Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Mon Sep 24 03:23:27 2018

Utopia Talk / Politics / Article 13 and copyright reform
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Jul 04 02:31:06
As some of you know, the proposal passed unrevised and will be voted on by the assembly later this month.

Do not let this go unchecked, resist.

Wikipedia sent me here,
http://changecopyright.org/en-US/call-now

We need a fair and balanced approach to copyright, not a opaque deal/system between current copyright holders and the enormous entities like google and facebook.
Paramount
Member
Thu Jul 05 12:20:11
I think I read something briefly that the proposal is already starting to meet opposition. So maybe I don’t need to leave my phone number to that site.
Paramount
Member
Thu Jul 05 12:35:13
Looks like they have already voted:

#BREAKING European Parliament rejects controversial EU copyright law

http://mobile.twitter.com/AFP/status/1014814866757038081
hood
Member
Thu Jul 05 13:19:44
Wow, EU Parliament is less retarded than Seb. Who knew?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jul 05 13:33:57
THEY CAN NEVER TAKE OUR FREEEEEDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!
:,)
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jul 05 13:37:19
But the vote was only for not starting to negotiate with the national government. This is a directive, not a regulation, which is slightly different. The big vote is still to be had.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jul 05 13:37:32
governemntS
swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Thu Jul 05 13:37:38
Iron Maiden - The Clansman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwLtyvGdNbc
Seb
Member
Thu Jul 05 13:37:55
Hood:

I think I pointed out the drafting wasn't perfect even if the principle was spund and it was likely to be resolved in parliament.

I think we are probably all less retarded than you.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jul 05 13:38:27
But at least now the proposal can be amended.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jul 05 13:41:06
There was not guarantee that this would have ended up like this, seb. It came down to 53% against 47% for. So the retardation caused by the skeptics likely played a role.
hood
Member
Thu Jul 05 14:31:09
"I pointed out the drafting wasn't perfect even if the principle was spund"

Wasn't perfect is an interesting way to pronounce extremely flawed. Is this one of those "Englishmen are prone to subdued understatement" things?


Sorry, *englishpeople
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Jul 06 01:59:04
Indeed meaningless to speak of the principle of copyright as sound, when the concrete resolutuin on the table is in direct violation of freedom of speech principles and the current laws that govern it.

If we all had this glib attitude towards the core principles of liberal democracy. Why do I always see you on the other side of the fence? May I ask, how did your party vote on this seb?
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 06 04:50:52
Hood:

Dishonest.

Nim:

I don't think you can say it is in direct contradiction to freedom of speech anymore than copyright itself is. Democratic society limits speech in all sorts of ways all the time when it runs up against other rights. I'm not a fan of its continual assertion of it as both a binary (You have it or you dont) and a paramount (it automatically trumps other rights). Trying to turn this into a struggle between liberty and tyranny isn't helpful you know.

In this instance tbe issue is interpretation. The defenders of the bill make a compelling case that it doesn't apply the way detractors fear. Critics point out this requires secondary legislation and further jurisprudence to clarify meaning how courts ultimately interpret the directive is not certain and will take years to crystallize (though this is always the case).

What's needed is some more focused language, the whole point of any legislative process.

The ferverent and extravagant claims from some (e.g. the information wants to be free crowd) on the face of it seem dubious legally, and the degree to which they paint the other side as having dubious motives seems equally dubious. Like I said, this isn't some manichean clash of light and dark.

I'm just not as hysterical about it as you are. And the "with us or against us" mentality is unnecessary - you seem convinced that the fact I think the issue needs to be tackled means I'm wedded to a form of words. If you are not against this issue being tackled in principle, in what sense am I on the other side of the fence.

I have not devoted the hours needed to trace each argument put forward back to source, which is what is needed when one lobbying group are known for trying to extend copyright, the other are an alliance of platforms seeking to capture the bulk of the value chain and marginalize content creators with techno-utopians that largely believe information wants to be free.

There are good points on all sides. We are in the high politics of finding a compromise where two public goods conflict with eachother.


My biggest concern at the moment for society is the increasingly malign role big platforms play in society through exploitation of regulatory arbitrage both to extract rents but also the distortion of the public conversation which democracy itself depends on, and finally the impact on public health.

That's the big 'threat' here and thing to focus on. Sure, our future overlords dispense bread and circuses, so many are concerned lest the free food stop. Others on the influence that buys. Others on whether they are fairly compensating bakers. Others on whether people spending so much time in circuses a good idea.

These are legitimate issues for a society to consider.

The attention based economy looks to me unsustainable, potentially a regulatory hack in places circumventing decisions we have already made as a society, and potentially damaging to society (particularly democracy).

Figuring out the right answer is going to require the democratic process.

Lib Dems probably voted against, I have no idea tbh.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Jul 06 05:40:00
I think I was more than fair in my assessment of the directive in the previous thread and I reiterated my sentiments as ”fair and balanced approach” in the OP of this thread. I am not the one obsessing over ”sound principles”, so that is that. So this ”light and dark” battle is a strawman of your creation. Aaand this is where I lose all interest in having this conversation with you, since you are obviously no better than the strawmen I could create for you.
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 06 07:40:44
Nim:

Hey, I'm not the one that is attacking your position. You are the one attacking mine, apparently as having an insufficiently critical position to the current wording!

As aid in the last thread, I'm not entirely sure where you think we disagree as when we cut through the adjectives, you seem to agree with the general thrust but disagree with the specifics of this framing of thee law.

You say I'm obsessing - but you are the one leading this conversation.

I recognise the the form of words in the bill do create some issues, but I don't think what they are getting at is either fundamentally wrong, intended or actually poses as much a threat to speech to the extent as others claim, nor does the idea of filters fill me with dread.

Ideally though, this law would be matched with an effort to create an open sources / cross industry scheme to any filtering needed - however this cannot happen when liability is ambiguous.

"So this ”light and dark” battle is a strawman of your creation"
Have you read some of the anti-copyrighters comments on this? And you yourself just framed my position as being "glib" in the face of a violation of the core principles of liberal democracy.

Which, you know, is perhaps a bit hyperbolic don't you think?
hood
Member
Fri Jul 06 09:11:51
It's really funny that Seb thinks that this is media vs content hosters and not media vs everyone.

But, yeah, it's completely reasonable to make the argument that turtle crawler is liable for Seb posting infringing material because tc doesn't monitor every fucking post on his boards (yes, I recognize up would be excluded for size, but the logic still applies). It certainly wouldn't be sebs fault. And it certainly didn't encroach on fair use at all, forcing hosters to proactively take down everything, conveniently circumventing the dmca and a requirement to consider fair use.



Also:
Amused that I apparently broke Seb.
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 06 09:35:12
hood:

"It's really funny that Seb thinks that this is media vs content hosters and not media vs everyone."

I don't know how you got to that conclusion given that I explicitly pointed out that there are more peoples rights involved. Other than by being a retard.

"it's completely reasonable to make the argument that turtle crawler is liable for Seb posting infringing material because tc doesn't monitor every fucking post on his boards"

I think you will find I explicitly pointed out he would not be liable precisely because he doesn't monitor every fucking post on his boards - and in fact the law as proposed protects him on that fact (though critics of this measure do not believe that to be the case or not clearly so). It would not be excluded for size, it would be excluded for *kind*.

"conveniently circumventing the dmca" Which is a US law are not a global one.

"Amused that I apparently broke Seb."

You think it's broken to respond in the same tone to someone who starts off being uncivil and flat out dishonest in their first post?

Aw bless.


hood
Member
Fri Jul 06 09:58:08
"I think you will find I explicitly pointed out he would not be liable precisely because he doesn't monitor every fucking post on his boards"

False. We have moderators that delete posts (well, hide, but functionally the same). This makes him liable.


"It would not be excluded for size, it would be excluded for *kind*."

See above. You are wrong.


""conveniently circumventing the dmca" Which is a US law are not a global one."

So you're fine with Google, Facebook, etc completely ignoring any implementation of these laws because they're European laws, not global?

It's actually pretty telling (and disgusting) that the EU doesn't have any fair use provisions. Y'all are fucking backwards fucks.


"I don't know how you got to that conclusion given that I explicitly pointed out that there are more peoples rights involved."

Every argument about the topic you make is specifically focused on either content providers (magazines/news) or hosters (Google, Facebook). You completely disregard all of the individuals impacted. It's all about the news org getting paid for their work to you, not that there's infinitely more impacted users - see Prince/dancing baby.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Jul 06 10:04:33
seb
Devils in the details, road to hell is paved with good intentions and so on. Yes those are real. You can drive off a cliff yelling BUT THE PRINCIPLE IS SOUUU... on your way to your summer home.

