Spread the message.

Find and contact your MEP here.

Let's not kid ourselves with the whole "copyright" guise, we know why they're doing this. Look at Italy, Austria, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia, most of Germany, and even Sweden, the EU is falling apart.

Oh and fuck the EU.

You're not Sanguinius.

6488874
Okay, as someone who looked into Article 13 and read the full thing. It saves wonders when you actually know what the law is intended for. Than just simply following the stigma of "OMG THE INTERNET IS DEAD!!!" So I'll leave the following here;

If you actually read Article 13, it states that websites that host user-submitted content must have systems in place to identify and remove copyrighted content at the copyright holder’s request.

Unfortunately, despite the usual cries of “THIS WILL DESTROY THE INTERNET” the actual makeup of the law states that distributors are required to have copyright systems in place on their websites. That copyright holders must have a more reliable means of addressing copyright infringement than doxxing the infringing party.

If you think, for example, that this will destroy Youtube, Youtube is already complying with this law with the Content ID, Claim, Dispute, DMCA and Counter Notification system. Other large websites already do this.

Most of the parties freaking out and screaming “THIS IS THE END” just saw the word “Copyright” and immediately shut their brain off. Just like the Trans Pacific Partnership, which included the word “Copyright” and sent everyone into a panic before someone bothered to read the damn thing and realized “Oh, it’s just codifying the Digital Millennium Copyright Act among more countries.”

Just go read it. Don’t get your info from Youtubers, just go read the damn thing yourself.

6489090
Article 13 clearly violates Art. 11 of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the EU, Art. 19 of the ICCPR and Art. 10 of the EU Humans Rights Act. If the new directive passes, it will get nullified almost immediately by the European Court of Justice for violating the freedom of expression. Besides that, numerous Constitutional courts of member states, especially the Bundesverfassungsgericht of Germany have stated multiple times that any step towards censorship will be condemned. I have no idea why they are pushing a legislation that is destined to fail.

6489151
Bruv did you actually read the Article or are you just going to repeat the same rhetoric?

Google the thing and read it.

Here's the link to the entire documentation of Article 13 if you still feel like you don't want to actually put in the effort.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52016PC0593

6489196
Already read it from politico.

Fuck NATO too

6488874

Look at Italy, Austria, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia, most of Germany, and even Sweden, the EU is falling apart.

It seems I'm out of the loop. What's wrong with those countries?

6489350
Rise of Euroscepticism.

6489222
That is an Old Draft.
The new one is at the level of a bad DMCA interpretation.
And the EP can bounce it till next March if it thinks it is a bad Directive(not a law but a set of instructions for nations to make laws)

6489326
Why bot remove any international agencies too? Fuck it lets remove countries and go back to living in fucking tribes.
What the fuck does a military alliance have to do with anything here?

6489441
Do you know how closely connected the EU and NATO are?

6489151

I fail to see how directing member states to work with local websites to include copyright maintenance and redress systems is a violation of any of the EU's articles on freedom of expression. How do you see article 13 as working against the other articles?

6489448
Because they should be? One of them is responsible for reviving Europe's economy and the other is to maintain a strong military alliance between allied that uncles a lot of European countries? Where is the surprise?

6489457
Europe’s economy could and would’ve recovered just as well before the EU. And by “strong military alliance” you mean a US puppet to threaten Russia with.

6489460
No Europe would not have improved as much without the EU. that is a fact since running a country is hard,fyi and having an entire continent work together helped in specialising industry,improving trade between EU countries through complete removal of taxes in between countries of the EU which allows a better market for countries to trade to each other which lead to a huge improvement of the economical standard particularly due to give leaps on chemical and electronical industries, not to mention that the NATO is the capitalist "side" during the cold war and is still there to organize the logistics of it's countries and provide advanced military communication amongst them.
Maybe you should pick up a book instead of just watching a youtube video or two,yea?
And as for us having a lot of influence on the NATO.
That is true but yet not surprising since it is the larger military force,not that I condone that.

6489461
1. I never watched any YouTube videos about the subject.
2. The EU didn’t exist until 1992
3. You do realize that NATO hasn’t done anything of use besides threaten Russia and bomb Yugoslavia, right?

6489462
The European Coal and Steel community, the precursor to the EU, existed since 1951. Also given the massive growth of especially the post Warsaw pact countries in the EU, I think it's pretty easy to say the EU had been very good for economic growth.

Also, by nothing useful do you include what NATO did during the cold war? And frankly one of the best things a military alliance like NATO is for is deterrence. Not to mention all the money those NATO countries which aren't the U.S. are saving since they don't need to spend much money on a military.

6489196
6489452

Something you missed regarding Artcle 13

For starters look at Article 3 under Title I

1. Member States shall provide for an exception in Article 2 of Directive 2001/29/EC, Article 5(a) and Article Article 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC and Article 11(1) of this Directive for reproductions and extractions made by research organizations in order to carry out text and data mining of works or other subject-matter to which they have lawful access for the purposes of scientific research.

