Jump to content

European Union Copy Rights Article 13


Vin

Recommended Posts

Hello .

so this is currently a huge deal in the making , the EU is currently considering a new copy right code that might have some massive repercussions on both private individuals and businesses .

the legal framework.

varied sources (I tried to get multiple sources from different backgrounds but was surprised with the lack of serious coverage , i mean most are talking about memes , which are of course a very serious thing but you know)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Now i'm no legal expert but i'll try to give you a quick rundown of what i understand to be the deal:

I know this sounds hyperbolic but from where i'm standing this really reads like the death of the concept of "fair use" as the EU seeks to expand the concept of copy right to kinda include everything and throws out the concept of trans-formative work . now other than the memes this would greatly impact small start ups as they probably won't be able to break into the market . now there's talk that this law is copying some law in germany about trying to tax google over hyperlinking (no idea) . at any rate i know this isn't eloquent or very informative but i thought this was an important enough topic to draw special attention .

 

so go ahead and discuss as you like , thanks .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is consistent with copyright tightening around the world. :( Disney are the worst offenders in this case. If the copyright laws they now advocate for (death plus 70 years) existed when they began making films, about half of their fairy tales would still have been in copyright. Even now, their ownership of Star Wars and Marvel shows that money allows you to use copyright to make money from content you never created and stop anyone else from using it at all.

It's also disturbing that I can't find anything in this law that says you must profit to contravene the laws. For instance, memes are normally exempt from copyright because you aren't making any money from it. Similarly, fan-fiction isn't usually pursued as it's hard to sue someone for lost income if they didn't charge anything. It's a legal grey area - and this law might be cleaning it up to the detriment of most for the benefit of the loaded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the beginning of the end of the internet as we knew it.

The internet could have been a place of immense freedom. For a long time I was naive enough to think that authorities would never manage to rein it in. I was even looking forward to the development of new forms of businesses and economic transactions.
Boy, was I wrong about that one.
Almost every single day I see small things that tell me that the internet is slowly coming under control. The search engines and the ISP decide what you can access while the GAFA are slowly merging the web with a host of devices that limit its use rather than expanding it. Worse than a product, the internet has become a mere tool, and the technology will be used by economic and political interests as they see fit. Right now it's still possible to use the internet however you want (with alternative search engines and software, not to mention various websites and crypto-currencies) but I believe this will soon disappear.  In a few years our devices will decide exactly what we can do online while keeping a close eye on our every action.

Well, it was nice while it lasted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think they'll be able to kill it completely simply because encryption is ubiquitous and much easier to scale up than decryption. However, there's a pretty decent chance that to go outside the corporate-approved sphere of content will require some measure of expertise. In some sense, we'll go back to the days when the internet was only for the technically skilled except that everyone will have access to some things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Yukle said:

This is consistent with copyright tightening around the world. :( Disney are the worst offenders in this case. If the copyright laws they now advocate for (death plus 70 years) existed when they began making films, about half of their fairy tales would still have been in copyright. Even now, their ownership of Star Wars and Marvel shows that money allows you to use copyright to make money from content you never created and stop anyone else from using it at all.

It's also disturbing that I can't find anything in this law that says you must profit to contravene the laws. For instance, memes are normally exempt from copyright because you aren't making any money from it. Similarly, fan-fiction isn't usually pursued as it's hard to sue someone for lost income if they didn't charge anything. It's a legal grey area - and this law might be cleaning it up to the detriment of most for the benefit of the loaded.

Yeah I agree , the iron grip of Disney is daunting ,I've read articles claiming Disney sued kindergartens over Micky mouse wall paintings . Now I kinda feel a bit hypocritical since I'm invested km Disney but oh well . 

I really don't have an answer to how a good copyright law would look like but the current ones and the ones being pushed are definitely geared towards protecting corporate rights rather than author rights (which ,mind you is their right . No one is being anti capitalism here but it does leave a sour taste in one's mouth ) 

 

This new eu law is really written in a way that makes it impossible to claim fair use over anything which will kill creativity imo.

21 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

It's the beginning of the end of the internet as we knew it.

The internet could have been a place of immense freedom. For a long time I was naive enough to think that authorities would never manage to rein it in. I was even looking forward to the development of new forms of businesses and economic transactions.
Boy, was I wrong about that one.
Almost every single day I see small things that tell me that the internet is slowly coming under control. The search engines and the ISP decide what you can access while the GAFA are slowly merging the web with a host of devices that limit its use rather than expanding it. Worse than a product, the internet has become a mere tool, and the technology will be used by economic and political interests as they see fit. Right now it's still possible to use the internet however you want (with alternative search engines and software, not to mention various websites and crypto-currencies) but I believe this will soon disappear.  In a few years our devices will decide exactly what we can do online while keeping a close eye on our every action.