And now after the fact >53% against< you tell us it was ”likely” to not pass. Nice margin, better than brexit. But _unlikely_ without all of us who joined against the proposal. You are clueless or were to the details. You should read the other thread, where Facebooks 50 million dollar filter blocked The US declaration of independence as hate speech. What was that about interpreting the law? It is already deployed, we know what it looks like!

On the one side we had celebreties telling us how awesome this was on the other legal experts, cultural, academic and legal institutions explaining all the reasons why it was bad.

So yes, at some point a persons glib attitude towards an impending trainwreck becomes a problem. Specially when that person asserts some degree of proffesional expertise ”my job is to think about regulation”.

But of course this isn’t the whole story, we know you to always be for the infringment of speech. There was that odd one when the UK wanted everyone who watched porn on the internet to register, you said you thought that was a bad idea. I guess even you have a red line.

Gun to my head I would scrap copryright, there is nothing of value to copyright without freedom of expression.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Jul 06 10:26:32
So this isn't a battle between dark and light, but one against incompetence and unwitting stupidity.
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 06 10:26:47
Hood:

"False. We have moderators that delete posts (well, hide, but functionally the same). This makes him liable."

That wouldn't meet the standard - it's simple enforcement of the T&Cs of the site rather than curation of content.

Can you show me jurisprudence where simple forum moderation activities have been considered curation activities?

"So you're fine with Google, Facebook, etc completely ignoring any implementation of these laws because they're European laws, not global?"

I'd expect them to obey them in Europe. I'm disinterested in the US DCMA. Hope that helps.

"It's actually pretty telling (and disgusting) that the EU doesn't have any fair use provisions."

That's not an accurate statement. See for example the very long list of exemptions in the 2001 directive, and then the various fair use or fair dealing provisions of member states.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright



Seb
Member
Fri Jul 06 10:44:44
Nim:

Hood's objections initially were (or could reasonably be construed to be) ones of principle. Many of the anti-campaigners objections are also ones of principle.

I'm not happy with the precise wording. I made that clear.

Even your characterisation of the people objecting is somewhat partisan. There are lawyers and academics saying the reverse you know.

This supposed definition of Glib here is apparently not to be swivel eyed about opposing this particular wording. I think we are somewhat over-egging the consequences of it even if it had passed as suggested, I don't think the legal effect would have been quite what it is being made out to be and a sensible compromise will be reached.

Yes, my job is to think about regulation.

I'm probably at a massive loose end now with not much to do. Do you happen to have any ideas about which particular regulatory issue might now should be particularly occupying the time and attention of a UK civil servant? One that perhaps makes the EU's position on copyright somewhat less salient as it might be to someone in a similar position in another country?

I'm still not clear what are you objecting to here exactly. Your rage seems somewhat performative and your attempt to nail to me colours I do not fly seems slightly hysterical.

"But of course this isn’t the whole story, we know you to always be for the infringment of speech."

An equally disingenuous formulation would be to say you are always for abusing freedom of speech to justify the infringement of other human rights and liberties.

"Gun to my head" But there isn't a gun to your head, and pretending there is exactly what I mean here. It's not a binary, it's a number of different rights running up against eachother and the exact trade off between them being resolved.

A couple of hours ago you were telling me democracy was at threat because of an update of copyright laws. I rather think democracy is substantially more threatened by the unregulated political advertising facilitated (often contrary to members states law) by these big platform companies.
hood
Member
Fri Jul 06 11:03:26
"Can you show me jurisprudence where simple forum moderation activities have been considered curation activities?"

Can you show jurisprudence of what constitutes content curation?


"That wouldn't meet the standard - it's simple enforcement of the T&Cs of the site rather than curation of content."

So Google, Facebook don't curate user submitted content, they just moderate based on terms and conditions? Sounds like an extremely large loophole there.


"I'd expect them to obey them in Europe. I'm disinterested in the US DCMA. Hope that helps."

We're talking US companies with world-wide reach simply due to the structure of the internet. If you expect European laws to apply to Google in the US (me posting a Bild article), then you surely expect US laws to apply as well. Or, you're just a complete hypocrite. Honestly, I think we all know the true answer here.


"That's not an accurate statement. See for example the very long list of exemptions in the 2001 directive, and then the various fair use or fair dealing provisions of member states."

I would hardly consider the UK "fair dealings" remotely equivalent to fair use (mostly because fair dealing has absolutely no functional definition, it's all subjective). But alright, the source of my comment there seems to have been at least partially mistaken.

For reference:

... The website for fair use copyright website isn't working, so NVM.
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 06 11:25:24
hood:

"Can you show jurisprudence of what constitutes content curation?"

You are the one that is arguing that forum moderation clearly falls under the definition - the obligation is on you to prove that is the case. I cannot prove the negative.

"So Google, Facebook don't curate user submitted content"
Both use algorithms to control what content individuals see, changing the order or nature of what is viewed. It's at that point they cease to benefit from protection as merely being an intermediary.

"If you expect European laws to apply to Google in the US"
I wouldn't. But if you post a Bild article, then arguably the offence takes place in Europe as much as the US because Bild is based in Europe.

It is not hypocritical to think that jurisdictions should be permitted to create their own laws. After all, the US is not going to go around considering the impact laws it has have on EU laws when it makes its own, so why should the EU?

"I would hardly consider the UK "fair dealings" remotely equivalent to fair use"

Yes, but why do we care what you think? You are not a lawyer.

"mostly because fair dealing has absolutely no functional definition"

Nor would you want it to, or you would need to have an infinite list of permitted fair uses which is inherently limited - the main criticism of the previous EU approach.

The legal tests are perfectly viable approach (and English commercial law is widely used internationally).

"does using the work affect the market for the original work? If a use of a work acts as a substitute for it, causing the owner to lose revenue, then it is not likely to be fair"

"is the amount of the work taken reasonable and appropriate? Was it necessary to use the amount that was taken?"

These are perfectly sensible and tractable legal tests.

Seb
Member
Fri Jul 06 11:35:50
Hood "EU doesn't have fair usage provisions" > "EU fair usage provisions exist but aren't to me liking" > "the websites down".

Any wonder it's hard to take this chump seriously. Is there anything you've said this thread that's actually not factually wrong.
Rugian
Member
Fri Jul 06 11:43:43
Reading through some of these posts, I'm actually amazed. Who would have thought that one of the internet posters here would be have such a level of hatred for the internet?

Its not like the internet is lacking for copyright remedies; companies like Google already do DMCA takedowns, and European individuals and companies have recourse to such systems. So that's not what's being talked about here.

What we are talking about is a potentially enormous effective rollback of fair use protections, as host sites who become responsible for prospectively identifying infringing content are forced to resort to automated filters that cant possibly distinguish between legitimate and illegitmate use. The ramifications of that are so obviously objectionable that I cant even fathom how anyone under the age of thinking the internet is a series of tubes can support it.

As for sites like Google News, they are accretive to the viewership of the sites that they link to, while generating no direct revenues on their own. Any attempts to charge them for linking to those sites are blatant double dipping and greed, and any threats to those services merely ending up harming people like me who appreciate having a place where I can efficiently get news from multiple sources.

You strike me as the sort of person who sees a wonderful and free service like Google Earth and immediately tries to find a reason why it should be shut down, even though it's of massive publics benefit to the entire world. I don't understand the mentality.

Regarding the issue of free speech, maybe you can forgive the people who are bringing it up for conflating this controversy with your repeated and longstanding support for efforts to clamp down on speech throughout the internet. People are capable of identifying common trends after all.

You are, in short, an enemy of the modern internet. Please stop.
hood
Member
Fri Jul 06 12:35:29
"Hood "EU doesn't have fair usage provisions" > "EU fair usage provisions exist but aren't to me liking" > "the websites down"."

?????

I was going to provide the US fair use conditions. My phone could not connect to the website. You're free to Google fair use vs fair dealing and accept secondary sources of your choosing. Could you not pick out my reference to fair use (the US term)? The fuck you blathering about?


"You are the one that is arguing that forum moderation clearly falls under the definition - the obligation is on you to prove that is the case. I cannot prove the negative."

You clearly missed the point:
- this is a new legal concept. You're asking me to prove theoretical, untested rules with legal decisions before the law is even written. That's an extremely fucking dishonest argument you're making, hence my reply.
- this is a new legal concept. There is no legal framework or case law to go by. That people can disagree on what counts as curation simply strengthens my point about it being shit. Based on current definitions, any touching of user content counts as curation. Curation does not mean Google choosing what ads appear next to your video (rectangle/square issue, you're talking squares), it is much broader than that. To the point that deleting clearly illegal content counts as curation. Trying to bin this as "compliance with terms of service" just opens up massive loopholes.


"Both use algorithms to control what content individuals see, changing the order or nature of what is viewed."

