https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4DhecQQjdM
Bureaucrats just decided to wage war on our freedom of speech. Time to fight back and fight hard. We need to make sure that censorship is as ineffective as possible. Basically what these articles do is:

1. Fair use is dead in EU
2. AI checks require a lot of resources, so they will make social media highly increase in operating cost and be much slower.
3. Fighting against monopolies will be harder
4. Fighting against fake news spread is harder.
5. Criticizing EU is harder.
6. Sharing information (via hyperlinks for now) will require PAID LICENSE either by you or platform owner.
7. Any material you have, if it has even 0.001% of copyrighted material, its owners can either monetize or take it down for any reason.
8. This includes all videos, messages, tweets, anything under the sun on the world wide web.

It has more gems, but to my knowledge those are the worst aspects.
Even if this is EU legislation, it will force international services to adapt to it, so this will effect the entire globe.

We need to be ready to fight this:
1. Use all the peaceful means to speak out your voice.
2. Inform your friends and relatives about situation.
3. Use VPN
4. Use Tor Web browser
5. Help develop Block Chain technologies (probably not much we can do about it personally, but still even very little things matter)
6. Find and spread means to avoid automated AI censorship.
7. Consider your (legal) protesting options
8. If you're European take good care of whom you vote for in next EU ellections.
9. If you're European, consider emigrating out of EU

Malaria.

Brexit might be a good idea afterall so that those articles can be dismissed
Also, I believe Opera browser comes with a free VPN. Opera is Chromium based, so stuff that you have on Chrome should be able to work on Opera

Edited 3/26/2019 17:24:58

I just read an article about that and based on what i have i'm sorry for europeans

I like how the article in portuguese used an example about about reviewing, say, a movie trailer.

If i got this right you're pretty much saying that, if i wrote a review on a movie or whatever, my essay, work and research profits should go to the movie copyright owners? Seems legit. Idk if i got this right tho

(redacted by NASA)

Edited 3/26/2019 21:54:43

Brexit might be a good idea afterall so that those articles can be dismissed

^ That

If a large remain movement was brewing, this has nailed it into a coffin

While I don’t know much about this, a quick search seems to make a number of your claims invalid.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjPtMqd9aHhAhWFyYUKHfC_B4oQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Ftechnology-47708144&psig=AOvVaw38lL_JPukPL4thlUcLIcT9&ust=1553762158781283

It’s fair to criticise these articles but when you pump in your own bs like ‘criticising the eu is harder’ makes the rest of your points questionable

Agree with Buns
Moreover, this directive has so many practical flaws that honestly I don't have much fear. This will be even bigger shitstorm than Brexit turned out to be :)

Meme War II

Edited 3/31/2019 04:03:01

Lol, Did you even bother to read the articles? They are not good but they are not half as bad as you make them out to be. “Harder to criticize EU” and “help the spread of fake news” xd you are the bloody fake news mate.

?

I think you mistakingly posted the "opinion" (read: fearmongering) of Google, Facebook and other big media companies here and not what is actually in these directives.
These directives PROTECT content creators, they do not limit them.

There are positive and negative aspects of these directives, but the main positive is actually that this gives artists and content creators more rights to be actually paid for their work rather than just letting big companies steal everything and monetize them itself. And yes, this is not positives for users who love pirating original works from others, including reposting pictures where the watermark is removed. However, how would you like it if others continuously stole your work and monetized it?
To illustrate this: at a concert a while ago, one of the bands introduced themselves with: "when we were here for the first time now 20 years ago, we were selling vinyl, now we are selling textile. So if you want to support us, buy a shirt at the merchandise stand." I personally think that's just sad! They can't even make money anymore by selling their actual original product: the music. This directive really helps bands like these that are not rich. But yes, it also helps music executives that are already rich.
Similarly, independent journalists and newspapers are failing more than ever, while big media companies repost their stories online with minor editing and reap all the rewards.

So the main reason that Google/YouTube, Facebook and others made some outrageous claims: it's because it will be hurting their business model, a lot. They are the ones making ad money from other people's content.
Parody, movie reviews, critiques and memes: all those things are still allowed and explicitly do NOT fall under the directives as long as the purpose is clear. Better even, this content is itself then protected from abuse from others.
Yes, it will be indeed very difficult to police this and it will cause some false positives flagged as well. However, this now already happens as well when scanning for abuse or content that violates the terms of service of the company. I foresee that some of the bigger platforms may actually try to flag parody on purpose in their continued attempts to get people to protest against these directives.
I really hope if that would happen that content providers will move to different platforms that first and foremost guarantee the rights of their content creators and not prioritize their own ad revenue.

