how will this effect loverslab?

[DoctaSax]

1 hour ago, Tirloque said:

The example i gave is the proof of the contrary. Yet, it's also one element that tends to suggest that as long as the policians keep on not understanding the feasibility of their demands, we shouldn't worry too much about it.

Interesting. But if they mention explicitely it applies only to giants sites, why then is there such an uproar about it ?

I think there's a slippery slope here. It could be used to state that 'stay down' is now law rather than 'take down'. In which case, any EU-based site that lets the public upload anything whatsoever loses a good amount of protection from liability. Right now, if somebody uploads something and the owner of whatever it is has a problem with it, all the site needs to do to stay out of trouble is to take it down when it is pointed out to them. If 'stay down' becomes the norm, then as soon as the same thing is uploaded again, the site is legally at fault, for something its owner or employees didn't do but some member did.

 

In addition, the requirement to install filters may look stupid if those don't exist yet, but you can bet that as soon as the entertainment industry commissions such a program to be made, then no matter how faulty and skewed in their favor, the politicians supporting this will insist it's used. Because it's the law. And obviously any EU-based site that has the good sense to say 'hell no' will be in defiance of the law.

 

So, imo, even if it's all unfeasible to do it right, that doesn't mean they won't try to make sites do it wrong anyway, use aspects of it to come after sites through legal action because there's no more consideration for the fact that they absolutely can't check out everything, or try to lobby for similar nonsense outside the EU, which is the doomsday scenario.

[PenBoozerX]

51 minutes ago, Tirloque said:

Interesting. But if they mention explicitely it applies only to giants sites, why then is there such an uproar about it ?

I am assuming that its either because people are simply not aware of the modifications (it was going to affect all platforms originally), and/or because we dont know what's the minimum size of a "large website" that's gonna get hit by this. But "large websites" are it's target now instead of all of the internet like the original plan was.

 

Everyone (except from the European parliament apparently) believes that filtering algorithms would affect everyone negatively on these sites with youtube-like machine blocks that assumes you're guilty untill proven innocent systematically without human supervision, which is plenty of reason to get upset over regardless.

[KoolHndLuke]

Another recent article. So my understanding is that sites will now have to filter for copyrighted material to avoid possible legal repercussions? And instead of having to deal with any of it, sites like Facebook and Youtube will probably just block "questionable material" altogether? In other words, the news from a EU member country like I just linked would not be possible without LL paying a fee or just blocking it entirely? I don't think this will stand for long because as the article suggests, "Publishers will suffer as it becomes more difficult to share articles or discover news"- effectively shrinking their audience and potential subscribers.

 

Art needs circulation, period. The more people that see, hear or read your work- the more potential profit there is to be made. No. They will fight. Who is going to remember the Beatles fifty years from now if no one is rehashing their music for new generations to hear?

https://youtu.be/A_MjCqQoLLA

[D_ManXX2]

This could prove more trouble when mods also start falling in this catagory. then bethesda will no longer release any tools and F4SE, skyrimSE etc.. could also be in huge trouble due to copyright violation. Bethesda could then file a complain about loverlab releasing adult content witch they never approved from and loverlab is forced to take down any adult mods because of this

 

btw this is worst case scenraio. On the bright side someone trying to screw bethesda could also file copyright from bethesda to steal there mods and incorporate into there game witch they never gave bethesda permission for. Bethesda is also by law then forced to take this part out of there game or deal with fine.

[KoolHndLuke]

33 minutes ago, D_ManXX2 said:

This could prove more trouble when mods also start falling in this catagory. then bethesda will no longer release any tools and F4SE, skyrimSE etc.. could also be in huge trouble due to copyright violation. Bethesda could then file a complain about loverlab releasing adult content witch they never approved from and loverlab is forced to take down any adult mods because of this

 

btw this is worst case scenraio. On the bright side someone trying to screw bethesda could also file copyright from bethesda to steal there mods and incorporate into there game witch they never gave bethesda permission for. Bethesda is also by law then forced to take this part out of there game or deal with fine.

Mods? If it gets to the point where it affects mods, then everyone is truly and hopelessly fucked.