Right now data mining is banned in the EU, but Article 3 would open it up. Critics say this will stop innovation (that I support), large scale AI required from input users to train them, because that will effectively stop that. Because of the restrictions, independent researchers, journalists, and hobbyists would be banned from data mining, adding that this would deny EU startups a level playing field because essentially if you're not an established institution like a university you don't get to do what they do.

Then Article 11 under Title IV Chapter I

1. Member States shall provide publishers of press publications with the rights provided for in Article 2 and Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC for the digital use of their press publications.

This provision would restrict both businesses and individuals who publish new snippets, essentially anyone using snippets of journalistic online content must first get a license from the publisher and that new right for publishers would apply for 20 years after publication. This would target automatic link previews at social networks generate when users share links by example, if you're on Facebook, you link out to something if often shows the headline a thumbnail picture may be a little short piece of the content. Additionally it's likely this would affect news aggregators, media monitoring services, fact-checking services, and I think the goal here is it protect traditional press revenues by forcing people to go to the sites than hearing about the articles from third parties or just short pieces. But if an online source like Google fails to get the license, the copyright holder can force Google to remove the link and the European digital Commission says that they want to mostly target links on Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Pinterest. But what's interesting, there's like this exists in Germany and Spain and it has failed in both(correct me if i'm wrong), in Germany many are saying it is likely that it was going to die in court whereas with the Spanish law according to the EU research service. It had an negative impact on visibility and access to information in Spain and the EFF says it's a defacto attack on hyperlinks, not a lot of people are going to click a link without a preview of what they're clicking, limitations on snippets are essentially a limitation on linking. Some groups say that it will encourage fake news, this because propaganda departments likely won't charge for snippets because it's all about getting to as many people as possible whereas reputable sources will likely will. Additionally article 11 is also in conflict the Berne Convention, an international treaty that guarantees are right to quote news articles and create press summaries.

6489462
EU is more of a conce0t and it had iterations starting much earlier than the actual EU

6489467
The ECSC wasn’t the EU. The EU and it’s laws didn’t exist until 1992. The post-Warsaw Pact (which was founded to deter NATO, mind you) countries who experienced economic growth wasn’t the EU. It was the implementation of a Captialist free-market system.

The only real deterrence in the Cold War was nuclear weapons. If they didn’t exist, NATO would be absolutely fucking useless.

6489472
But it wasn’t implemented until 1992

6489022
And Antifa is not the Rebel Alliance, they’re modern Mussolini’s Black Shirts cosplayers who thinks they're making a difference but in actuality, they are equally gay as the Alt-right. Thus making those two into consensual fuck buddies and all the normal people wants to make sure that those two won’t get married, because their gay orgies (brawls) are harming innocent bystanders and including animals.

6489474
The ECSC wasn't the EU, it was its precursor, i mentioned that in my post, what was your point? Mine was that the EU did inherit a lot of its systems, especially the economic ones.

(which was founded to deter NATO, mind you

I mean, was it really? Given its members where the USSR and its puppet states, which mind you, where all occupied by the USSR when they "joined" the Warsaw pact. Also NATO was founded to deter the USSR after its massive expansion post WW2, which they did to "deter" further foreign invasions, funny how deterrence works isn't it?

EDIT: Also, the USSR invaded its fellow Warsaw Pact members, multiple times.

It was the implementation of a Capitalist free-market system.

You are hopelessly naive if you think switching to capitalism is the only reason those countries enjoyed economic growth. Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, pretty much every post Warsaw nation which switched to capitalism and didn't join the EU all suffered immense economic crisis's when they switched to capitalism. Changing ones economic system so suddenly like that isn't good for said economy, and the EU was instrumental in helping countries like Poland enjoy economic growth.

The only real deterrence in the Cold War was nuclear weapons

1. The US did have nukes.
2. Before Nukes could end the world, which wasn't until the 1970's, conventional military force was a far more effective deterrence, NATO was instrumental in that. Also a lot of countries in NATO don't have nukes.

6489519

I mean, was it really? Given its members where the USSR and its puppet states, which mind you, where all occupied by the USSR when they "joined" the Warsaw pact.

Yes. It was formed in response to West Germany joining NATO. and maybe a Soviet desire to maintain control of all military forces allied to them

Also NATO was founded to deter the USSR after its massive expansion post WW2, which they did to "deter" further foreign invasions, funny how deterrence works isn't it?

NATO wasn’t even military until 1950, funny how facts work, huh? It was a political alliance.

You are hopelessly naive if you think switching to capitalism is the only reason those countries enjoyed economic growth. Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, pretty much every post Warsaw nation which switched to capitalism and didn't join the EU all suffered immense economic crisis's when they switched to capitalism. Changing ones economic system so suddenly like that isn't good for said economy, and the EU was instrumental in helping countries like Poland enjoy economic growth.

No, I don’t think that simply changing systems was th only reason. However, with the exception of Moldova (which was supposed to join Romania anyway) everyone (okay, maybe not Russia) eventually recovered and became economically prosperous. Like China.

