Article 13 - Gotta to Love the EU.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 877043
  • Start date Start date
Minnehaha said:
Damn, i thought EU was supposed to be liberal. Now they are crushing everyone's rights and limiting movement of free education.
Click to expand...
Billy Batts said:
They call themselves liberal and if you don't agree with them they label you like right-wing extremists. A bit like CNN.
Click to expand...
jimbobo2779 said:
Not liberal, fuxking stupid.
Click to expand...

So, who of you guys actually cared enough to read what is this regulation about at all? Its in fact sticking to Facebook, YouTube, Google and the like for commercially using others people work. You should be happy, because for example now Google can show your article IN their app, with their own ads, without paying you a cent. Or snippets or any other information that is shown OUTSIDE of your website and without paying you a cent. But hey EU is evil. For the fuck sake do not believe blindly everything you read in the Internet and use your own fucking brains.

If you are non profit (Wikipedia etc) you do not have to pay a cent to anyone. So no, EU is not limiting your free education. Its crushing the big corporation that are trying to fuck up content creators. But hey you wont read about that in the paid articles you are reading. Its a shame that you, as black hatters fall so easy in this trap.
 
Advertise on BHW
Iknowsomethings said:
So, who of you guys actually cared enough to read what is this regulation about at all? Its in fact sticking to Facebook, YouTube, Google and the like for commercially using others people work. You should be happy, because for example now Google can show your article IN their app, with their own ads, without paying you a cent. Or snippets or any other information that is shown OUTSIDE of your website and without paying you a cent. But hey EU is evil. For the fuck sake do not believe blindly everything you read in the Internet and use your own fucking brains.

If you are non profit (Wikipedia etc) you do not have to pay a cent to anyone. So no, EU is not limiting your free education. Its crushing the big corporation that are trying to fuck up content creators. But hey you wont read about that in the paid articles you are reading. Its a shame that you, as black hatters fall so easy in this trap.
Click to expand...


Ok but this will affect us, internet marketers? I learned so much and now these fuckers want to destroy our internet. How this will affect affiliate marketers? Blogs ? Niche sites ? I'm stupid and i don't undersand ? Please explain... tell me more! don't want to go back to 9-5 lifestyle.
 
Iknowsomethings said:
So, who of you guys actually cared enough to read what is this regulation about at all? Its in fact sticking to Facebook, YouTube, Google and the like for commercially using others people work. You should be happy, because for example now Google can show your article IN their app, with their own ads, without paying you a cent. Or snippets or any other information that is shown OUTSIDE of your website and without paying you a cent. But hey EU is evil. For the fuck sake do not believe blindly everything you read in the Internet and use your own fucking brains.

If you are non profit (Wikipedia etc) you do not have to pay a cent to anyone. So no, EU is not limiting your free education. Its crushing the big corporation that are trying to fuck up content creators. But hey you wont read about that in the paid articles you are reading. Its a shame that you, as black hatters fall so easy in this trap.
Click to expand...
Listen kid, reading your reply you have no clue what the EU is about and this measure is not the only thing that annoys me about the EU but not in the mood to have discussions with the ignorant.
 
Billy Batts said:
Listen kid, reading your reply you have no clue what the EU is about and this measure is not the only thing that annoys me about the EU but not in the mood to have discussions with the ignorant.
Click to expand...

Yeah, using Ad hominem and not being in the mood for discussion is clearly a strong argument.

NotAllenTuring said:
Click to expand...

To quote myself "Its a shame that you, as black hatters fall so easy in this trap." Because 1. Non profit can use the content they are using pretty much like now, and 2. You can still use short description of the article, content whatever you are talking about without a problem. In fact such rules exist alreaady (30 seconds rule in YouTube for example), but as I say people who do not care to read, but believe bullshit they see in Internet are the most vocal about everything.
 
Hey I just read a good German article on this, here are the main points. They voted in favor of the new law, but the final decision will be next spring. The law aims to protect the rights of content creators, like journalists or musicians from big corporations like Google. There are two controversial articles in the new law:

Article 13
  • Article 13 says all content uploaded to platforms has to comply with copyright. This would result in an "upload filter", that filters content and compares it to a database of copyrighted material. If the post matches other's material it would be blocked and you could possibly be fined.
  • Here's a scenario of how that might look like:
Content-ID-rcm992x0.jpg

  • Critics say the internet should stay a place where everything is allowed to be shared freely. Memes for example could be killed by this law, as they are often made from snippets of copyrighted material.
  • In my opinion this would definitely limit the way many of us here use bots with scraped images on Instagram, as Instagram would probably have to strengthen their image-checking algorithms to comply with the new law.
Article 11 - the link tax
  • Platforms would have to pay for copyrighted content on their platforms. When you share a link to an article for example on Facebook, a snippet of the headline, article image and first few words is shown on FB. Facebook would have to pay for this.
  • Another example is Google news, which shows news articles written by journalists within their app. With the new law, Google would have to pay the content creators for using their content in their app. This has already been tried in Spain with the result that Google simply stopped indexing Spanish Media in Google News

What would that mean for Internet Marketers?
  • You could basically stop making money with others content and on the other hand earn more money creating your own content.
  • In my opinion the law could end up doing good and it might turn out much less horrible as it is perceived. I think the real problem is that this might just be the beginning and a huge censorship machinery would need to be set up to comply with the laws. If the EU then just keeps adding more laws like this, who knows where we end up in 10-20 years. That's the reason I believe why many prominent people like the founder of Wikipedia are against it.
What can you do?

