social.sokoll.com

Search

Items tagged with: Copyright

Japanese Government Approves New Bill to Criminalize Manga Piracy - https://torrentfreak.com/japanese-government-approves-new-bill-to-criminalize-manga-piracy-200311/ more absurd #copyright extremism
Japanese Government Approves New Bill to Criminalize Manga Piracy
 
Japanese Government Approves New Bill to Criminalize Manga Piracy - https://torrentfreak.com/japanese-government-approves-new-bill-to-criminalize-manga-piracy-200311/ more absurd #copyright extremism
Japanese Government Approves New Bill to Criminalize Manga Piracy
 
Don't Use the Word 'Did' or a Dumb Anti-Piracy Company Will Delete You From Google - TorrentFreak

Stupid #copyright shit #wtf
Don’t Use the Word ‘Did’ or a Dumb Anti-Piracy Company Will Delete You From Google
 

Copyright All the Melodies ... or maybe not so much


I've watched Damien Riehl's amusing TEDxMinneapolis talk recently in which he and a partner algorithmically ran an exhaustive brute-force attack on all melodies consisting of 12 notes of 8 tones (the chromatic scale), as an end-run around copyright closing in on all possible musical melodies.

The methods are ingenious, and the goals admirable. The reasoning, however, seems faulty on at least two points.

Standing


If Riehl & co have in fact contributed their works to the public domain, instead of licensing them, they've fallen victim to one of the classic blunders: Ceding standing.

Though not precedent, the example of Highsmith vs. Getty, in which a photographer (Carol Highsmith) contributed her life's work to the US Library of Congress and the public domain, was sent a cease-and-desist by Getty Images / Almy / LCS demanding a licensing fee, and in turn sued, in a somewhat celebrated case, for $1 billion.

Getty claimed in press that they would mount a vigorous defence, and apparently did:
Highsmith had no right to claim misuse or infringement, said Getty, because she gave up that right when she donated her images into the public domain.

In late October [2016], the courts agreed with Getty, basically destroying Highsmith’s case.
-- $1 Billion Getty Images Lawsuit Ends Not with a Bang, but a Whimper

I'll note that Highsmith's actions did spare her the licensing demand. But they denied her (and the countless others who receive such utterly baseless claims daily) any true justice. Individual property rights are apparently well-defended in US courts, but collective rights ... not so much.

Authorship


The other notable hole in Riehls theory is of course 17 USC 102, Subject Matter of Copyright
Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.
Note the components. Fixity in a tangible medium is necessary but not sufficient. The work must be not only original (arguably met in at least part) but of authorship, on which algorithmic exhaustive search ... is on markedly thinner ground. Is this a mere compilation of facts (Feist v. Rural Electric), or a nonhuman author (Slater v. PETA "monkey selfie").

I suspect others have raised these, similar, or other objections.

I do appreciate the spirit and effort, however.
Adapted from an email sent to Fastcase, Mr. Riehl's employer.

#DamienRiehl #copyright #infringement #publicDomain #law #NiceTryBut
 

Copyright All the Melodies ... or maybe not so much


I've watched Damien Riehl's amusing TEDxMinneapolis talk recently in which he and a partner algorithmically ran an exhaustive brute-force attack on all melodies consisting of 12 notes of 8 tones (the chromatic scale), as an end-run around copyright closing in on all possible musical melodies.

The methods are ingenious, and the goals admirable. The reasoning, however, seems faulty on at least two points.

Standing


If Riehl & co have in fact contributed their works to the public domain, instead of licensing them, they've fallen victim to one of the classic blunders: Ceding standing.

Though not precedent, the example of Highsmith vs. Getty, in which a photographer (Carol Highsmith) contributed her life's work to the US Library of Congress and the public domain, was sent a cease-and-desist by Getty Images / Almy / LCS demanding a licensing fee, and in turn sued, in a somewhat celebrated case, for $1 billion.

Getty claimed in press that they would mount a vigorous defence, and apparently did:
Highsmith had no right to claim misuse or infringement, said Getty, because she gave up that right when she donated her images into the public domain.

In late October [2016], the courts agreed with Getty, basically destroying Highsmith’s case.
-- $1 Billion Getty Images Lawsuit Ends Not with a Bang, but a Whimper

I'll note that Highsmith's actions did spare her the licensing demand. But they denied her (and the countless others who receive such utterly baseless claims daily) any true justice. Individual property rights are apparently well-defended in US courts, but collective rights ... not so much.

Authorship


The other notable hole in Riehls theory is of course 17 USC 102, Subject Matter of Copyright
Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.
Note the components. Fixity in a tangible medium is necessary but not sufficient. The work must be not only original (arguably met in at least part) but of authorship, on which algorithmic exhaustive search ... is on markedly thinner ground. Is this a mere compilation of facts (Feist v. Rural Electric), or a nonhuman author (Slater v. PETA "monkey selfie").

I suspect others have raised these, similar, or other objections.

I do appreciate the spirit and effort, however.
Adapted from an email sent to Fastcase, Mr. Riehl's employer.

#DamienRiehl #copyright #infringement #publicDomain #law #NiceTryBut
 
Oracle copied Amazon’s API—was that copyright infringement? | Ars Technica

In your face Oracle!

#oracle #amazon #copyright
 
Russian police raid NGINX Moscow office | ZDNet

Over a #copyright claim.
#nginx #russia
 
#borisjohnson #liar #trumpism #corruption #copyright
 
#borisjohnson #liar #trumpism #corruption #copyright
 
Just As Everyone Predicted: EU #Copyright Directive's Link Tax Won't Lead To Google Paying Publishers - https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190926/17223443073/just-as-everyone-predicted-eu-copyright-direc... surprise...not
 
Just As Everyone Predicted: EU #Copyright Directive's Link Tax Won't Lead To Google Paying Publishers - https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190926/17223443073/just-as-everyone-predicted-eu-copyright-direc... surprise...not
 
#legal #law #copyright #foss #oss #opensource #software #game #games #gaming #psx #playstation #playstation1 #spongebob #gpl #gplviolation #programming #computerscience
 

No To Trump 04-06-19 - 06


All of my photos of this event have been published under the Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication licence.




Copyright © Garry Knight | #photography #mywork #myphoto
#allrightsreserved #copyright
My Flickr account: https://www.flickr.com/garryknight
You can use most of my photos for free under the Creative Commons Attribution licence
Click here to view at different sizes
 

No To Trump 04-06-19 - 06


All of my photos of this event have been published under the Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication licence.




