https://www.google.com/amp/s/boingboing.net/2018/06/08/delete-article-13.html/amp#ampshare=https://boingboing.net/2018/06/08/delete-article-13.html

I don't know what to say about this. Any comments? What does this mean for the website?

Probably nothing, considering the website is hosted in Arizona, and they've made clear that they're not going to bother with censoring content unless it is legally required (to my understanding).

HypnoBitch said:
https://www.google.com

Um, care to explain why you posted a google url?
Looks like it's just Europe not understanding that nobody likes Youtube's content ID.

Furrin_Gok said:
Um, care to explain why you posted a google url?
Looks like it's just Europe not understanding that nobody likes Youtube's content ID.

That's Google AMP, so most likely copied link on mobile.

And it does seem like sometimes EU is out of touch how internet works. Some changes are good, but I still do not understand what's the point of telling users that the site will use cookies.

Remember ACTA, the thing that was cancelled because of the protests in nearly every major european city? When they get this through there would be riots all over again.

it couldn't make it to the us where e6 is located for one reason. Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, "No State shall pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility." The important part there is the part banning ex post facto laws, or retroactive laws. In order for the new one to be a law in the United States, they'd have to add a new Amendment repealing that from the Constitution, and it's hard to get something added as an amendment.

Allowing one requires repealing that, right? Well, repealing that would permanantly allow all laws to be made ex post facto, not just that. Any law passed without exception would be ex post facto if that were repealed. Sounds tempting for politicians, right? Wrong. First, it's hard to get an amendment through. Second, if it did go through, anything added later could end up being used against those same people who wanted to repeal the ban, this time not requiring a whole new amendment.

Sure, they'd get to pass laws retroactively, but so can any other lawmaker, and so could anyone who comes next, and so could anyone who votes. And any politician pushing to repeal the ban would have a giant target on them for laws that don't even exist yet. It'd be political suicide to push to repeal it, whether they succeed or not.

Since e6 is based in the US, and that law isn't getting passed in the US, e6 isn't gonna have to worry.

kamimatsu said:
it couldn't make it to the us where e6 is located for one reason. Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, "No State shall pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility." The important part there is the part banning ex post facto laws, or retroactive laws. In order for the new one to be a law in the United States, they'd have to add a new Amendment repealing that from the Constitution, and it's hard to get something added as an amendment.

Allowing one requires repealing that, right? Well, repealing that would permanantly allow all laws to be made ex post facto, not just that. Any law passed without exception would be ex post facto if that were repealed. Sounds tempting for politicians, right? Wrong. First, it's hard to get an amendment through. Second, if it did go through, anything added later could end up being used against those same people who wanted to repeal the ban, this time not requiring a whole new amendment.

Sure, they'd get to pass laws retroactively, but so can any other lawmaker, and so could anyone who comes next, and so could anyone who votes. And any politician pushing to repeal the ban would have a giant target on them for laws that don't even exist yet. It'd be political suicide to push to repeal it, whether they succeed or not.

...what?

What do you think ex post facto means, that it might be applicable here?

The EU can do whatever it pleases, e621 will either:

• Choose to abide by it.
• Choose to ignore it.

E621 is under no obligation to obey any laws or mandates originating from outside of the United States. The worst that could happen would be European ISPs blocking their users from accessing e621.

If there are, by chance, any legal scholars or hobbyists interested in reading the law, as proposed, it is available here. Personally, I can't be bothered to deal with that much boilerplate language without being primed in EU legal practices and precedent, and I honestly I have no interest in that. I would rather learn the intricacies of curtilage, which I understand to be quite dull in and of themselves.

My layman's reading suggests that the EU Parliament wants to dictate Youtube-style ContentID systems on everyone, from Wikipedia to Twitter, but wants the EU member states to figure out on their own how to accomplish and/or enforce that mandate. And really, the only way for one sovereign nation to "enforce" that mandate on sites hosted in another sovereign nation is to block access to those sites: digitally closing its eyes, sticking its fingers in its ears, and humming mighty loudly, or else sticking its head in the sand, pretending that if they can't see it, it doesn't exist or else will go away.

https://mobile.twitter.com/FB_BMB/status/1009420944853684224

So, I guess the status quo is broken, right?

What will happend?

