EU Takes First Step in Passing Controversial Copyright Law That Could 'Censor the Internet' (theverge.com) 235
The European Union has taken the first step in passing new copyright legislation that critics say will tear the internet apart. From a report: This morning, the EU's Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) voted in favor of the legislation, called the Copyright Directive. Although most of the directive simply updates technical language for copyright law in the age of the internet, it includes two highly controversial provisions. These are Article 11, a "link tax," which would force online platforms like Facebook and Google to buy licenses from media companies before linking to their stories; and Article 13, an "upload filter," which would require that everything uploaded online in the EU is checked for copyright infringement. (Think of it like YouTube's Content ID system but for the whole internet.) EU lawmakers critical of the legislation say these Articles may have been proposed with good intentions -- like protecting copyright owners -- but are vaguely worded and ripe for abuse.
Forget "good intentions" (Score:5, Insightful)
Laws that transfer power from citizens to the government are never about "good intentions," they're about control.
One of the first things they'll start censoring is content critical of sacred Eurocratic initiatives. Video opposing unassimilated Muslim immigration into Europe [battleswarmblog.com]? Sorry, that's banned because we call it "hate speech." Video suggesting Italy should leave the Euro? Sorry, we have to ban that because it endangers "economic stability."
Good intentions have nothing to do with it. It's all about censorship and control.
Re:Forget "good intentions" (Score:5, Insightful)
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
The "media companies" are the ones fighting for this law - in the hope Google and Facebook will pay them for the right to link to their stories.
It's going to really funny to watch their faces after Google and Facebook stop linking to them.
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly what I first thought. How will all these content providers remain relevant if Facebook, Google and Yahoo simply refuses to link to their content because they have to pay.
When did the whole model change here? I remember when the whole goal when making money was to get as many links on as many sites as you could manage to funnel traffic to your site and it's embedded advertisements. It's like this whole model has been upended and spun around by 180 degrees.
Re:Forget "good intentions" (Score:5, Interesting)
It's like this whole model has been upended and spun around by 180 degrees.
Only in the imaginations of a few deranged old men.
I've seen them arguing, it really doesn't occur to them that Google will simply turn of the links and their web site will vanish from the 'net.
Even funnier: That nobody will want to advertise on a site that Google doesn't link to.
Re: (Score:3)
When did the whole model change here?
Sometime around the introduction of "retargeting" or "remarketing", where websites show you ads for sites you have recently visited. Unlike previous ads, which were relevant to the demographics associated with the website or the subject of a particular article, the new crop of ads in the 2010s were intended to be relevant to each individual viewer's browsing history. Previously, this sort of behavioral micro-targeting was seen as a curiosity, such as the "TiVo thinks I'm gay" observation from fourth quarter
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
This already happened in Germany in 2014. Several newspapers complained that Google should pay them for showing snippets of their articles and links to the source in Google News. They wanted 11% of gross worldwide revenue on any search that showed one of their articles. Google removed them from the service and page views at these publications dropped. Well, these newspapers didn't like that one bit and complained that Google should be required to carry their articles. Fortunately, German regulators shot dow
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And it's going to result in a bunch of sites currently with small market share explicitly offering a no-fee linking license. Google, Facebook, etc. will link to those sites instead, resulting in those sites gobbling up the market share currently owned by the sites wa
Re: (Score:3)
Seconded.
You can reword it as "If you're malicious, you can get away with it by acting stupid".
Alternatively, "Give bastards and assholes the benefit of the doubt".
Fuck all of that twice.
Re: (Score:2)
See, the problem is, of course they're sometimes well-intentioned. Hell, laws preventing running red lights are "transferring power form citizens to the government". Starting with a stupid absolute just means that the rest of your argument is going to be dismissed as vaguely general
And that's too bad, because there are a lot of issues with this law. But you jumped into the deep end.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to undermine your blog Mr. Person, but it is called BattleSwarm and does have the tagline "Attacking so fast they won't know what hit them", some might be forgiven for mistaking it for a site trying to frame migration as a military conflict that people should be fighting against...
