jellyfishdirigible:h0lyhandgrenade:kermapippurisaatana:hayleymulch-art:I don’t usually share this ki
jellyfishdirigible:h0lyhandgrenade:kermapippurisaatana:hayleymulch-art:I don’t usually share this kind of thing, and I will delete it later. But this June 20th the EU want to pass Article 13 that will destroy fair use on the internet and will effect non-EU residents too. Goodbye to making money from fan art and livestreaming games and parody videos. No can do. Visit saveyourinternet.eu to very simply send a pre-written email to you MEPs. Please spread awareness as there’s not much time.saveyourinternet.eu^^^^^^^^^^^^^For everyone in Europe who wanted to help save the Internet regarding Net Neutrality but couldn’t because we’re not part of America, now it’s OUR turn to try stop the Internet from getting screwed. Please spread awareness.mmmmnnno that’s not what it says Here’s the full document, public and free for anyone who wants to read it for themselves: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52016PC0593 I’m not gonna tell anyone what to think about it, but I’ll try to explain what it means. This is gonna get long.First of all, Article 13 is a small part of a wider document called Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the Digital Single Market, which (amongst other goals) seeks to “guarantee that authors and rightholders receive a fair share of the value that is generated by the use of their works and other subject-matter,“ and which should be read in its entirety to contextualise any given article before panicking.It’s also a directive, not a regulation, so it’s not a law so much as a standard for member states to work towards individually. It’s not even really specifying what individual member states’ laws should be, just what they need to cover. They’re basically just telling member states “your copyright laws must be this tall to ride.” Secondly, for all the things that could be said about the directive, I honestly don’t see why Article 13 is worth yelling about specifically, but here it is anyway, in its entirety: Article 13 Use of protected content by information society service providers storing and giving access to large amounts of works and other subject-matter uploaded by their users 1.Information society service providers that store and provide to the public access to large amounts of works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users shall, in cooperation with rightholders, take measures to ensure the functioning of agreements concluded with rightholders for the use of their works or other subject-matter or to prevent the availability on their services of works or other subject-matter identified by rightholders through the cooperation with the service providers. Those measures, such as the use of effective content recognition technologies, shall be appropriate and proportionate. The service providers shall provide rightholders with adequate information on the functioning and the deployment of the measures, as well as, when relevant, adequate reporting on the recognition and use of the works and other subject-matter. 2.Member States shall ensure that the service providers referred to in paragraph 1 put in place complaints and redress mechanisms that are available to users in case of disputes over the application of the measures referred to in paragraph 1. 3.Member States shall facilitate, where appropriate, the cooperation between the information society service providers and rightholders through stakeholder dialogues to define best practices, such as appropriate and proportionate content recognition technologies, taking into account, among others, the nature of the services, the availability of the technologies and their effectiveness in light of technological developments. That’s it. That’s the whole of Article 13. I know it’s a tough read so ok I’ll do an example. You know all those pirate sellers on Amazon that steal art and print it on pillows or whatever, and when you try to report it Amazon may or may not take it down and then they basically throw their hands in the air and say that it’s not their responsibility to stop it happening again because they just provide the platform? Well Article 13 says the platform should be held responsible, so that when a creator claims copyright the platform can be required to pay for and enforce licensing, or to take down the infringing material and actively work to prevent it from being reuploaded in the future.So, a bit like what Youtube already does [1][2]. Youtube gamers would actually be unlikely to be affected at all. Youtube already checks for claimed content, inserts a link for the game in the description, and lets verified rights holders choose to monitor, control access, monetise (where the rights holder can claim ad revenue from the video), mute, do nothing, or issue a takedown (Nintendo’s weapon of choice). It’s an admittedly imperfect system that has both generated incorrect content IDs and been abused by bad actors, as well as enabling Nintendo to make themselves look super petty, but letsplay channels are still proliferating and letsplayers are still making a living. Article 13 says that’s an ok start now let’s slap some transparency on that Content ID system and get the dispute process working.Article 13 is basically about letting creators choose how they want to control their work on third-party platforms, and giving platforms rights and obligations for if they need to automate the process.And yeah, “information society service providers [etc.]” means online platforms & services such as tumblr, farcebook, youtube, twitter, 9gag, pinterest, etc. and NOT the company who bill you for your wifi. I know the wording is confusing and some people have been saying Article 13 means internet service providers will have to stop customers from uploading copyright material, they’re mistaken. Your ISP isn’t going to be scanning everything you upload to make sure you don’t do a meme. That’s not how any of this works.otoh, I have NO IDEA where the thing about Article 13 stopping linking or taxing links or whatever came from. Which is to say, I do have an idea, and that idea is that it’s an actual deliberate lie, but like. Seriously wtf. I mean, OP seems to have made this post in good faith (just, misinformed), but for real some of these claims are SO unrelated to any part of the directive, let alone to Article 13, that I spent a good half hour wondering if I was looking at the right document?? Which, given that yes I was in fact looking at the right document, should tell you just how bizarre and frankly baseless this freakout is.tl;dr The recommendations of Article 13 are functionally the same as things like DMCA and licensing and automated rights detection that already exist, and the whole directive is just guidelines for standardising the existing copyright regulations of member states in order to protect IP rights more efficiently throughout the union, it’s not cerming fer yer mermes.Also this person did a really good explanation of EU directives, if you want some further reading http://stolligaseptember.tumblr.com/post/174628019342/shenannygans-replied-to-your-post-okay-just -- source link