What will happen is that Europe will lose money as hosting businesses and servers move out of there. Europeans will experience longer latency to load content from the U.S. Or the law will be ignored by the big tech players and not adequately enforced by the EU.

Oi m8, you got a license for that meme!?

Lance_Armstrong said:
What will happen is that Europe will lose money as hosting businesses and servers move out of there. Europeans will experience longer latency to load content from the U.S. Or the law will be ignored by the big tech players and not adequately enforced by the EU.

So, first Net Neutrality gone, now EU copyright law passes? Can't believe this happened. Back in the early 2010's, we were powerful enough to stop such legislation such as SOPA, PIPA and ACTA, now we can't?

cerberusmod_3 said:
So, first Net Neutrality gone, now EU copyright law passes? Can't believe this happened. Back in the early 2010's, we were powerful enough to stop such legislation such as SOPA, PIPA and ACTA, now we can't?

It's not the end of the world. A little hardship can be a good thing. It could force us to redesign the way we use the internet with a greater focus on decentralized services.

I've watched vids and googled stuff before. It's still not 100% sure if that stuff will be put into effect, also some people at the eu parliment are still going to fight aganist it, they want to bring it to the eu court (dunno which institution now) and faaaar more people will actually express their thoughts on it and vote, which might be a good thing if the majority will be aganist it.

The EU council responsible for this legislation are nothing but a bunch of out-of-touch, decrepit, dyspeptic , not to mention, spiteful bunch of troglodytes. I hope this bill and anything else like it fails hard.

fox_whisper85 said:
The EU council responsible for this legislation are nothing but a bunch of out-of-touch, decrepit, dyspeptic , not to mention, spiteful bunch of troglodytes. I hope this bill and anything else like it fails hard.

Wow, no different than the U.S. Why am I not surprised.

God, why is every country so vile.

cerberusmod_3 said:
Wow, no different than the U.S. Why am I not surprised.

God, why is every country so vile.

I wish I knew. Screw both of them.

Lance_Armstrong said:
It's not the end of the world. A little hardship can be a good thing. It could force us to redesign the way we use the internet with a greater focus on decentralized services.

it's not the end of the world, but i can see it from here.

If things are going downhill fast, what do we do? Abandon the Internet?

cerberusmod_3 said:
If things are going downhill fast, what do we do? Abandon the Internet?

Celebrate a "French Revolution" revival festival?

https://saveyourinternet.eu/

cerberusmod_3 said:
If things are going downhill fast, what do we do? Abandon the Internet?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-gHVGOoE48

except not really.

D4rk said:
Celebrate a "French Revolution" revival festival?

SirBrownBear said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-gHVGOoE48

except not really.

Stop being silly. This ain't happening.

I haven't seen any news about the Europeans fighting for the Internet in real life.

I haven't seen any news about the Europeans fighting for the Internet in real life.

I'm a European and I've personally been to Internet freedom related demonstrations as well as signed relevant petitions.

Just because something doesn't make headlines in Glorious America doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Hungarian_Internet_tax_protests
^ 100k people went to the streets in my country. If the EU seriously tries to push this shit through I can guarantee that there will be protests like that all across the EU.

Almost half million people (including me) already signed this online petition:
https://www.change.org/p/european-parliament-stop-the-censorship-machinery-save-the-internet

Storm-Engineer said:
I'm a European and I've personally been to Internet freedom related demonstrations as well as signed relevant petitions.

Just because something doesn't make headlines in Glorious America doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Hungarian_Internet_tax_protests
^ 100k people went to the streets in my country. If the EU seriously tries to push this shit through I can guarantee that there will be protests like that all across the EU.

Almost half million people (including me) already signed this online petition:
https://www.change.org/p/european-parliament-stop-the-censorship-machinery-save-the-internet

I see. Not enough, though.

I'm not an European, but I'm just as paranoid as everyone else.

Lance_Armstrong said:
It's not the end of the world. A little hardship can be a good thing. It could force us to redesign the way we use the internet with a greater focus on decentralized services.

You're not at all afraid of EU and other countries pusillanimously censoring things they don't like and blocking websites?

I gave the article a read, and don't see what most of the fuss is about. The article excludes noncommercial activity, so things such as posting memes on a free forum is completely unaffected.

