back to article JURI's out, Euro copyright votes in: Whoa, did the EU just 'break the internet'?

JURI, European Parliament's legal affairs committee, voted today to approve article 11 of the EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, which allows news publishers to seek payment for reuse of snippets of articles, in a narrow 13:12 vote. It also voted to back a more controversial measure, article 13 of the same …

Anonymous Coward

'new exceptions for data mining'

Data-mining: What's that part about specifically... Anyone know?

Dear Reg Editors please URL link that section as you usually do...

4
0
Silver badge

Re: Dear Reg Editors please URL link that section as you usually do...

Perhaps they were subject to a 'take down' request or worse a payment of £100,000 for publishing a link to their site.

In those immortal words from the days of Laurel and Hardy...

"Another fine mess..."

6
0
Silver badge

bad for small sites

Obv. any method to identify material as infringing is dubious as context matters, false positives / negatives etc

However even though methods will be flawed, big companies can create them

Small companies will not have the resources to do that, so will have finacial burden of buying off teh shelf expensive solution to check infringing, or just remove that storage / data providing functionality from their website.

We have already seen how flawed this will be with US DMCA takedowns - there is no penalty for a copyright holder making an incorrect / malicious takedown, so it can be a huge burden (and for an easy life data provider often takedown non infringing material as it saves time / money) and DMCA has also become a good silencing tactic (e.g. nice way to remove a (bad) review of your game as video review includes short snippet of a bug in action)

Any system of takedown needs a penalty structure so false takedown requests cost a lot of money (after all, it is expensive to service takedown requests "properly" (i.e. checking the takedown is valid) as cannot readily be automated

42
0
Silver badge

Re: bad for small sites

Multiple flaws here:

1. A small website won't have millions of uploads by users requiring automatic checking.

2. There is no requirement for a website to check the validity of a takedown request.

3. The number of malicious takedown requests are (according to Google) extremely small.

I doubt that one could point to more than a few dozen in the last 20 years.

4. There is no penalty for an uploader mistakenly thinking that their use is OK.

5
19
Silver badge

Re: bad for small sites

> 3. The number of malicious takedown requests are (according to Google) extremely small.

Seriously?

I believe it was reported here on a Reg article that Google gets in excess of 1 million take-down requests a day, and that 95% of them are rejected as being improper (malicious, dodgy, inept, just plain out WTF?-type).

17
2
Silver badge

Re: bad for small sites

Don't be daft. The vast majority of the ones rejected are because they URL has already been reported. IOW they aren't malicious they are duplicates, the URL in question has already been removed.

0
3
Silver badge

Re: bad for small sites

The vast majority of the ones rejected are because they URL has already been reported. IOW they aren't malicious they are duplicates, the URL in question has already been removed.

Citation, please. To actual data.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

What next, the Post Office wanting to open all my letters before they arrive to make sure there is nothing infringing copyright ?

I wonder how much was spent by copyright cartels on getting these Stephen Conroy style measures through.

49
6
Anonymous Coward

Opening mail can actually be done under RIPA, just fyi.

10
1

There are thousands of full-time lobbyists who live in Brussels and Strasbourg whose job is to petition for special treatment for their particular interest. I don't know if you recall Tim Worstall, but he described the time when the rare metals lobby, in a time of a price slump, lobbied the EU for a ban on incandescent bulbs (under the guise of the 'green' movement) to force the sale of toxic 'low energy' bulbs and drive the rare metals price up. So we created a pollution mountain, got poorer, and had worse lighting - and then 10 years after the ban the LED bulb went mainstream. And I doubt that's the most egregious case.

8
4
Silver badge

"There are thousands of full-time lobbyists who live in Brussels and Strasbourg whose job is to petition for special treatment for their particular interest"

I've never figured out why lobbying is legal.

Reporter outside parliament:

"Who are you ?"

"I'm a lobbyist working for a cartel of oil companies hoping the gov will relax pollution regs so we can carry on poisoning the population"

" Hows it going?"

"well , we've just donated $5m to the party to , get them in the mood, as it were ... so fingers crossed"

"good stuff , good luck with that."

5
2
Anonymous Coward

Source?

1
0
Silver badge

I've never figured out why lobbying is legal.