Copyright © Garry Knight | #photography #mywork #myphoto
#allrightsreserved #copyright
My Flickr account: https://www.flickr.com/garryknight
You can use most of my photos for free under the Creative Commons Attribution licence
Click here to view at different sizes
 
#uploadFilter #copyright #niewiederCDU
 
Which was the intention all along.
#SaveYourInternet #Article13 #eu
 
Which was the intention all along.
#SaveYourInternet #Article13 #eu
 
The @eff anticipated this outcome and wrote about it in advance https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/03/eus-parliament-signs-disastrous-internet-law-what-happens-next #eu #copyright
 
The @eff anticipated this outcome and wrote about it in advance https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/03/eus-parliament-signs-disastrous-internet-law-what-happens-next #eu #copyright
 

Copyright 13


First I would like to thank every one of you who participated in the protests yesterday. In Germany, we brought roughly 200.000 people on the street. That is incredible for such a dry and boring topic as copyrights. Maybe this was enough to stop this bungled affair of the new copyright directive.

#copyright13 #copyright #eu #article13

Second I want to look ahead. Let us assume we stop the current attempt to shift more power towards the big copyright companies. What then? Therefore I wrote this post.

Part 3: How to do it better


From my point of view, we have to solve two problems?
1. What is the responsibility of the big platform and what is not
2. How do we make sure that the creatives receive fair pay for their works?

Responsibility of platforms


If we are to answer this question, only looking at the copyright question would imply ignoring a lot of similar structured questions. Platforms for user-generated content are involved in a plethora of problems like defamation, fake news, terror propaganda, etc.

You can easily see why the current proposition of the EU copyright directive is bullshit. One cannot solve all these problems with upload filters. So implementing those for the copyright problem would lead to a lot of scattered solutions. Instead, we should work out responsibilities and work through them.

When looking into how platforms for user-generated content works, we see they all follow the same pattern:

a) The user uploads content
b) Other users "follow" the original user and watch the content
c) Someone searches for specific content and finds it
d) The platform recommends content to users

I think most responsibilities are clear. With a) and b) the platform makes no decision and therefore should be clear of any blame. The responsibility rests solely upon the shoulders of the users.

But when the platform in d) gives a recommendation, it offers an endorsement. At that point, the content should be treated as if the platform itself had made it available. It is already a recommendation if the platform sorts content by any other method than in which it has been uploaded. This because by selecting the sorting mode, the platform already makes a decision.

The only tricky issue is c) as both platform and user make a decision. I would recommend the separation at the following line: The user is responsible when the platform only delivers the best matches and does not profit from the results. The platform becomes responsible ones it benefits or intents from the results (e.g., advertisements) or interprets intent.
  • This approach offers several benefits:
  • No upload-filters are needed.
  • There is also no filter between a user and his followers.
  • The platforms would have additional responsibility and effort, but only where they drive their own business.
  • It would increase willingness to purchase licenses from the copyright owners as those expenses are tied to revenue.

Improve the revenue for artists


As I pointed out in one of the previous posts, there is not a lack of money in the system. We spend money on content as never before. But the revenue flow dries up, long before it reaches most of the content creators. Why is that?

The reason is that a creator, in general, sells his right for a fixed some long before his creation is converted into consumer money. Though the creator has bargaining rights, future and benefits for the buyer use are unclear. The buyer takes the risk, but also makes all decisions from this point on.

The copyrights after the first sale become something like a stock share. They are traded, withheld from the market, cornered, bundled and sold as part of a company. In nearly all of those instances, the original creator does not stand to profit. Disney bought Fox for more than 71 billion US$ (and this mostly for copyrights Fox held), but not a single creative benefited from it.

So my solution for the revenue problem is quite simple: A every sale or licensing agreement of a copyright a share (e.g., 10%) will go to the original creator. The same happens whenever the ownership of a company changes which holds on to copyrights in order to license or sell them
 

Copyright 13


First I would like to thank every one of you who participated in the protests yesterday. In Germany, we brought roughly 200.000 people on the street. That is incredible for such a dry and boring topic as copyrights. Maybe this was enough to stop this bungled affair of the new copyright directive.

#copyright13 #copyright #eu #article13

Second I want to look ahead. Let us assume we stop the current attempt to shift more power towards the big copyright companies. What then? Therefore I wrote this post.

Part 3: How to do it better


From my point of view, we have to solve two problems?
1. What is the responsibility of the big platform and what is not
2. How do we make sure that the creatives receive fair pay for their works?

Responsibility of platforms


If we are to answer this question, only looking at the copyright question would imply ignoring a lot of similar structured questions. Platforms for user-generated content are involved in a plethora of problems like defamation, fake news, terror propaganda, etc.

You can easily see why the current proposition of the EU copyright directive is bullshit. One cannot solve all these problems with upload filters. So implementing those for the copyright problem would lead to a lot of scattered solutions. Instead, we should work out responsibilities and work through them.

When looking into how platforms for user-generated content works, we see they all follow the same pattern:

a) The user uploads content
b) Other users "follow" the original user and watch the content
c) Someone searches for specific content and finds it
d) The platform recommends content to users

I think most responsibilities are clear. With a) and b) the platform makes no decision and therefore should be clear of any blame. The responsibility rests solely upon the shoulders of the users.

But when the platform in d) gives a recommendation, it offers an endorsement. At that point, the content should be treated as if the platform itself had made it available. It is already a recommendation if the platform sorts content by any other method than in which it has been uploaded. This because by selecting the sorting mode, the platform already makes a decision.

The only tricky issue is c) as both platform and user make a decision. I would recommend the separation at the following line: The user is responsible when the platform only delivers the best matches and does not profit from the results. The platform becomes responsible ones it benefits or intents from the results (e.g., advertisements) or interprets intent.
  • This approach offers several benefits:
  • No upload-filters are needed.
  • There is also no filter between a user and his followers.
  • The platforms would have additional responsibility and effort, but only where they drive their own business.
  • It would increase willingness to purchase licenses from the copyright owners as those expenses are tied to revenue.

Improve the revenue for artists


As I pointed out in one of the previous posts, there is not a lack of money in the system. We spend money on content as never before. But the revenue flow dries up, long before it reaches most of the content creators. Why is that?