Literally every fucking user content hoster does this. UP controls how content is displayed via timestamp.


"It's at that point they cease to benefit from protection as merely being an intermediary."

Per your opinion. Not per the document they were voting on. Why would we give a shit about your opinion?


"I wouldn't. But if you post a Bild article, then arguably the offence takes place in Europe as much as the US because Bild is based in Europe.

It is not hypocritical to think that jurisdictions should be permitted to create their own laws. After all, the US is not going to go around considering the impact laws it has have on EU laws when it makes its own, so why should the EU?"

First paragraph:
er, no. This is again your opinion. There actually court decisions that are very explicit about how important the location of servers are in regards to internet content. If I, a US citizen, post something to a server in the US, by both US and EU law, that occurs in the US and is not subject to EU law. If you post something to US servers, it becomes murkier. However, if the UK govt tries to subpoena your email (which resides in the US), they cannot. So, you're going to have to back up that pile of shit with pretty convincing evidence.

Second paragraph:
Generally I would agree. However, there absolutely are instances where global impact (or, non-local) should be considered. The internet, based on it's functionality, is one of these cases. I would absolutely expect US based companies to be cognizant of EU law since anyone anywhere can access a website. You may have noticed how impactful gdpr was to the internet as a whole, including impacts to US citizens for certain things (like say, Microsoft, as I learned a few nights ago while installing win 10).


"Yes, but why do we care what you think? You are not a lawyer."

So we also can categorically reject any opinion you have, as you are not a lawyer? Like I said, you've been broken.


"Nor would you want it to, or you would need to have an infinite list of permitted fair uses which is inherently limited - the main criticism of the previous EU approach.

The legal tests are perfectly viable approach (and English commercial law is widely used internationally)."

See, this is where the link to fair use would have been helpful. You can absolutely create a standard of tests to approximate what constitutes fair use. The UK definition is ~"what a reasonable person would consider ok." That's incredibly subjective, and results in no functional definition at all. You'll have to accept wiki or Google your own source for an example of actual law without dilution to meaninglessness:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use


"These are perfectly sensible and tractable legal tests."

And yet based on the law, those are only guideline suggestions for consideration. Any given court could decide to not use such guidance.
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 06 13:52:25
Rugian, we are reshashing points covered previously.

Firstly, no, it is totally hyperbolic to say the internet is under threat from this.

The biggest threat to the internet is actually the platforms creating walled gardens.

You have used google news, so lets examine that then.

Google has certainly presented "evidence" that suggests google news creates new readers - but it assumes that anyone that reaches news papers online through it's searches would only have found it through aggregation, which I find dubious at best.

There is actually little evidence that google in fact creates "new" readers.

What is certainly true is if an individual news outlet forgoes google, it becomes far less discoverable than it's competition.

And this should set alarm bells ringing because what it shows is the ability of google and other platforms to enter a sector and severely tip the scales of competition. In supply chain terms, it controls the concentration of attention which allows it to extract rents from the sector.

This is not netural: google has already used this to extract a "three articles for free" policy on news media.

Now this is a legitimate point of concern for a number of reasons.

As we have seen, platforms ability to control access to news - particularly where they shirk the duties of conventional publishers and broadcasters - can have severely negative consequences for democracies.

Secondly, from a purely commercial point of view, from a European perspective what we have is predatory US based companies entering a market, adding little value, extracting rents and paying taxes predominantly in the US.

And this has a spillover impact too: by using their position to extract rents from newspapers and also gain the bulk of the value from advertising models, they diminish the number of viable news media business models. Essentially it leads to a collapse in viability of models that where high quality news outlets that rely on brand identity and paid models and established trust to offset their high costs while increasing the viability of fly-by-night content farming crap that places no stock in veracity but generates revenue through hate clicks and sensationalism.

You want a threat to democracy, which relies on an informed public and civic discord? There is no bigger one than this.


Free services like Google Maps are great where they add value.

Free services like Google News that do not create much in the way of new value (it allows readers to select between media options more easily) and extract way more value than they create through their supply chain position do not.

Finally, the idea that a European content producer concerned about European market segments getting access to it's content via an American platform should seek redress in an American court, particularly as US courts have pretty much blown any kind of credibility as a neutral player that would not favour it's own companies over foreign ones, don't make me laugh.

If your idea of the modern internet is a society where a handful of companies control the bulk of commerce, media and culture, which have freedom to extract rents due to their size, that's techno feudalism not a free market.




Seb
Member
Fri Jul 06 14:11:15
Hood:

"Could you not pick out my reference to fair use"

I see, so you will ignore any fair use provision unless it is explicitly called fair use.

Bonkers.

"- this is a new legal concept."
No, it is not. The protection for intermediaries was established in 2000 under the Directive on E-Commerce, so that's 18 years for there to have been someone hosting a forum to be sued for copyright infringement on the basis that moderation removes their protections. It is literally older than facebook. This is not an opinion, it is a matter of established law.

The recitals to the new directive made it clear that this existing "safe harbour" clause was not to be affected and anyone protected by this article would not be affected by the new directive, however over the years "storing" as used in the directive has come to mean "storing and providing public access". Some people have a bee in their bonnet about that potential ambiguity - I rather think they overplayed this and are dressing up a general dislike of copyright protections as a technical argument which is flimsy. If necessary, a re-formulation of the safe-harbour could be added but I don't believe it is necessary. The legal protection already exists and has already been expanded by jurisprudence.

The other tests for safebarbour were established via jurisprudence "optimisation of the presentation of the content" and the "promotion of the content" - collectively referred to as curation of content. I find it fanciful that forum moderation or timestamps fall under these, and you will excuse me if I do not respond further to those points.

Suffice it to say, until you can find a reputable legal opinion that they do in fact fall under this opinion, I am taking the position they clearly and obviously do not. Baring in mind that the safeharbour protections are 18 years old, there should be one now if there was real legal risk here.

"There actually court decisions that are very explicit about how important the location of servers are in regards to internet content."

No. It's where the service is provided. Cf. for example GDPR. Subpoena of email is rather different. Compelling someone not resident to provide data is different from suing them for breach of copyright and is a poor mode.

"So we also can categorically reject any opinion you have"
You can certainly discount my opinion, but as I said, the stuff I'm talking about isn't opinion - it's an 18 year old established law protecting intermediaries, which you are saying:

1. would not apply to a forum (unsupported)
2. That I think should not apply to a forum (factually wrong)
hood
Member
Fri Jul 06 14:13:41
"Google has certainly presented "evidence" that suggests google news creates new readers - but it assumes that anyone that reaches news papers online through it's searches would only have found it through aggregation, which I find dubious at best."

Small issue here:
Without being previously told, how do you find any website online? You pretty much have to use some form of search engine, whether it be Google, Bing, duckduckgo, or whatever other indexing engine. Even then, you have to search for something. You don't just accidentally discover that IMDB exists without trying to search something like "actor who plays Ironman."

The Dakota Herald (which appaarently does exist) isn't going to be getting much in terms of web hits based on prior knowledge visits due to the remoteness of South Dakota and the size of local population. People from Houston, or London, or Paris, or Mexico City won't have any inkling of the thing existing.

So for this publication, it's a pretty good assumption that nobody (within rounding error margins) would visit their website without some form of aggregation (even just being searchable via Google search is aggregation).

Beyond that, there are people who absolutely have specific sites that they get news from. I visit arstechnica for tech related news. I don't need to do that through Google. I'm sure plenty of people have a site or two that they do just go straight to. But I'm not gonna know that Time has an article I find interesting or contains facts I want to reference. The only way I'd know that is via web search, which is again extremely simple and logical. Suggesting that people don't find out about the existence of a website without aggregation is already nonsensical. Drilling deeper down into specific articles becomes laughably outrageous.


Seriously. Go ahead, deaggregate yourself. Google won't mind. See how many people naturally find your site without search indexing or appearance on Google news (which is essentially just a specialized search, in that it finds news related pages; like searching AMD via Google news to see recent announcements about any Ryzen updates vs. searching "and ryzen updates" via regular Google search). I'm not sure why you stick to your opinion on this subject though; we've tried it, we've seen the results, and the publications in question went right back to being indexed.
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 06 14:15:26
"The UK definition is ~"what a reasonable person would consider ok.""

Reasonable tests run through UK commercial law which is the default legal framework much international commerce is run through.

It sounds subjective to your ear, in fact it is not that subjective, but rather relies on a body of precedent etc.

If you are under the impression this non specialist content is the sum total of legal guidance, I'm afraid you are being a bit naive. But really, I'm not going to enter into a huge fucking argument about how these tests work.

