Article 13, link tax and the end of fair use

[Saru]

3 minutes ago, Helen of Annoy said:

Worst case scenario, according to Pirate Party interpretation of proposed regulation that in effect would be a recommendation, not a law. 

I don't understand your obsession with bringing the Pirate Party in to this.

Quote

Even that worst case does not prohibit your users from referring to certain piece.

Based on what I've read about this, it does. Under this legislation, sites would be expected to pay news sites for the privilege of quoting from or linking to them. Small sites can't afford to do that so the only option would be to block all such linking/quoting.

This already happened when Spain enacted a similar legislation a while back - even Google shut down it's Spanish news section.

Quote

Only would prohibit you from claiming eventual profit from the handling of someone else's property.

As I said before, this isn't about piracy/plagiarism - those laws already exist.

Quote

If you want to discuss it, I cannot wait for the moment it will be discussion, without the regular large quantity propaganda material posters. 

This isn't a discussion ?

Also - "large quantity propaganda posters"... what is this in reference to ?

[Helen of Annoy]

38 minutes ago, Saru said:

I don't understand your obsession with bringing the Pirate Party in to this.

I didn't find anyone else with any analysis that would be behind this particular panic. There probably is someone else, non-anonymous and remotely competent that could stand behind the worst case scenario. 

By the way, what's the best case? 

Could be more authors getting paid, less spamming. 

 

Quote

Based on what I've read about this, it does. Under this legislation, sites would be expected to pay news sites for the privilege of quoting from or linking to them. Small sites can't afford to do that so the only option would be to block all such linking/quoting.

Fair. Pay if it comes for a price, use fairly if the owner allows it. Who can stop anyone from giving info away?

Besides, why it has to be a link? Why is mentioning where you found what not enough? If someone can't be bothered to make two clicks and see your recommendation... 

 

Quote

This already happened when Spain enacted a similar legislation a while back - even Google shut down it's Spanish news section.

All right, Google wanted no expenses. It's their decision, I don't doubt they have people immensely more qualified than me to make such decision. 

But I wasn't aware that people from Spain can't post links or memes anymore. If that really is the case, it won't last long and it will prevent the worst pirate case scenario, because it's totally impossible to be enforced and it's kinda totally the opposite of the spirit of net neutrality.  

 

Quote

As I said before, this isn't about piracy/plagiarism - those laws already exist.

I said 'Only would prohibit you from claiming eventual profit from the handling of someone else's property.' 

I don't know if there's a term for that, but when f-book declared themselves the owners of the contents their users posted, and weren't stopped, it was a good reason to panic. 

The best case scenario could be turning tables - instead of simply claiming property of others, the social sites will have to rediscover how it works in the real life. We, small users, real people, we pay for the goods. We don't claim books or photos in the store. We buy them. Why would a company be free to claim something I have to buy? 

Unless it was offered to be shared by the author.    

 

Quote

This isn't a discussion ?

Also - "large quantity propaganda posters"... what is this in reference to ?

This is a discussion. And we're doing great, without any videos made by... that brings me to the question who made a lot of videos, promising more, if there isn't any structure or organized intent behind it. Probably just single one citizen, deeply concerned for the future of us all.  

Anyway, we're doing great without large quantity of videos. Were we not promised more to be posted? 

Of course, we may disagree on what constitutes 'large quantity' or even what constitutes 'propaganda', but I think we'll agree we can actually talk to each other without posting anything from an outside source. We can recommend sources to each other, why they have to be directly posted?     

Edited June 6, 2018 by Helen of Annoy

[Saru]

I don't think you are quite grasping some of the concepts here, in particular the importance and practical aspects of 'fair use' and linking on the Internet as well as the ways in which the proposed legislation could impact small to medium sites/businesses.

That said, this thread isn't an effort to catastrophize the issue, only to make people aware of it and its potential impact on sites like ours.

I seriously doubt these changes will actually be passed in to law (or at least not in their current form).

Quote

This is a discussion. And we're doing great, without any videos made by... that brings me to the question who made a lot of videos, promising more, if there isn't any structure or organized intent behind it. Probably just single one citizen, deeply concerned for the future of us all.  