The reason is that a creator, in general, sells his right for a fixed some long before his creation is converted into consumer money. Though the creator has bargaining rights, future and benefits for the buyer use are unclear. The buyer takes the risk, but also makes all decisions from this point on.

The copyrights after the first sale become something like a stock share. They are traded, withheld from the market, cornered, bundled and sold as part of a company. In nearly all of those instances, the original creator does not stand to profit. Disney bought Fox for more than 71 billion US$ (and this mostly for copyrights Fox held), but not a single creative benefited from it.

So my solution for the revenue problem is quite simple: A every sale or licensing agreement of a copyright a share (e.g., 10%) will go to the original creator. The same happens whenever the ownership of a company changes which holds on to copyrights in order to license or sell them
 

Copyright 13


First I would like to thank every one of you who participated in the protests yesterday. In Germany, we brought roughly 200.000 people on the street. That is incredible for such a dry and boring topic as copyrights. Maybe this was enough to stop this bungled affair of the new copyright directive.

#copyright13 #copyright #eu #article13

Second I want to look ahead. Let us assume we stop the current attempt to shift more power towards the big copyright companies. What then? Therefore I wrote this post.

Part 3: How to do it better


From my point of view, we have to solve two problems?
1. What is the responsibility of the big platform and what is not
2. How do we make sure that the creatives receive fair pay for their works?

Responsibility of platforms


If we are to answer this question, only looking at the copyright question would imply ignoring a lot of similar structured questions. Platforms for user-generated content are involved in a plethora of problems like defamation, fake news, terror propaganda, etc.

You can easily see why the current proposition of the EU copyright directive is bullshit. One cannot solve all these problems with upload filters. So implementing those for the copyright problem would lead to a lot of scattered solutions. Instead, we should work out responsibilities and work through them.

When looking into how platforms for user-generated content works, we see they all follow the same pattern:

a) The user uploads content
b) Other users "follow" the original user and watch the content
c) Someone searches for specific content and finds it
d) The platform recommends content to users

I think most responsibilities are clear. With a) and b) the platform makes no decision and therefore should be clear of any blame. The responsibility rests solely upon the shoulders of the users.

But when the platform in d) gives a recommendation, it offers an endorsement. At that point, the content should be treated as if the platform itself had made it available. It is already a recommendation if the platform sorts content by any other method than in which it has been uploaded. This because by selecting the sorting mode, the platform already makes a decision.

The only tricky issue is c) as both platform and user make a decision. I would recommend the separation at the following line: The user is responsible when the platform only delivers the best matches and does not profit from the results. The platform becomes responsible ones it benefits or intents from the results (e.g., advertisements) or interprets intent.
  • This approach offers several benefits:
  • No upload-filters are needed.
  • There is also no filter between a user and his followers.
  • The platforms would have additional responsibility and effort, but only where they drive their own business.
  • It would increase willingness to purchase licenses from the copyright owners as those expenses are tied to revenue.

Improve the revenue for artists


As I pointed out in one of the previous posts, there is not a lack of money in the system. We spend money on content as never before. But the revenue flow dries up, long before it reaches most of the content creators. Why is that?

The reason is that a creator, in general, sells his right for a fixed some long before his creation is converted into consumer money. Though the creator has bargaining rights, future and benefits for the buyer use are unclear. The buyer takes the risk, but also makes all decisions from this point on.

The copyrights after the first sale become something like a stock share. They are traded, withheld from the market, cornered, bundled and sold as part of a company. In nearly all of those instances, the original creator does not stand to profit. Disney bought Fox for more than 71 billion US$ (and this mostly for copyrights Fox held), but not a single creative benefited from it.

So my solution for the revenue problem is quite simple: A every sale or licensing agreement of a copyright a share (e.g., 10%) will go to the original creator. The same happens whenever the ownership of a company changes which holds on to copyrights in order to license or sell them
 

WICHTIG: Demos heute


#eu #copyright #article13 #article17 #protest #demo

Bitte seid dabei:
  • Aachen / Elisenbrunnen / ab 14 Uhr
  • Bielefeld / Hauptbahnhof / ab 14 Uhr
  • Berlin / Potsdamer Platz / ab 14 Uhr
  • Chemnitz / Johannisplatz / ab 14 Uhr
  • Dortmund / Europabrunnen / ab 14 Uhr
  • Dresden / Goldener Reiter / ab 14 Uhr
  • Düsseldorf / Friedrich-Ebert-Straße / ab 12 Uhr
  • Erfurt / Anger / ab 14:30 Uhr
  • Erlangen / Hugenottenplatz / ab 14 Uhr
  • Flensburg / Hafenspitze / ab 14 Uhr
  • Forchheim / Eisenbahnstraße / ab 15 Uhr
  • Frankfurt am Main / Paulsplatz / ab 14 Uhr
  • Freiburg / Platz der alten Synagoge / ab 14:30 Uhr
  • Fürth / Grüner Markt / ab 13 Uhr
  • Göttingen / Am Nabel / ab 12 Uhr
  • Graz (A) / Am Eisernen Tor / ab 15 Uhr
  • Hamburg / Gänsemarkt / ab 13 Uhr
  • Hannover / Ernst-August-Platz / ab 11 Uhr
  • Heidelberg / Bismarckplatz / ab 14:30 Uhr
  • Hof / Wörthstraße / ab 13 Uhr
  • Innsbruck (A) / Annasäule / ab 13:30 Uhr
  • Jena / Holzmarkt / ab 14 Uhr
  • Kaiserslautern / Stiftskirche / ab 13 Uhr
  • Karlsruhe / Stephansplatz / ab 13:30 Uhr
  • Kiel / Landtag Kiel / ab 13 Uhr
  • Koblenz / Löhrrondell / ab 13:30 Uhr
  • Köln / Neumarkt / ab 14 Uhr
  • Leipzig / Markt (vor dem Alten Rathaus) / ab 14 Uhr
  • Lippstadt / Bernhardbrunnen / ab 14 Uhr
  • Lüneburg / Am Sande, IHK / ab 15 Uhr
  • Magdeburg / Landtag/Domplatz / ab 13 Uhr
  • München / Marienplatz / ab 13:30 Uhr
  • Münster / Servatiiplatz / ab 13:37 Uhr (kein Scherz)
  • Nürnberg / Hallplatz / ab 17:00 Uhr
  • Oldenburg / Hauptbahnhof / ab 17:30 Uhr
  • Osnabrück / Gewerkschaftshaus / ab 15 Uhr
  • Paderborn / Herz-Jesu-Kirche / ab 13 Uhr
  • Potsdam / Luisenplatz / 10 Uhr
  • Ravensburg / Marienplatz / ab 13 Uhr
  • Rostock / Universitätsplatz / ab 12 Uhr
  • Saarbrücken / Tblisser Platz / Schillerplatz / ab 14 Uhr
  • Salzburg (A) / Hauptbahnhof / ab 14 Uhr
  • Siegen / Sandstraße 54 / ab 11 Uhr
  • Stuttgart / Rotebühlplatz / ab 14 Uhr
  • Trier / Viehmarktplatz / ab 13 Uhr
  • Ulm / Hans-und-Sophie-Scholl-Platz / ab 13 Uhr
  • Villingen-Schwenningen / Latschariplatz / ab 12 Uhr
  • Weißenburg / Marktplatz / ab 14 Uhr
  • Wien (A) / Christian-Broda-Platz / ab 15:30 Uhr
  • Würzburg / Bahnhofsplatz / ab 15 Uhr
  • Zürich (CH) / Zentrum / ab 13:30 Uhr
Weitere Infos:
 