I'll just point out that if reasonable person concept was as randomly subjective as you claim, people in jurisdictions outside the UK would not so often use English law for their contracts.
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 06 14:16:06
Oh gosh hood, no. I'm not going to let you interfere with the adult conversation. not when you got off to such a bad start and don't grasp basic concepts.
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 06 14:24:08
Also, re urisprudence, if you are interested:

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/9-507-0026?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&comp=pluk&bhcp=1

This is the establishment of the curation limits on Article 14 protections of the E commerce directive.


"Where, by contrast, the operator has provided assistance which entails, in particular, optimising the presentation of the offers for sale in question or promoting those offers, it must be considered not to have taken a neutral position between the customer-seller concerned and potential buyers but to have played an active role of such a kind as to give it knowledge of, or control over, the data relating to those offers for sale. It cannot then rely, in the case of those data, on the exemption from liability referred to in Article 14(1) of Directive 2000/31."


" In view of the foregoing, the answer to the ninth question is that Article 14(1) of Directive 2000/31 must be interpreted as applying to the operator of an online marketplace where that operator has not played an active role allowing it to have knowledge or control of the data stored. The operator plays such a role when it provides assistance which entails, in particular, optimising the presentation of the offers for sale in question or promoting them."
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 06 14:24:37
Latter two quotes are from the judgement itself.

http://cur...r=&occ=first&part=1&cid=614148
hood
Member
Fri Jul 06 14:37:54
"I see, so you will ignore any fair use provision unless it is explicitly called fair use.

Bonkers."

Your ability to understand words is indeed bonkers. I'd go so far as to say hot rod levels of retardation.


So here's the UK law:

Mere conduit

17.—(1) Where an information society service is provided which consists of the transmission in a communication network of information provided by a recipient of the service or the provision of access to a communication network, the service provider (if he otherwise would) shall not be liable for damages or for any other pecuniary remedy or for any criminal sanction as a result of that transmission where the service provider—

(a)did not initiate the transmission;

(b)did not select the receiver of the transmission; and

(c)did not select or modify the information contained in the transmission.

(2) The acts of transmission and of provision of access referred to in paragraph (1) include the automatic, intermediate and transient storage of the information transmitted where:

(a)this takes place for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission in the communication network, and

(b)the information is not stored for any period longer than is reasonably necessary for the transmission.


Hosting

19. Where an information society service is provided which consists of the storage of information provided by a recipient of the service, the service provider (if he otherwise would) shall not be liable for damages or for any other pecuniary remedy or for any criminal sanction as a result of that storage where—

(a)the service provider—

(i)does not have actual knowledge of unlawful activity or information and, where a claim for damages is made, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which it would have been apparent to the service provider that the activity or information was unlawful; or

(ii)upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove or to disable access to the information, and

(b)the recipient of the service was not acting under the authority or the control of the service provider.
----------------------

Forums do not fall under mere conduit (that's for ISP like services). They are protected via the hosting clause if they remain unaware of unlawful content.

At best, you could argue that certain forums don't fall under "information society services" if there is no money involved, as renumeration is in the definition. But any collection of $ makes them an information so it's service, and thus subject to law unless exempted via (for on topic purposes) sections 17 or 19. And simply by being the destination of data, a forum is an information society service and therefore subject to the proposed laws.

Mic drop.
hood
Member
Fri Jul 06 14:45:00
Seb:

"This defence is confined to merely technical and automatic processing of data, where there is no actual knowledge of unlawful activity or information.

The ECJ found that for an ISP to be denied entitlement to the Article 14 defence, it is sufficient for it to have been aware of circumstances on the basis of which a diligent economic operator should have identified the unlawful activity in question, and acted in accordance with Article 14(1)(b) (expeditious removal of such information from the site)."

Technical and automatic. That relates to 17 that I mentioned above. Any operator (i.e. end destination) will be expected to have been aware of illegal content. That would include forums.

Methinks you don't fucking know what an intermediary is defined as, for this case. Vpns, ISPs, web hosting companies. People who don't actually touch the front facing data, just route underlying communication between end users.


Premature mic drop before, but this is just restating what I said above with specificity.
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 06 15:15:41
Hood:

That's the UK law giving effect to the Directive I mentioned earlier. You will note the similar structure.

"Forums do not fall under mere conduit"

They do actually. They are an information society service. The service does not:

initiate the transmission (I do when I hit send)
select the receiver of the transmission (anyone who has access to the forum can receive it)
Nor did the service select or modify the information contained in the transmission.

Your argument that forums are not a conduit is based on your perception as an engineer that what you conceive as a conduit is an ISP. That is not the reality of law: as long as the service is merely serving up to you what I write, it is a conduit. If it modifies it, curates it etc. does it cease to benefit from safe harbour rules.

The forum is a conduit.

They are definitely information society services though. Remuneration is not required, and TC used to get some form of ad-clicks though I think he stopped that?

"That would include forums."
No, it wouldn't because he's not promoting content here so has no requirement for due diligence as an economic operator, unlike E-bay promoting fake L'oreal products when a user searches for "L'oreal".

Seriously, on legal matters, way out of your depth.

Like I said, find any case where this has actually happened and we can talk.

Everyone else understands forums such as this to be protected by Article 14.

Indeed, the whole thrust of Facebook until recently denying it was a publisher was around this very point. If as you say, the term hosting should be understood in the engineering term of tin and ISP and Conduit in terms of the physical infrastructure, there would be no doubt at all that Facebook is a publisher and liable for copyright infringement from it's very existence.

Come on, use your loaf.

Seb
Member
Fri Jul 06 15:28:05
If Article 14 protections only applied to physical infrastructure etc. there would be no question as to whether E-Bay was liable and no need for the high court to refer to the ECJ in L'Oreal vs E-bay.


https://inforrm.org/2017/01/28/when-is-facebook-liable-for-illegal-content-under-the-e-commerce-directive-cg-v-facebook-in-the-northern-ireland-courts-lorna-woods/

has some further commentary.

Worth noting that a forum operator only becomes liable if they are aware of infringement, and article 15 makes it clear that states cannot require operators to monitor content to determine if content is illegal.

So under current law, this forum is safe save for the situation where a copyright holder informs Turtle Crawler he's hosting illegal material.

The whole point of the new directive is that it would modify this requirement, though for organisations that would in any case fail safeharbour anyway as clarrified in L'Oreal vs Ebay; and the recitals to the new directive made clear (baring in mind these are to be used for interpretation) it should not affect those covered by the existing protections for intermediaries.

Hence, I don't think the change was anywhere near as dramatic as people were making out. It likely didn't (though I accept there is ambiguity) alter existing protections nor did it add new burdens to organisations that likely failed the safe harbour.

Christ on a bike, rather than starting from the principle I must be wrong and then seeking to prove it and making yourself look an idiot in the process, why not go and read up on this.

Seb
Member
Fri Jul 06 15:34:24
Hmm, Forum maybe is better covered under hosting rather than conduit, though I think it could be covered by that.

hood
Member
Fri Jul 06 16:00:07
"initiate the transmission (I do when I hit send)
select the receiver of the transmission (anyone who has access to the forum can receive it)
Nor did the service select or modify the information contained in the transmission."

Actually, the forum itself directly receives the transmission. A messaging app is not the same as a forum.


"That is not the reality of law: as long as the service is merely serving up to you what I write, it is a conduit."

That is not what this ruling said. It said that if eBay had an active role (your argument), or ***gained knowledge or should have been aware in its role as operator***, it is liable. Whatsapp has no role in gaining knowledge of my messages to you, so Facebook cannot be held liable to illegal messages sent between us. This forum should be aware in its role as operator of content posted here.


"No, it wouldn't because he's not promoting content here so has no requirement for due diligence as an economic operator, unlike E-bay promoting fake L'oreal products when a user searches for "L'oreal"."

As I said, you're missing half of the judgment here. eBay should have been aware of the fake loreal products (just like any meatspace importer should know) therefore it is liable. Seriously. It was a key point of the ruling.
hood
Member
Fri Jul 06 16:09:48
Here's a key part you seem to be missing from the act as a mere conduit:

reference:
http://eur...t/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32000L0031

"2. The acts of transmission and of provision of access referred to in paragraph 1 include the automatic, intermediate and transient storage of the information transmitted in so far as this takes place for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission in the communication network, and provided that the information is not stored for any period longer than is reasonably necessary for the transmission."

Forums store information for much longer than is reasonably necessary. A messaging app (well, they used to, these days the apps might be liable) pings the app off of their server in an effort to direct the message to the correct receiver. It does not store the message. Signal is probably a good example, since it's direct messaging without intermediary servers to hold onto messages (which I believe facebook does do with whatsapp, but I could be wrong).


As for hosting:
"(a) the provider does not have actual knowledge of illegal activity or information and, as regards claims for damages, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which the illegal activity or information is apparent; or

(b) the provider, upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove or to disable access to the information."