1. The US did have nukes.
2. Before Nukes could end the world, which wasn't until the 1970's, conventional military force was a far more effective deterrence, NATO was instrumental in that. Also a lot of countries in NATO don't have nukes.

1. I never said they didn’t.
2. Just cause they couldn’t end the world doesn’t mean they couldn’t end a country. Instantly. NATO wasn’t military until 1950. And pretty much every NATO coutry had nukes stationed there.

6489090
6489452
6489470

Then you have Article 13 under Title IV Chapter II

1. Information society service providers that store and provide to the public access to large amounts of works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users shall, in cooperation with right holders, take measures to ensure the functioning of agreements concluded with right holders for the use of their works or other subject-matter or to prevent the availability on their services of works or other subject-matter identified by right holders through the cooperation with the service providers. Those measures, such as the use of effective content recognition technologies, shall be appropriate and proportionate. The service providers shall provide right holders with adequate information on the functioning and the deployment of the measures, as well as, when relevant, adequate reporting on the recognition and use of the works and other subject-matter.

This is supposed to "protect" the music industry, the industry believes and lobby that the revenue google shares with them from running ads on videos containing their content amounts too little compared to payments from subscription services like Spotify calling it a value cap. The arguments against Article 13 is they're calling it a Start up killer and that's because it place huge costs on very small companies to have massive systems in place to monitor what's being uploaded closely and google even caution against such rules back in 2016, quote

We'd caution against rigid requirements that smaller and star-up companies may find hard to implement

It's also believed that this would have unintended consequences for sites like wikipedia, they would need to have these filters in place at massive cost even though wikipedia only accepts freely licensed uploads. Plus Article 13 would likely be in violation of existing EU law, specifically the e-commerce directive which forbid general monitoring obligations, something that the European Parliament Research says Article 13 would establish. Plus this would also affect unintentionally, for example reaction gifs would likely be classified as copyright infringement under the EUCD. Additionally most memes would also die for the same reason since they often included copyrighted material, this could also affect fan fictions, lib dubs, song remixes, game mods, parody and criticism content could be struck down if the copyright holder wanted to be.

Reminds me of this subtle criticism back during #WTFU

6489525

NATO was military on 4 April 1949, as soon as it was signed, it was the replacement for the Western Union Defence Organisation, which formed after the Berlin airlift and Czechoslovakian communist coup d'etat in 1948. More facts. Most NATO members didn't have Nukes in their territory when they joined, partly because Nukes weren't rockets back then, they where bombs kept in planes, usually on US militairy bases. More facts, NATO was formed from WUDO after it was believed WUDO would be too weak (the US wasn't part of WUDO for one).

eventually recovered and became economically prosperous. Like China.

Recovered yes, prospered no, and they certainly haven't enjoyed the economic prosperity of the EU countries.

1. I never said they didn’t.
2. Just cause they couldn’t end the world doesn’t mean they couldn’t end a country. Instantly. NATO wasn’t military until 1950. And pretty much every NATO country had nukes stationed there.

1. I brought that up as you know, something the US contributed to NATO for that whole, deterrence thing. You know, useful thing of NATO
2. No they really couldn't end a country, not unless it was really small (which the USSR never was), its easy to forget how much weaker Nukes used to be, still terrifying, but not world/nation ending. Conventional military was still a far more effective deterrence in the early days. And again, most NATO members didn't have nukes anyway, but the US did (bringing it back to point 1), while simultaneously having a very large and well funded army/navy/air force, so being part of NATO was very useful for deterring the USSR, which was never really shy on using its own very large conventional forces. Nukes where always considered in terms of possible military conflict, but back then when there where less of them and they where less powerful, nukes alone would not have been enough of a deterrent.

6489527

Ah, but that's the crux of things. You can't have a completely open and unmonitored sharing of everything, because then you easily screw over content producers instead. Without some amount of checks on people's use of other people's creations, plagiarism becomes endemic.

So, with that in mind, so far I'm seeing a very measured response from the EU about this. And keep in mind, they're simply directing member nations to work on the issue.

...most memes...
...fan fictions...
...lib dubs...
...song remixes...
...game mods...
...parody...
...criticism content...
could be struck down if the copyright holder wanted to be.

Now, I'm not at all familiar with EU copywrite law, but if it's anything like the US's...

Yes, but generally not worth the cost...
Yes, but generally not worth the cost...
Don't know what "lib dub" is...
Yes...
Yes, but not often worth the opportunity cost...
No...
and no.

And see, copywrite identification programs also protect the places that use them. If a location is caught violating copywrites, and they don't have a system to address the issue, the courts may be able to force the entire place to shut down until such time as they can, or permanently if they can't and/or the violations are egregious enough. A bit more overhead is a small price to pay to protect everyone involved so the business itself can stay active.

6489476
The concept of the EU of European cooperation in economy and other venues has been a thing in one way or other a long time before the EU

6488874