Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Astrid]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvXOfq3AB8s

Pleeeaase tell me that he is BSssing.
Otherwise Blogs and Forums among other things might very well be soon(within a month) a thing of the past... O.o

[MorleyDev]

There's a flow chart here that explains the logic in the proposed texts for Article 13 versions, and proposes deleting it without reactionary "omg everythings on fire":
https://www.communia-association.org/2018/05/22/council-parliament-edge-towards-finalizing-positions-article-13-remains-mess/

Basically the intent is to only target huge ad-based sources like YouTube with the means to apply Content Id, but that's a legally tricky thing to specify so it keeps bouncing around the various parts of the EU for the last two years without going anywhere.

[Loud Whispers]

Shut the internet down tbh

[Sheb]

PTW

[scriver]

To be fair.

The internet was a mistake.

[nenjin]

Well lads it was a fun.

Time to return to scribbling our memes in the traditional place: bathroom stalls.

[WealthyRadish]

Just the other day I crafted a superb literal shitpost in the bathroom stall of my university library basement, and wait with bated breath for a rejoinder. I think it's the future of debate.

[Frumple]

And I still cannot find anything on this "link tax" that everyone is freaking out over.

It's not called a link tax in the text itself. Haven't actually been able to puzzle out exactly where in the text the problem is (and I have neither the time, expertise, nor interest to try harder than I already have), but it has something to do with remuneration, and going from objections there's supposedly something in there that prevents content providers from waiving their right to remuneration.

Basically something that forces people to seek payment for any reproduction of content, up to and including things like URLs and short article snippets to provide link context. Which effectively becomes a link tax, a fee for linking to content.

[Astrid]

More information about it is popping up:

https://saveyourinternet.eu/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=w2nXynItfu0

I am sceptical but still making more research, given the message at hand. That cant be ignored.

//Edit: Bit more level headed youtuber explaining it and naming the article: "Article 13 of the "Proposal for a Directive of the European PArliament and of the Council on copyright in then Digital Single Market"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cp8S3VJKQrA

[Frumple]

Least part of what I'm seeing since the last post is the possibility it's just changed, heh. Fixed in one of the subsequent drafts that came after folks kicked up a fuss. The other possibility was something to do with particulars of EU legal precedence, where previous decisions made stuff that looked harmless or reasonable much broader than a plain language reading would suggest. See previous statement about time, expertise, and interest, though, ehe.

[KittyTac]

Gonna be sweet if it is a false alarm.

[ChairmanPoo]

Its more than a false alarm.  It's a red herring.  You're worried about this and not Trump's head on attack on net neutrality?

[KittyTac]

Net neutrality might not affect non-US countries. This would be global and with a much worse effect.

[Astrid]

Its more than a false alarm.  It's a red herring.  You're worried about this and not Trump's head on attack on net neutrality?

If this is a red herring then a lot of people and companies are failing for it:

More news on it.
https://creativecommons.org/2018/04/24/56-organsiations-tell-eu-legislator-to-delete-the-absurd-link-tax/

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/european-copyright-law-isnt-great-it-could-soon-get-lot-worse

[milo christiansen]

The EFF would know if anyone does.

Glad I don't live in the EU.