It Was Fun While It Lasted Everyone (RIP Euro Internet Come January 2019)

#1
Article 13 Passed - YouTube
(language warning)

EU parliament approves new copyright rules that could be 'catastrophic' for the internet | The Independent
EU parliament votes for internet rules that could 'ban memes'

Well come January 2019 say goodbye to the internet in Europe (and before anyone asks, not even Brexit will save us)

This isn't shitposting, this is genuine cause knowing the way life works it will pass. And this forum is screwed too. Just talking about anything on here (as well as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc) could set off the filter the EU has planned even if it's not an image post (this won't affect non EU users of course and @anime_andrew since he can travel to both Japan and America on a frequent basis)
 
#2
I was about to make this one eventually...
2hwuoj.jpg
While I'm a bit iffy on sharing sargon and dankula here I do think they are absolutely right, this is bigger and bigger government with less rights for the people it governs. Current power is only interested in that - power
Once again I fear that this site would need to change, and no admins or mods have really prepared for it. I'm seeing a nightmarish world where you'd have to become a payed member of a forum -.- they'd need it for licenses because they can't really stop their end users sharing something, that's going to lead to a decline in members who won't pay.
Isn't the internet littered with all kinds of freedom of information laws? Article 13 should be illegal to even conceive of.

And my cringy Helen never really took off...
2hwuxb.jpg
Poor silver eyed witch has had to get all political...
 
#3
Even if it does get passed the government's are so ignorant of the internet that they have no concept of how complex and difficult enforcement would be and their grasp of the internet and the only agencies with a clue have far more important things to do than to mess with civil matters.

I also suspect that any company aggressively pursuing their picture rights etc will become the victims of hacking or mass ddos attacks and that public reputation and lost revenue from attacks will result in it being too costly for pursuance.

We will adapt and overcome.
 

Teapot

Site Manager
Administrator
#4
@Captaaainuniverse Moving to a paid subscriber model wouldn't stop people uploading illegal content if they wanted, so it's not even remotely a solution to the problem (and as you say, it'd kill the community dead). After all, YouTube is entirely free and has a content filter, as do a lot of large sites; porn filters, for example, or Nazi imagery filters in Germany are both preexisting and fairly prevalent.

If this gets through to being ratified as law anywhere, we'll have to implement a content filter – but just like GDPR-compliant software, off-the-shell content filters would be available by the time we'd need one.

Now, I profoundly disagree with the law and think it's going to cause a lot more problems than it solves (and would probably be quite difficult to enforce), as I am very much in favour of a free and open internet. But, let's be honest – this sort of thing was inevitable. The Golden Age of the internet is behind us now, unfortunately, so we just have to do our best to find a way that helps us keep the doors open.
 
#5
@Captaaainuniverse Moving to a paid subscriber model wouldn't stop people uploading illegal content if they wanted, so it's not even remotely a solution to the problem (and as you say, it'd kill the community dead). After all, YouTube is entirely free and has a content filter, as do a lot of large sites; porn filters, for example, or Nazi imagery filters in Germany are both preexisting and fairly prevalent.

If this gets through to being ratified as law anywhere, we'll have to implement a content filter – but just like GDPR-compliant software, off-the-shell content filters would be available by the time we'd need one.

Now, I profoundly disagree with the law and think it's going to cause a lot more problems than it solves (and would probably be quite difficult to enforce), as I am very much in favour of a free and open internet. But, let's be honest – this sort of thing was inevitable. The Golden Age of the internet is behind us now, unfortunately, so we just have to do our best to find a way that helps us keep the doors open.
I just have to say one word on that last bit: defeatist. If the law can.be changed so easily it can be changed back, the only problem is allowing governments and blocs like the EU to keep it as law, if anyone who can fight it has seemingly already given up, than we'd allow all the politicians to become truly authoritarian, at some point after that the people won't stand for it, they while resent their chains, there will be far too many anarchists to deal with and the authority will collapse, leaving whose left of the anarchists to rebuild what actually worked for them. Sounds like an Alex Jones conspiracy, but with the things that are truly free being taken away, it's a possibility, I'd rather avoid the fire and brimstone though
 
#7
I’m gonna say I think Britain’s terrorism law that was enacted last year is more dangerous for the Internet than this copyright one. Storing peoples data without warrants and people care more about this copyright one than storing peoples data which Tim Bernards Lee once associated storing packets of data and reading them akin to wiretapping.
 