But yeah, YouTube is rather over-zealous with it's enforcement.
Ironically the biggest defender of freedom of speech is often the European Court of Human Rights, which enforces the freedom of expression clause of the European C
Re:Forget "good intentions" (Score:5, Insightful)
the biggest defender of freedom of speech is often the European Court of Human Rights,
How do you quantify that? They have nice exceptions built in to allow the outlawing of "hate speech". I find it hard to believe that any institution that values free speech would allow arbitrary subjective definitions to permeate their interpretations as though they promote freedom when those interpretations are limiting in freedom by design.
The SCOTUS doesn't allow hate speech and has protected the speech of minorities with awful opinions, like the KKK or neo-nazis precisely because freedom of speech means that my rights start where your feelings begin and if you can outlaw arbitrary subjective definitions, like 'hate speech', then you do not have freedom of speech.
SCOTUS: 1
ECHR: 0
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually the ECHR doesn't say anything about hate speech. Here is the entire article relating to freedom of expression:
Article 10 â" Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
This is broadly in line with the position in the US, where there are exceptions for things that may injure others, state secrets, libel, doctor-patient confidentiality and the like.
The anti-hate-speech laws in the UK have been severely limited by the ECHR, which is one of the reasons why the current government wants to get rid of it.
Re:Forget "good intentions" (Score:5, Interesting)
Tell me more about holocaust denial in Europe. I also like that such subjective conditions and restrictions such as "prevention of disorder" or "morals" are reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech yet the ECHR is the biggest defender of freedom of speech. Seems to me rather contradictory. Do you think the government can limit that right based on dubious philosophies like morals and disorder or vague legalities like "necessity in a democratic state"?
How can the ECHR be the biggest defender of freedom of speech when it has arbitrary subjective exceptions to limit that freedom?
Re: (Score:2)
How can the ECHR be the biggest defender of freedom of speech when it has arbitrary subjective exceptions to limit that freedom?
You don't have to be perfect to be the best that's out there.
Re: (Score:2)
Why in tarnitterynation would the Tories want stronger laws against hate speech?
They'd be gagging themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
The ECHR doesn't but the UK [wikipedia.org] has idiotic hate speech laws.
Hate Speech == Censorship. PERIOD.
> The anti-hate-speech laws in the UK have been severely limited by the ECHR,
Except these idiots waste everyone's time and money over bullshit issues [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, the law in the UK is stupid and excessive.
Re:Forget "good intentions" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
From a legal POV you can. Ask Chris Langham.
Re: (Score:2)
The word "liberal" is a source of much confusion. Much, folks.
In the US it means a communist.
In the UK it has three meanings:
If you're a Tory it means someone who's basically a socialist but due to a suspicion of collectivism can't quite bring himself to vote Labour.
If you're a socialist it means someone who believes that private enterprise is in theory the way to make a bigger cake, but suspects that the game is rigged and has too much empathy for those who lose out to vote Tory.
If you're apolitical it
Re: (Score:2)
P.S. Sandals and socks.
How (Score:4, Insightful)
...and Article 13, an "upload filter," which would require that everything uploaded online in the EU is checked for copyright infringement.
Do the people writing this crap have ANY IDEA how the internet works?
Re: (Score:2)
Every word in a newspaper and frame from a movie is copyright. Linking to a EU company website will be taxed.
Political cartoons about France and Spain are reported and cant be uploaded.
The EU has taken US freedoms to publish and comment and wants to turn the net into a TV broadcast.
EU nations approved links, newspapers, cartoons, content, movie reviews.
No funny memes, no politics, no art, no culture, no satire, no reviews. Just approved content and quote taxes.
I patent the use of the letter E on line $.0005 (Score:2)
I patent the use of the letter E on line $.0005 per use.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Do the people writing this crap have ANY IDEA how the internet works?
Do you really want the answer to that question? I mean it's OBVIOUS to me.
