No.147
File: 1554119715807.png (884.18 KB, 1015x563, 1015:563, Udklip.PNG) ImgOps Google
Y'all wanna talk about article 13?
Let's all read an article or a piece of information and chip in some ideas like a book club. I'll start
https://www.version2.dk/artikel/europa-parlamentet-vedtager-omstridt-ophavsretsreform-1087773This article is in danish, it basically relates how Jens Rohde, a representative danish party known as radical left or social liberals, is happy that the bill passed as a whole rather than going through a voting process where the individual parts of the bill would be voted about, as they believe this would have wasted time.
A proponent of the bill claimed he was happy that it passed, and that he felt like he had listened to everyone's concerns and implemented them as much as he felt was fair. The bill was voted in with 348 votes for and 278 against.
According to the article, it's unclear how the bill will affect nations, as it's up to each nation individually to implement policies that will follow the letter of the law. Exactly which kind of implementations will be used, and how they will affect different nations is unclear.
10s of thousands of protesters marched across europe, and wikipedia went dark for one day, in protest of the bill.
No.148
File: 1554121153263.png (194.35 KB, 680x481, 680:481, d5d.png) ImgOps Google
What a bizarre article... It explains only a little bit about the actual article, goes into a strangely placed partisan attack, and then comes right back out with a conclusion about Article 13.
Is there some specific relevance the Danish liberal party has with EU article 13 that anyone else doesn't have?
If not... Why is featured in like 1/3 of this article?
No.150
>>148It seems like a pretty normal article, I don't think it was a partisan attack, they probably just wanted an opinion of someone who was a member of the EU.
What I forgot to write was that it was not the party as a whole who said this, but Jens Rohde, who is a member of this party. I'll edit the text.
No, I don't think so.
He wasn't featured for 1/3 of the article he was mentioned in two paragraphs, I think. It's just, like, a snippet of information. A cross-sectional view of the situation I guess, with some critique points and some points for to represent the debate.
The article also says other things like how a guy who manages danish data-laws was thrilled about the law, and how Jens Rohde was kinda pissed off at the internet for sending him emails and called the guys campaigning against the bill 'internet communists' lol, and claimed that there were people hacking his computer and messing with him.
This quote on it's own is pretty funny. Poor guy must have been a target for some hacktivism.
No.162
The linked article didn't really explain what article 13 is about so it's hard to form an opinion on it from a non-European's perspective.
https://www.techradar.com/news/eu-copyright-directive-what-does-it-mean-and-should-you-be-worriedI did a little looking into it and I guess it's hard to say whether it'll be a neutral thing or negative thing for the average internet user until we see what the implementation of the law and how large platforms handle it. I can't see a way in which things get better for the average user, but maybe it will protect content creators in some meaningful way. All in all, in a selfish way I'd rather not have to be dealing with it since I don't see how it can help me personally. And I am for the protection of copywritten work, to a reasonable degree, but I wonder what these rules will actually do for copywrite holders other than potentially spoil the internet for normal users that they wouldn't be getting money out of anyway. Places like YouTube already have ways of protecting copywrite as it is.
No.166
>>162>The linked article didn't really explain what article 13 is about so it's hard to form an opinion on it from a non-European's perspective.Good contribution ^_^ I think this article explains it nicely.
>Places like YouTube already have ways of protecting copywrite as it is.Yes, but this is mainly because of the digital millenium act, right. If this did not exist, youtube would have no copyright detection at all, I think.
I agree that copyright is good when done to a reasonable degree. The EU data law is basically pretty similar to the digital millenium act, so it will likely do to the EU what the DMCA has done to america. Which means, things will be pretty much like they are on youtube for most sites, is my guess. I'd considering this sort of a compromise. It might spoil a lot of stuff with content id filters that have a lot of false positives, but in turn, it protects artists to some degree.
No.169
File: 1554135184647.jpeg (4.61 KB, 225x225, 1:1, images (1).jpeg) ImgOps Google
>>166Heh, kinda didn't consider that DMCA is an American law. Wait, you're saying there are other countries out there? That's really weird.
So you aren't really against article 13? I'm sure there are legitimate concerns, but what little reading I've done it feels like people are just afraid of what could never happen. If governments vote in extremist candidates that don't represent the people, that's one thing. But take away our memes? There will be a crowdfunder campaign for personal guillotines (with stretch goals for customizable executioner hoods)!
