EU tries to kill the internet (Jun 2018 version)

[dead0man]

link - Creative Commons

You must be logged in to read this quote.

both are horrible, but Article 13 is the worse.  It's like our own DCMA, which sucks, but Article 13 is so much more onerous.  The DCMA forces content distributers to take down things after a complaint is made (instead of waiting to see if the complaint has merit).  Article 13 forces them to scan all new content with an automated system that would filter out anything already copywrited.  This would hit big companies hard.  Youtube, wikipedia (and all similiar places), Google would have to spend many millions of dollars to get something that just sucks really bad.  But at least the big companies could aford to figure it out.  It's going to kill all the little guys starting out and prevent new ones from coming up.

[dead0man]

EU's laws doesn't work like American laws, which means it won't work like that. I won't go in depth with it, because I'm not a lawyer, but I advice people before going Chicken Little about the issue, that people seek knowledge from expect with knowledge about European law, which differ from American law.

169 Europen experts in intellectual property, internet law, human rights law and journalism studies disagree with you

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[dead0man]

Nowadays newspapers literally sell words for money. I don't see the problem with charging Google if they reprint those words for free.

thankfully other people are smart enough to see the problem so you don't have to.

[dead0man]

The EU Parliament has rejected the proposed directive. 318 against, 278 for.

for now, they will try again to kill the internet in September.

[dead0man]

It failed.
https://qz.com/1321675/why-the-eus-rejection-of-a-copyright-law-backed-by-paul-mccartney-will-help-protect-internet-freedom/

The EU Parliament has rejected the proposed directive. 318 against, 278 for.

for now, they will try again to kill the internet in September.