Article 13 Passes...........South Africa hold my beer. New FPB internet bill.

[Drak3]

10 minutes ago, floofer said:

Is YT, Twitter, FB etc really publishers?

Youtube is.

[Guest]

44 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Youtube is.

I think they have a classification system in place anyway 

[TheKDub]

On 3/29/2019 at 3:09 AM, Bananasplit_00 said:

Can this even be enforced? Like EVERY video needs to be watched and EVERYONE needs to be a distributor if you want to share video now? That's pretty strange

I highly doubt it. For people within South Africa, possibly, but for everyone else globally, nah.

[kirashi]

On 3/28/2019 at 11:35 PM, MetEishYa said:

Who does this bill apply to? Everyone whos content/film is available in South Africa ie. Steam, Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, etc. This basically means all Youtubers such as LinusTechTips, Jays2cents and Gamers Nexus, must have there videos classified by the FPB if they make there videos available to view in South Africa.

Quote

Good thing YouTubers don't make their videos available - YouTube does this, but more literally, a spinning disk & CPU do, so who's going to arrest the hardware? /s

 

This is getting out of hand. As a Canadian, other countries have no jurisdiction over content I host on my Canadian servers, regardless of where I make it available.

[MrFixitBlankFace]

Y tho?

Why are they imposing these things in South Africa?

[mr moose]

So the only question I have is how hard is it to be registered as a distributor?  If it does the equivalent of protect you as the distributor of your own content from false claims from bigger companies then this possibly is a good thing.   Forget DMCA and Google, because your content was registered the big boys can't steel it.

[TechyBen]

On 3/29/2019 at 7:34 AM, Arika S said:

I'm sorry? Why the fuck was this not already criminalised and "allows"? So there are instances where it's still fine? The fuck

 

That's one hell of an implication

Most laws are broken. As in, not working.

You get to court, and a well paid lawyer says "show me where it's written my defendant cannot kill someone *with* a haribo?" So you need a law specifically covering murder via a candy bar.

[asand1]

The new world government doesn't want it's subjects communicating with each other. Welcome to Bernie's communism.

[williamcll]

Yeah I don't think the police have that much time to arrest that many youtubers.

[mr moose]

16 hours ago, TechyBen said:

Most laws are broken. As in, not working.

You get to court, and a well paid lawyer says "show me where it's written my defendant cannot kill someone *with* a haribo?" So you need a law specifically covering murder via a candy bar.

Laws don't work that way,   the law just says you are not allowed to kill someone.  The weapon of choice is almost always irrelevant.

 

Unless you have a link to a judges ruling claiming what yoou said actually happened.

[DildorTheDecent]

>Criminalising CP

So they've only got around to that now?

 

I would say I'm surprised but it is SA afterall.

[Fasterthannothing]

Well in one week the internet has just been destroyed by insane laws from people who have no clue what they are doing. Also time to see if any big VPNs are publicly traded. We are headed straight head first into an  orwellian future. Our kids aren't going to understand what the internet really was and how you didn't have to get the government to approve what you put online. 

[TechyBen]

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

Laws don't work that way,   the law just says you are not allowed to kill someone.  The weapon of choice is almost always irrelevant.

 

Unless you have a link to a judges ruling claiming what yoou said actually happened.

No. They just passed a law here on flying a drone in an airport. Doing ANYTHING was practically covered already.

Also, any company poisoning/killing off people. Often needs new "laws". While my example was hyperbole. People still act this way regarding laws. "Driving without due care and attention" is a law, yet every little thing now has its own coverage, drugs, phones, eating etc etc.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, TechyBen said:

No. They just passed a law here on flying a drone in an airport. Doing ANYTHING was practically covered already.

Also, any company poisoning/killing off people. Often needs new "laws". While my example was hyperbole. People still act this way regarding laws. "Driving without due care and attention" is a law, yet every little thing now has its own coverage, drugs, phones, eating etc etc.

What law?  I think your example is still hyperbole.  I think you should take you posts to a lawyer or judge and ask why.