The provider is not liable so long as they are not knowledgeable of illegal content. They become liable once they are informed, so long as they don't act.

The proposed law made verifying the legality of content compulsory, thus making a forum operator liable for illegal content.
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 06 16:33:16
hood:

"This forum should be aware in its role as operator of content posted here."

No, because that is not part of it's service. T

he whole point of the L'Oreal E-bay ruling stating that it is only *because* they are promoting content that they "Should be aware" - i.e. have an obligation to due diligence.

That is the entire point of the case.

A bulletin board operator, on the other hand, is not expected to know the content because it is not promoting content, merely providing acting an intermediary for others.

Further, article 15 specifically states that member states of the EU cannot impose a burden of service providers to monitor content.

As long as a forum operator is neutral on content, they are fine.

And no, simply removing content that contradicts T&Cs does not breach that provision.

"The proposed law made verifying the legality of content compulsory"

As I said, recitals made it clear that this was not intended to be the case. Those in scope for the new law were defined in such a way that they were not in scope for intermediary protections under articles 12,13 or 14 of the E Commerce directive.


hood
Member
Fri Jul 06 17:06:35
"As I said, recitals made it clear that this was not intended to be the case. Those in scope for the new law were defined in such a way that they were not in scope for intermediary protections under articles 12,13 or 14 of the E Commerce directive."

This is false. Do we need to revisit the language of the order?

"Where information society service providers store and provide access to the public to copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users, thereby going beyond the mere provision of physical facilities and performing an act of communication to the public, they are obliged to conclude licensing agreements with rightholders, unless they are eligible for the liability exemption provided in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 34 .

In respect of Article 14, it is necessary to verify whether the service provider plays an active role, including by optimising the presentation of the uploaded works or subject-matter or promoting them, irrespective of the nature of the means used therefor.

In order to ensure the functioning of any licensing agreement, information society service providers storing and providing access to the public to large amounts of copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users should take appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure protection of works or other subject-matter, such as implementing effective technologies. This obligation should also apply when the information society service providers are eligible for the liability exemption provided in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC."


So uh... they are exempt from licensing if protected. The third paragraph specifically states that monitoring should be implemented regardless of article 14 exemptions.


"Further, article 15 specifically states that member states of the EU cannot impose a burden of service providers to monitor content."

Indeed it does. See above about the new proposal contradicting article 15 of 2000/31/EC.


"A bulletin board operator, on the other hand, is not expected to know the content because it is not promoting content, merely providing acting an intermediary for others."

An act of monitoring, i.e. having mods, means one should be aware. See your facebook case. The judges in question were a bit tacky on how one must be made aware, but any awareness removes the exemption (for that case). They found that once the plaintiff made facebook aware that the posting of an address was the illegal content, Facebook was liable. So, if you are actively monitoring, you will undoubtedly be made aware of illegal content (because you're looking at it) and thus be subject to being a diligent operator. RE: L'oreal - simply by having a search function, eBay should have been aware of illegal content. Actively searching > search function.


"As long as a forum operator is neutral on content, they are fine."

Again. You are missing the scope. Awareness = liability.
Seb
Member
Sat Jul 07 02:17:20
Hood, no. Just no.

Your mixing up your claims that Bulletin board operator *now* is not covered with your class on the new law. That's confused or dishonest.

Let's start with the law now:

I take it you now agree with the rest of the world that bulletin boards are actually covered by safe harbor?

Or are you now arguing simply having mods makes you aware (are these mods supposed to know what material is copyrighted? Seriously?).

Yes, if the copyright holder informs you, and you then refuse to take down, that's when you become liable.
Seb
Member
Sat Jul 07 02:18:57
I trust we are now sensibly forgetting the argument that timestamps and moderation constitute curation type activities that trigger the promotion or optimisation test?
hood
Member
Sat Jul 07 08:56:10
"Your mixing up your claims that Bulletin board operator *now* is not covered with your class on the new law. That's confused or dishonest."

You don't know words, bro. This thread is about the new proposal and my arguments have been in context of the new proposal.


"I take it you now agree with the rest of the world that bulletin boards are actually covered by safe harbor?"

Clearly they aren't. Facebook was found liable in the case you linked once they were considered legally aware of the illegal content. eBay was considered liable simply because the court decided that eBay should have known of the illegal content. This bullshit argument that eBay provides search functions (don't give me shit about algorithms, every fucking search function needs an algorithm to weed out unrelated material) is what triggered them to be liable is laughable.

So, yes. "Bulletin board operators" (please note the difference between an actively moderated forum and a bulletin board and your goal post moving) are absolutely liable. From the moment they are aware of illegal content, they must remove it or lose any protection.


"Or are you now arguing simply having mods makes you aware (are these mods supposed to know what material is copyrighted? Seriously?)."

Reasonable person. I think any reasonable person would be able to recognize that a news article is copyrighted. Any reasonable person would be able to recognize movies, TV shows, music, books, etc. are all copyrighted. Per your Facebook link, a layperson doesn't need to know or invoke the correct law, but they do need to correctly identify the correct protected content (see above about how easy it is to determine certain copyrighted material).


"Yes, if the copyright holder informs you, and you then refuse to take down, that's when you become liable."

No. The ruling was focused on awareness. It was determined that Facebook couldn't be held liable for a name and picture, as that was not necessarily protected data. Facebook also couldn't be held liable for not knowing that an address, in conjunction with the harassment and threats of violence, could constitute as protected data. But once Facebook was aware that the address was the protected content, they became liable. Well, good luck arguing that you didn't realize an article from a news organization was protected content.


"I trust we are now sensibly forgetting the argument that timestamps and moderation constitute curation type activities that trigger the promotion or optimisation test?"

Awareness test. Moderation triggers the awareness test. Timestamps are admittedly a fringe argument that one would have to test in court, but your focus on something I said a single time to point out the ridiculousness of your arguments is pretty telling, especially after the fucking spanking you took concerning article 13 of the new proposal and it's relation to article 14 of ec2000.


What was your comment about working from the position that I'm wrong and instead read up on things? Read up, fucknut. Your obsession about promotion and optimization is misguided, considering those just trigger the awareness test. The only important aspect is awareness. If you are aware, you are liable. Moderation = awareness. Promotion also = awareness.
Seb
Member
Sat Jul 07 12:19:47
I do wish you would stop projecting your own lack of comprehension skills on to me.

It is necessary to understand the law now in order to understand the effect of the new directive.

Look, it's clear you are winging this and making stuff up as you go along and I'm really not interested in continuing with someone who is so dishonest with both others and themeselves.

Forums now would benefit from at least one and possibly multiple exemptions under the intermediary protections in the E-Commerce directives would they not?

In your post Fri Jul 06 09:58:08 you were very clearly arguing moderators would violate the *existing* safeharbour clauses - as the new law does not add additional safeharbour clauses but refers to those in the ECD as built upon.

When I asked you for jurisprudence, you claimed the law was new. It was not, the law on safeharbours is 18 years old.

Given the blatant dishonesty, can you explain to me why I should continue this discussion with you?
hood
Member
Sat Jul 07 12:55:46
"Forums now would benefit from at least one and possibly multiple exemptions under the intermediary protections in the E-Commerce directives would they not?"

I brought up this forum. One with mods. That have awareness of illegal content. You, in your infinite stupidity, attempted to reframe my argument into a "bulletin board" argument and not one crafted specifically around UP.


"In your post Fri Jul 06 09:58:08 you were very clearly arguing moderators would violate the *existing* safeharbour clauses"

Let's talk about dishonesty in relation to this. My response was specifically to your previous post, where I quote:
"in fact the law as proposed protects him on that fact (though critics of this measure do not believe that to be the case or not clearly so). It would not be excluded for size, it would be excluded for *kind*."

The law as proposed would not offer any protection to TC for UP. This is the context to which I responded. Please do not ascribe to me arguments that you made.


"When I asked you for jurisprudence, you claimed the law was new."

Yes, because the requirement of monitoring tools is a new proposal. It didn't matter 18 years ago. Now it does. It all very specifically matters when before it was an afterthought and never considered. Now we must consider just exactly what actions force you into automated monitoring instead of not having to bother in the slightest with whether something like a forum with moderation applies.


"Given the blatant dishonesty, can you explain to me why I should continue this discussion with you?"

I'm not sure, how long can you hold over your cognitive dissonance? You seem to be reaching your limit pretty quickly.

You also seem to be ignoring every instance of you being blatantly wrong in an attempt to paint me as the dishonest person (while also going about your usual misinterpretation or rewriting of conversational history). Do you want to make a comment on the following?

