LinuxMusicians

EU Parliament adopts upload filter and ancillary copyright law
(german) https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Urheberrechtsreform-EU-Parlament-winkt-Upload-Filter-und-Leistungsschutzrecht-durch-4350043.html
np: Frank Zappa - Trouble Every Day & The Torture Never Stops

Either you have licenses from all creators (text/picture/sound) worldwide (from existing and upcoming works) or you have to filtering before upload.
There is no such filter yet and it should be very complex if it is from all creators (text/picture/sound) worldwide (of existing and upcoming works).
At the first offence one is still friendly pointed out, at a repetition case one must pay money.
Which platforms are all affected will turn out at the latest with the warnings.
This will discourage some creative websites from appearing at all.
Can a private artist prove that the work is his?
Does the creators/artist get more money or the license distributors/commercial society?
....
IMHO

raboof wrote:Key word: prevent.

I'm still afraid this will translate into a barrier for new platforms to enter the market, increasing the power the big established platforms have over the content creators in the longer run.

merlyn wrote:The issue for us is how small websites like this will be affected, and if the new laws affect how free software is created and distributed.

That i understand.
But still i don't see the dilemma. Ok, then prevent. Do what you can, and that must be enough. And next to that keep a report-button.
As long as you can show that you actively prevent proportionally and reasonably and act if something is reported that is enough.

If your site is small there automatically is less to prevent so less work and easier.
If someone for instance places a cover here you can overlook by accident while preventing, but when the report-button is used action is needed.
If someone places "cover from whoever" then it is clear. If someone places "my own work" how can one recognize each copyrighted sample? Then no one could blame you for that. They can not expect that from someone. Again as long as you act as soon as you have that knowledge.

Look at soundcloud. There rule is to not upload copyrighted stuff. They guard, although much less active as youtube does. And they are still around. Do not forget that under the old rules copyright already was on the agenda and could end in a lawsuit.
Another example. Mr. Roger Hudson was many years active to get al Supertramp songs which were wrote by him deleted. For years there were no Supertramp songs on youtube, or at least not long. Ultimately he understood that he could earn money with it as now these songs stay on youtube and he claims the rights as i mentioned earlier.

If i had some site like that i would not lay awake for a minute.

zoco wrote:Look at soundcloud. There rule is to not upload copyrighted stuff. They guard, although much less active as youtube does. And they are still around.

That is currently the case, under the old laws. With the new laws, that will be introduced to implement the new directives, it may no longer be.

merlyn wrote:The issue for us is how small websites like this will be affected, and if the new laws affect how free software is created and distributed.

As far as I understand, websites like this will be affected. If so, it would mean that every post needs to be pre-moderated to grant that there isn't any infringing material. I am pretty sure nobody has the time for it. Either that, or it will be considered liable if some user posts infringing material. This is an attack vector for websites like this. I think it would be appropriate to double check whether this reform affects us.

As for open source repositories, the approved text contains a clear exception, so they should not be affected. I will dig the text out later.

CrocoDuck wrote:Platforms have to prevent copyright infringing material to be uploaded

That's how it should be.

CrocoDuck wrote:, not remedy if it gets uploaded.

That's how it's been so far.

CrocoDuck wrote:If they do not prevent, then they are liable, and copyright holders can sue the platforms.

Yes.

What has been decided are EU directives.
Each individual country derives its individual law on the basis of these guidelines.
This means that there will not be the EU copyright regulation but the individual interpretation/law of each EU member state.
IMHO

khz wrote:

CrocoDuck wrote:Platforms have to prevent copyright infringing material to be uploaded

That's how it should be.

I disagree. If we took that rule to its extreme, forums like this one could not exist, because I cannot check each post for possible copyright infringements before making it available. Actually, I'm not sure I could reliably check any single post - how do I know you wrote it? Since basically no-one posts infringing material to this site, the 'remedy' strategy is perfectly fine here.

Of course there are platforms where infringement is rampant, who fail to successfully apply the remedy strategy. But those can be taken care of under the old rules, no need for new rules for those.

khz wrote:What has been decided are EU directives.
Each individual country derives its individual law on the basis of these guidelines.
This means that there will not be the EU copyright regulation but the individual interpretation/law of each EU member state.
IMHO

While it is true individual countries will have to turn the directive into local law, the room for interpretation is somewhat limited, and directives can sometimes also apply directly (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_ef ... _Union_law)

raboof wrote:I disagree.

I meant that Youtube, for example, has been doing this so far: If something was reported they deleted it.
Furthermore, they (Youtube) already had an upload filter/content id.
Such platforms already did all this before the new EU directive / article 13/17.

I did not refer to this forum.

Please let us discuss objectively/esteem on the basis of verifiable facts which have just been created by the transposition of the EU directives and their derivation into new create arise national laws and not on the basis of assumptions and insults.

khz wrote:I am not interested in scaremongering but rather in discussing and deriving logical changes based on rationality and logic - a property of GNU/Linux.
Ultimately, I'm concerned with the existence of the continued existence of open souce or open knowledge.
Even if this is not explicitly illegal, it could still bring us restrictions or changes in some areas (open source, open know, GNU/Linux, Creative Commons, ...).

Our Mission Statement, Values, and Vision >> https://linuxmusicians.com/viewtopic.php?p=896#p896

Thank you very much!

Somewhat OffTopic (sry) but I would find it sad if for example the band "Grateful Dead" was forbidden.
Official EU Agencies Falsely Report More Than 550 Archive.org URLs as Terrorist Content
https://blog.archive.org/2019/04/10/official-eu-agencies-falsely-report-more-than-550-archive-org-urls-as-terrorist-content/

From the link:

"At least 550 archive.org URLs were falsely identified by the French IRU in the past week as terrorist propaganda, including: ..."

With Macron the worst is yet to come.

This generation (Grateful Dead) was involved in the idea of the "Internet" and Grateful Dead were virtually the first "Open Source" musicians.

khz wrote:This generation (Grateful Dead) was involved in the idea of the "Internet" and Grateful Dead were virtually the first "Open Source" musicians.

Followed by Phish. Attracting crowds without any advertisement, playing for days at festivals, etc...

EDIT: I replaced the link with this one from the IT festival.

As Wikipedia describes the IT festival:

"It was the sixth festival hosted by the rock band Phish. The event took place on August 2 and 3, 2003, at the Loring Air Force Base in Limestone, Maine, just miles from the Canada–U.S. border. 60,000 people attended,[8] resulting in one of the largest Phish concerts ever. This was also their most-played festival venue (see also the Great Went and Lemonwheel). PBS was on hand to make a documentary of the experience.

Phish was the only band at the event, performing seven sets of music over two nights, including a late night ambient set on top of the air traffic control tower at 2:30 AM after the first night's concert. Fans camped onsite in tents, creating a community of Phans that became one of the largest cities in Maine over the weekend. "

And at that, without having any airplay on mainstream radios, and barely without advertisements. 60,000 people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG6magkY-KE

And a nice one from another Phish festival, the Clifford Ball festival:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HoDlGNTisI

And this is the late night ambient jam from IT:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUaL2eYwayM

I've seen Phish a couple of times live.