 |
By *wingfellow OP Man
over a year ago
my own little sanctuary |
If you don’t know what I’m referring to here take a look on google, it’s only a small read but curious as to what people’s thoughts are on this and the potential issues this could create.
To put it in short article 13 is a new proposed way that means various websites and platforms on the web are responsible for copyright infringements on their sites. Now from the outset this may sound quite simple and straightforward. However, it would also mean if you are researching something and link an article online etc. It is now to be expected that some kind of fee will be paid for use of the link.
Personally I feel like by putting articles on an open platform such as the internet you are allowing others to reference your products and such.
Thoughts? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I can’t see how it’s going to be policed. How can they prove what source things come from unless it’s used in a direct link. But the written word on paper would be useless to prove copyright on a site x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *wingfellow OP Man
over a year ago
my own little sanctuary |
"I can’t see how it’s going to be policed. How can they prove what source things come from unless it’s used in a direct link. But the written word on paper would be useless to prove copyright on a site x "
It’s hyperlinks but it will also include music and such. My issue with this is that despite them saying that industries like the music industry lose money through people listening through third parties the fact is many people like me use things like apple music which funds artists anyway. I use platforms like YouTube to discover new artists of the same genre and one’s that are not yet signed and such. Therefore by forcing youtube to change it’s recommendation algorithms I will no longer be able to discover new songs in the same way, thus making it more difficult for me to hear a song from a playlist and think “I’ll add that to my playlist” furthermore how are students at universities and journalists etc. Going to reinforce their reasons without this ability to publish anything online produced by another. When it comes to advancements in certain fields and what not it often comes from being inspired by someone else. If we can no longer cite said people many will go uncredited and that’s plagiarism to use someone else’s material and not credit them for it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *wingfellow OP Man
over a year ago
my own little sanctuary |
"Maybe it will cut down on a lot of the intellectual piracy "
That’s the issue though, as far as I’m concerned by posting it on a public platform with no disclaimer you are permitting others to use it. If the article goes through you’ll no longer be able to cite it. At which point it then becomes plagiarism or intellectual piracy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Maybe it will cut down on a lot of the intellectual piracy
That’s the issue though, as far as I’m concerned by posting it on a public platform with no disclaimer you are permitting others to use it. If the article goes through you’ll no longer be able to cite it. At which point it then becomes plagiarism or intellectual piracy. "
Well I would go for clamping down selling copyrighted stuff that’s for sale by someone else that’s stolen or pirated.
And anything that’s used in a malicious or harmful way, revenge porn or memes of deformed people, for example.
But film, music and tv piracy will if unchecked massively reduce company and individuals profits and kill those industries. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *wingfellow OP Man
over a year ago
my own little sanctuary |
"Maybe it will cut down on a lot of the intellectual piracy
That’s the issue though, as far as I’m concerned by posting it on a public platform with no disclaimer you are permitting others to use it. If the article goes through you’ll no longer be able to cite it. At which point it then becomes plagiarism or intellectual piracy.
Well I would go for clamping down selling copyrighted stuff that’s for sale by someone else that’s stolen or pirated.
And anything that’s used in a malicious or harmful way, revenge porn or memes of deformed people, for example.
But film, music and tv piracy will if unchecked massively reduce company and individuals profits and kill those industries. "
In terms of killing profits my question is at what point does it end.
Take YouTube for example; you watch a vlogging channel, you have to watch ads or pay for premium or red or whatever their paid subscription is called. So you’ve contributed to costs. But the vlogger is out in public, their entire channel is based on reviewing restaurants or something and there’s music in the background which the restaurant has paid to use. The video is taken down for copyright infringement... how many times does one piece of property have to get paid for? It’s property inception and that’s essentially endless. It will kill so many businesses and jobs. How many songs for example do you hear online for the first time to then go buy the album or download it etc. Because most people (especially the majority of people who don’t drive) don’t often listen to the radio on their commute into work, they use music on spotify or something similar. But if the song isn’t from their usual artists it’s less likely they’ll stumble across it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Maybe it will cut down on a lot of the intellectual piracy
That’s the issue though, as far as I’m concerned by posting it on a public platform with no disclaimer you are permitting others to use it. If the article goes through you’ll no longer be able to cite it. At which point it then becomes plagiarism or intellectual piracy.
Well I would go for clamping down selling copyrighted stuff that’s for sale by someone else that’s stolen or pirated.
And anything that’s used in a malicious or harmful way, revenge porn or memes of deformed people, for example.
But film, music and tv piracy will if unchecked massively reduce company and individuals profits and kill those industries.
In terms of killing profits my question is at what point does it end.
Take YouTube for example; you watch a vlogging channel, you have to watch ads or pay for premium or red or whatever their paid subscription is called. So you’ve contributed to costs. But the vlogger is out in public, their entire channel is based on reviewing restaurants or something and there’s music in the background which the restaurant has paid to use. The video is taken down for copyright infringement... how many times does one piece of property have to get paid for? It’s property inception and that’s essentially endless. It will kill so many businesses and jobs. How many songs for example do you hear online for the first time to then go buy the album or download it etc. Because most people (especially the majority of people who don’t drive) don’t often listen to the radio on their commute into work, they use music on spotify or something similar. But if the song isn’t from their usual artists it’s less likely they’ll stumble across it."
I listen to lots of online radio services |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
