Article 13, EU "end of the internet"

[BerlinerBaer]

Unless there’s something I’m missing I think it’s somewhat fair. Content creators should get paid for their work.

If I bake a cake and distribute the slices ready to eat on a plate with a fork all around the inner city, can I demand payment after people eat it? This is what the Guardian does. They publish articles in a medium that's inherently open to anyone and everyone. People will share it. If the Guardian doesn't want it to be shared, they can go back to paper version or raise up a solid paywall. It's unreasonable to ask the government to punish people for doing on the internet exactly what the internet is meant to enable - share and distribute content.

EU copyright law may force tech giants to pay billions to publishers

^^ See that link? You know most of the story now. Again, it’s being posted on this site, next to these ads.

This is even more problematic. This is just a headline. Do you want to copyright headlines like this? They didn't create the news, they're just reporting on what happened. They don't have a right to that information. Anyone can go to the EU website and look at what laws are being considered and/or passed. Every major and minor news outlet is reporting on this.

Fundamentally though, it comes down to the question of property rights and what do they encompass. Do property rights extend to immaterial information? I'd say, they don't.

On the other hand, if I sign a contract that states that the information you share with me must not be shared further by me, then you've got a case. If I let the world know your secret, then you can go to court and show them my signature. Unless content creators do that, they really can't complain about people sharing open information. All this does is introduce more legal complexity and trouble.

Other consequences:
Youtube will be held liable for users uploading copyrighted content. They will have to put automatic filtering in place. Will those filters be perfect? No. Will people exploit that and squeeze money out of youtube for someone uploading a home video in which people sing the equivalent of the until recently copyrighted happy birthday song? You bet!

To make sure this doesn't happen, youtube will have to pour money into their legal team to defend themselves as well as into their technical team to mitigate risks of this stuff happening in the first place. They will have to decrease payout in response to that, which will hurt content creators.

You know with the link you just posted? I actually clicked it. I never go to the Guardian's website and I don't plan on doing so in the future, but every now and then I might actually do that in response to a link. This new law will bite the major news companies in the tail. Most people aren't interested in them anymore anyways. If it costs money to link to their content, you will find fewer links. Which will lead to fewer clicks. Which will lead to fewer viewers and therefore less revenue for them. I sure as hell will never take the time to type "www.theguardian.com" into my browser. Some people do that all the time, most people don't. If they want to get more people to visit and read their content, it's a stupid idea to reduce their only source of outside clicks - links from other websites. This will have the exact opposite effect of what it's intended to do. Newspapers are already struggling. This might accelerate their death. It will also fuel development of more secure and anonymous internet services which is already turning parts of this legislation obsolete. Only the lawyers will win here.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[jon.M]

It got voted through in parliament. Standing ovations for link fees, a mandatory filter on platforms and a ban on even filming football games.

EU citizens won't even be allowed to record parts of sports events with their phones. Ridiculous.

A British commissioner asked for the word and claimed that this day was a terrible strike against the free internet... he got booed out.

There still seems to be some procedures before it's completely passed. But this world sure seems to move closer and closer to the state of Oceania.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Maxboost]

Just thought I'd post about this in here, sorry if its the wrong section. Didn't see anyone post about it, and considering many members were concerned with GDPR, this one seems WAY worse.

I hardly see any news coverage on this...

Save Your Internet – Delete article 13 • r/europe
Save Your Internet – Delete article 13

This is another one where its very weird, looks like you'll have to pay royalties/fees/fines for linking to other websites, and have them approved by the EU before posting. As well as all file uploads being monitored and having to be approved.

One thing is for sure, whoever came up with this.. has never used Reddit.

Seems very... bad. I'm sure I'm getting some of the details wrong, but nobody even understands GDPR completely yet either, so this is another one of those....

Hasn't started yet, looks like there is 18 days before its voted on.

Btw, MJ totally called this:



Thoughts?

My views on how the world works has changed over the few years. If I can talk to myself a few years ago, I would have called my 'present' self a conspiracy theorist and would have stayed in the matrix happily banging away at my keyboard hoping to get that promotion where I would be working an extra 2 hours a day making 5k a year more.

If there is one thing for certain that is true that no one will believe, it's that there is an elite group of people not elected by the people who control the media, world financial markets, and politicians. These people influence everyone's way of life.

 

[MJ DeMarco]

It got voted through in parliament. Standing ovations for link fees, a mandatory filter on platforms and a ban on even filming football games.

