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

[TechyBen]

Yeah, I've seen a lot of news articles discussion of Art' 11 in with 13, so consider them with each other. As both are coming around together, and are linked in part (trade laws, copyright laws etc). Both have an impact, and I've not really seen many discuss them in isolation unless specifically stating only Link Scraping or only General Internet Copyright. When mentioning the general changes to all the laws in with it, "article 13" is the common name for the group of new trade laws/legislation in the news. 

 

(Again, don't keep assuming I mean something!!!  Please just ask!!! If you wish, I can also knit pick every single word and definition you use into oblivion. I could show your example of a "No a rocket is an unmanned craft" and go on a tangent arguing that "no, it's a powered projectile, and actually back in 1997 it was stated in the law that.... " but I won't, because I know what you meant to convey, even if not 110% accurate.  )

 

Quote

 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.

Yep. I agree that this was already the case. I find it strange though, how Google can argue that it's ok for them to do this. You can be a web browser, even a "portal" for rendering the sites (content delivery over mobile and other technologies). But as soon as you start modifying that, then you are plagiarizing, passing off, or breaching copyright.

 

I worked in a job where the industry had "guidelines" in law from the government. These meant that "causing harm" was illegal, in any manner. We just had to be "reasonable" in protecting someone. And any fault would be decided on a case by case bases in court. I think a lot of the "case law" applies in the US, but I don't know if it does in the same way, because I've not heard of many other laws being guidelines. However, it does show, there are different ways of doing it. And assuming no system is perfect, each one would have benefits and drawbacks (specific laws being accurate but very complex, general guidelines covering more things, but being less specific).

[mr moose]

28 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

Yeah, I've seen a lot of news articles discussion of Art' 11 in with 13, so consider them with each other. As both are coming around together, and are linked in part (trade laws, copyright laws etc). Both have an impact, and I've not really seen many discuss them in isolation unless specifically stating only Link Scraping or only General Internet Copyright. When mentioning the general changes to all the laws in with it, "article 13" is the common name for the group of new trade laws/legislation in the news. 

article 13 is not a common name for a group of laws,  its the just what the media keep shoving down your throat so you think it is.   That's the problem.

Quote

 

(Again, don't keep assuming I mean something!!!  Please just ask!!! If you wish, I can also knit pick every single word and definition you use into oblivion. I could show your example of a "No a rocket is an unmanned craft" and go on a tangent arguing that "no, it's a powered projectile, and actually back in 1997 it was stated in the law that.... " but I won't, because I know what you meant to convey, even if not 110% accurate.  )

If you say the sky is red then it is not an assumption on my part that you mean the sky is red.

 

I am responding to actual posts you made, they are not assumptions.

 

 

Quote

Yep. I agree that this was already the case. I find it strange though, how Google can argue that it's ok for them to do this.

It actually makes perfect sense to me, googles entire business model is to make money of other peoples content,  Hardly any software or service google provides directly generates revenue, it is nearly all derived from delivering other peoples content. 

Not just youtube, but when you ask for news on the google home device, or ask their search engine for sports scores or even if you ask a general question and it looks up wikipedia.   The whole system seeks the content from other providers but does not pay them.

 

Quote

You can be a web browser, even a "portal" for rendering the sites (content delivery over mobile and other technologies). But as soon as you start modifying that, then you are plagiarizing, passing off, or breaching copyright.

 

That I believe is a huge grey area both legally and ethically (still being heavily debated). Things like ad blockers modify websites but don't make money from it (in most cases).

 

Quote

I worked in a job where the industry has "guidelines" in law from the government. These meant that "causing harm" was illegal, in any manner. We just had to be "reasonable" in protecting someone. And any fault would be decided on a case by case bases in court. I think a lot of the "case law" applies in the US, but I don't know if it does in the same way, because I've not heard of many other laws being guidelines. However, it does show, there are different ways of doing it. And assuming no system is perfect, each one would have benefits and drawbacks (specific laws being accurate but very complex, general guidelines covering more things, but being less specific).

This is the whole reason Australia has been updating their laws surrounding cloud services and digital content.   The digital age has bought a large swath of issues that old laws don't address.

 

I think the biggest issue of today is that people (especially younger generations) only see the government removing freedoms, they don't see the whole other side of the issue where those freedoms are undermining entire industries. It's not a simple surface level issue, and can't be treated as one. 