[Zoey McKenzie]

This is so stupid. How did something so controversial even get to pass? Surely, those old dinosaurs can't be that out of touch with the public opinion? I've never heard anyone say this a good thing. Who is out there arguing for this, and what are their arguments? It either has to be such good arguments that you'd be willing to go against the public opinion and vote for this. Or there has to be money involved, right?

 

I don't get it. And I don't like it.

 

And how does someone get a seat on the EU to vote? Do you have to get voted in, to represent your country? Could we vote them out, and replace them with someone who was actually born after the dinosaurs died out, and who is able to keep up with the technology?

 

Come to think of it, I should probably just Google this stuff instead. lol

[KoolHndLuke]

27 minutes ago, Zoey McKenzie said:

Who is out there arguing for this

"The directive aims to empower news publishers and artists against big tech platforms like Facebook and Google as they profit from others’ work. As such, it has seen high profile support from big names like Lady Gaga and Paul McCartney. For many, making it more difficult for tech giants to make money and gather traffic from copyright violations sounds good in theory."- a few names from the article I linked before. And to think I had a thing for Lady G.

[Zoey McKenzie]

8 minutes ago, KoolHndLuke said:

"The directive aims to empower news publishers and artists against big tech platforms like Facebook and Google as they profit from others’ work. As such, it has seen high profile support from big names like Lady Gaga and Paul McCartney. For many, making it more difficult for tech giants to make money and gather traffic from copyright violations sounds good in theory."- a few names from the article I linked before. And to think I had a thing for Lady G.

Oh, right... That's fair a good point to vote for it.

 

But, still though... For every one Lady Gaga and Paul McCartney, there's a thousands of people saying it's a bad idea. With other, maybe even better arguments as to why it's a bad idea, if you ask me.

And protests in the streets.

 

Makes me wonder if they were even aware of that before they voted. Or if it was just ignorance. Because Lady Gaga > Protest?

 

I mean, I don't know. It just baffles me how things like this can happen. When there's clearly so much coverage around it. And all the coverage, at least from my point of view, have been saying the same thing. With how bad this is.

[Nazzzgul666]

12 hours ago, Tirloque said:

Interesting. But if they mention explicitely it applies only to giants sites, why then is there such an uproar about it ?

It doesn't only apply to giant sites, i can't find the list again right now but all of three points had to apply:

1. Less than 5m € anual revenue 

2. limited users, can't remember the number

3. Less than 3 years in business.

 

So european startups will easily get smashed. I don't know if it applies to LL, it certainly exists longer than 3 years but it's not really a business i think.

And imho even if it would only apply to giant businesses, it's still a problem. There are no filters that can recognize satire or anything so it will filter pretty much anything that might conflict with the rule. In case of doubt your video won't pass if you show something like the EA logo, that doesn't make it impossible to talk about them but... 

Or if your video contains anything from vanilla Skyrim, be it textures or music.

Or even a picture that you took yourself, but it looks similar like something somebody else made.

Blocking these might cost YT some creators, but showing them will cost them money instantly. And there is no competition anyways, even if another company would offer the same features as good as YT, the rule would apply to them too. 

 

The idea is that people like Lady Gaga get more money, but what will actually happen is that they block just everything. And once infrastructure for censorship is installed, it's easy to add anything that makes politicians look bad on that list to block.

[winny257]

1 hour ago, Nazzzgul666 said:

So european startups will easily get smashed. I don't know if it applies to LL, it certainly exists longer than 3 years but it's not really a business i think.

Loverslab is not affected by Article 13, does not belong to European Union.
the only thing they can do, they COULD block this website for the European market. 

 

and this will surely happen with all non EU websites, the Upload stolen content. 

[Tirloque]

3 hours ago, Nazzzgul666 said:

It doesn't only apply to giant sites, i can't find the list again right now but all of three points had to apply:

1. Less than 5m € anual revenue 

2. limited users, can't remember the number

3. Less than 3 years in business.

 

So european startups will easily get smashed.

Well, I've documented myself on the subject. The way I understood things the law would apply to sites considered as "commercial platforms" basing their business on giving access to large portion sof copyrighted content. So in other words, videos or music sites.

 

If a society is a commercial platform, based on copyrighted content share, but of a smaller size then if :

• Less than three years of activity
• Annual revenue below €10 million 
• Fewer than 5 million average monthly unique visitors

=> Those would be considered like startups, and only have "to make their best effort to remove" copyrighted content, without fees and royalties being applied.