[Ithanul]

11 hours ago, PacketMan said:

Uh, Oh, Okay.

So USA kills net neutrality, EU passes Article 13, South Africa FPB bill, Australia anti encryption law, China censorship

The map is completed, sir.

Even better:https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/04/ftc-confirms-isps-can-block-and-throttle-as-long-as-they-disclose-it/

 

Don't forget blocking and throttling. 

[asand1]

5 hours ago, TechyBen said:

No. They just passed a law here on flying a drone in an airport. Doing ANYTHING was practically covered already.

Also, any company poisoning/killing off people. Often needs new "laws". While my example was hyperbole. People still act this way regarding laws. "Driving without due care and attention" is a law, yet every little thing now has its own coverage, drugs, phones, eating etc etc.

 

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

What law?  I think your example is still hyperbole.  I think you should take you posts to a lawyer or judge and ask why.

Here in USA distracted driving has long been a crime, be it eating a cheeseburger, reading a newspaper (I have seen this on the road,) or putting on makeup.

Recently a more specific law regarding texting and talking on the phone while driving was passed. Distracted driving already covered this, however some politician wanted a new bullet point on his resume and it sadly passed.  

That said, laws don't need to be made, they already exist and cover almost every concievable crime. I suppose as new tech comes along new laws will be created to cover cyber crimes, although most will be covered by current scam and theft laws.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, asand1 said:

 

Here in USA distracted driving has long been a crime, be it eating a cheeseburger, reading a newspaper (I have seen this on the road,) or putting on makeup.

Recently a more specific law regarding texting and talking on the phone while driving was passed. Distracted driving already covered this, however some politician wanted a new bullet point on his resume and it sadly passed.  

That said, laws don't need to be made, they already exist and cover almost every concievable crime. I suppose as new tech comes along new laws will be created to cover cyber crimes, although most will be covered by current scam and theft laws.

But the problem is you have to prove that using a phone causes distraction, If the Individual claims they weren't being distracted, how do you prove they were?  you can't in any absolute way,  therefore the simplest way to overcome such loopholes is to outlaw the use of phones while driving.  I think if you check the history of people being charged prior to phone use laws you'll find people were getting off with a minimal convictions due to the existing law being inadequate.  

 

Also I think if you look at the history of laws that have been changed or added to it is because existing laws are not adequate to account for changes in technology, It's not a new thing and copyright/mobile phones while driving are only one example.

[TechyBen]

On 4/1/2019 at 9:25 PM, mr moose said:

What law?  I think your example is still hyperbole.  I think you should take you posts to a lawyer or judge and ask why.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-extended-drone-no-fly-zone-in-place-from-today

 

Note it says "drone", so someone will turn up with a heli, RC aircraft, kite, balloon, Chinese Lantern, Laser pen... etc etc, and need that spelling out too. XD

 

Because people need it spelt out to them. "Causing danger to others" is not enough. They need it specified. See laws for websites. Which were covered previously on distribution laws, but now need "and on the internet" too.

[THraShArD]

On 3/28/2019 at 11:52 PM, Deus Voltage said:

Just saw UFD Tech's video. This is a serious slippery slope. It's a cash grab under the guise of a well intentioned law. 

 

More like reverse psychology.  UFD has lot of click bait videos and among the other clowns now promoting VPN.   This is all a joke and not safe or protect privacy.

 

There is some conspiracy and collusion to push VPN lately and I do no trust any of it.

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, TechyBen said:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-extended-drone-no-fly-zone-in-place-from-today

 

Note it says "drone", so someone will turn up with a heli, RC aircraft, kite, balloon, Chinese Lantern, Laser pen... etc etc, and need that spelling out too. XD

 

Because people need it spelt out to them. "Causing danger to others" is not enough. They need it specified. See laws for websites. Which were covered previously on distribution laws, but now need "and on the internet" too.

 

The article specifically says drones,  the current law is just an extension of the no fly zone though, the bill they are drafting regarding drones is specific to what the police can do that the old laws does not cover.  Things like stop and search powers for drone users near airports.    I believe current legislation does not permit the police to obtain a warrant simply because you were flying your drone, but with this draft they can.