WICHTIG: Demos heute


#eu #copyright #article13 #article17 #protest #demo

Bitte seid dabei:
  • Aachen / Elisenbrunnen / ab 14 Uhr
  • Bielefeld / Hauptbahnhof / ab 14 Uhr
  • Berlin / Potsdamer Platz / ab 14 Uhr
  • Chemnitz / Johannisplatz / ab 14 Uhr
  • Dortmund / Europabrunnen / ab 14 Uhr
  • Dresden / Goldener Reiter / ab 14 Uhr
  • Düsseldorf / Friedrich-Ebert-Straße / ab 12 Uhr
  • Erfurt / Anger / ab 14:30 Uhr
  • Erlangen / Hugenottenplatz / ab 14 Uhr
  • Flensburg / Hafenspitze / ab 14 Uhr
  • Forchheim / Eisenbahnstraße / ab 15 Uhr
  • Frankfurt am Main / Paulsplatz / ab 14 Uhr
  • Freiburg / Platz der alten Synagoge / ab 14:30 Uhr
  • Fürth / Grüner Markt / ab 13 Uhr
  • Göttingen / Am Nabel / ab 12 Uhr
  • Graz (A) / Am Eisernen Tor / ab 15 Uhr
  • Hamburg / Gänsemarkt / ab 13 Uhr
  • Hannover / Ernst-August-Platz / ab 11 Uhr
  • Heidelberg / Bismarckplatz / ab 14:30 Uhr
  • Hof / Wörthstraße / ab 13 Uhr
  • Innsbruck (A) / Annasäule / ab 13:30 Uhr
  • Jena / Holzmarkt / ab 14 Uhr
  • Kaiserslautern / Stiftskirche / ab 13 Uhr
  • Karlsruhe / Stephansplatz / ab 13:30 Uhr
  • Kiel / Landtag Kiel / ab 13 Uhr
  • Koblenz / Löhrrondell / ab 13:30 Uhr
  • Köln / Neumarkt / ab 14 Uhr
  • Leipzig / Markt (vor dem Alten Rathaus) / ab 14 Uhr
  • Lippstadt / Bernhardbrunnen / ab 14 Uhr
  • Lüneburg / Am Sande, IHK / ab 15 Uhr
  • Magdeburg / Landtag/Domplatz / ab 13 Uhr
  • München / Marienplatz / ab 13:30 Uhr
  • Münster / Servatiiplatz / ab 13:37 Uhr (kein Scherz)
  • Nürnberg / Hallplatz / ab 17:00 Uhr
  • Oldenburg / Hauptbahnhof / ab 17:30 Uhr
  • Osnabrück / Gewerkschaftshaus / ab 15 Uhr
  • Paderborn / Herz-Jesu-Kirche / ab 13 Uhr
  • Potsdam / Luisenplatz / 10 Uhr
  • Ravensburg / Marienplatz / ab 13 Uhr
  • Rostock / Universitätsplatz / ab 12 Uhr
  • Saarbrücken / Tblisser Platz / Schillerplatz / ab 14 Uhr
  • Salzburg (A) / Hauptbahnhof / ab 14 Uhr
  • Siegen / Sandstraße 54 / ab 11 Uhr
  • Stuttgart / Rotebühlplatz / ab 14 Uhr
  • Trier / Viehmarktplatz / ab 13 Uhr
  • Ulm / Hans-und-Sophie-Scholl-Platz / ab 13 Uhr
  • Villingen-Schwenningen / Latschariplatz / ab 12 Uhr
  • Weißenburg / Marktplatz / ab 14 Uhr
  • Wien (A) / Christian-Broda-Platz / ab 15:30 Uhr
  • Würzburg / Bahnhofsplatz / ab 15 Uhr
  • Zürich (CH) / Zentrum / ab 13:30 Uhr
Weitere Infos:
 

