Article 13 - Gotta to Love the EU.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 877043
  • Start date Start date
jimbobo2779 said:
How do you think this will improve the lives of regular folks like us?
Click to expand...
The lack of common sense amaze me, every fucking day. This law is not for "regular folks like you", but for content creators and those who use their content. Are you one? Do you use other people`s content without paying? If not - then this law is not for you and doesn't affect you even a bit. So?
 
Advertise on BHW
NotAllenTuring said:
First the cookie law, then GDPR and now Article 13...

https://changecopyright.org/en-US/
Click to expand...

Wherever government/state sets their hand, they fuck something up.

Europe is going down a stupid route of regulating everything. When you regulate everything, nothing works in the end.

The collapse is inevitable. How many times people got this wrong and just don't learn.
 
the main problem is not how these lows affect the big company like youtube, facebook, snapchat, instagram.
The real problem is how them affects the small company, people with projects, start-ups.

Big companies have no problem in invests some millions of dollars on content id, or cancel google news and open a new one with a loophole.
Start Up and normal people do.

These laws will fuck the little ones.
 
Iknowsomethings said:
The lack of common sense amaze me, every fucking day. This law is not for "regular folks like you", but for content creators and those who use their content. Are you one? Do you use other people`s content without paying? If not - then this law is not for you and doesn't affect you even a bit. So?
Click to expand...
Mate, I feel like I have been quite patient while watching you talk shit about others for slinging insults only to watch you turn around and accuse others of lacking common sense, slyly calling me stupid.

I have asked how this is going to improve things for people, I have yet to see a point made that explains how this will improve things for anyone other than big media corporations.

And who said everyone here is a media consumer? Loads of us have sites that upload media whether it be first party works, third party works or combinations such as memes that often contain copyrighted materials.

This does affect me as it happens, I'm sure it will affect a reasonable amount of people on this website. It will probably affect that average teenager looking to upload stuff to their facebook or insta etc.

This absolutely will affect most common folks, if you can't see this then that is on you but please don't assume that others don't know what they are talking about simply because they don't conform to your opinion because at the end of the day all you have is an opinion on the matter.

All I am trying to wrap my head around, and nobody has made any point on this matter so far in this thread, is how is this going to positively affect any regular person in any way? I can think of a fuck ton of ways in which it will negatively affect a heap of people I know in real life and a large amount of people on here.
 
jimbobo2779 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have lots of friends who are content creators. Friends who make music and journalists. They get paid shit for their valuable work. When you were a musician 20 years ago you could still make money. Now with spotify they earn shit. Their lives might be improved.

Otherwise I'd have to think very long term and creatively to see how this could help us:

strengthening journalists > more democracy
Weakening of big US Corporations > more independent platforms
less spam and copying > more unique content

I read once that when income tax was introduced a century or so ago, it was promised to only tax the rich and there would be no other taxes. Now a century later we indeed have tons of taxes, and not only for the rich. So the future of copyright regulations might also go like this:

strengthening copyright > more censorship for copyright reasons > later even more censorship for safety reasons > even more censorship for 'protecting democracy' > a total controlled monopolized unfree internet.
 
jimbobo2779 said:
Mate, I feel like I have been quite patient while watching you talk shit about others for slinging insults only to watch you turn around and accuse others of lacking common sense, slyly calling me stupid.

I have asked how this is going to improve things for people, I have yet to see a point made that explains how this will improve things for anyone other than big media corporations.

And who said everyone here is a media consumer? Loads of us have sites that upload media whether it be first party works, third party works or combinations such as memes that often contain copyrighted materials.

This does affect me as it happens, I'm sure it will affect a reasonable amount of people on this website. It will probably affect that average teenager looking to upload stuff to their facebook or insta etc.

This absolutely will affect most common folks, if you can't see this then that is on you but please don't assume that others don't know what they are talking about simply because they don't conform to your opinion because at the end of the day all you have is an opinion on the matter.

