# European Union Copyright Directive :: Possible Legislation affecting the internet



## horseUSA (Sep 6, 2018)

The EU Copyright Directive is considering updates to legislation regarding digital copyrights. Some of the wording proposed would be damaging to many internet sites (including this one) hosting user generated content and/or providing links to external content.
For a video describing some of the proposed articles:

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYU77Qqvy-U_


A Blog post by Wikimedia Foundation, the group which runs Wikipedia:

_View: https://medium.com/freely-sharing-the-sum-of-all-knowledge/your-internet-is-under-threat-heres-why-you-should-care-about-european-copyright-reform-7eb6ff4cf321_


TechCrunch Article:
Wikimedia warns EU copyright reform threatens the ‘vibrant free web’

If you are in the EU please take a moment to review these proposed changes and if you wish voice your concern via:
#SaveYourInternet - Stop the #censorshipmachine
Fix copyright - Wikimedia Foundation

The actual legislation: EUR-Lex - 52016PC0593 - EN - EUR-Lex

br
-david

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## at6 (Sep 6, 2018)

Don't they ruin everything that they touch?

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 6, 2018)

Certainly one to follow.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Sep 7, 2018)

I would also suggest that you do the following

Share what's written to anybody who will listen
If you're in the E.U. contact your MEP as often as possible: Every day if you can
Get others to do steps 1 & 2
Upload filters would also make it impossible to take screen-caps and share them. There have been numerous cases when websites were taken down, only for somebody to take a screen-cap and reveal the truth.

Long message short: Saturation


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 7, 2018)

There's been several cases where someone was sharing live feed from an event on facebook and the music in the background triggered a copyright filter, landing them in trouble.

And I'm not talking about someone at a concert, but like at a car show for example, talking to a car's owner near a live music venue.

This copyright thing has gotten completely out of hand.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Sep 7, 2018)

This is getting to the point of absurdity.......

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Sep 8, 2018)

vikingBerserker said:


> This is getting to the point of absurdity.......


It's about controlling the flow of information so we are left in the dark like mushrooms.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tieleader (Sep 8, 2018)

What, politicians voting for laws/acts that "they don't fully understand" = $. That's new?
Here's looking forward to a bright "new" future of paper pulp books and the post office charging $5 a stamp for a letter that may or may-not get there!
(raises mushroom/mead beer in salute)
BTW I still love books...

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dana Bell (Sep 8, 2018)

I'm in favor of some additional protections. There's nothing quite like researching a project for two years, writing it up, and then seeing EU member states scanning the whole thing and releasing it on websites for a nominal charge or "free" (if you've paid your membership). When that happens in the US, I've been able to get my books removed from those sites - Europe. Sharing always seems a good thing when you're sharing someone else's stuff....

The other issues do need to be resolved, but copyright protections need serious improvement.

Cheers,


Dana

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Sep 8, 2018)

Dana Bell said:


> I'm in favor of some additional protections.


The problem isn't that we're for people swiping others work: It's that we don't want censorship imposed on us (most all of us know somebody here who lives in the EU). There's also no rule to say this cannot expand elsewhere, such as the United States and Canada.

Many of the lobbying groups here are international in nature, governments and corporations also often work with each other for mutual gain. The problem with this is that it often ends up against working against the interests of the public.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 8, 2018)

Dana Bell said:


> I'm in favor of some additional protections. There's nothing quite like researching a project for two years, writing it up, and then seeing EU member states scanning the whole thing and releasing it on websites for a nominal charge or "free" (if you've paid your membership). When that happens in the US, I've been able to get my books removed from those sites - Europe. Sharing always seems a good thing when you're sharing someone else's stuff....
> 
> The other issues do need to be resolved, but copyright protections need serious improvement.
> 
> ...


While I don't have an argument towards protecting copyrighted material, such as complete works (either literary, musical or photographic), this law will also prohibit even quoting published works, which is a huge lart of debates here on the forums, as a debate often requires quoting specific information (again, quoting a portion, not copying and pasting entire works).

What the ultimate goal of the EU copyright law is, will be essentially to make users licensed in order to access content. And with that goal, backed by Article 11, a "snippet tax" will be levied on sites that even use a portion (or quote) of a copyrighted article, again, like exists everywhere on this site in the various threads. I should also mention that I have posted my own photos to this site (which have embedded copyright info in the files), but technically, under the proposed copyright law, members of this site would have to be licensed in order to view them.

Clearly, this would mean the end of smaller websites, as they cannot afford the required file scanning servers as well as the fees and taxes. Larger sites will be able to afford the nessecary hardware, but this additional cost will have to be passed on to end-users in order to stay solvent.

The issue goes far beyond what I've covered, but in the end, the goal is to literally turn the internet into a licensed revenue generator and that's not acceptable.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
4 | Agree Agree:
3 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Sep 8, 2018)

Nicely said!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dana Bell (Sep 8, 2018)

Hi GrayGeist and Zipper,

I agree - which is why I wrote, "The other issues do need to be resolved, but copyright protections need serious improvement." However, the current copyright protections are non-existent on the internet. I've contacted several EU internet sites about having my material removed, only to hear crickets. There's no one to report them to - I'm hoping the new rules will fix that part of it...

