score:5, Insightful)
Once again the EU tries to impose it's laws on the rest of the world. What this will result in is platforms leaving the EU. If the platform is not physically in the EU the EU has no actual control over them. Sure, the EU can convict them in absentia but so what. Just ignore the EU.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll agree with you about tech-illiterati however it won't kill the Internet because the EU doesn't control anything outside the EU. It will mean simply a brain-drain from the EU to other countries. European countries have done this sort of thing over the centuries and each time the real literati leave. The result of such brain drains is a loss of creativity for the EU.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Once again the EU tries to impose it's laws on the rest of the world.
It does nothing of the sort. Just because you're on the internet doesn't mean the EU can sue you.
Re: (Score:2)
Easily solved by spinning up a Panama corporation.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. That was my point. The EU will lose those companies, individuals, creativity and have general brain drain. They've done this before and suffered for it each time.
In Soviet Russia ... (Score:1)
In Soviet Russia, meme puts end to copyright law!
Ha ha!
I'll be here all week, try the veal.
You can do it!
That's all folks.
This will not go as planned (Score:1)
This will not work the way they think it will. It's unenforceable in any but draconian ways. And when you suppress things that hard the results will be as inevitable as entropy. Pirate and Dark Web outfits will see a resurgence on a massive scale. The smart people that can build ways around things like this will put there little grey cells on it. And the things they come up with will make TOR look tame. As a result truly bad criminals will have new tools to commit crimes and law enforcement will be fa
It hardly even matters (Score:2)
"Don't worry, nations of Europe. The EU government will only be granted very limited powers to regulate interstate trade, and anything it touches, and anything that in turn touches, out to six degrees of Kevin Bacon.
"Your sovereignity is not threatened!"
The end of memes? (Score:2)
Coming For Our Memes (Score:3)
They're coming for our memes?
Finally, something that might unite the right and left against overbearing copyright laws!
Maybe talk to a young person.. (Score:2)
Somebody is misunderstanding memes, social-media and the internet in general.
Imagine the flood of memes regarding the takedown notices of memes.
Re: (Score:2)
Can we begin with: "And nothing of value was lost"?
Re: (Score:2)
That's easy to say on front end, but culture has a way of showing it's value years later- Generally, memes are the distilled essence of whatever subculture.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry. I was going for an ironic "use a meme to celebrate the death of memes" as a joke. Though honestly I think most of them have to do with something like a social currency/grease than as particularly valuable. It's kind of like the hi, how are you, fine you, also fine -- just a bit of "oh yeah, I know that too, I guess I can sit in the same room with you or share a beer or whatever" than anything permanent or telling.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you looked on Netcraft?
and then they came for memes (Score:2)
Natalie Portman will not be amused... (Score:2)
Memes? It could put an end to CDNs! (Score:2)
I've been going back and forth with IBM for a week as to why I couldn't order CDN service (Akamai, which IBM bought a while back).
I got one strange error message, they did some "diagnosis", and then I started getting another strange error message. And, finally, an email stating that our credit card details couldn't be verified, and so the order was cancelled.
So, it turns out IBM needs more relevant error messages. The latter was apparently the easiest way they had to cancel the order.
IBM is currently not pe
For once, US law is better (Score:2)
In the US, we have something called fair use. That means that a bite-sized spreading idea (a meme) can make a reference to pop culture as social commentary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
None of us were talking about Youtube.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Every single frame of every film or TV show ever made (for just one example)? That would be far more impossible than the current content ID system at YouTube.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to update copyright... (Score:2)
for the Internet age then you should look at reducing the length of copyright. It should become easier to make derivative works in the fast pace of the Internet age.
EU == totalitarianism (Score:2)
Why do people want to live under the rule of unelected bureaucrats?
Article 27 GDPR was the breaking point (Score:5, Insightful)
At what point will it no longer be worth it to business in the EU?
For many companies, that came on 25 May 2018, the effective date of Article 27 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (text [gdpr-info.eu]). It requires businesses outside the EU that do business in the EU to hire a representative in the EU to handle privacy requests, even if the foreign business otherwise complies with the GDPR. Representative service can cost thousands of USD per year (source [verasafe.com]).
Only "occasional" processing of personal data is exempt from the Article 27 requirement, and it remains to be seen how EU judges will interpret "occasional" in light of its lack of definition in the text of the GDPR. For example, if a business does less than 1% of its worldwide turnover in the EU, is processing "occasional" when it happens roughly twice per order, once during payment and once when the business prints a shipping label?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You only need to have a representative if you do large scale processing of tracking data mentioned in paragraph 9.1: Like race, religion, health and other categories deemed especially sensitive, and only if you haven't got prior permission.