Anyway, we're doing great without large quantity of videos. Were we not promised more to be posted? 

Of course, we may disagree on what constitutes 'large quantity' or even what constitutes 'propaganda', but I think we'll agree we can actually talk to each other without posting anything from an outside source. We can recommend sources to each other, why they have to be directly posted?     

I'm afraid you've lost me with this - are you still talking about the EU copyright law issue ? What videos ?

[Helen of Annoy]

5 minutes ago, Saru said:

I don't think you are quite grasping some of the concepts here, in particular the practical aspects of fair use and linking as well as the specific ways in which the proposed legislation could cause problems for small to medium sites/businesses.

Well, I am quite stupid. I simply can't understand where's the problem if your site is based on interaction between members and has nothing to do with sharing profit from the traffic on the linked sites.  

Never mind, I'll eventually get it. You did your best to explain it to me. 

 

5 minutes ago, Saru said:

That said, this thread isn't an effort to catastrophize the issue, only to make people aware of it and its potential impact on sites like ours.

I seriously doubt these changes will actually be passed in to law (or at least not in their current form).

Thank you. 

 

5 minutes ago, Saru said:

I'm afraid you've lost me with this - are you still talking about the EU copyright law issue ? What videos ?

You've got them on the page 1, unless I was seeing things that aren't there. 

 

All in all, thanks. I stole enough of your time. 

[AnchorSteam]

1 hour ago, Helen of Annoy said:

.....

This is a discussion. And we're doing great, without any videos made by... that brings me to the question who made a lot of videos, promising more, if there isn't any structure or organized intent behind it. Probably just single one citizen, deeply concerned for the future of us all.  

Anyway, we're doing great without large quantity of videos. Were we not promised more to be posted? 

So, deliberate taunting now? 

Yes, that was me, as you must know if you actually looked at the posts. 

Those were a couple of different sources using linked material, direct information and screen shots of the proposed legislation. IMHO, it would be a step backwards both technologically and for the sake of the free & swift exchange of ideas not to use them. 

1 hour ago, Helen of Annoy said:

Of course, we may disagree on what constitutes 'large quantity' or even what constitutes 'propaganda', but I think we'll agree we can actually talk to each other without posting anything from an outside source. We can recommend sources to each other, why they have to be directly posted?     

Again, speed & efficiency. 

It isn't propaganda to post the full & actual content of the live feed that got Tommy Robinson in trouble. It can be called that by people who wish to conceal the truth about the evidence in the case, but that does not make it so. Footage of an event from the other side of the world puts a much more immediate and real impact on what the observer now understands. 

Also, about links; when we are talking about anything from Bigfoot to Puma Punku, the question always comes up; how do you know that? It sure helps to have sources, don't it? Instead of saying "Oh go look it up" the answer "Here it is" sure is helpful. 

I know that people who pride themselves on a clever turn of phrase love to use that power, but it evaporates in the face of factual information. Sure, people can pick at the sources, but when a whole bunch of them say the same thing it has to make you step back and THINK.

Doesn't it? 

This should not be a Left or Right thing or even a Conservative/Liberal thing (and they don't match up with the Parties they way they used to, do they?)  it should be a Freedom vs. Tyranny thing. 

 

[MySummerJob]

I'm not from the EU, but this is a very worrisome law proposal.

Hopefully the people from EU will be able to fight this, and the lawmakers will listen to the people by making this bill pass. This honestly makes me afraid that if it passes, will somehow effect US, or inspire the US to try something once again.

Bad enough we had to fight SOPA, PIPA, and most recently TPP. It gets tiring after a while, but I fear that might be their strategy to reach the end-goal. Which is to keep hammering us down to the point that people are too sick and tired to fight, or people think bills like these won't come to pass so they stop trying to fight them. Eventually one day they will win, I just hope that won't be in our lifetimes.

[Still Waters]

From what I can gather it will have a big impact on posting news stories should the law pass.

For example: Posting a news story now involves quoting part of the article text and adding a source link. Under the new law this won't be possible unless UM pays for every (EU) source used. I mean who can afford to do that? Not many that's for sure, and so that's how it will have a big impact on posting news.