Unbelievable. I'm sure the lawyers, politicians, and life-long bureaucrats are ecstatic!

 

[jon.M]

Wait, what the f---... you guys have to pay fees for linking to other sites? I don’t get that at all.

Me neither. How that will play out, in reality, is yet to be seen. Online platforms will also be responsible for detecting unwanted content and have to utilize some sort of content filter.

Oh, read this: If you're a Youtuber, on a weekend vlog or whatever, and record yourself in a mall or anywhere, you'd be breaking the copyright law. You can't film or photograph a building for commercial purposes.

Unbelievable. I'm sure the lawyers, politicians, and life-long bureaucrats are ecstatic!

From the voting:

Also:
Emanuel Karlsten on Twitter
(There's a video I meant to link)

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[ApparentHorizon]

So? When someone downloads your song on Napster the song isn’t taken away either.

That’s what copyright is... 'who owns the right to copy?'

Article 11, which critics have dubbed a “link tax”, would force news aggregation and search sites such as Google and Facebook to pay publishers for showing news snippets or linking to news stories on other sites.

Europe’s biggest news agencies have urged MEPs to vote for the law, as they accused Google and Facebook of “plundering” the news and their ad revenues, resulting in a “threat to democracy”.
​

That’s totally reasonable, imo.

These sites control how that content is displayed through meta tags and robots.txt

When you paste something into facebook or twitter, they go on your site and fetch the info through these tags.



The description can be as long or as short as the webmaster wants. The og (open graph) is specifically designed for formatting your information on social media.



It displays the exact info MJ wants, and you can use it as a hook to get people to click over to your site.

Facebook and Google should have every right to make money off of the content. They provide a stream of eyeballs, that boosts the views of these news orgs and content creators. Again, if they don't like it, they can tell them to screw off, and let the free market decide if people are willing to manually visit those websites without the search engines or social media.

No one is saying content creators shouldn't get credit and money for their efforts. However, this is legislation enacted by people who don't know how any of this works.

The problems we'll see is abuse, just like we're seeing on YouTube. People receiving copyright strikes and their channels shut down by people who don't agree with them. Or worse, when someone criticizes a company, they have to jump through hoops to prove they're innocent.

This will have to be done with algorithms, and you bet there will be extra exemptions for the big players.

This directive is a re-consolidation of power, and has very little to do with protections and rights, as they describe it.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[ApparentHorizon]

You create something, you deserve the right to profit from it.

I'm not saying they shouldn’t make money. But they shouldn’t make 100% of the money. Both parties contributed, both parties should be compensated. I’m sorry but if the NY Times writes an article, you shouldn’t be able to put Facebook ads next to it, with Facebook getting 100% of the proceeds.

Free market type stuff starts getting a little iffy and weird when it comes to copy protections.

But they are being compensated. When someone shares an article on FB, their average of 127 friends, then see it, which can cascade multiple friends deep resharing and commenting.

Those are eyeballs which would have never made it to the NY Times piece in the first place. That's ad revenue they would have otherwise never seen.

 

[GoGetter24]

Just need Italy to follow Britain, drop dominoes on these sacks of shit.

 

[Maxboost]

Rothschild?!

Bilderberg 2018: What is Bilderberg? Why is it so secretive and where are members meeting?

When I found out the Bilderburgs were real was my red pill moment. Once you dig deeper, you start questioning everything. I used to think it was "conspiracy theorist" nonsense pushed by Alex Jones and that there is no secret meeting held by elites to push agendas. Agenda's are then used to control the masses.

Then you look up Bernays to see how the elites use propaganda to control the herd.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays

"College is a great investment! If you don't have a degree you will be poor!"

 

[GSF]

"Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the world wide web, and Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, warned in June what passing this legislation could mean: “[It] takes an unprecedented step towards the transformation of the internet from an open platform for sharing and innovation, into a tool for the automated surveillance and control of its users.”

 

[BerlinerBaer]

Some mediums want to be free and rely on ad revenue.

That's great. No problem. But if people just don't feel the need to visit your site, maybe you need to reconsider your approach. Passing a law is always a threat of violence in case of disobedience. Why do we need to use violence to solve someone's business problem? I thought business problems are supposed to be solved through creative entrepreneurship, not passing of laws.

I still don't see how forcing people to pay for links that won't even be clicked will produce anything but the removal of those links. Facebook will just delete any link to The Guardian as soon as someone posts it, because they don't want to have to pay for it. How do I now hear what the Guardian has to say? I won't.

