EU policy/Copyright 2019 and FlightGear

[pavlin]

Based on the info about this law especially I think it's not going to affect any way into the FG project. As far as I understand this law is made for violations on a protected content / as software and other staff, like music, videos, etc./. FlightGear is Open Source, here everyone can contribute for the future development of the software. So mind the fact that this software is protected by open source licence and policy it can't be copyrighted or it can't be used for commercial / selling purposes, right?
The commercial software that is paid and it's made for making sellings it's entirely different type of software, that is protected by entirely different laws. This particular law bmo is made for protection of commercial content from unauthorised use and publishing. So mind this fact I can safely state, that FlightGear project, as protected from entirely different type of policy licence it's not going to be affected at all, because this content is made for entirely different purpose.

[swampthing]

Well that seems to be the norm. It certainly is here. Write legislation that us unclear and vague then create another unelected agency to add things willy nilly as they please and sine they are not elected you can't hold them accountable. That How the U.S. Federal government and most state governments work here. And many time the mane of the legislation gives the impression it will do one thing when it does the exact opposite. You have to really dig and put a lot of time into deciphering most of these things that are purposely written this way. If only I could count the times people have supported legislation that leads to the own demise. I don't live in the E.U. so I can't keep up with both but I can't imagine the mindset being a lot different there. I think peoples property rights, copyrights and patents should be respected minus the patent troll issue we have here in the states which should have been shut down as fast as it started. What would scare me is if you do indeed get penalized before you have a chance to filter content yourself. Hopefully that won't be the case. I know I was suppose to shut up (my own word) but a much as I use to be involved in politics before getting sick I can tell you. You don't understand the belly of the beast until you really get inside it. I can tell horror story after horror story but they are not related to this legislation. The principles behind much legislation remains the same. Its often not good for the little man. But I digress.

[Thorsten]

I agree in so far as legislation generally has a way of preferring the one who can pay more lawyers (not sure what can be done about that - I can't see this as a reason to stop trying to make good laws). Though in the event, I didn't see Facebook and Google particularly happy about the whole thing - which you'd expect if they'd expect to benefit.

Otherwise it really depends on where you are, there's quite different places in the EU. Finland takes pride in passing human-readable laws, even for a non-native speaker they're easier to understand than German laws for a German native speaker (oh, and did I mention that we have the world's highest freedom index and third lowest corruption in the world) - generally I do trust the government a lot here.

[icecode]

generally I do trust the government a lot here.

That's the thing. Most people do not trust their governments as much as you nordics, so they generally lean towards trusting big corporations instead, which is mindblowing on its own. The EU has a good track record for now in web related stuff (see the recent anti-spam and GDPR laws) and generally stands with the average citizen. It's amazing how easily people take sides in these types of arguments because they read a tweet that morning about the huge implications the law will have on their privacy and freedom online. Just use catchy terms like "meme ban" and "meme apocalypse" and you will soon have a legion of people blindlessly supporting huge corporations instead of their own interests. I have no opinion on this since I'm not that well informed, but I'm sure the consequences won't be as big as people/companies make it seem, and I'm also 99% sure it won't have any consequences for the FlightGear project. This is also a directive, not a regulation, so the consequences will depend on each member state implementation of the directive. I guess it again depends on how much you trust your government...

[swampthing]

generally I do trust the government a lot here.

That's the thing. Most people do not trust their governments as much as you nordics, so they generally lean towards trusting big corporations instead, which is mindblowing on its own. .

Here I trust neither. Both work hand in hand. Well I should say many politicians and unelected agencies, not the whole government. I'm not for anarchy.

So how about those airplanes?

[hans05]

That's part of the problem: Nobody KNOWS. We have to THINK!

Welcome to the rule of law - we have a system with judges and courts because unlike in a dictatorship, nobody ever really knows up-front - it's usually all determined in court proceedings.

Wake up! This is not a "rule of law". As you mention yourself below: In Finland they write laws that some people DO understand. Not so in Germany. Where is the "rule of law"? Do you READ what you write?
And wake up again! Implicitly saying that it must be dictatorship if it isn't unclear is.....BS!