It's been mentioned that we don't need to quote from direct source links, but yes we do because how else do we get a discussion going if nobody can view the article? Most members will not be willing to go searching on Google every time someone starts a thread, source links and quoted text are a must. Plus the fact that even when both are given a lot of members don't even bother to click on the link to read the rest of the article, they just react to the quoted text in the OP.

[RoofGardener]

What about google search ? Whenever  you search for something, it brings up a list of websites that have content relating to your search. But it also incorporates a snippet of that website (or possibly its <description> metatag) so that you can judge the relevance of each link before you click on it.  Would this be banned ? If so, all search engines become potentially useless. 

Google has already been slapped by Spain. Google's response was to shut down its Spanish News Search feature. Spanish news outlets are already suffering reduced visitor numbers as a consequence. If it comes to a war between Google and the Commission, Google will win.

Edited June 7, 2018 by RoofGardener

[Helen of Annoy]

16 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

So, deliberate taunting now? 

Yes, that was me, as you must know if you actually looked at the posts. 

Those were a couple of different sources using linked material, direct information and screen shots of the proposed legislation. IMHO, it would be a step backwards both technologically and for the sake of the free & swift exchange of ideas not to use them. 

Again, speed & efficiency. 

It isn't propaganda to post the full & actual content of the live feed that got Tommy Robinson in trouble. It can be called that by people who wish to conceal the truth about the evidence in the case, but that does not make it so. Footage of an event from the other side of the world puts a much more immediate and real impact on what the observer now understands. 

Also, about links; when we are talking about anything from Bigfoot to Puma Punku, the question always comes up; how do you know that? It sure helps to have sources, don't it? Instead of saying "Oh go look it up" the answer "Here it is" sure is helpful. 

I know that people who pride themselves on a clever turn of phrase love to use that power, but it evaporates in the face of factual information. Sure, people can pick at the sources, but when a whole bunch of them say the same thing it has to make you step back and THINK.

Doesn't it? 

This should not be a Left or Right thing or even a Conservative/Liberal thing (and they don't match up with the Parties they way they used to, do they?)  it should be a Freedom vs. Tyranny thing. 

 

Exactly. 

Only I can't imagine neither Trump nor Putin as champions of freedom. Or the Brexiting crowd, with their lost empire complex. 

  

I must admit there's some schadenfreude on my part... no, wait, I won't be a hypocrite... I'm laughing like a hyena at the thought that Article 13 could put a cork in the wide, ever-spewing crap mouth of Kremlin propaganda machine. At least in the EU. 

Look at it from the brighter side: you'll still have US market that will gladly swallow all the links Russian propaganda factories are preparing overtime. And the UK too, since they're leaving EU and won't have any reason to follow recommendations of the Article 13, which is not about to be a law, even if it does pass in its most extreme version, imagined by the Pirate Party. 

[Helen of Annoy]

5 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

What about google search ? Whenever  you search for something, it brings up a list of websites that have content relating to your search. But it also incorporates a snippet of that website (or possibly its <description> metatag) so that you can judge the relevance of each link before you click on it.  Would this be banned ? If so, all search engines become potentially useless. 

Yes, EU will ban search engines. By law. 

That was sarcasm. 

It's about avoiding misuse of someone's property for profit, on the surface, but I'm sure it's about examining ways to control the professional trolling that took over every corner of the 'net. It was about time.  

And only time will tell if I'm right. 

 

5 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Google has already been slapped by Spain. Google's response was to shut down its Spanish News Search feature. Spanish news outlets are already suffering reduced visitor numbers as a consequence. If it comes to a war between Google and the Commission, Google will win.

I think you're overestimating Google. They can demand contents for free, but they can't dictate regulations. 

If they indeed 'win', that would be triumph of corporatism. Personally, I'm against that. Very much.  

[DarkHunter]

10 minutes ago, Helen of Annoy said:

It's about avoiding misuse of someone's property for profit, on the surface, but I'm sure it's about examining ways to control the professional trolling that took over every corner of the 'net. It was about time.  

Do you realize how horrible what you are saying, honestly what you seem to be advocating for is terrifying and extremely dangerous.