Even if your premise of forcing the internet to conform to someone's business ideals was correct, I can't see how it will actually have the desired effect in real life.

Just because the internet made newspapers obsolete, doesn't mean we have to force the internet to be something it isn't. Companies need to go with the times. I'm sure there are journalists out there that could make a living with a patreon account. Maybe there already are, I don't know. This would maybe provide us with higher quality journalism as well, because it will be more decentralized.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[AFMKelvin]

I'm glad the news corporations have shot themselves on the foot with this new law and I hope they bleed out slowly to their ultimate demise while the world passes them by.

News corporations are a relic when information was centralized to whoemever owned the printing press. They like to make people believe they are an open, free and unbiased source of information except the younger generations know they all have an agenda to push.

Now a days the news are spread by the people that were there to witness what happen. Nobody needs an authority to tell them what happen. Stories spread like wild fire on social media and that's how I get my news. I can't remember the last time I visited a news website, watched the news online or read a newspaper.

A good example of an independent journalist is Mike Cernovich. He started with a blog on been a pick up artist not news related. But he got heavily involved with Gamer Gate and came out the other side as a journalist. He has a large following now and gets paid for what he does. People know what he stands for and they know what to expect from him.

People who were not raised on the internet have no business passing laws that affect the internet.

 

[jon.M]

I'm glad the news corporations have shot themselves on the foot with this new law and I hope they bleed out slowly to their ultimate demise while the world passes them by.

News corporations are a relic when information was centralized to whoemever owned the printing press. They like to make people believe they are an open, free and unbiased source of information except the younger generations know they all have an agenda to push.

They have merely put themselves on life support. Their death will come in time, no matter how much they try to postpone it. A sad sight to see politicians banding up with them to try cementing the centralisation of information.

Every platform online will have to work on preventing unwanted content to get published. Some kind of filter. This would cost significant resources. That would NOT be a problem for Facebook, Twitter or Google. But how about alternative, smaller platforms where all people can have a voice?

Those places are most likely to take a hit, and the mainstream media and politicians are well aware of this fact. They want it to be that way.

Also, on YouTube, there are people who abuse the copyright filter. Don't like a political view the person in a video has? Maybe you just don't like his face? Report and it gets taken down, no problemo. I'd love to see how that plays out on literally the entire internet.

Waiting for big brother to start banning more things online. They'll soon have the ultimate filter framework set up. Just a matter of banning more things after that, one by one.

Before my grandfather decided it was time to escape communist Hungary soon after WW2, he noticed two things: The leaders had full control of the narrative. Hence, they could say whatever they want to support themselves. White was black, and black was white.

Something this place is moving toward. In a more gradual and stealthy manner, but the trend is noticeable.

 

[LifestyleGem]

Just thought I'd post about this in here, sorry if its the wrong section. Didn't see anyone post about it, and considering many members were concerned with GDPR, this one seems WAY worse.

I hardly see any news coverage on this...

Save Your Internet – Delete article 13 • r/europe
Save Your Internet – Delete article 13

This is another one where its very weird, looks like you'll have to pay royalties/fees/fines for linking to other websites, and have them approved by the EU before posting. As well as all file uploads being monitored and having to be approved.

One thing is for sure, whoever came up with this.. has never used Reddit.

Seems very... bad. I'm sure I'm getting some of the details wrong, but nobody even understands GDPR completely yet either, so this is another one of those....

Hasn't started yet, looks like there is 18 days before its voted on.

Btw, MJ totally called this:

My guess is the EU will become the internet Gestapo... don't pay your fines and they will strong arm the search engines and network data access to your website across the EU. Seems ridiculous, but when it comes to unelected bureaucrats and politicians, nothing surprises me anymore, just as long as you preface your liberty killing regulation with "it's for the children" or "it's for safety." SMH.

As with most gigantic regulatory BS (think "affordable care act") it sounds great simplified, but once it's put to paper and executed, not so much.

Thoughts?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[rogue synthetic]

Thoughts?

Ride it out another five, 10 years while the Very Smart Managers continue managing their way to complete self-destruction.

In the mean time, I hear good things about Chinese and Russian controlled Internet infrastructure.

 

[Zest]

Turbulent times for freedom indeed. But lets also not forget that the EU is itself on shaky ground. Its collapse is a sure thing, just a matter of time. How much time, I don't know.

