Article 13 (Important)

[KAIDAX-99]

I have never posted on the forums. However, this is urgent! Article 13 will affect many aspects of the internet in a negative way. If you are from the EU... well say goodbye to some of your favourite Warframe channels since they will be heavily restricted or even BANNED in the EU. Furthermore, this can also effect viewership for channels like AGayGuyPlay, Mogamu and DKdiamantes to say a few. so I beg you all to spread the word. I do not care how we need to #savetheinternet

Here is a link to sign the petition. I don't want any of the amazing content individuals create to get ruined.

https://www.change.org/p/european-parliament-stop-the-censorship-machinery-save-the-internet

(Special thanks to mikakor for recommending I post this on general discussions)

Update, I learned that it is not really a big deal and I must've been overreacting. (I swear I need to learn how to use the forums more.) 

Edited November 20, 2018 by EL-SAMURAI
People gave me useful feedback.

[Legion-Shields]

They are not going to listen to a petition lmao

[stormy505]

It didn't work last time why would people try it again...

[Zeclem]

ah, this thing again.

its not gonna ban memes, for all it does is enforce sites to have a copyright filter system in place which most sites already do have to protect their public image in case that happens.

please stop overreacting. this is nothing more than being able to hold sites accountable if they dont do what they needed to do. 

edit:well appearently, yall eu members should tell your goverments to not be idiots about it and its gonna be fine. 

Edited November 22, 2018 by Zeclem

[---Merchant---]

They do not even listen to referendum
look at brexit issues now


If you want democracy move to different planet.
kthxbye

[mikakor]

39 minutes ago, (XB1)Cubic Clem said:

Good riddance to aggp and Rio 🙌

Would you be able to not spit poison over some YouTuber? Or is it too hard to ask? 

[Yagamilight123]

hace 1 hora, EL-SAMURAI dijo:

I have never posted on the forums. However, this is urgent! Article 13 will affect many aspects of the internet in a negative way. If you are from the EU... well say goodbye to some of your favourite Warframe channels since they will be heavily restricted or even BANNED in the EU. Furthermore, this can also effect viewership for channels like AGayGuyPlay, Mogamu and DKdiamantes to say a few. so I beg you all to spread the word. I do not care how we need to #savetheinternet

Here is a link to sign the petition. I don't want any of the amazing content individuals create to get ruined.

https://www.change.org/p/european-parliament-stop-the-censorship-machinery-save-the-internet

(Special thanks to mikakor for reconmending I post this on general discussions)

Megathread tag for this ... really ? . Nothings is gonna change (its just a article to use when they need it ... nobody #*!%ing cares about warframe at that level ...) , stop being dramatic . If they are banned from youtube they will go to another platform or not ... who cares , its not like they are so important or unique ....

[clxrffdman]

Remove megathread tag, only for admins.

[mikakor]

4 minutes ago, (XB1)Cubic Clem said:

Not sure what you mean. I'm just glad the EU cares about my sanity by blocking nasty people.

That's what I meant. Just because "you" don't like some people doesn't mean you can trash talk to will like if it was normal. 

[TinFoilMkIV]

11 minutes ago, (XB1)Cubic Clem said:

Not sure what you mean. I'm just glad the EU cares about my sanity by blocking nasty people.

All well and good till the people making the rules decide that disagreeing with them makes you one of those "nasty people"

[DeMonkey]

2 hours ago, EL-SAMURAI said:

well say goodbye to some of your favourite Warframe channels since they will be heavily restricted or even BANNED in the EU. 

Will do.

Just as soon as I find any. 

[KAIDAX-99]

2 hours ago, clxrffdman said:

Remove megathread tag, only for admins.

Appologies I did not know that was for admins.

[KAIDAX-99]

2 hours ago, Yagamilight123 said:

Megathread tag for this ... really ? . Nothings is gonna change (its just a article to use when they need it ... nobody #*!%ing cares about warframe at that level ...) , stop being dramatic . If they are banned from youtube they will go to another platform or not ... who cares , its not like they are so important or unique ....

Fair enough. I guess people are just overreacting (Like I did)

[peterc3]

36 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

Will do.

Just as soon as I find any. 

Oh no, not the Warframe youtubers. Whatever will we do?

