posted by
martyb
on Saturday July 22 2017, @11:46PM
from the affects-open-access-journals,-too dept.
from the affects-open-access-journals,-too dept.
A new Copyright Directive is being drafted for Europe. Within that process the Committee on Culture and Education (CULT) has agreed to an amendment that would greatly reduce citizens' rights in regards to online material and even digital material in general. The "snippet tax" aka "link tax" would require licenses for even the tiniest quotations of published material as well as mandating upload filters. Either of these would effectively ban sites like SoylentNews from Europe, but scholarly publishing would suffer as badly.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
EU Parliament Committee: No, You Can't Enjoy the Music You Paid For
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 31 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Sunday July 23 2017, @12:03AM (2 children)
After all, Apple forced U2 onto many devices.
Also,is it also okay if I paid, but don't enjoy it?
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday July 23 2017, @01:04AM (1 child)
It's just silly, you can not-enjoy it for free.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Insightful) by MostCynical on Sunday July 23 2017, @01:41AM
If you're going to be a masochist, do it properly!
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Sunday July 23 2017, @12:15AM (4 children)
The corporations are not even trying to hide their crap anymore.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Sunday July 23 2017, @12:39AM (1 child)
Why would they need to? This behavior is highly rewarding. Their puppets get elected and reelected every time a vote comes up. You can't blame them for doing what works.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Sunday July 23 2017, @05:29AM
Cheating often does work-- in the short term. Not so much in the long term. For instance, did the auto manufacturers really think they could cheat emissions tests for the decades it could take for diesel engines to be rendered obsolete? That's a long time to run a con that could be spotted the moment anyone anywhere takes a hard look.
More like, the managers involved didn't care, had shorter terms to think about than their employer. As long as they could retire and grab their golden parachutes before the cheating was uncovered, they were, well, golden.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by jcross on Sunday July 23 2017, @12:46AM (1 child)
Yeah and it seems odd that in an age when we're drowning in content, anyone would try to argue that content creators need more protections or people will stop creating content. My guess is they're not even bothering to make that argument, just promoting their industry at the expense of others. Possibly big media is even pushing the law because it hurts small media, not because they expect real revenue from it.
But if something like this actually got passed, I wonder if it would kick-start a mass movement toward copyleft licenses? Just to take one example, the vast majority of bloggers and journalists would be in big trouble if aggregators like soylent had to pay to link/excerpt their articles, because they'd lose a lot of eyeballs. These days the danger isn't getting popular and being unable to monetize, the danger is not being noticed in the first place. Currently default copyright won't hurt your chances of being noticed and linked, but if it did, I suspect a whole lot of outlets would be licensing their content so as to work around it, at the very least with an all-rights-reserved-but-fair-use kind of license. Once you break the stranglehold of copyright-by-default, and a more explicitly sharing-friendly ecosystem develops, it could chart a new path where creators take control instead of letting government decide. Well, I can hope...
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 23 2017, @01:18AM
Don't forget that there is also Creative Commons!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 23 2017, @12:36AM (4 children)
Yes! Yes!
(uncork the wine)
Start up the music!
(Score: 5, Touché) by fustakrakich on Sunday July 23 2017, @12:42AM (2 children)
Start up the music!
Can't... It's copyrighted
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 23 2017, @01:24AM (1 child)
Pssst!
https://creativecommons.org/ [creativecommons.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 23 2017, @01:54AM
direct link: https://creativecommons.org/dmca/ [creativecommons.org]
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Sunday July 23 2017, @07:45PM
Cowboy Neal? Is that you?
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Snotnose on Sunday July 23 2017, @12:36AM (2 children)
Outside of buying the CD, basically "buying" now means "renting" at the "buying" price.
Fuck that shit, Pirate Bay here I come!
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by epitaxial on Sunday July 23 2017, @07:26AM
Why do you think Apple switched to wireless headphones? Now you can have a DRM flag in the protocol.
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Sunday July 23 2017, @03:04PM
Or just buy the CDs?
I've been buying them at markets, charity shops and car boot sales for years now. There has been a surge in CDs available for sale in the last few years, especially once fools started just using online shops and streaming services.
