Goodbye To Free Speech in Europe...Europe Just Voted to Wreck the Internet

[Ace Nova]

5 hours ago, soon said:

I guess if by "free speech" one means "for free" without paying for copy-writen works 

Was there a Creative Commons provision - will all CC works have attributions?

Just at a quick first glance, pre-coffee, Id say they shouldnt implement this because the tech wont stand up to demand. But beyond that, its just a market regulation to update laws to work in the social media age. Letting our journalists go broke isnt really an option in a democracy. To be clear I do whatever I can to get around a pay wall, love sharing articles, all that. Maybe there could be better fixes that look nothing like this one, but I still don't see this as some evil takeover.

Id mention surveillance, but we all know that ship has already sailed. Pointing to this as a surveillance tool almost reads like a self soothing technique to avoid acknowledging that we are heavily surveilled in this very moment.

In certain cases I can see how this could "help" an artist/writer...as in maybe a book.  If someone posts an entire book poem, etc...then yeah.

But in most cases this will hurt writers, artists, etc. The majority of news articles, sports articles, etc etc get their publicity from people "sharing" them, linking sources to them, etc, etc. Big stories/articles etc that normally would have received tens of thousands of shares, clicks, etc thanks to people linking and sharing the stories/articles will get only a fraction of those hits, clicks and shares.

Less hits, clicks and shares = less money.

So yes, just like the article said, this law was written by people who are absolutely clueless on how the internet works. 

And that's just a part of it.  Even if the writer/artist doesn't get paid directly from hits/clicks they will be losing out on TONS of free publicity.  Publicity is basically free advertising and marketing...which will make or break the majority of writers/artists careers. 

This law is nothing but government over reaching/big brother scenario and should scare the hell out of anyone that believes in freedom and free speech.

 

 

Edited September 13, 2018 by Kasanova King

[wasted]

I think it’s more about controlling the narrative. People just aren’t going to the mainstream media as much.

Sometimes it feels like people could just be getting news and discussing it away from mainstream commentary. You can get this swirl of fake news, memes, news articles but discussed in social media in ways that are out of control. 

Given the turmoil in Europe at the moment it makes sense to want to keep things calm. Maybe Brexit or Trump getting elected has made them see that it can change things. 

[Ratam]

4 hours ago, Padme said:

Well the name of the guy behind this law is Axel 

 

I would bet the name of the guy behind this is Alfred...

[Len Cnut]

1 hour ago, Oldest Goat said:

What's the general feeling toward Theresa May? She seems vile. Did you guys see her dance?

I think she's incompetent.  In fact i think there has been a general degrading of the quality of politicians/statesmen in this country to where we have fuckin' morons in charge and its started to happen right after Blair who, though was a cunt in many ways and did some fucked up things, he was at least a capable politician but overall a champagne socialist that let the country down.  Since then though the candidates have just looked like C students on a hustle.  Someone like Boris Johnson, I wouldn't leave him to make a jelly, much less a cabinet.  And May is of that ilk.  Cameron too, Gordon Brown too, those two Labour brothers too,

[soon]

15 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

In certain cases I can see how this could "help" an artist/writer...as in maybe a book.  If someone posts an entire book poem, etc...then yeah.

But in most cases this will hurt writers, artists, etc. The majority of news articles, sports articles, etc etc get their publicity from people "sharing" them, linking sources to them, etc, etc. Big stories/articles etc that normally would have received tens of thousands of shares, clicks, etc thanks to people linking and sharing the stories/articles will get only a fraction of those hits, clicks and shares.

Less hits, clicks and shares = less money.

So yes, just like the article said, this law was written by people who are absolutely clueless on how the internet works. 

And that's just a part of it.  Even if the writer/artist doesn't get paid directly from hits/clicks they will be losing out on TONS of free publicity.  Publicity is basically free advertising and marketing...which will make or break the majority of writers/artists careers. 

  This law is nothing but government over reaching/big brother scernario  and should scare the hell out of anyone that believes in freedom and free speech.

 

 

But yet, we do see journalists and their outlets asking things not be quoted at length. This is because the majority of sm users read the full text or as much as is quoted on the sm space, not by actually clicking the link. The link is often just some sort of 'proof.' Snippets are enough to drive a conversation, where in sm you never see people say "lets all take a few hours to really absorb this new article and then reconvene." a few quotes are enough for the pace of sm. 

For example you posted enough info for us not to have to click the link to get a sense of the article. As is considered good etiquette, you made it easy for us to read and then engage all while remaining in this space. I appreciate you doing so. But that it what the act wants to address.