It's also worth noting that it wouldn't be universal even for commercial activity. Just like YouTube Content IDs, not all rightholders are going to care that their content gets shared. Some consider that to be a form of free advertisement, and others will allow it because they don't want bad publicity.

But the article is problematic for sites such as Wikipedia, and notably bad for moddable online games. So here's hoping that it gets repelled regardless. Even though the directive as a whole includes some neat stuff, such as safeguards for the preservation and open access to cultural heritage and out-of-commerce works (ala Internet Archive), etc.

Genjar said:
I gave the article a read, and don't see what most of the fuss is about. The article excludes noncommercial activity, so things such as posting memes on a free forum is completely unaffected.

It's also worth noting that it wouldn't be universal even for commercial activity. Just like YouTube Content IDs, not all rightholders are going to care that their content gets shared. Some consider that to be a form of free advertisement, and others will allow it because they don't want bad publicity.

But the article is problematic for sites such as Wikipedia, and notably bad for moddable online games. So here's hoping that it gets repelled regardless. Even though the directive as a whole includes some neat stuff, such as safeguards for the preservation and open access to cultural heritage and out-of-commerce works (ala Internet Archive), etc.

And sites like SFM Lab, would be adversely affected. The owner posted a PSA that SFM Lab could be forced to shut down or implement auto copyright ID BS to appease the EU dunderheads.

fox_whisper85 said:
And sites like SFM Lab, would be adversely affected.

In practice it functions the same way as our avoid_posting list: only the rightholders who want their content blocked get blocked. So yes, it'd mean more work for the sites, having to filter the content, but there's no universal blacklist.

And again, it's only for commercial activity. I don't see how sites such as SFM Lab would actually be affected, unless they start selling models. I'd be more concerned about Patreon fan-artists and such.

It'd mean less fan art in general, and would suck a lot if big names such as Nintendo want their content blocked. But to be fair, those characters are currently used without permission, so I can kind of see it from the other side too..

Genjar said:
In practice it functions the same way as our avoid_posting list: only the rightholders who want their content blocked get blocked. So yes, it'd mean more work for the sites, having to filter the content, but there's no universal blacklist.

And again, it's only for commercial activity. I don't see how sites such as SFM Lab would actually be affected, unless they start selling models. I'd be more concerned about Patreon fan-artists and such.

It'd mean less fan art in general, and would suck a lot if big names such as Nintendo want their content blocked. But to be fair, those characters are currently used without permission, so I can kind of see it from the other side too..

The whole thing is unnecessary IMO.

>EU banning memes.

top kek

Genjar said:
I gave the article a read, and don't see what most of the fuss is about. The article excludes noncommercial activity, so things such as posting memes on a free forum is completely unaffected.

It's also worth noting that it wouldn't be universal even for commercial activity. Just like YouTube Content IDs, not all rightholders are going to care that their content gets shared. Some consider that to be a form of free advertisement, and others will allow it because they don't want bad publicity.

But the article is problematic for sites such as Wikipedia, and notably bad for moddable online games. So here's hoping that it gets repelled regardless. Even though the directive as a whole includes some neat stuff, such as safeguards for the preservation and open access to cultural heritage and out-of-commerce works (ala Internet Archive), etc.

So the Net Neutrality debate is also considered an exaggerations?

fox_whisper85 said:
You're not at all afraid of EU and other countries pusillanimously censoring things they don't like and blocking websites?

Read what I said. Centralized services are holding the internet back because they are susceptible to the whims of individuals, corporations, advertisers, governments, and dictators. We need to end our addiction to Google, YouTube, Facebook, Patreon, and other platforms* that can censor content, even if that means a loss of convenience. Decentralized services on the other hand can be resistant to outside pressure or single points of failure. Think Tor, Freenet, BitTorrent, Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc. These services are imperfect but can improve with more work, users, and hardware.

The law isn't the problem. The fact that it's even possible for the US or EU to censor a site is the problem. Technical means are needed to solve it, rather than legal or political.

*That includes e621 and all of your other favorite furry sites. It may also include the ISP you pay for internet access.