 

Also the articles says plainly:

 

Quote

will give new powers to the police to clamp down on those misusing drones and other small unmanned aircraft

 

It is not because people need it spelled out, or because old laws are broken, but because new technology brings new issues that aren't covered by older laws.

 

 

[TechyBen]

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

The article specifically says drones,  the current law is just an extension of the no fly zone though, the bill they are drafting regarding drones is specific to what the police can do that the old laws does not cover.  Things like stop and search powers for drone users near airports.    I believe current legislation does not permit the police to obtain a warrant simply because you were flying your drone, but with this draft they can.

 

Also the articles says plainly:

 

 

It is not because people need it spelled out, or because old laws are broken, but because new technology brings new issues that aren't covered by older laws.

 

 

Yep. So if I use a cannot to send a rock I'm ok?

New technology sometimes changes things. Sometimes people just use it as an excuse. Tech is not magic. It's just complex. Kites and balloons existed before drones did.

 

Laws by definition cannot cover every possible aspect. But people do also use it as an excuse if it's not specifically defined.

 

As with the above example, the stop and search laws had to be changed, for prevention. Similar happens with weapons/blades. It's already illegal to attack someone, or carry a weapon. So people get smaller/more complex weapons, or hide them more. So more stop and search laws are needed, even though some already exist.

 

It's more an escalation of intimidation war than a necessity to cover the requirements in coded law. That and checks and bounds, because the law also has to cover those applying the law (so we need laws on how to stop abuse in stop and check laws, then laws on how to make new laws... etc etc).

[mr moose]

10 hours ago, TechyBen said:

Yep. So if I use a cannot to send a rock I'm ok?

New technology sometimes changes things. Sometimes people just use it as an excuse. Tech is not magic. It's just complex. Kites and balloons existed before drones did.

No a rocket is an unmanned craft,  you are confusing laws changing  the way authorities can respond to the issue with a law being broken in the first instance.

 

Quote

Laws by definition cannot cover every possible aspect. But people do also use it as an excuse if it's not specifically defined.

 

As with the above example, the stop and search laws had to be changed, for prevention. Similar happens with weapons/blades. It's already illegal to attack someone, or carry a weapon. So people get smaller/more complex weapons, or hide them more. So more stop and search laws are needed, even though some already exist.

Again you are describing laws being changed to adapt to new technology, not laws that are broken or laws that not specific enough.  I'm not too sure which law changed to include a weapons size, but if search laws change to accommodate smaller weapons then that is not being more specific with the law but simply increasing the scope to accommodate new weapons. 

Quote

It's more an escalation of intimidation war than a necessity to cover the requirements in coded law. That and checks and bounds, because the law also has to cover those applying the law (so we need laws on how to stop abuse in stop and check laws, then laws on how to make new laws... etc etc).

 

I'm not sure how to put this so I'll just say it.  You are describing the natural course of law.   laws evolve and change as society does.  They change at every level of the law and justice system.  Sometimes it takes a while for a problem to be adequately resolved and sometimes society evolves beyond that problem before the legal system catches up.   What you are claiming to be the problem is merely an erroneous observation of that process.

[TechyBen]

19 hours ago, mr moose said:

No a rocket is an unmanned craft,  you are confusing laws changing  the way authorities can respond to the issue with a law being broken in the first instance.

To which I said

Quote

As with the above example, the stop and search laws had to be changed, for prevention. Similar happens with weapons/blades. It's already illegal to attack someone, or carry a weapon. So people get smaller/more complex weapons, or hide them more. So more stop and search laws are needed, even though some already exist.

So I thus just cannot ever have a discussion with you. It's like one of us is colour blind, and the other is tone deaf. 

 

Quote

to accommodate new weapons. 

Knives of all sizes already existed. "Do not stab someone" is as you say a different "law" to "do not carry a knife with intent/certain size/shape" etc.

 

So yes, some of those laws need adjusting, others do not. But the fact of the matter is, the police already existed, the people did, the criminals did. Our boundaries of intent, freedom and trust are what change. Do we trust a person on the street not to conceal carry? Or do we trust the police not to victimise in searches?

 

So our boundaries bounce back and forth, and the laws to show this.

 

There is exception to laws that none of us may know, such as "radon gas is dangerous, keep out" needs specialist information. That would require a new law. Technology though, can be covered in existing scope. Desire to *use* it needs new laws. Such as self driving cars. If the law is "car must be in control of driver" and you have a car with no driver, then you risk breaking the law, until you get it amended.

 

As with Article 13. If it's not ok to print headlines and copied articles from newspapers or websites, why is it then ok to do so with Google scraping data (if one of the examples give IIRC)? Or with Youtube, why *is* it ok for them to say they are not a distributor (and thus exempt from checking copyright the same as a news broadcasters or TV channel may)? They don't provide blank server space for sale. They specifically advertise and integrate content into their website.

[TechyBen]

On 4/1/2019 at 9:00 AM, mr moose said:

Laws don't work that way,   the law just says you are not allowed to kill someone.  The weapon of choice is almost always irrelevant.

 

Unless you have a link to a judges ruling claiming what yoou said actually happened.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/03/14/he-beat-a-murder-rap-on-a-technicality-but-was-killed-moments-after-leaving-a-chicago-jail/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.39988ba77508

 

Sometimes laws are not working as intended. This does not mean my hyperbole needs to have happened.

 

The law is a coded system. By definition it will thus have faults.

[Edit]

The car manslaughter laws come to mind specifically similar to my "with a candy bar" silly example. While my example was silly. It's not when cars or businesses are involved, and the line between negligence and manslaughter or murder are difficult to observe.

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, TechyBen said:

To which I said

So I thus just cannot ever have a discussion with you. It's like one of us is colour blind, and the other is tone deaf. 

 

Knives of all sizes already existed. "Do not stab someone" is as you say a different "law" to "do not carry a knife with intent/certain size/shape" etc.

 

So yes, some of those laws need adjusting, others do not. But the fact of the matter is, the police already existed, the people did, the criminals did. Our boundaries of intent, freedom and trust are what change. Do we trust a person on the street not to conceal carry? Or do we trust the police not to victimise in searches?

 

So our boundaries bounce back and forth, and the laws to show this.

 

There is exception to laws that none of us may know, such as "radon gas is dangerous, keep out" needs specialist information. That would require a new law. Technology though, can be covered in existing scope. Desire to *use* it needs new laws. Such as self driving cars. If the law is "car must be in control of driver" and you have a car with no driver, then you risk breaking the law, until you get it amended.

 

As with Article 13. If it's not ok to print headlines and copied articles from newspapers or websites, why is it then ok to do so with Google scraping data (if one of the examples give IIRC)? Or with Youtube, why *is* it ok for them to say they are not a distributor (and thus exempt from checking copyright the same as a news broadcasters or TV channel may)? They don't provide blank server space for sale. They specifically advertise and integrate content into their website.

 

You specifically claimed that the laws needed to be changed because they were "broken" and that they needed to be changed because they did not rule out a crime by needing to name every possible implement, you then went on to present a whole lot of law changes that do not center around the specifics of naming weapons or changing what you are allowed to do, but change the power authorities have in dealing with new technologies involved in the breaking of those laws.

 

Those are two different things.

 

 

As with article 13,  It is not about news articles or headlines that is article 11.  Given you have said this, I am sure you haven't read it but are relying on the second hand information passed on down through sensationalized media or misinformed forum members.

 

Article 11 seeks to stop google (and other companies) scrapping news articles and making money from them on their own monetized news platform.   One of the suggested ways was a link tax,  I am not sure how or if that would work, but one thing I know is that unless people are actually visiting the site that created said news content, then google are essentially leaching views from them.  That doesn't sound very fair to me when it is views that pay for the work that goes it creating those articles.