Create. Produce original content. Keep the copyright. Don't consume canned content.
Copyright was never intended to be pervasive and absolute. Copyright is supposed to protect the commercial potential of the original work by keeping people from making copies that supplant the market for the original, ie, piracy. Content filters and link taxes are a bastardization of Copyright.
True! However, according to the draft of the Article 13, this may happen in the case of providers "of an information society service whose main or one of the main purposes is to store and give the public access to a large amount of copyright protected works or other protected subject-matter uploaded by its users which it organises and promotes for profit-making purposes." [1]
This is not an argument in favor of upload filters. Maybe we should push for legislation about the obligation to make any upload filter completely transparent (program source).
[1] definition from the top of the document https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Art_13_unoff...
In a small way, it kind of did, didn't it? I see people on reddit and hackernews constantly complaining how they can't access some random local news website in the US because they've chosen to simply not deal with GDPR.
Not quite. This law makes it prohibitively expensive to host content like that. The effect is the same, but from a PR standpoint its a huge difference.
Really? It specifically says it shall in no way affect legitimate uses
Which specific part are you referring to which prevents this?
My understanding is yes
Will I be able to, with this law 1) Go to linode and buy a VPS 2) Allow others to upload their own reviews of a movie (including scenes from the movie as appropiate) 3) Allow me to review them to ensure that they are allowed under existing copyright law 4) Make those reviews available to everyone?
My understanding is yes
So I don't understand how "This law makes it illegal to use clips of a movie in critiquing it". It simply ensures that those breaking copyright law have the weight of the law upon them.
The second szenario puts you at a huge risk. You would have to review every single submission to your site for copyrighted material. This means you can accept like 1 submission per day? And still you would have to make sure (and bear the whole financial risk if wrong), that the submission is completely legal.
This might work in a very few specific szenarios, but you could not run a site like a photography forum. If users have the ability to upload content, starting with their writing but even more so when uploading photographs. There is simply no way for the site administrator to find out whether the uploader holds the copyrights to the uploaded photograph. If the uploader does not, you are liable for the copyright violation.
In the end, even hacker news probably becomes unavailable in Europe. If a user would paste a newspaper article into a comment, hacker news could be sued for this copyright violation.
Phew, I thought I'd misread it
So the law doesn't "make it illegal to use clips of a movie in critiquing it".
> In the end, even hacker news probably becomes unavailable in Europe. If a user would paste a newspaper article into a comment, hacker news could be sued for this copyright violation.
It's already illegal for HN to host copyright material.
> Phew, I thought I'd misread it
> So the law doesn't "make it illegal to use clips of a movie in critiquing it".
Not more or less than before. But you won't be able to find a platform for doing so, unless you self-host.
> > In the end, even hacker news probably becomes unavailable in Europe. If a user would paste a newspaper article into a comment, hacker news could be sued for this copyright violation.
> It's already illegal for HN to host copyright material.
Yes, but so far, they only had to remove it, when they got a complaint. Now they bear the full liability for the copyright violation. So it is the same game as with file sharing: value of the material times the number of downloads, so we are easily talking about claims in the range of millions.
Sounds like a gap in the market then.
> Yes, but so far, they only had to remove it, when they got a complaint.
Kim Dot Com hosted infringing material and had far more serious impact than "had to remove it"