WICHTIG: Demos heute


#eu #copyright #article13 #article17 #protest #demo

Bitte seid dabei:
  • Aachen / Elisenbrunnen / ab 14 Uhr
  • Bielefeld / Hauptbahnhof / ab 14 Uhr
  • Berlin / Potsdamer Platz / ab 14 Uhr
  • Chemnitz / Johannisplatz / ab 14 Uhr
  • Dortmund / Europabrunnen / ab 14 Uhr
  • Dresden / Goldener Reiter / ab 14 Uhr
  • Düsseldorf / Friedrich-Ebert-Straße / ab 12 Uhr
  • Erfurt / Anger / ab 14:30 Uhr
  • Erlangen / Hugenottenplatz / ab 14 Uhr
  • Flensburg / Hafenspitze / ab 14 Uhr
  • Forchheim / Eisenbahnstraße / ab 15 Uhr
  • Frankfurt am Main / Paulsplatz / ab 14 Uhr
  • Freiburg / Platz der alten Synagoge / ab 14:30 Uhr
  • Fürth / Grüner Markt / ab 13 Uhr
  • Göttingen / Am Nabel / ab 12 Uhr
  • Graz (A) / Am Eisernen Tor / ab 15 Uhr
  • Hamburg / Gänsemarkt / ab 13 Uhr
  • Hannover / Ernst-August-Platz / ab 11 Uhr
  • Heidelberg / Bismarckplatz / ab 14:30 Uhr
  • Hof / Wörthstraße / ab 13 Uhr
  • Innsbruck (A) / Annasäule / ab 13:30 Uhr
  • Jena / Holzmarkt / ab 14 Uhr
  • Kaiserslautern / Stiftskirche / ab 13 Uhr
  • Karlsruhe / Stephansplatz / ab 13:30 Uhr
  • Kiel / Landtag Kiel / ab 13 Uhr
  • Koblenz / Löhrrondell / ab 13:30 Uhr
  • Köln / Neumarkt / ab 14 Uhr
  • Leipzig / Markt (vor dem Alten Rathaus) / ab 14 Uhr
  • Lippstadt / Bernhardbrunnen / ab 14 Uhr
  • Lüneburg / Am Sande, IHK / ab 15 Uhr
  • Magdeburg / Landtag/Domplatz / ab 13 Uhr
  • München / Marienplatz / ab 13:30 Uhr
  • Münster / Servatiiplatz / ab 13:37 Uhr (kein Scherz)
  • Nürnberg / Hallplatz / ab 17:00 Uhr
  • Oldenburg / Hauptbahnhof / ab 17:30 Uhr
  • Osnabrück / Gewerkschaftshaus / ab 15 Uhr
  • Paderborn / Herz-Jesu-Kirche / ab 13 Uhr
  • Potsdam / Luisenplatz / 10 Uhr
  • Ravensburg / Marienplatz / ab 13 Uhr
  • Rostock / Universitätsplatz / ab 12 Uhr
  • Saarbrücken / Tblisser Platz / Schillerplatz / ab 14 Uhr
  • Salzburg (A) / Hauptbahnhof / ab 14 Uhr
  • Siegen / Sandstraße 54 / ab 11 Uhr
  • Stuttgart / Rotebühlplatz / ab 14 Uhr
  • Trier / Viehmarktplatz / ab 13 Uhr
  • Ulm / Hans-und-Sophie-Scholl-Platz / ab 13 Uhr
  • Villingen-Schwenningen / Latschariplatz / ab 12 Uhr
  • Weißenburg / Marktplatz / ab 14 Uhr
  • Wien (A) / Christian-Broda-Platz / ab 15:30 Uhr
  • Würzburg / Bahnhofsplatz / ab 15 Uhr
  • Zürich (CH) / Zentrum / ab 13:30 Uhr
Weitere Infos:
 

WICHTIG: Demos heute


#eu #copyright #article13 #article17 #protest #demo

Bitte seid dabei:
  • Aachen / Elisenbrunnen / ab 14 Uhr
  • Bielefeld / Hauptbahnhof / ab 14 Uhr
  • Berlin / Potsdamer Platz / ab 14 Uhr
  • Chemnitz / Johannisplatz / ab 14 Uhr
  • Dortmund / Europabrunnen / ab 14 Uhr
  • Dresden / Goldener Reiter / ab 14 Uhr
  • Düsseldorf / Friedrich-Ebert-Straße / ab 12 Uhr
  • Erfurt / Anger / ab 14:30 Uhr
  • Erlangen / Hugenottenplatz / ab 14 Uhr
  • Flensburg / Hafenspitze / ab 14 Uhr
  • Forchheim / Eisenbahnstraße / ab 15 Uhr
  • Frankfurt am Main / Paulsplatz / ab 14 Uhr
  • Freiburg / Platz der alten Synagoge / ab 14:30 Uhr
  • Fürth / Grüner Markt / ab 13 Uhr
  • Göttingen / Am Nabel / ab 12 Uhr
  • Graz (A) / Am Eisernen Tor / ab 15 Uhr
  • Hamburg / Gänsemarkt / ab 13 Uhr
  • Hannover / Ernst-August-Platz / ab 11 Uhr
  • Heidelberg / Bismarckplatz / ab 14:30 Uhr
  • Hof / Wörthstraße / ab 13 Uhr
  • Innsbruck (A) / Annasäule / ab 13:30 Uhr
  • Jena / Holzmarkt / ab 14 Uhr
  • Kaiserslautern / Stiftskirche / ab 13 Uhr
  • Karlsruhe / Stephansplatz / ab 13:30 Uhr
  • Kiel / Landtag Kiel / ab 13 Uhr
  • Koblenz / Löhrrondell / ab 13:30 Uhr
  • Köln / Neumarkt / ab 14 Uhr
  • Leipzig / Markt (vor dem Alten Rathaus) / ab 14 Uhr
  • Lippstadt / Bernhardbrunnen / ab 14 Uhr
  • Lüneburg / Am Sande, IHK / ab 15 Uhr
  • Magdeburg / Landtag/Domplatz / ab 13 Uhr
  • München / Marienplatz / ab 13:30 Uhr
  • Münster / Servatiiplatz / ab 13:37 Uhr (kein Scherz)
  • Nürnberg / Hallplatz / ab 17:00 Uhr
  • Oldenburg / Hauptbahnhof / ab 17:30 Uhr
  • Osnabrück / Gewerkschaftshaus / ab 15 Uhr
  • Paderborn / Herz-Jesu-Kirche / ab 13 Uhr
  • Potsdam / Luisenplatz / 10 Uhr
  • Ravensburg / Marienplatz / ab 13 Uhr
  • Rostock / Universitätsplatz / ab 12 Uhr
  • Saarbrücken / Tblisser Platz / Schillerplatz / ab 14 Uhr
  • Salzburg (A) / Hauptbahnhof / ab 14 Uhr
  • Siegen / Sandstraße 54 / ab 11 Uhr
  • Stuttgart / Rotebühlplatz / ab 14 Uhr
  • Trier / Viehmarktplatz / ab 13 Uhr
  • Ulm / Hans-und-Sophie-Scholl-Platz / ab 13 Uhr
  • Villingen-Schwenningen / Latschariplatz / ab 12 Uhr
  • Weißenburg / Marktplatz / ab 14 Uhr
  • Wien (A) / Christian-Broda-Platz / ab 15:30 Uhr
  • Würzburg / Bahnhofsplatz / ab 15 Uhr
  • Zürich (CH) / Zentrum / ab 13:30 Uhr
Weitere Infos:
 

Copyright 13


Sometimes you hope for wonders. Right now, I am hoping for the EU parliament will stop the madness of the EU copyright directive. It will take at least a medium sized wonder to achieve that outcome. But in order to do my part in facilitating that wonder, I kicked off this series of small articles. You find the other ones when you search for the hashtag #copyright13

#copyright #eu #article13

Part 2: Copyright History & Economics


The copyright is a bastard son of the printing press. Before it, the effort of creating a book was so high that an abundance of copies of any content was unimaginable. But things change and suddenly it became feasible to take someone else's ideas and print thousand copies of it.