Cheers,


Dana

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tieleader (Sep 8, 2018)

The first few pebbles are starting to slide down the slippery slope...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 8, 2018)

Dana Bell said:


> Hi GrayGeist and Zipper,
> 
> I agree - which is why I wrote, "The other issues do need to be resolved, but copyright protections need serious improvement." However, the current copyright protections are non-existent on the internet. I've contacted several EU internet sites about having my material removed, only to hear crickets. There's no one to report them to - I'm hoping the new rules will fix that part of it...
> 
> ...


But the question is, will this Copyright law be all encompasing, or will it focus mainly on the large copyright holders (i.e.: publishing house authors, professional musicians and their hungry lawyers, professional/portfolioed photographers, etc.)?
Also, I am curious about the fees, surcharges and taxes.
They go where? And to whom? And why?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dana Bell (Sep 9, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> But the question is, will this Copyright law be all encompasing, or will it focus mainly on the large copyright holders (i.e.: publishing house authors, professional musicians and their hungry lawyers, professional/portfolioed photographers, etc.)?
> Also, I am curious about the fees, surcharges and taxes.
> They go where? And to whom? And why?



Hi GrauGeist,

Damned if I know. But what fees are we discussing? Tonight I found another company selling Kindle versions of one of my books - there is NO legal Kindle version of the book. They claim they are a site that gives authors a chance to publish their works on-line at a reasonable fee - but they have never been in contact with me OR the publisher.

I don't want these guys to be charged a fee - I want them shut down. I want them to spend the effort to guarantee that that what they publish is something they have the right to publish. I want them stopped, and this regulation is moving in that direction.

As for hungry lawyers, I'm too hungry to afford a lawyer...

As for everything else - I leave all those other issues to you...

Cheers,


Dana

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Barrett (Sep 10, 2018)

Thank you! Will forward widely because what happens Over There gives people ideas Over Here.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Sep 10, 2018)

Barrett said:


> Thank you! Will forward widely because what happens Over There gives people ideas Over Here.


Yeah, I already mentioned that the lobbyists involved are international and could easily spread their handiwork over here.


----------



## Argento (Nov 4, 2018)

...


----------



## parsifal (Nov 4, 2018)

Its concerning that free speech might be stifled. Its a centuries old custom that scholars would publish their work to allow other scholars to use directly the work that the original person did. 

it gets yucky when third parties are uploading simply to make money from others work or simply claim it for their own. I agree that there should be laws to protect against that, but the question is how do you do that and not interfere with the traditional sharing of ideas and information/

And I worry finally exactly how this massive change will affect us. I cannot help thinking that it bodes bad things for small fry like us.


----------



## Zipper730 (Nov 4, 2018)

My concern is censorship: Already there's been entire social media platforms being taken down (and not everybody on them were right-wing extremists)

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## at6 (Nov 7, 2018)

All it takes these days is for some douche to scream"I'm offended" to get anything and everything censored. As for copy righted materials, there should be protection. Hell, people have been copy righting other people's names. So where do you actually draw the line?

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Nov 7, 2018)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Night Fighter Nut (Nov 11, 2018)

The ten scariest words in the English / American language, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Nov 18, 2018)

And the scariest five words are "Never Waste A Good Crisis"

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Feb 7, 2019)

And it's back and twice as ugly

Article 13 is back on – and it got worse, not better

There is a petition included in there for anybody who wishes to sign it... I already did

european-parliament-stop-the-censorship-machinery-save-the-internet


----------



## at6 (Feb 7, 2019)

What good will it do to sign since the enemies of freedom have already taken control of the internet. Obama gave away the U.S. portion of internet freedom to the Chinese when he refused to renew our net neutrality regulation.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Feb 7, 2019)

does anyone have any news of progress of the legislation?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 7, 2019)

at6 said:


> What good will it do to sign since the enemies of freedom have already taken control of the internet. Obama gave away the U.S. portion of internet freedom to the Chinese when he refused to renew our net neutrality regulation.



Errr....weren't the net neutrality laws passed under the Obama administration, despite opposition from internet lobby groups. The FCC overcame prior objections by reclassifying ISPs as Title II organizations which put them firmly under regulatory control of the FCC. The Trump administration reversed that decision, returning the ISPs to Title I status. 

What am I missing?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Feb 8, 2019)

I think February 20... Julia Reda has a FB site


----------



## Zipper730 (Feb 19, 2019)

It would appear that the text has been finalized, it won't be passed until April


----------



## at6 (Feb 20, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> Errr....weren't the net neutrality laws passed under the Obama administration, despite opposition from internet lobby groups. The FCC overcame prior objections by reclassifying ISPs as Title II organizations which put them firmly under regulatory control of the FCC. The Trump administration reversed that decision, returning the ISPs to Title I status.
> 
> What am I missing?


It's possible that I may have been in error as to Obama. It was the uranium that he and Hillary sold to the Russians. Will passage of this regulation lead to a European Internet Access Tax?