 

But there are also the case of sites NOT being commercial platforms, or NOT basing their business upon copyrighted content access, which would be in fact unaffected by the law :

• Non profit encyclopedias (Wikis)
• Non profit educational sites (online study sites)
• Open source software plaforms (Github)
• Commercial platforms selling physical products (some parts of Amazon, though it would apply to their dematerialized music section IMO)
• Personal blogs or discussion forums
• Trip advisors, dating websites

So there is still a possibility of "fair use", but that use is only being removed on large commercial platforms. And even if LL was under European jurisdiction, it wouldn't apply to it if LL maintain its current community form.

15 hours ago, DoctaSax said:

I think there's a slippery slope here. It could be used to state that 'stay down' is now law rather than 'take down'. In which case, any EU-based site that lets the public upload anything whatsoever loses a good amount of protection from liability. Right now, if somebody uploads something and the owner of whatever it is has a problem with it, all the site needs to do to stay out of trouble is to take it down when it is pointed out to them. If 'stay down' becomes the norm, then as soon as the same thing is uploaded again, the site is legally at fault, for something its owner or employees didn't do but some member did.

True. but that will only really apply to the sites that are supposed to be able to afford it in fact. If you have a blog site of small to medium size, the only rules that would apply would be the current ones.

15 hours ago, kiesu said:

I am assuming that its either because people are simply not aware of the modifications (it was going to affect all platforms originally), and/or because we dont know what's the minimum size of a "large website" that's gonna get hit by this. But "large websites" are it's target now instead of all of the internet like the original plan was.

 

Everyone (except from the European parliament apparently) believes that filtering algorithms would affect everyone negatively on these sites with youtube-like machine blocks that assumes you're guilty untill proven innocent systematically without human supervision, which is plenty of reason to get upset over regardless.

Yeah, it being reduced to the "large websites" (Youtube) is in fact a lesser evil. It has in fact been defined (cf. above), and it's quite obvious giant video/music providers are the (only) target. Here's my source, under that regard it seems way more reasonable than what have been feared so far. 

[Kendo 2]

On 3/26/2019 at 12:25 PM, KM100z said:

How will this effect loverslab?  EU with new internet censorship just passed.

It won't have any more affect on LL than current obscenity laws do.  There are countries in the EU where it is ILLEGAL to host, distribute or have possession of art depicting rape, bestiality, violence against women, etc.  They don't care if it is images of real people, 2d drawings or 3d rendering; it's all the same to them.  Those laws do not affect LL; Europeans can view the site and download content.

LL is beyond the reach of the EU; it's hosted in the U.S. and it doesn't violate any U.S. laws (we have freedom of speech).  One possibility is some petty EU minister waging a war on sites like LL and he starts demanding compliance and cash.  My response to that would be 'Get fucked, I don't answer to you.'  There's nothing they can do; Ashal is a private U.S. citizen residing in and doing business in U.S. jurisdiction.  He isn't a corporation.

What these E.U. articles really boil down to is politicians in Brussels cutting off the population from information and ideas.  China, Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, etc. all do the same thing.  Why else would Brussels be pissed about the Visegrád Group, or the recent loses in Bavaria, Sweden and Italy?  They're losing control, and that's what the articles are for; retaining CONTROL.

[Resdayn]

1 hour ago, Kendo 2 said:

Visegrád Group

They are voted for this shite, they are big supporters of this bullshit. ?

[Nazzzgul666]

Since this happened, i want to explain a few things to people/mods not familiar with EU stuff: It's not necessary to ban users from EU at least yet. The EU in general doesn't make any laws and they didn't in this case. What they usually do is creating guidelines for laws each state is supposed to create on their own. That's supposed to happen in two years from now on and it's highly unlikely to happen any sooner.

So far for the good news, the bad news is that this also means you can't just ask a lawyer about that EU rule. To be save you'd need a lawyer to check every law of every single state in the EU once they're passed, at least to figure out the most restrictive/threatening one if you care about them.

 

I am not a lawyer and i have no clue if moderaters would be affected by that or not once the laws are installed, but the thing above is something i'm 100% sure about and i admit, i panicked a bit when i saw this reddit post.