(I'm sure in the future what I just said above ^^ will itself be considered hate/radical speech.)

 

[BerlinerBaer]

Yea, why would they visit your site if you can read the entire article on Facebook for free?!

I don't know. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. If they won't and it's affecting your business, then change your business model. If your business is failing, you need to make changes like anybody else or go out of business. I couldn't care less about someone's business problems. I really don't see how that's in any way my problem and why third parties should be penalized for someone sharing links or articles.

 

[BerlinerBaer]

So? When someone downloads your song on Napster the song isn’t taken away either.

Exactly.

That’s what copyright is... 'who owns the right to copy?'

Article 11, which critics have dubbed a “link tax”, would force news aggregation and search sites such as Google and Facebook to pay publishers for showing news snippets or linking to news stories on other sites.

Europe’s biggest news agencies have urged MEPs to vote for the law, as they accused Google and Facebook of “plundering” the news and their ad revenues, resulting in a “threat to democracy”.
​

That’s totally reasonable, imo.

I guess this is the crux. I don't agree with the concept of copy right. It's an inconsistent principle full of arbitrary rules.

Google and Facebook are not plundering anything, nor are they a threat to democracy. That's pure rhetoric with no substance behind it. I'd like to see some proof of how they plunder anyone's revenue or how they threaten democracy. I just can't see it.

 

[BerlinerBaer]

“if someone is Napstering your songs, it’s not Napster’s fault.. you just need to choose a different art form"

You don't need to choose a different art form. You need to find a better way to distribute your product. If you sell old-school CD's for $10 and several songs you're not interested in on one hand and people can just get the songs they like with a click of the button then convienience will win. That's why we have spotify, google play, and amazon now all offering individual songs for cheap. And what happened? You can still pirate any song you want. But nonetheless people are actually paying these companies because it's extremely convenient, affordable and they want to support the artists. Everyone wins. Napster was not a moral problem, but a technological one which we've solved now by adapting technology to the desires of the people. The same should happen to newspapers.

 

[ChrisV]

Napster was not a moral problem, but a technological one which we've solved now by adapting technology to the desires of the people. The same should happen to newspapers.

Well what happened originally was iTunes. Steve Jobs saw Napster happening, realized that people wanted to download music, and he jumped on it. Now you get this cool little iPod, you get high quality mp3s (rathe than napster’s hit or most 96kbps crap) with artwork and labels and all.

"We're trying to compete with piracy. We're trying to pull people away from piracy and say, 'You can buy these songs legally for a fair price.' If the price goes up people will go back to piracy, then everybody loses. The labels make more money from selling tracks on iTunes than when they sell a CD. There are no marketing costs for them. If they want to raise the prices it just means they're getting a little greedy.” - Steve Jobs
​

Steve Jobs on the iTunes Music Store: The Unpublished Interview

iTunes turns 10: How Apple music store killed old music industry - NBC News

But basically what you said..

Downloading was more convent than walking to the store and buying 10 CDs.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[ChrisV]

Imagine pirating with movies. There are some people would have never seen in the first place if they had to pay for it. Which ironically helps many of them. Game of Thrones producer admitted it. Without people pirating, it would not have brought in as many eyeballs and new subscriptions to HBO. That's because everyone is talking about it, which creates a domino effect.

When I wrote my book, that’s how I marketed it. I had no money for advertising so what did i do? I posted it to torrent sites. It worked. Word of mouth took over and sold many copies without ads.

 

[masterneme]

Hmmmmmmm, I think it's time to double the amount of push ups and squats I do so when everything goes to hell I'll be higher on the food chain.

 

[ChrisV]

Wait, what the f---... you guys will have to pay fees for linking to other sites? I don’t get that at all.

How does that even work?

 

[ChrisV]

I dunno, I’m reading about it and honestly it seems like it’s meant to protect content creators.

For example a news site creates a news article. They put hard work into it. Then someone shares it on Facebook, with enough text to read most of the article. Why should Facebook collect ad revenue rather than the company that created the content?

Example...



I just posted that. You read the content. But it’s posted on THIS site. So MJ gets the ad money because his ads are next to it. The Guardian created the content. They paid writers.

And the links they’re talking about are when links give away the full story.

EU copyright law may force tech giants to pay billions to publishers

^^ See that link? You know most of the story now. Again, it’s being posted on this site, next to these ads.

And when you search Google, they show pretty big snippets of the content.

Unless there’s something I’m missing I think it’s somewhat fair. Content creators should get paid for their work.