However, the politicians of the world are pretty much all in the same boat. Hardly ever do they know anything about the real issues they are trying to "fix" and most don't really care. It's not about actually fixing something, it's about being seen as trying to do something, right or wrong, about seeming to care, about getting covered in the press. So, if you hear a politician making confident assertions about some subject and h
The wonderful EU net tax (Score:3, Insightful)
Link to a newspaper in the EU? Thats a copyright problem that can result in having to pay a company in the EU.
Quote from an EU nation newspaper? Thats copyright. Show the EU payment was made per line quoted.
The upload filter
A cartoon? Is it a political meme? Does it related to Spanish or French politics? No upload for you on social media.
Report the account to French and Spanish authorities. Is the meme funny and political? Could it cause an EU political party to be considered funny? No social media access for that cartoon.
A message about Catalan? No EU freedom for you. Spain gets a report on that social media account and requests an upload ban. The EU bans the image.
An image from a movie? Thats an EU tax for using that copyright frame from a movie.
An image from a movie with a French political leader added in as a meme? Thats going to get reported and banned. A copyright fine must be paid.
SJW want to stop news getting linked and their politics getting turned into a funny meme.
So EU political leaders tax and censor the internet. Thanks for the new tax and internet censorship attempt EU bureaucrats.
bad movie review = copyright infringement (Score:2)
bad movie review = copyright infringement
Re: (Score:2)
Surrender to EU laws and ensure the review does not contain any images.
For movie reviews from normal nations enjoy the press kit and all the included media to publish.
Article 15 (Score:5, Interesting)
I somehow don't see much uproar against art 15, which is worse than 11 and 13. It pretty much forbids any free software licenses, as it disallows perpetual licenses where payment is deemed to be too cheap.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Unless you're looking at a more up to date version, you seem to be wrong. The text of article 15 says:
Member States shall ensure that authors and performers are entitled to request additional, appropriate remuneration from the party with whom they entered into a contract for the exploitation of the rights when the remuneration originally agreed is disproportionately low compared to the subsequent relevant revenues and benefits derived from the exploitation of the works or performances.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yes this seems aimed at record companies and movie studios who use accounting voodoo to give artists small change compared to what they make. Key words here are "contract for the exploitation of the rights" so doubtful this could be used as kiloByte says.
Re:Article 15 (Score:4, Interesting)
That is absolutely a problem for open-source.
1) Developer A writes free software B under an open-source license.
2) Companies X, Y, and Z incorporate B into their products.
3) X, Y, and Z make a brazillion dollars.
This happens all the time. Now we can add step 4:
4) A asserts his Article 15 rights to extract money from X, Y, and Z.
Maybe that seems fair to you. But if this scenario happens with any regularity, companies will cease using FOSS altogether. People will be putting out free software and the corporate world will say "don't look, don't touch."
Re: (Score:2)
If I'm employed by a company who writes software / libraries and they make alot of money from code I was paid to write, can I then assert my rights because I was paid much less than the software has later proven to be worth?
How many employees from large tech companies could make that claim ?
Re: (Score:2)
Lennart Poettering.
NOT!
Re: (Score:2)
4) A asserts hs Article 15 rights and _requests_ money.
4b) Companies say: 'Tits or GTFO! LOL'
Re: (Score:2)
4) A asserts hs Article 15 rights and _requests_ money.
4b) Companies say: 'Tits or GTFO! LOL'
Wow. Things sure do work differently in Europe.
Re: (Score:3)
Article 15 applies regardless of previous agreements, as stated in the very text itself. I must not be much of a programmer, because I actually read the documentation.
Re: (Score:2)
Not all legal rights are a negotiable matter in private contracts: rights which are non-negotiable cannot be foregone no matter which contractual clauses you sign.
This right seems pretty clealry meant to be non-negotiable.
Re: (Score:2)
'entitled to request'
WTF does that even mean? They're not entitled to get anything, just request it.
Finally a reasonable position from Slashdot. (Score:2, Troll)
Based on everything green-lit from Slashdot over the past year about unwavering, unquestioning support for every scaremongering climate article they could get their hands on and every similarly scaremongering article about net-neutrality that only looks at the things from the MSM filtered left-wing perspective I'm glad to see a level-headed approach to a censorship issue.