I got most info from this German article
https://www.giga.de/extra/internet/...-droht-das-ende-des-internets-das-wir-kennen/

and this Guardian article
https://www.theguardian.com/law/201...to-pay-billions-to-publishers-facebook-google
 
Last edited:
Greedy, self serving, lying politicians in the pockets of conglomerates = Not good for Joe Public
 
pj777777 said:
Greedy, self serving, lying politicians in the pockets of conglomerates = Not good for Joe Public
Click to expand...

Well, actually they are trying to do something against the big conglomerates (Google, Facebook etc).
 
Personaly I would not sign any protest petition against this law. Maybe because this, european internet is going to become higher quality than copy&paste.
It will force even small guys to create own content, text, images, videos.
This is strong law against USA internet domination. Big corporations are from USA, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Apple, blablabla.
 
Iknowsomethings said:
Literally last lane before your post: https://www.theguardian.com/law/201...to-pay-billions-to-publishers-facebook-google

Just check the fucking URL, no need to even open the article. But why reading when you can spew crap? Maybe now you can actually see it:

eu-copyright-law-may-force-tech-giants-to-pay-billions-to-publishers-facebook-google
Click to expand...

Good to see you have faith in Politicians to protect the people who elected them rather than big business.

I, unfortunately, don't and feel that this, proposed legislation, is a foot in the door to further censorship of the internet in a manner that will, over time, serve big business and limit the average persons access to a preferred range data sources.

Ps No need to fucking swear to get your point across :-)
 
pj777777 said:
Good to see you have faith in Politicians to protect the people who elected them rather than big business.

I, unfortunately, don't and feel that this, proposed legislation, is a foot in the door to further censorship of the internet in a manner that will, over time, serve big business and limit the average persons access to a preferred range data sources.

Ps No need to fucking swear to get your point across :)
Click to expand...

Maybe some kind of censorship is required? Look at internet, what it became. People have the most powerful source of knowledge but they are making memes, showing their kids/cats/food on instagram/fb, or watching stupid youtube videos. In my opinion, internet harms global society and creating idiots in mass. I miss times, when content creating demanded knowledge about html, servers, domains. Now every donkey can have blog.
 
pj777777 said:
Good to see you have faith in Politicians to protect the people who elected them rather than big business.

I, unfortunately, don't and feel that this, proposed legislation, is a foot in the door to further censorship of the internet in a manner that will, over time, serve big business and limit the average persons access to a preferred range data sources.

Ps No need to fucking swear to get your point across :)
Click to expand...
Remember GDPR? Same hysteria. What changed for the average person? We got free domain privacy, which is pretty good for our kind. Oh and the ability to kick spammers in the balls, but thats not really a plus for us, black hatters.
 
Iknowsomethings said:
Yeah, using Ad hominem and not being in the mood for discussion is clearly a strong argument.



To quote myself "Its a shame that you, as black hatters fall so easy in this trap." Because 1. Non profit can use the content they are using pretty much like now, and 2. You can still use short description of the article, content whatever you are talking about without a problem. In fact such rules exist alreaady (30 seconds rule in YouTube for example), but as I say people who do not care to read, but believe bullshit they see in Internet are the most vocal about everything.
Click to expand...
Look I have no problem with forcing the likes of google to stop using people's content in whole, the fact they do this is fucked up but to prevent people using full title's to link to an article is utter bullshit and you showing your support for that as a "black hatter", whatever that means in this argument, is incomprehensible.

The fact they went away and changed the "link tax" portion of the law to allow links of individual words just goes to show that that they really want this to go ahead.

Let me ask you this; how will this benefit you, or I, or the average guy on the street?

I cannot think how this is going to benefit anyone other than some big media corporations. Citations and references for blog owners are going to be a nightmare to navigate for hardly any benefit to anyone involved.

There were people like you arguing for the cookie law and now we have it and how did we benefit? We get to click a tiny X to get rid of an annoying pop-up on every website just so we can see shit on our phone screens.

There were people like you all in favour of GDPR and how did we benefit? Our data is just as secure/insecure as it ever was as the criminals after our data are still hacking for it and getting it. I get more phone calls now than I ever have and the amount of emails I have received has not reduced. The great thing now is that I have to agree to something before being able to see anything on most websites and some websites even outright block me from reading their content entirely.

By the way I genuinely would love to see how you think this would improve life for the average person in / out of the EU.

Oh and who the fuck on here is running a non-profit? Why should I give the slightest shit about being able to do X if I am a non-profit. I'm not doing this shit for the fun of it.

Thanks a fucking bunch EU you useless sack of fucks.
 
vinku said:
Maybe some kind of censorship is required? Look at internet, what it became. People have the most powerful source of knowledge but they are making memes, showing their kids/cats/food on instagram/fb, or watching stupid youtube videos. In my opinion, internet harms global society and creating idiots in mass. I miss times, when content creating demanded knowledge about html, servers, domains. Now every donkey can have blog.
Click to expand...

