Oh, exciting, finally something that seems worth commenting
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.
not to mention you're now not quoting it correctly.
Yeah....NO. I quote from a link from a member of the European Parliament.
The link to Julia Reda:
https://juliareda.eu/2019/02/artikel-13-endgueltig/The link to the document itself:
https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Copyright_Final_compromise.pdf The link you provide below is NOT it. Yours seems to be the old and now existing law while above is a link to the planned new law. They look VERY different.
To me it is pretty clear that the intent of that wording - "other protected subject matter" - is to cover artistic products that aren't literally called "works of art".
When I analyze law it does not interest me what the intent is. I only look at what is actually written there.
About the intent I can only speculate.
What I can objectively analyze is the written words.
Now, I never claimed to be 100% sure of my analyses but yours does not convince me neither.
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".
Would be interesting to hear a third opinion, but I guess after the still again clownish escalation of Thorsten and my "discussion" we might have lost everybody else.
For reference, the actual directive is
here. This is a directive, and as I understand it member states will later write laws to make it enforced, which will likely mean some discrepancy as well as clarification.
As mentioned above, I get from your link a document dated to 2016 which is not at all the new proposal for art.13.
I also have a hard time seeing just why 'we' would be worried about this.
I never stated that you will be worried about that. I just said you MIGHT be touched. 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.
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.
There are some restrictions for which content providers are included in the directive and I do not know if that is an escape for FG.
Also I assume that FG is hosted outside EU, so there can not be a direct impact to FG. That's why I speculated about what EU is going to do IF they hypothetically find FG violating that directive (DNS-blocking, or what?).
Might well be that nobody of importance cares about what FG does and even though if FG hypothetically formally violates the directive nobody cares to impeach you.
So I see many ways in which FG is NOT worried about this. But as I said before: It is hard to be sure and we will see.
It seems to me that this directive is intended to protect content creators from people who make money off of their work without sharing those profits. If I create something and someone else takes it without my permission and then makes money off of it - just why should that be legal? And if I have to run around going to court to prove that they broke the law then is that really a viable option for someone not making a lot of money?
It seems to me that all of what is described in the art. 13 has been illegal before.
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.
I think it can be argued that it's burdensome on some content providers because they now have to make sure things aren't disseminated illegally - BUT - the directive also uses a lot of words that clearly indicate that they're going after the big fish, not the little ones. In other words it seems the intent is to protect content creators from huge providers such as YouTube
You might be right here. I have not enough experience how big or small a website must be to fall under the directive.
Now again only my opinion: I fail to see it in accordance to the rule "everybody is equal before the law". Why big websites have to go after illegal content in a VERY different way than small ones? Open to me.
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. 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.
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).