Lance_Armstrong said:
Read what I said. Centralized services are holding the internet back because they are susceptible to the whims of individuals, corporations, advertisers, governments, and dictators. We need to end our addiction to Google, YouTube, Facebook, Patreon, and other platforms* that can censor content, even if that means a loss of convenience. Decentralized services on the other hand can be resistant to outside pressure or single points of failure. Think Tor, Freenet, BitTorrent, Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc. These services are imperfect but can improve with more work, users, and hardware.

The law isn't the problem. The fact that it's even possible for the US or EU to censor a site is the problem. Technical means are needed to solve it, rather than legal or political.

*That includes e621 and all of your other favorite furry sites. It may also include the ISP you pay for internet access.

And IMO, the people who propose these stupid changes are out of touch and only want to line their pockets with gold. Only doing it out of spite, it's the wrong way to do it.

Lance_Armstrong said:
Read what I said. Centralized services are holding the internet back because they are susceptible to the whims of individuals, corporations, advertisers, governments, and dictators. We need to end our addiction to Google, YouTube, Facebook, Patreon, and other platforms* that can censor content, even if that means a loss of convenience. Decentralized services on the other hand can be resistant to outside pressure or single points of failure. Think Tor, Freenet, BitTorrent, Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc. These services are imperfect but can improve with more work, users, and hardware.

The law isn't the problem. The fact that it's even possible for the US or EU to censor a site is the problem. Technical means are needed to solve it, rather than legal or political.

*That includes e621 and all of your other favorite furry sites. It may also include the ISP you pay for internet access.

Exactly. We can create all this man made contruct and whatever. We can talk about politics and how we can create universal basic income when automation take too many job or how net neutrality was vital to freedom. But at the end of the day, whoever own the mean to the end can and will call the shot. The only solution is to disburse the power they hold, and to be frank that could only happen if people have a reason to activatily look for alternative.

So if that mean Europe must take your furry porn to intice you into looking for other ISP or alternative internet solution. It eventually pay off in the long run

fox_whisper85 said:
And IMO, the people who propose these stupid changes are out of touch and only want to line their pockets with gold. Only doing it out of spite, it's the wrong way to do it.

Again, their motives are irrelevant. Governments will keep trying to crack down on the internet again and again. Corporations will enforce copyright takedowns to avoid getting sued. What's important is that censorship can be made ineffective on decentralized and distributed platforms.

Lance_Armstrong said:
Again, their motives are irrelevant. Governments will keep trying to crack down on the internet again and again. Corporations will enforce copyright takedowns to avoid getting sued. What's important is that censorship can be made ineffective on decentralized and distributed platforms.

They only do this for their own interests and to line their pockets with gold. They couldn't care less about the people who use the internet. I hope these systems fail hard.

Hmm.. I wonder what makes U.S. the most arrogant country on the Internet?

Sorry, I can't say anything about the bill. I'm feeling paranoid of propaganda, left or right.

Lance_Armstrong said:
Read what I said. Centralized services are holding the internet back because they are susceptible to the whims of individuals, corporations, advertisers, governments, and dictators. We need to end our addiction to Google, YouTube, Facebook, Patreon, and other platforms* that can censor content, even if that means a loss of convenience. Decentralized services on the other hand can be resistant to outside pressure or single points of failure. Think Tor, Freenet, BitTorrent, Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc. These services are imperfect but can improve with more work, users, and hardware.

The law isn't the problem. The fact that it's even possible for the US or EU to censor a site is the problem. Technical means are needed to solve it, rather than legal or political.

*That includes e621 and all of your other favorite furry sites. It may also include the ISP you pay for internet access.

Decentralisation would be good because you could finally implement the element of punishment. For example you have FA which more or less holds a monopoly on furry art and related things. If sou had a few competitors people would gravitate to an outright best option or a most convenient one. However, being fragmented to dozens of pages and websites is imo a step back, it is natural that we create ever greater structures, but as in all things, a good measure must be found.

cerberusmod_3 said:
Hmm.. I wonder what makes U.S. the most arrogant country on the Internet?

Sorry, I can't say anything about the bill. I'm feeling paranoid of propaganda, left or right.

This one's Europe, not America.

cerberusmod_3 said:
Hmm.. I wonder what makes U.S. the most arrogant country on the Internet?

Sorry, I can't say anything about the bill. I'm feeling paranoid of propaganda, left or right.

