EU policy/Copyright 2019 and FlightGear

[Thorsten]

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.

You mean apart from the large body of evidence that there is substantial overlap between two models - how can we know one has been stolen from the other? Apart from the fact that before Curt's mail to CeraSim all content-taking was vehemently denied, but only afterwards, after the company decided not to make an issue the idea of a prior 'permission' emerged in the discussion from you? Apart from the fact that the whole thing could have been stopped on page 1 by 'Hey, I have permission - here it is!' - yet nobody has ever seen the permission? Apart from the fact that I've never ever seen Curt lie about anything and now contrast his word against the ever-shifting defense of someone who copied someone else's work? You mean - how does any of that prove anything?

You need to concoct a conspiracy theory to ask the question 'how does that prove anything' - the facts are staring into your face.

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

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

'subject matter' = 'anything illegal' ? Interesting equation... I don't think many apart from you will make it (usually subject matter refers back to the 'subject' aka the topic under discussion)

https://dict.leo.org/englisch-deutsch/subject+matter

Strangely enough, I was unable to find the translation 'anything illegal' there, But maybe my brain is just too small

Or maybe I'm just not a conspiracy theorist.

So, to summarize, after a few posts, we still don't know your problem with the legislation at hand, apart from the fact that you believe powerfull people have the right to suppress legal content if there is a POSSIBILITY that it is illegal and that you believe you won't be able to make your own website (for whatever reasons).

Who are these 'powerful people' you fear? The Telekom and the trademark right on magenta?

[Lydiot]

PLEASE and PRETTYPLEASE READ the law.

You don't need to yell. And it is better to ask me if I read it than to assume I didn't.

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".

Go back to the beginning of Article 13 and read:

Article 13

Use of protected content by online content sharing service providers

1. Member States shall provide that an online content sharing service provider performs an act of communication to the public or an act of making available to the public for the purposes of this directive when it gives the public access to copyright protected works or other protected subject matter uploaded by its users. An online content sharing service provider shall therefore obtain an authorisation from the rightholders referred to in Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 2001/29/EC, for instance by concluding a licencing agreement, in order to communicate or make available to the public works or other subject matter.

Now let's look at who those rightsholders are by finding that document:

Article 3

Right of communication to the public of works and right of making available to the public other subject-matter

1. Member States shall provide authors with the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit any communication to the public of their works, by wire or wireless means, including the making available to the public of their works in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.

2. Member States shall provide for the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit the making available to the public, by wire or wireless means, in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them:

(a) for performers, of fixations of their performances;
(b) for phonogram producers, of their phonograms;
(c) for the producers of the first fixations of films, of the original and copies of their films;
(d) for broadcasting organisations, of fixations of their broadcasts, whether these broadcasts are transmitted by wire or over the air, including by cable or satellite.

Clearer?

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.

I don't see how you come to that conclusion reading the actual text. It seems to me you just assume that "other subject matter" = "any illegal content". I think that's a completely arbitrary conclusion.

[hans05]

Thorsten and Lydiot, you two really beat me!

You are either so stupid that I feel "discussing" with you is a waste of time.
Or you really really do not mind looking stupid for the sake of proving me wrong and being right yourself. In that case it also obviously makes no sense to continue this.

I find

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

really easy to understand. There can be no doubt that other subject matter can not refer to the previous (because...well it is OTHER). Lydiot is quoting parts of the law dealing with the USAGE of the content while the discussion is about WHAT publishers will be liable for.

In one thing Lydiot is correct: I am screaming a lot which is not good. I did that because I am desperate seeing (probably) grown up men who write idiotic things that make me being sure that they can not possibly have read the law...but yet they have

So if there is nobody else then those two taking part in this topic, then I am out.

[Thorsten]

Still, the question stands:

Who are these 'powerful people' you fear?

[hans05]

Still, the question stands:

Who are these 'powerful people' you fear?

Thorsten, it really hurts my soul to be so harsh to you.
But:

Thorsten and Lydiot, you two really beat me!

You are either so stupid that I feel "discussing" with you is a waste of time.
Or you really really do not mind looking stupid for the sake of proving me wrong and being right yourself. In that case it also obviously makes no sense to continue this.

[....]

So if there is nobody else then those two taking part in this topic, then I am out.

This is REALLY simple English and very clear content.
Even THAT you do not understand. That is mind boggling. Really pathetic.

[Thorsten]

So you can't say. Do they threaten you if you reveal their names? Are we dealing with the Illuminati?

(I hope you do not expect me to take it too seriously if your argument why the directive is bad consists of invoking anonymous 'powerful people' who are out to get us, citing completely different branches of legislation as examples for bad consequences, reading a meaning into the text no one else can see, giving a translator link as evidence which doesn't support your translation and otherwise shouting and name-calling. I don't find that in any way convincing - especially given your history of a preference for using questionable content for as long as possible, it seem very clear where you stand)

[hans05]

Thorsten, now even more clear:

You do not understand things, keep drawing wrong conclusions, say that I have said things that I have never said and violate copyright laws yourself but blame others for doing it.

