The Internet is seen as a bastion of freedom of speech. It is the place where you can say anything about anything on any of the commenting pages. You can share music, videos, code, thoughts or whatever you want.
That could change, with Article 13 of the European Union (EU) just being voted on by the EU Legal Affairs Committee (JURI). If it is finally approved, we will lose the freedom of speech on the internet as we know it today.
In the United States, Article 230 of the Telecommunications Flexibility Act, part of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, guarantees freedom of speech on the Internet. This means that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service is treated as the publisher of any information provided by another digital content provider".
The law is vital, as it provides the networks platforms νομική προστασία για το μεγαλύτερο μέρος του περιεχομένου που δημοσιεύουν οι χρήστες τους. Αυτό σημαίνει ότι μπορείτε να πείτε οτιδήποτε θέλετε στα σχόλια, και η σελίδα Reddit, YouTube, or any other can not be held responsible.
With Article 13, we will see a completely different online world. Each page or service should check every word, sound, video, code, or image to see if it is copyright infringing. In short, control over everything.
The "solution" of Article 13 is to force all sites to filter every post according to a database containing copyrighted works. Websites should also allow copyright holders to update this database
Think about it for a moment. You want to write a quick reply to an article, and type it. Then you should expect to see it after it has been censored and does not contain anything copyrighted.
Google and Facebook could create software which could automate the process.
But as he points out Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), even for “platforms that institute filtering, users will find that the video, audio, text, and code they upload will be monitored and may be blocked if the automated system even falsely detect copyright infringement. There is no way for an automated system to reliably determine when the use of an intellectual property right should be restricted or excluded under European law.”
In one letter to the EU (PDF) several experts report:
As creators, we share the concern that there should be a fair distribution of revenue from the electronic use of copyrighted works, both for authors, publishers and platforms. But this is not the right way to achieve this. By requiring Internet platforms to automatically filter the content uploaded by their users, Article 13 takes an unprecedented step towards turning the Internet from an open exchange and innovation platform into a tool for automated user monitoring and control. of.
Furthermore:
Instead of affecting only the major US Internet platforms (which can afford the cost of compliance), the burden of Article 13 will fall more heavily on their competitors (European companies and SMEs). The cost of installing the necessary auto-filtering technologies will be expensive and burdensome while the necessary technologies have not yet been developed to a point where their reliability is ensured.
The impact of Article 13 will also fall heavily on ordinary Internet platform users who share music or videos, but also on those who upload photos, text or code to the Internet and on collaboration platforms such as Wikipedia and GitHub.
_______________________________
Do not worry, we will write greekglish and misspellings, they will not be able to guess all the possible combinations. : P
What about social media?
Lol
Would it be better, before posting each of our comments, text, observations, to write it on a piece of paper and take it to the local police station for approval?
In fact, would it be better to be temporarily detained at the local police station for a week or two after the text was posted, and someone misunderstood?
Those who are (still) fans of the Nazi EU and globalization, is it a last resort to reconsider their preferences?
the law presupposes automated systems without requiring them. Imagine a social network with moderators-police who will censor. Whatever they do either automatically or with human resources, the results will not be reliable. Of course, the bill still exists because it is advantageous (we do not say names, nor do we show the copyright lobbies, see piracy) regardless of how it will be implemented. I'm very curious to see the application, especially now with the vote against internet neutrality.