Board index FlightGear The FlightGear project

EU policy/Copyright 2019 and FlightGear

Questions about the FlightGear organisation, website, wiki etc.

Re: EU policy/Copyright 2019 and FlightGear

Postby Lydiot » Sat Apr 06, 2019 11:04 pm

hans05 wrote in Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:33 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 8:33 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 8:33 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 8:33 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 8:33 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 8:33 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 8:33 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 8:33 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.
Lydiot
 
Posts: 985
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:50 pm

Re: EU policy/Copyright 2019 and FlightGear

Postby wkitty42 » Sat Apr 06, 2019 11:21 pm

hans05 wrote in Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:33 pm:but I guess after the still again clownish escalation of [person's name redacted]

and again with the personal insults :(
"You get more air close to the ground," said Angalo. "I read that in a book. You get lots of air low down, and not much when you go up."
"Why not?" said Gurder.
"Dunno. It's frightened of heights, I guess."
User avatar
wkitty42
 
Posts: 5644
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 3:46 pm
Location: central NC, USA
Callsign: wk42
Version: git next
OS: Kubuntu 14.04.5

Re: EU policy/Copyright 2019 and FlightGear

Postby Thorsten » Sun Apr 07, 2019 6:19 am

I hope we can agree that Thorsten complains about MANY things that I write. But not about this one.


I hope we can agree that I habitually ignore all insults from your side as being fundamentally ridiculous and childish - including that one - and only reply to arguments from your side.

So don't delude yourself here please - not all you say is even worthy of a reply, lack of a reply does not equal agreement with what you say.
Last edited by Thorsten on Sun Apr 07, 2019 6:52 am, edited 2 times in total.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 10982
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: EU policy/Copyright 2019 and FlightGear

Postby Thorsten » Sun Apr 07, 2019 6:29 am

I think that was the whole point of questioning those examples, but I could be wrong.


Pretty much.

Trademark legislation does not affect what I as a private person do - it affects what a company trying to sell a product or a service can do - the idea is to avoid confusion between what company is offering what service.

So the trademark on magenta means no more than if I own a company, I can't use that hue of magenta to design its website and advertize as long as there is any danger there will be confusion with services offered by Telekom. It does not mean that I as private person would not be allowed to use that magenta hue as background for my video.

As private internet user who is not trying to sell anything, I am conceptually unable to commit trademark infringements - because they require an alleged confusion between competing services.

Which is why - even if 'subject matter' would refer to trademark - which it does not - it still would have no bearing on what people privately upload somewhere.

The same in green with patents.

But - it gets even better - even if the passage would really mean 'all illegal content of any kind' - the law would still say no more than 'As a platform provider, you should check whether things are fundamentally legal before offering them for download'.

Which I still find a reasonable principle, all things considered.

(note that I don't think uploads need to be blocked - files can well be uploaded on a holding area where they're not publicly accessible till they're investigated - just before they're available someone needs to check them - in fact like we do in FG with patches and merge requests)

If a law declares the wrong thing illegal, that law should be changed, there should not be a second law which states - well, it may be illegal, but we won't check really'.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 10982
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: EU policy/Copyright 2019 and FlightGear

Postby hans05 » Sun Apr 07, 2019 11:20 am

wkitty42 wrote in Sat Apr 06, 2019 11:21 pm:
hans05 wrote in Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:33 pm:but I guess after the still again clownish escalation of [person's name redacted]

and again with the personal insults :(


Dear wkitty, either please quote correctly or keep quiet!

The complete quote is:

after the still again clownish escalation of Thorsten and my "discussion"


Your false quote makes it look like I would accuse Thorsten alone of escalating something. From the true quote it is clear that I take as much blame as I give Thorsten.
Don't do that, it is REALLY bad style.
hans05
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:25 pm

Re: EU policy/Copyright 2019 and FlightGear

Postby hans05 » Sun Apr 07, 2019 11:39 am

Thorsten wrote in Sun Apr 07, 2019 6:19 am:
I hope we can agree that I habitually ignore all insults from your side as being fundamentally ridiculous and childish


NO!
And OH MAN, would I be happy if that was true!!!

not all you say is even worthy of a reply


I absolutely agree with that! But I have not yet noticed you deriving any consequence from it. I have been begging you to ignore me. But you won't. Ever.

