• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Final Version of the EU's Copyright Directive Is the Worst One Yet

Renae

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
[h=3]News that you're not allowed to discuss[/h]Article 11, which allows news sites to decide who can link to their stories and charge for permission to do so, has also been worsened. The final text clarifies that any link that contains more than "single words or very short extracts" from a news story must be licensed, with no exceptions for noncommercial users, nonprofit projects, or even personal websites with ads or other income sources, no matter how small.
Click to expand...
The Final Version of the EU's Copyright Directive Is the Worst One Yet | Electronic Frontier Foundation

How will these changes affect a site like DP?
 
Breaking News rules would have to change.....
 
This is an absolutely horrible piece of legislation, this is blatant corruption with news organizations and copyright holders pushing for it. Any legislator who supports it should be thrown from office and investigated.

There is no good reason anyone could have to support this law.
 
Carjosse said:
This is an absolutely horrible piece of legislation, this is blatant corruption with news organizations and copyright holders pushing for it. Any legislator who supports it should be thrown from office and investigated.

There is no good reason anyone could have to support this law.
Click to expand...

I won't disagree, but this looks more liekly to go through like this, not good.
 
Wonder how much bribery lobbying went into that one.
 
Renae said:
I won't disagree, but this looks more liekly to go through like this, not good.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it will go through... the blog seems to think it's going to hit resistance. Essentially, this is a bill that made it out of committee, but still has to go to a parliament for a vote. Prior to the changes, the bill was unpopular, this makes it worse, and it will go for a vote right before elections.

Now that the Directive has emerged from the Trilogue, it will head to the European Parliament for a vote for the whole body, either during the March 25-28 session or the April 15-18 session—with elections scheduled in May.

These elections are critical: the Members of the European Parliament are going to be fighting an election right after voting on this Directive, which is already the most unpopular legislative effort in European history, and that's before the public gets wind of these latest changes.
Click to expand...
 
Carjosse said:
This is an absolutely horrible piece of legislation, this is blatant corruption with news organizations and copyright holders pushing for it. Any legislator who supports it should be thrown from office and investigated.

There is no good reason anyone could have to support this law.
Click to expand...

Disagree to an extent. If the news organization and the writers put the work in and put the story into circulation, they should be paid in some way for the work. That work should not be allowed to be distributed far and wide without some compensation.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Disagree to an extent. If the news organization and the writers put the work in and put the story into circulation, they should be paid in some way for the work. That work should not be allowed to be distributed far and wide without some compensation.
Click to expand...

It is entirely on news organizations to figure out out how to monetize their platform not use legislation to destroy the internet and collect money like a mob enforcer. If people can't link to these sites how are people going to get to their sites? If you charge people they just wont link to your website nor visit it.

Why does all copyright law seem to be written by people who have never used the internet in their life?
 
Carjosse said:
It is entirely on news organizations to figure out out how to monetize their platform not use legislation to destroy the internet and collect money like a mob enforcer. If people can't link to these sites how are people going to get to their sites? If you charge people they just wont link to your website nor visit it.

Why does all copyright law seem to be written by people who have never used the internet in their life?
Click to expand...

You usually monetize intellectual property by charging nominal amounts per use instead of letting it be stolen left right and center. Some law was needed earlier on imo. People that do the legwork and write the news reports should be compensated and legal intervention is, in this instance, called for so they can get some leverage.
 
OpportunityCost said:
You usually monetize intellectual property by charging nominal amounts per use instead of letting it be stolen left right and center. Some law was needed earlier on imo. People that do the legwork and write the news reports should be compensated and legal intervention is, in this instance, called for so they can get some leverage.
Click to expand...

How exactly does linking to an article and having an excerpt amount to stealing intellectual property? Can a news report even be considered intellectual property, can facts be owned? Can a news organization sue another news organization for covering the same event and reporting the same things?

Google News cannot exist in the EU, sites like this would have to shut down, it shuts down discussion, and it is just ignores the reality of the digital age. This will damage them more then it helps them, they will have no traffic, it is essentially equivalent to locking all their content behind a strict paywall. It will create a market for pirated news content if that organization survives at all meaning that the organization will receive no revenue at all instead of ads or what subscriptions they do have.

Why should newspapers be propped up with this ludicrous legalization and overstep of authority because they refuse adapt to the digital age? It is an infringement on free expression and consumer rights.

Do you think the government should have restricted the use of mobile phones to protect landlines and the telecoms that ran them?
 
