Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Politics] Article 13...impact on NSC?





Blue Valkyrie

Not seen such Bravery!
Sep 1, 2012
32,165
Valhalla
"It is now up to member states to approve the decision. If they do, they will have two years to implement it once it is officially published."


Not yet, in answer to the question.
 


AmexRuislip

Trainee Spy 🕵️‍♂️
Feb 2, 2014
33,729
Ruislip
So if anyone posted me me's, gifs or videos of Mrs Browns Boys, would anyone give a toss :shrug:
Seriously its copyright gone barmy IMO
 








Two Professors

Two Mad Professors
Jul 13, 2009
7,617
Multicultural Brum
I know posters think I'm utterly braindead,so I don't mind posting my take on what I have read.If people re-post copyrighted material on here (eg music vids),then Bozza,as registered site owner, is responsible for paying any performance fees etc.That's why some regard it as the death of open internet.:eek:
 


hans kraay fan club

The voice of reason.
Helpful Moderator
Mar 16, 2005
61,094
Chandlers Ford
I know posters think I'm utterly braindead,so I don't mind posting my take on what I have read.If people re-post copyrighted material on here (eg music vids),then Bozza,as registered site owner, is responsible for paying any performance fees etc.That's why some regard it as the death of open internet.:eek:

I'm not sure that is correct tbh. If Youtube allow people to upload a music video (your example) to their platform, then I'd imagine that they are completely liable for any copyright infringement, rather than posters / owners of forums containing links to a Youtube video.
 


Two Professors

Two Mad Professors
Jul 13, 2009
7,617
Multicultural Brum
I'm not sure that is correct tbh. If Youtube allow people to upload a music video (your example) to their platform, then I'd imagine that they are completely liable for any copyright infringement, rather than posters / owners of forums containing links to a Youtube video.

:bowdown: I hope you are right,and the posts I have read elsewhere are wrong!
 






Beach Hut

Brighton Bhuna Boy
Jul 5, 2003
71,907
Living In a Box
I know posters think I'm utterly braindead,so I don't mind posting my take on what I have read.If people re-post copyrighted material on here (eg music vids),then Bozza,as registered site owner, is responsible for paying any performance fees etc.That's why some regard it as the death of open internet.:eek:

He is no longer the registered owner, he stated this a while back
 


LlcoolJ

Mama said knock you out.
Oct 14, 2009
12,982
Sheffield
He is no longer the registered owner, he stated this a while back
No it's two American chaps who own it through some shell companies in Delaware. Bozza is just the puppet "owner" who keeps spoiling the site by pandering to a small clique of NSC "ultras".

If it wasn't for his beautifully coiffured hair he'd be nothing.
 






macbeth

Dismembered
Jan 3, 2018
3,650
six feet beneath the moon...
We won't be an EU member state, so it doesn't matter.... :whistle:

Our government is a massive supporter of this (surprised?), so we'll doubtlessly end up with something similar. After Brexit it'll probably be brought in under the pretence of 'mirroring EU law', but the Tories love it because it helps big businesses.
 


beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,265
I'm not sure that is correct tbh. If Youtube allow people to upload a music video (your example) to their platform, then I'd imagine that they are completely liable for any copyright infringement, rather than posters / owners of forums containing links to a Youtube video.

currently the uploader is liable and platform may be liable if they dont respond to a request to remove. under the new rule the platform will be automatically liable to the uploaded content immediatly. im genuinely concerned what it will do to the vast swathes of house music on Youtube, without which i may not survive at work. get a streaming service i suppose but the classics may be lost as copyright is lost through years of label merges and closures.

memes and gifs are trivial, technically already covered under UK law as copyrighted but exemption for parody, so new article as amended may be close to our existing law. examples of how this will affect us is say a picture of an old sticker, neither parody, review, criticism, may be infringement under Article 13, while same picture with added moustache Painted on would be OK.

more to the point will be how platforms respond to the threat of liability, will they simply block graphics and video to avoid the risk? judging by the response to GDPR its not a good outlook.
 




Dick Head

⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Jan 3, 2010
13,612
Quaxxann
RIP Hiney.

attachment.php
 


studio150

Well-known member
Jul 30, 2011
29,555
On the Border
This is going to be fun. After every gig I go to now on the way home there us immediately loads of photos and videos from the gig on Twitter and other social media sites. I assume that once enacted this new copyright law stops that.

While I can understand artists being fed up with the mere pittance they get from streaming services a lot of new bands have embraced social media to spread their footprint by using fans material. Does this end as well as platforms pull the shutters down on everything to avoid payments.

Rather like PL streams will there be a rise in bootleg sites that sit under the radar
 


Dick Head

⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Jan 3, 2010
13,612
Quaxxann
This is going to be fun. After every gig I go to now on the way home there us immediately loads of photos and videos from the gig on Twitter and other social media sites. I assume that once enacted this new copyright law stops that.

Rich musicians will get their perquisite back.

While I can understand artists being fed up with the mere pittance they get from streaming services a lot of new bands have embraced social media to spread their footprint by using fans material. Does this end as well as platforms pull the shutters down on everything to avoid payments.

Rather like PL streams will there be a rise in bootleg sites that sit under the radar

Poor musicians will revert to plodding from village to village on foot or by horse and cart playing for victuals and ale.

Normal conditions could then return and unremarkableness go on unabated forever.
 


Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Jul 11, 2003
59,210
The Fatherland
currently the uploader is liable and platform may be liable if they dont respond to a request to remove. under the new rule the platform will be automatically liable to the uploaded content immediatly. im genuinely concerned what it will do to the vast swathes of house music on Youtube, without which i may not survive at work. get a streaming service i suppose but the classics may be lost as copyright is lost through years of label merges and closures.

memes and gifs are trivial, technically already covered under UK law as copyrighted but exemption for parody, so new article as amended may be close to our existing law. examples of how this will affect us is say a picture of an old sticker, neither parody, review, criticism, may be infringement under Article 13, while same picture with added moustache Painted on would be OK.

more to the point will be how platforms respond to the threat of liability, will they simply block graphics and video to avoid the risk? judging by the response to GDPR its not a good outlook.

I’m in two minds about this law. One thing it does do is provide greater protection for artists and their work. This gets lost in the argument. If I create something, and copyright right it, then I’d be wanting platforms like YouTube and NSC to respect the copyright if they let people to post it on their site.
 






D

Deleted member 22389

Guest
Cookie consent then GDPR and now this bollox, what next? Just more hassle for webmasters.
 
Last edited by a moderator:



Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here