Have you ever considered that to control what you consider professional trolling could be used against you one day.  It's not a far leap to go from limiting to blocking what you dont like to doing the same to any criticism of the EU.

[Helen of Annoy]

10 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

Do you realize how horrible what you are saying, honestly what you seem to be advocating for is terrifying and extremely dangerous.

Have you ever considered that to control what you consider professional trolling could be used against you one day.  It's not a far leap to go from limiting to blocking what you dont like to doing the same to any criticism of the EU.

Professional trolling was used against me. It is still used against me. 

It made simpler US citizens inform me, on these very boards, that I must be missing the soviet times, because there were no migrants then

Never mind the tiny details, such as my country not being a part of USSR. I honestly don't expect geography to be widely mastered art, but some common sense... that I would expect. 

 

Anyway, thanks for hearty laugh I just had.  

 

Edit: sorry, forgot to cover the fear of EU blocking criticism. First, EU is still very young. Maybe it won't even survive its 'childhood'. Second, if it does survive, due to its construction it will never be uniform enough for totalitarianism. I just condensed an essay in two sentences, just to give you the outlines of my opinion on that subject. 

Edited June 7, 2018 by Helen of Annoy

[AnchorSteam]

13 hours ago, Still Waters said:

From what I can gather it will have a big impact on posting news stories should the law pass.

For example: Posting a news story now involves quoting part of the article text and adding a source link. Under the new law this won't be possible unless UM pays for every (EU) source used. I mean who can afford to do that? Not many that's for sure, and so that's how it will have a big impact on posting news.

It's been mentioned that we don't need to quote from direct source links, but yes we do because how else do we get a discussion going if nobody can view the article? Most members will not be willing to go searching on Google every time someone starts a thread, source links and quoted text are a must. Plus the fact that even when both are given a lot of members don't even bother to click on the link to read the rest of the article, they just react to the quoted text in the OP.

All good points, and the last one really makes you wonder... 

The kind of thread you would have without links, references and sources would devolve into a Beer & Pretzels belch-fest.  Slick turns of phrase and consensus would rule the day, not facts or even relevant statistics or what people have come up with the last 10,000 times the same thing had to be dealt with. 

And posting quotes is a courtesy, it saves the other guy a step or two. 

[Helen of Annoy]

11 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

All good points, and the last one really makes you wonder... 

The kind of thread you would have without links, references and sources would devolve into a Beer & Pretzels belch-fest.  Slick turns of phrase and consensus would rule the day, not facts or even relevant statistics or what people have come up with the last 10,000 times the same thing had to be dealt with. 

And posting quotes is a courtesy, it saves the other guy a step or two. 

*belch*

You know, it happens sometimes that a belch is a fitting answer. 

 

Now, come on, don't be so bitter, it's only examining different options to curb the corporations controlling public opinion for free, and Kremlin propaganda machine too. 

[AnchorSteam]

2 hours ago, Helen of Annoy said:

Now, come on, don't be so bitter, it's only examining different options to curb the corporations controlling public opinion for free, and Kremlin propaganda machine too. 

In bold is exactly what you are in favor of if you support article 13, but only people who have looked into the facts presented would know that. The Crony-Capitalists would have it best of all, thanks to being in bed with the Governments that are enforcing this measure. There will also be exemptions, based on Political leaning of course, just as is always the case when this sort of thing is being enforced. 

I'm not surprised at all that some on the Far Left would have that opinion, extremists always support strengthening the heavy hand of Statist control. It does not matter which direction the extremism goes, they always end up in the same place; authoritarianism. 

What does surprise me a little is that there is only one poster here that is in favor of this move by the EU, and I hope this means that the phones in Brussels are melting down from all the "No" calls they are getting.

We'll see if that makes any difference.... 

[Helen of Annoy]

43 minutes ago, AnchorSteam said:

In bold is exactly what you are in favor of if you support article 13, but only people who have looked into the facts presented would know that. The Crony-Capitalists would have it best of all, thanks to being in bed with the Governments that are enforcing this measure. There will also be exemptions, based on Political leaning of course, just as is always the case when this sort of thing is being enforced. 

