0
0

[–] 17652455? ago 

So can original content posted to 8chan by 8chan users be then sent to all other companies to add to their filters so it's exclusive to 8ch and will just get auto blocked if anyone tries to upload it elsewhere?

0
0

[–] 17652466? ago 

This mostly affects big websites that make a profit from original content.

So can original content posted to 8chan by 8chan users be then sent to all other companies to add to their filters so it's exclusive to 8ch and will just get auto blocked if anyone tries to upload it elsewhere?

Not really. You will have to use a more commercial site. If someone wanted 8ch content blocked from other websites, what would stop your from uploading content from others which will be added by some AI and blocked automatically on other websites?

You won't be able to prove that you own the rights to the content using 8ch unless they implement a better system.

It's more about commercial use, not censorship. It could be used to censor things but it would be difficult.

Article 13 replaces the "mere conduit" exemption from copyright infringement from for-profit "online content sharing service providers" with a new, conditional exemption to liability. These conditions are a claimed implementation of "effective and proportionate measures" to "prevent the availability of specific [unlicensed] works identified by rightsholders", acting "expeditiously" to remove them, and demonstrating that "best efforts" have been made to prevent their future availability. The article also extends any licenses granted to content hosts to their users, as long as those users are not acting "on a commercial basis".

Article 13b requires websites which "automatically reproduce or refer to significant amounts of copyright-protected visual works" to "conclude fair and balanced licensing agreements with any requesting rightholders"

0
0

[–] 17653660? ago 

It's more about commercial use, not censorship.

Dream on dude, financial losses through ripped off content is actually peanuts for them. Nothing compared to what they waste elsewhere. And do you really think they would ever say hey we gonna police the internet like China; just forget it. this is only about control and power and they just built the legal base for the next step on the ladder to their orwellian surveilance rstate.

0
0

[–] 17652487? ago 

It's more about commercial use, not censorship.

It is only about censorship.

The EU Commissar did say this straight: "Article 13 would have prevented ISIS and Tarrant by censoring radicalizing content" >>13027027

Even "comercial use" would me censorship only, or how do you think they would defend their not "original content"?

It is to silence dissidents and unwelcome competitors.

0
0

[–] 17652479? ago 

So it's kind of just an extension or revision of existing law which will make it easier for individuals or companies to have their content removed more promptly from the likes of youtube.

Would a reasonable example be a small company that makes crime shows for TV similar to 48 hours investigates would have an easier time and swifter response into having that content removed from youtube?

Or someone that has the rights to certain WW2 images could have any video featuring their image removed?

Is that it, is it literally not going to affect pretty much anything for normal people and chan'ers?

0
0

[–] 17652469? ago 

Texas tried to do something like this where they were trying to ban deep links. It was some dumb old people who didn't understand how the internet works.

0
0

[–] 17652460? ago 

no. You can file a complaint with the court of an eu member state of which the individual posting your copyrighted meme is from. Because of the law, if it ever get implemented, the court would have to involve the owners of the platform on which it got posted and you have hopefully 7 figures ready to pay for a decade long case about 50 cents