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
[–] 17652466? ago
This mostly affects big websites that make a profit from original content.
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.
[–] 17653660? ago
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.
[–] 17653666? ago
For 100th time, right wing content was already censored by corporations without any government pressure needed.
[–] 17652487? ago
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.
[–] 17658002? ago
Article 13 would not and will not do any such thing. They would have to shutdown all news and poke out people's eyes to blind everyone of jews White genocide agenda. Commentary in the chans and elsewhere isn't the source of the outrage, it's the venting of it. Everyone is still going to see everything, just won't be able to talk about it.
[–] 17652494? ago
>>13027860
It's about commercial rights, not censorship.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20190321IPR32110/european-parliament-approves-new-copyright-rules-for-the-internet
[–] 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?
[–] 17652486? ago
It doesn't affect that. Content for educational purposes is not affected as long as the company that made the documentary is non-profit and not some movie studio selling the documentary on netflix.
[–] 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.
[–] 17652471? ago
>>13027811
You know how this will affect the average user? The same way net neutrality did. In no fucking way.