In the US, because it's protected by the Constitution, specifically by the First Amendment. The freedom of speech clause obviously applies, and it's not difficult to argue that a law attempting to excessively restrict lobbying would fall foul of the petition-the-Government clause.

It's even possible that SCOTUS would find a prohibition on lobbying a violation of the assembly clause, as they did with California's blanket-primary law in California Democratic Party v. Jones.

More generally, how do you think lobbying should be restricted under a democratically-appointed republican form of government? What mechanism would prevent "lobbying" (already difficult to define in a sufficiently specific way) while still letting constituents interact with their representatives?

If you're concerned about the money, how do you eliminate all quid pro quibus? No representative, nor any party body, nor any recipient the representative might care about, can benefit in any way from any contribution made by anyone, ever? Such a proposal is patently absurd.

0
0
Bronze badge

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Check that final clause. I just pray you're not a US citizen.

0
0
Silver badge

Yes im concerned about the money.

1) No party should be allowed to accept any donations - all "campaining" to be done on 1 £1m per election budget, from the taxpayer.

2) no politician to have ANY income apart from their £90k salaries. If they cant handle that they are in it for the wrong reasons.

0
1

This post has been deleted by its author

with some complaining it would "transform the internet into a tool for surveillance and control".

I, for one, welcome our latecomers from the pre-internet era to the party; wait until you get a load of the landscape today, guys - it'll blow your socks off the valves on your amplifier!

5
0
Silver badge

Perhaps this explains a little?

Perhaps this explains a little? Unlike the EFF and other rants on Twitter that claim this HELPS Google and extends YouTube Content ID to the "Whole Internet".

Google owned YouTube is one of the largest violators of copyright, because Google wants adverts. What ever this "YouTube Content ID" is, it doesn't work.

No doubt this has flaws, but probably not the ones claimed on Twitter. "It's going to kill all our memes!"

No, it won't.

Also some memes are not parody of the content being adapted, but simply taking unrelated copyrighted content to illustrate a meme.

I doubt any automated content filter will work properly because they don't work now.

Really I've no idea what this means, but the EFF aren't explaining it.

5
27
Anonymous Coward

Re: Perhaps this explains a little?

> I doubt any automated content filter will work properly because they don't work now.

It is more fundamental than that: put it simply, a machine cannot determine what is legal and what is not and that's what is being proposed, in detriment of rather more fundamental rights, including but not limited to freedom of expression.

35
1
LDS
Silver badge
Devil

Whatever is bad for Google...

... is good for Mankind.

Google has become the bigger exploiter of ideas and contents made elsewhere - and pay peanuts or nothing for it.

Google & C will *kill* freedom of expression, because they are interested in it only as long as it is a profitable business.

Just very few will spend their time to create true innovative expression of freedom as long as they are loitered by Google, its worshiper and people too ignorant and stupid to create anything new and valuable but very greed to distribute and loiter other people successful creations.

15
17
Silver badge

Re: Whatever is bad for Google...

Googler, Facebook and many other megacorps are malicious and evil, driven by only their own empire building, ego and profit.

Lack of USA consumer orientated money.

EFF was once a wonderful idea, now tarnished by accepting dirty money.

6
16
Anonymous Coward

Re: Perhaps this explains a little?

It gets even better than that. At the moment YouTube will block completely private videos of people singing songs that are in the public domain because some big name artist also recorded the same song and the record company makes a blanket claim to copyright. Everything in our artists back catalog belongs to us unless we have an officially registered ownership claim from someones else as the songs author.

A quick dig shows that a third party company does the video / audio scanning for copyright / IP "infringement " and its the classic case of head we win, tails you lose. They make blanket claims of ownership to everything not claimed by other record companies / music publishers. Such as Christmas songs written in the 19'th century.

Who would have thought it. Record companies / music publishers running a scam.

29
0

Re: Whatever is bad for Google...

I share your dislike of Google. but these two articles favour only Google!

Google will never have to pay the link tax to anyone: no one who owns any copyright, of any type, can afford Google to delist it. Copyright is worth precisely zero if no one knows your copyrighted material exists (to buy it) and Google is the way the word finds everything. So Google will always be given free licenses.

