Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses The Internet

Copyright Law Could Put End To Net Memes (bbc.com) 176

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Copyright Law Could Put End To Net Memes More

Copyright Law Could Put End To Net Memes

Comments Filter:

  • Let me refer you to Lt. Cmdr Data (Score:5, Funny)

    by nitehawk214 ( 222219 ) on Friday June 08, 2018 @02:03PM (#56751166)

    Here is his reaction after hearing about this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Calydor ( 739835 )

      Let's hope Slashdot and/or Youtube have made sure to get the proper permissions to show such a video ...

  • .. they may just be a bit different.

    • Re: Memes will survive... (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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:3)

      by jwhyche ( 6192 )

      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)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Just like it hasn't stopped copyright violations in any other area.

  • Copyright law globally is becoming impossible (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rickb928 ( 945187 ) on Friday June 08, 2018 @02:17PM (#56751278) Homepage Journal

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Corporations are wrecking copyright

      Government is wrecking copyright. They make the laws. Talk to them.

      • In this case, I believe that they sign the proposals into law, but they do not make them

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by thomn8r ( 635504 )
        Government is wrecking copyright. They make the laws. Talk to them

        You either don't know how government really works, or are simply being disingenuous.

      • We talk to them all the time. Every two years, we tell them "Democrats and Republicans, we've decided to re-elect you. Yes, again. Sorry if you were getting tired of "raping" us, but I'm bending over now, so get to it! And you better remember to tell me to squeal like a pig, so that I can maintain the fantasy that I'm being raped and never chose this! Oh, and congratulations on your re-election."
      • woosh?

    • 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].

    • 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)

        by tepples ( 727027 )

        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

        • Anyone else can put a work in the eminent domain

          Public domain. Eminent domain is something else entirely....

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by tepples ( 727027 )

            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)

          by stikves ( 127823 )

          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)

    by Sarten-X ( 1102295 ) on Friday June 08, 2018 @02:19PM (#56751288) Homepage

    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)

      by dyfet ( 154716 )

      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)

      by Jason Levine ( 196982 ) on Friday June 08, 2018 @03:06PM (#56751610) Homepage

      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!")

      • "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." That is not a concern, it's a feature. And once the current system of copyright enforcement after the fact (with takedown notices and such) is replaced with a priori filtering, you can be sure that websites will then also be held responsible for socially undesirable content, and asked or scared into censoring it a priori as well. I expect EU s
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • EU's proposed rules (Score:3, Insightful)

    by xxxJonBoyxxx ( 565205 ) on Friday June 08, 2018 @02:24PM (#56751318)
    >> European Parliament's proposed rules

    That's cute: they think they are a relevant governing body.
  • Freedom of Speech would only be one of the casualties of legislation like this; it would, for the most part, make the Internet read-only. Few if any websites would allow anyone to upload anything whatsoever, because of the cost and the exposure to liability under the law. You wouldn't even be able to upload photographs you took with your own camera or device. In a possible future Internet under legislation like this, it would be more like having a Cable TV subscription than it would anything you've come to

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by dyfet ( 154716 )

      A free internet, if you can keep it...

      Apparently we can't.

    • They don't want to kill it, they want to make sure that it's only available to large content providers. They'll be the only ones who can defend against this - legally and technically.
      • But, see, that will kill it. Did you read my entire paragraph? The Internet would essentially become read-only, like Cable TV. The only difference between the two would be you'd (ostensibly) be able to email (maybe -- they'd probably sift through that, too, to make sure you're not 'sharing' anything copyrighted) and access government sites, and buy things from retailers. The real value of the Internet would be gone. There would be no room for creativity or freedom of speech. It wouldn't be worth paying for
        • Well yeah, that depends on your viewpoint. From the perspective of Google, Apple, CNN, Fox, etc. etc. it's a wonderful thing. You immediately eliminate all competitors and have the place to yourself. (See TV in the early days). Google then becomes a total shopping site instead of a search engine, but it's almost made that transition anyway. I think that the point they've overlooked is that much of the content they present is actually user-generated and, as you point out, that would go away, but they'd fi
          • Reddit would end up being shut down for, again, concerns over liability. This place (slashdot) would be shut down for similar reasons, I'd imagine. You'd even have a hard time starting your own website that only contains things you created yourself, because there are companies that would claim copyright of them anyway (there is documented precedent for this happening, especially to musicians/singer/songwriters). We live in a day and age where, if someone's name, that they were given at birth, happens to cla
  • Pewdiepie will have to get a regular job. No more meme review for you!

  • Copyright is just about (Score:5, Insightful)

    by oldgraybeard ( 2939809 ) on Friday June 08, 2018 @02:33PM (#56751382)
    a permanent monopoly. Which is just what the corporations that are ending up with these copyrights need. In order to make them a good buy and profit producer for the corporation owners. They want them to be an asset that will never be used up. Never require additional costs related to development and design. In essence they have an almost nonexistent cost to maintain. So most every bit of income generated is, for the most part profit.
    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 ;).
    • One more thing, the corporate owners are even buying laws that pass the cost of policing their copyrights on to 3rd parties. Sweet deal to off load your cost to maintain on to other entities. ;) That way they can spend less on their copyright protection expenses.

    • 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.

      • I would like to see a "reasonable and practical concept of fair use" implemented.
        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 ;)
  • Usually the things that become memes take some research to make sure there is no IP in them.

    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)

    by pubwvj ( 1045960 ) on Friday June 08, 2018 @02:38PM (#56751418)

    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.

    • Really, though, it sounds to me like another case of technologically clueless politicians catering to the demands of corporations with no regard whatsoever to the technical feasibility of the 'legislation' they're proposing. In this case it would literally KILL the Internet, turning it into not much better than Cable TV, read-only.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by pubwvj ( 1045960 )

        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.

        • I of course know that what one country (or coalition of countries) decides to do with the internet doens't affect everyone else directly, but what I'm more concerned about is everyone else deciding to follow suit and implement this nonsense regardless, mainly because of pressure from corporations (which have too much political influence currently). They'll go for whatever seems to make their bottom line more attractive regardless of the consequences to everyone else.

    • 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.

  • In Soviet Russia ... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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

  • "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!"

  • Now I'm in favor of it.

  • Coming For Our Memes (Score:3)

    by Jason Levine ( 196982 ) on Friday June 08, 2018 @03:07PM (#56751616) Homepage

    They're coming for our memes?

    Finally, something that might unite the right and left against overbearing copyright laws!

  • 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)

      by Quirkz ( 1206400 )

      Can we begin with: "And nothing of value was lost"?

      • 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)

          by Quirkz ( 1206400 )

          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.

          • Sorry. I was going for an ironic "use a meme to celebrate the death of memes" as a joke.

            Have you looked on Netcraft?

  • and I didn't speak up because most all memes suck and I can't stand looking at them.
  • Stopping memes will decrease her popolarity (apart maybe in Soviet Russia), and cause a collapse of the hot grits sales.

  • 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

  • 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.

    • Not really relevant to YouTube's ContentID system. The EU law would require this kind of system be implemented everywhere, rendering all perfectly legitimate Fair Use reasons moot. Want a platform that supports Fair Use? You'll need to find a site that isn't YouTube or based in Europe or run the risk of being a copyright infringer.

  • 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.

  • Why do people want to live under the rule of unelected bureaucrats?

Slashdot Top Deals

The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh

Close