Censorship shouldn't be a left-right issue

Dutchnoob said:
Censorship shouldn't be a left-right issue

Censorship shouldn't be a thing, either, it's just a pusillanimous way cowards resort to in order to deal with issues they don't want to take head on.

fox_whisper85 said:
And IMO, the people who propose these stupid changes are out of touch and only want to line their pockets with gold. Only doing it out of spite, it's the wrong way to do it.

Many people who 'want to line their pockets with gold' are opposing this directive.

Because free usage of material by libraries, schools, and such has always been a hotly debated topic, and this directive attempts to put protections on those. While others oppose it because they don't want to allow their copyrights to be included in the cultural/human heritage archives (ala Internet Archive, or various game preservation projects), or just want to kill off those sites altogether (this directive would allow such sites to use ads to cover the costs).

There are a lot of organizations who are opposing that article simply because they don't want the rest of the directive to pass. As the result, there's a lot of propaganda spread about it.

Furrin_Gok said:
This one's Europe, not America.

I'm not mentioning that the U.S. is the one responsible. It's just that that most things I see on the Internet are from the U.S. I'm afraid that most people, especially in the U.S. don't know anything about the EU bill thing.

Genjar said:
Many people who 'want to line their pockets with gold' are opposing this directive.

Because free usage of material by libraries, schools, and such has always been a hotly debated topic, and this directive attempts to put protections on those. While others oppose it because they don't want to allow their copyrights to be included in the cultural/human heritage archives (ala Internet Archive, or various game preservation projects).

There are a lot of organizations who are opposing that article simply because they don't want the rest of the directive to pass. As the result, there's a lot of propaganda spread about it.

So the people in the U.S. did the same for Net Neutrality. Not gonna oppose it. Just curious.

The idea I had last year where we set up a sneakernet still stands. Never underestimate the bandwidth of a backpack full of USB sticks

kamimatsu said:
The idea I had last year where we set up a sneakernet still stands. Never underestimate the bandwidth of a backpack full of USB sticks

my post about a solution when net neutrality dies used a image of a camera man in a glass house as a hint

it was mirroring and using ad hoc-based internet to relay information without the need of ISP providers. finding the fund to research this is not easy though

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

kamimatsu said:
The idea I had last year where we set up a sneakernet still stands. Never underestimate the bandwidth of a backpack full of USB sticks

You've got to be kidding me, right? How many USB sticks do you have?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44696302

So apparently, Wikipedia Italy blocks articles in protest at EU copyright law. Can they do the same for other European-language site?

https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2018/07/01/songwriters-european-union-article-13/
https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2018/07/03/google-article-13-copyright-directive/

Some news from Digital Music News.

Why are you guys busy? Tomorrow is the vote.

The main opponents of this directive are the giants such as Google, Microsoft, and Facebook. That should be a good indicator of who stands to lose most if the directive passes.

The talk about 'censorship machines' is nothing but scaremongering. But I guess that's enough to get public support these days.

Genjar said:
The main opponents of this directive are the giants such as Google, Microsoft, and Facebook. That should be a good indicator of who stands to lose most if the directive passes.

The talk about 'censorship machines' is nothing but scaremongering. But I guess that's enough to get public support these days.

I haven't seen most of these giants opposing this directive on the news aside for Google who might be doing something to stop this directive, as mentioned by a news site, but since this news wasn't as widespread as the other news and the fact that only said news site mentioned it, it could be fake news.

cerberusmod_3 said:
I haven't seen most of these giants opposing this directive on the news

They may not openly oppose it in public, but this directive has been in works for years and goes against pretty much everything that Microsoft outlined when consulted back in 2008 about possible changes to the copyright laws.

For instance, Microsoft opposed copyright exceptions for libraries, education, and people with disabilities. Which is something that this directive is trying to implement.

It's as if EU took Microsoft's response, glanced at it, and said "okay, implement everything that they told us not to implement". I can't imagine Microsoft being happy about that.

Genjar said:
They may not openly oppose it in public, but this directive has been in works for years and goes against pretty much everything that Microsoft outlined when consulted back in 2008 about possible changes to the copyright laws.

For instance, Microsoft opposed copyright exceptions for libraries, education, and people with disabilities. Which is something that this directive is trying to implement.

It's as if EU took Microsoft's response, glanced at it, and said "okay, implement everything that they told us not to implement". I can't imagine Microsoft being happy about that.