I'm not surprised at all that some on the Far Left would have that opinion, extremists always support strengthening the heavy hand of Statist control. It does not matter which direction the extremism goes, they always end up in the same place; authoritarianism. 

What does surprise me a little is that there is only one poster here that is in favor of this move by the EU, and I hope this means that the phones in Brussels are melting down from all the "No" calls they are getting.

We'll see if that makes any difference.... 

If I thought Article 13 will benefit corporations, I'd be against it.

As we can see from the Google example, a corporation is the first to dislike similar regulations. 

 

To be honest, Pirates (and you, accidentally, out of completely wrong motive) do have a point, if only I make myself believe that any form of regulation is against me. It's not, we'd be all dead in unregulated society because it wouldn't be a society, but a pack of bald baboons. 

What I will admit is that it doesn't hurt to make noise about any regulation that can result in limiting actual freedom of information. Some noise, mind you, don't take it so far it ends up in Russian propaganda spectrum.

Allow me to clarify once again that I do not consider professional trolls, bots, spammers and other spawn of propaganda hell in any way deserving any freedom.

You will argue that you're not professional, that you're real person etc. and I will believe you. I can live with you spreading propaganda out of your own true belief.

But you might even agree with me that actual professional trolls do exist and that they successfully change the opinion of the simple people, who are – woe to human kind – the most numerous.

What it has to do with posting memes or aggregating news?

Everything.

Russian Internet and classic media propaganda is way more complex than few guys posting memes, because they truly believe Trump is smart, or EU is truly evil. They craft the news, actual false news, they muddy the waters, they aim at the fears and prey on everyone, but the feeble minded first. Once you have idiots parroting the lie, thought it cannot ever become the truth, it will take root.

They have whole industry that produces and spreads information. If you can't stop them producing it, you must stop them spreading it.

Can it backfire? Sure. Anything can backfire. Especially if you're an idiot.

But complaining that Russian propaganda media must not be stopped because it could be misused one day against someone else is like demanding mentally ill must not be stopped from owning firearms because one day someone else might be stopped from owning firearms... oh, wait...  

[AnchorSteam]

Even the BBC sounds worried -

 

[Finity]

This would be a total mess, to the point where no one would actually bother doing it properly. Probably something being pushed for by the clueless music industry etc again. They have been trying to get something like this in for a long time now under a bunch of different names.

But OFC if it does happen, people will start hosting everything outside of the EU where it can't be moderated.

Edited June 10, 2018 by Finity

[AnchorSteam]

2 hours ago, Finity said:

This would be a total mess, to the point where no one would actually bother doing it properly. Probably something being pushed for by the clueless music industry etc again. They have been trying to get something like this in for a long time now under a bunch of different names.

But OFC if it does happen, people will start hosting everything outside of the EU where it can't be moderated.

Interesting points... but I'm not so sure about that.

Firstly, if they can't enforce it across the board, then they can still enforce it selectively. And that would mean Politically selective.

And I think that it would only be a matter of time before they found a way to make it illegal for Europeans illegal to host their work outside the EU.

[RoofGardener]

On 06/06/2018 at 10:13 PM, Saru said:

I don't think you are quite grasping some of the concepts here, in particular the importance and practical aspects of 'fair use' and linking on the Internet as well as the ways in which the proposed legislation could impact small to medium sites/businesses.

That said, this thread isn't an effort to catastrophize the issue, only to make people aware of it and its potential impact on sites like ours.

I seriously doubt these changes will actually be passed in to law (or at least not in their current form).

I'm afraid you've lost me with this - are you still talking about the EU copyright law issue ? What videos ?

Hmm.. I'm not clear on all of the implications of this.. but I don't think it would effect Unexplained Mysteries particularly badly ? 

The idea of a "link tax" is entirely nonsensical. LInks do not - in and of themselves - contain any copyrighted material, and therefore their inclusion on a web page cannot be covered by intellectual property rights legislation. 

If - for example - a website publishes material, then copy/pasting that material into UM as part of a post might be a breach of copyright. However, linking to it could never be. The only exception might be if you link to material that is ITSELF in breach of copyright; then - hypothetically - you could be accused of complicity in a copyright breach. 

