SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
On Friday, the EU Commission published a piece on Medium that suggested that Google has taken over the minds of millions of citizens, rendering them incapable of thinking for themselves in their opposition of Article 13. The piece was later deleted with a note implying that people simply aren't capable of understanding the subtle nuances of the English language.
Last week the European Parliament and European Council agreed on the final text of the EU Copyright Directive.
Supporters of Article 13 say this will lead to a better deal for the entertainment industries at the expense of Google's YouTube, since it will have to obtain proper licenses for content uploaded to platform, while taking responsibility for infringing uploads.
Opponents, on the other hand, believe that the Article 13 proposals will be bad news for the Internet as a whole, since they have the potential to stifle free speech and expression, at the very least.
It's important to note that Article 13 opponents come in all shapes and sizes, some more militant than others. However, last Friday the EU Commission took the 'one size fits all approach' by labeling every dissenting voice as being part of a "mob", one groomed, misinformed and misled by Google. [...]>
I'm not sure who in the world [h]as the expectation that lawmakers be clear and unambiguous in all their communications. But even putting that aside, it might be fun to have a quick game of logical fallacy spotting on both sides of this spat. Alas one might start with some anti-EU-commission bias, thinking that they don't understand how the internet works, as they appear to think that you can "delete" things that have appeared on the internet. Aww, how cute! -- Ed.(FP)
(Score: 2) by turgid on Thursday February 21 2019, @07:02PM (5 children)
What we need to do is fill the likes of YouTube up with home made music (no matter how bad) and claim copyright on each and every piece.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 21 2019, @07:37PM (1 child)
Rap music already done dat
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Thursday February 21 2019, @10:46PM
FTFY
Poetry? Perhaps. Sometimes, anyway. But music? No.
--
Old lady #1: My joints are stiff.
Old lady #2: You're rolling them too tight.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Thursday February 21 2019, @09:26PM
I believe their algorithm pattern matches with known monetized (commercially published, available for purchase) music. They may accept your takedown notices on a one-by-one basis to humor you, but the big machine will discretely circular-file them before applying them as a pattern search.
On the other hand, if you're EMI or Sony, Google probably has a revenue sharing agreement under the table where they find EMI, Sony, etc. IP and monetize it for all concerned.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 21 2019, @09:36PM (1 child)
Won't work. The music companies already have this worked out through cross-licensing: if one artist creates something that sounds too much like something already out there, the copyright gets transferred and royalties rerouted. It would be the same for your "own" compositions, the record companies will simply claim similarity to nullify your creative output.
What does work however, is publishing your own renditions of classical music. Just make sure you use the original score and not some modern adaptation, because reprints carry their own copyright.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hendrikboom on Monday February 25 2019, @03:44PM
How does one find original score, and know it's original and not some more recent edited version?