The "Link Tax" is about the stupidest damned thing I ever heard of in my life.
If I'm publishing articles for a living I want people to lin
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes it feels like we've all been duped, the Nazi's actually won WWII and their running the EU
Germans just can't help themselves. They see a Europe and go on a power trip.
Re: (Score:2)
If I'm publishing articles for a living I want people to link to those articles and drive traffic to my site so I can sell banner ads.
It's a smart move in one sense. This law gets a jump on the search engines charging you for listing your stuff.
It's analogous to what broadcasters did to cable TV decades ago. Community antenna systems (which eventually consolidated into cable providers) made it possible for broadcasts to reach people previously incapable of receiving that content. When it appeared that the cable systems might charge the broadcasters a small fee for these extra viewers, the broadcasters ran crying to Congress and had a law
If you can't link (Score:2)
And if newspapers want to be relevant to me how about covering issues that matter to me (like our screwed up healthca
Re: (Score:2)
Make an effort to become less Googlecentric. Embrace block-chain social media, use a different search engines - preferably that don't reuse Google data, make an effort to embrace IPFS. Eventually, once enough people are off the Google teat having Google de-list you won't be an issue.
It's not really all that great yet - but disruptive search, hosting, and networking is on the way [ipfs-search.com]. So far the only thing I've seen trying to stop it is MalwareBytes declaring IPFS gateways hazardous, which I suppose they are,
Re: (Score:2)
IPFS is content distribution system. It offers no search capability.
There are actually two search engines dedicated to IPFS. ipfs-search and Hypatia. But IPFS uses the conventional internet for hosting, and Hypatia is... well, it kind of sucks, if you can get it working at all.
Re: (Score:3)
I'll keep watching Youtube videos that report the facts in the articles (perfectly legal since they're facts) from guys like Secular Talk, the Young Turks and the BBC and get my news that way
That'll make you so far left I'm surprised you haven't fallen off yet.
Re: (Score:2)
TYT election night highlight videos are the funniest thing since Python!
Utter stupidity (Score:2)
At first I wasn't too worried about the 'link tax' - I figured that news outlets and media companies would realize what a tremendous footgun the idea is and have it repealed posthaste. But then I started thinking about smaller content creators who depend on those links - lack of site traffic is likely a bigger problem for them than copyright infringement is. As for checking everything uploaded for infringement, just how are they going to do that? Even if you ignore the problems of different laws in differen
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Never use an image from any nation in the EU. Never mention any author from the EU. No images from content created in the EU. No cartoons about EU politics. Any line of text from any nation in the EU is a legal risk.
No links into EU nations.
Anything EU or related to any nation in the EU is not worth the risk of publication and a later EU tax.
A new movie gets made in the EU? Is the review worth using a frame from that movie in the review and getting an EU
Re: (Score:2)
just ban/kill facebook (Score:2)
maybe inject pidgin or some other FOSS GPLed instant messenger service with some financial help to build a better alternative to facebook, something that does not see their users as a product and respects their privacy, and any advertising in non-intrusive, and no malicious or upsetting scripts to annoy people
And the EU ias going to enforce this how? (Score:2)
All they can do is spend a fortune firewalling their part of the Internet, while vainly trying to ignore an avalanche of complaints from their own users, who will just resign themselves to accessing everything through offshore servers.
Re: (Score:2)
For a lot of people social media is the internet so EU social media law could shape the rules of digital publication globally.
Say a US artist makes a funny cartoon about Spanish or French politics. Really funny and it gets shared a lot in France.
An EU nation will have that image reported and banned by social media in the EU in real time.
The social media account
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook, et. Al, will close their European offices and invite EU naval forces to try enforcing this in Silicon Valley. European social media users will all run VPNs to access the global sites.
