Article 13, EU "end of the internet"

[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Steve Jobs on the iTunes Music Store: The Unpublished Interview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.

 

[GoGetter24]

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

 

[The Abundant Man]

Exactly.



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.

Facebook is about as democratic as they come with people posting about what burger they ate and when.

 

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.

 

[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.

[Tommo]

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.



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.

Awesome post love it

 

[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.

 

[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.

[GoGetter24]

The internet worked fine before all this regulation. Why do governments need to ruin it?

They're governments. What did you think a government was?

Governments are basically psychopath central. It's where the very worst, most evil type of human beings gravitate. People who want to send thugs in costumes around to peoples houses to throw them in a dungeon for having a plant in their house. People who want to bomb other people to bits or gas them to death or smash their babies heads off trees. People who think the arbitrary ideas in their heads are exactly how the world should be, and any deviation from that means someone needs to get hurt until they comply. People who have no problem robbing one section of the population at gun point to secure support from another section.

Basically the most foul, lowest form of humanity that exists. But that isn't the problem. The problem is that everyone else supports them.

So while a normal, mentally healthy person with no anti-social tendencies considers the internet "working fine", these types are most put out by the fact that everyone is using it freely to satisfy their own desires, rather than in furtherance of the will of piece of shit government psychopaths.

 

[SMH]

From the voting:

This gif makes me absolutely sick. Ridiculous

 

[Owlman]

My worst fear is gradually becoming real. Ever seen the movie divergent?

 

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