----------



## MiTasol (Feb 20, 2019)

Zipper730 said:


> * My concern is censorship*: Already there's been entire social media platforms being taken down (and not everybody on them were right-wing extremists)



Here is Australia the worlds third most powerful catholic has been found guilty of child sex abuse and the whole trial and verdict has been suppressed by the courts. The headlines and articles were available in Australia on foreign news web sites for about 24 hours and then disappeared so obviously some Aus government filters have blocked any article that mentions his name reaching here. For those in other countries who want to know his surname is Poppa Echo Lima Lima. His first name is Kawanishi N1K-J.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Feb 20, 2019)

MiTasol said:


> Here is Australia the worlds third most powerful catholic has been found guilty of child sex abuse and the whole trial and verdict has been suppressed by the courts. The headlines and articles were available on foreign news web sites for about 24 hours in Australia and then disappeared so obviously some Aus government filters have blocked any article that mentions his name reaching here.


And screen-caps would be blocked by upload filter.


----------



## MiTasol (Feb 21, 2019)

Zipper730 said:


> And screen-caps would be blocked by upload filter.


Would a pdf of the article or screenshot be blocked? That is how I get updates at present. He is currently on trial for further child sex crimes.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 21, 2019)

MiTasol said:


> Would a pdf of the article or screenshot be blocked? That is how I get updates at present. He is currently on trial for further child sex crimes.


There's quite a few ways for servers to filter content.
Facial recognition, keyword filtering and so on.
China has perhaps some of the best filtering known to exist, which is how they manage their citizen's content.
In regards to Imperial Japan's naughty late-war fighter, there's a considerable amount of coverage available here in the U.S.

And out of curiosity, is this Guardian article viewable down that way?
George Pell | Australia news | The Guardian

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Feb 21, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> There's quite a few ways for servers to filter content.
> Facial recognition, keyword filtering and so on.
> China has perhaps some of the best filtering known to exist, which is how they manage their citizen's content.
> In regards to Imperial Japan's naughty late-war fighter, there's a considerable amount of coverage available here in the U.S.
> ...



This was seen here because it is not in relation to his child sex court cases. George Pell: Pope Francis removes Australian cardinal from inner circle

The last in relation to these court cases were variations of Prosecutors seek ban on reporting of George Pell trials.

He was found guilty of some charges in December and, AFAIK, is on trial at present facing additional charges, none of which can be reported here. From memory he was to be sentenced on the December findings this month but my overseas relatives have not seen anything on that or the current trial.

Unfortunately I deleted the December pdfs. The best were the NZ Herald on the day after the verdict where they announced they were publishing even though being the NZ arm of an Aus news group (News Ltd) so that Australians could learn what the Australian government and lawyers wanted kept hidden. That page dissappeared within a few hours along with the CNN and BBC articles.

If an Australian does a search of the nzherald.co.nz site for "George Pell" this is the result





By the way - these are screenshots of your linked page - are they identical for you?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## at6 (Feb 21, 2019)

Does that mean that his trials are now copyrighted?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Feb 22, 2019)

Until this is implemented, memes and pamphlets/flyers are the key to get people's attention: I can be somewhat long-winded, and I figure the idea is to figure out how to distill the messages into several categories that can be m engage the emotions of different people and these would be good examples.



GrauGeist said:


> What the ultimate goal of the EU copyright law is, will be essentially to make users licensed in order to access content. And with that goal, backed by Article 11, a "snippet tax" will be levied on sites that even use a portion (or quote) of a copyrighted article, again, like exists everywhere on this site in the various threads. I should also mention that I have posted my own photos to this site (which have embedded copyright info in the files), but technically, under the proposed copyright law, members of this site would have to be licensed in order to view them.
> 
> Clearly, this would mean the end of smaller websites, as they cannot afford the required file scanning servers as well as the fees and taxes. Larger sites will be able to afford the nessecary hardware, but this additional cost will have to be passed on to end-users in order to stay solvent.
> 
> The issue goes far beyond what I've covered, but in the end, the goal is to literally turn the internet into a licensed revenue generator and that's not acceptable.


This shouldn't be quoted -- it should be viewed as useful information that could be made into a meme.

Here are others...

Article 13 is back on – and it got worse, not better
EU copyright reform/expansion
https://www.change.org/p/european-parliament-stop-the-censorship-machinery-save-the-internet

The text from this could easily be made into a meme that would work



What do you guys think?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## at6 (Feb 22, 2019)

Julia Reda and the others are correct in what they are telling us. Freedom of speech is only the first thing we will lose. If she had long hair, she would be sooooooo hot.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Feb 23, 2019)

The legal proceeding pertaining to Pell have been suppressed at the request of the prosecution in his trial, to minimize the chances of a successful appeal by his defence team on the basis of media bias affecting the jury. 

its got nothing to to with a "Gov'ment Conspiracy"

Whether trial data can be "copywrited" I very much doubt it. Articles in the press or written into commercial text is a different matter.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 23, 2019)

MiTasol said:


> This was seen here because it is not in relation to his child sex court cases. George Pell: Pope Francis removes Australian cardinal from inner circle
> 
> The last in relation to these court cases were variations of Prosecutors seek ban on reporting of George Pell trials.
> 
> ...


Fairly close - slight differences in layout between the ipad and computer but the order in the articles was identical.