Seb:
"As I said, recitals made it clear that this was not intended to be the case. Those in scope for the new law were defined in such a way that they were not in scope for intermediary protections under articles 12,13 or 14 of the E Commerce directive."

EU:
"This obligation should also apply when the information society service providers are eligible for the liability exemption provided in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC."

the tldr: seb - article 12 (hood's edit: article 12 and 13 don't apply to a forum) through 14 still apply! eu - monitoring applies despite article 14 prohibiting it.

But yeah, I'm dishonest for arguing context you've put forward. Totally, bro.
Seb
Member
Sat Jul 07 15:37:55
Hood:

So you do maintain then that having moderators makes a bulletin board liable under the existing law and unable to avail themselves of any of the safeharbour provisions?
hood
Member
Sat Jul 07 15:57:43
It's like you cannot read any words or suss out anwers from context.

Seriously, Mr. Top University, you should very strongly consider expedited suicide as a cure for your hopeless ignorant retardation.

The greatest minds in the world couldn't teach you to understand fairly simple words.
Seb
Member
Sat Jul 07 16:03:52
Re recital 38, why did you remove the first paragraph?

Dishonrsty or stupidity?

"Where information society service providers store and provide access to the public to copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users, thereby going beyond the mere provision of physical facilities and performing an act of communication to the public, they are obliged to conclude licensing agreements with rightholders, unless they are eligible for the liability exemption provided in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 34 .

In respect of Article 14, it is necessary to verify whether the service provider plays an active role, including by optimising the presentation of the uploaded works or subject-matter or promoting them, irrespective of the nature of the means used therefor.

In order to ensure the functioning of any licensing agreement, information society service providers storing and providing access to the public to large amounts of copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users should take appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure protection of works or other subject-matter, such as implementing effective technologies. This obligation should also apply when the information society service providers are eligible for the liability exemption provided in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC"

Unless the ISS is providing (I.e. it's purpose) is sharing copyrighted material.

This closes the loophole that would exist for static publishing of copyrighted videos which might otherwise argue that it meet A14 and because it does not promote material.

It certainly wouldn't impact a board such as this.
Seb
Member
Sat Jul 07 16:10:33
Ffs Google.
Seb
Member
Sat Jul 07 16:13:12


Over the last years, the functioning of the online content marketplace has gained in complexity. Online services providing access to copyright protected content uploaded by their users without the involvement of right holders have flourished and have become main sources of access to content online. This affects rightholders' possibilities to determine whether, and under which conditions, their work and other subject-matter are used as well as their possibilities to get an appropriate remuneration for it.

Where information society service providers store and provide access to the public to copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users, thereby going beyond the mere provision of physical facilities and performing an act of communication to the public, they are obliged to conclude licensing agreements with rightholders, unless they are eligible for the liability exemption provided in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 34 .

In respect of Article 14, it is necessary to verify whether the service provider plays an active role, including by optimising the presentation of the uploaded works or subject-matter or promoting them, irrespective of the nature of the means used therefor.

In order to ensure the functioning of any licensing agreement, information society service providers storing and providing access to the public to large amounts of copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users should take appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure protection of works or other subject-matter, such as implementing effective technologies. This obligation should also apply when the information society service providers are eligible for the liability exemption provided in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC"
hood
Member
Sat Jul 07 16:13:51
"Re recital 38, why did you remove the first paragraph?

Dishonrsty or stupidity?"

Read the original post I made with the material. The full text was quoted. Fucking cunt cannot read.

Go die in a shallow grave.
Seb
Member
Sat Jul 07 17:54:10
Hood:

The preceding paragraph in the recitals, see my post 16:13:12, clearly contextualises

"Where information society service providers store and provide access to the public to copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users" to mean the intent of the online service is sharing of copyrighted material.

So your claim this new law would apply to a service such as this forum, arhat it would need to apply "take appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure protection of works or other subject-matter, such as implementing effective technologies" is clearly wrong.

My question to you is whether your omission of that paragraph was stupid, incompetent, or dishonest?
hood
Member
Sat Jul 07 18:48:52
"My question to you is whether your omission of that paragraph was stupid, incompetent, or dishonest?"

And I am saying that when I originally posted that section, I included the entirety. You are attempting to suggest that I did not, or that I missed it, or that I purposely ignored it.

I did not. I provided the entire section. I then referenced it later for brevity. Grave. You. In it. Quickly.
Seb
Member
Sat Jul 07 19:04:31
Hood:

Did you include the following preceding paragraph:

"Over the last years, the functioning of the online content marketplace has gained in complexity. Online services providing access to copyright protected content uploaded by their users without the involvement of right holders have flourished and have become main sources of access to content online. This affects rightholders' possibilities to determine whether, and under which conditions, their work and other subject-matter are used as well as their possibilities to get an appropriate remuneration for it. "

You did not.

Hence you erroneously conclude any ISS that may serve up copyright material is in scope for the paras from recital 38 that you quoted instead of those devices specifically intended to serve copyrighted material.

Was the decision to Chery pick recital 38 accidental (so, a matter of stupidity or incompetence) or was it simply a question of dishonesty, attempting through your omission to suggest ISS that do not have the distribution of copyrighted material as their service offering are in scope for recital 38?
Seb
Member
Sat Jul 07 19:06:25
This paragraph is important as it sets out the problem that the directive is trying to solve, with the next para clarifying how the directive is intended to work.

hood
Member
Sat Jul 07 19:47:09
You don't seem to be dead yet. You should work on that. Maybe have your entire extended family tested to see if they share your extreme stupidity and just wipe out the bad genes in general?
Seb
Member
Sun Jul 08 05:32:31
Hood:

To sum up then:

First you claimed I thought this forum is and should be subject to stringent copyright protections.

This was factually untrue. I argued the opposite.

Then you argued that moderation and timestamps met the "optimisation and promotion tests", which isn't true. You've offered no evidence to support this despite having 18 years of potential claims to draw from.

You claimed these safeharbour rules were new, they are 18 years old.

Then you claimed that a board such as this would be covered by the new rules (if we ignored the large amounts rule). You supported this erroneous interpretation with a selective quote from the recitals. It is clear this forum would not be covered by the new rules.

Hood, when you are in a hole, it is advisable to stop digging.

We never got onto why moderators clearly wouldn't constitute awareness.

So I shall cover it now.

No contractual arrangements exist between TC and the mods, so they clearly cannot be said to be part of the service. They have no training nor are they charged with ide
Seb
Member
Sun Jul 08 05:39:02
They have no training nor sufficient support nor are they charged with identifying copyrighted material. They have no knowledge of what licensing agreements posters might have in respect of any material.

So in what sense does simply having moderators make TC as provider "aware" of copyrighted material. Certainly you can say he might be aware of the content on the site, but he isn't necessarily aware that any content is in breach of copyright until he is so informed.

The crux of the issue in eBay Vs loreal was that *because* eBay promoted vendors, as was no longer neutral, they lose intermediary protections so can be liable whether aware or not. Essentially they cease to be neutral and acquire due diligence obligations.

In the new law, the sole effect of recital 38 is to prevent a site such as say, Google news, seeking to evade the tighter rules imposed here to obtain licensing by removing optimisation or promotion like features in order to then claim section 14 protections.
hood
Member
Sun Jul 08 10:12:54
Your continued breathing is a bane on society. Be selfless. End it. Do it for the good of the many.
Seb
Member
Sun Jul 08 11:25:17
Hood, you've been comprehensively wrong about everything in this thread. You started with baseless insults, you finish with baseless insults. I think you need to recognise there's no audience to play to here.
hood
Member
Sun Jul 08 14:22:05
You are not worth anything more than insults.
Seb
Member
Sun Jul 08 17:05:32
It's convenient you decide this only when it's demonstrably shown you are talking a pile of bullshit.
hood
Member
Sun Jul 08 18:55:10
50 posts of your inane retardation and it's suddenly "convenient" that I've finally reached my tolerance limit of stupidity?

Whatever conspiracy theory boats your float. Or, hopefully, sinks it.
Seb
Member
Sun Jul 08 19:01:06
When the tide comes out and you are not wearing pants, trying to claim your pants are invisible is not a smart move.
hood
Member
Sun Jul 08 20:48:32
I am making no such claim. That you cannot understand this is no surprise, considering your wholesale inability to understand the meaning of words.


You should ask yourself: why do people refuse to engage with you for more than a few posts? Why am I the only person who regularly speaks to you at length? Hint: we've all been telling you the same thing, yet you continually chalk it up to some harebrained conspiracy I've imagined.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Jul 09 05:13:49
Again seb misses the forrest because the trees are in the way. He complains about hyberbolic language on UP, but refuse to see his own hyperbolic reaction to social problems. To him 6 years of twitter is an eternity. I have tried to point out this error a couple times, you are too quick for solutions, spend too little time understanding the problem.