#8
I’m gonna say I think Britain’s terrorism law that was enacted last year is more dangerous for the Internet than this copyright one. Storing peoples data without warrants and people care more about this copyright one than storing peoples data which Tim Bernards Lee once associated storing packets of data and reading them akin to wiretapping.
I do think people are afraid of both for different reasons, snooper's doesn't say anything about how the data would actually be used, but no one trusts the government with sensitive information, and article 13 means you can share virtually nothing online
 
#10
People can't see their data so most people don't give it a thought. As silly as it sounds, if this had no affect on memes it wouldn't be a topic for discussion for the vast majority.
I didn't even know what a meme was until about last year :confused:

I mean, would this new law apply to all of your avatars then, since many of them are characters from shows that are displayed on a pulic forum? Arguably it could fall under fair use (so long as it's for personal use and it's your own private account, and it's not affecting the profit intended by the original owner), but I read somewhere about a guy who had been asked by a show's (or it might have been a game) creator (can't remember who it was or which show) in a shakedown letter to pay so much in yen or remove his avatar. So, some people clearly are very precious about their work and have much more restrictive rules regarding it's intended use. Someone made an interesting point in a forum post I came across actually: is the use of copyrighted or infringing material for use as something like a profile avatar acceptable if it falls under fair use (i.e non-commercial use), and even if it is from a legal stand point, does it still make it ethical?

I can well understand it from an artist's perspective to be fair, since I'm an artist myself, but I'm not exactly suggesting that the internet should be so restrictive either. Rules and regs are there to be adhered to though so people don't start taking the biscuit! If I made up a DeviantArt page to showcase my work, and some mush pinched one of my pictures to use as an avatar, without my express permission, or just started sharing images around willy nilly, how would I feel about it? I guess partly it's the risk you take when you upload your work but at the same time, artists have rights that do need to be protected.

Also, regarding things like shared service sites where people can upload content, as far as I'm aware, you are responsible for content that you upload, and by actually uploading content onto that site, you are giving express permission for that content to then be shared and modified, unless requested by the original owner for the work to be removed. Sometimes on these sites the original authors are untraceable, but if the work is not your own and it's something you've "found", you're supposed to obtain permission from the owner of that work before posting it onto a shared service site. It all gets very messy and "legal".

EDIT: I found that page: Careful With Those Avatars, You May Get A Shakedown Letter

That turned a bit lengthy 😄 😅 Just throwing in my two pence since this is something I was actually reading about not to long ago :) I covered (albeit briefly) the basics of different types of copyright and licensing when I studied graphic design as well, so it does interest me somewhat.

DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT A LAWYER!
 

Adam-M

Straw Hat Pirate
#11
If I made up a DeviantArt page to showcase my work, and some mush pinched one of my pictures to use as an avatar, without my express permission, or just started sharing images around willy nilly, how would I feel about it?
The key difference is the fact that DeviantArt is personal or at least independant work, and my avatar is commercial. Things are a bit flappy at the minute until people chill out a bit and stop complaining about a potential lack of memes (and if you don't want to think of it as memes then there's always crappy Facebook spam). I can't really make money from my avatar, but if I did then they studio would want a cut which is fair enough. I think once the studios realise that they're getting free advertising they'll stop with the cease and desist letters.
How many anime series have people here watched because they kept seeing something for it? I know the only reason I watched Kinmoza is because I wanted to know who Captain Karen was so thanks @IncendiaryLemon ;)
 
#13
crappy Facebook spam
🤣 😃 😄 😅 😆

As for memes, I never even started. I can barely understand the lingo spoken by the "yoof" these days 😅 @IncendiaryLemon used the word "moot" in a post - what does that even mean? Is it a word? 😅

Interesting point about the "free advertising" that companies would be getting from display of avatars though. I mean, from a personal perspective, I do see that as a valid thing, and yeah, if you're an animation company looking to get your viewing rates up for your series, I think the fan-bases on the internet are the people to turn to (forum avatars, fan art etc)! However, I guess it's the artist in me that says well, commercial or not, it's still someone's work that's being used. Again, it comes down to ethics I guess, and what you personally believe is right - what might be allowed legally (i.e if it falls under fair use, which can be a grey area anyway) still doesn't necessarily make something morally justifiable. I guess if Yoshiyuki Sadamoto himself personally said to me, "you're absolutely free to use an avatar of Rei Ayanami with my express permission, so long as it's for personal use", I'd likely go for it! I think it's why I've always used my own work as an avatar - I'm too full of principle (and not ashamed of it!) 😅

To each their own though. I'm certainly not judging anyone here!
 

IncendiaryLemon

Captain Karen
AUKN Staff
#14
🤣 😃 😄 😅 😆

As for memes, I never even started. I can barely understand the lingo spoken by the "yoof" these days 😅 @IncendiaryLemon used the word "moot" in a post - what does that even mean? Is it a word? 😅
It is! Although not a very 'yoof' one :p As far as I can tell, it originates as a legal term, and pretty much means something that has been done is now meaningless or worthless because it has been undone. The more you know :D
 
Top