 

[ChrisV]

If the Guardian doesn't want it to be shared, they can go back to paper version or raise up a solid paywall.

Some mediums want to be free and rely on ad revenue. It benefits everyone. It’s not a good internet to have every site on the web paywalled. And paper version? really? And what if people started photocopying those ‘paper versions’ and distributing them without ads. “Well then they should just go back to using a Town Cryer who yells the news from Town Square."

They created the content and it’s totally fair for them to get paid for their work. They create value, they should get paid.

If they don’t get paid for their work, they get shut down. If they get shut down, we don’t have news. So we’re just gonna have Google and Facebook without any content. And Fake News ramblings about Obama’s Muslim heritage from my uncle. Phenomenal.

Facebook and Google deserve their success, but if the value is being created by someone else, the writers deserve to be compensated. Facebook shows a good 20% of an article sometimes. If Facebook wants to get paid for News, they can start a News company. Otherwise it’s not much different from Napster.

In terms of “links”.. i know it sounds ridiculous... but there are studies showing that most people don’t even click the links. They just share the headline, and that preview is actually what is being shared.

 

[ChrisV]

But if people just don't feel the need to visit your site, maybe you need to reconsider your approach.

Yea, why would they visit your site if you can read the entire article on Facebook for free?!

I make a Google search. Google literally PULLS the text from that site and pastes it on their site... next to their ads



Google did not create that content. And them basically stealing it discourages people from writing content like that, since they won’t get paid. Maybe Wikipedia isn’t the best example since writers aren’t paid, but the point still remains. They do it with other sites too.

 

[BerlinerBaer]

Nobody is stealing anything. I clicked the link to the guardian and the article is still there. So there's that. As far as I know the only thing happening is that people see copies. Nobody removes any content. That's what the bureaucrats want to see happen.

 

[ChrisV]

But they are being compensated. When someone shares an article on FB, their average of 127 friends, then see it, which can cascade multiple friends deep resharing and commenting.

Those are eyeballs which would have never made it to the NY Times piece in the first place. That's ad revenue they would have otherwise never seen.

I’d honestly have to dig into the data on this, but you may be right. But maybe not. Why? Half the time the headline IS what the person is sharing.

Study finds people don’t read the majority of news they share on Twitter



There was this one, where everyone was commenting on like crazy on Facebook like “TTATS NOT TRUE I READ!"

Why Doesn't America Read Anymore? (actually read it)

but yea.. after digging into the data, i stand by my original statement

Eight out of ten people only read the headline

Study: 70% of Facebook users only read the headline of science stories before commenting

that’s why this makes sense

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[GoGetter24]

But how about alternative, smaller platforms where all people can have a voice?

Civil disobedience I guess. People forget that statutory law is not the final word. As Ghandi said "
100,000 Englishmen simply cannot control 350 million Indians, if those Indians refuse to cooperate".

All of this stuff is caused by a lazy, decadent, sick population. Why rebel if you're comfortable? Let them carry away the Jews in boxcarts, doesn't affect me! They told me it was a good thing to do, so it must be right!

The problem is that we've no martyrs left. No one has any basic principles they're willing to pledge their life to for the sake of the next generation anymore. We need the MLKs and Ghandis and Ataturks back, or at least to openly support the closest people we have to them, and not be pathetic spineless drones who instantly accept the first thing any mainstream media or facebook feed tells them.

The solution to this law is not petitions and hoping they'll not pass it or the courts will strike it down. It's boycotting doing dealings with anyone in the EU. It's joining anti EU marches in Italy, Poland, and Hungary until the F*ckers are brought down.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[fhs8]

The EU and other governments will keep passing regulations until the internet is heavily regulated and restricted. The internet worked fine before all this regulation. Why do governments need to ruin it? If you think regulation like this won't effect you because you're not in the EU then think again. California in June 2018 passed the "Consumer Privacy Act" which is similar to GDPR. Other states are expected to pass their own versions of GDPR as well.

There's also many other regulations people aren't aware of such as ADA title III compliance for websites. Almost every website is not in compliance and lawsuits being filed are almost doubling by the year.

ADA Website Accessibility Lawsuits on the Rise: Companies Should Review Their Potential Exposure | JD Supra

It's almost impossible to comply because for example you would need to have a toll-free phone number to provide assistance with the website or placing orders that's manned 24/7 for blind people. It doesn't matter if the website is 100% compliant with W3C.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.