Those provisions are crazy (Score:2)
An "Upload Filter" that checks all uploaded content for copyright infringement? Is the EU also going to provide a web service with an insanely extensive database and develop the content verification system and APIs with which to check uploaded content against? If no
Everything Is Copyrighted (Score:5, Insightful)
Where can I submit all my stuff so it'll become part of what gets reported when scanned? I have about 1tb of home videos and photos as well as all my writing assignments from since high school and I can go through all my old accounts and submit all the posts I've written. I use a desktop email client so submitting all the email I've written should be easy.
Mis-summarized (Score:2)
They'll never censor the internet, that's the joy of it.
They'll only censor their little corner of it, and if the regulations become too troublesome to adhere to, they'll just lose functionality for their citizenry as various vendors decide compliance is economically more painful than simply refusing service.
That's their (the EU's) choice as a nominally-democratic entity; they elect (again, ostensibly) representatives to enact their will and if their will is to be in a carefully-managed little dead-end of t
Are you trying to get copyright abolished? (Score:2)
Because this is how you get copyright abolished.
Even if people support the idea of copyright, if this is what it costs to have it, giving it up is the most reasonable and practical choice.
Re: (Score:2)
They're utterly clueless like most politicians (Score:2)
technical discusssion? (Score:2)
Does the law mention how this should be accomplished? will it fund an agency the provides and API and allows me to check if an uploaded file contains copywriter material? I assume you would have to send all files? will the files need to be encrypted? Is there some master database of copyrighted material or can I just grab everything on you tube and claim it as mine? Is there an expectoration that you-tube will stop me from uploading video recording of myself singing happy birthday or reading curious George?
A link tax. . . . lol (Score:2)
I'm quite sure they'll rethink this idea when Google simply delists them from the search engine.
When their site traffic drops off to near zero, those companies will end up begging to be relisted soon enough.
Publishers just can't stand ... (Score:2)
... the thought that now everyone is a publisher. They've been pushing this as a last ditch effort to save their stuff.
As a result of this law there's going to be some "content sharing" initative in like 6 hours ago, basically voiding this law just about instantly for all participants. Everyone is going to sign up except for them and the world will move on. Without them. And they will finally die.
Good riddance.
Can't arrest them all (Score:2)
Everyone should just "not comply". Can't arrest everyone, and it would tie up the courts for years if they try to "fine" folks.
That's the easiest way IMHO to deal with unjust/idiotic laws. Break them. By sheer numbers they won't be able to enforce it.
-Miser
licensing links (Score:2)
I have no words to describe the sheer idiocy of the euroimbeciles who came with this megashitpie measure. American FCCing idiot is an Einstein compared to this debilitic mongoloids.
Bye internet (Score:2)
Interenet censors EU (Score:2)
Film at 11.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should a funny political cartoon be banned by the EU?
well us based systems will have hard time Content (Score:2)
well us based systems will have hard time doing an FULL Content ID on all internet without running into some 1st amendment issues.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Publish a comment for the world to see with references without a EU tax per line and per link.
In the USA a person is free to review a movie review and invite comments on the movie.
The USA has freedom of speech and freedom after speech.
The EU starts an investigation for every attempt at speech and a EU fine for attempting publishing links and using quotes.
The EU then has a nice set of laws
Re: (Score:2)
We keep being told how much better the EU is than the US - but then they do something awful like this, which is much, much worse than anything that would be seriously proposed in the US.
There's copyright infringement enforcement, and then there's "fascism disguised as protecting copyright."
And it's so wasteful. In the US we just outsource the fascism to be handled by Facebook and non-profit agitating groups, for free!
You're welcome, taxpayers :)
Clinton couldn't have stopped DMCA (Score:5, Informative)
President Clinton could not have stopped the Digital Millennium Copyright Act from becoming law.
The Constitution allows 20 percent of either house to force a recorded vote or 34 percent to uphold a presidential veto. If a bill lacks enough dissent to force a recorded vote, there certainly isn't enough to uphold a veto.
In 1998, Newtros Newtros-Gingy's crop of Republicans still controlled the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate. The DMCA passed both houses by unanimous consent, also called a voice vote. Which if any Republican members of Congress went on record as opposing the DMCA?