, lack of a reply does not equal agreement with what you say.


Ah, I understand.
EXCEPT of course if you ask me a question like:

Who are these 'powerful people' you fear?


And after I do not answer that question you write:

So you can't say.


In that case lack of reply means that "I can't say.". Mhhh......
Of course "not..agreement" are not the same words as "can't say". Mhhhh *thinking heavily*
On top I have understood that from the lack of answer from Valery to your requests of proof that he has not violated IP-rights, you conclude that he must be guilty. But I must have misunderstood that. Mhhhh *continue to think heavily*

Let me think still some hours, maybe I will understand it some day.
Until I have understood, I will stick to my position that I find you pathetic. But that might turn out to be due to my lack of intelligence.
hans05
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:25 pm

Re: EU policy/Copyright 2019 and FlightGear

Postby hans05 » Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:16 pm

Lydiot wrote in Sat Apr 06, 2019 11:04 pm: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".


I agree that it is clear in itself. But for me the relation to art. 13 number 4) is not direct. What you conclude seems likely. But "likely" in a law (or directive if you want) is VERY suspicious. It means something is not clear and often enough that is WANTED rather than an accident. The people who write those directives are normally extremely clever.

But then why didn't the author(s) just write the word "anything"?


That is a very good point.
But why did they not write clearly "copyright protected content" to include the works and everything related to it. Why do they write "work" only to add a "other subject matter"?

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.


Mhhh, I analyze it so that there are two parts:

1) Copyright --> You must get permission from the copyright owner.
2) Other illegal acts of communication --> You might not even be able to get permission from somebody.

I admit that I might be totally wrong. But even if the intent was what YOU say, then I still do not see it clearly in the written words.


hans05 wrote in Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:33 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.


I understand. Still you could have made an effort to try to see my actual point. But ok, not a big deal then.

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.


It is a problem for people who can not adjust to "the new rules".
There was a time when you made money with music by giving concerts.
Then one had to produce and sell records.
Then there was a time when you made money by being on the radio.
That was followed by television (MTV, oh the good old times...).
After that it was CDs.
Then it was MP3.
After that it is now streaming.

Oh, and somewhere between CD and MP3 they managed to organize concerts in such a big scale that suddenly that was again a major source of income.

It is only my opinion, but I think it is just a fact of life that rules change and people have to adjust.

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.


You are correct and I do not want to say that I am "right". It is just that I prefer rule-of-law and courts and judges (--> humans) before upload filters (--> hardware/software where nobody really knows or understands how they work!) created by companies which -I have to admit- I do not like at all.

But can we summarize the actual topic like this:

* You find the new directive clear and see no impact to FG.
* I find the new directive unclear but I see very little danger of FG to be affected.

Would that be correct? If yes, we would not be very far apart :-)
hans05
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:25 pm

Re: EU policy/Copyright 2019 and FlightGear

Postby Thorsten » Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:50 pm

I have been begging you to ignore me. But you won't. Ever.


Look, this isn't rocket science.

It's discussion thread. I posed a question - can anyone illustrate to me the negative consequences of the directive?

I did not invite you to reply. I did not pose the question specifically to you. I did not ask you to come in writing in all caps. I did not ask for your insults. I did not use your example to illustrate my point before you appeared in this thread.

I would have happily ignored you - had you not chosen to reply in this thread. But I see no reason to let you comment whatever you want on what I say without reserving the right to reply to what seems important to me.

Entering a contested debate and begging people in it to ignore you is... not very stringent. Sorry.

I'll happily ignore you if you talk about things which I'm not interested in, or in places I do not visit. But I simply won't stop talking about things I am interested in in this forum which I frequently visit. So I'm not following you, I'm not pulling up your lists of posts to look where else I can pester you - I treat you like every other forum member.

As for the rest, I leave it to the rest of the readers to decide who started shouting in all caps, who started with insults and what generally here can be considered bad style.


On top I have understood that from the lack of answer from Valery to your requests of proof that he has not violated IP-rights, you conclude that he must be guilty.


No, I conclude that chiefly from CeraSim's reply to Curt - which was rather clear in that respect. The fact that when challenged (not by me in fact, I was only peripherally involved in handling the case - by Curt who was under a legal obligation to do so as forum and repository admin) he did not refer to any permission is indirect evidence that such permission did not exist - though perfectly consistent with the direct evidence provided by CeraSim.