Google Youtube has already implemented the leading content identifying system. Even if someone demands it be improved, Google is ahead of everyone else and can easily improve it at little further cost. All the "staydown" does is create a massive barrier to entry for any competitors to Youtube. You want a Bulgarian national competitor to Youtube? Well, you won't get one now because no one can compete: with no revenue except advertising, how will your national UGC service ever pay the entry costs of implementing Content-ID?

The only winner for this is Google. Certainly not Spotify. And not copyright owners either.

7
1
Silver badge

Citation needed

It gets even better than that. At the moment YouTube will block completely private videos of people singing songs that are in the public domain because some big name artist also recorded the same song and the record company makes a blanket claim to copyright.

That sounds credible, but not (AFAIK) proven.

It's basically something Big Pirates (like Disney) have been doing for decades. Which begs the question: is it some story from the past that's become apocryphal in a modern retelling, or are there documented cases you can cite? URLs would be welcome here.

7
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Citation needed

> That sounds credible, but not (AFAIK) proven.

It's basically something Big Pirates (like Disney) have been doing for decades. Which begs the question: is it some story from the past that's become apocryphal in a modern retelling, or are there documented cases you can cite? URLs would be welcome here.

<

I was the recipient of the blocked private video from a friend who is a professional musician and has about 400 plus professional performance videos on youtube uploaded over the space of a decade. Not a big name but was shown live on Arte Concert so not exactly obscure either. The song was for a Christmas Greeting for her agent that was going to be for private circulation and was sent to me as part of a group of videos to get an opinion about which was the best song /take.

The blocked song was "O Holy Night" (written in the 1840's) and the take down notice was from Warner. Which means that it was probably due to the Mariah Carey recording of the song decades ago that Warner claimed i.p ownership of a public domain song. Its hard to tell as the takedown notice was deliberately obscure and there is no simple of challenging it. I checked out the originator of the takedown. Its one of those 3'rd party i.p enforcement companies that are also responsible those blanket DCMA's. So basically sleazy little i.p pimps with morals to match.

11
0
Silver badge
Trollface

big bad google

As ive said before , im happy to pay for stuff in data , blood , or being advertised at - because i dont have the spare cash to pay for all the stuff we get online for free in money.

Google has given us a great free search engine that can find anything! for free!

They have also photographed and mapped the entire planet from space for us! for free!

If that wasnt enough they then drove down every road on the planet and photographed that for us! for free!

Then they made the Android OS to stop Apple having 100% market share.

They give us a doodle every day.

They Translate languages for free! like a babel fish!

They give us a cloud drive to store GBs of data - for free!

So they're not all bad ....

5
3
Silver badge

O Holy Night (Re: Citation needed)

Wikipedia lists a lot of recordings of that, some of them a lot older than the one you mention.

One possible hypothesis is that Warner have copyright over some particular arrangement of the song, and spotted that in the video in question. In the absence of more specifics, I couldn't possibly tell.

I checked out the originator of the takedown. Its one of those 3'rd party i.p enforcement companies that are also responsible those blanket DCMA's.

As in this story (which didn't lead to a takedown)!

I'm genuinely curious here: what information do they send you (a blog entry or similar URL like mine above would help)? It it's from a third party, where does Warner come in? Did you check whether the originator was really Warner's henchman, or a third-party abusing their name with no actual connection? Did google/youtube actually take down a video based on that notice? I can well believe Warner would do evil, but there are too many unanswered questions to say for certain that this is an example.

2
0
Silver badge

Re: O Holy Night (Citation needed)

P.s. should've said. I could post this where it would be likely to catch the attention of real people at Google (i.e. not the ones whose job is to fob the public off). But before doing that, I'd need sufficient detail not to look an idiot as soon as they ask the kind of questions I'm asking.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: O Holy Night (Citation needed)

I get the strong impression you have little real world exposure to the day to day workings of the music biz over the last few decades. If you were familiar with the workings of record companies and music publishers you would know that they have been sleazy lying cheating shitbags for as long as anyone can remember. My introduction to the inner workings of the biz was back in the early '80's as I got to hear first hand how probably one of the most financially successful bands of the last 4 decades got its start. It was nt pretty. You dont win at this game by being nice guys. Then later in the decade I got to hang out in LA with session people in some of the big studios where the really serious war stories were heard. This was during the transition to CD's when the musicians were royally screwed (yet again) and the record companies made out like bandits.