Nobody anticipated the level of DMCA abuse.Counter (Score:5, Informative)
I was involved in multiple drafts of the DMCA before it became law, discussing the draft with people involved in many different aspects of the internet. People had different concerns and things were changed in the drafts to improve it.
Three major categories of people had different concerns:
Content producers
Hosting companies and ISPs
Web sites using content
Previously, when a content producer saw their content was being unlawfully copied on a web site, they would contact the hosting company. The liability of the hosting company was questionable - probably AFTER having received notice, they would most likely be liable if they didn't take it down, but that was murky. Different hosting companies had different policies. Some shut the site down right away. Some ignored the notices, which meant content producers would contact their upstream providers, who would often put pressure on the hosting company. Different companies had different policies about protecting their customers from invalid complaints (fair use etc). Most would just shut it down - they didn't want to get involved in a legal fight. It was all very inconsistent and messy.
Here's the process we ended up with:
Content provider would notify the site or hosting company, identifying exactly what infringed copyright.
Hosting company would inform the site owner, who had three options:
A. Deny the infringement (counter-notice)
B. Take down the content
C. Ignore the notice
If the site owner / poster denies there is infringement, that's the end of it. The hosting company is not liable, because they've received a statement saying there is no infringement. For some reason we didn't anticipate, very few people choose this option. It's the best and easiest option if you have content that isn't infringing.
Once the site owner or the person who posted the content says it doesn't infringe, the DMCA notice process ends and the content producer has to sue in federal court in order to move forward.
If the site owner sees there is likely infringement and takes the content down, that resolves the complaint process also. (Though the producer *could* still sue in federal court).
If the site owner ignores the notice and doesn't say "nope, not infringing", the web host will take down the content. This is the worst option. We didn't expect it would be the most common. Much better for the web site to respond to the notice somehow - either by taking down infringing content if they agree, or by sending back a note saying it's not infringing (a counter notice).
That seemed like a good, fair process, to most people. It's not exactly what content producers would choose if they got to pick, and not exactly what people re-using content would pick, but it's a fair compromise, we thought.
Two things didn't work out the way we expected. First, very few people send back a counter-notice. I can't explain why this is. It's so easy to just send back an email saying "nope, I disagree. This isn't infringement because it's educational fair use. That essentially nullifies the original DMCA notice.
Secondly, perhaps BECAUSE almost nobody responds to a DMCA notice, some producers started sending out way too many notices, not being sufficiently careful that they are accurate. Nobody anticipated that at the time the law was written. If I had an opportunity to do it over again, I would have suggested adding penalities for recklessly sending noticed, but that possibility never came up in the discussion.
Initially, the law was welcomed by most people in all the different areas. It set up a consistent, fair process that almost everyone used. Most people running sites and posting content were reasonably happy with it - they didn't violate copyright anyway, at least not much (maybe some clip art), and if they received a notice they'd gladly swap out any infringing content. They were glad to know that in a dispute, the hosting company would back them up - as long as they notified the hosting company that there WAS a
Re:Nobody anticipated the level of DMCA abuse.Coun (Score:5, Interesting)
Legalese DMCA (Score:2)
Or is it?
The current scenario is one where content hosts is colluding with possibly IP owners, instead of forcing everyone to walk the talk and go to court.
Then again, legman law is basically crippled by poor understanding of law, and how harmless going to court is(assuming signed papers can be produced, and a rough outline of laws can be gathered)
Re: (Score:3)
One practical problem with the counter-notification process is that the complainant learns the alleged infringer's home address. That sort of breaks operational security for any fan project that isn't 100% certain that its use is a fair use.
Another is hosts being slow to react. I sent a counter-notification back in 2009 for a video reporting on a video game publisher's policy toward fans. YouTube took longer than the legally allowed 14 business days to reinstate my video, though I initially suspected the ti
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for your thoughts on section 512. As for section 1201, did the balance of "circumvention device" vs. "interoperability" work as anticipated?
Re: (Score:2)
Part of the problem is that most people simply cannot afford to be sued, even if they are obviously in the right. Compounding that, confidence in our civil court system is at an all time low. Many simply don't believe that being obviously in the right will result in a finding in their favor.
