EU copytight law madness. It has passed. It will become a reality.

[R005T3r]

I mean,
There was a petition not so long ago, and a lot of pepole signed for it. They didn't even care about and this MADNESS has passed... And by the end of 2019 will be implemented in the whole EU!

https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/12/17849868/eu-internet-copyright-reform-article-11-13-approved

Now, as it has been written, wikipedia will disappear, the whole youtube world is at stake, online product reviews will be destroyed: you make a bad review of my product, yes? Then is copyright violation, and your review will be taken down. No possibilty to appeal. Soon you cannot even load a product image on ebay... It's just insane. They want google news to be a paid service (and then, all newspaper websites will dissapear from google).

Who evaluate the fair use? Not to mention the "upload filter" section: how do you EVEN implement such a thing?

As it has been written, you cannot even make a video with a coke in your hands, or you can be fined because of copyright violation. You cannot even post an image of a product of make a selfie if the image contains an advertisment banner.
And, you know what really is pissing me off: piracy will not be even touched about this directive, so illegal file sharing will go underground and that is all, boosted by this madness.  Not to mention that this would be a great impulse to the Tor project....

Soon we will have google.onion... 

Dark times ahead....

[Halcyon]

Certainly are. Thankfully those laws don't apply here, just like America's DMCA :-)

[Kalvin]

Just use non-EU server?

[MK14]

Brexit, either means it won't apply to the UK, good news!

Or, not only will it apply to the UK, but we will have lost all votes and capabilities, to change any existing and future EU laws. As we will be still within the EU, to all intents and purposes, despite Brexit.

Which of these two scenarios, we (in the UK), will be in, is not known yet. At least as regards the general public.

[R005T3r]

Certainly are. Thankfully those laws don't apply here, just like America's DMCA :-)

This is worse than DMCA!

[BrianHG]

From what I've seen in the past, a kid drawing of a black and white picture looking like Mickey Mouse found somewhere on a public domain CD containing hundreds of pieces of public domain software landing the distributor in court with fines which could take them out of business permanently for life.  Now this will be done on a grand scale.  Imagine if you upload a video of your kids to facebook who just happened to be wearing some clothing containing Disney copyrighted images, you'll be done for...

And when I say Disney copyrighted images, just remember how many movies and kid toys and clothing of everything they now own and all that memorabilia they sell.

Worse, if you unknowingly purchased a Chinese knockoff, or a video of your kids drawing the wrong thing, now you will automatically get caught, you'll end up in jail....

[MK14]

From what I've seen in the past, a kid drawing of a black and white picture looking like Mickey Mouse found somewhere on a public domain CD containing hundreds of pieces of public domain software landing the distributor in court with fines which could take them out of business permanently for life.  Now this will be done on a grand scale.  Imagine if you upload a video of your kids to facebook who just happened to be wearing some clothing containing Disney copyrighted images, you'll be done for...

And when I say Disney copyrighted images, just remember how many movies and kid toys and clothing of everything they now own and all that memorabilia they sell.

Worse, if you unknowingly purchased a Chinese knockoff, or a video of your kids drawing the wrong thing, now you will automatically get caught, you'll end up in jail....

I've already, partly lost some of my internet access, because of some kind of potentially "silly" rules (I don't know much about it, maybe if I looked into it, I would see some merit from the new rules/laws) or something.

I sometimes get a screen (typically from US news sources, via my UK ISP), which says it won't give me any webpages, due to the new GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation ) laws.

E.g. I go to the Los Angeles Times
and get ...

Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism.

http://www.tronc.com/gdpr/latimes.com/

N.B. I know there are ways around it, such as VPN. But I'm trying to make a point about how much worse things can get.

Article about it here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-44614885

[janoc]

Hold the panic, it didn't "pass" yet. All that has passed is that the parliament has agreed to consider the text. While bad it is not lost yet.

The text will now go into the "trilogues" stage that involve the national governments and then there will be another, this time final, parliament vote next year. And then the directive will have to be translated into national law in every country. Only afterwards will the thing come into effect.

At all those steps the process can be still affected, amendments introduced and/or it can be stopped altogether. That's why it is important to lobby your MEPs, lobby your national governments and vote in the upcoming EU elections (which most people ignore and then they are surprised what did that evil EU impose on them again!).

This also needs much more mainstream publicity than it has today - the media only cover that it will concern only "the giants of the web" - if at all. So an average person has no idea that such law is even being prepared and what its consequences for their daily internet usage could be. That's the only way how to put pressure on the MEPs to do something about it - nobody aspiring for a re-election is going to want to run on the "I broke the Internet" platform.

[Tepe]

I sometimes get a screen (typically from US news sources, via my UK ISP), which says it won't give me any webpages, due to the new GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation ) laws.

E.g. I go to the Los Angeles Times
and get ...

Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism.

You can blame LA Times for that, not the GDPR.
Either the LA Times are hysterical or or they wouldn't give up on violating your right to privacy.

[bloguetronica]

This only proves that the European Commission is a corporatocracy and not a democracy. I'm getting sick tired of UE bans on everything. There is no freedom of speech, no freedom of opinion, no freedom of though and now no freedom of creativity inside the EU. My two cents.

Certainly are. Thankfully those laws don't apply here, just like America's DMCA :-)

Don't worry. Keep looking at your own interests only, and you'll be affected as well, in no time. Mark my words.

Kind regards, Samuel Lourenço

[ConKbot]

US:we're gonna shit all over the internet with this net neutrality stuff.

Europe:Hold my beer/wine/vodka (depending on the country)

 ǝʇɐɯ NqN ɹno uo ƃuᴉʞɹoʍ llᴉʇS :ɐᴉlɐᴉɹʇsn∀

[MK14]

You can blame LA Times for that, not the GDPR.
Either the LA Times are hysterical or or they wouldn't give up on violating your right to privacy.

I'm still not sure enough about GDPR, to make an informed decision, about it, and how it has been handled.
Provisionally, my "TOO MUCH RED TAPE" sensor alerts are twinging a lot. But I'm NOT sure, if GDPR is a good or bad thing and/or if it is too big/complex/over-reaching/over-done etc.
But I already have a bad feeling about it, and I'm worried, it is a bad thing, in a number of senses.
But to be clear, I'm too uninformed about it, to make up my mind, one way or other, yet.

[rstofer]

I sometimes get a screen (typically from US news sources, via my UK ISP), which says it won't give me any webpages, due to the new GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation ) laws.

E.g. I go to the Los Angeles Times
and get ...

Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism.

You can blame LA Times for that, not the GDPR.
Either the LA Times are hysterical or or they wouldn't give up on violating your right to privacy.

Given the gigantic fines the EU has imposed on Microsoft and Google, it is not surprising that a smaller organization would simply disconnect from the EU.  Heck, I thought Microsoft should have quit selling Windows of any flavor in the EU the first time they were sued (over Internet Explorer).  To expect Microsoft to include a competitor's product on their distribution CDs is absurd!

Considering these fines and draconian laws, I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of companies block the EU.

I especially don't get the multi-billion Google fine.  Of course they rank advertisements, that's how they make money from advertisers.  If the EU doesn't like the way Google ranks advertisements, maybe they should just require using a different browser.  For an absolute certainty, if I were the head of Google, I would have shut down the EU users a long time ago.  They have no "right" to a free product and they should agree to use it the way it comes.  But no, the anti- and non-competitive EU wants to tell Google how to run a business.  Like they would know...  Maybe the EU should just mandate using Opera.

[R005T3r]

Copytight trolls all over the EU, then.
Also, going underground may be the cure for this madness.

[bloguetronica]

What's wrong with DMCA? This looks way worse than DMCA. DMCA is, at least, sane.

I don't know if you are being sarcastic, but it was the DCMA that brought this insanity. And by the way, the DCMA is not sane, because it doesn't allow fair use, that is, using excerpts of a piece for criticism purposes, for example. The DCMA is pretty much broken, as proven over the years.

Kind regards, Samuel Lourenço

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

ǝʇɐɯ NqN ɹno uo ƃuᴉʞɹoʍ llᴉʇS :ɐᴉlɐᴉɹʇsn∀

˥O˥

[bloguetronica]

I don't know if you are being sarcastic, but it was the DCMA that brought this insanity. And by the way, the DCMA is not sane, because it doesn't allow fair use, that is, using excerpts of a piece for criticism purposes, for example. The DCMA is pretty much broken, as proven over the years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAIR_USE_Act

You can bring the fair use act to the table, but we both know what practical effects it had. Zero whatsoever.

Kind regards, Samuel Lourenço

[vodka]

If we want f.. the European Commission, there are giving to support to Viktor Orban.

 This man is a good hemorrhoid for many euro parliaments.

[doobedoobedo]

This only proves that the European Commission is a corporatocracy and not a democracy. I'm getting sick tired of UE bans on everything. There is no freedom of speech, no freedom of opinion, no freedom of though and now no freedom of creativity inside the EU. My two cents.

Certainly are. Thankfully those laws don't apply here, just like America's DMCA :-)

Don't worry. Keep looking at your own interests only, and you'll be affected as well, in no time. Mark my words.

Kind regards, Samuel Lourenço

Haha. There is nothing democratic about the EU comission. They are appointed. Except for the commission president, but then there's only one candidate put forward and the populous don't get to vote.

The parliament is there to give the illusion of some level of democracy, but the parliament's only power is to rubber stamp what's come from the commission.

[janoc]

Haha. There is nothing democratic about the EU comission. They are appointed. Except for the commission president, but then there's only one candidate put forward and the populous don't get to vote.

The parliament is there to give the illusion of some level of democracy, but the parliament's only power is to rubber stamp what's come from the commission.

Guys, please, I understand you are pissed, angry and whatever, but at least don't spout this sort of ignorant nonsense.

If the parliament's only power was to rubber stamp whatever comes from the commission, then this thread wouldn't exist in the first place. The commission has tried to ram through these draconian copyright laws (and many other things) several times before and it was stopped each time by guess who - the European parliament.