[ADM-Ntek]

 

[rune_me]

On 2018-11-20 at 7:57 PM, Zeclem said:

ah, this thing again.

its not gonna ban memes, for all it does is enforce sites to have a copyright filter system in place which most sites already do have to protect their public image in case that happens.

please stop overreacting. this is nothing more than being able to hold sites accountable if they dont do what they needed to do. 

Most sites don't have a copyright filter to the extreme that is now being required of them with Article 13. YouTube has made it very clear that the only way to enforce article 13, will be for them to keep a database of all copyrighted material and every time you upload a video it will be cross referenced with said database, and if it matches content there, the video will not be uploaded. They do that with music already, and we all know how bad that situation is on YouTube. Now they'll do it with everything, images, video, media, news, etc. And of course Twitter, Facebook, etc will have to do the same.

So if you have a meme with, say, a picture of Boromir, well that picture is copyrighted to New Line Cinema (or whoever has the copyrights), meaning it'll be in the database, meaning it will get flagged. Sure it's legal, because memes are considered satire or transformative content, but an automatic algorithm can't detect context and won't distinguish between a meme and the real image. So sure, Article 13 won't make memes illegal, but it will most likely make it impossible for you to actually post memes on the internet. 

[Zeclem]

9 hours ago, rune_me said:

Most sites don't have a copyright filter to the extreme that is now being required of them with Article 13. YouTube has made it very clear that the only way to enforce article 13, will be for them to keep a database of all copyrighted material and every time you upload a video it will be cross referenced with said database, and if it matches content there, the video will not be uploaded. They do that with music already, and we all know how bad that situation is on YouTube. Now they'll do it with everything, images, video, media, news, etc. And of course Twitter, Facebook, etc will have to do the same.

So if you have a meme with, say, a picture of Boromir, well that picture is copyrighted to New Line Cinema (or whoever has the copyrights), meaning it'll be in the database, meaning it will get flagged. Sure it's legal, because memes are considered satire or transformative content, but an automatic algorithm can't detect context and won't distinguish between a meme and the real image. So sure, Article 13 won't make memes illegal, but it will most likely make it impossible for you to actually post memes on the internet. 

cept it doesnt require anything extreme, the article does not enforce that. what it enforces is to have the sites deal with copyright infringements, and they all deal with them already when a complaint is made to the site. what it does is solely removing the excuse of mere conduit aka "its not our content so we dont have to deal with the lawsuits" and replacing it with "the best" method to prevent this, which is highly vauge in itself already. if youtube decides to go with that filter idea, its their own demise. but they dont have to, not with this change. and it doesnt do anything if you are using them for non profit goals either.

while one can make the argument of sites just using extreme filtering to not deal with it properly, yes that is correct. but do you think those sites would survive if they went with that?

[rune_me]

3 hours ago, Zeclem said:

cept it doesnt require anything extreme, the article does not enforce that. what it enforces is to have the sites deal with copyright infringements, and they all deal with them already when a complaint is made to the site. what it does is solely removing the excuse of mere conduit aka "its not our content so we dont have to deal with the lawsuits" and replacing it with "the best" method to prevent this, which is highly vauge in itself already. if youtube decides to go with that filter idea, its their own demise. but they dont have to, not with this change. and it doesnt do anything if you are using them for non profit goals either.

while one can make the argument of sites just using extreme filtering to not deal with it properly, yes that is correct. but do you think those sites would survive if they went with that?

No that is not correct. Those laws are already in place in Europe. Sites already can not use the "it's not our content" excuse. Current laws demand that sites have to remove copyright infringing material the moment a complaint is filed, or they will be held accountable. Article 13 however, will hold the content providers accountable even without a complaint being filed or them being aware of the material. The moment someone uploads copyrighted material to say YouTube, YouTube is responsible, can be sued and fined, whether they have received any complaints or not.

So the current system where they wait for someone to complain, then remove the material, will no longer work. They have to prevent the material from ever existing on their platform in the first place, by blocking it and preventing it from being uploaded. Those sites have very little choice bu to go with extreme filtering. Or end up paying constant fines, which will ruin them anyway. 

[Zeclem]

1 minute ago, rune_me said:

No that is not correct. Those laws are already in place in Europe. Sites already can not use the "it's not our content" excuse. Current laws demand that sites have to remove copyright infringing material the moment a complaint is filed, or they will be held accountable. Article 13 however, will hold the content providers accountable even without a complaint being filed or them being aware of the material. The moment someone uploads copyrighted material to say YouTube, YouTube is responsible, can be sued and fined, whether they have received any complaints or not.