So in 1709 British Statute of Anne gave the publishers rights for a fixed period, after which the copyright expired. It began, "Whereas Printers, Booksellers, and other Persons, have of late frequently taken the Liberty of Printing ... Books, and other Writings, without the Consent of the Authors ... to their very great Detriment, and too often to the Ruin of them and their Families".

The problem was thought so pressing, in 1787 it became as Copyright Clause part of the U.S. constitution: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Believe it or not, I am in full agreement with the historic purposes of the Copyright.

The problem of implementation


The copyright works by grants the creator of an original work exclusive rights to determine whether, and under what conditions, this original work may be used by others. Therefor it is creating a legal monopoly for a certain creative work.

The emphasis on "legal" is important as monopolies in the western economy are usually broken up to provide the society with a functional and fair market. Intellectual properties and copyrights as one implementation of them are a way to avoid this major restriction.

Initially this was not an issue as an individual author could be easily bypassed if (s)he tried to leverage the exclusive right too much.

But companies and organizations formed that live primarily by acquiring and monetizing copyright. Due to specialization they managed to "corner" certain markets. This is only limited by the duration of the exclusivity.

Copyright duration


With the original implementation of copyrights, the exclusive was much shorter than today. The copyright duration nowadays is for 50-70 years (sometimes only starting with the death of the original author).

For any copyright protected work that is created within your lifetime, you will be long dead before it enters public domain.

The duration was pushed to be longer and longer by political lobbying. For the U.S. this can be seen in the following graphics:

Bild/Foto

Why is that? Are the revenues of a 1930's Mickey Mouse film so high that you spend millions to lobby extensions? The answer is "No". It is not about revenue. Nearly all the revenue of new books, music, and movies is generated within the first 12 months of the initial release.

The goal of a lengthy copyright period is control. This way you can prevent that your old movies become too competitive (as they are free) towards your new movies.

The Disney Vault


Disney has perfected that approach by creating a vault system. The term was used by Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment for its policy of putting home video releases of Walt Disney Animation Studios's animated features on moratorium. Each Disney film is available for purchase for a limited time, after which it is put "in the vault" and not made available in stores for several years until its re-release.

It should be kept in mind that Disney with the takeover of 20th Century Fox has a market share that is expected to exceed 30% in 2019.

Commodity


Copyrighted works have become a commodity to be traded like stocks. They have become a way to circumvent market restrictions to the disadvantage of the consumer.

Initial purposes like "Progress of Science and useful Arts" have become lost in space and time.

Article 13


The shown approach of market control has been threatened by the rise of the Internet and User Generated Content.

A single cat video is no competitor for a Triple-A movie, but millions of them together are. Not by taking away the money but the consumer time and attention.

The one and only purpose of Article 13 is to curb user generated content. It shall create transaction costs for platform providers and frustration to the users creating content.
 

Copyright 13


Sometimes you hope for wonders. Right now, I am hoping for the EU parliament will stop the madness of the EU copyright directive. It will take at least a medium sized wonder to achieve that outcome. But in order to do my part in facilitating that wonder, I kicked off this series of small articles. You find the other ones when you search for the hashtag #copyright13

#copyright #eu #article13

Part 2: Copyright History & Economics


The copyright is a bastard son of the printing press. Before it, the effort of creating a book was so high that an abundance of copies of any content was unimaginable. But things change and suddenly it became feasible to take someone else's ideas and print thousand copies of it.

So in 1709 British Statute of Anne gave the publishers rights for a fixed period, after which the copyright expired. It began, "Whereas Printers, Booksellers, and other Persons, have of late frequently taken the Liberty of Printing ... Books, and other Writings, without the Consent of the Authors ... to their very great Detriment, and too often to the Ruin of them and their Families".

The problem was thought so pressing, in 1787 it became as Copyright Clause part of the U.S. constitution: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Believe it or not, I am in full agreement with the historic purposes of the Copyright.

The problem of implementation


The copyright works by grants the creator of an original work exclusive rights to determine whether, and under what conditions, this original work may be used by others. Therefor it is creating a legal monopoly for a certain creative work.

The emphasis on "legal" is important as monopolies in the western economy are usually broken up to provide the society with a functional and fair market. Intellectual properties and copyrights as one implementation of them are a way to avoid this major restriction.

Initially this was not an issue as an individual author could be easily bypassed if (s)he tried to leverage the exclusive right too much.

But companies and organizations formed that live primarily by acquiring and monetizing copyright. Due to specialization they managed to "corner" certain markets. This is only limited by the duration of the exclusivity.

Copyright duration


With the original implementation of copyrights, the exclusive was much shorter than today. The copyright duration nowadays is for 50-70 years (sometimes only starting with the death of the original author).

For any copyright protected work that is created within your lifetime, you will be long dead before it enters public domain.

The duration was pushed to be longer and longer by political lobbying. For the U.S. this can be seen in the following graphics:

Bild/Foto

Why is that? Are the revenues of a 1930's Mickey Mouse film so high that you spend millions to lobby extensions? The answer is "No". It is not about revenue. Nearly all the revenue of new books, music, and movies is generated within the first 12 months of the initial release.

The goal of a lengthy copyright period is control. This way you can prevent that your old movies become too competitive (as they are free) towards your new movies.

The Disney Vault


Disney has perfected that approach by creating a vault system. The term was used by Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment for its policy of putting home video releases of Walt Disney Animation Studios's animated features on moratorium. Each Disney film is available for purchase for a limited time, after which it is put "in the vault" and not made available in stores for several years until its re-release.

It should be kept in mind that Disney with the takeover of 20th Century Fox has a market share that is expected to exceed 30% in 2019.

Commodity


Copyrighted works have become a commodity to be traded like stocks. They have become a way to circumvent market restrictions to the disadvantage of the consumer.

Initial purposes like "Progress of Science and useful Arts" have become lost in space and time.

Article 13


The shown approach of market control has been threatened by the rise of the Internet and User Generated Content.

A single cat video is no competitor for a Triple-A movie, but millions of them together are. Not by taking away the money but the consumer time and attention.

The one and only purpose of Article 13 is to curb user generated content. It shall create transaction costs for platform providers and frustration to the users creating content.
 