When it comes to lawmaking, the parliament is on equal footing with the commission and they must agree on the version of any text before it can be adopted. Here is how the procedure works:

https://europa.eu/european-union/eu-law/decision-making/procedures_en

And re the commission being unelected - that's not completely true. While we don't elect the commissioners directly, the candidates are selected by the states (through their appointed representatives in the Council of Europe), taking into account the results of the European elections (that's actually part of the Lisbon treaty). Who sits on that council is determined by the governments of the individual states - which are certainly elected as well.

Once that is done, all commissioners, including the President, are elected from among the candidates by the European parliament. Typically after a good grilling session and there have been cases when the candidate was rejected by the parliament as unsuitable. (e.g.: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/slovenia-s-nominee-for-european-commission-rejected-1.1956712 )

Here is how the Commission works:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/25/the-european-commission

All in all, how the EU functions is not that much different from a normal parliamentary democracy where you elect your MPs and then those select a prime minister (EU commission president) who nominates a government (EU commissioners) which then have to be approved by the parliament again - e.g. in a vote of confidence with the entire government en-bloc, or how it is done in Brussels, one by one.

So, please, can we cut this BS now?

[doobedoobedo]

Haha. There is nothing democratic about the EU comission. They are appointed. Except for the commission president, but then there's only one candidate put forward and the populous don't get to vote.

The parliament is there to give the illusion of some level of democracy, but the parliament's only power is to rubber stamp what's come from the commission.

Guys, please, I understand you are pissed, angry and whatever, but at least don't spout this sort of ignorant nonsense.

If the parliament's only power was to rubber stamp whatever comes from the commission, then this thread wouldn't exist in the first place. The commission has tried to ram through these draconian copyright laws (and many other things) several times before and it was stopped each time by guess who - the European parliament.

When it comes to lawmaking, the parliament is on equal footing with the commission and they must agree on the version of any text before it can be adopted. Here is how the procedure works:

https://europa.eu/european-union/eu-law/decision-making/procedures_en

And re the commission being unelected - that's not completely true. While we don't elect the commissioners directly, the candidates are selected by the states (through their appointed representatives in the Council of Europe), taking into account the results of the European elections (that's actually part of the Lisbon treaty). Who sits on that council is determined by the governments of the individual states - which are certainly elected as well.

Once that is done, all commissioners, including the President, are elected from among the candidates by the European parliament. Typically after a good grilling session and there have been cases when the candidate was rejected by the parliament as unsuitable. (e.g.: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/slovenia-s-nominee-for-european-commission-rejected-1.1956712 )

Here is how the Commission works:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/25/the-european-commission

All in all, how the EU functions is not that much different from a normal parliamentary democracy where you elect your MPs and then those select a prime minister (EU commission president) who nominates a government (EU commissioners) which then have to be approved by the parliament again - e.g. in a vote of confidence with the entire government en-bloc, or how it is done in Brussels, one by one.

So, please, can we cut this BS now?

Can we quit this anti-democracy apologist BS now. What you just described bears no resemblance to democracy.

You appear top miss the part about all members of the government being elected by the populous and hence removable by the populous.

[bson]

Certainly are. Thankfully those laws don't apply here, just like America's DMCA :-)

DMCA is just straight up WIPO, which is an international treaty.  Australia is also a signatory to WIPO (http://www.wipo.int/members/en/) so the same rules apply to you.  That's its whole point, to create a universal copyright framework.  I think you might just be getting caught up in on-line activism, which is dominated by American well-funded activist groups, and agreeing with them and engaging in their campaigns you've failed to note that your own government has agreed to exactly the same. Of course, some countries (e.g. China) are notorious for not enforcing laws; if there's anything the U.S. federal government can be trusted with, it's abiding with law to the letter.  (Typically to the point that it's grossly inefficient and can't bend a finger without a team of legal experts reviewing 10000 pages of law and regulations, then formulating a written policy that has to be reviewed and vetted to make sure every committee finds it acceptable.)

[donotdespisethesnake]

DMCA is just straight up WIPO,

No it isn't.

It's the Trump Triple:
1. Make a false statement
2. Blame "outsiders", the UN is a favorite
3. If anyone calls out the falsehood, say they are "fake news" planted by the opposition

[EEVblog]

Certainly are. Thankfully those laws don't apply here, just like America's DMCA :-)

But they have flow on effects that impact here.
Take the new EU GDPR, only applies to the EU right? Tell that to practically every large company that has rewritten their website privacy rules to align with it. That's why half the websites you have visited in the last few months have this annoying popup about new privacy terms. Or your inbox has been flooded with privacy updates.
I've have one US company refuse to advertise on my website (Aussie with server hosted in the US) any more unless I could prove I complied with the new GDPR regulations.

[Tepe]

Can we quit this anti-democracy apologist BS now. What you just described bears no resemblance to democracy.

You appear top miss the part about all members of the government being elected by the populous and hence removable by the populous.

You seem to be overlooking the fact that the commisioners are nominated by the national governments/parliaments.

The democracy is indirect, but it is there,