Article 27(2)(a) (linked again for convenience [gdpr-info.eu]) sets forth four requirements for a private sector business outside the EU that does business in the EU to be exempt from the requirement to hire a representative:
1. processing "is occasional";
2. processing does not include large-scale processing of Article 9(1) data, largely related to membership in a protected class under anti-discrimination law, which you mentioned;
3. processing does not include large-scale processing of data about criminal convictions; and
4
Re: (Score:2)
Just as a practical matter, if the only business you do in the EU is accept user logins you can extend a finger to EUcrats.
How are they going to do anything about it? What are they going to do? Waggle their wigs at you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They'd have an unenforceable foreign judgement against a corporate entity, unless the operator was really really foolish.
US courts have long laughed at foreign default judgements against American citizens/corporations that have never been 'there'. That's kind of an old worn out shyster scam. In practice 100% bluff in attempt to extract payment.
Re: (Score:2)
For many companies, that came on 25 May 2018
Did it? Didn't notice. Because unlike most of the sensationalist bullshit you don't actually need to hoover up every last detail of your customer for marketing purposes. Interestingly nearly all companies that are affected by this actually have offices in the EU anyway. Just because you are willing to put something in a box and mail it to the EU doesn't mean you're doing "business in the EU".
That's one of the things that most people seem to forget. Just because someone from the EU can access you doesn't aut
Re: (Score:2)
Just because you are willing to put something in a box and mail it to the EU doesn't mean you're doing "business in the EU".
Article 3(2)(a) [gdpr-info.eu] states that "offering of goods and services [...] to such data subjects in the Union" is enough to make the GDPR apply.
Rather than paying representatives companies which do business in the EU could just get their Irish accountants to handle the requests.
Correct. A company with a subsidiary in the EU can designate the EU subsidiary as its representative pursuant to Article 27.
But when you wrote your comment, were you mostly referring to multibillion-dollar companies or to small businesses with annual turnover less than $10 million?
Re: (Score:2)
Article 3(2)(a) [gdpr-info.eu] states that "offering of goods and services [...] to such data subjects in the Union" is enough to make the GDPR apply.
Indeed it does. But just because you can buy something and get it shipped doesn't mean it's on offer to an EU customer. One legal analysis said that you actually need to put effort into targeting said customer. E.g. If you sell me something on ebay or from your other American store doesn't automatically put you in the line of fire for the GDPR. For that to apply you need to at least put some effort into your customers:
a) Do you collect taxes and report it to the EU state? If your customer is likely to have
Re: (Score:2)
Is your website in German? Or are you relying on customers to have proficiency in English?
That depends. Does a website in English, French, and Spanish with a US mailing address appear as someone targeting Britain, Ireland, France, and Spain? My reading of the test in recital 23 [gdpr-info.eu] shows that regulators would instead realize it is targeting USA, Anglophone Canada, Francophone Canada, and Mexico. However:
d) Are you shipping within the EU or from outside?
From outside. But if the <select> element for country in the shipping destination and billing address forms contains <option> elements referencing member states, that might count as "the
Re: (Score:2)
Don't cherry pick. I just gave examples of things that could be considered defence against the legislation. Just because your website is in Spanish doesn't mean it's targeting EU people, but if your website is only in English its part of the argument against.
From outside. But if the element for country in the shipping destination and billing address forms contains elements referencing member states, that might count as "the mentioning of customers or users who are in the Union" per recital 23.
It's very rare to see any company do anything other than list all possible postal codes, including those belonging to countries where the USA has sanctions. Now if you specifically mention just EU countries, then you have a case for targetting.
Does having a processor process customers' payment count as "doing something"?
See above
Re: (Score:2)
Just because your website is in Spanish doesn't mean it's targeting EU people, but if your website is only in English its part of the argument against.
It might not have been clear, but I was agreeing with that part. Just offering service in the languages of one or more of your trading partners outside the EU isn't evidence that you're targeting the EU, even if they also speak a member state's language due to being an ex-colony.
It's very rare to see any company do anything other than list all possible postal codes, including those belonging to countries where the USA has sanctions.
For the business in question, it had been standard practice to remove country codes from the list if the business has made a decision not to ship to that country, such as compliance with an overall embargo (like that of the United S
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly. But still the question is how much. Showing you're willing to ship something somewhere is quite different from actively doing business with that area.
As usual if the laws were black and white then the lawyers would be out of business.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't relax then get some different legal advice because the current one you're getting is making you afraid of being sued by your own shadow.
'murican problems
Re:Article 27 GDPR was the breaking point (Score:5, Insightful)
"Representative service can cost thousands of USD per year"
Oh noes! How will the multinational conglomerates worth billions of dollars on the open market be able to handle such a cost?