Copyright 13


We are approaching the endgame and this is not the MCU. Within a few weeks one of the worst pieces of legislation I've ever seen will be passed by the EU parliament. The chances to stop it are pretty slim, but we have to try. So I will kick off a small series of short articles about what we're fighting for and against, why we are fighting it and who are our opponents. My hope that this may help mobilize for the protests on March 23rd all over Europe.

#copyright13 #copyright #eu #article13

Part 1: Youtube


It seems that YouTube is one of the most polarizing aspect in the debate. The proponents of the new law YouTube seems to be the embodiment of an evil American empire that gobbles up European creativity for profit. Some of the have literally their professional existence on YouTube.

So YouTube seems to have become the ground zero for the current copyright debate.

That is strange. Of all the platforms for user created content, YouTube is actually the one with the strictest enforcement of copyrights. It a platform that rather has a problem with too far reaching claims.

So why is YouTube at the centre of the conflict?

The myth of the freeloader


If you follow the proponents of the law, YouTube is overflowing with stolen content. Honest and hard working musicians and film makers are starving because everyone is enjoying their stuff for free.

There are two facts that are speaking against this:
  • Never before in history, so much money has been spent on media consumption. People spent in 2018 more money than ever before for Video games, Music, Movies and TV shows. Even the long dead music industry is growing again. On average, people aren't freeloaders.
  • If you look at the list of most viewed Youtube-videos, you notice that only a small share of them has not been uploaded by the copyright owner. Quite the contrary. The stars want their music videos to be on YouTube as it promotes their brand.
Google is making a shitload of money with YouTube. But cat videos and fashion tips play a much larger role than stolen content.

So why the disdain?


To understand the disdain for YouTube, we first need to understand who is harbouring it.

Historically, media consumption has long been controlled by an Oligopoly. A few large companies have been the gatekeepers to the market. There control on the market based on the hold on the Intellectual Property rights (like the copyrights). It was virtually impossible to produce and market media without them being involved.

Of course there are YouTube videos available that infringe on their rights. But compared to the market size this is small change.

More important is the loss of control. YouTube stars are rising (and falling) without the old Oligopoly having any say and (more important) revenue. While someone is watching a cat video on YouTube, he cannot watch the newest Hollywood flic or listen to the latest hit.

YouTube is a direct competitor in the Attention Economy.

What is the purpose of Upload Filters?


YouTube has only a marginal copyright problem. So how are Upload Filters supposed to benefit the artists?

The saddening truth is: no artist will benefit from them.

If if we had a copyright problem (as pointed out above: we don't have it), Upload Filters could not fix it. Copyrights are a legal issue, not a technical one. Our AI technology is far from solving the problem of malware uploads which is (from a technology standpoint) a trivial problem compared to making judgement calls about the copyright.

So those people uploading copyright protected material will be the least impacted as they have all the tools to confuse and bypass such systems.

But the average user uploading his own content will be plagued by false positives. The few notes of the title melody of the movie (s)he is reviewing, the sound of the radio in the background, the quote of the interview the user is dissecting, all this will trigger the upload filters. All those will be false positives, as no copyright is violated but the algorithms cannot decide that.

These false alarms are far from being unwanted. In my opinion, they are the main purpose.

Any falsely detected copyright violation will increase the costs for user created content. The platform has to deal with all the support incidents. The user gets frustrated and may desist from creating content as (s)he neither has the knowledge, time and resources to deal with such issued.

Summary


The goal of the Copyright directive Article 13 is not the prevention of copyright theft but to curb user generated content. YouTube is at the centre of the debate just because it is the biggest hub for such content.
 

Copyright 13


We are approaching the endgame and this is not the MCU. Within a few weeks one of the worst pieces of legislation I've ever seen will be passed by the EU parliament. The chances to stop it are pretty slim, but we have to try. So I will kick off a small series of short articles about what we're fighting for and against, why we are fighting it and who are our opponents. My hope that this may help mobilize for the protests on March 23rd all over Europe.

#copyright13 #copyright #eu #article13

Part 1: Youtube


It seems that YouTube is one of the most polarizing aspect in the debate. The proponents of the new law YouTube seems to be the embodiment of an evil American empire that gobbles up European creativity for profit. Some of the have literally their professional existence on YouTube.

So YouTube seems to have become the ground zero for the current copyright debate.

That is strange. Of all the platforms for user created content, YouTube is actually the one with the strictest enforcement of copyrights. It a platform that rather has a problem with too far reaching claims.

So why is YouTube at the centre of the conflict?

The myth of the freeloader


If you follow the proponents of the law, YouTube is overflowing with stolen content. Honest and hard working musicians and film makers are starving because everyone is enjoying their stuff for free.

There are two facts that are speaking against this:
  • Never before in history, so much money has been spent on media consumption. People spent in 2018 more money than ever before for Video games, Music, Movies and TV shows. Even the long dead music industry is growing again. On average, people aren't freeloaders.
  • If you look at the list of most viewed Youtube-videos, you notice that only a small share of them has not been uploaded by the copyright owner. Quite the contrary. The stars want their music videos to be on YouTube as it promotes their brand.
Google is making a shitload of money with YouTube. But cat videos and fashion tips play a much larger role than stolen content.

So why the disdain?


To understand the disdain for YouTube, we first need to understand who is harbouring it.

Historically, media consumption has long been controlled by an Oligopoly. A few large companies have been the gatekeepers to the market. There control on the market based on the hold on the Intellectual Property rights (like the copyrights). It was virtually impossible to produce and market media without them being involved.

Of course there are YouTube videos available that infringe on their rights. But compared to the market size this is small change.

More important is the loss of control. YouTube stars are rising (and falling) without the old Oligopoly having any say and (more important) revenue. While someone is watching a cat video on YouTube, he cannot watch the newest Hollywood flic or listen to the latest hit.

YouTube is a direct competitor in the Attention Economy.

What is the purpose of Upload Filters?


YouTube has only a marginal copyright problem. So how are Upload Filters supposed to benefit the artists?

The saddening truth is: no artist will benefit from them.

If if we had a copyright problem (as pointed out above: we don't have it), Upload Filters could not fix it. Copyrights are a legal issue, not a technical one. Our AI technology is far from solving the problem of malware uploads which is (from a technology standpoint) a trivial problem compared to making judgement calls about the copyright.

So those people uploading copyright protected material will be the least impacted as they have all the tools to confuse and bypass such systems.