Yep the internet has given us access to endless human knowledge and has been a massively equalising factor for people in less developed places where this access just wasn't 20+ years ago.

However with that said what is wrong with people entertaining themselves? Why would you hate on cat videos and the like?
 
jimbobo2779 said:
Look I have no problem with forcing the likes of google to stop using people's content in whole, the fact they do this is fucked up but to prevent people using full title's to link to an article is utter bullshit and you showing your support for that as a "black hatter", whatever that means in this argument, is incomprehensible.

The fact they went away and changed the "link tax" portion of the law to allow links of individual words just goes to show that that they really want this to go ahead.

Let me ask you this; how will this benefit you, or I, or the average guy on the street?

I cannot think how this is going to benefit anyone other than some big media corporations. Citations and references for blog owners are going to be a nightmare to navigate for hardly any benefit to anyone involved.

There were people like you arguing for the cookie law and now we have it and how did we benefit? We get to click a tiny X to get rid of an annoying pop-up on every website just so we can see shit on our phone screens.

There were people like you all in favour of GDPR and how did we benefit? Our data is just as secure/insecure as it ever was as the criminals after our data are still hacking for it and getting it. I get more phone calls now than I ever have and the amount of emails I have received has not reduced. The great thing now is that I have to agree to something before being able to see anything on most websites and some websites even outright block me from reading their content entirely.

By the way I genuinely would love to see how you think this would improve life for the average person in / out of the EU.

Oh and who the fuck on here is running a non-profit? Why should I give the slightest shit about being able to do X if I am a non-profit. I'm not doing this shit for the fun of it.

Thanks a fucking bunch EU you useless sack of fucks.
Click to expand...


What is the benefit of GDPR? You can tell google to remove all your data because GDPR and they need to do it ASAP.
In previous version, they have something like "law to beeing forgotten" but you should deliver carefuly all URLs and first negotiate with website owner. Even that, they could and they easily refused to delete my old photo from Google Images.
After GDPR they deleted in 3 days!
 
Iknowsomethings said:
So, who of you guys actually cared enough to read what is this regulation about at all? Its in fact sticking to Facebook, YouTube, Google and the like for commercially using others people work. You should be happy, because for example now Google can show your article IN their app, with their own ads, without paying you a cent. Or snippets or any other information that is shown OUTSIDE of your website and without paying you a cent. But hey EU is evil. For the fuck sake do not believe blindly everything you read in the Internet and use your own fucking brains.

If you are non profit (Wikipedia etc) you do not have to pay a cent to anyone. So no, EU is not limiting your free education. Its crushing the big corporation that are trying to fuck up content creators. But hey you wont read about that in the paid articles you are reading. Its a shame that you, as black hatters fall so easy in this trap.
Click to expand...

This! Clearly you are among the few who have actually read the article whereas most here seem to be part of circle jerk of EU hatred.
 
TheGamer said:
This! Clearly you are among the few who have actually read the article whereas most here seem to be part of circle jerk of EU hatred.
Click to expand...
How do you think this will improve the lives of regular folks like us?
 
vinku said:
What is the benefit of GDPR? You can tell google to remove all your data because GDPR and they need to do it ASAP.
Click to expand...

In my country there is a big employment agency, that also happens to have offices across the world and also operates in Poland. And there is the EU-AVG (aka GDPR).

The EU-AVG prohibits governments, companies, and smb’s to keep records for an unspecified amount of time, they have to be destroyed/removed from the database after a 2 year period.

But for employment agencies it poses a bit of a problem that they have to destroy all of their (former) clients cv’s, education history, and other meta data. This has something to do with “due diligence” on the agencies side, and “creative interpretation” on the employee side of the spectrum.

Now you could argue that you, as a former employee, invoke article 17 of the EU-AVG, have your data removed an be done with.

Luckily for the employment agencies, and all others, there is still the good old (historical) “archive”, and it so happens to be that the regulation around archives differs quite a bit.

The good old EU legislators have thought about this and came to the conclusion that they simply have to add section 3, sub. d to article 17 of the AVG. (Juncto Article 89 EU-AVG)

And with this the “Right to be forgotten” has been declared inapplicable when this right threatens to make archiving for the public interest, scientific or historical research or statistical purposes impossible or threatens to seriously jeopardize the integrity of the archive.

Problem solved.
 
Advertise on BHW
You must log in or register to reply here.
Sign up now!

Main Menu

Home Main Forum List Black Hat SEO White Hat SEO BHW Newbie Guide Blogging Black Hat Tools Social Media Downloads

Marketplace

Account Selling Content / Copywriting EBooks / Methods Hosting Misc Proxies For Sale SEO - Link building SEO - Packages Social Media Social Media - Panels Web Design More

Making Money

Affiliate Programs Hire a Freelancer IM Journeys Making Money Pay Per Click Site Flipping Want to Buy

BlackHat World

Dispute Resolution Forum Suggestions & Feedback Introductions Lounge
Back
Top