----------



## elbmc1969 (Feb 23, 2019)

at6 said:


> It's possible that I may have been in error as to Obama. It was the uranium that he and Hillary sold to the Russians. Will passage of this regulation lead to a European Internet Access Tax?



Umm, just a bit. The current president (quite vocal in how much he hates Obama) hated Net Neutrality because it took money away from billionaires.

And it had nothing to do with "not renewing." It was REVOKED. One is passive, the other is actively hostile.

On the other hand, Net Neutrality had little to do with content and everything to do with charging sites more money for bandwidth.

On the gripping hand, "The power to tax implies the power to destroy." Even if the taxer is a private company instead of the government.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 23, 2019)

Net Neutrality is very much about content.

It's about preventing ISPs and carriers from charging based on content, webserver types (and services), websites or even the type of system the end user is running.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## elbmc1969 (Feb 23, 2019)

Zipper730 said:


> And screen-caps would be blocked by upload filter.


Isn't automated image recognition a lost cause? Even on my phone, I could open the screen cap in Pixlr and stretch it just a tiny bit in one (or both) dimensions and let it resample. Or I could apply a sepia filter. Or add a border. Or adjust the color balance a tiny amount. Or combine a few of these.

Throwing together an app to use the random.org API to randomly apply effects would be trivial. It could add lines of "snow" to the top/bottom/left/right of an image, scatter bits of snow over the image, invert the color in parts of the image, etc., etc. Seriously, automated recognition to try find all of the variants where black text was changed to white and the background was changed to any of a vast number of high-contrast colors would be a nightmare. Even if that could be done, other effects, and effect in combination, would end up being impossible.

Heck, you could just slice up a screenshot and post the images one after the other. Imperfect for so many uses, but yet another problem that recognition needs to deal with.

Yep, all of this is going to stop unsophisticated users, but as the array of tools to get around it grows, and as they get easier to use, the more it will just be a waste of everyone's time.


----------



## MiTasol (Feb 26, 2019)

parsifal said:


> The legal proceeding pertaining to Pell have been suppressed at the request of the prosecution in his trial, to minimize the chances of a successful appeal by his defence team on the basis of media bias affecting the jury.
> 
> its got nothing to to with a "Gov'ment Conspiracy"
> 
> Whether trial data can be "copywrited" I very much doubt it. Articles in the press or written into commercial text is a different matter.




Todays news on ABC Australia Why was George Pell's trial held in secret?

Washington Post has some excellent coverage as well

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## elbmc1969 (Feb 26, 2019)

Given how some people have been convicted in media circuses here, I have some sympathy for the Australians trying to hold fair trials. Roger Stone seems to have been trying to poison the juror pool, get the case changed to another judge, or something, so the joy of Twitter is that you can't always blame the press any more.

However, my belief in the critical role of the free press overrides this. I just wish that people would strike a balance.


----------



## gumbyk (Feb 26, 2019)

We had a high profile murder case here that was in serious jeopardy of being a mis-trial because social media and British news outlets broke a suppression order.
Everyone has a right to a fair trial, and people need to realise that if they stop that from happening, then the only other option is 'no trial' - i.e. acquittal

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Feb 26, 2019)

elbmc1969 said:


> "The power to tax implies the power to destroy." Even if the taxer is a private company instead of the government.


Especially if it's a private company! The power to tax is generally the preserve of a sovereign nation -- not a private organizatoin...


----------



## parsifal (Feb 26, 2019)

Pells conviction is out now and its pretty shocking. I didn't know the suppression order was to facilitate other proceedings that have now been discontinued. 

He still has a right to appeal, but in the last few minutes has waived his bail application

Conservative commentator Andrew Bolt went on the tele last night stating he thought Pell was innocent. truth is, we don't know either way until the appeals process is exhausted . If he is guilty, he doesn't look sorry.


----------



## Zipper730 (Feb 26, 2019)

This is essentially ACTA 2.0.


----------



## Schweik (Feb 28, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> While I don't have an argument towards protecting copyrighted material, such as complete works (either literary, musical or photographic), this law will also prohibit even quoting published works, which is a huge lart of debates here on the forums, as a debate often requires quoting specific information (again, quoting a portion, not copying and pasting entire works).
> 
> What the ultimate goal of the EU copyright law is, will be essentially to make users licensed in order to access content. And with that goal, backed by Article 11, a "snippet tax" will be levied on sites that even use a portion (or quote) of a copyrighted article, again, like exists everywhere on this site in the various threads. I should also mention that I have posted my own photos to this site (which have embedded copyright info in the files), but technically, under the proposed copyright law, members of this site would have to be licensed in order to view them.
> 
> ...




I agree. I produce a lot of content and have had it shared by others in whole and in part, which is annoying. But there is such a thing as 'Fair Use' - if you can't quote excerpts or parts of images etc. it makes it very hard to discuss anything.

I personally believe this is more about creating income streams, not for individual artists or content producers like myself, but for big firms that own a lot of copyrights.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Mar 1, 2019)

parsifal said:


> The legal proceeding pertaining to Pell have been suppressed at the request of the prosecution in his trial, to minimize the chances of a successful appeal by his defence team on the basis of media bias affecting the jury.



Yes you are correct as we all now know. 

And I agree that providing a fair trail is critical. 