Since then the distribution media may have changed and the names on the outside of the corp HQ's may have changed but the default behavior of those in charge of trying to cheat everyone has not changed one iota. The stories I hear now are exactly the same as the ones I heard decades ago. In its defense the music business is not as unrelentingly vicious as the TV or movie business. Where both management and talent tend to be total a*holes. In the music biz its usually only management that are vicious and nasty. Talent tends to be OK. Although usually nuts.

If you know any professional music people who have dealings with youtube or other video hosting sites you will hear lots of stories just like the one I told. As is the extreme difficulty in getting a straight answer or reversal. Google (in the search sense) is your friend if you want to find lots of stories.

I'm on the road at the moment but when I get back to Cal if my musician friend wants to push back hard they could make a tidy sum from the negligent notice from the i.p enforcement company. I wont go into details but the enforcement company broke several laws by their wilful and deliberate negligence. Which it was. They have prior form. Given how lucrative these little scams are and based on past performance they would probably settle a 5 figure sum to make the problem go away.

Again, that how the biz works in the real world.

3
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: O Holy Night (Citation needed)

> P.s. should've said. I could post this where it would be likely to catch the attention of real people at Google

Nick, pay attention to what the other AC is telling you. This is their usual modus operandi. It is not one unfortunate mistake or anything like that.

Back in the days when the big labels had a tight grip on everything, all the musicians that I knew used to pirate their own music. And we're talking a wide spectrum from punk to classic.

Now the big copyright merchants have seen the opportunity in the form of the most corrupt and incompetent "leadership" in the history of post-war European institutions and are determined to take advantage of it. If we let them they win, so better start writing to your national MPs (MEPs are hit and miss, there are a handful of good ones and over seven hundred leechers).

1
1

Re: Citation needed

Encryption to specific recipients and groups, and serving files off one's own machine are perhaps going to get more interesting.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: O Holy Night (Citation needed)

I get the strong impression you have little real world exposure to the day to day workings of the music biz over the last few decades.

Indeed, I have nothing but contempt for the so-called music biz, and no direct knowledge of its day-to-day working. However, I do both listen and perform on a reasonably regular basis. I've also done a little composing, broadcasting and recording, so have a slight level of indirect exposure to some of it.

I'm well aware that copyright abuse happens. I'm also well aware there are lots of stories floating around based on misunderstandings. Nothing posted here enables me to classify your story beyond reasonable doubt as one or the other.

If someone presented a firm case, the Googlers I occasionally encounter are those who work in Free Software. People who believe in copyright but detest its abuse. People who might raise a fuss and would carry weight internally if presented with clear evidence that youtube was complicit in abuse.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Citation needed

Encryption to specific recipients and groups, and serving files off one's own machine are perhaps going to get more interesting.

It's easier than that. Use a public hosting firm that lets you configure TLS. Run your own CA (it can be a toy/demo CA like OpenSSL's) and issue client certificates to anyone you want to grant access. Leave index pages and their resources unrestricted, but require a client certificate for anything you don't want visible to hoi polloi, Google, the IP bottom-feeders, etc.

In other words, "encryption to specific recipients" is already provided for in existing web standards and infrastructure. Browsers and servers will handle it automatically; in fact, many TLS stacks will handle it automatically for all the applications that use them.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Blakes7 Internet Federation

I've been looking forward to a Blake's TV reboot forever. Apparently Microsoft bought the rights but buried it like Nokia and everything else they do... Pity! But its all just fiction right? I mean no one ever imagines a reboot manifesting into real-life?! Lets look at some other tech news this week as Marriott hotels justifies putting IoT listening devices in their hotels as something every cultured traveler wants. WTF? If this isn't some kind of weird warped reality were living in right now. I welcome the revolution! We'll see more talented Avon's floating around not focused on Ad-Slinging etc...

9
0
Silver badge

Re: Blakes7 Internet Federation

Blake's 7 already had its reboot. It was called Firefly. Sadly didn't last.