Worse case scenario for UM members: they would not be allowed to directly quote text from other publications. Instead, a poster would have to describe the story in the other publication - using their own words - and then place a link to it. 

 

Edited June 12, 2018 by RoofGardener

[bmk1245]

4 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Hmm.. I'm not clear on all of the implications of this.. but I don't think it would effect Unexplained Mysteries particularly badly ? 

The idea of a "link tax" is entirely nonsensical. LInks do not - in and of themselves - contain any copyrighted material, and therefore their inclusion on a web page cannot be covered by intellectual property rights legislation. 

If - for example - a website publishes material, then copy/pasting that material into UM as part of a post might be a breach of copyright. However, linking to it could never be. The only exception might be if you link to material that is ITSELF in breach of copyright; then - hypothetically - you could be accused of complicity in a copyright breach. 

Worse case scenario for UM members: they would not be allowed to directly quote text from other publications. Instead, a poster would have to describe the story in the other publication - using their own words - and then place a link to it. 

 

Provisions 33 and 34 do state:

Quote

(33) For the purposes of this Directive, it is necessary to define the concept of press publication in a way that embraces only journalistic publications, published by a service provider, periodically or regularly updated in any media, for the purpose of informing or entertaining. Such publications would include, for instance, daily newspapers, weekly or monthly magazines of general or special interest and news websites. Periodical publications which are published for scientific or academic purposes, such as scientific journals, should not be covered by the protection granted to press publications under this Directive. This protection does not extend to acts of hyperlinking which do not constitute communication to the public.

(34) The rights granted to the publishers of press publications under this Directive should have the same scope as the rights of reproduction and making available to the public provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC, insofar as digital uses are concerned. They should also be subject to the same provisions on exceptions and limitations as those applicable to the rights provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC including the exception on quotation for purposes such as criticism or review laid down in Article 5(3)(d) of that Directive.

(link; bolding mine)

In my understanding, quotations, or linking won't be affected.

I agree, article 13 is kinda moot stuff, and should be revised, at least, or removed, at best.

 

PS I always ponder: why law language has to be so moot? Wouldn't be easier to put it in more comprehensible way, e.g.:

#1 bmk1245 always right;

#2 if bmk1245 is wrong, see #1.

[RoofGardener]

58 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

Provisions 33 and 34 do state:

(link; bolding mine)

In my understanding, quotations, or linking won't be affected.

I agree, article 13 is kinda moot stuff, and should be revised, at least, or removed, at best.

 

PS I always ponder: why law language has to be so moot? Wouldn't be easier to put it in more comprehensible way, e.g.:

#1 bmk1245 always right;

#2 if bmk1245 is wrong, see #1.

thanks for taking the time to expound on this bmk1245. 

I like your legal definition of "right"  

[Still Waters]

On 6/12/2018 at 3:05 PM, RoofGardener said:

Worse case scenario for UM members: they would not be allowed to directly quote text from other publications. Instead, a poster would have to describe the story in the other publication - using their own words - and then place a link to it. 

I don't think it works that way. It's my understanding that if you post a link to an offsite article you're still classed as using that article. It doesn't matter how much of the text is in your own words, it'll be the content of the posted link that's the problem because once you post the link you're still sharing that article.

[Helen of Annoy]

12 minutes ago, Still Waters said:

I don't think it works that way. It's my understanding that if you post a link to an offsite article you're still classed as using that article. It doesn't matter how much of the text is in your own words, it'll be the content of the posted link that's the problem because once you post the link you're still sharing that article.

Not according to the bmk's quote. 

It explicitly states that the links are okay. It looks like nothing would change for the UM, for example, members would still post links. It would affect news sites that use (kinda steal) whole or significant parts of news and entertainment type of the articles. It pretty clearly allows more liberal use of scientific and similar publications. In other words, you couldn't steal a news article, like you shouldn't anyway, but you can link it, so... nothing really new or revolutionary there.  

[RoofGardener]

Hmm... I havn't read the details of the proposed European Law, so I can't really be sure. 

But... a ban on links ? Is that feasible ? 

We shall see  

actually.. we won't. It's inherently unenforceable. It won't happen, and I doubt the EU even intended it that way.

Edited June 13, 2018 by RoofGardener