Given the honesty of many in the legal profession we must also consider is this about a fair trial or rigging/gaming the system. For example

Australia has for the last 3 months has been following the story about a senior lawyer who was also a police informer and grassing on her clients to ensure they were convicted
A young sportsman was killed in Brisbane a couple of years ago and it was all caught on CCTV. His lawyer pleaded not guilty, presumably so that he could get paid for over a week in court time instead of just a couple of hours
In the US the lawyers for the guy who recently kidnapped a girl and murdered her parents are pleading not guilty and crying they cannot get a fair trial because the perp made a full confession and bragged how smart he was to the arresting police. That confession is all on video and no doubt they want it suppressed.
I remember visiting a kiwi colleague in NZ around 2000 and he was extremely upset that a school friend of his had been convicted of rape. Around year six that friend earned the nickname Shorty as a result of an accident where the front wheel of his bicycle dragged his penis up inside the mudguard, severing it completely at the base. The female judge totally suppressed that fact pretrial and so the jury found him guilty. Appeals to the minister were ignored.

Several years later I was told that the Privy Council or International Court of Justice overturned many or all her rape convictions. In one other overturned case the convicted person was out of the country as clearly proven by his passport and other travel documents, and his travel companions, and she suppressed all that evidence pretrial from the jury and press as well.

My family includes one lawyer and a judge. The latter has often said that _you must always remember that lawyer is an Olde Englishe spelling of liar._

Trump's lawyer Rudy G is on record recently for publicly revealing the legal professions ten commandments for the first time
1. The truth is not the truth
2. The truth is not the truth
3. The truth is not the truth .......

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Mar 4, 2019)

U.S. Democrats promise to bring back net neutrality | CBC News

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Mar 4, 2019)

They're proposing to push the GDPR vote up to March 23 -- it almost seems that they're working in direct opposition to the will of the people of the EU.




 fubar57

Well, they're saying they will -- I'll believe it when I see it.


----------



## at6 (Mar 5, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> U.S. Democrats promise to bring back net neutrality | CBC News


Finally. Something that I agree upon with the Pelosicrats.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 6, 2019)

"The text of the proposed legislation has not been released "

Lip service - sort of along the lines of "pass the bill first, then you can read the details".

The Internet was working fine under the direction of ICAAN, but the last administration passed control over to a consortium based in the EU and now we have all sorts of shenanigans going on.

If it works, don't fix it.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Mar 8, 2019)

Who knows what the text of this "Net Neutrality" legislation will end up actually being? Maybe they will slip something like this into it

Off the bat it'd require 

Companies to label bots using their own bots: Human oversight would be taken out of the equation
All accounts to be registered with the SEC: It would presumably require online anonymization services to be outlawed.
Abolish Article 230: This basically would make websites far more likely to take down anything they weren't 100% sure was totally kosher because they'd be subjected to lawsuits they are currently exempt from, and would probably probably also bar parody and satire.
Establish a Publish Initiative for Media Literacy: It'd amount to a ministry of truth (let me give you a tip, the people in power always will list their actions as the truth whether or not they're full of shit).
Implement policies similar to the EU's GDPR, which includes open censorship provisions.
It would also establish a system that would allow one to have their "online value" determined much like the Chinese "social media credit" system which can affect a person's ability to get jobs, and ultimately live their lives because they don't like their behavior (much of the technology used by China was developed in North America, Europe, and Israel -- many suspect that China is being used as a proving ground for all the totalitarian technology that one day will be imposed upon us all).


----------



## MiTasol (Mar 11, 2019)

Just found this on line from the Australian ABC broadcasting which sums it up passably well

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Mar 13, 2019)

Interesting article...EU withheld a study that shows piracy doesn't hurt sales

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 13, 2019)

One thing I have always found interesting, is that the music labels insist that each device I own have a license in order to play a song, but I get those same songs for free on my FM radio, regardless of the vehicle I am driving at the time.

And I am one of those people who want to listen to a song before I buy it, too...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Mar 13, 2019)

Back in the early 80's I listened to an American station called KISM out of Bellingham, Wash. It played what it called "Album Rock"; not your Top 40 stuff. At midnight they would play an entire album and that saved me a lot of money by finding out that an album had just one good song on it so I could get away with buying just a 45

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 13, 2019)

Man, I remember picking up 45s...eapecially if an album only had one song worth getting.

Saved a bunch of money that way, but when 45s went by the wayside, it was back to getting an entire album (either vinyl, cassette or CD) until the advent of digital media. Although you could, on occasion, get singles on Cassette or CDs. The alternative, of course, was waiting for the favorite song to come on the radio and recording it!

Kids today don't know how real the struggle was.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Mar 13, 2019)

....and waiting for the stupid DJ to stop talking so you could hit the "record" button

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 13, 2019)

Right?


----------



## MiTasol (Mar 13, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> One thing I have always found interesting, is that the music labels insist that each device I own have a license in order to play a song, but I get those same songs for free on my FM radio, regardless of the vehicle I am driving at the time.



but the radio station pay a fee for every song it broadcasts so they are still grabbing the moolah


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 13, 2019)

MiTasol said:


> but the radio station pay a fee for every song it broadcasts so they are still grabbing the moolah


Not for every song, terrestrial stations pay an annual fee based on playlists and audience.