 

 

 

[TechyBen]

On 4/5/2019 at 9:43 PM, mr moose said:

article 13 is not a common name for a group of laws,  its the just what the media keep shoving down your throat so you think it is.   That's the problem.

If you say the sky is red then it is not an assumption on my part that you mean the sky is red.

 

 

 

https://www.itpro.co.uk/policy-legislation/32552/what-is-article-13-and-article-11

 

Quote

Article 13 and Article 11 latest news

26/03/2019: Article 13 and Article 11 approved by European Parliament

 

One of the hopes of the opposition to the directive was that MEPs would vote on amendments individually and not as a general vote on Article 13 and Article 11 together - this was rejected by a majority of just five votes.

Article 13 only:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-47239600

Article 11 is barely mentioned on it's own. We can have that discussion. But it is related in with 13.

Enjoy the sunset, or get more pedantic. I don't care.

 

Quote

Not just youtube, but when you ask for news on the google home device, or ask their search engine for sports scores or even if you ask a general question and it looks up wikipedia.   The whole system seeks the content from other providers but does not pay them.

Yes. But if I provide a service reading the news to blind people. I don't need copyright. Google is not applying this? I know why and what they are doing. I don't see how they legally get away with it. (whoosh!)

 

Quote

That I believe is a huge grey area both legally and ethically (still being heavily debated). Things like ad blockers modify websites but don't make money from it (in most cases).

We can call it grey. But legally, I have no requirement to view any advert, and I can block mentally, physically or with code (software). If anyone considers it a moral requirement for me to pay for the content, then ask me to pay and I will (or will decline viewing the content). If anyone wishes to use advertising, then they are limiting *how* they can apply their requirements to viewers. (Alternatively, I'd happily not watch/view/use any services provided. I watch some of LTTs sponsorship shout outs etc as an example, buy products/found etc... but there is no requirement I fund and watch, that is a choice of the customer).

 

They cannot have their cake and eat it, and the advertisers think they can.

 

Quote

those freedoms are undermining entire industries. 

Strangest thing I've ever seen anyone ever say. Like... HUH?!

 

PS, "article 13 is not a common name for a group of laws,  its the just what the media keep shoving down your throat so you think it is.   That's the problem."

Again, you keep telling me what I think... what media I'm watching... Like, how many months have we tried to discuss how I'm not this amalgamation of the other posters in this forum? Do you remember who says what here?

[mr moose]

37 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

 

https://www.itpro.co.uk/policy-legislation/32552/what-is-article-13-and-article-11

 

Article 13 only:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-47239600

Article 11 is barely mentioned on it's own. We can have that discussion. But it is related in with 13.

Enjoy the sunset, or get more pedantic. I don't care.

Having a tanti  doesn't actually change what you said nor does it change the fact article 13 and 11 are different and one is not the general term for the other.

 

37 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

Yes. But if I provide a service reading the news to blind people. I don't need copyright. Google is not applying this? I know why and what they are doing. I don't see how they legally get away with it. (whoosh!)

Reading news to blind people is completely different from what google does.  You are providing access to the original content, not copying it and making money from it.    A service like that would be more representative of an ISP.  As without the isp you can't get to the news article in question.

37 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

We can call it grey. But legally, I have no requirement to view any advert, and I can block mentally, physically or with code (software). If anyone considers it a moral requirement for me to pay for the content, then ask me to pay and I will (or will decline viewing the content). If anyone wishes to use advertising, then they are limiting *how* they can apply their requirements to viewers. (Alternatively, I'd happily not watch/view/use any services provided. I watch some of LTTs sponsorship shout outs etc as an example, buy products/found etc... but there is no requirement I fund and watch, that is a choice of the customer).

And that is why it is a grey area, your opinion on the matter is only one of millions that vary.  

37 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

They cannot have their cake and eat it, and the advertisers think they can.

Absolutely they can, many website won't let you use their site unless you disable ad block for it.   Some sites know that's bad PR so don;t do it and just ask, some sites don't even care.  but at the end of the day it is up to the site to decide if the content is free or if you have to participate in the advertising to pay for it.

37 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

Strangest thing I've ever seen anyone ever say. Like... HUH?!

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=online+advertising+is+killiing+tv

 

Quite a few articles showing how online advertising is damaging whole industries, I dare say you'll just find a way to dismiss all of that though.