But more to the point is that there are so many secondary outlets, they cover the story from the original outlet. And they dont do a great job in linking to it because of the reason we are discussing - they want the eyes and clicks to remain on their own space. So if a sm user links to a secondary article - as is very common - the journalists who wrote the piece dont see any proceeds.

As far as free speech, if I were writing a book and quoted something at length, that would also need to be cleared. Its just trying to reestablish the ongoing norms with the digital reality. And maybe they're failing hard, but I dont see this as the final clamp down or anything.

Like I said, maybe theres completely different ways to address this. I just dont think making the effort is out of line, entirely. And I dont think the tech will handle the human demand.

[Len Cnut]

11 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

I hate them all. 

Oh me too but its at least a little reassuring when the person in there ain't thick.

[Ratam]

This remember me the Metallica failure vs. NAPSTER.

[Ace Nova]

42 minutes ago, soon said:

But yet, we do see journalists and their outlets asking things not be quoted at length. This is because the majority of sm users read the full text or as much as is quoted on the sm space, not by actually clicking the link. The link is often just some sort of 'proof.' Snippets are enough to drive a conversation, where in sm you never see people say "lets all take a few hours to really absorb this new article and then reconvene." a few quotes are enough for the pace of sm. 

For example you posted enough info for us not to have to click the link to get a sense of the article. As is considered good etiquette, you made it easy for us to read and then engage all while remaining in this space. I appreciate you doing so. But that it what the act wants to address.

But more to the point is that there are so many secondary outlets, they cover the story from the original outlet. And they dont do a great job in linking to it because of the reason we are discussing - they want the eyes and clicks to remain on their own space. So if a sm user links to a secondary article - as is very common - the journalists who wrote the piece dont see any proceeds.

As far as free speech, if I were writing a book and quoted something at length, that would also need to be cleared. Its just trying to reestablish the ongoing norms with the digital reality. And maybe they're failing hard, but I dont see this as the final clamp down or anything.

Like I said, maybe theres completely different ways to address this. I just dont think making the effort is out of line, entirely. And I dont think the tech will handle the human demand.

The way the law is written it is completely out of line and based off pure bureaucracy/politics/ignorance.  People that don't understand how the internet, advertising, marketing, etc work are behind this and purely because of special interests and lobbies.

I've been in sales and marketing my entire career and I am currently a corporate marketing executive for one of the largest hotel companies in the world.  Marketing is my area of expertise.  Other than the fact that this law tends to destroy any form of free publicity these artists/writers would get, it also will hurt smaller site owners, like Downzy, who could be forced to pay random marketing fees and fines....and if he doesn't, they could block his site, etc.

Now let's use your example.  I posted the article from a relatively smaller site. Yes I posted most of it but I also posted the link.  Had I not posted the article, people wouldn't understand what the story was about and it good chance it receives little attention.  It was posted and I'm fairly certain at least a decent amount of people that read it ALSO clicked on the link to see the original article. (I ALWAYS DO).  That means although I posted the article there were STILL AT LEAST SOME PEOPLE DRIVEN TO THAT SITE THAT OTHERWISE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN.  This is what these people don't get.  That site would not have received ANY traffic from this forum had I not posted that article and the link.

Edited September 13, 2018 by Kasanova King

[Len Cnut]

37 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

I'm not convinced those types are any better in any way. If anything they're worse because they fool people. 

When...I hear...Barack. Obama. Talk. I. Think he sounds...like a, psychopath.

Maybe I'm cynical and high strung or something but the moment I see any of these types, the kind of 'people' who try to be on the outside of a handshake in a photo-op to convey power, it makes me sick to my stomach.

Like Boris Johnson. He's a fucking idiot but he has a dictionary...so what? I've always despised this type of character; pretentious, fake, cunts.

All style no substance and IMO not even style.

Pragmatically speaking, though i wholeheartedly agree with what you say, an intelligent devious cunt is at least capable of keeping the train on track whereas a moron will lead you to the tumbrils.  Also, no one thinks Boris has style, on ANY level

[AtariLegend]

I don't think anyone actually read what this entails. The hyperbole that is the end of the Internet, because efforts will be made to prevent you uploading full length films and TV shows on youtube/facebook ect is over the top. Unfortunately people will still be uploading obnoxious meme gifs afterwards. 

Their'll be another vote next year and probably changes. Also any article referring to this as censorship is hard to take serious, because someone isn't suppose to upload an episode of Westworld... really?

It's the same companies and groups that were going on about GDPR. With people on the Internet up in arms about American companies having to put up a page to tell us (Europeans) what they're down with our information. Honestly fuck facebook and social media. I value my privacy, enough to have the option to click consent.

