EU Article 13: A Dark Day For The Internet

[vansinn]

The European Parliament just voted-in Article 13 (and 11), intended to 'better protect' intellectual property.
Memes and GIFs et al will be made more difficult to use.
Beware. It will be the responseability of content providers, sites, forums to ensure contents are within legal bounds.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20190321IPR32110/european-parliament-approves-new-copyright-rules-for-the-internet


For a good description what it'll mean, refer https://www.rt.com/news/454753-article-13-europe-copyright/

[rnolan]

What is/are memes ?  Not sure how Europe will go with US and other overseas sites  :dunno: Do they plan to block content ?

[MikeB]

The article states that memes and GIFs are specifically protected and it even states that they have even more protection than before.

[Peter H. Boer]

It also aims at protecting the artist rather than the company

[vansinn]

Here's a great video explaining the obstacles musicians risk facing as a result of Article 13:

[vansinn]

Article 13 has been renamed to Article 17; else, same thing.
But are we sufficiently aware of the ramifications from this invasive directive?

Take a quart to go peek'n'poke at this discussion at The Corbett Report:

[vansinn]

I don't see much interest in the problems these EU Articles in the future will create also for our site.
While these EU Articles aren't yet outright law, but for the moment are still left to individual member states to implement somewhat to their own fashion, the rationales behind these Articles goes much further that to primarily hit larger sites.

In time - and it won't be long into the future - these mechanisms will hit us all, to the extend that small sites and startups won't be able to cope with the expenses to buy, install, operate and maintain the filters needed.  Such filters may cost up to $50.000.

Do watch the vid in my former post just above, and also read the article following. But I fear some won't even care to read it simply because of who's the content provider..

https://www.rt.com/news/465213-instagram-meme-account-shutdown/

[rnolan]

Watched and read  :facepalm: , I share your/their concerns.

[vansinn]

Yeah, well..  even now, before these Articles has been put into individual law in respective countries/states, they're having an effect, like Google has implemented filters adhering to this.

This is of fairly financial trouble to such giants, but the effects of these Articles will be put to practice for every site and forum that offers upload of contents - and it'll be the responsibility of the site owner to make sure contents adhere to law, based on these Articles.
Such filter package will be expensive, and I'm worried a forum (like ours) will suddenly be hit, purely because someone just made a simple quote to something, or used an ill-fated keyword.
As an example, a US organisation, helping war veterans, used the word C hri stian in an add, which denied when uploading to to the tube. The word Mu sl im, however, was ok to use.  Go figure.

I have an account on the SMF forum (from when I ran the Depot), and are thinking of offering my assistance in creating filters we can all use on our forums.
I have some experience with filtering and self-balancing binary search trees, so..  Haven't checked if they already have such projects going.

[rnolan]

We'll have to see how the US reacts to it.  Also we run a very squeaky clean and respectful site particularly from a hate speech perspective.I'm sure SMF would appreciate your input, let us know how it goes...
I worry more for the likes of those guys who want to discuss various bits and licks which to me is a quite valid teaching/discussion technique.Managing IP and Copyright of digital content is (and has always been) a vexing issue.  Not helped by the endless abuse from some who want to endlessly download more movies than they have hours in their lives to watch, continue to poke the greedy bear(s) and they eventually bight. And of course there are always unexpected (and to some extent unintended) consequences for others...I would prefer they put their energy into getting the likes of spotify, iTunes, amazon etc to pay musicians a reasonable amount for their content.  These platforms make millions and the creators/artist get naph all (300,000 streams = the price of 1 CD sale, how is that fair).  Joe public seem to have the attitude that the musicians do quite well from it (well the ones I've discussed it with) which of course isn't the case.  Everyone want's it for nothing or next to nothing.

[vansinn]

Yeah, I agree with your above sentiments, which is also why, to avoid attention, I keep my own babblings about such matters to a minimum, despite a wish to open the can a Bit wider..

Let's say I write these few tidbits to create some attention to these matters, so that we can post in ways avoiding further a-tention.