Posted on 05/30/2018 9:03:40 AM PDT by Fitzy_888
Video at link.
Also, the end of the concept of “fair use”, small new creators will be required to pay link taxes or be push out -which is the very intent.
The Internet will route around it.
Unless they ban VPNs, there is always a way around restrictions.
Yep. Ultimately, the internet is “pull” anyway. If the EU doesn’t like free internet sites that say things they don’t like, they can try to block their citizens from accessing them, like China does.
If a person in the EU gets on the web and pulls info or orders products from a site located in a non-EU country, that’s their problem, not the company’s.
Question authority especially of socialist EUSSRholes
The establishment circling the wagons to try and preserve their praetorian guard media.
Attempts will be made here as well.
Tactics of Totalitarians ALERT!
Styxhexenhammer666 @Styx666Official 43m43 minutes ago
Despite the pathetic European commission being toothless to harass me like it does the serfs in Europe, I still think this is dumbassery from bureaucratic hand wringers.
#FreeSpeech #FreePress #InternetFreedom
Europe may be without it, but the internet will survive.
Bkmrk.
IOW, the next Demwit who gets in charge will hand over 1st amendment policing power to the EU. Thanks Fitzy_888.
Very glad you Brought this up.
It is nothing to dismiss.
GDPR overshadowed this internet censorship sneak attack.
EUro bass turd parasite bureaucrats only know how to rob citizens under the guise for our own good authoritarianism.
Jim and John should put this at the top of Frontpage news everyday until it hopefully gets voted down on June 21.
If this passes, FR and independent internet news is over.
Sources: http://ow.ly/HsGP10168R5
Sign the Petition: https://saveyourinternet.eu/
EDRI Article: http://ow.ly/VEpH101689Z
Techdirt article: http://ow.ly/gs9b101689X
FWIW, from April....
“Provisions also require websites to monitor all user-uploaded content”
Eff.Org validates threat:
EU Internet Advocates Launch Campaign to Stop Dangerous Copyright Filtering Proposal
DEEPLINKS BLOG
BY KERRY SHEEHAN
MARCH 7, 2017
In the wake of the European Commission’s dangerous proposal to require user-generated content platforms to filter user uploads for copyright infringement, European digital rights advocates are calling on Internet users throughout Europe to stand up for freedom of expression online by urging their MEP (Member of European Parliament) to stop the #CensorshipMachine and “save the meme.”
Last year, the European Commission released a proposed Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, Article 13 of which would require all online service providers that “store and provide to the public access to large amounts of works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users” to reach agreements with rights holders to keep allegedly infringing content off their sites – including by implementing content filtering technologies.
We’ve talked at length about the dangers of this proposal, and the problems with filtering the Internet for copyright infringement. For one thing, it’s extremely dangerous for fair use and free expression online.
This week, two EU-based organizations are calling on Internet users to stand up for their rights to lawfully use copyrighted works, and to call on the European Parliament to remove Article 13 from the proposed directive.
Bits of Freedom, a Netherlands-based organization, launched a campaign website where you can “save the meme” by contacting an MEP and urging them to delete Article 13. The site calls attention to the proposed directive’s impact on popular legal uses of copyrighted content, “like parody, citations and –oh, noes! – memes,” and provides a handy tool for getting in touch with your MEP.
Simultaneously, the activist group Xnet, with support from EFF, EDRi, and several other digital rights groups released this video highlighting how Article 13 would give copyright holders the ability to censor a wide swath of online expression.
mytubethumb play
Privacy info. This embed will serve content from youtube.com
Digital rights advocates aren’t the only ones seeing problems with this proposal. Article 13 has been criticized by academics and academic research centers, and members of the EU’s startup community as well. And earlier this month, an important committee charged with reviewing the proposal, the European Parliament Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, criticized Article 13 as “incompatible with the limited liability regime” currently in effect in the EU under the e-Commerce Directive, legislation the committee refers to as “enormously beneficial.” The committee’s report warns of Article 13’s “negative impacts on the digital economy [and] internet freedoms of consumers, ” as well as its potential effect on market entry for online services. The Committee also criticized the proposal’s call to implement technological filtering solutions, explaining “[t]he use of filtering potentially harms the interests of users, as there are many legitimate uses of copyright content that filtering technologies are often not advanced enough to accommodate.”
There’s still time to stop Article 13 before it becomes law in the EU. The proposed directive must pass through several more rounds of review by European Parliament Committees, followed by an informal “trialogue”, where the European Parliament, the European Commission, and the Council of the European Union try to agree on the text of the directive, before it finally moves to consideration by Parliament. If you’re in Europe, you can take action to stop Article 13 by going to savethememe.net. If you’re not, you can share that link with your European friends.
Feds are pushing this, too:
Eff.org
Federal Judge Says Embedding a Tweet Can Be Copyright Infringement
DEEPLINKS BLOG
BY DANIEL NAZER
FEBRUARY 15, 2018
Rejecting years of settled precedent, a federal court in New York has ruled [PDF] that you could infringe copyright simply by embedding a tweet in a web page. Even worse, the logic of the ruling applies to all in-line linking, not just embedding tweets. If adopted by other courts, this legally and technically misguided decision would threaten millions of ordinary Internet users with infringement liability.
This case began when Justin Goldman accused online publications, including Breitbart, Time, Yahoo, Vox Media, and the Boston Globe, of copyright infringement for publishing articles that linked to a photo of NFL star Tom Brady. Goldman took the photo, someone else tweeted it, and the news organizations embedded a link to the tweet in their coverage (the photo was newsworthy because it showed Brady in the Hamptons while the Celtics were trying to recruit Kevin Durant). Goldman said those stories infringe his copyright.
Courts have long held that copyright liability rests with the entity that hosts the infringing content—not someone who simply links to it. The linker generally has no idea that it’s infringing, and isn’t ultimately in control of what content the server will provide when a browser contacts it. This “server test,” originally from a 2007 Ninth Circuit case called Perfect 10 v. Amazon, provides a clear and easy-to-administer rule. It has been a foundation of the modern Internet.
Judge Katherine Forrest rejected the Ninth Circuit’s server test, based in part on a surprising approach to the process of embedding. The opinion describes the simple process of embedding a tweet or image—something done every day by millions of ordinary Internet users—as if it were a highly technical process done by “coders.” That process, she concluded, put publishers, not servers, in the drivers’ seat:
[W]hen defendants caused the embedded Tweets to appear on their websites, their actions violated plaintiff’s exclusive display right; the fact that the image was hosted on a server owned and operated by an unrelated third party (Twitter) does not shield them from this result.
She also argued that Perfect 10 (which concerned Google’s image search) could be distinguished because in that case the “user made an active choice to click on an image before it was displayed.” But that was not a detail that the Ninth Circuit relied on in reaching its decision. The Ninth Circuit’s rule—which looks at who actually stores and serves the images for display—is far more sensible.
If this ruling is appealed (there would likely need to be further proceedings in the district court first), the Second Circuit will be asked to consider whether to follow Perfect 10 or Judge Forrest’s new rule. We hope that today’s ruling does not stand. If it did, it would threaten the ubiquitous practice of in-line linking that benefits millions of Internet users every day.
The EU thinks otherwise. They think they can reach into any nation and fine people. Not kidding.
The GDPR EU law that went into effect last week has companies blocking EU IP addresses. My company included.
Had read earlier that German officials had pushed this....and of course rhe rest of Europe bowed.
DEEPLINKS BLOG
According to a blog.
You do realize that blogs are "written" by homeless bums?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.