However, I as the FM listener am not paying anything to hear it...so technically speaking, I am listening to someone else's music on an unregistered device - therefore, by their EULA definition on other media platforms, I'm a pirate! *arrggggg*

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Mar 13, 2019)

Remember when blank cassette tapes caused the same hooplah with the record labels. Recording artists get about 12% of sales. One thing I have to say is that I don't pirate music. I just finished transferring my CD's to my phone and will now get a family membership with Apple Tunes. I found out earlier this year was that a Canadian band was in from the start regarding music piracy. I can guarantee almost all here have never heard of them; Dick Twang Band from Pouce Coupe, B.C.

​

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 14, 2019)

Yep...reel-to-reel and Cassette recorders were going to be the downfall of the music industry.

The easy access to copyrighted material and the duplication and distribution of pirated material was going to be the end of western civilization as we know it.

Little did they know that in less than 20 years, tape recording would be the least of their problems...


----------



## Zipper730 (Mar 20, 2019)

I hope that shooting in New Zealand doesn't increase the odds on the GDPR getting forced through. It sounds cynical, but when the GDPR was facing heavy opposition, terrorist content became an issue (it never was before, so it's just a way to justify the actions) even though it makes up only 1% of content and most people delete it quick.

A crisis can't go to waste, so...


----------



## Marcel (Mar 26, 2019)

So the new rules are now clear. Basically it says that the web service is held responsible for any copyright material uploaded by it’s users. The platform needs to install filters in order to prevent uploading of said material.

However, above rule counts if the platform meets the following criteria:
- the platform has a yearly turnover of a minimum of 10 milion euro
- has a minimum of 5 milion unique users from the Eu
- has existed for more than 3 years.

We only meet one of the above rules I think

However, even though we don’t meet the criteria, we still need to apply to some rules.
We need to do “notice and take down”. Which means that we are obliged to remove copyright material if it is pointed out to us.

So I guess we’ll go on the way we did.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 26, 2019)

What a tangled, ridiculous mess...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (Mar 26, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> What a tangled, ridiculous mess...


Yup. It’s clearly aimed at the big boys like YouTube and Facebook. But it’s difficult to define the border.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 26, 2019)

Marcel said:


> Yup. It’s clearly aimed at the big boys like YouTube and Facebook. But it’s difficult to define the border.


The other thing I'm not clear about, is how they define "copyrighted" material.

I've posted countless photographs of mine on Facebook, which bears a copyright.
So of a friend shares my photo to another page, will that be a copyright violation?

Or is this directive only going to support the music/media industry (which is behind this movement) in hopes of garnering more money for their pockets?


----------



## vikingBerserker (Mar 26, 2019)

I'm Copywriting the letter "e" (both upper and lower case).

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 26, 2019)

It's all a bit convoluted and complicated. In addition to the new article about covers of songs. It just seems a bit much...


----------



## Marcel (Mar 26, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> The other thing I'm not clear about, is how they define "copyrighted" material.
> 
> I've posted countless photographs of mine on Facebook, which bears a copyright.
> So of a friend shares my photo to another page, will that be a copyright violation?
> ...


I have read all in Dutch and I find it difficult to explain in English. Apart from the fact that I’m not a lawyer, but a simple technician. But as far as I understand it is all material that falls under Author protection. Like books where you have the copyright statement. But I guess you can claim everything of which you can prove that you’re the author. People then always need permission from you to publish that. I don’t know if keeping silent and not complaining is inherently a permission.
Maybe I’m wrong, and maybe someone who knows more about these things can explain.


----------



## Zipper730 (Mar 26, 2019)

When does the GDPR go down to the nation/state-level, frankly I think the solution would be to produce protests, and embarrass the hell out of these people.


----------



## Zipper730 (Mar 30, 2019)

The nation-level vote will be May 26, so start building up and piling on the pressure for those in the EU


----------



## Zipper730 (Apr 30, 2019)

Marcel said:


> I don’t know if keeping silent and not complaining is inherently a permission.
> Maybe I’m wrong, and maybe someone who knows more about these things can explain.


By being silent, it is effectively, consenting to this.

I'm curious if anybody is doing anything more? It has to pass at the nation-state level, and that occurs on 25 May of this year. I figure the only crazy thing we could do, is submit to the likes of the individuals that wish to impose this monstrosity upon us all -- both in the EU and indirectly abroad -- to control the flow of information and keep us in the dark like mushrooms.

This flies in the face of any society that's good and decent should do.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 1, 2019)

The tragedy of this all, is that the internet was originally conceived of as a way to rapidly exchange academic information to the regular person based on the ARPA project - ARPA being the foundation of the internet and it's core was the rapid exchange of information between academic and/or military networks.

And in the early years, it was a great place to be.

But leave it to human greed to try and turn a buck off an idea...

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (May 1, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> ...eapecially if an album only had one song worth getting.



Like every album by the Rolling Stones since the 60s! Joke, Stones fans...



GrauGeist said:


> I've posted countless photographs of mine on Facebook, which bears a copyright.