No.170
File: 1554138737640.jpg (164.82 KB, 755x670, 151:134, Confused-Fluttershy.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
...article 13 gives me cause for concern. i admit, i know only limited things about it, but i have trouble seeing an upside!
No.171
File: 1554138826280.jpg (164.82 KB, 755x670, 151:134, Confused-Fluttershy.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>170You'd think as well, anti-corporatism is the hallmark of any left-leaning party, and Article 13 seems very pro-corporate indeed. It looks like it was written by Hollywood.
No.173
>>169Idk, I'm undecided. That's why I made this thread, so we can have a conversation about it and inform ourselves together :)
Lol maybe yes, idk. Some part of me has a hard time believing that memesters are really good at taking direct action. Is that mean?
>>171>>170I agree very much.
It does seem to be backed by large corporations, and I'm really shocked that it got voted in so easily.
No.174
File: 1554139516171.png (131.87 KB, 1280x1243, 1280:1243, 566731.png) ImgOps Google
It seems like a pointless law written by committee to address a problem that doesn't actually exist, possibly to the profit of entities with a modicum of influence.
But that is my drastically uninformed opinion, and one that I don't really care about enough to bother informing further.
No.175
>>174that's a lot of strong language for something you're aware you know nothing about.
I'm totally okay with people not informing themselves, though, and I'm glad you disclose that you're not informed.
No.176
File: 1554140642558.jpg (183.92 KB, 1024x934, 512:467, 1145937.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>175In my experience more people think they are informed than are.
No.181
>>173Nah dude, that's probably a fine assessment. But, my version is more amusing, at least to myself.
It's hard for me to reasonably say more than "I guess we'll wait and see" since the goodness or badness will depend on the implementation details. I'll just say, my faith in government (regardless of who's) to get something like this right is not high.
As an aside, how do you feel about the headline of the article I linked? I actually felt pretty annoyed. The implication being, most people just want to be told how to feel (the "and should you be worried" part of the headline). I think the article content itself was decently fair and gave the reader the opportunity to come to their own conclusion. But just that the clickbait, to get people into the article, was basically a promise of offloading critical thinking onto the article writer. Maybe I'n just reading into things to much, but I'm just sick of people deferring the way they feel to the judgement of others and see it as a major problem nowadays
No.182
File: 1554142693679.png (467.2 KB, 640x640, 1:1, 89mjypdtuio21.png) ImgOps Google
>>181>It's hard for me to reasonably say more than "I guess we'll wait and see" since the goodness or badness will depend on the implementation details. I'll just say, my faith in government (regardless of who's) to get something like this right is not high.Yeah, there's something about geezers in power that doesn't inspire confidence in their ability to regulate something as contemporary and dynamic as the internet.
I feel like it plays to a more primal part of the human brain.
We're scared of the unknown and what it's going to do to us, and news sources can alleviate that fear by telling us about them and maybe that's partly why we seek them out. Or maybe to get confirmed that they are a problem, so that we know that we have to do something about it.
It's, to me, the same reason why people like Ben Shapiro and Thunderfoot are always DESTROYING things, because something that is destroyed is not something that you have to worry about any more.
I don't think you're reading too much into it. People don't want to do their own research, and they don't want to inform themselves. But we need to have sources that we really, really, really trust, and we have to know that we have the judgement needed to say when a source is worthy of trust, or we need to have the ability to fact check. I think it's importnat to guard ourselves against being indoctrinated with ideology or unfounded ideas.
No.201
File: 1554150440772.png (339.5 KB, 1415x363, 1415:363, Ejaculation salt.png) ImgOps Google
This thread is thrash.
Maybe because is April Fools or OP's life is a joke.
Anyway
In my opinion, it will be good before talking about Article 13.
The users who are really interested to talk about this article. Do some homework and research in a medium detail related with about Article 13. After sometime create a serious thread with the purpose of sharing/earning knowledge and information what is happening about this article.
Not guessing, overraecting and talking useless bullshit.
We don't really know, what will happen when Article 13 finally gets in action.
Let's wait for a time. So meanwhile let's learn and get informated about this.
I think, it will be the best.
No.208
File: 1554151528074.jpg (85.29 KB, 640x623, 640:623, 9e5.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>203No really well.
How this board was created in April Fools.
So I'm thinking many threads aren't being to be taken very seriously in special creating thread to talk about serious topic in this peculiar day.
But fair enough.
I will leave.
Anyway have fun with your conspiracy opinions and being angry about probably your life is a real joke.
Bye.
No.214
>>208>>201oof
I thought all the 12 year olds were in class at this time of day