Well, it was nice while it lasted.

Regulations is needed in some areas to make sure that ISPs aren't ripping off their customers but I definitely believe we have a severe case of overreach by the powers that be . 

Blessed be VPNs  .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vin said:

Regulations is needed in some areas to make sure that ISPs aren't ripping off their customers but I definitely believe we have a severe case of overreach by the powers that be . 

Blessed be VPNs  .

That's not quite how VPNs work. They simulate authentic access onto a network different to the one you are on. But they're a software tool, not a hardware tool.

ISPs could restrict VPN access if they wanted to. They generally choose not to as this would be detrimental to business users. But there's nothing stopping them saying that all VPNs are blocked unless you pay additional fees.

Or nothing stopping them saying all access to particular sites is blocked unless you pay extra fees, or that you can only use copyrighted content from their chosen catalogue and nothing more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Yukle said:

That's not quite how VPNs work. They simulate authentic access onto a network different to the one you are on. But they're a software tool, not a hardware tool.

ISPs could restrict VPN access if they wanted to. They generally choose not to as this would be detrimental to business users. But there's nothing stopping them saying that all VPNs are blocked unless you pay additional fees.

Or nothing stopping them saying all access to particular sites is blocked unless you pay extra fees, or that you can only use copyrighted content from their chosen catalogue and nothing more.

Lol , I know all this . I'm actually quite knowledgeable in the field due to my work but I was just making a joke .

As to the problem of isps total control ,one solution I see popping up more and more is  public network access for everyone but I just don't see that as a solution since it's just transferring power from the companies to the government . I think we need a balance between both , the government to maintain transparency and prevent monopolies, and the free market to force the companies to compete and provide better service but sadly the fcc is shit and companies do have monopolies In certain areas of the US . 

It's a difficult problem that should be discussed more openly . I was genuinely shocked how few people were aware of this new eu proposal and how few cared . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Vin said:

Yeah I agree , the iron grip of Disney is daunting ,I've read articles claiming Disney sued kindergartens over Micky mouse wall paintings . Now I kinda feel a bit hypocritical since I'm invested km Disney but oh well . 

 

6

I strongly suspect that the Disney lawsuit was based primarily on trademark, not copyright.  Those are two different things.  In the USA, unlike copyright, trademarks are of unlimited duration and can be lost by the trademark owner failing to enforce its rights.  A classic law school example of this is the trampoline, i.e., the jumping device.  "Trampoline" was the trademark of the original manufacturer and marketer of the device and others eventually began to use the term trampoline for their similar products.  The trampoline trademark owner failed to take legal action for a long time and when it finally did litigate, was found by the courts to have lost the trademark due to inaction.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ser Knight Somerville said:

I strongly suspect that the Disney lawsuit was based primarily on trademark, not copyright.  Those are two different things.  In the USA, unlike copyright, trademarks are of unlimited duration and can be lost by the trademark owner failing to enforce its rights.  A classic law school example of this is the trampoline, i.e., the jumping device.  "Trampoline" was the trademark of the original manufacturer and marketer of the device and others eventually began to use the term trampoline for their similar products.  The trampoline trademark owner failed to take legal action for a long time and when it finally did litigate, was found by the courts to have lost the trademark due to inaction.  

Probably, I didn't pay much attention to the articles and it was a long time ago so ya . 

I'm not that well versed on the grounds upon which one can claim a trade mark . Does one have to be the author ? Does one have to be the only one to use the term or shape or whatever in recent memory ? Or is it decided by the common observer according to the court ? And in this case who's the common observer ? And doesn't what's considered common vary demographically? At what point does Nike's "just do it " become only Nike's ?

I'm sorry about the volume of questions,I'm just really curious , I'll probably read up on it later and do some research.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/12/2018 at 10:37 AM, Vin said:

Hello .

so this is currently a huge deal in the making , the EU is currently considering a new copy right code that might have some massive repercussions on both private individuals and businesses .

...

Now i'm no legal expert but i'll try to give you a quick rundown of what i understand to be the deal:

I know this sounds hyperbolic but from where i'm standing this really reads like the death of the concept of "fair use" as the EU seeks to expand the concept of copy right to kinda include everything and throws out the concept of trans-formative work . ..

I am no legal expert either, but it is important to keep in mind that fair use is a USA legal construct that has never been technically valid in (part of?) EU countries. It isn't as much a matter of expanding it as it is enforcing legal status quo.

That in mind the proposed implementation is horrible as far as I can tell.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Selibration Srbija! said:

I am no legal expert either, but it is important to keep in mind that fair use is a USA legal construct that has never been technically valid in (part of?) EU countries. It isn't as much a matter of expanding it as it is enforcing legal status quo.