1 hour ago, Oldest Goat said:

What's the general feeling toward Theresa May? 

She's the kind of person Kasanova King would vote for;

 

[AtariLegend]

8 hours ago, wasted said:

It’s over. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6159267/EU-approves-controversial-EU-copyright-law-hands-power-news-record-companies.html

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7242301/eurocrats-pass-new-laws-which-could-make-memes-illegal-by-forcing-web-giants-to-pay-for-all-the-content-they-host/

 

At least one of those sites posts an article every few weeks that a full moon is a prophetic warning that a meteor is going to hit the earth and wipe out civilization. 

[wasted]

6 minutes ago, AtariLegend said:

At least one of those sites posts an article every few weeks that a full moon is a prophetic warning that a meteor is going to hit the earth and wipe out civilization. 

They are just trying to keep our spirits up. 

[Len Cnut]

25 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

Tell me a politician who kept society on the rails and how they did that then. 

Churchill? He has some good quotes. He's an interesting piece of shit lol. 

We're all evil more or less, its about who serves your interests.  I don't like it anymore than you but it is what it is.  Morality has nothing to do with anything, it only serves to cloud your perception of what needs to be done.  You can call Churchill all kinds of names but its difficult to ignore his contribution to the world we live in today. 

Kept society on the rails by which I mean not led us into, or to the brink of the apocalypse.  Something that, if morons like Trump continue to be voted for, seems like a not too distant possibility.

Edited September 13, 2018 by Len Cnut

[Ace Nova]

1 hour ago, AtariLegend said:

 

She's the kind of person Kasanova King would vote for;

 

 I voted for Obama twice and did not vote in the last election.  So keep up the nonsensical comments, makes you look good..;)  I guess it's true what they say... ignorance is bliss.

Edited September 13, 2018 by Kasanova King

[soon]

44 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

The way the law is written it is completely out of line and based off pure bureaucracy/politics/ignorance.  People that don't understand how the internet, advertising, marketing, etc work are behind this and purely because of special interests and lobbies.

I've been in sales and marketing my entire career and I am currently a corporate marketing executive for one of the largest hotel companies in the world.  Marketing is my area of expertise.  Other than the fact that this law tends to destroy any form of free publicity these artists/writers would get, it also will hurt smaller site owners, like Downzy, who could be forced to pay random marketing fees and fines....and if he doesn't, they could block his site, etc.

Now let's use your example.  I posted the article from a relatively smaller site. Yes I posted most of it but I also posted the link.  Had I not posted the article, people wouldn't understand what the story was about and it good chance it receives little attention.  It was posted and I'm fairly certain at least a decent amount of people that read it ALSO clicked on the link to see the original article. (I ALWAYS DO).  That means although I posted the article there were STILL AT LEAST SOME PEOPLE DRIVEN TO THAT SITE THAT OTHERWISE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN.  This is what these people don't get.  That site would not have received ANY traffic from this forum had I not posted that article and the link.

I see, you are saying that by default it would inadvertently impact "free speech" rather then attack it on purpose? In broad strokes I still disagree, but at least no one is saying that its an attack on free speech.

I clicked your link and remain unclear if it was original content or not. Who wrote it? 

If I understand it correctly, one can still post links. Your post would have to be a summary in your own words. Thats all. (just learning as I go, but thats what Im seeing)

I just dont see what the big issue with updating regulations to suit the times would be. I think its just ike when YT is producing original content I want to watch but I have a reaction in my gut thats like 'wtf, pay for YT?!?!' but the reality is that theres nothing wrong with them doing so. Its just that I dont like it.

You wouldnt develop a Hotel marketing campaign online and then if someone cut and pasted it and used it to advertise their hotel instead, just sit back and say "well, nothing I can do because of Free Speech." 

[Ace Nova]

1 minute ago, soon said:

I see, you are saying that by default it would inadvertently impact "free speech" rather then attack it on purpose? In broad strokes I still disagree, but at least no one is saying that its an attack on free speech.

I clicked your link and remain unclear if it was original content or not. Who wrote it? 

If I understand it correctly, one can still post links. Your post would have to be a summary in your own words. Thats all. (just learning as I go, but thats what Im seeing)

I just dont see what the big issue with updating regulations to suit the times would be. I think its just ike when YT is producing original content I want to watch but I have a reaction in my gut thats like 'wtf, pay for YT?!?!' but the reality is that theres nothing wrong with them doing so. Its just that I dont like it.