Is that so, then why can't they stop the Net Neutrality repeal before? I can imagine that they barely helped us anymore.

cerberusmod_3 said:
Is that so, then why can't they stop the Net Neutrality repeal before? I can imagine that they barely helped us anymore.

What does Net Neutrality have to do with it? Article 13 is copyright legislation, Net Neutrality is whether or not ISPs and network carriers have to treat all traffic equally.

Plus or minus European law, Microsoft can oppose Article 13 by choosing whose campaigns to support in future elections.

ikdind said:
What does Net Neutrality have to do with it?

I meant that these giants are starting to become useless in saving the Internet, since they have to deal with other stuff.

cerberusmod_3 said:
I meant that these giants are starting to become useless in saving the Internet, since they have to deal with other stuff.

I think that the way Net Neutrality is shaking out right now has to do with two things:

• The power of massive media conglomerates like Comcast/NBC/Universal (yes that is a single entity), who actively pursue any means possible to lock down media consumption, to try to protect their existing business models from the advancement of technology.

• The 2016 Presidential elections putting Washington into a "screw you" mentality towards any and all issues supported by the political left, at least until the mid-terms swing the pendulum back.

I mean, I could also throw shade toward Ajit Pai, specifically: a man whom I would classify as irredeemable, either for corruption or naivety, as he has been at the forefront of the FCC's opposition to Net Neutrality. But neither of those failings would be fatal to Net Neutrality except for the factors above.

ikdind said:
I think that the way Net Neutrality is shaking out right now has to do with two things:

• The power of massive media conglomerates like Comcast/NBC/Universal (yes that is a single entity), who actively pursue any means possible to lock down media consumption, to try to protect their existing business models from the advancement of technology.

• The 2016 Presidential elections putting Washington into a "screw you" mentality towards any and all issues supported by the political left, at least until the mid-terms swing the pendulum back.

I mean, I could also throw shade toward Ajit Pai, specifically: a man whom I would classify as irredeemable, either for corruption or naivety, as he has been at the forefront of the FCC's opposition to Net Neutrality. But neither of those failings would be fatal to Net Neutrality except for the factors above.

He's not the only one. Donald Trump, as well.

If the bill passed, then I have no idea. And I don't think we have enough time to save the Internet. I just can't save many pictures I like.

http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2018/07/paul-mccartney-1300-musicians-push-for-article-13-adoption-ahead-of-key-vote-.html

I have a feeling that we can't stop it no matter what.

cerberusmod_3 said:
http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2018/07/paul-mccartney-1300-musicians-push-for-article-13-adoption-ahead-of-key-vote-.html

I have a feeling that we can't stop it no matter what.

Bloody sycophants.

fox_whisper85 said:
Bloody sycophants.

Yeah, and we expected the bill to succeed because of this.

cerberusmod_3 said:
You've got to be kidding me, right? How many USB sticks do you have?

Not sure exactly.

So, it's today. I wonder who will win.

I'm scared, now.

If it passes, then independent artists, emulation, and archival sites win. While Wikipedia and major corporations lose.

If it doesn't pass, then Wikipedia wins... but European archival sites are pretty much dead, and centralized services such as YouTube continue their stranglehold on the net, profiting at the expense of the smaller artists and gobbling up anyone who tries to compete.

Either way, have to take the good with the bad.

Genjar said:
If it passes, then independent artists, emulation, and archival sites win. While Wikipedia and major corporations lose.

If it doesn't pass, then Wikipedia wins... but European archival sites are pretty much dead, and centralized services such as YouTube continue their stranglehold on the net, profiting at the expense of the smaller artists and gobbling up anyone who tries to compete.

Either way, have to take the good with the bad.

And sites like SFM lab will all go to hell, because of pusillanimously forced copyright ID systems.

fox_whisper85 said:
And sites like SFM lab will all go to hell, because of pusillanimously forced copyright ID systems.

Unless they're actually selling models, they don't have to change anything. As has been mentioned in multiple sources, this directive only affects commercial content.

Genjar said:
Unless they're actually selling models, they don't have to change anything. As has been mentioned in multiple sources, this directive only affects commercial content.

