SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Member of the European Parliament Julia Reda writes an update to what has been going on with with proposed changes to copyright law as they make their way from the European Commission and over to the European Parliament:
Ever since the European Commission presented its hugely controversial proposal to force internet platforms to employ censorship machines, the copyright world has been eagerly awaiting the position of the European Parliament. Today, the person tasked with steering the copyright reform through Parliament, rapporteur Axel Voss, has finally issued the text he wants the Parliament to go forward with.
It's a green light for censorship machines: Mr. Voss has kept the proposal originally penned by his German party colleague, former Digital Commissioner Günther Oettinger, almost completely intact.
She walks through the following points to notice in the so-called compromise:
- Obligation to license
- The censorship machine is here to stay
- A tiny problem with fundamental rights
- Very specific general monitoring
- A few exceptions
- Critical parts remain unchanged
She closes with encouragement that it's not too late to stop the Censorship Machines:
Now it's time to call upon your MEPs to reject Mr. Voss' proposal! You can use tools such as SaveTheMeme.net by Digital Rights NGO Bits of Freedom or ChangeCopyright.org by Mozilla to call the Members of the Legal Affairs Committee free of charge. Or look for MEPs from your country and send them an email. But most importantly, spread the words! Ask you local media to report on this law. The Internet as we know it is at stake.
Source : Green light for upload filters: EU Parliament's copyright rapporteur has learned nothing from year-long debate
See also : Proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market : Draft compromise [sic] amendments on Article 13 and corresponding recitals (warning for PDF)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jdavidb on Thursday February 22 2018, @06:44PM (5 children)
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday February 22 2018, @07:00PM (3 children)
Copyright would be fine if it had stuck to its original purpose, namely preventing publishers from ripping off creators of artistic works. The problem was that the MPAA, RIAA, and big media companies like Disney and Turner successfully lobbied Congress to turn them into restrictions on random citizens not profiting from the copying rather than restrictions on publishers making money hand-over-fist by ripping off the people who actually made the artistic work in question.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 22 2018, @09:25PM (1 child)
The original purpose of (British) copyright was book censorship.
(Score: 1) by Yaa101 on Friday February 23 2018, @02:45AM
And to grand rent seeking for the nobility when the citizens were getting to much power
No comment...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 23 2018, @02:14AM
preventing publishers from ripping off creators of artistic works
I'd state it as "providing an income until his NEXT magnum opus".
(Haydn wrote 100 symphonies.)
I don't believe it was intended to provide a retirement plan for someone who wrote a diddy that was popular for a week which then vanished from popular consumption and only gets mentioned as a cultural touchstone thereafter.
USA's original 14-year term is a good indicator.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 23 2018, @12:32AM
Copyright was made to protect entrenched large publishers from competition and make barriers to entry high. The story about protecting author's interests is just PR stunt to make people who are not in the loop support it.