You wouldnt develop a Hotel marketing campaign online and then if someone cut and pasted it and used it to advertise their hotel instead, just sit back and say "well, nothing I can do because of Free Speech." 

That's not really the what is up for debate.  But we probably wouldn't do much about it, actually. Our hotels/brands are so instilled into people's minds that if someone tried to mimick them, the vast majority of the general public would think it was us anyway....therefore our company would benefit in the long run/broader picture.  That's how marketing/publicity works.  

[Graeme]

7 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

We're all evil more or less, its about who serves your interests.  I don't like it anymore than you but it is what it is.  Morality has nothing to do with anything, it only serves to cloud your perception of what needs to be done.  You can call Churchill all kinds of names but its difficult to ignore his contribution to the world we live in today. 

Kept society on the rails by which I mean not led us into, or to the brink of the apocalypse.  Something that, if morons like Trump continue to be voted for, seems like a not too distant possibility.

What the fuck, man? No we're not . I agree with most of the other shit you're saying, but arguing that most, if not all of the people you know in your life are actually evil seems like crazy hyperbole to me. I can only speak for myself, but my life's full of people I think are brilliant, and the world would be a pretty miserable place without them. 

[soon]

3 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

That's not really the what is up for debate.  But we probably wouldn't do much about it, actually. Our hotels/brands are so instilled into people's minds that if someone tried to mimick them, the vast majority of the general public would think it was us anyway....therefore our company would benefit in the long run/broader picture.  That's how marketing/publicity works.  

Um, yes. The debate is about intellectual property.

[Ace Nova]

1 minute ago, soon said:

Um, yes. The debate is about intellectual property.

Not really.  That's what the authors of this law want you to believe it's about but it's much more than that.   Laws like this are the first steps of mass censorship/elimination of freedom of speech/press.  This law was created from special interest groups and lobbies..and supported by people that don't know or understand what it actually does.

[wasted]

The censorship/freedom of speech issue would come into play in the comments/forum of the origin site. Try posting Bane memes on CNN or BBC websites. 

[Len Cnut]

7 minutes ago, Graeme said:

What the fuck, man? No we're not . I agree with most of the other shit you're saying, but arguing that most, if not all of the people you know in your life are actually evil seems like crazy hyperbole to me. I can only speak for myself, but my life's full of people I think are brilliant, and the world would be a pretty miserable place without them. 

By more or less I mean like...we're all part of the same hypocrisy.  I don't wanna fuckin' say about other people so, y'know, take myself, I'll happily admire people like Che Guevera and talk a lot of punk inspired claptrap about anti-corporate etc etc blah blah blah but what do I really do about it?  Jack shit and the conclusion is that I probably don't care to.  I dunno how to explain this well but look, say you live in 'x' country, 'x' country is bombing the fuck out of 'z' country, you as a citizen of 'x' country contribute to the machinery of it by living it in, working, paying taxes, we are all in this together, our countries tick over because we all play our small part in it functioning, so really, we're all kinda in on it the way I see it.  And why?  I mean we're all alright to shout that this that and the third is fuckin' wrong and immoral blah blah blah but what do we do about it?  Nothing.  Cuz we're all part of it.  Even though we know about morality and what is or isn't morally correct, we don't give a fuck as long as the heatings on and we got 800 channels of Sky TV, no one gives a monkeys, me included, I can't do or else I would do something about it.  And if we as a populus did then we, collectively, would do something about it.  Make no mistake about it the will of the people is in charge, if we wanted different, TRULY wanted different, shit would be different, there's nothing out there that can stop the people, not really. 

[DieselDaisy]

Supermac. That is a Prime Minister. 

[soon]

2 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Not really.  That's what the authors of this law want you to believe it's about but it's much more than that.   Laws like this are the first steps of mass censorship/elimination of freedom of speech/press.  This law was created from special interest groups and lobbies..and supported by people that don't know or understand what it actually does.

I dont really fuck wth conspiracy theories. And I dont fear the State. The State fears me. 

[Ace Nova]

42 minutes ago, soon said:

I dont really fuck wth conspiracy theories. And I dont fear the State. The State fears me. 

Well then you better start acting like it.  Laws like this are the antithesis to any true anarchist. 

 

[Len Cnut]

13 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Well then you better start acting like it.  Laws like this are the antithesis to any true anarchist. 

 

Anarchism a fuckin' joke.  I get that you're joking here but, on a tangent, Anarchism is bollocks.  Its a non-functional thing, a student thing, an idea thats written in books, its just mind games for the middle classes, to quote a certain spirited chap from Finsbury Park.