Stupid people doing stupid stuff, specially when they are under the illusion that they are something good, are dangerous. That isn’t hyberbole, that is where most reasonable people will lose their patience.
Seb
Member
Mon Jul 09 10:27:38
Nim:

You claimed asking services that provide access to large amounts of copyrighted materials to have licensing agreements and technical measures to check content was a threat to democracy.

Meanwhile there's demonstrable evidence that the business models that the platforms enable lead to boosting of rogue/fraudulent businesses and practices that we have previously legislated against in other media and which have been shown to impact on elections. How is that hyperbole?

6 years is plenty of time to regulate and the issues are pretty well understood. Most have direct equivalents in analogue and broadcast media.

Eternity is your word, and invoking it in a debate about how long to wait before regulating a new tech suggests that your preferred period is literally never.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Jul 10 02:18:34
>>regulate and the issues are pretty well understood.<<

It is in fact based on the piss poor understanding for all the things relevant, you (and those like you) display that my post is coming from. Calm the fuck down, this isn’t Home Alone. First do no harm, if you pay attention you will notice I am consistently telling you the say thing, calm down, you (nor anyone) do not really understand the problem, your impatient sledghammer approch will break more things. Hence 6 years being an eternity, for the impatient child.
Seb
Member
Tue Jul 10 03:43:29
Nim:

Have you considered that:

1. You are the one looking your nut over a law that merely reinforced copyright protection after rampant abuse by the large platforms. There is nothing novel about copyright abuse exploiting scale and reach. Charles Dickens campaigned on the issue.


2. You characterised it as a threat to democracy. Which is about as far from calm as you can get.

3. You claim to understand the problem better than I. This is very amusing to me.
You clearly don't.

4. 6 years is plenty of time. We'd regulate financial markets (which have a lot of similarities to platform business models) much faster. Though you are being disingenuous of course. It's now been a further two years I think since I said that. So 8 (I forget why 6 years, Twitter has been around since 2006). And that was in relation to online abuse. Which is substantially no different from telephone harassment which has been legislated against for a long time. And this issue here is about copyright.

Yes, you clearly have a very good understanding and are not at all a hysterical confused ball of reactionary nonsense.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Jul 10 05:24:36
"over a law that merely reinforced copyright protection after"

Dishonest or stupid? I think both, stupid people resort to dishonesty when they are found out to be stupid, specially on a topic they claim expertise on. Tsk tsk tsk.
Seb
Member
Tue Jul 10 07:41:17
Nim:

You claim it would go further. I dispute that. It's clear in the recitals that this not the intent, and unlikely to be the effect, and to the extent there are posdible unintended consequences I see none as being a threat to democracy.

You are welcome to dispute that point in a constructive way as I have if you wish.

But failing to respond while merely throwing invective is hardly a basis for claiming a better understanding.

hood
Member
Tue Jul 10 08:04:09
Seb still thinks people feel the need to defend themselves to him. How is it that he doesn't recognize the loathing people carry for any attempts to have actual arguments with him?
Seb
Member
Tue Jul 10 09:27:05
Yes, snowflakes dont like being told they are wrong on issues of fact.
Seb
Member
Tue Jul 10 09:29:16
You initiated this conversation. Right of reply is to be expected.

You don't have to engage with me, but starting a conversation then refusing to engage is childish.

The choice to be childish is yours to make of course.

hood
Member
Tue Jul 10 10:41:36
There's a phrase I cannot think of that conveys the idea of not knowing when to back out of something because you're just chasing returns on all of the investment you've put into it. Recognizing this point and deciding to cut ties is not childish. Perhaps you should reflect on why people reach this point so quickly with you.
Seb
Member
Tue Jul 10 10:59:19
Hood:

Sunk cost fallacy. So let's get this straight. You initiated a conversation with me which begins with an insult and which is a flat out lie.

You make a series of demonstrably ludicrous arguments riddled with errors in logic and fact.

You support this with a selective quote which you are challenged on.

You think I should reflect on why you suddenly want to disengage. I think the answer is obvious.
hood
Member
Tue Jul 10 11:43:17
"Sunk cost fallacy."

Yes, thank you. Could not come up with that.


The rest of your post is either factually wrong, opinion based, or made with a shaky foundation.

And, just to prove my point:
"You think I should reflect on why you suddenly want to disengage."

I said nothing of the sort. I suggested you relfect on why nobody is willing to put up with extended conversations with you. If you cannot understand pretty basic words, devoid of any trickery or hazy context... well then you're just seb. There's little else to add.
Seb
Member
Tue Jul 10 11:49:05
Hood:

You and Nim are not everyone.

I understand basic words just fine Hood. You are the one with comprehension issues, as we've just demonstrated in the thread above.
hood
Member
Tue Jul 10 11:54:08
"You and Nim are not everyone."

It's almost like I was referencing more than nim and I.


"I understand basic words just fine Hood."

Please explain why you thought I suggested you reflect on why I wanted to disengage, as per 3 posts up.
Seb
Member
Tue Jul 10 14:53:13
Hood:

Well late chalk that up to another one of your factual errors. It's only you, nim and delude who engage in this kind of whining.

You want to disengage because you are unwilling and unable to admit you made an error in ignoring part of the recitals, and to acknowledge the new information would force you to accept that your position on this matter lack factual basis. And you are one of those people who are so incredibly fragile you cannot ever admit an error.
hood
Member
Tue Jul 10 15:02:53
Gotta love how you still ignore how erroneous this comment was:
"You think I should reflect on why you suddenly want to disengage."

The audacity of you to make comments like this:
"you are one of those people who are so incredibly fragile you cannot ever admit an error."


I did not respond to your comments about the recitals because speaking to you is pointless and I reached my tolerance limit of your stupidity. Nothing more complicated is required. I simply don't want to bother pointing out how stupid you are anymore. 50+ posts. Multiple days. I've got better things to do, other people to call stupid.
Seb
Member
Tue Jul 10 16:32:52
hood:

You asked me to explain why I thought you suggest this.

I think this is why you suggest this.

This pattern has repeated. You initiate a discussion (normally with a fair bit of insulting language). Your position's internal contradictions are exposed. Alternative arguments are put forth. You run away.
hood
Member
Tue Jul 10 16:35:19
"You asked me to explain why I thought you suggest this.

I think this is why you suggest this."

Then you clearly do not understand words if your response to a general question is specific to me. It's almost as if you don't comprehend basic english or understand simple logic.

"Well, people must not bother talking to me for very long all because of that Hood character!" - Seb


Pretty fucking smart.
Seb
Member
Tue Jul 10 17:43:29
Hood:

Your words:
Tue Jul 10 11:54:0
"Please explain why you thought I suggested you reflect on why I wanted to disengage"

My explanation is that your asking me to reflect on why you want to disengage is nothing more than you deploying facile rhetorical smokescreen to deflect from the fact you have clearly made an error, and are unwilling now to accept it.

I don't see why this is so hard a concept for you to grasp. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "a general question". Your question was specific to words you just said.

Are you really so sure it is me that has the trouble with "words, bro"


As for your claim "nobody is willing to put up with extended conversations with you.", that simply isn't true.

It's just you and a couple of others, who regularly give up in frustration when you are unable to put in the intellectual effort to defend your poorly constructed and poorly evidenced arguments.

This is a debate forum. Why are you here?
hood
Member
Tue Jul 10 19:37:26
"your asking me to reflect on why you want to disengage"

Holy fucking shit. You don't get it. I never asked this of you. Your inability to understand words interpreted my comments as me asking you to consider why *I* didn't want to talk anymore *right now*, yet my actual suggestion was to think why *people in general* don't want to talk to you *in general*.

As I said, you cannot understand anything people say to you. You twist their words into what you want to hear in a most dishonest (whether intentional or not, really) way and then argue what you think they said instead of what they actually said. You are fucking retarded. You cannot read. You do not understand words.


Please, fucking please, go find any point in this thread where I asked you why I don't want to talk to you right now. Find it. Any fucking instance.


"I don't see why this is so hard a concept for you to grasp."

You... read just above.


"I'm not sure what you mean when you say "a general question". Your question was specific to words you just said."

Indeed they are. And the words you think I said are not the words I actually said.


"Are you really so sure it is me that has the trouble with "words, bro""

Positive. I've checked multiple times. Not once did I ask you why you thought I wanted to disengage in this thread. You keep thinking I did. You are retarded. While I already know of the depth of your dishonesty, I will take it as willful ignorance if you don't actually respond to the words I've said here and instead insist on this hallucination of yours where you think I said things I didn't say.
Seb
Member
Wed Jul 11 02:01:48
Hood:

""your asking me to reflect on why you want to disengage"

Holy fucking shit. You don't get it. I never asked this of you."