Last edited:
Carjosse said:
How exactly does linking to an article and having an excerpt amount to stealing intellectual property? Can a news report even be considered intellectual property, can facts be owned? Can a news organization sue another news organization for covering the same event and reporting the same things?

Google News cannot exist in the EU, sites like this would have to shut down, it shuts down discussion, and it is just ignores the reality of the digital age. This will damage them more then it helps them, they will have no traffic, it is essentially equivalent to locking all their content behind a strict paywall. It will create a market for pirated news content if that organization survives at all meaning that the organization will receive no revenue at all instead of ads or what subscriptions they do have.

Why should newspapers be propped up with this ludicrous legalization and overstep of authority because they refuse adapt to the digital age? It is an infringement on free expression and consumer rights.

Do you think the government should have restricted the use of mobile phones to protect landlines and the telecoms that ran them?
Click to expand...

I don't think the law is perfect but I also think something similar should have been proposed ages ago, news organizations and reporters are doing work, and its getting linked to repeatedly but the only one profiting from that is the news aggregates like Google. You are talking about a lockdown on information, we have something worse, a few companies getting to decide what is news and what isn't, whether it gets linked or doesn't, and how much is earned for it, when they clearly have a dog in that hunt.

Maybe this is a bit far, but don't you agree some sort of law should have existed to pay people for their work and their property?
 
OpportunityCost said:
I don't think the law is perfect but I also think something similar should have been proposed ages ago, news organizations and reporters are doing work, and its getting linked to repeatedly but the only one profiting from that is the news aggregates like Google. You are talking about a lockdown on information, we have something worse, a few companies getting to decide what is news and what isn't, whether it gets linked or doesn't, and how much is earned for it, when they clearly have a dog in that hunt.

Maybe this is a bit far, but don't you agree some sort of law should have existed to pay people for their work and their property?
Click to expand...

If you remove the ability to spread the news, they are gonna find their clicks from sites like this for example will dry up. The law of unintended consequences....
 
OpportunityCost said:
I don't think the law is perfect but I also think something similar should have been proposed ages ago, news organizations and reporters are doing work, and its getting linked to repeatedly but the only one profiting from that is the news aggregates like Google. You are talking about a lockdown on information, we have something worse, a few companies getting to decide what is news and what isn't, whether it gets linked or doesn't, and how much is earned for it, when they clearly have a dog in that hunt.

Maybe this is a bit far, but don't you agree some sort of law should have existed to pay people for their work and their property?
Click to expand...

No because you can't own facts and tax links. It is a dangerous precedent to set when you say news organizations or any organization can decide who talks about what and what they can about it and that is what this law or any similar law would do. It shuts down all discussion, you cannot say that is not dangerous to a free society.

Do you want to live in a world where a news organizations can sue someone for trying to discuss their article on the internet in a negative way? Do you want to live in a world where news organizations get to control who gets to report on what events? News organizations need to find more effective ways to either cut costs or generate revenue without infringing on the rights of the people, they get revenue from subscriptions, they get revenue from ads, they are getting paid, they just need to find a better way to get paid. Every other industry has to do it, why shouldn't they?

And that is only a small portion of this proposed legislation.
 
Renae said:
If you remove the ability to spread the news, they are gonna find their clicks from sites like this for example will dry up. The law of unintended consequences....
Click to expand...

Yes, I can't imagine the news organizations asked for this to go so far. Most WANT links to their websites, and in many cases push or pay other websites to do so. No one advocates blatant plagiarism, but one of the best ways to limit it is to give a link to the original source. This was likely pushed by people with other interests.

I jump back to the fact that this isn't a law yet - it essentially just got out of a committee or workgroup. The EU is different from the US (and weird) -- but I'm sure there are lots of proposals that never make it to law. It sounds like this is going to get pressure from all sides. The measure could even be a poison pill, designed to kill the bill and give politicians cover when campaigning.
 
Carjosse said:
No because you can't own facts and tax links. It is a dangerous precedent to set when you say news organizations or any organization can decide who talks about what and what they can about it and that is what this law or any similar law would do. It shuts down all discussion, you cannot say that is not dangerous to a free society.

Do you want to live in a world where a news organizations can sue someone for trying to discuss their article on the internet in a negative way? Do you want to live in a world where news organizations get to control who gets to report on what events? News organizations need to find more effective ways to either cut costs or generate revenue without infringing on the rights of the people, they get revenue from subscriptions, they get revenue from ads, they are getting paid, they just need to find a better way to get paid. Every other industry has to do it, why shouldn't they?

And that is only a small portion of this proposed legislation.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with everything this law is doing, but I do believe something needed to be done. The work reporters and news organizations do is largely stolen rather than paid for.
 