In that case lack of reply means that "I can't say.". Mhhh......


Yeah, you brought 'powerful people' up as an argument in a debate - not I. And you chose to not back it up when challenged. If I had brought it up and asked 'So you believe powerful people can now curb your free speech?' out of the blue - that you could have rightfully dismissed as ridiculous and never reply. But not to back up points you made yourself is something different - in a debate that usually means conceding the point to the other party.

Sorry, that's the rule of the game. :D

Until I have understood, I will stick to my position that I find you pathetic.


Are we done with convincing everyone who resorts to insults whenever he feels like it?
Last edited by Thorsten on Sun Apr 07, 2019 1:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 10982
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: EU policy/Copyright 2019 and FlightGear

Postby wkitty42 » Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:58 pm

hans05 wrote in Sun Apr 07, 2019 11:20 am:
wkitty42 wrote in Sat Apr 06, 2019 11:21 pm:and again with the personal insults :(


Dear wkitty, either please quote correctly or keep quiet!

i properly quoted what i was pointing out and commenting on... that being you calling thorsten's action(s) "clownish"... if you did not mean that, then why did you write it in the first place?

hans05 wrote in Sun Apr 07, 2019 11:20 am:The complete quote is:

after the still again clownish escalation of Thorsten and my "discussion"


Your false quote makes it look like I would accuse Thorsten alone of escalating something.

the part i quoted was not a "false quote"... the part i quoted was quoted exactly as you wrote it...

hans05 wrote in Sun Apr 07, 2019 11:20 am:From the true quote it is clear that I take as much blame as I give Thorsten.

i certainly didn't read what you wrote that way... if i had, i would not have said anything...

hans05 wrote in Sun Apr 07, 2019 11:20 am:Don't do that, it is REALLY bad style.

your ""style"" leaves a lot to be desired, as well, so i say "2U2, sir... 2U2"...
"You get more air close to the ground," said Angalo. "I read that in a book. You get lots of air low down, and not much when you go up."
"Why not?" said Gurder.
"Dunno. It's frightened of heights, I guess."
User avatar
wkitty42
 
Posts: 5644
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 3:46 pm
Location: central NC, USA
Callsign: wk42
Version: git next
OS: Kubuntu 14.04.5

Re: EU policy/Copyright 2019 and FlightGear

Postby wkitty42 » Sun Apr 07, 2019 1:00 pm

hans05 wrote in Sun Apr 07, 2019 11:39 am:
not all you say is even worthy of a reply


I absolutely agree with that! But I have not yet noticed you deriving any consequence from it. I have been begging you to ignore me. But you won't. Ever.

he plainly stated that he was ignoring your insults not your arguments...
"You get more air close to the ground," said Angalo. "I read that in a book. You get lots of air low down, and not much when you go up."
"Why not?" said Gurder.
"Dunno. It's frightened of heights, I guess."
User avatar
wkitty42
 
Posts: 5644
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 3:46 pm
Location: central NC, USA
Callsign: wk42
Version: git next
OS: Kubuntu 14.04.5

Re: EU policy/Copyright 2019 and FlightGear

Postby Lydiot » Sun Apr 07, 2019 3:27 pm

hans05 wrote in Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:16 pm:
Lydiot wrote in Sat Apr 06, 2019 11:04 pm: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".


I agree that it is clear in itself. But for me the relation to art. 13 number 4) is not direct. What you conclude seems likely. But "likely" in a law (or directive if you want) is VERY suspicious. It means something is not clear and often enough that is WANTED rather than an accident. The people who write those directives are normally extremely clever.

But then why didn't the author(s) just write the word "anything"?


That is a very good point.
But why did they not write clearly "copyright protected content" to include the works and everything related to it. Why do they write "work" only to add a "other subject matter"?


Something tells me it's because some "work" is obvious whereas other protected content is not. If the composition on the CD was protected, and rather than it being on a CD someone performed it, then if a different person recorded that performance it would probably not be obvious to some people why that resulting recording can't be disseminated without the permission of the composer or performers. So while it might not be considered a protected work by itself it's still subject matter that is prohibited to disseminate (without permission).