I have bought so many CDs lately that I am thinking of building a CD ripping robot to convert them all for my music player
Not to mention, if people reject this stupidity and start buying CDs again as a big F-you to the music industry, they will have to rethink their strategy, or continue producing CDs.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday July 23 2017, @01:31AM (10 children)
Seems they want WAR.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 23 2017, @01:57AM (1 child)
I wanted War. I got Songs of Innocence
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 23 2017, @02:54AM
Why are you complaining? The price per link is still the same
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jmorris on Sunday July 23 2017, @03:11AM (7 children)
Something to keep in mind when considering the ideas on the recent discussions about microtransactions. Once every blog post is collecting a microtransaction, it will be impossible to deny a demand to "pass some of it on" to every place quoted from. It will quickly cause the Internet to sink under the weight of the lawyers who will have to be involved.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 23 2017, @03:39AM (6 children)
Facebook is already working on the infrastructure to manage these kinds of payments [go.com]. If they get their way, breaking Net Neutrality via zero-rating or whatever, your surfing and written communication will all have to go through them and they'll charge both coming and going. "Publishers" will get something that they'll feed to the politicians but Facebook itself won't be able to resist skimming some percentage off each transaction to ensure that they're still available even it is the only site still up.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday July 23 2017, @06:03AM (4 children)
Maybe it's Facebook that has lobbied this piece of citizen hostile amendment proposal?
Otoh, French politicians have a slight history of trying to restrain and tax "bad culture", usually anything non-french.
The open access journal amendment have a slight Evilvier taste to it.
Find guilty members here [europa.eu]. The question is however who of these that voted this hostile proposal to even come into existence? Know which persons that are responsible and which parties that are responsible would enable voting and shaming them permanently. They are obviously crazy or in someones pocket.
EU copyright reform goes from bad to worse [privateinternetaccess.com] (2017-07-17)
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Sunday July 23 2017, @07:48PM (3 children)
Maybe it's Facebook that has lobbied this piece of citizen hostile amendment proposal?
Why would they? They'd have to pay the tax on every link every user posted. There's no money in this for them, only lost revenue.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday July 23 2017, @08:44PM (2 children)
So who is likely to lobby this through EU?
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Monday July 24 2017, @02:50PM (1 child)
Film companies, music companies, and of course text publishers. Maybe even newspapers.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday July 25 2017, @04:04PM
Come to think about it. Newspapers seems really suspect.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @07:52AM
I guess Facebook already has ones name, address, and banking credentials anyway. So many people out there seem so naive about guarding information which is easily used to benefit the shyster at the expense of the happy-go-lucky naive Facebook user.
These are the very same people who go off all in a twat when their computer becomes infected with one of those cryptolocker thingies.
Yet they seem to see no correlation that the same thing can just as easily happen to their finances?
I really wonder about people. The amount of naivety I see is about the same of watching the cattle on the farm grow up, knowing good and well what we were gonna do with them. I am watching the elite take every thing they have away, and they hardly say a word.
Geez. Are these people really even worth helping? Will it do any good? Or just let them go, smiling, into the world of debt slavery?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 23 2017, @01:53PM (1 child)
I wonder how long it will take for a politician to use this to remove postings with quotes the politician would rather we didn't read?
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Sunday July 23 2017, @03:11PM
> I wonder how long it will take for a politician to use this to remove postings with quotes the politician would rather we didn't read?
In the EU they can already do that. The politicians thorn in the side atm is non EU companies like Google and FB who refuse to do it, hence the threats of fines etc... if they don't co operate. I Suspect they will co operate when the price is right.
This legislation however, would grant similar rights to private companies, I guess a nice example of the "slippery slope" in action.
(Score: 2) by gidds on Sunday July 23 2017, @05:02PM (1 child)
Any snippet, no matter how small?
Certain companies seem likely to do rather well out of this: Collins, Chambers, Oxford University Press, Merriam-Webster, Longman, Macmillan...
[sig redacted]
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday July 23 2017, @08:55PM
Maybe better to publish in the largest open access journal directly. I think it's called sci hub or so.. ;)
No limit on quoting there..