Really?

Tue Jul 10 11:54:0
"Please explain why you thought I suggested you reflect on why I wanted to disengage"

If that's meant to be people in general, you chose the wrong words to use. You see, on English, 'I' is the personal pronoun used to refer specifically to the person writing or speaking. If you meant this to be general, you really ought not to have used "I". If you understand words.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Jul 11 02:16:57
Holy shit, you certified retard you. Wow.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Jul 11 02:32:10
On the one hand we have music celebreties on the other we have legal, cultural and academic experts and institutions explaining why this is bad.

Seb the used car salesmen.

He seb this car you sold me, has no breaks, the gastank is a battery even though it is a diesel engine and the airbags are filled with nails.

Seb
yes I would have done it differently, I agree, but the principle is sound.

Uhm what? Wtf are you talking about? This car is a death trap!

Seb
Waaaaa hypoerbolic language!
hood
Member
Wed Jul 11 07:40:51
"Tue Jul 10 11:54:0
"Please explain why you thought I suggested you reflect on why I wanted to disengage"

If that's meant to be people in general, you chose the wrong words to use."

What do we call ESL for first language English speakers?

Seb, let us follow this conversation:

Me -
You should ask yourself: why do people refuse to engage with you for more than a few posts? Why am I the only person who regularly speaks to you at length? Hint: we've all been telling you the same thing, yet you continually chalk it up to some harebrained conspiracy I've imagined.

(Why do **people** refuse to engage)

My next post -
Seb still thinks people feel the need to defend themselves to him. How is it that he doesn't recognize the loathing people carry for any attempts to have actual arguments with him?

(No mention of reflection)

Seb -
You initiated this conversation. Right of reply is to be expected.

(Not pertinent to point, but included for timeline)

Me -
There's a phrase I cannot think of that conveys the idea of not knowing when to back out of something because you're just chasing returns on all of the investment you've put into it. Recognizing this point and deciding to cut ties is not childish. Perhaps you should reflect on why people reach this point so quickly with you.

(Telling you precisely why I stopped talking; sunk cost fallacy, which you helped me remember the phrase [thanks again]. The only mention of reflection again contains the word "people" and is not asking you to think of why I chose to stop talking this time)

Seb -
You think I should reflect on why you suddenly want to disengage. I think the answer is obvious.

(First mention of me suggesting you should reflect on specifically me in specifically this thread; notice that you're the speaker here, and it isn't something I said?)

Me -
And, just to prove my point:
"You think I should reflect on why you suddenly want to disengage."

I said nothing of the sort. I suggested you relfect on why nobody is willing to put up with extended conversations with you. If you cannot understand pretty basic words, devoid of any trickery or hazy context... well then you're just seb. There's little else to add.

(Me noting that I never said the thing you accused me of saying. We have the context in this post, I haven't skipped any of my posts. I simply never said what you think I said)

Seb -
I understand basic words just fine Hood. You are the one with comprehension issues, as we've just demonstrated in the thread above.

(Semi unrelated, but context for the sentence you question)

Me -
Please explain why you thought I suggested you reflect on why I wanted to disengage, as per 3 posts up.

(And here is the sentence in question, that does not say what you think it says, which oddly occurred after you accused me of telling you to reflect on me in this thread, yet is now being used as proof I asked that question???)
-------------------------


So now let's translate by saying this in a different way:
Original: "why you thought I suggested you reflect on why I wanted to disengage"
Translation: "Why did you say I suggested that you reflect on why I wanted to disengage?"

As in, I never said the phrase you think I said. Why do you think I said that? What made you think I said that? Please explain why you think this?

To reiterate: the request you quoted was me asking for an explanation of the thought process that led you to the conclusion that I said a specific sentence, where that sentence was asking you why I stopped arguing. It was not what you think it was. You clearly cannot understand pretty simple English, as that sentence was not difficult or tricky or oddly phrased. I don't actually know how the fuck you came to the conclusion that you did; it's utterly baffling, actually.


Seb. You don't know English. You really fucking don't. You should fix that some day. It might be an incredibly simple solution to my ACTUAL question I asked you to reflect on, which was: why do you think people don't engage with you for any protracted amount of time? I think that it is because you don't understand language or communication and that people get put off whenever you internally butcher their words to mean some bastardized, barely tangential alternate meaning.
hood
Member
Wed Jul 11 07:43:07
"You see, on English, 'I' is the personal pronoun used to refer specifically to the person writing or speaking."

And "why you thought" indicates that the following language is ascribed to the listener. As in, the listener thinks something of me, why do they think that? But I've already explained that above. I'm sure you won't get it.
Seb
Member
Wed Jul 11 07:54:22
Nim:

"on the other we have legal, cultural and academic experts and institutions explaining why this is bad."

Are you are saying there are no lawyers and academics that support the other view?

Because I have some bad news for you about the people who drew up the act in the first place.

"his car is a death trap!"

It's not. The claims it is are frankly, over blown.

Certainly, some of the ambiguities people have pointed to could be removed, but it is pretty clear it would require some enormously heroic misinterpretations to lead to the outcomes that the opponents are saying.

Still, nothing harmed in taking it back to fix.

So yes, utter hyperbole.

If you want to state why it is you think this will lead to general filtering etc. I am happy to have that conversation in detail now I have more time on my hands.

Seb
Member
Wed Jul 11 07:56:59
Hood:

You are suggesting now that I should have decided that because you had also asked "people" (you are a person right) that when you specifically re-couched the point as "I", I should have read "people".

You don't know words bro. Say people next time when you mean people.

To answer that question, the same reason Nim flounces off from time to time, and delude (you three being the only ones to do it) are I think the same. So it doesn't change the answer. Others do not do this. Just you three.

Seb
Member
Wed Jul 11 07:58:58
Hood:

"And "why you thought" indicates that the following language is ascribed to the listener"

Yes, and I've told you why *I* think you don't want to engage any further. I have answered your question precisely. So, now you know why *I* think *You* are suddenly keen to disengage.

I am sorry your grasp of English is so poor that you do not appear to appreciate the actual question you asked, and appear to think you asked something different.
hood
Member
Wed Jul 11 08:27:18
No, Seb.

My question pretty easily translated to: why do you have this misconception?

Let's redo this...

"Please explain why you thought I suggested you reflect on why I wanted to disengage"

Working from inside out, we first get: I suggested you reflect on
Past tense, at one point the speaker asked the listener to do some thinking.

Next: you thought.
The listener had an idea. Combining the first and second, we get - the listener had an idea that at one point the speaker asked the listener to do some thinking.

Next (3rd part): why I wanted to disengage
The speaker intended to end something. Combining 1 2 and 3 we get - the listener had an idea that at one point the speaker asked the listener to do some thinking about why the speaker intended to end something.

Final part: please explain why
The speaker is asking for a reason. Combining all parts:

The speaker is asking for a reason why the listener had an idea that at one point the speaker asked the listener to do some thinking about why the speaker intended to end something.

The key part of this is the beginning. If we were to diagram this sentence, the subject and predicate are: the speaker and is asking. The speaker is asking. What is the speaker asking? The speaker is asking why the listener had an idea.

As in, I am asking why you thought a specific thing. That specific thing you thought is me asking you to reflect on this thread. I did not ask you to do that in that sentence, I asked you why you thought that that thing happened.


This is why I suggest you are both an extreme retard and should not continue to be alive. You. Don't. Understand. Words.
Seb
Member
Wed Jul 11 09:12:45
Hood:


"Please explain why you thought I suggested you reflect on why I wanted to disengage"

I think you want to disengage for the reasons I stated.

That is my reflection on it.

I think you asking me to reflect on it is rhetorical nonsense deployed for precisely the same reason.

By asking me to reflect on why you asked it, you must surely be admitting that you posed the question asking me to reflect on why you wanted to engage.

Which of course gives the lie to your statement on Wed Jul 11 02:01:48,

"your asking me to reflect on why you want to disengage"

Holy fucking shit. You don't get it. I never asked this of you."

If you never asked me, how can you be asking me to reflect on your motivations for disengaging?

Are you sure you understand words bro?




Seb
Member
Wed Jul 11 09:18:20
And here is you asking it of me:

"Perhaps you should reflect on why people reach this point so quickly with you."

You say this is general - but lets be clear, your assertion is that your rather lamentable behaviour is a common response to mine.

I.e. you, now, are trying to suggest your behaviour is reasonable and exhibited by "people".

So you are very definitely *one* on the people you are referring to and it is appropriate to say you asked why I think you are doing it.

I also explained that actually "people" in general do not behave this way. Only you and about two other people, and you all do it under the same circumstances.

I'm not sure where you think there is any ambiguity here.
show deleted posts
Bookmark and Share