European Union Copyright Directive :: Possible Legislation affecting the internet

[GrauGeist]

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...

 

[nuuumannn]

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

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

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.

 

[Zipper730]

[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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

So can someone update me, did the law pass?

 

[Marcel]

So can someone update me, did the law pass?

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

 

[Schweik]

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]

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

 

[fubar57]

 

[Schweik]

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]

The sample above isn't Public Domain

 

[fubar57]

An example of what is....

 

[fubar57]

An example that supersedes the above...

 

[Marcel]

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.

 

[Marcel]

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.

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

 

[fubar57]

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

 

[Marcel]

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

View attachment 542834​

Whose statistics are those? Ours??

 

[fubar57]

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