[winny257]

20 hours ago, Kendo 2 said:

---snip---

Off topic
Kendo look here.

 

https://www.loverslab.com/topic/118803-search-bracelet-armlets-anklets-body-piercings-belts-thighrings-etc-for-cbbe/?do=findComment&comment=2559962

 

and a few posts deeper, I do not know if I'm wrong. 

[Kendo 2]

Thanks.

[Onionstarz]

Is this a news aggregation site ? NO. Is it meme's ? NO  Is this a pirate site ? NO 

[nonusnomeni]

politcoms of EUSSR know best what is good for you

[nonusnomeni]

On 3/28/2019 at 12:39 AM, DoctaSax said:

 

In addition, the requirement to install filters may look stupid if those don't exist yet, but you can bet that as soon as the entertainment industry commissions such a program to be made, then no matter how faulty and skewed in their favor, the politicians supporting this will insist it's used. Because it's the law. And obviously any EU-based site that has the good sense to say 'hell no' will be in defiance of the law.

http://europrices.org/EU-blog/article_1_Simply-stupid-laws-in-EU.html

[Zoey McKenzie]

7 hours ago, nonusnomeni said:

http://europrices.org/EU-blog/article_1_Simply-stupid-laws-in-EU.html

At this point, it seems like they're just making up laws to make laws. Like the big bully at the playground, not wanting to be left out. Keeps coming back to pick on the smaller guys to try and show they're still in power.

[winny257]

18 hours ago, Zoey McKenzie said:

At this point, it seems like they're just making up laws to make laws. Like the big bully at the playground, not wanting to be left out. Keeps coming back to pick on the smaller guys to try and show they're still in power.

nope, only in this way will tax money be wasted, the national debt is still too low. 

[winny257]

On 3/29/2019 at 5:12 PM, nonusnomeni said:

politcoms of EUSSR know best what is good for you

EUSSR, from those five letters one can interpret a lot.
EU = shit union
USSR = same problems or worse
SS = worst nightmare of humanity
US = class enemy in the cold war
SR = socialist republic
only a fun 

[ISNAN]

This is one of those laws that will wind up hurting copyright holders once they see it in action. People sharing content is basically free advertising. Without the ability to utilize that, copyright holders will get lost in the noise. They will have to invest in marketing to get their content out there for people to see. 

 

As many have stated already, this law really only affects large tech companies that make billions off of user end content. The problem they are trying to fix is a complex one as there are hardly any copyright filters.  Companies will have to create their own and  the only company that has invested in filters is Google. Their content ID system is probably the best model they have in regards to blocking copyrighted media. So guess who will be making a lot of money off this. Google. The very place the EU is trying to target. Google could sell their filters to other tech companies for a fee. For those that are unfamiliar with Youtube's content ID, it basically goes like this. A copyright holder adds their content to the ID list. They can choose to either pull the copyright from the site entirely or they can choose to leave it up, but have the revenue divert to them. It's why you will see copyrighted media from some random youtuber that has ads. That youtuber isn't making money off the upload. The actual copyright holder is. It's not a bad system tbh.  

 

Once the EU sees this backfire, they will scrap this law, so no worries. It wont last long. 

[Guest]

are there any lawyers here ? I'd like to hear their take on this most of this is speculation and the act seems to be aimed at intellectual property and monetization

,that's something that hasn't really changed,perhaps if a mod uses assets from a game , yeah it'll get hammered,look at any mod to do with LOTR ( instant take down ) one recenty for Skyrim was given the cease and desist or suffer

 

As for scrapping laws you feel are unfair while supporting shareholders,big companies...............guess what it's a big club and you ain't in it

 

 

[NinjaDork]

The problem that you're all overlooking is that it's completely fucking irrelevant whether the law is feasible or not.

 

Stupidly vague laws like this don't exist to accomplish anything; they exist for the sole reason of giving tin-pot bureaucrats and petty tyrants excuses to fine/imprison/kill people and take their stuff whenever an appetizer is served to them undercooked, or something equally trivial.

 

These articles as written can't be enforced in any meaningful way.  That won't stop a weasel-speaking paper pusher from digging through your internet/phone usage data, cherry picking examples that might be a violation, and shoving it up your ass if you get snippy.

 

Remember, all the best cons are prepared well in advance of actually being used.