On a point by point basis:
1 - absolutely not, it actually defines better what fair use is and will hopefully limit unfair use.
2 - partially true, but I've seen firsthand that a lot of these tools are already (freely!) available, for example reverse image search and plagiarism detection. Video's may be somewhat of an issue initially, but with the speed that AI in developing in that area, I do not foresee much problems by the time the law should be fully implemented, at least not for the big companies like Google/Youtube and Facebook.
3 - This was potentially an issue for media platforms, but separate provisions for smaller organisations were being discussed and added I believe. Meanwhile, this actually helps in avoiding monopolies in the content creation industry as independent creators will now be actually paid for their work and may no longer need to be part of huge corperations do defend their rights.
4 - Not related to these directives
5 - This is fake news
6 - It's not that extreme. And for the type of content for which you need a paid license, that is typically very appropriate: why should you be allowed to view someone else's content for free on another website that does not own the rights without the original owner's permission? Or do you think that I should be able to sell your dog to someone without your permission?
7 - This is fake news. If you use copyrighted material without permission in its original form without added context, this is stealing and then yes, you have to pay the owner. If you add other context and enhance the material to create a new product, you may or may not be exempted from this depending on the context (e.g. meme, parody-right, movie reviews, ...)
8 - You mean all the ones that are not under a creative commons where the owners have given permission for free use? I'll translate it: "This goes for everything that is owned by someone that they don't want to give you for free. From now on, you can't steal from people anymore!"

OwO

Mathwolf, spitting fire.....But really that interpretation seems much more reasonable, and less like a conspiracy.

Edited 4/2/2019 21:27:52

there are plenty of flaws obviously with the filter, not mentioning the link tax which would absurdly hurt open-sources websites like wikipedia or github.io, and limit knowledge to the internet.

- filter machines can and will be inevitably abused. Since any company can insert their content into the filter like they want and block that content without constraint. Companies can therefore easily troll the system

-how good are filter machines to distinct sophisticated pirated version from a remix version? There are plenty of smart ways to bypass filters I can think of by resampling the audio or clip

-fair use is not well defined. there have millions of cases around the world were there were conflicts of what should be defined as fair use. and each with a different outcome

-The new filter will prevent me of making youtube memes, or what they call "youtube poops" recycled material from tv shows or movies. While youtubes memes are supposedly protected under the clause of "parody" on paper. In practice this is totally different since a filter machine cannot detect parody or humour from an original clip.

While the motive of protecting the works of artists, authors, journalists and musicians is fine. The solutions aren't. Copyright and what should be defined as copyrighted material is arguably hard to define. maybe impossible. and a filter machine will do more harm than good

Edited 4/3/2019 11:39:06

https://www.warzone.com/Forum/175456-found-favorite-political-party

when I discovered my favourite political party. I really wanted copyright and patents to be reformed in a reductive way, with less rules requirements and overall less bureaucracy. But this takes a downwards turn. More bureaucracy and more censorship

Back in high school, I remember I couldn't send a finished school video project to a friend because facebook discovered a copyrighted "part" of the clip which only lasted 10 seconds. As a result I had to re-edit, put a different tune on it and resend it back. Only to discover I couldn't use that tune by Facebook standards either. so I muted the video in some parts in order to submit. Now the same filter is going to be more of a pest in the future and that for anything I post. This is really terrible.

Let's get this straight: noone can say for sure what will happen in practice, both to independent creators and to EU Internet users in general.

Also let's get this straight: EU politicians who voted for these directives don't care about what will happen in practice, both to independent creators and to EU Internet users in general.

If you (not directed at anyone) think that the average politician's main concern is to do what's good for you then you're very naive and I hope you didn't get your voting rights yet.

Just listen to the pan-European nationalists who championed that idea, like Verhofstadt. Then compare how many times he mentions independent creators (spoiler: not many) vs how often he whines about USA having monopoly on the Internet. The only reason these directives were voted in is to tell the USA: your d*** is big, but so is ours. There is no goal other than EU having its own version of Internet.

Current anti-copyright-breach AI algorithms are not up to the job and this is a fact. Music creators are getting their own work copyright claimed. If anything, that screw should be loosened a bit, not tightened. From what I've heard most independent creators are vocal AGAINST these directives.

Theoretically parodies, reviews, memes etc are exempted from these rules. In practice it doesn't matter, AI algorithms don't understand context and they definitely don't understand jokes. And they won't for a very very long time.

So what will happen now? Who knows. My personal guess is that sites like Youtube will start removing lots of content for EU viewers, just to be on the safe side. This in turn could be the first major interference of EU into its' citizens lives, telling them what Internet content they are allowed to watch. This will definitely be lots of fuel for EU-skeptics and leavers (it already is).

Why don't you just not allow EU visitors