You did see the front page of SFM lab, yes? And what the guy who ran the site has stated? I would suggest taking time to read it. Maybe you should tell Ganonmaster.

fox_whisper85 said:
You did see the front page of SFM lab, yes? And what the guy who ran the site has stated?

Yep, read it. Just an another site that has bought in to the scaremongering, without bothering the check if there's any truth to it. Like the old adage says, don't believe everything you read.

It also shows a complete lack of understanding of how EU directives work. The implementation of the directive is left to the member nations, and to think that every member nation would misinterpret this directive that badly is... mindboggling.

Genjar said:
If it passes, then independent artists, emulation, and archival sites win. While Wikipedia and major corporations lose.

If it doesn't pass, then Wikipedia wins... but European archival sites are pretty much dead, and centralized services such as YouTube continue their stranglehold on the net, profiting at the expense of the smaller artists and gobbling up anyone who tries to compete.

Either way, have to take the good with the bad.

And if it's passed, what will happen to the other sites, including those that don't run ads.

cerberusmod_3 said:
And if ir's passed, what will happen to the other sites, including those that don't run ads.

Generally nothing, though I'm not sure what kind of sites you're referring to.

It's a directive, not a law. The precise implementation of the laws is up to the member nations, and the legislation will take a long time. And will be closely watched by local activists in each country, to make sure that it doesn't get misused.

Genjar said:
Generally nothing, though I'm not sure what kind of sites you're referring to.

It's a directive, not a law. The precise implementation of the laws is up to the member nations, and the legislation will take a long time. And will be closely watched by local activists in each country, to make sure that it doesn't get misused.

Pretty much.

So is it worth to stop it even after this?

cerberusmod_3 said:
Even after the vote, can we still stop it?

Yes, like I just said.
If it passes today, nothing changes for now. The directive moves into legislation phase in each member nation, and that tends to take a long time. Years.

Assuming that there's anything worth stopping. Contrary to what some people seem to think, most European countries aren't interested in policing the internet (if not for moral reasons, then because it'd be too expensive). So I expect this directive to be interpreted in a sensible way in most countries.

I'd recommend reading Directive (European Union) on Wikipedia for further details on how those work.

Genjar said:
Yes, like I just said.
If it passes today, nothing changes for now. The directive moves into legislation phase in each member nation, and that tends to take a long time. Years.

Assuming that there's anything worth stopping. Contrary to what some people seem to think, most European countries aren't interested in policing the internet (if for no reasons, then because it'd be too expensive). So I expect this directive to be interpreted in a sensible way in most countries.

I'd recommend reading Directive (European Union) on Wikipedia for further details on how those work.

Fair enough, but I won't hold my breath.

Seems it's back to the drawing board; good, we don't need any more convoluted copyright bullshit laws that screw things up.

It will be adjusted and voted again in September. Remains to be seen if the new version will be more in the line of what EDiMA (organization formed by Apple, eBay, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Twitter) lobbied for, or closer to what BEUC (consumer protection) wanted.
...
That wasn't even funny. Of course it'll be closer to what EDiMA wants, since they can pour endless millions into lobbying. My prediction is that the rewritten law is going to be much worse for consumers and artists (and Wikipedia, open source, archival sites, etc), while exceptions will be made for the internet giants.

Genjar said:
It will be adjusted and voted again in September. Remains to be seen if the new version will be more in the line of what EDiMA (organization formed by Apple, eBay, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Twitter) lobbied for, or closer to what BEUC (consumer protection) wanted.
...
That wasn't even funny. Of course it'll be closer to what EDiMA wants, since they can pour endless millions into lobbying. My prediction is that the rewritten law is going to be much worse for consumers and artists (and Wikipedia, open source, archival sites, etc), while exceptions will be made for the internet giants.

Uh oh.

Genjar said:
It will be adjusted and voted again in September. Remains to be seen if the new version will be more in the line of what EDiMA (organization formed by Apple, eBay, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Twitter) lobbied for, or closer to what BEUC (consumer protection) wanted.
...
That wasn't even funny. Of course it'll be closer to what EDiMA wants, since they can pour endless millions into lobbying. My prediction is that the rewritten law is going to be much worse for consumers and artists (and Wikipedia, open source, archival sites, etc), while exceptions will be made for the internet giants.

Yeah, lobbyists suck and I hope those old farts...never mind.