All I am trying to wrap my head around, and nobody has made any point on this matter so far in this thread, is how is this going to positively affect any regular person in any way? I can think of a fuck ton of ways in which it will negatively affect a heap of people I know in real life and a large amount of people on here.
Click to expand...

Firstly, Yeah, sorry about that, not only to you, but other guys that I offended... Sometimes I lose my head in this arguments which is stupid indeed. Never quite learned that lesson.

About the Article 13: The target is not the average teenager who want to upload memes. However by uploading such content he create value for Facebook. Do you agree? After all Facebook is entirely user generated content (same as YouTube, Google etc). Do this teenager get anything for the value he created for FB? Not really. Do the owner of the original image get something from Facebook? Not really. So its only fair if Facebook is paying to the creators of content that is used there. And thats my point.
 
Content creators benefit from the memes by getting more exposure and helping to increase sales. Even a still from a standard 1/2 hour tv slot show is only 1/30,240 of the entire episode, its pretty much has no value.
 
Iknowsomethings said:
Firstly, Yeah, sorry about that, not only to you, but other guys that I offended... Sometimes I lose my head in this arguments which is stupid indeed. Never quite learned that lesson.

About the Article 13: The target is not the average teenager who want to upload memes. However by uploading such content he create value for Facebook. Do you agree? After all Facebook is entirely user generated content (same as YouTube, Google etc). Do this teenager get anything for the value he created for FB? Not really. Do the owner of the original image get something from Facebook? Not really. So its only fair if Facebook is paying to the creators of content that is used there. And thats my point.
Click to expand...
No dramas mate.

I get what you say about FB and the same applies to other large platforms. The well being of these platforms likely is of no concern to Joe blow, I agree with this. However, there are a large amount of people that use these platforms and link out to media and make money in the process, this should not be news to anyone on this site.

So these laws could/Will affect a large amount of people on this very site, maybe not you but a good chunk of BHW users.

These laws will prevent a lot of people from uploading things to almost every site, normal everyday people trying to run a blog, promote their site, build their social media profile.

Who does this law protect? Companies like Sony, Universal at al. I am not so concerned about those companies but I am concerned about how this will affect sites that the general public use every day, I am also concerned about small businesses that also run their business on these websites.

Another by product of this is the cost of running these sites will increase, a lot for some and minimally for others but all will feel the loss of profit which likely will mean an increase in costs of ads or increased subscription costs.

Most content creators would be massively grateful for appearing on a large social media account but that account owner may be more hesitant to link to a creator if they don't know how litigious that creator was.

I am a content creator, I am regularly told that piracy equals more sales for me. If piracy is gonna help me ( definitely debatable) then a free link from a site sure as shit isn't harming anything.

Like I've stated before, this will not benefit the regular person / small business owner / medium business owner / large business owner or anyone in the tech sector while it will negatively impact them. This will only protect a select few large media corporations. Us smaller creators already have legal provisions for protecting our works, it won't protect us from illegal operations but then very little will so why impact everyone in the way this promises to?
 
jimbobo2779 said:
No dramas mate.

I get what you say about FB and the same applies to other large platforms. The well being of these platforms likely is of no concern to Joe blow, I agree with this. However, there are a large amount of people that use these platforms and link out to media and make money in the process, this should not be news to anyone on this site.

So these laws could/Will affect a large amount of people on this very site, maybe not you but a good chunk of BHW users.

These laws will prevent a lot of people from uploading things to almost every site, normal everyday people trying to run a blog, promote their site, build their social media profile.

Who does this law protect? Companies like Sony, Universal at al. I am not so concerned about those companies but I am concerned about how this will affect sites that the general public use every day, I am also concerned about small businesses that also run their business on these websites.

Another by product of this is the cost of running these sites will increase, a lot for some and minimally for others but all will feel the loss of profit which likely will mean an increase in costs of ads or increased subscription costs.