But the average user uploading his own content will be plagued by false positives. The few notes of the title melody of the movie (s)he is reviewing, the sound of the radio in the background, the quote of the interview the user is dissecting, all this will trigger the upload filters. All those will be false positives, as no copyright is violated but the algorithms cannot decide that.

These false alarms are far from being unwanted. In my opinion, they are the main purpose.

Any falsely detected copyright violation will increase the costs for user created content. The platform has to deal with all the support incidents. The user gets frustrated and may desist from creating content as (s)he neither has the knowledge, time and resources to deal with such issued.

Summary


The goal of the Copyright directive Article 13 is not the prevention of copyright theft but to curb user generated content. YouTube is at the centre of the debate just because it is the biggest hub for such content.
 

Copyright 13


We are approaching the endgame and this is not the MCU. Within a few weeks one of the worst pieces of legislation I've ever seen will be passed by the EU parliament. The chances to stop it are pretty slim, but we have to try. So I will kick off a small series of short articles about what we're fighting for and against, why we are fighting it and who are our opponents. My hope that this may help mobilize for the protests on March 23rd all over Europe.

#copyright13 #copyright #eu #article13

Part 1: Youtube


It seems that YouTube is one of the most polarizing aspect in the debate. The proponents of the new law YouTube seems to be the embodiment of an evil American empire that gobbles up European creativity for profit. Some of the have literally their professional existence on YouTube.

So YouTube seems to have become the ground zero for the current copyright debate.

That is strange. Of all the platforms for user created content, YouTube is actually the one with the strictest enforcement of copyrights. It a platform that rather has a problem with too far reaching claims.

So why is YouTube at the centre of the conflict?

The myth of the freeloader


If you follow the proponents of the law, YouTube is overflowing with stolen content. Honest and hard working musicians and film makers are starving because everyone is enjoying their stuff for free.

There are two facts that are speaking against this:
  • Never before in history, so much money has been spent on media consumption. People spent in 2018 more money than ever before for Video games, Music, Movies and TV shows. Even the long dead music industry is growing again. On average, people aren't freeloaders.
  • If you look at the list of most viewed Youtube-videos, you notice that only a small share of them has not been uploaded by the copyright owner. Quite the contrary. The stars want their music videos to be on YouTube as it promotes their brand.
Google is making a shitload of money with YouTube. But cat videos and fashion tips play a much larger role than stolen content.

So why the disdain?


To understand the disdain for YouTube, we first need to understand who is harbouring it.

Historically, media consumption has long been controlled by an Oligopoly. A few large companies have been the gatekeepers to the market. There control on the market based on the hold on the Intellectual Property rights (like the copyrights). It was virtually impossible to produce and market media without them being involved.

Of course there are YouTube videos available that infringe on their rights. But compared to the market size this is small change.

More important is the loss of control. YouTube stars are rising (and falling) without the old Oligopoly having any say and (more important) revenue. While someone is watching a cat video on YouTube, he cannot watch the newest Hollywood flic or listen to the latest hit.

YouTube is a direct competitor in the Attention Economy.

What is the purpose of Upload Filters?


YouTube has only a marginal copyright problem. So how are Upload Filters supposed to benefit the artists?

The saddening truth is: no artist will benefit from them.

If if we had a copyright problem (as pointed out above: we don't have it), Upload Filters could not fix it. Copyrights are a legal issue, not a technical one. Our AI technology is far from solving the problem of malware uploads which is (from a technology standpoint) a trivial problem compared to making judgement calls about the copyright.

So those people uploading copyright protected material will be the least impacted as they have all the tools to confuse and bypass such systems.

But the average user uploading his own content will be plagued by false positives. The few notes of the title melody of the movie (s)he is reviewing, the sound of the radio in the background, the quote of the interview the user is dissecting, all this will trigger the upload filters. All those will be false positives, as no copyright is violated but the algorithms cannot decide that.

These false alarms are far from being unwanted. In my opinion, they are the main purpose.

Any falsely detected copyright violation will increase the costs for user created content. The platform has to deal with all the support incidents. The user gets frustrated and may desist from creating content as (s)he neither has the knowledge, time and resources to deal with such issued.

Summary


The goal of the Copyright directive Article 13 is not the prevention of copyright theft but to curb user generated content. YouTube is at the centre of the debate just because it is the biggest hub for such content.
 
 
1850: German Press publishers want #copyright of news because the newly arrived technology of the telegram is ruining their business model. It is rejected.
...
And now, in 2019, their wettest dream will come true.
Information is power: “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” ― George Orwell 1984 #copyright #article11
 
1850: German Press publishers want #copyright of news because the newly arrived technology of the telegram is ruining their business model. It is rejected.
...
And now, in 2019, their wettest dream will come true.
Information is power: “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” ― George Orwell 1984 #copyright #article11
 
 
From the point of view of a billionaire, many things look different.
#Gates was a gifted software developer, but also a tough businessman.
He did not take it so seriously with the #copyright of others.
And #antitrust violations helped him build his #software empire.
Today, he criticizes Edward #Snowden for having broken the law and
calls for stricter international standards for the protection of
intellectual property rights.
#Microsoft, #MSDOS, #QDOS, #Windows, #OpenSource, #Linux, #MicrosoftDilemma
 
Friedhelm Greis faßt auf Golem das ganze Artikel-13 Deaster zusammen
https://www.golem.de/news/urheberrrecht-warum-aus-niemehrcdu-nichtmehreu-werden-koennte-1902-139695.html

Deutscher Urheberrechts-Maximalisten und französische Kulturverteidiger versuchen mit falschen Mitteln amerikanischen Kulturimperialismus zu stoppen und feuern eine potentiell Anti-Europäische Jugendbedegung an. Das ist in der Tat genau das, was gerade passiert.

#copyright #artikel13 #eu
 
Artikel 13

Ein Vertreter der Musikindustrie gibt aus Versehen deren Zahlen hinsichtlich Verletzungen von Urheberrechten zu und jemand steckt diese Zahlen in sein mathematisches Modell.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1097149658374291456.html

#copyright #artikel13
 
Artikel 13

Ein Vertreter der Musikindustrie gibt aus Versehen deren Zahlen hinsichtlich Verletzungen von Urheberrechten zu und jemand steckt diese Zahlen in sein mathematisches Modell.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1097149658374291456.html

#copyright #artikel13
 
Later posts Earlier posts