So, they get a doom and gloom nastygram and their content has already been pulled down. They can either move on or they can spin the wheel and pray it doesn't come up bankrupt. About half the wheel looks to be "bankrupt"
There is another reason counter notie are not used (Score:2)
But then again, Look at the group invov
Actually we asked you to participate, on Slashdot (Score:3)
> I was correct. Of course, nobody asked me.
> It was obviously written by big copyright owners who were writing it for their own purposes, rather than being a general-purpose law
If it were "written by big copyright owners for their own purposes", you wouldn't be able to end it by simply saying "I disagree, I don't think I'm infringing", and have the content stay up.
We DID ask you for input, we DID ask you to participate. Specifically *I* asked right here on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
I might Google it (Score:2)
I might find it later, if I don't have something else higher priority to do. I'd use Google's date filters for 1998 and early 1999, with my username and site: slashdot.com
It would probably be easier to find on some other forums, like GFY.com, if posts that old are still available there.
Re: (Score:2)
> I was correct. Of course, nobody asked me.
> It was obviously written by big copyright owners who were writing it for their own purposes, rather than being a general-purpose law
If it were "written by big copyright owners for their own purposes", you wouldn't be able to end it by simply saying "I disagree, I don't think I'm infringing", and have the content stay up.
That doesn't "end it" - that simply means that you go to court if the supposed copyright owner wants to. It was considered a concession at the time to ISPs.
I believe the DMCA is a good law, but an infringement claim should be sworn with specific criminal penalties if the claim isn't upheld by a court. It should be a misdemeanor for some small number of them, with transition to a felony after 10 or 15 of them. The actual copyright owner - if different - should also have a civil claim against the fraudulen
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed
Re: (Score:2)
Did the big internet make EU publishers move to the net from paper publication AC?
To have content outside their own pay sites?
EU sites can select to not be part of the net. Not be searched. Not be linked into.
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt it. Maggie II will probably come up with something even worse.
Re:Crazy European Privacy Laws... (Score:5, Informative)
This is where all those crazy European internet laws like GDPR inevitably lead.
Nah, you don't get it.
The media is run by a bunch of old men who imagine that Google needs them, that Google will pay good money to link to them. They've actually been fighting for this law for about a decade.
Yes, it's going to be fucking hilarious when Google stops linking and they disappear from the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Crazy European Privacy Laws... (Score:5, Insightful)
If I were Google I'd be working on my new price list:
How much should they pay me to go back to linking to their news sites ... ?
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't let your memes be dreams.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody believes the fake news anymore. Nothing but a bunch of haters hating on our beloved President. https://www.rt.com/usa/429956-... [rt.com]
Be fair here with the press.. He obviously likes the attention and loves to poke the press bear. It's a strangely mutually dependent relationship where he gets to control the issue of the day and they get to decry his position and sell advertisements because of the controversy.
Re:Trump / Russia - Treason, Propaganda (Score:4, Insightful)
Look, I"m no huge Trump fan, but didn't the Crimea invasion and occupation take place under Obama's watchful eye?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
And Russia was kicked out of the G-8 and sanctioned Russia.
Now Trump, flush with Russian bribes and money laundering wants to let Russia back in the G-7, remove sanctions, and declare that Russia had a right to invade its neighbor (our ally Ukraine) and steal its land.
Treason, bribery, money laundering, and the pee tape have given Russia total control over our country's executive branch. It's time to lock him up!
Re: (Score:2)
February 2014. About a year into Obama's second term. There wasn't much either president could have done about it though - you can't approve military conflict with Russia due to the likelihood of escalation.
Re: (Score:2)
It's true. The process of deciding who governs you decided by family connections is just too big a difference.
The limeys will never stand for it!
DrabadabbaTISH!
Re: (Score:2)
What? Just wrong. That works for officers in a military. For congress critters/cops, having the entire population being criminals is a _feature_.
Everybody commits 3 felonies/day. Once you accept it, it's much less stressful.