That in mind the proposed implementation is horrible as far as I can tell.

 

Interesting , I guess that's plausible . I just assumed there was some written code that was similar in concept . Guess I was wrong . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Vin said:

Interesting , I guess that's plausible . I just assumed there was some written code that was similar in concept . Guess I was wrong . 

I did some searching, but I can't find a good overview. It looks like the EU has opened up the possibility for exceptions to strict copyright back in 2001, but many member nations haven't used that option (yet).

Some examples from wikipedia (might as always be based on outdated sources):

Netherlands:

Quote

The Auteurswet allows for citaatrecht (quotation right) (article 15a). This allows the use of (parts of) a work under a limitative set of conditions. Quotation rights appear to be more limited and demarcated than the concept of fair use.

Italy:

Quote

Italian copyright law does not have an equivalent to fair use or fair dealing provisions. Limitations and exceptions are set out individually and are interpreted restrictively by the courts, as one would expect in an author's rights regime. The private copying provision was not added until 1993.

France (which does seem to include a strict version of fair use here):

Quote

Art. L122-5 defines the exceptions to French copyright law, which are relatively restricted.

Once a work has been published, the author cannot prevent:

    1. Private family performances.
    2. Copies for the private and personal use of the copier. This provision does not apply to works of art, computer programs (where a single safeguard copy is allowed, Art. L122-6-1-II) and databases.
    3. In cases where the name of the author and the source are clearly indicated,

        a) Analyses and short citations justified by the critical, polemical, scientific or pedagogical nature of the work.
        b) Press reviews.
        c) Diffusion of public speeches as current news.
        d) Reproductions of works of art in catalogues for auctions in France (subject to regulatory restrictions).

    4. Parody, pastiche and caricature, "taking into account the usage of the genre".
    5. Acts necessary to access a database within the limits of the agreed use.

There is no specific provision for government works or laws: the copyright is normally held by the relevant public body.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Selibration Srbija! said:

I did some searching, but I can't find a good overview. It looks like the EU has opened up the possibility for exceptions to strict copyright back in 2001, but many member nations haven't used that option (yet).

Some examples from wikipedia (might as always be based on outdated sources):

Netherlands:

Italy:

France (which does seem to include a strict version of fair use here):

 

That's quite shocking really . You'd think people would lobby their governments for a law to protect them 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Vin said:

That's quite shocking really . You'd think people would lobby their governments for a law to protect them 

They did :). What do you think copyright is?

The problem is in finding a balance between all stakeholders, for which these laws as written are of course bad. In practice they aren't usually enforced that strictly, which is made possible because in civil law based societies precedence does not get to overrule existing law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Selibration Srbija! said:

They did :). What do you think copyright is?

The problem is in finding a balance between all stakeholders, for which these laws as written are of course bad. In practice they aren't usually enforced that strictly, which is made possible because in civil law based societies precedence does not get to overrule existing law.

I dunno I still think the text should be clearer on defining what's OK and what's not but I'm afraid I'm at the limit of my copy right law knowledge and must submit to your research until I do some of my own .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Vin said:

Probably, I didn't pay much attention to the articles and it was a long time ago so ya . 

I'm not that well versed on the grounds upon which one can claim a trade mark . Does one have to be the author ? Does one have to be the only one to use the term or shape or whatever in recent memory ? Or is it decided by the common observer according to the court ? And in this case who's the common observer ? And doesn't what's considered common vary demographically? At what point does Nike's "just do it " become only Nike's ?

I'm sorry about the volume of questions,I'm just really curious , I'll probably read up on it later and do some research.   

Not too many questions. :)  In the USA, an entity registers the desired trademark with the federal administrative agency that administers the trademark process.   That's the short answer.  Here are the details, probably a lot more than most would want to know, at the federal government agency's site:  https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-basics

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Australia has fair use, but it also just passed a law mandating that all phone OS developers make a backdoor into their software and provide the means to access it to the federal government.

They haven't agreed to, thank goodness, but it shows that laws are written by people with absolutely no understanding of how the Internet should work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like it's way too late to stop this. It's a rather complicated matter and if they wanted to convince the public that this is a bad thing they should have started to explain it much earlier. Just telling people that it's bad won't do. Now the thing is in the process off being passed and we have the FIFA world cup, so nobody pays attention anyway. Then everybody will be off for the summer holidays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An EU Directive does not a law make either.  The individual states have to draft their own laws and I doubt any of them have a pressing desire to prevent their citizens using memes.  Although big tech does seem to err on the side of caution, as we saw in the google right to be forgotten case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...