It says there: If you KNOW that you link to something illegal then your link is also illegal. With the new art. 13 I conclude that FG-web site might be obliged to check with people that have posted a link if they know whether the link target is legal or not.

Actually that's been done now - I've reported a couple of links which clearly are not legal and they've been removed. The problem with that is?

You are my HERO! You have reported a couple of links and now EVERYTHING is ok!!1!!
Wake up! This new law says that you have to be SURE to have removed EVERY illegal link/content. ARE you sure? Really?
(I will help you here: No you are not!)

Now: Even before you understand whether or not content is illegal or legal, you are so f...ed if you have the content published.

Yep. So that fancy car you bought for 500$ and never asked about previous ownership so the seller would not have to answer the question - you can't drive it any more.

WHAT??? How dare you give this example of something OBVIOUSLY illegal. I tried to point out that the problem is content where it is NOT obvious. It is like buying a used car for an absolutely normal price and still finding out that it was stolen. The new art. 13 will not only forbid you to drive that car, but it will BUST you for having bought it! It is now YOUR duty to make sure that the car was not stolen. How you do that? YOUR problem.
So, do you actually read what I write before commenting on it??

I don't know about you - but some of us have done this for years - first check license, then work with content and publish it - and if you don't know, assume you can't use it. If you have proceeded that way, you'll be fine to continue that way.

Same BS as above. There is more than enough examples where it is not easy to say what is legal or not. Seems to me that you are not able to understand that there is something outside of your little world.
And I now do have to remind you that you forgot to add references to pictures you used in a document that you shared here in the forum? I hope you have fixed that problem!

Makes all a lot of sense to me, but of course people who like to buy cheap cars without asking questions might be inconvenienced now. Then again, the people whose cars have been stolen all the time might like the new way.

Makes a lot of sense to you just like it makes a lot of sense to somebody who never in his life left his 200 people village that there can not possibly be a place in the entire world that looks different than his village.
In the age of internet and all the information sources available that should not happen any more. But here is you.....

With the new law people are forced to stop buying used cars all together. What an achievement!!1!!! You seem to REALLY like that?!?

Those are two out of MANY examples of absolutely ridiculous things are now so protected that we can not use them legally any more.

Hint: Look up the difference between intellectual property and trademark. The Wiki is very clear that Telekom has registered a trademark - which legally is something different and not even part of copyright legislation. The Heise Article talks of a patent, which... is something yet different.

I know, all that legal fine print - but if you want to argue why a law is bad, you just have to look into it now and then, sorry.

Man, what is wrong with you??? Can you really not read? How can you be so bold and so wrong at the same time?
PLEASE check this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property

I quote:

Intellectual property (IP) is a category of property that includes intangible creations of the human intellect. Intellectual property encompasses two types of rights; industrial property rights (trademarks, patents, designations of origin, industrial designs and models) and copyright.

So NO, you do NOT know the legal fine print. And PLEASE look into stuff you write about YOURSELF. BEFORE you write about it.

Sorry to say that it feels to me like you just enjoy trying to be right for no matter what price.
For me this is too ridiculous and I am out of this "discussion".

[Thorsten]

Where is the "rule of law"? Do you READ what you write?

Rule of law is the translation of 'Rechtsstaat' - the opposite of which is a dictatorship. Which you seem to believe Germany is? Interesting...

( I don't invent these terms by the way - I just use them).

WHAT??? How dare you give this example of something OBVIOUSLY illegal. (...) So, do you actually read what I write before commenting on it??

Sure - I even remember what you're written in the past - like this suggestion of yours to suggest we should use suspicious content right till the point where we can be absolutely sure the company from which was stolen actually minds.

Hypothetically assuming that Valery's model is (possibly indirectly) taken from CeraSim company's commercial version: If CeraSim complains, then it is Valery's problem to deal with it and his risk that he has invested a lot of time for nothing. Has CeraSim reacted yet? Maybe they are fine with this? Maybe they got the model from 3dcadbrowser.com themselves and just modified it like Valery? Has any of you verified this?

That's in my book equivalent to buying and driving a suspiciously cheap car right till the rightful owner shows up with the police. You never liked the idea of not using content that has unclear license.

PLEASE check this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property

Says pretty much what I explained to you - two different kinds of rights - trademarks and patents vs. copyright. Now you just have to come to the realization that a trademark violation is very different from a copyright violation and that copyright legislation has no effect on trademarks and vice versa.

With the new law people are forced to stop buying used cars all together. What an achievement!!1!!! You seem to REALLY like that?!?

So for the record, you believe in the future no one (except possibly for the big platforms) - will be able to generate and upload any content anywhere legally? You believe forum posts will end because they might be illegal? You believe that sophisticated filters will suppress any attempt at free speech?

(Certainly consistent with the idea of Germany being a dictatorship now... )

Or what is your actual fear? Telecom suing your over a magenta T-Shirt?

Also for the record, no - I believe in the future there'll simply be less illegal transactions and copyright violations (which right now are commonplace).

Which I really like as a perspective, yes.

[hans05]

This is now off topic, I know, but Thorsten is expert in provoking. So I admit, I can not resist....

Where is the "rule of law"? Do you READ what you write?

Rule of law is the translation of 'Rechtsstaat' - the opposite of which is a dictatorship. Which you seem to believe Germany is? Interesting...

Please do not distract from the actual point here!
The actual point was that

"rule of law" <> unclear laws are mandatory
clear and comprehensive laws <> dictatorship

I hope you are able to read THIS kind of language as rumors say you are a good programmer.

WHAT??? How dare you give this example of something OBVIOUSLY illegal. (...) So, do you actually read what I write before commenting on it??

Sure - I even remember what you're written in the past - like this suggestion of yours to suggest we should use suspicious content right till the point where we can be absolutely sure the company from which was stolen actually minds.

Hypothetically assuming that Valery's model is (possibly indirectly) taken from CeraSim company's commercial version: If CeraSim complains, then it is Valery's problem to deal with it and his risk that he has invested a lot of time for nothing. Has CeraSim reacted yet? Maybe they are fine with this? Maybe they got the model from 3dcadbrowser.com themselves and just modified it like Valery? Has any of you verified this?

That's in my book equivalent to buying and driving a suspiciously cheap car right till the rightful owner shows up with the police. You never liked the idea of not using content that has unclear license.

In your book this is equivalent to buying and driving a suspiciously cheap car because you are not very good in understanding things. As I said: All you want is being right.

The point here is that Valery stated clearly that he has checked the license issues, that everything is fine and proper and that he is going to add references to his project. Which he did. And you COULD check that if you were not just wanting to stay right (and if you WERE able to read).
Of course Valery did not bother to communicate this to you since people in this forum pissed him off so badly that he even begged to be taken out of this forum.
So what actually happened is, that he drove a car and you accused him that it is stolen. But it wasn't. And you sadly could not prove that it was stolen since Curt even contacted the company in question and they CONFIRMED that they are fine with Valery using this model.

I repeat for you since you are not good in reading nor understanding things:

The company was FINE with Valery using the model. He had permission to do so. No stolen car in this text.

Oh, Curt, I am sure you are already now thinking of removing this posts since this old stuff and bloody hans is bringing it up AGAIN.
But I guess it can not be more clear that it was Thorsten who brought it up

PLEASE check this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property

Says pretty much what I explained to you - two different kinds of rights - trademarks and patents vs. copyright. Now you just have to come to the realization that a trademark violation is very different from a copyright violation and that copyright legislation has no effect on trademarks and vice versa.

There is not much more to do than repeat myself: You are not good in reading other people's stuff.
What you tried to explain is of little interest to me since I was talking generally about IP-problems and....I try your language so maybe you are able to capture this:

IP is superclass for trademark, copyright and patent.

Like in polymorphism, I used my trademark and patent examples in a "is-a" relationship which is valid. You CAN put references to subclasses into reference variables of the superclass type.

Ergo what I wrote is totally consistent and you tried in vain to find something where I made a mistake. Because that is a good opportunity for you to be right!

Again a little repetition because I know that you have difficulties getting it at the first time:

Of course you are right that trademark is not the same as copyright and patent. But I never said that and that was also NOT even close to the point I was making!!

With the new law people are forced to stop buying used cars all together. What an achievement!!1!!! You seem to REALLY like that?!?

So for the record, you believe in the future no one (except possibly for the big platforms) - will be able to generate and upload any content anywhere legally? You believe forum posts will end because they might be illegal? You believe that sophisticated filters will suppress any attempt at free speech?

There is (for a change) not much space for "believing". IF you would be able to READ some magazine (I can recommend C'T to people who CAN read) on the topic you would know that it has already started: Quite a number of small web sites are being taken down for the reason that laws are not clear but seem very dangerous.
This was also already explained in some other posts in this topic, but you would need to READ that.

(Certainly consistent with the idea of Germany being a dictatorship now... )

I never wrote anything like that. If that is your opinion the so be it.

Or what is your actual fear? Telecom suing your over a magenta T-Shirt?

Also for the record, no - I believe in the future there'll simply be less illegal transactions and copyright violations (which right now are commonplace).

Which I really like as a perspective, yes.

"what is your actual fear" is a cheap propaganda trick. That tries to make me look like somebody who does not know what he is talking about and is only acting on the basis of fear.
That is not the case but proves one more time that you do not mind any cheap trick to just prove that you are right.

As I already said: Of course there will be less stolen cars if you suppress dealing with used cars.
And I will try to explain to you again (since you are probably again still not understanding this):
Your little 200 people village is the illegal transactions and copyright violations.
But guess what: There is more than that in the internet. There is also LEGAL content (YES!!!). Now powerfull people have the right (or even the duty) to suppress legal content if there is a POSSIBILITY that it is illegal.

I guess your little brain is not able to see the problem with this. I have to accept that. You just stay in your little village and not read anything that does not prove you right.

[wkitty42]

I guess your little brain

why do you have to make it personal? can you not debate with simple and available evidence without resorting to childish put downs?

[Catalanoic]

I don't know if Thorsten write something wrong with Valery's case but please no insults to anybody, this topic is about the new EU policy.

[Thorsten]

Now powerfull people have the right (or even the duty) to suppress legal content if there is a POSSIBILITY that it is illegal.

Newsflash - anyone has the right to suppress legal content on his own platform. On my website, you're not going to add any content. And that's not censorship, that's ownership rights - just like I don't have to admit you into my house, I don't have to publish you on my website. And just like me, Facebook doesn't have to publish you. In fact, no one has to publish you.

You never ever had the right you claim you lost - it;s a complete red herring.

The company was FINE with Valery using the model. He had permission to do so.

Let's stay truthful here, shall we?

Actually he had not - the company knew nothing of the theft till Curt notified them and then decided not to make a big issue. Which you could not possibly have anticipated.

But if you steal a car, and the owner later decides to give it to you and not make an issue - there's still the fact that you stole it, even if your posession of it was legalized afterwards. It would be unwise to deduce from such an incident that stealing cars is generally okay and can be safely done.

"rule of law" <> unclear laws are mandatory

You lost me.

As I said, 'rule of law' is a technical term - it implies that things are decided in courts, not by a dictator (and, among other things, that you can sue the government). Whether laws are clear to you personally or not is not an issue.

Of course you are right that trademark is not the same as copyright and patent.

Thank you - one point closed. So now we can move on to the mystery why knowing this, you cited a trademark issue as evidence for the bad effect of copyright legislation?

[hans05]

hans05 wrote in Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:18 pm:
I guess your little brain

why do you have to make it personal? can you not debate with simple and available evidence without resorting to childish put downs?

Point taken, I apologize!

Now powerfull people have the right (or even the duty) to suppress legal content if there is a POSSIBILITY that it is illegal.

