New EU (c) laws -on horizon- are here

Destry · 2018-05-27 09:31:54

Unlike the GDPR which ignored the lobbyists of the orgs the Reg will hurt (i.e. it did a good thing), nobody thinks the new copyright laws are good at all, in fact playing right into corporate hands.

EU censorship machines and link tax laws are nearing the finish line

Resistance is now or never.

colak · 2018-05-27 10:01:44

Destry wrote #312123:

Unlike the GDPR which ignored the lobbyists of the orgs the Reg will hurt (i.e. it did a good thing), nobody thinks the new copyright laws are good at all, in fact playing right into corporate hands.

EU censorship machines and link tax laws are nearing the finish line

Resistance is now or never.

This indeed deserves a new thread!!! I’ll come back to this when I have more time… I have recently given hints to my fears regarding this, here.

colak · 2018-05-29 17:50:01

OK… I now have some spare time:)

During my student days, I enjoyed reading Roland Barthes books such as ‘Mythologies,’ and ‘Image-Music-Text’ but his essay “The Death of the Author,” published in 1967 left me with some big questions.

Unlike his expressed views in the essay, I believed in authorship and I believed that the author’s particular circumstances do influence the work. Then, I quickly realised that most texts we read, are edited by others, who, many times are not even credited in the publications. So, do Barthes’ books actually reflect his, and only his ideas? Was his essay actually right?

Ideas are fertilised not only by our peers but by our wider circle. Maybe I still do believe in authorship but I also believe that there is no such thing as an original idea. To bring copyright into this, I believe that although all ideas are the results of cross-fertilisation, I do appreciate that authors are the ones who assume the responsibility to defend them. As such, authorship should become a commitment to discourse rather than a means to restrict the availability and hence the possibility of any help or contribution the authored object might have to offer.

Copyright law is already outrageous. Many academic publishers for example, prohibit their authors to start their texts with a quotation as this is in bridge of the law.

On the other hand, today there are many companies who make it their business to profit from authored objects whose main aim is the actual profit. In some twisted way, I can accept that. What I do not like about the new law is that instead of actually protecting the authors and the public, it adds more control into what people could and have been doing in the net since the early 90s. During that time, for those old enough to remember, the net was about information (some excellent, some dubious) and content such as advertising, shopping, or porn, was not there yet. As the net was slowly becoming an international discussion forum, Amazon open the first online store winning their case, as the general consensus of the time was that the net was not a substitute for books, which are the ones responsible for providing us with real knowledge.

The copyright law in my view is there to protect those who are already protected. If not, I will wait for this law to pass and demand a cash payment for every single quoted text or link to any of the sites I manage. This content could be from this forum, or, or anywhere else. The law is ludicrous.

Bloke · 2018-05-29 18:40:54

colak wrote #312176:

Maybe I still do believe in authorship but I also believe that there is no such thing as an original idea

I know it’s not strictly related to the law here, but I’ve always thought this particular point plays a part in software too. If you write some software that has a sorting algorithm in it, you might choose to employ a bubble sort or some other sorting algorithm. There are only so many ways to sort data efficiently.

So you write the code, publish its entirety as closed source or proprietary and get paid. Who’s to say the guy that first wrote the bubble sort isn’t entitled to some compensation for his part in the software? Could he sue if he found out that his algorithm was used verbatim? What about if it was copied from a published book? Could the author claim copyright infringement as it’s been reproduced ‘in whole or in part’ in another medium?

The law, as you rightly say, is ridiculous and needs to be stopped.

colak · 2018-05-30 07:26:59

In Australia, fine artists are allowed a set percentage from any payment on their resold artworks. It is in their interest to build their career, as their work shoots up in value and they can profit from their history. This of course is not directly about copyright but it is an acceptable method for authors to get compensated as it is also in the interest of the buyers to pay the artists their percentage so as to enable them to keep on working which in its turn, again raises the price of their work and hence the investment by the collectors. It seems to me that the particular system is a win win situation.

Book authors sell more books as they become more popular. For music, it is the same. The problem though is that unless the writers or musicians manage to have proper contracts, it is the publishers and the production companies who receive the lion share of the profit from their work. People like George Michael and Prince fought the system and lost. Prince famously performing with the word slave written on his face.