It's also a very high barrier to any smaller business trying to start in Europe or expand into it. But it's not like the immediate effect of regulations shutting down a business, it's more that you have no idea what businesses could have started up if the barriers to entry weren't so high. But since that's an unknown, we tend not to think about it very much, and thus undervalue what those barriers are actually costing us, because we're only considering sticking it to the big boys. Well anything applied uniformly hits the smaller guy a lot harder than the big guy.
Re: Article 27 GDPR was the breaking point (Score:4, Insightful)
That the US is a collection of non-sovereign states and the EU is a collection of sovereign countries?
Re:Article 27 GDPR was the breaking point (Score:4, Interesting)
My current employer is not a "multinational conglomerate" but a small business in the United States. It did less than 1 percent of its business in the EU during the 365 days prior to the effective date of the GDPR. If it were to continue to ship to the EU, the price of the Article 27 representative service that I linked would exceed the total margin on orders that bill or ship to the EU.
Re: (Score:2)
The representative pursuant to article 27 must be in the European Union. Our business is in the USA.
Re: (Score:3)
Out of curiosity, which part did you think you didn't comply with?
The regulations are basically:
Tell the user what data s/he stores and why.
Let the user decide if you are allowed to keep the data, unless there is a valid reason to keep it.
Don't lie about what you store.
Honestly, that is about it.
The fees?
They come after EU tells you to stop what you are doing and you refuse to comply...
Re: (Score:2)
You missing an important part.
Every company handling personal data about EU citizens that is in reach of EU law enforcement has to comply.
Re: (Score:2)
You missing an important part.
Every company handling personal data about EU citizens that is in reach of EU law enforcement has to comply.
Yea, but banking is increasingly an international industry and such provisions are enforced by putting the onus on the banks to ensure their customers comply or risk access to EU markets. So I'm sure that unless every bank with which you do business is entirely inside the US and the EU doesn't somehow force the US-only banks to comply, your company's money can be claimed/fined by an EU court. Which is the problem. The US uses the same mechanism to enforce sanctions on Iran and N. Korea. The EU is going
Re: (Score:2)
The EU doesn't have subpoena power to find out who's behind the corporate entity that registered the domain. The worst they can do is accelerate the adoption of untraceable money flows and fragment a few financial services. The more obnoxious the EUcrats get, the more will slip through their fingers.
They will have a hard time catching Europeans that put their hosting overseas, much less actual non-EU citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
The representative shall be established in one of the Member States where the data subjects, whose personal data are processed in relation to the offering of goods or services to them, or whose behaviour is monitored, are.
Sounds like the representative has to be in the EU to me...
However, in practice, if you don't have a presence in the EU, I don't know what GDPR can do to you. And if you do, then you can just designate a person who already works there.
Re: (Score:2)
You just have to appoint a responsible person.
That's for the data privacy officer provision, which is distinct from the representative provision.
Re: (Score:2)
At what point will it no longer be worth it to business in the EU? Ridiculous.
Probably after they close the tax loopholes and the next war kills off several hundred million potential western middle to upper class customers.
Re: (Score:1)
Quardekiple velson.
Re: (Score:3)
It's spelled "velsom". For God's sake, learn Kludish.
And something of no value was created (Score:2)
Oh yeah? Well, instead of parroting the words of others, perhaps you should come up with real thoughts and words of your own! ...with blackjack and hookers!
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Europe would have been in WWIII 60 years ago if it wasn't for the adult supervision of Americans.
They, relatively recently, couldn't even handle the Balkans or Libia without our help.
Re: (Score:3)
Tell it to your leaders. They don't think so.
Face facts: Europe requires adult supervision. Before they had it, the whole place was at war, every 30 years.
Re: (Score:2)
We were the adults that had to fix Europe's mess, twice in the 20th century.
Guarding Europe for them was simply judged as cheaper than saving their ass a third time. Sure we made mistakes, e.g. when France demanded their colonies back, as the price of getting them into NATO, we should have told them to fuck right off.
America is, in a way, following Europe in their downward slide. But don't kid yourself, you're a century+ ahead of us, in that respect.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Europe was in its natural state of war when the American revolution happened. But France wasn't helping America for anything other than its self interest vs Britain.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The European countries would end up paying more for it, that much is certain. Though, whether that's in the f
Re: (Score:2)
You really think the US govt is going to pass military savings back to the public? I doubt the oligarchy would allow that.
That's true, if by that you mean direct payment from conquered countries as tribute to American citizens. But in the modern world in which we live, its 100% false.
That gas you buy is 1/4 the price it would be in the EU. Why? Because of the Petrodollar [investopedia.com]. That same fact also makes sure that foreign currencies are usually depreciating against the dollar which allows you to buy from foreign companies very cheaply (while depressing their ability to buy foreign goods themselves). This allows the US to run h