- Oct 21, 2017
- 946
- 1,746
Article 13
- Thread starter GrimCreeper3
- Start date
- Jul 21, 2016
- 635
- 5,705
I think we will block the EU completely...or start charging a "viewing tax" to EU members. Every page visit costs x amount of money. 
Fuck whole EU. Just bunch of cocksuckers what know nothing and talking to everything. I don't know any person inEurope who will tell. Hey EU is fine. They doing good thing. Nobody.
- Jun 10, 2018
- 6,327
- 22,773
Damn I need to move somewhere elseI think we will block the EU completely...or start charging a "viewing tax" to EU members. Every page visit costs x amount of money.
@ OP: It won't affect any of these sites.
I'll say it: Europe and the EU is pretty good.
Now kindly put a hose up your bunghole, put the end around your lips and blow it out your ass.
That being said, article 13 is shiiiit. I'm gonna ask around the MEPs and, if necessary, vote them out later this year. Protest too, if needed.
I can tell you that, but it would be a complete lie. These politicians have absolutly no idea what they are doing. Even the biggest petition in history with over 5 million people got ignored by them. And they spread fake news about all the protests, like people were paid to do it. Lol, right! Fuck these idiots.
Me too...lolDamn I need to move somewhere else
- Nov 3, 2017
- 9,182
- 7,692
Nah, it'll be fine, F95 will just have to implement an upload filter to make sure there's no pirated content on the site.
- Oct 21, 2017
- 946
- 1,746
You were already charged, @F95 took your soul the moment you signed up, it was in the TOS.
- Jun 10, 2018
- 6,327
- 22,773
Yes, UK people will be charged extra! You guys don't even get the brexit done, but still vote for article 13? WTF is wrong with the UK?
- Oct 21, 2017
- 946
- 1,746
Dunno people over here are just fucked in the head bunch of lazy fucks always think they are entitled to every thingYes, UK people will be charged extra! You guys don't even get the brexit done, but still vote for article 13? WTF is wrong with the UK?
- Oct 21, 2017
- 946
- 1,746
- Jun 10, 2018
- 6,327
- 22,773
Dude, I was joking. No one will be charged lol.
Article 13 will take ages until it's taking effect and the impact is not as massive as some people want to make us believe. I won't even be surprised if it's going to be abandoned in the future.
That said, I hate the fact that politics simply ignored the massive EU wide outcry against article 13 and I actually would love to see utube, google, facebook and all the others block the EU completely for a few days to show the politicians and the media companies (which will loose a lot of money in these few days) the middle finger...
- Oct 21, 2017
- 946
- 1,746
As long as i can access my fav sites with no fuss then i wont have to consider the after life
- Jun 10, 2017
- 10,957
- 16,191
Yeah, globally it can be summarized by, "yesterday you removed content when asked to do it, tomorrow you'll have to remove it before it's even downloaded on your site".
Then, media hosting sites like youtube will change nothing. One day, the EU will discover it and give them a fine. youtube will contest it, it will end in justice. There, they'll produce a ton shit of real experts who'll prove that everything that can be done is done, and the article 13 will be put in a deep hole by EU politicians in an attempt to hide the fact that they've once again be stupid idiots.
YouTube has been known to deal with things like copyright with an hammer rather than a scalpel. I expect them to just make half of the content unavailable for EU cause it may violate some copyright.
Article 13 (now renamed to Article 17) will be detrimental to animation/hentai porn parodies that contain characters from video games or other copyrighted work. Websites will be responsible for the content on their websites. So if I upload some porn parody featuring Lara Croft for example to PornHub, PornHub will be responsible for that and the copyright holder of Lara Croft will be able to sue PornHub because their character is on PornHub's website without copyright holder's permission. ATM I don't think YouTube or PornHub or anyone have to take down a video because of DMCA. They do it because they want to be in good terms with the copyright holders. The copyright holders can't sue any website for the content posted by it's users. The copyright holders have to sue the individual users that post that content.
Article 17 changes that. Now the copyright holders can sue PornHub, YouTube, etc. for the content posted by it's users. So they will have to block a lot of content in EU so they don't get sued.
- Jun 10, 2017
- 10,957
- 16,191
That would change absolutely nothing. As long as the have a foot in the EU, whatever if the content is available in Europe or not, it would be illegal. What they'll have to do is to close all their subsidiaries in a country member of the EU. But they'll not do it, because in reality the article 17 isn't about copyright infringement, but about big money.
The article 17 don't say that you can't anymore use protected content in your video, it say that the copyright holders agree to this use, as long as they receive a part of the money earned by the hosting site. The said article 17 add that, if no agreement can be reached, the hosting site will need to use all what is in its power to remove by itself the illegal content ; what they already do anyway because of the DMCA.
If youtube complain, it's because they'll earn less and have to contact and negotiate with hundred of people ; there's more that a "copyright holders association" in each countries and no global one. It's also because they'll have to find by themselves who hold the rights for this and that, which isn't always easy.
If creators of content complain, its because the technology used to detect copyright infringement is
You must be registered to see the links
. So, they can be amputated of a part of what they should have earned, while in fact they didn't used protected content or didn't goes further than a parody ; parodies being explicitly excluded by the article 17.And if wikipedia complain, it's because of article 15 (old article 11) that is something else but worse ; you should pay to link to a press article...
Wrong and wrong. The second ruling in
You must be registered to see the links
is great because it cover everything :Hosting sites have the legal obligation to remove content when they notified, and they do it (
You must be registered to see the links
; interesting because it explain the process and also enforce fair use). They can also be sued if they don't comply to the removal order or don't comply to the
You must be registered to see the links
.Still, as long as they do as much as possible to prevent the sharing of copyrighted content, whatever if they know that a portions of their user share copyrighted content (which goes against the OCILLA), they are covered.
I said it, an all in one case.
Have youtube blocked a lot of content in the USA ? I doubt.
Will youtube block a lot of content in Europe ? I doubt even more, because there's nothing in the article 17 that extend the possibility to sue them. In fact they are now more protected, since parody are explicitly said as fair, while what they have to do to fight against copyright infringement is not explicitly wrote in a law.
- May 5, 2017
- 272
- 845