Picasso once said that “good artists copy, great artists steal” whilst Oscar Wilde said that “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness.” Our system does not award the impact value of the work, and the only denominator it accepts is its price and the monetary profit it can extract.

Some Ted videos

My favourite documentary on the subject.

RIP : A Remix Manifesto on Vimeo

A text by Richard Barbrook we published in our site back in 2005

Giving is receiving

Corbyn’s new digital manifesto (authored by Barbrook) which states:

We will create a free-to-use on-line hub of learning resources for the National Education Service. The Open Knowledge Library will be the digital repository of lessons, lectures, curricula and student work from Britain’s nurseries, schools, colleges and universities. We will require the findings of all state-funded research to be made available without charge to the general public through this learning portal. In collaboration with the teachers’ unions and the NUS, the Open Knowledge Library will host virtual meeting places for educational professionals and students to share experiences, disseminate ideas and form collaborations. (pdf)

This is the progressive way to go. The new law will take us back.

> Edited to add: Doesn’t this law conflict with GDPR?

Last edited by colak (2018-05-30 08:23:34)

colak · 2018-06-01 17:07:51

Here is what seems to be the most serious petition against the link-tax: savethelink.org/ (promoted by EFF)

michaelkpate · 2018-06-05 13:55:37

I had heard of the Link Tax but I wasn’t aware of the Upload Filter Debate until yesterday.

EU’s proposed ‘Link Tax’ and ‘Upload Filter’

This is interesting in light of yesterday’s news.

In their latest proposals, Council and Parliament each exclude “non-for-profit open source software developing platforms.” Despite their intentions, neither the Council nor Parliament has yet to effectively protect open source software development because most open source software development is built on platforms, like GitHub, that aren’t not-for-profit. – EU policymakers respond to developers on upload filters

Getting back to the Link Tax.

The first version of this was in Germany. German publishers got a law passed demanding that Google (it affected everyone but it was aimed at Google) pay them for any article snippets. So Google stopped linking to their articles. Which was not what they wanted.

The second version was in Spain. Spanish publishers got a requirement put in that Google had to link to them from Google News Spain. In response, Google shutdown Google News Spain.

Hopefully this won’t happen because I am not sure that publishers can take another major hit while dealing with the added costs and reduced revenue from GDPR.

colak · 2018-06-08 14:58:06

www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/06/eus-copyright-proposal-extremely-bad-news-everyone-even-especially-wikipedia

colak · 2018-06-08 15:39:11

This one might hit the spot for those who doubt how bad the proposed law is: Copyright law could put end to net memes

How can we have a net without memes?

colak · 2018-06-12 10:22:48

Index of Censorship has a very nice form which allows people to write directly to their MEPs.

For those who, like me, believe that the new copyright laws will be signalling the end of creativity and the internet as we know it, please do sign it before the 20th of June!

michaelkpate · 2018-06-13 20:55:44

As Europe’s latest copyright proposal heads to a critical vote on June 20-21, more than 70 Internet and computing luminaries have spoken out against a dangerous provision, Article 13, that would require Internet platforms to automatically filter uploaded content. The group, which includes Internet pioneer Vint Cerf, the inventor of the World Wide Web Tim Berners-Lee, Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, co-founder of the Mozilla Project Mitchell Baker, Internet Archive founder Brewster Kahle, cryptography expert Bruce Schneier, and net neutrality expert Tim Wu, wrote in a joint letter that was released today. – Vint Cerf, Tim Berners-Lee, and Dozens of Other Computing Experts Oppose Article 13

Direct Link to the Letter

colak · 2018-06-18 17:51:42

“Article 13 effectively deputizes social media and other Internet companies as copyright police, forcing them to implement a highly invasive surveillance infrastructure across their entire service offerings,” says cryptographer and security specialist Bruce Schneier www.wired.co.uk/article/eu-meme-war-article-13-regulation

After Cambridge Analytica AND GDPR, we are now asking the social media to spy on us!

Textpattern CMS

Textpattern CMS support forum

#1 2018-05-27 09:31:54