Oh, it’s definitely racist, but in a “Let’s inadvertently be racist while trying to tackle racism” way. Well intentioned but really blindsided.
Well…
What’s the issue exactly? As rewritten article 13 is pretty mild.
Let me paste it so we can have a sensible discussion:
Yeah, this article is pretty wrong in that the directive explicitedly forbids filters. Last bolded text above.
All that directive says is that:
- Content providers are liable for infringement in their platforms and have to get permission from right holders.
- Should try in good faith to avoid infringing content.
- Should provide redress mechanisms, with human review.
- Should not automatically block content.
It’s not that dissimilar to the DMCA law.
Avoided, not forbidden. I guess I’m just pessimistically thinking that when you give the copyright industry an inch, they take a foot. Like, they’ll automate the sending of complaints, and if companies have to handle it in a timely manner, the sheer volume of complaints require them to automate it as well…
Pretty much exactly how the DMCA has been abused in other words.
I loathe the DMCA, as it has been used to silence criticism, and try and erode the concept of fair use. So if this law is similar, it can piss off.
Well, when you give the tech industry an inch they take a foot too, which is why we have this directive. Again, you are free to be paranoid, but in general it’s pretty mild and reasonable, unless we think content providers should not be liable for user uploaded content (which is madness, imho).
As for DMCA abuse: I think the content providers automatic processes are mostly to blame for the abuse. This directive tries to avoid exactly that.
Note the avoidance of automatic blocking applies to both the providers and the right holders.
You’re thinking ideal world, ignoring how such laws have been abused in the real world.
It’s like how large companies use patents. There was a system built to aid and protect inventors. But it has been perverted and morphed into a system games by mega corps to engage in corporate warfare, MAD lawsuit threats, and stifle nascent competition.
Same here. This is a tool to abuse by copyrights holders. And it will be. What merit there is to their complaints, and their is some, this enables them to go to the other extreme.
Why isn’t the user who uploaded the copyrighted content liable? That’s what I really don’t get. I mean, fine, if a content provider wants to sign an agreement for compensating rights holders, which lets the users off the hook, that’s great. But if they don’t, why should they hold the primary liability?
Why do you think they are not liable?
Keep in mind this works along EU data protection guidelines. If an user uploads infringing content, a content provider can refuse to give the identity of the user unless required by a judge.
This has been used by (and it’s still used by), say, telecom companies to make use of torrent software a non-risk in the EU (since telecom companies refuse to identify the users and the right holders can’t thus access the users without suing the telecom company).
It’s in that context of heightened protection vs the US where the liability has to be shared by the providers so they ahve an incentive to do anything at all.
That was my bad, I read the section when there was a signed agreement in place. Okay, so that makes sense. Doesn’t mean I don’t think this will cause an Escalation of Algorithms, but it makes sense. :)
It might, but it’s not nearly as bad as people are making it to be. It will incurr a cost to the main tech companies, since they will have to be tighter on content upload agreements and enforcement, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. And at least they address the algorithm arms-race and try to pre-empt it, which is unusual for these laws.
In Sweden this information is routinely handed out to rights holders, because they have successfully sued to have such information handed out. So while the directive itself may be all fine and well-intentioned, the actual implementation in the membership countries will probably vary.
Exactly, this is needed more for countries like Spain, where telecom companies rule rampart. I’m guessing several countries will have to change very little to implement the directive.
It sets a minimum and a maximum (no automatic filters).
Again, for the benefit of the tl;dr crowd, the text went from this:
To this
So any report that the directive as passed encourages filters is misinformation. At the very least discourages them and can be interpreted as attempting to encourage forbiding them.
I see we have a difference in opinion as to what constitutes a good outcome of this. :) I would vastly prefer a system where rights holders can’t access personal information based on IP-address alone.
Which this directive allows, since countries can now legislate the content providers are to be liable. So you can keep copyright protections without giving user info, if a country chooses to (this will vary country to country).
My ideal system is indeed for content providers to assume liability to preserve data privacy of the users. But that will have to be decided by the individual countries legislators and the tech companies involved.
Did the internet demons claim our Brexit thread?
@Juan_Raigada, we were in Spain but left on Friday. Curious how the local press is characterizing the election results there. We’re getting some reporting here in RSA, mostly from BBC, but it looks like kind of good news overall?
Yep, good news overall. The good guys won!
Normally I wouldn’t be so mean to the losing side, but when you decide you’d rather deal with the far right than with a center left party, that’s what you get. You get labelled as the bad guys until you correct course.
The far right didn’t get too many votes (about 10%, but they were expecting 15-20% so, while certainly they’ve come out of the woods, they remain manageable and fringe enough in a country with independentist movements and other crazy political individuals) and the traditional right got slammed because they refused to reject the far right discourse and instead flirted with it, so suddenly they are back to talking of being center-right.
The government that comes out of this is going to be weird. The center left will probably have to deal with the left (I don’t think they are that far left anymore) and several nationalist (as in regionalist) parties that are not seeking independence, but they will be one congress seat away from majority, so they will need somebody to abstain, either an independentist party or a center right party (now that suddenly we have center right parties again).
They could also deal directly with the most moderate center right party, but that party campaigned on a no-deal-with-the-left platform, so they would have to back down a lot from there, and I don’t see the leader (who has quite an ego) doing that. It would be perhaps a better choice, but I think the more crazy combination will be stable enough to last 4 years and pass a couple important laws (climate change being the most important, it’s already drafted but needs to go through congress).
The biggest takeaway: the high participation was a pretty clear indication that overall, the society does not want a far right party in government. I was pretty worried all the right would pivot towards crazy, akin to what the GOP did in the States, but they tried and their experiment failed and the next elections I expect to see much less tolerance for intolerant political discourse (these are people who promote the figure of Franco, not just conservatives I disagree with).
I expect to see the traditional right attacking the far right pretty soon (since we have European elections next month).