Most content creators would be massively grateful for appearing on a large social media account but that account owner may be more hesitant to link to a creator if they don't know how litigious that creator was.

I am a content creator, I am regularly told that piracy equals more sales for me. If piracy is gonna help me ( definitely debatable) then a free link from a site sure as shit isn't harming anything.

Like I've stated before, this will not benefit the regular person / small business owner / medium business owner / large business owner or anyone in the tech sector while it will negatively impact them. This will only protect a select few large media corporations. Us smaller creators already have legal provisions for protecting our works, it won't protect us from illegal operations but then very little will so why impact everyone in the way this promises to?
Click to expand...

It only harms small businesses if they use other's content. Quite many people build successful businesses without stealing/using other's content. And that doesn't mean you can't use others content at all. For examples for images there are copyright free ressources like unsplash.com , for music just google royalty free music etc.
 
umpalapo said:
It only harms small businesses if they use other's content. Quite many people build successful businesses without stealing/using other's content. And that doesn't mean you can't use others content at all. For examples for images there are copyright free ressources like unsplash.com , for music just google royalty free music etc.
Click to expand...
Or anyone that wants to link to another resource with more than individual words to describe what the li k actually is about.

If you want to critique somebody else's work you will now need to rely entirely on description rather than ever showing that what you are critiquing.
 
Minnehaha said:
Does anyone know if USA Republicans have the internet marketers best interest in mind? Which party should internet marketers be voting for in the 2018 elections so that we are more represented.
Click to expand...
Vote for whoever you can control, just like always. Who can you actually get a seat at the table with? Vote for that guy.

umpalapo said:
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.
Click to expand...
EU social media users better click every ad they see. Eventually the price of having EU users will outpace the financial value of EU users and at that point the platform will block EU member states. This will lead to the EU becoming a walled internet ghetto.

umpalapo said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking this is going to turn from a copyright filter to a wrongthink filter real quick.

SMM panels will make this filter outrageously expensive and unwieldy to implement. Implement video and image posting services with a built in MD5 shuffler. Instead of one meme, now they have to check 10,000. Making MD5 checking ineffective makes the filter much more computationally expensive (requiring more hardware) and bogs down the filter (when they can't or won't add more). If you can't defeat this legislatively then it'll be our turn to defeat or degrade the service in practice.

First Cambridge, now this. We're looking at a time where geopolitics intersects with internet marketing. Let's go start some trouble. :devil:
 
so that meam we are not allowed to use links of the same words to refrence anythink online , i fill that be impossable to regulate .

that also means google will have to change there algo to match eu rules .

I don't even no if it will work becouse a business who buy a .co.uk out side the .uk and use same words as links , how can they even procucute them out the uk/eu

the title rule / links will not work at all , not possable
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Does the law allow for white listing or is it as strict as the one in spain, where you have to be paid even if you just want the benefit of being linked to by google news?
 
this is the truth trust me .

the economy has chaged from heigh street to online and eu countrys have cotton on .

so the truth is all the governments want any tax from any eu person earns online .

it the truth look around you business as shops folding and all going online.

thousands of shops in uk are know homes as the business has gone online
 
ExperimentalSEO said:
Does the law allow for white listing or is it as strict as the one in spain, where you have to be paid even if you just want the benefit of being linked to by google news?
Click to expand...
no one will no how it works , it all new to everybody . we are all awaiting in 2019 for a full report.

all we no it been aproved via eu laws

next update suppose to be in January 2019
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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...

just read this article it all makes full scence .

I just hope it dont fully come out ,but reading the link above, looks like it being pushed out no matter what.
 
If its mandatory to pay EU publishers(even if they don't want), then there probably will be a follow up law that x% of featured news on platforms like Google News has to be from the EU. I doubt the EU government will like it if all foreign based news sources are promoted to those within the EU by Google,Facebook and others to get away from paying.
 
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