Facebook owns everything you post there. Read the fine print, Dave. Facebook can and does sell your information to the likes of Cambridge Analytica and so on, so they can do what they want with your content. Copyrights don't apply to them. They should, but don't. Any images or anything you put up on stalkbook is theirs.

These big time tech firms like Google and stalkbook wrote the rules for internet social media and information sharing and its only been over the last few years that governments and legistlative bodies have been taking note of indiscretions as a result of copyright violations en masse on the internet. It all happened so quickly back in the day that there were no laws or anything governing the use of material on social media in place, so these giants were able to take advantage of that without anyone noticing and write their own rules.

When we, the gullible public sign up to these sites, they do tell us to read the fine print, as they have been instructed to make us aware of that stuff, but we don't and we conveniently ignore this as we post endless gifs and minion memes on our accounts (they can fricken well have those). Photo sharing sites like Flickr and Photofucket are the same. They can use our images. We have to use these sites at our own risk and judge for ourselves what we consider right and wrong. These companies play on our ignorance, remember.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (May 1, 2019)

[QUOTE="nuuumannn, post: 1474398, member: 44325"]Facebook owns everything you post there. Read the fine print, Dave. Facebook can and does sell your information to the likes of Cambridge Analytica and so on, so they can do what they want with your content. Copyrights don't apply to them. They should, but don't. Any images or anything you put up on stalkbook is theirs.[/quote]They should, but they don't... you know, the reason we have concepts of "should" and "ought to be" is so that we can make "what ought to be", "what is" when possible.

With matters of these sorts, the method of achieving things aren't necessarily facts based, but argument/narrative based: Just create a decent sounding narrative that appeals to people's emotions (I'd go with fear, betrayal, anger/outrage).

Then use their emotions to create a nucleus, and then expand to fence sitters, and start pulling more and more people over to the fence which is progressively moved outward: Remember what we've read about firestorms? Fires and ideas spread in a similar way, so, you want to spread the ideas so fast that they cannot be extinguished (in other words, even if the internet was to be taken offline, enough people have seen the idea, and that stuff cannot be unseen), then enlarge them to the point that they start sucking stuff in and take on a life of their own (i.e. pulling in people sitting on the fence, then enlarging the fence, and repeat).

Preemptively countering known positions are useful: If you've seen: "A Few Good Men", there was a scene where Captain Ross (Kevin Bacon), during opening arguments summarily points out that the other side will argue about "Code Reds" and it's just a bunch of nonsense. It takes the wind out of your opponent's sails, and knocks 'em flat on their asses before they can get off the ground.


BTW: There is a proposal being proposed by Senator Warner that proposes to regulate Social Media, but it's just aimed at imposing an American GDPR, which is bad, and we'll all soon be affected badly enough with the GDPR as is. 

They're not good ideas and include gutting all pretense of anonymity online, possibly even making it a federal offense to use pseudonyms/pen-names online by requiring them to be registered with the SEC.


----------



## Zipper730 (May 1, 2019)

As for opposing the GDPR, are there any groups that are doing any heavy lifting? Julia Reda resigned from the European Parliament, and seems to have gone inactive. I'm not sure what groups are doing anything.


----------



## Zipper730 (May 19, 2019)

parsifal said:


> Its concerning that free speech might be stifled.


Concerning? It should be terrifying!

And yet, nobody seems to be protesting, and it's not going to be applied until the nation-state level vote, which is on May 25 or 26: I've been encouraging people, and have found a few like-minded types to spread the message around and encourage others to do the same. But it seems to go no further.


> And I worry finally exactly how this massive change will affect us. I cannot help thinking that it bodes bad things for small fry like us.


I suggest people start assembling flash-mobs (you get a whole bunch of people to assemble in a given area, protest, or do some predetermined task, then disperse really quick to get people's attention) -- there's little legal restriction, as I understand it, in the EU.

Few people seem to be doing anything about it though: I've even been trying to appeal to taking pleasure in making your MP (not MEP, this is a nation level matter) miserable with daily messages (even advising people on writing a script if inarticulate, or just sending the same written message over and over again). Hell, I even told some people that in one's lifetime, a heart only beats so many times, so if we can give them some stress, and speed things up a bit, that's gotta be a good thing (I'm exaggerating for comedic effect, but still little response).

People seem to be very fatalistic about things -- and I'm not an optimistic man, but I tend to follow the notion that it ain't over until it's over and as long as I can, I will oppose this in any way I can think of until I go slack, or am *made* to go slack.

It seems people that are not from the UK are best to appeal to, Germany, Scandanavian Countries, Spain, Italy... etc.

We have 6 days, but spreading the word can accomplish a task -- the key is to simply spread to lots of people and rely on the concept of exponents



 fubar57


 michaelmaltby


 Wayne Little


 v2



 Wurger


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 25, 2019)

Marcel said:


> I don’t know if keeping silent and not complaining is inherently a permission. Maybe I’m wrong, and maybe someone who knows more about these things can explain.





Zipper730 said:


> By being silent, it is effectively, consenting to this.


No, that’s not exactly true. At least here in the U.S., where everything is governed by the Copyright Act, the only way to waive or assign a copyright is in a writing. Marcel, you’re right, it’s works of authorship that are protected in the Act. So long as they’re reduced to a tangible medium of expression, and you authored them, copyright subsumes, and that’s the end of that. They’re infringed on all the time on the Internet, but only because they can be terribly expensive to enforce.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 25, 2019)

So can someone update me, did the law pass?