OpportunityCost said:
I don't agree with everything this law is doing, but I do believe something needed to be done. The work reporters and news organizations do is largely stolen rather than paid for.
Click to expand...

How is it stolen? They post it on the internet, people go to the website and either get a subscription or view ads, they get money for that. That is the case for links, if I go on Google News and read a story that is what happens. The problem arises when people use excerpts or just read headlines but you can't do anything about that, you can't claim ownership or lost revenue over someone reading "Ontario caps compensation for Hydro One chief at $1.5-million" or "The Ontario government will impose a compensation plan on Hydro One Ltd., ensuring its chief executive officer earns no more than $1.5-million in salary and bonuses, Energy Minister Greg Rickford said in a statement Thursday." on Debate Politics or any other website but that is the cost of doing business in the digital age and the nature of news coverage.
 
Last edited:
Carjosse said:
How is it stolen? They post it on the internet, people go to the website and either get a subscription or view ads, they get money for that. That is the case for links, if I go on Google News and read a story that is what happens. The problem arises when people use excerpts or just read headlines but you can't do anything about that, you can't claim ownership or lost revenue over someone reading "Ontario caps compensation for Hydro One chief at $1.5-million" or "The Ontario government will impose a compensation plan on Hydro One Ltd., ensuring its chief executive officer earns no more than $1.5-million in salary and bonuses, Energy Minister Greg Rickford said in a statement Thursday." on Debate Politics or any other website but that is the cost of doing business in the digital age and the nature of news coverage.
Click to expand...

So you would be ok with someone copying an image and using it for their desktop without compensating the original artist? Its similar. By accepting work exists to be disseminated without compensation you are into making monetization linked to places like google instead of the originator.
 
OpportunityCost said:
So you would be ok with someone copying an image and using it for their desktop without compensating the original artist? Its similar. By accepting work exists to be disseminated without compensation you are into making monetization linked to places like google instead of the originator.
Click to expand...

So you have never linked to an image? Did you pay for your avatar? I do no understand how linking can be considered stealing. No one is going to go to someones website and pay $10 just for a desktop wallpaper they have never seen. You want to make money with desktop backgrounds start making them for people and charging them, don't post them freely on the internet then get angry when you don't get paid beyond maybe some ad revenue. Stock image websites, professional image services, etc. all exist and seem to be doing fine in the digital age. I paid to license a photo because I wanted the high quality image to make a poster out of it, that is just one of many ways artists make money in the digital age.
 
Last edited:
Carjosse said:
So you have never linked to an image? Did you pay for your avatar? I do no understand how linking can be considered stealing. No one is going to go to someones website and pay $10 just for a desktop wallpaper they have never seen. You want to make money with desktop backgrounds start making them for people and charging them, don't post them freely on the internet then get angry when you don't get paid beyond maybe some ad revenue. Stock image websites, professional image services, etc. all exist and seem to be doing fine in the digital age. I paid to license a photo because I wanted the high quality image to make a poster out of it, that is just one of many ways artists make money in the digital age.
Click to expand...

Websites can use hyperlinking to prevent copy/pasting and save as functions. You aren't quite as tech savvy as you think you are.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Websites can use hyperlinking to prevent copy/pasting and save as functions. You aren't quite as tech savvy as you think you are.
Click to expand...

Snipping Tool. There is no problem with doing that or offering a low-res image and selling a higher one, that is adapting to the digital economy but news cannot do that. How much power do you think copyright holders should have on the internet?
 
Last edited:
Carjosse said:
Snipping Tool. There is no problem with doing that or offering a low-res image and selling a higher one, that is adapting to the digital economy but news cannot do that. How much power do you think copyright holders should have on the internet?
Click to expand...

Quite a bit more than they have now. Right now, they have almost no way to monetize, little control over their own work, you think that is ok?
 
OpportunityCost said:
Quite a bit more than they have now. Right now, they have almost no way to monetize, little control over their own work, you think that is ok?
Click to expand...

Yes, that is how it should be, otherwise you start trampling on people's freedom of expression and consumer rights. They have ways to monetize, however it is up to them to find the best way to do that.

We have seen this with every piece of copyright legislation, no matter where it comes from, copyright holders want more powers to go after "infringement" but in reality it means giving them the power to censor criticism of them or those they support or just extort money. It also usually places a massive unreasonable burden on content hosts. You can see what would happen on places like YouTube, companies take down or take over videos they do not even have the rights or have no right to claim for no reason other then they can or it criticizes them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom