hans05 wrote in Sat Apr 06, 2019 9:33 pm:Would be nice to show how it would be parsed correctly. From what follows I can neither see what I did wrong nor how it would be correct.
The example of a CD is very clear. The "work" is the composition yet both it and the recording are protected. The composition is "work" and the recording is "other protected subject matter".
hans05 wrote in Sat Apr 06, 2019 9:33 pm:Either "other subject matters" has a fixed special juridical meaning deviating from what normal people understand. Or to me the sentence (I quote again from the correct source):...online content sharing service providers shall be liable for
unauthorised acts of communication to the public of copyright protected works and other
subject matter...
still means that online sharing service providers shall be liable for unauthorised acts of communication of "anything".
But then why didn't the author(s) just write the word "anything"?
When you read all of the text it seems clear to me that it is definitely not targeting "anything", but specifically the product of the rightsholders, and those rightsholders are defined in the 2001 directive. That's why it isn't "anything". Again, the CD example is an illustrative one.
hans05 wrote in Sat Apr 06, 2019 9:33 pm:I tried to give an example where you are much more easy affected than you might think (the famous trademark and patent stories). But instead of concentrating on the actual question ("Are we affected?") you focused on proving that my examples are wrong and stupid. They were only supposed to be examples. No more.
I believe the idea was that if your examples aren't in the category that this directive and following legislation touches then they're examples of something else. So just because they illustrate something else doesn't automatically mean that they illustrate what we can expect from coming legislation on this issue. I think that was the whole point of questioning those examples, but I could be wrong.
hans05 wrote in Sat Apr 06, 2019 9:33 pm:Well, now the potential problem: Get the correct document and read the entire new art. 13. There you will find that "content sharing service providers" must ensure that known to be illegal content will not be uploaded. --> Upload filters.
hans05 wrote in Sat Apr 06, 2019 9:33 pm:You might find it sad that you have to go to court to get your rights. For me this is normal business in a constitutional state.
Since everything has already been illegal before (no change on that side) the only REAL change is that website owners are now liable for crimes committed by users of their service AND that they have to prevent the UPLOAD already rather than DELETING after detection of the illegal content.
Now -this is only my personal opinion and no fact- I conclude that the true intention is the introduction of upload filters.
Section 4a of Article 13 is a bit more forgiving though I think. It should be taken into account whether or not it's effective and not too expensive to employ some sort of means to prevent these types of uploads.
Along with the rest of the text it really does seem to target entities that make it their main business to make a lot of money off of illegally distributed content, not the smaller cases where sharing happens more or less by accident.
hans05 wrote in Sat Apr 06, 2019 9:33 pm:and make no mistake about it; YouTube and the likes are a huge problem in terms of making content creation profitable.
I somewhat disagree here. There are now many millionaires created by publishing content on youtube. So I see not a huge problem in terms of making content profitable. Just the KIND OF content that makes money changed.
And also I believe that youtube hosts TONS of illegal content published by users.
Well there you go. You really have to go back to before 2000 for example and the artistic works back then were generally protected and paid for. So in general content creation was by default profitable if the content also was actually consumed. The problem now is you can create content, and have it be consumed by the public, yet make no money. That is the problem, and it's widespread.
hans05 wrote in Sat Apr 06, 2019 9:33 pm:But being a big fan of constitutional state I still think the problem is maybe rather to big costs to go to court against youtube rather than that we would need upload filters. But that is only my opinion.
Yes, I agree with that. But it is what it is and we have to choose some way of dealing with the situation. Fortunately companies like Google have enough money to put filters in place. And on the other hand it would probably still be easier for everyone to have Google check uploads than to have hundreds of thousands of lawsuits tying up the legal system.
hans05 wrote in Sat Apr 06, 2019 9:33 pm:Lydiot: Thank you for writing a post that gives the impression that you are actually really interested in what others write (in opposition to only putting down somebody).
I am interested in your opinion, so, yes.