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.
This may be changing, with Article 13 of the European Union (EU) just passed by the EU Legal Affairs Committee (JURI). If it is finally approved, we will lose her 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 online platforms with legal protection for most of the content posted by their users. This means that you can say anything you want in the comments, and Reddit, YouTube, or any other site can not be held responsible.
With Article 13, we will see a completely different online world. Every page or service should check every word, sound, video, code, or image to see if it violates copyright. In a few words, control to everything.
Article 13's "solution" is to force all websites to filter every post according to a data containing copyright 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 that could automate the process.
But as he points out Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), even for platforms that establish filtering, users will find that the video, audio, text and code they upload will be monitored and may be ruled out if the automated system even incorrectly detects a breach Copyright. "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 ourselves, we share the concern that there should be a fair sharing of revenues from the online use of copyrighted works, both for creators, publishers and platforms. But it is not the right way to achieve this. By requiring internet platforms to automatically filter content uploaded by their users, Article 13 takes an unprecedented step towards transforming the internet from an open platform tochangeand innovation in a tool for the automated monitoring and control of its users.
Furthermore:
Rather than affecting only the large American Internet platforms (which can afford the costs of compliance), the burden of Article 13 will fall more heavily on their competitors, (European companies and Media). The cost of installing the necessary automatic filtering technologies will be expensive and burdensome and the necessary technologies have not yet been developed to the point where their reliability can be 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.