For me it feels like an honor that you do not like me and you try to destroy me by accusing me with false statements.

Still I will not waste any more time with you.

So from now on I will copy paste this same text as an answer, every time you post something concerning me. Just to not waste time with you.

[Thorsten]

You do not understand things, keep drawing wrong conclusions, say that I have said things that I have never said

Well, I actually quoted you, so it's hard to dismiss that as 'never said' Otherwise - claiming that the other 'does not understand things' is not a valid argument in a discussion.

See, for this whole thread, I'm waiting for people to present an argument against the directive. Yet all I keep hearing is that 'illegal thing XY won't actually possible any more' or 'powerful people will silence free speech'. The first I actually want to happen, the second I find thoroughly unconvincing without any evidence - it's the hallmark of a conspiracy theory.

It's probably why the vote went the way it went - because the people opposing the directive were unable to make an actually convincing argument.

For me it feels like an honor that you do not like me and you try to destroy me by accusing me with false statements.

I don't like or dislike you - I do not share your worldview, that's all. Nothing personal - for all I know you could be a nice guy, but that's not the point here.

As for destroying you - I have no such interest. Your own statements here in this forum give people an impression what you stand for - that you just have to deal with. Kindly do not credit me with that.

So from now on I will copy paste this same text as an answer, every time you post something concerning me. Just to not waste time with you.

Now you're being childish. But have it your way.

(You know - if you don't want to discuss - you could just... not discuss.)

[hans05]

See, for this whole thread, I'm waiting for people to present an argument against the directive.

It is not possible to present an argument against the directive to people who simply do not understand even the basics of the directive.

Apart from that:

You do not understand things, keep drawing wrong conclusions, say that I have said things that I have never said and violate copyright laws yourself but blame others for doing it.

For me it feels like an honor that you do not like me and you try to destroy me by accusing me with false statements.

Still I will not waste any more time with you.

[Thorsten]

It is not possible to present an argument against the directive to people who simply do not understand even the basics of the directive.

Sure it is - you're presuming here that in order to present an argument the other has to understand everything, but part of an argument can be an explanation (in fact, it usually is - we reason based on the hope that the other has an incomplete understanding and hope that he'll reverse opinion if given an explanation). Lydiot has tried discussing the actual texts, I've followed up your links - the problem is, they never mean what you claim.

See, I don't even need to understand the least bit to ask a question like 'who are these powerful people who want to restrict my free speech' - but you can't answer such a question. Lydiot posed the question 'where does it say 'all illegal content' - you couldn't answer that either, you posted a LEO translation link which translated subject matter just like I said.

Still I will not waste any more time with you.

Then don't - I'm not forcing you to respond in any way.

[Lydiot]

I find

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

really easy to understand. There can be no doubt that other subject matter can not refer to the previous (because...well it is OTHER). Lydiot is quoting parts of the law dealing with the USAGE of the content while the discussion is about WHAT publishers will be liable for.

I think you're parsing the text the wrong way, not to mention you're now not quoting it correctly.

The point of reading what I quoted is that it refers back to the "WHAT" you're talking about, i.e. what types of content are we discussing. 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".

Here's a better explanation:

So CDs generally have two copyrights for every song - one for the musical work, and one for the actual sound recording embodied on the disc. Thus, when someone sells a pirated CD, they are actually infringing two copyrights - the musical work copyright and the sound recording copyright. However, when someone makes an unauthorized cover of a song, they are only violating the musical work copyright.

Notice how "work" applies to only one of the copyrights discussed above. The other is however part of the same subject matter and is also protected.


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.

I also have a hard time seeing just why 'we' would be worried about this. 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?

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, and make no mistake about it; YouTube and the likes are a huge problem in terms of making content creation profitable.

[Lydiot]

And I think it should be added that Thorsten and some other people here got a lot of criticism for their tight, rigid and maybe annoying enforcement of the terms of sharing content - i.e. having the correct permissions to do so - but we really should be thanking them for it because if it ever came up in a legal proceeding it could be clearly shown that;

a) this is non-profit, and
b) a clear and consistent effort has been made to comply with existing copyright legislation.

I think this community is completely safe thanks to people like Thorsten.

[legoboyvdlp]

say that I have said things that I have never said and violate copyright laws yourself but blame others for doing it.

If you will make such allegations I think the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence - otherwise you should retract that statement.

[hans05]

Oh, exciting, finally something that seems worth commenting

I think you're parsing the text the wrong way

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).

[hans05]

say that I have said things that I have never said and violate copyright laws yourself but blame others for doing it.

If you will make such allegations I think the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence - otherwise you should retract that statement.

Oh dear legoboy. The proof is in some old post. It is the same effort for you to find it as for me.
If you think a minute.......I hope we can agree that Thorsten complains about MANY things that I write. But not about this one.

And believe me: I would not insist on this one if I would feel treated in a fair manner by Thorsten.