Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday March 29 2018, @10:32AM   Printer-friendly
from the take-it-or-leave-^w-take-it dept.

A piece of proposed EU legislation has for many months now included drastic changes to the Union's copyright laws. Feedback from industry lobbyists looks very much like it is adopted uncritically to the exclusion of other interests. This is especially noticeable in what has been going on with Articles 11 and 13 of the Council on the European Commission's proposal for a Directive on copyright in the Digital Single Market [2016/0280(COD)]. CopyBuzz summarizes some of the more salient points regarding press publisher's rights (Article 11) and upload/censorship filters (Article 13) identified in the latest set of proposals.

Currently it is Bulgaria's turn to head the Council of the European Union, a position that rotates every six months among EU member states. One of the responsibilities of that position is to oversee the Council's work on EU legislation. However, with the recent rotation, the copyright situation looks grimmer rather than gaining a respite.

See CopyBuzz : Compromises on (c) are clearly no longer on the agenda.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 29 2018, @01:18PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 29 2018, @01:18PM (#659943)

    The EU is evolving to the best govt money can buy much faster than most.

    Lack of accountability in fishing rights contributed to Brexit.

    Wonder what lack of accountability in Copyright will lead to?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 29 2018, @01:56PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 29 2018, @01:56PM (#659958)

    An alternative solution:

    Mark some WWW locations as non-linkable.
    Only the owner of the content can distribute the URL.
    Having the URL gives you the right to use it.
    Distribution of the URL is treated like copying the content.

    Since a URL can point to anything, marking in the actual content would be a PITA.
    But a URL is just a sequence of text characters.
    Emoji's are also characters.
    Make a special Emoji saying to stop. (Maybe a stop sign showing an open palm? (No, not the finger ;-))
    If the URL contains the Emoji character anywhere in it, then it is not linkable.
    This also means it should not show up in search results.
    Archive sites should be able to save these pages, but not divulge them for a set time period.

    This makes it easy to filter out links which are not linkable.
    Which makes it easy to not filter the more civil ones that are.

    Lawyers won't like it because it is simple?

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday March 29 2018, @04:22PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 29 2018, @04:22PM (#660027) Journal

      Is the Punycode [wikipedia.org]-formatted URL filterable out or in?

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday April 04 2018, @10:14PM

      by Wootery (2341) on Wednesday April 04 2018, @10:14PM (#662662)

      So your solution is to put passwords as GET parameters? Why all the self-contradictory rambling about linking to non-linkable entities?