<< Back to Warzone Classic Forum   Search

Posts 1 - 5 of 5   
EU Article 13 (upcoming EU copyright law): 5/31/2018 21:51:31

Phakh Gokhn 
Level 63
This thread serves to be place for all information related to upcoming EU copyright law. It's going to be voted on in June 20th


New information links June 1st.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwR34cT1grw (I found this particular link in particular interesting)

So far to my knowledge, in order to link material which is not fully made by yourself, you or the provider of platform that you're using will need to get a paid license for it. This law appears to be above fair use. I will continue to look into this material.

Article 13 itself https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52016PC0593 (haven't read it in detail yet)
Found a place analyzing article 13 https://edri.org/files/copyright/copyright_proposal_article13.pdf (have read most of it)

I will further update this thread later. So far I'm highly concerned about all information I have found regarding this issue and will do my best to verify it. Any additional sources regarding Article 13 are welcome. I will put your links on this post too, so people can look them and make opinions for themselves.

Links provided by other people:
Danger to open source software https://savecodeshare.eu (provided by DanWL)

Edited 6/1/2018 20:38:23
EU Article 13 (upcoming EU copyright law): 5/31/2018 23:44:48

Level 60
Interesting, I had not even heard about this proposal before.

So far to my knowledge, in order to link material which is not fully made by yourself, you'll need to get a paid license for it. This law appears to be above fair use. I will continue to look into this material.

Not quite what I gathered from your links (only looked at non-yt stuff). If a website lists other content (as in, a search engine listing news from other sites) they have to pay a mandatory fee. I can see this help the struggling news industry. May combat fake news as well.

If a site/app lets users upload content they would need to get the license OR filter/scan the content for copyright breach. Well, that sounds practically impossible so... not going to happen imh. Most site like that (like WZ) just state that mapmakers must have the needed licences and leave it at that. Then removes content upon request. {Never happend on WZ as far as i know}

Anyway, there is a real issue of copyright and the internet. On YT copyright take-downs threatens the whole concept of the site. Most of those take-downs would not held up in court, reviews, reactions etc. is perfectly legal. I think the general problem is the sheer amount of content that needs to be reviewed. I have yet to hear a good way to balance the copyright defense with an easy and not labor-intense way of going about stuff. It's well know that YT pays artist/musicians way less the spotify for the same number of views. The 'free', internet is paid for by adds and there are negative side effects of stuff being free. YT is flowing over with content, and automatic control is the only way yt can practical and financial control it. Also, things are global, so if something is illegal and court-ordered to take down in one county then YT just 'restricts' access to that video from that country. Which, means the video is still there. In other words, existing laws take down wrong content, yet fails to take down content that should be taken down.

To me it seems that regardless of what you do, you will massively screw at least on big group of ppl over. Also, all major internet sites are private. Which means that firms can limit what ppl are allowed in terms of free speech etc. I guess what I am saying is that internet has some major principle and ethical questions that are hard to answer.

Edited 5/31/2018 23:45:19
EU Article 13 (upcoming EU copyright law): 6/1/2018 03:26:00

Level 21
There doesn't seem to be anything "ethical" about this article.

Just another stinking government learning that the internet is a thing that they need to crack down on and regulate so that you won't be reading "destabilising propoganda". In this case they are using copyright (which arguably shouldn't even exist in the first place, but more arguably, international and most national laws need to be greatly lessened) as an excuse.

Edited 6/1/2018 03:26:51
EU Article 13 (upcoming EU copyright law): 6/1/2018 09:07:22

Level 63
I only know about this because of seeing a link to https://savecodeshare.eu in my social media feed. Article 13 threatens the use of open source software from not being shared freely. More info about that can be found in the link.
EU Article 13 (upcoming EU copyright law): 6/1/2018 20:52:59

Phakh Gokhn 
Level 63
Didn't had much time today, but added up 2 new links and a link provided by DanWL.

This particular video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwR34cT1grw was very interesting to me. It makes a case that large news companies will be able to destroy independent news providers. Basically as media giants provide real news, they will only be able to copyright real news, which means that fake news spreaders will be able to avoid this copyright law.

That video also told a story at the end of a news article getting changed over night from being negative towards article 13 towards being positive about. The most interesting part about it was removal of quote of anonymous EU parliament member telling stories of large media groups lobbying for pass of this article.

Now if article 13 passes, it's likely to affect Warzone in following ways:
a) WZ staff will need to police content and remove links.
b) Fizzer makes algorithm which automatically prevents posting of links/images
c) Copyright owner (anyone can now make claims, which leads to risks of false claims) makes a claim and demands something to be removed (either link or even 1 quoted sentence) and it gets taken down.
d) WZ gets copyrighted material sharing license (likely to be very expensive).
e) Either WZ bans users entering from EU or EU bans users to access WZ (this would force players to get VPN)
f) Article 13 fails to pass/gets changed.
g) WZ does nothing and nobody cares about it (although copyright owners could start at any moment to care).

Most of above scenarios don't look good to me.
Posts 1 - 5 of 5