EU approves controversial Copyright Directive, including internet ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filte

The European Parliament has voted in favor of the Copyright Directive, a controversial piece of legislation intended to update online copyright laws for the internet age. The most important parts of this are Articles 11 and 13. Article 11 is intended to give publishers and papers a way to make money when companies link to their stories, allowing them to demand paid licenses. Article 13 requires certain platforms stop users sharing unlicensed copyrighted material. In the case of Article 11, they note that attempts to “tax” platforms for sharing articles have repeatedly failed, and that the system would be ripe to abuse by copyright trolls. Article 13, they say, is even worse. The legislation requires that platforms proactively work with rightsholders to stop users uploading copyrighted content.

EU approves controversial Copyright Directive, including internet ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’

So this really seems like the year of trying to destroy the internet. Between America's FCC deregulation, the GDPR and now this, it's going to be increasingly difficult for smaller businesses or individuals to host content online. Guh I remember the days when you would beg website owners to link to your content just to get traffic.

This is fairly bad for sites like ATS and other places that rely on users sharing content from other sources.

a reply to: dug88

They say voting like it's the least bit democratic, which it isn't.

Frankly, I'm surprised it's taken them as long as it has to wreck the internet. The first time I signed on way back in the AOL days with my snail slow dialup, I thought "Wow! This is too awesome! Why do they allow this? There's got to be a catch!"

I mean, I was still paying for cable then so it was an odd clash of ideas to go from my TV to my PC and back to my TV and so on and so forth.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
Frankly, I'm surprised it's taken them as long as it has to wreck the internet. The first time I signed on way back in the AOL days with my snail slow dialup, I thought "Wow! This is too awesome! Why do they allow this? There's got to be a catch!"

I mean, I was still paying for cable then so it was an odd clash of ideas to go from my TV to my PC and back to my TV and so on and so forth.

Ya it makes me sad though. The internet has been one of few huge media advances in history that has actually somewhat equalized people. For the most part anyone can pay a bit of money and have a platform to say whatever they want, start a business or interact with people all over the world. There hasn't ever been another time in history when pretty much anyone could do this. And it's slowly being taken away and reserved for the wealthy.

a reply to: dug88
Its not here yet but the next stage is private deals out of sight of
the public with a final text the e.u. will vote on next year so the
internet has six months left in europe before it changed forever.

a reply to: dug88

A link tax is a death tax.

Sites will just no longer allow linking to sites that try to make them pay.

So that includes every site including search engines? Not being in Google is a death sentence for websites.

Stupid people making stupid laws.

Just one more step to control the news, IMO.

The world has seen far too much freedom of information according to those who hold power over the masses. The internet has allowed the exposure of some dark secrets, and it's getting harder every year to cover them up.... So they'll shut it down, instead.



Time to make a choice- go to the dark web, or move into the woods.

a reply to: dug88

Here's the thing.

When businesses which suffer, that is experience financial hardship, face bankruptcy, staff layoffs as a result of lack of funds, and the like, complain that their intellectual properties being distributed too widely, by people other than themselves, is harming their business, then you can take it on the chin and legislate.

But while its the companies who command VAST amounts, impossible amounts of profit, very little of which actually ends up in the hands of the content creators in the first place, who complain, you can smile and say "I don't care how many fewer tins of caviar you had to order this year. Go and find a real job, you disgusting piece of animated discarded scrotal flesh."

Of course, no small group of people who have control over a large group, have ever been able to be relied upon to make decisions purely based on what is good for the larger group, and in this case, more liberty and less oversight would be entirely good for the people. So you can bet your bottom dollar that what we actually get, is going to be so much oversight that the internet becomes irrelevant, and a reduction in our liberty, once again, care of the despicable corporate penetrated nest of scum and villainy, that jokingly calls itself a government.

See, I am one of those people that wants human beings put first, not corporations, and every time a government sides with the corporate, not with the electorate, someone needs to be removed from office. Put simply, either ones nation is run by the people entire, or you have a tyrant or group thereof, who merely rule the others.

a reply to: lordcomac

Those bastards should have never created the dark web on behalf of the US MIC. Of course we will use it and continue to be a step ahead of the game.

Sadly that only applies to people 'in the know.' Slowly waiting for them to outlaw bitcoin, resulting in a gigantic price jump.

a reply to: dug88

So basically. . . . a tax on free speech.

The good thing is, that if you don't like the law, you could always vote to remove the members of EU Parliament....wait, eh

At least if you don't like the EU, your country could vote to leave and the elected officials will follow the vote...wait, eh

You have guns to over throw the unelected officials who are ruling over you...wait, eh

doom i tell you doom for the internet

well it will be doom if you live in the eu when every website blocks eu ip adresses to avoid fines

get a vpn the eu will need a firewall on the same scale as china to enforce this

Thanks for info
I did a thread on this back in June

www.abovetopsecret.com...



darkbake:

I did some research on this on my own because of how heavily spun most stories on ATS are these days. What I found out about the link tax was enough to be against this law. Apparently, there will be some red tape involved if someone wants to link to and quote a news source, which I do on ATS all the time and consider to be good policy.

Google is mostly being targeted for showing snippets of other websites in search results. I disagree with punishing Google for this, as I think it only benefits those who show up in the search results. How else do they expect to get viewers if viewers can’t find them on search engines? In fact, when a law like this appeared in Spain, Google simply stopped showing Spanish news outlets in their search results.

Here is a news source with further information from Forbes: Forbes It turns out the law would require someone to have a license to link to a news story. This is simply ridiculous and gets in the way of the Information Age.

a reply to: SocratesJohnson

You have guns to over throw the unelected officials who are ruling over you...wait, eh

What makes you think we don´t (speaking for Germany here)??
Did you read that on the internet?

Because it´s wrong. The rest of your post, I agree.

a reply to: dug88

It seems to me that it would be easy to circumvent this with VPNs and proxies.

a reply to: dug88

I wonder how long that link tax will last when people get around it by not linking to an article, effectively shutting out a voice and ad revenue.

originally posted by: Bramble Iceshimmer
a reply to: dug88

I wonder how long that link tax will last when people get around it by not linking to an article, effectively shutting out a voice and ad revenue.

all they have to do then is tax you somewhere you cant avoid.

I was told that Europe had Net Neutrality.

a reply to: dug88

Why is stopping people STEALING bad

If you wrote software,made movies or music YOU would want to protect them.

Well, it's official. The EU technocracy has passed Article 13 and they are coming for our MEMES.

www.infowars.com...

www.google.com...

Following studies that proved the political right was more successful at creating and spreading memes than the left, Facebook has announced it is developing a new AI algorithm that can detect and ban “offensive” memes.

It’s almost like there’s some kind of connection here.

“Facebook announced the deployment of a large-scale machine learning system named Rosetta, which it’s using to automatically and proactively identify “inappropriate or harmful content” in images on the social network,” reports Fox News. “In other words, Facebook developed an AI that can tell if a meme is offensive.”

Of course, defining what is “offensive” is completely subjective and is wide open to abuse by far-left political agitators who control Silicon Valley. Offensive speech is part of free speech. Unless a meme contains pornography or graphic violence, it should not be banned.

Just as the left can no longer form cogent political arguments outside of calling their opponents racist bigots, the left can’t meme.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------

These turds have messed with the wrong bunch of nerds. Ban memes? Really? Because you're losing the MEME WAR on every front and so you have to GET RID OF THEM? HA!

I spit in your face, globalists. We will not stand for INTERNET CENSORSHIP. Kekistani members from around the world shall unite and WE WILL DEFEAT YOU.