That's why I think it makes sense, and again reading the list of types of protected content along with who the people are that would give permission really places this in one category and not just anything illegal.

hans05 wrote in Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:16 pm:
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.


Mhhh, I analyze it so that there are two parts:

1) Copyright --> You must get permission from the copyright owner.
2) Other illegal acts of communication --> You might not even be able to get permission from somebody.

I admit that I might be totally wrong. But even if the intent was what YOU say, then I still do not see it clearly in the written words.


"anything" would point to the burden of contacting people outside of the 2001 directive. But since they specifically refer to that directive it is limiting. Therefore it can't just be "anything illegal". It relates to this specific industry and owners of works etc within it.

hans05 wrote in Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:16 pm:
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.


It is a problem for people who can not adjust to "the new rules".
There was a time when you made money with music by giving concerts.
Then one had to produce and sell records.
Then there was a time when you made money by being on the radio.
That was followed by television (MTV, oh the good old times...).
After that it was CDs.
Then it was MP3.
After that it is now streaming.

Oh, and somewhere between CD and MP3 they managed to organize concerts in such a big scale that suddenly that was again a major source of income.

It is only my opinion, but I think it is just a fact of life that rules change and people have to adjust.

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.


You are correct and I do not want to say that I am "right". It is just that I prefer rule-of-law and courts and judges


But the lack of "rule-of-law" is the "new rules" you're talking about in the first part above. Concerts, albums, CDs, placed music in other media; all of that was a legitimate business that paid creators and rightsholders money on the capitalist market. The reason it stopped working was that people started taking content without paying and without permission - and that is breaking the rules and laws.

The industry didn't suffer primarily because people just changed their minds about stuff and stopped consuming these products, the industry suffered because people took stuff without paying. Not "new rules"; broken rules.

And so this legislation is trying to force people to comply with the rules that exist so that the market can function. Like I said, we get to pick and choose here. But there's absolutely no good reason for why the rights to artistic work shouldn't be protected when other work is. One standard for all please. You want rule-of-law? This is what you get when people keep breaking the laws that exist.

hans05 wrote in Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:16 pm: (--> humans) before upload filters (--> hardware/software where nobody really knows or understands how they work!) created by companies which -I have to admit- I do not like at all.


I really don't think there's too much to fear from this. Really what you'll see I bet is that the people who complain the most are people who benefit the most from illegal dissemination of copyrighted content. It'll be those who own websites that share content illegally and make money off of advertising, and it's going to be from people who can no longer as easily find that material when those websites start shutting down. I have no sympathy for either.

hans05 wrote in Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:16 pm:But can we summarize the actual topic like this:

* You find the new directive clear and see no impact to FG.
* I find the new directive unclear but I see very little danger of FG to be affected.

Would that be correct? If yes, we would not be very far apart :-)


Yes. that seems about right.
Lydiot
 
Posts: 985
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:50 pm

Re: EU policy/Copyright 2019 and FlightGear

Postby hans05 » Sun Apr 07, 2019 5:14 pm

Lydiot, thanks, I think I learned a lot!

I guess the main problem I have here is that I do not earn my money from creating content.
I create a lot of content which is a priori intended to be freely available.

But I admit that people who do earn their money from their intellectual content have to see things a lot different than me.
hans05
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:25 pm

Re: EU policy/Copyright 2019 and FlightGear

Postby hans05 » Sun Apr 07, 2019 5:17 pm

@Thorsten & wkitty:
It was amusing seeing you write senseless things because of me.
Feels like Curt must be on holiday since this is the first time since a very long time that my posts have not been deleted minutes after creation :-)
hans05
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:25 pm

Re: EU policy/Copyright 2019 and FlightGear

Postby legoboyvdlp » Sun Apr 07, 2019 5:30 pm

Hmph, if that is the case maybe it might just be your posts at fault?
User avatar
legoboyvdlp
 
Posts: 7007
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 1:28 am
Callsign: YV-LEGO
Version: 2018.3.1
OS: Windows 10 HP

Re: EU policy/Copyright 2019 and FlightGear

Postby Octal450 » Sun Apr 07, 2019 5:31 pm

I think it probably would be helpful to discuss the issue of the policy here... rather an waste time with pointless insults and such... no?

Kind Regards,
Josh
Don't ever contact me about FlightGear again.
Octal450
 
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 12:51 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The FlightGear project

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests