Europe just passed sweeping new copyright rules that Big Tech hates

[Eugene]

Source: CNN

London (CNN Business) — Europe is changing the internet again.

Lawmakers have approved a sweeping overhaul of copyright rules, dealing a blow to major tech companies that argued the changes will be costly and limit free expression.

The European Parliament voted Tuesday to approve fiercely contested changes that make platforms such as YouTube responsible for copyright infringements committed by their users.

Sites like Google News could also be required to pay publishers for using snippets of their content.

-snip-

By Ivana Kottasová, CNN Business
Updated 1252 GMT (2052 HKT) March 26, 2019


Read more: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/26/tech/eu-copyright-article-13/index.html

[safeinOhio]

1. Great...

With great wealth and power, great responsibility should go with it.

[ancianita]

2. Not. Cool. It's the "great power" camel's nose under the Open Source tent. The Internet was

not invented to continue already existing for-profit information and communication sharing.

The Internet was meant by its inventors to be a utility and be developed like one.

I know it cost money to lay the infrastructure. But that overhead already stays funded.

Now the move is on content. Our content.

Well, how could the EU not?! You might ask. Somebody needs to pay! the EU elites say.

The Internet has already found other ways, I'll answer.

Now, global elites want to make it yet another of their fascist playgrounds.

No, don't yell at me about "legally" or "rights" or whatever. That's exactly what they're doing.

If you can't see the creepy creeping privatization of information and knowledge in the world, then we have nothing further to talk about ... because taken to its logical conclusion we won't be able to use the Internet if we're poor... just to learn how not to be poor...

[DRoseDARs]

3. Gizmodo had an analysis up Thursday why this is really bad...

https://gizmodo.com/wikipedia-and-reddit-stage-eleventh-hour-protest-agains-1833464638

[ancianita]

4. And they're fucking RIGHT.

[PSPS]

5. As usual, Gizmodo has it wrong. Copyright should still have a meaning.

It's great click bait to the uninformed, but the concept of freeloading off of the copyrighted works of others is theft, pure and simple. If someone wants to give away their work for free, they are still free to do so. The proposed regulations have no effect on that at all and people can still link to that as they always have.

[DRoseDARs]

7. Ether you didn't read the article or didn't understand the article.

Here, from the article further analysis from Electronic Frontier Foundation (you know, that hotbed of copyright infringement) and the UN "special rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression" (you know, that *other* hotbed of copyright infringement...):

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/03/european-copyright-directive-what-it-and-why-has-it-drawn-more-controversy-any

https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2019/03/12/copyright-directive-threatens-freedom-of-expression-un-official-warns/#46a4878bb672

[Thyla]

6. There is still another level of voting before we can say it has been fully passed

And even then with it being a directive and not a regulation there will be a period of up to two years before a member state is supposed to implement it into their own national law and that is the scarier part. It ultimately will come down to the way a nation interprets the directive, Spain for instance uses directives to pass a whole bunch of fascisty shit under the guise of the EU made us do it. Although to be fair they also routinely don't bother with directives at all so there is that too.

I have no real issue with people paying their dues on copyrighted content, it's not the end of the internet or at least shouldn't be.
And on the upside maybe there will be a few less obnoxious youtube celebrities around.