[Politics] Article 13...impact on NSC?

[Nathan]

EU backs controversial copyright law

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-47708144



Does these mean NSC would need to screen the content of meme's and videos posted etc?

To be honest I don't know much about it, so over to NSC to explain....

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

"It is now up to member states to approve the decision. If they do, they will have two years to implement it once it is officially published."


Not yet, in answer to the question.

 

[AmexRuislip]

So if anyone posted me me's, gifs or videos of Mrs Browns Boys, would anyone give a toss
Seriously its copyright gone barmy IMO

 

[hans kraay fan club]

EU backs controversial copyright law

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-47708144



Does these mean NSC would need to screen the content of meme's posted etc?

The link that YOU have posted, literally explains that this would not be the case

 

[The Andy Naylor Fan Club]

We won't be an EU member state, so it doesn't matter....

 

[Two Professors]

I know posters think I'm utterly braindead,so I don't mind posting my take on what I have read.If people re-post copyrighted material on here (eg music vids),then Bozza,as registered site owner, is responsible for paying any performance fees etc.That's why some regard it as the death of open internet.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I know posters think I'm utterly braindead,so I don't mind posting my take on what I have read.If people re-post copyrighted material on here (eg music vids),then Bozza,as registered site owner, is responsible for paying any performance fees etc.That's why some regard it as the death of open internet.

I'm not sure that is correct tbh. If Youtube allow people to upload a music video (your example) to their platform, then I'd imagine that they are completely liable for any copyright infringement, rather than posters / owners of forums containing links to a Youtube video.

 

[Two Professors]

I'm not sure that is correct tbh. If Youtube allow people to upload a music video (your example) to their platform, then I'd imagine that they are completely liable for any copyright infringement, rather than posters / owners of forums containing links to a Youtube video.

I hope you are right,and the posts I have read elsewhere are wrong!

 

[Nathan]

[tweet]1110524141583720449[/tweet]

 

[Beach Hut]

I know posters think I'm utterly braindead,so I don't mind posting my take on what I have read.If people re-post copyrighted material on here (eg music vids),then Bozza,as registered site owner, is responsible for paying any performance fees etc.That's why some regard it as the death of open internet.

He is no longer the registered owner, he stated this a while back

 

[LlcoolJ]

He is no longer the registered owner, he stated this a while back

No it's two American chaps who own it through some shell companies in Delaware. Bozza is just the puppet "owner" who keeps spoiling the site by pandering to a small clique of NSC "ultras".

If it wasn't for his beautifully coiffured hair he'd be nothing.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

We won't be an EU member state, so it doesn't matter....

Oh yes we will

 

[macbeth]

We won't be an EU member state, so it doesn't matter....

Our government is a massive supporter of this (surprised?), so we'll doubtlessly end up with something similar. After Brexit it'll probably be brought in under the pretence of 'mirroring EU law', but the Tories love it because it helps big businesses.

 

[beorhthelm]

I'm not sure that is correct tbh. If Youtube allow people to upload a music video (your example) to their platform, then I'd imagine that they are completely liable for any copyright infringement, rather than posters / owners of forums containing links to a Youtube video.

currently the uploader is liable and platform may be liable if they dont respond to a request to remove. under the new rule the platform will be automatically liable to the uploaded content immediatly. im genuinely concerned what it will do to the vast swathes of house music on Youtube, without which i may not survive at work. get a streaming service i suppose but the classics may be lost as copyright is lost through years of label merges and closures.

memes and gifs are trivial, technically already covered under UK law as copyrighted but exemption for parody, so new article as amended may be close to our existing law. examples of how this will affect us is say a picture of an old sticker, neither parody, review, criticism, may be infringement under Article 13, while same picture with added moustache Painted on would be OK.

more to the point will be how platforms respond to the threat of liability, will they simply block graphics and video to avoid the risk? judging by the response to GDPR its not a good outlook.

 

[Dick Head]

RIP Hiney.

 

[studio150]

This is going to be fun. After every gig I go to now on the way home there us immediately loads of photos and videos from the gig on Twitter and other social media sites. I assume that once enacted this new copyright law stops that.

While I can understand artists being fed up with the mere pittance they get from streaming services a lot of new bands have embraced social media to spread their footprint by using fans material. Does this end as well as platforms pull the shutters down on everything to avoid payments.

Rather like PL streams will there be a rise in bootleg sites that sit under the radar

 

[Dick Head]

This is going to be fun. After every gig I go to now on the way home there us immediately loads of photos and videos from the gig on Twitter and other social media sites. I assume that once enacted this new copyright law stops that.

Rich musicians will get their perquisite back.

While I can understand artists being fed up with the mere pittance they get from streaming services a lot of new bands have embraced social media to spread their footprint by using fans material. Does this end as well as platforms pull the shutters down on everything to avoid payments.

Rather like PL streams will there be a rise in bootleg sites that sit under the radar

Poor musicians will revert to plodding from village to village on foot or by horse and cart playing for victuals and ale.

Normal conditions could then return and unremarkableness go on unabated forever.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

currently the uploader is liable and platform may be liable if they dont respond to a request to remove. under the new rule the platform will be automatically liable to the uploaded content immediatly. im genuinely concerned what it will do to the vast swathes of house music on Youtube, without which i may not survive at work. get a streaming service i suppose but the classics may be lost as copyright is lost through years of label merges and closures.

memes and gifs are trivial, technically already covered under UK law as copyrighted but exemption for parody, so new article as amended may be close to our existing law. examples of how this will affect us is say a picture of an old sticker, neither parody, review, criticism, may be infringement under Article 13, while same picture with added moustache Painted on would be OK.

more to the point will be how platforms respond to the threat of liability, will they simply block graphics and video to avoid the risk? judging by the response to GDPR its not a good outlook.

I’m in two minds about this law. One thing it does do is provide greater protection for artists and their work. This gets lost in the argument. If I create something, and copyright right it, then I’d be wanting platforms like YouTube and NSC to respect the copyright if they let people to post it on their site.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

If it was our govt introducing this law do you think there would be such a meek protest?

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Cookie consent then GDPR and now this bollox, what next? Just more hassle for webmasters.