5
1

Re: Blakes7 Internet Federation

"Blake's 7 already had its reboot. It was called Firefly. Sadly didn't last"

I want to both upvote this (because Firefly was awesome and I want it back) and also downvote it (because Firefly wasn't really Blake's 7 and I really, really want Blake's 7 back). *sigh*

15
0
Silver badge

Re: Blakes7 Internet Federation

You listened to the audio remake though didn't you.

http://www.b7media.com/audio/blakes-7/blakes-7-audio-adventures/

And the Big Finish audio dramas

https://www.bigfinish.com/ranges/released/blake-s-7

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Paul Darrow was quoted as saying Firefly was B7

Don't get it personally! To me it would be like comparing Black-Sails to Pirates-of-the-Caribbean... Or Transformers to Alien/Aliens etc. Firefly was gentle Sci-Fi tongue and cheek TV.

A sci-fi A-Team etc. It wasn't nearly as bleak or dystopian with the same level of deadly self-serving characters. It also didn't touch on corporate-overlords / dark-web / surveillance-state / fake-news manipulation or other topical internet of cesspit stuff faced today.

4
0
Silver badge

Re: Paul Darrow was quoted as saying Firefly was B7

Am, i getting old? whats B7?

Did Blakes7touch on , oh wait ive figured out what B7 is , doh! , Did B7 touch on all that stuff?

The more I think about it , the more i cant really tell which way you are arguing - not being totally familiar with B7 dosent help. Firefly definitely touched on all those things though.

0
1
Silver badge

Re: Paul Darrow was quoted as saying Firefly was B7

"Dark Matter" is the new Blakes 7! (as well as Firefly)

Sadly cancelled after 3 series though.

0
1
Anonymous Coward

'"Dark Matter" is the new Blakes 7! (as well as Firefly)'

Nah, both were 'pink' by comparison. But it gives me hope that there's room for B7 to return someday, as it hasn't been remade.

1
0
Mushroom

52% of the vote

Did they know what they were voting for?

30
4
Silver badge

Re: 52% of the vote

They're legislature types. If (a big IF) they read viewpoints they will get impressed with a proper sounding name of the organization. Individuals don't count unless it's someone of influence and power.

5
1
Mushroom

Hand Off My Internet

Get all government regulations off the Internet.

It is not theirs to regulate, it is ours. Freedom of access, freedom of speech and no restrictions/monitoring/manipulation to its use is acceptable, EVER.

15
21
Silver badge

Re: Hand Off My Internet

It is not theirs to regulate

If you look carefully at the original intent and sponsors, yes, it very much *is* theirs to regulate.

Hint: the Internet is the spiritual inheritor of the ARPANet, and the ownership, or at least sponsorship, of that is clear in its name. ARPA. Now called DARPA. A governmental tentacle if ever there was one.

Oh, and I very much don't care how many downvotes I get for this.

26
5
LDS
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: Hand Off My Internet

In which way it is "yours"?

19
1
Holmes

Re: Hand Off My Internet

You mean it is the corporations' who provide the hardware and software for content and distribution/routing, from the databases & scripts down to the fibers? Yes, it is theirs, and they will restrict, monitor, and manipulate to the full extent of the law (and possibly more until penalized enough to dial it back).

Government regulations are very handy when they keep corporate greed in check. So don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

22
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Hand Off My Internet

Actually, before democratic government with a Constitution warranting citizen rights and their enforcement existed, you had not freedom of expression, and often, no freedom at all.

Don't believe that without a democratic government and its rule protecting citizens' right the world would be better.

Only the law of jungle will exist, and that's exactly what 800lb gorillas like Google want - so it can enforce its own law at the expense of everybody else. People like the EFF are the classic Lenin's "useful idiots" who could only help megacorp like Google achieve their aim, blinded by their anarchism.

16
3
Silver badge
Angel

Re: Hand Off My Internet

A totally anarchist society sounds nice, but only works for perfect people. We need to regulate companies and have laws.

Internet is simply a delivery/distribution medium. The same laws as for printed material, bill board ads, TV, Radio content, and Mail Order must apply, as appropriate to content and/or service. Also similar oversight & regulation as postal services, telephone, telegraph, radio spectrum and satellite slots & frequencies.

There is no sense whatsoever that the Internet should be unregulated in terms of access, infrastructure, privacy, content etc.

14
3

Re: Hand Off My Internet

Government regulations are very handy when they keep corporate greed in check.

Indeed. They are also, unfortunately, very handy to those same corporations when they prevent competition.

Google are the only winners here.

9
1

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018