Newsflash - anyone has the right to suppress legal content on his own platform. On my website, you're not going to add any content. And that's not censorship, that's ownership rights - just like I don't have to admit you into my house, I don't have to publish you on my website. And just like me, Facebook doesn't have to publish you. In fact, no one has to publish you.

You never ever had the right you claim you lost - it;s a complete red herring.

Newsflash: NOT everybody has all rights to do anything with his private stuff. Especially if it is not really private.
* Shops are not allowed (even when privately owned) to only serve white people.
* On German web sites you are not allowed to publish symbols of the 3rd Reich era.
* If I do not get published on YOUR website, I DID have the right to make my own
website and publish anything I want there (except the OBVIOUSLY illegal stuff).
With art. 13 I will not any more be allowed to do even that.
* etc....

Oh, another newsflash: Your website does NOT compare to Facebook, Twitter and Snapchat. Just in case you have not noticed yet. Main difference is that almost nobody cares about your website.

The company was FINE with Valery using the model. He had permission to do so.

Let's stay truthful here, shall we?

Actually he had not - the company knew nothing of the theft till Curt notified them and then decided not to make a big issue. Which you could not possibly have anticipated.

But if you steal a car, and the owner later decides to give it to you and not make an issue - there's still the fact that you stole it, even if your posession of it was legalized afterwards. It would be unwise to deduce from such an incident that stealing cars is generally okay and can be safely done.

Yeah, ok, let's stay truthful. Valery wrote to me that he informed that company before using any of their stuff.
Now please let me know how you know that this is not true?
I don't know if that is true or not, but you seem to know?!?

"rule of law" <> unclear laws are mandatory

You lost me.

Uhm, not a big surprise.

As I said, 'rule of law' is a technical term - it implies that things are decided in courts, not by a dictator (and, among other things, that you can sue the government). Whether laws are clear to you personally or not is not an issue.

In a "Rechtsstaat" the courts have to decide on the basis of laws. If laws are not clear then they do not have a clear basis on what to decide. How is that difficult to understand?

And why do you point out something totally off topic (again)??? Of course it is not an issue if _I_ do not find laws clear. Have you not understood that LAWYERS find those laws unclear?!?!?

LAWYERS find MANY laws -and specifically the art. 13 law- unclear.

Get it? This is not about your tiny village and not about me.

Of course you are right that trademark is not the same as copyright and patent.

Thank you - one point closed. So now we can move on to the mystery why knowing this, you cited a trademark issue as evidence for the bad effect of copyright legislation?

Oh no, again you do not understand the least little bit here.
I (that is like "me", like "not you") was talking about ridiculous IP-rights.
Trademark AND copyright AND patents all ARE IP.
So of course it makes totally sense to give an example of trademark and patent to show pathetic IP-rights.

Again I do not understand how this can be difficult to understand.

And again sorry for implicitly stating that you have a small brain. I really have no idea how big your brain is. So that was totally wrong of me

[Thorsten]

NOT everybody has all rights to do anything with his private stuff. Especially if it is not really private. (...) With art. 13 I will not any more be allowed to do even that.

Disregarding everything you say which is not related to internet and copyright and which is just another swarm of red herrings - so your fear is the new legislation won't allow you to make your own website?

I kind of doubt that - you sure won't be able to make a website that publishes questionable content and assumes everything is allowed till you get the request to take it down - but there's nothing which prevents you from operating a legal website where you first check content and then publish it.

We're always coming back to the same point - you prefer a world in which you can use questionable content freely until proven otherwise - so naturally you're worried that you can't continue to do that, you're worried that the websites whose business model it was to host questionable content close down and such like.

But see - I want you to worry about questionable content, and I want websites which make their money by trading questionable content offline. The end of your habits is not the end of the internet or of free speech, sorry to say.

Valery wrote to me that he informed that company before using any of their stuff.

Yes, and Curt established that he did not do that because the company did not know. So yes, I do know - and so do you in fact.

If laws are not clear then they do not have a clear basis on what to decide.

Well, there's a reason they train people in law at universities - if a law isn't clear to you, it can still be used in court. It generally goes with sufficient complexity - there's always borderline cases, conflicting principles - which is why a court has to decide which laws apply to the specific case how.

I wouldn't do away with that principle on the grounds that it isn't always clear to you - it's generally been working well for a few centuries.

LAWYERS find MANY laws -and specifically the art.

Yes - they make their living of that. If all laws were clear to everyone, no one would need any lawyer. It's their business model. So naturally they advertize their services by telling everyone how unclear the new legislation is and how important it is to hire a lawyer. Seems to happen every time a law is passed.

So of course it makes totally sense to give an example of trademark and patent to show pathetic IP-rights.

So, you'd kind of argue that on the grounds that copying a painting by Rembrandt isn't always forging, selling cheap cars without ownership certificate is un-problematic? Because both somehow have to do with criminal law?

Such things actually make any sense to you?

Sorry, to me it makes sense if you argue against a piece of copyright legislation that you present an example how this piece of copyright legislation produces an undesirable result. It's a truism that we can find plenty of laws which produce undesirable results, but... see, these examples can't be used to argue against copyright legislation specifically.

[Lydiot]

I (that is like "me", like "not you") was talking about ridiculous IP-rights.
Trademark AND copyright AND patents all ARE IP.
So of course it makes totally sense to give an example of trademark and patent to show pathetic IP-rights.

Again I do not understand how this can be difficult to understand.

A bicycle is a vehicle. A car is a vehicle. A bike and a car are however not the same thing.

Creating legislation about an area of IP doesn't necessarily mean you're creating laws that apply to all IP. So laws regarding copyright are not necessarily laws about trademarks, right?

Do you not see the difference there?

[hans05]

Ok, I have to fall back to ignoring Thorsten since I see NO effort to try to understand anything. For me it is nothing but provocation and so stupid (sorry to have to say it like that, but it really is what I feel) that I get the feeling you deliberately misunderstand me.

Just one comment to the Valery case:

Valery says one thing. Curt says another thing. How does that prove anything?
It is word against word and in my world I see no reason to state that I "know" something because Curt has said so.
I stay with my "we all do not know" and people who think they know...doesn't bother me. It is nothing but wishful thinking.

I (that is like "me", like "not you") was talking about ridiculous IP-rights.
Trademark AND copyright AND patents all ARE IP.
So of course it makes totally sense to give an example of trademark and patent to show pathetic IP-rights.

Again I do not understand how this can be difficult to understand.

A bicycle is a vehicle. A car is a vehicle. A bike and a car are however not the same thing.

Creating legislation about an area of IP doesn't necessarily mean you're creating laws that apply to all IP. So laws regarding copyright are not necessarily laws about trademarks, right?

Do you not see the difference there?

PLEASE and PRETTYPLEASE READ the law.

I quote from the planned new text for art. 13:

[...]
4.
If no authorisation is granted, online content sharing service providers shall be liable for
unauthorised acts of communication to the public of copyright protected works and other
subject matter
[...]

Now, I am not a native English speaker so there is a possibility that it is me who is misunderstanding something.
But if I am NOT wrong, it says:

unauthorised acts of communication [...] of
* copyright protected works [...]
* other subject matter

How is this restricted to copyright only????
This refers to ANYTHING ILLEGAL!!

ANYTHING ILLEGAL.

At least I do not see how the word "subject matter" would restrict an "anything illegal".

I conclude that "subject matter" includes IP-rights which ironically again includes copyright violations.
That means ANY illegal content falls under the new art. 13 and copyright violations even double.

For that reason I allowed myself to bring forward two examples of banal IP-right nonsense that criminalizes publishing content in an abusive way.
And again: The point is NOT the difference between trademark and copyright. This is the second time that I state clearly that I have understood the difference but that this is NOT THE POINT AT ALL!!!

My assumption is that some people here
* have not read the law
* just want to be right no matter how

So please dear native English speakers: Have I gotten something wrong about the term "subject matter"?
I used this website to reassure that I understand this correctly:
https://dict.leo.org/englisch-deutsch/subject+matter
But maybe one of you knows better than that.