 

37 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

PS, "article 13 is not a common name for a group of laws,  its the just what the media keep shoving down your throat so you think it is.   That's the problem."

Again, you keep telling me what I think... what media I'm watching... Like, how many months have we tried to discuss how I'm not this amalgamation of the other posters in this forum? Do you remember who says what here?

Because when you say silly things like article 13 being a common name for a group of laws,  then you must be getting your information from shitty places, I don't care whether you think you understand this concept or not, the point is you have demonstrated that you don't understand it and you are repeating what the media is saying.  It doesn't take a phd in media studies to see where you are getting your info from.

 

[Bcat00]

So what does it matter?

 

this law is not going to be enforced anyway considering it’s coming from Africa. No offence but passing a law is nice, it’s another thing trying to enforce it in a nation that doesn’t have the resources to back it up

[TechyBen]

On 4/7/2019 at 12:59 AM, mr moose said:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=online+advertising+is+killiing+tv

 

Quite a few articles showing how online advertising is damaging whole industries, I dare say you'll just find a way to dismiss all of that though.

No... BECAUSE YOU ARE STILL ASSUMING MY OPINIONS!!! You literally have not asked if I support you or not. But I'm trying my darn best to show you... you are not checking who agrees with you or not! You did not define personal freedoms or corporate/business/trader freedoms. Thus I had no idea if you were for or against what type of freedom or restriction. Just "those". What ones were you referring to? I gave an example of two opposite types.

 

See, I said I did not understand what you meant. I allowed you to clarify. *I did not assume and tell you you were wrong*.

 

I'm not going to comment on the other points, as again, if you choose to be pedantic about every point and example, it's impossible to discuss. But yes, certain businesses will be more competitive than others. Without you clarifying what you consider a problem, I have no idea what thing you consider unfair to the old businesses (TV as in your example). Or why we should or should not protect Horse Whip manufactures... The same kind of struggle is going on here with media, internet, consumers, society (desire to protect or distribute, restrict or support information, fact or personally created art).

[Sauron]

On 3/29/2019 at 7:35 AM, MetEishYa said:

It allows for the criminalization of Revenge Porn and Child Porn.

Good so far...

On 3/29/2019 at 7:35 AM, MetEishYa said:

This means that if you share any video, post any video on Youtube or Facebook you will have to have your video classified before you are allowed to post that video. Even include Livestreaming, which is impossible to classify before posting. Here are the implications if you do not follow this Law.

Ok, wtf?

 

You're right, this is infinitely worse than Article 13...

On 3/29/2019 at 10:00 PM, Froody129 said:

I strongly doubt this is a stab at white streamers. It's just a cash grab law.

Get your common sense outta here!

[Sauron]

On 4/7/2019 at 7:16 AM, Bcat00 said:

So what does it matter?

 

this law is not going to be enforced anyway considering it’s coming from Africa. No offence but passing a law is nice, it’s another thing trying to enforce it in a nation that doesn’t have the resources to back it up

Africa isn't a nation. Not every African nation is the same. As for enforcement, if they come to the obvious conclusion that something like Twitch or YouTube can't legally work within this system, it's as easy as blocking those websites at the ISP level. They don't need to go after individual creators.

[Guest]

blablablabla just more drama for the socialites

[Bcat00]

2 hours ago, Sauron said:

Africa isn't a nation. Not every African nation is the same. As for enforcement, if they come to the obvious conclusion that something like Twitch or YouTube can't legally work within this system, it's as easy as blocking those websites at the ISP level. They don't need to go after individual creators.

Exactly my point, this law may make sense in a well developed country but in the countries located in the african continent, its practically sweet talk without substance

[Sauron]

3 hours ago, Bcat00 said:

Exactly my point, this law may make sense in a well developed country but in the countries located in the african continent, its practically sweet talk without substance

I just explained that 1) not all African countries are the same, SA has a relatively good infrastructure and 2) it's easy to enforce this, so easy that even an "underdeveloped" nation could do it.

[mr moose]

15 hours ago, TechyBen said:

No... BECAUSE YOU ARE STILL ASSUMING MY OPINIONS!!! You literally have not asked if I support you or not. But I'm trying my darn best to show you... you are not checking who agrees with you or not! You did not define personal freedoms or corporate/business/trader freedoms. Thus I had no idea if you were for or against what type of freedom or restriction. Just "those". What ones were you referring to? I gave an example of two opposite types.

 

See, I said I did not understand what you meant. I allowed you to clarify. *I did not assume and tell you you were wrong*.

 

I'm not going to comment on the other points, as again, if you choose to be pedantic about every point and example, it's impossible to discuss. But yes, certain businesses will be more competitive than others. Without you clarifying what you consider a problem, I have no idea what thing you consider unfair to the old businesses (TV as in your example). Or why we should or should not protect Horse Whip manufactures... The same kind of struggle is going on here with media, internet, consumers, society (desire to protect or distribute, restrict or support information, fact or personally created art).

I am not assuming your opinions, you are posting them for all to see.

 

It seems what you have trouble is accepting when you are wrong. The whole post is introduced rhetoric,  trying to deflect from your original claims.

 

So again:

On 4/7/2019 at 9:59 AM, mr moose said:

 I dare say you'll just find a way to dismiss all of that though.

 

 

 

 

[wasab]

South Africa. HIV positive and rape capital of the continent. 

 

At least that's what I heard from some of people there.... 

[TechyBen]

On 4/8/2019 at 10:17 PM, mr moose said:

I am not assuming your opinions, you are posting them for all to see.

 

It seems what you have trouble is accepting when you are wrong. The whole post is introduced rhetoric,  trying to deflect from your original claims.

 

So again:

 

 

Then tell Linus that it's also separate.. because he also mentions article 11 with 13 in the news about the changes to Copyright laws... 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, TechyBen said:

Then tell Linus that it's also separate.. because he also mentions article 11 with 13 in the news about the changes to Copyright laws... 

It's not my job to correct other people because of things you have said. 

[Steven123123]

will this push normies onto p2p/anon/dark-web networks?

[TechyBen]

11 hours ago, mr moose said:

It's not my job to correct other people because of things you have said. 

Huh? I influence LTT and Linus now? They use me as a source of IT news? Linus literally says "articles 11 and 13"...

Quote

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.

I missed typing "11" instead of 13 or "11 and 13". TBH I need not care which is which if mentioning them together. I don't need to read all the hundreds of pages of it can quote the paragraph for you do I?  It was a general comment about copyright law... in a thread discussing South Africa's laws, not even the EU ones! I don't judge what you know or don't know. But you judge me?!

 

I *could* assume you were [insert some derogatory difference in social or entertainment standing] or something, as you are assuming I read sensationalist media only, or am ignorant etc. But I won't stoop to your level (I note, as said before, in the Australian Copyright thread, I thanked you for pointing out the difference in the media reports vs the long list of do's and don'ts in the full passing of the law).

 

Continue being wonderful and friendly as you currently are if you wish. Or try to at least improve a little.  

 

[mr moose]

57 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

Huh? I influence LTT and Linus now? They use me as a source of IT news? Linus literally says "articles 11 and 13"...

I missed typing "11" instead of 13 or "11 and 13". TBH I need not care which is which if mentioning them together. I don't need to read all the hundreds of pages of it can quote the paragraph for you do I?  It was a general comment about copyright law... in a thread discussing South Africa's laws, not even the EU ones! I don't judge what you know or don't know. But you judge me?!

 

I *could* assume you were [insert some derogatory difference in social or entertainment standing] or something, as you are assuming I read sensationalist media only, or am ignorant etc. But I won't stoop to your level (I note, as said before, in the Australian Copyright thread, I thanked you for pointing out the difference in the media reports vs the long list of do's and don'ts in the full passing of the law).

 

Continue being wonderful and friendly as you currently are if you wish. Or try to at least improve a little.  

 

Are you trying to claim Linus said article 13 was a generic term for all the laws?

[TechyBen]

22 hours ago, mr moose said:

Are you trying to claim Linus said article 13 was a generic term for all the laws?

You said the media I must be following is calling it that, and I should not follow that media.

So either the media is, and it's a generic term, or it's not. Which is it?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-47933530

As an example.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, TechyBen said:

You said the media I must be following is calling it that, and I should not follow that media.

So either the media is, and it's a generic term, or it's not. Which is it?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-47933530

As an example.

What do you mean "which is it"? if you read an article that said article 13 was name for a bunch of laws, then that article is wrong. If you did not read it from an article then you are wrong.  This is not exactly a hard concept is it?