----------



## Marcel (Jun 25, 2019)

Schweik said:


> So can someone update me, did the law pass?


Yup it's implemented starting 6th of June this year.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 25, 2019)

Marcel said:


> Yup it's implemented starting 6th of June this year.



Thank you. So does this mean policy changes here vis a vis posting images from WW2?

Does anyone know what this means regarding for example in publishing images of pre 1900 art one might find on Wikimedia commons? How sweeping are the rules? Are they being contested?


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 25, 2019)

Wiki is pretty good for showing what rules are needed to post pictures and whether it is Public Domain or not


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 25, 2019)




----------



## Schweik (Jun 25, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> Wiki is pretty good for showing what rules are needed to post pictures and whether it is Public Domain or not



So in a nutshell, any image that is not specifically designated as public domain or Creative Commons is problematic? 

Is the wiki linked in this thread?


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 25, 2019)

The sample above isn't Public Domain


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 25, 2019)

An example of what is....


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 25, 2019)

An example that supersedes the above...


----------



## Marcel (Jun 25, 2019)

If I remember correctly the rules only applied for sites with more then a certain amount of traffic, so smaller sites don't have to worry too much. Only when the copyright owner complains, you'll have to remove the content in question.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (Jun 25, 2019)

Marcel said:


> So the new rules are now clear. Basically it says that the web service is held responsible for any copyright material uploaded by it’s users. The platform needs to install filters in order to prevent uploading of said material.
> 
> However, above rule counts if the platform meets the following criteria:
> - the platform has a yearly turnover of a minimum of 10 milion euro
> ...


I saw that I posted the rules earlier in the thread, so see the quoted post.


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 25, 2019)

Can we plunder the web then...........?


----------



## Marcel (Jun 25, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> Can we plunder the web then...........?
> 
> View attachment 542834​


Whose statistics are those? Ours??


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 25, 2019)

Yessir, from here......Ww2aircraft / WW2Aircraft.net Forums though I have found that a lot of web counters and web site worth sites have a lot of different stats. I've seen one web site worth site that has our listed at almost 1 million


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 25, 2019)

Marcel said:


> Yup it's implemented starting 6th of June this year.



And we were spared armageddon???


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 25, 2019)

Schweik said:


> So in a nutshell, any image that is not specifically designated as public domain or Creative Commons is problematic?
> 
> Is the wiki linked in this thread?



Any picture that is not public domain or creative commons needs to be sourced as before.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 25, 2019)

Ok sourced as in you just indicate where (what website) it came from and provide a link?


----------



## Marcel (Jun 25, 2019)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And we were spared armageddon???


Worse, we experienced Brexit

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 25, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Ok sourced as in you just indicate where (what website) it came from and provide a link?



Absolutely. 

If I know who the photographers name is I will usually add thas well.

example:

Name, www.justforshowdonotclick.com


----------



## Marcel (Jun 25, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Ok sourced as in you just indicate where (what website) it came from and provide a link?


Right. And we (the mods and admins) keep the privilege to remove it if we get into any copyright-related trouble.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 25, 2019)

Marcel said:


> Right. And we (the mods and admins) keep the privilege to remove it if we get into any copyright-related trouble.



Careful, you are coming across as the evil man.


----------



## Marcel (Jun 25, 2019)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Careful, you are coming across as the evil man.


I am

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 25, 2019)

Marcel said:


> Yup it's implemented starting 6th of June this year.


D-Day.


----------



## kiwi2wheels (Jun 29, 2019)

VBF-13 said:


> D-Day.



Speaking as one who exists in the EU(SSR), nuking Brusselstan would have been a most fitting way to mark the day................

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (Jun 29, 2019)

kiwi2wheels said:


> Speaking as one who exists in the EU(SSR), nuking Brusselstan would have been a most fitting way to mark the day................


Discussions about the EU are best done on FB. Not here please.


----------



## mikemike (Jul 1, 2019)

When you rail and rant against the EU, you have acquired the wrong target. This whole copyright stuff was pushed through because of enormous pressure (and lobbying) by publishing corporations, especially the big newspaper conglomerates, who could no longer suffer to bear that any of their content could be read without being (expensively) paid for - aimed primarily, but not exclusively, at Google. That Joe Q. Public might get trampled by that was irrelevant, it doesn't impact their dividends or bonuses. It may be our bad luck that the internet community isn't a significant enough pressure group to counteract the big corporations, especially since they can push their views in their own media. But first let's see how this works out in practice, especially after the courts had their say about the consequences. 

BTW, the corporations who shouted loudest about being ripped off by the "lawless internet" are probably the same who scream blue murder and "freedom of the press" when they are forbidden to publish pictures of princesses without knickers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (Jul 1, 2019)

We're hardly affected by this law, so no rant is necessary. It's clearly aimed at the big ones, Facebook and Google and the like.

Guys, let it go. If we get complains, we'll comply. For the rest, stick to the rules we've set and everybody will be okay.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 1, 2019)

I think the thread has run its course...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------