So the current system where they wait for someone to complain, then remove the material, will no longer work. They have to prevent the material from ever existing on their platform in the first place, by blocking it and preventing it from being uploaded. Those sites have very little choice bu to go with extreme filtering. Or end up paying constant fines, which will ruin them anyway. 

it is correct tho, i'd like to see your source for these. 

[rune_me]

10 minutes ago, Zeclem said:

it is correct tho, i'd like to see your source for these. 

Source? It's a law proposal. It's publicly available. You are free to read it from the EU's website yourself.

Quote

"take measures to ensure the functioning of agreements concluded with rightsholders for the use of their works or other subject-matter or to prevent the availability on their services of works or other subject-matter identified by rightsholders through the cooperation with the service providers."

 

Edited November 22, 2018 by rune_me

[Zeclem]

19 minutes ago, rune_me said:

"take measures to ensure the functioning of agreements concluded with rightsholders for the use of their works or other subject-matter or to prevent the availability on their services of works or other subject-matter identified by rightsholders through the cooperation with the service providers."

i wasnt talking about law proposal, but the current law itself but im sure that is somewhere up there anyway. but yes, "mere conduit" excuse has always been a thing in accordance to electronic commerce directive signed in 2000. it does not say "automated filtering" and one can easily interpret the "identified by rightholders" as "when a complaint is made". 

which is my point. as long as law does not mention "pre-emptive action" or directly mention an automated system to delete them, its not gonna enforce a heavy filter.

Edited November 22, 2018 by Zeclem

[rune_me]

Just now, Zeclem said:

i wasnt talking about law proposal, but the current law itself but im sure that is somewhere up there anyway. but yes, "mere conduit" excuse has always been a thing in accordance to electronic commerce directive signed in 2000. it does not say "automated filtering" and one can easily interpret the "identified by rightholders" as "when a complaint is made". 

which is my point. as long as law does not mention "pre-emptive action" or directly mention an automated system to delete them, its not gonna enforce a heavy list. 

We are talking about Article 13. It is not currently a law so the "current law" is irrelevant in regard to Article 13. It is only a proposal. One that has been approved, but not yet implemented. 

But laws are literal. "Preventing the availability" means it is not allowed to be available. Unlike current law, which says it has to removed when a complaint is filed. 

Content filtering was very much the original goal of Article 13. The original text directly required content providers to use "content recognition technologies". This reference has been removed in the latest amendments on the premise that content providers can achieve the goal of preventing availability however they like, as long as it is done. But "preventing availability" most certainly means pre-emptive action.

[Zeclem]

2 minutes ago, rune_me said:

We are talking about Article 13. It is not currently a law so the "current law" is irrelevant in regard to Article 13. It is only a proposal. One that has been approved, but not yet implemented. 

But laws are literal. "Preventing the availability" means it is not allowed to be available. Unlike current law, which says it has to removed when a complaint is filed. 

Content filtering was very much the original goal of Article 13. The original text directly required content providers to use "content recognition technologies". This reference has been removed in the latest amendments on the premise that content providers can achieve the goal of preventing availability however they like, as long as it is done. But "preventing availability" most certainly means pre-emptive action.

laws are far from literal. if that was the case, lawmaking wouldnt be half as complex as it is. 

and yes, we are talking about BOTH of them, to compare whats going to change or not is a vital part of this entire thing. 

[rune_me]

11 minutes ago, Zeclem said:

laws are far from literal. if that was the case, lawmaking wouldnt be half as complex as it is. 

and yes, we are talking about BOTH of them, to compare whats going to change or not is a vital part of this entire thing. 

Sure. What's going to change is that copyrighted content has to be prevented from being available on content providers platforms, and that it will be the content providers responsibility to prevent it, as opposed to now, where it has to be removed once the content providers are made aware of its existence. That is the point of article 13 and why it was proposed. 

[Zeclem]

10 minutes ago, rune_me said:

Sure. What's going to change is that copyrighted content has to be prevented from being available on content providers platforms, and that it will be the content providers responsibility to prevent it, as opposed to now, where it has to be removed once the content providers are made aware of its existence. That is the point of article 13 and why it was proposed. 

actually it(appearently) uses a notice and stay down directive, so youtube is given a headsup before banning the said content permenantly if its full on copyrighted material. while i can definitely see youtube just using its dumb filter to prevent that, its not the only method of working with this change.