7 Sep
2018
7 Sep
'18
8:40 p.m.
On 09/07/2018 11:52 AM, jonetsu wrote:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 08:33:21 +0100
Will Godfrey <willgodfrey(a)musically.me.uk> wrote:
At face value I don't get it. A copy right is a copyright. So then,
what's hidden or implied that makes it such a dreadful thing ?
The worrying part of Article #13 is to introduce surveillance to enforce
Copyright. The presumption of innocence on gets thrown overboard with
this.
Everything that is uploaded by you must pass an "upload filter".
That filter checks if the content that you post is legal and does not
infringe any Copyrights. Now guess who can afford to pay for that
"filter as a service", not to mention the potential to abuse
[data-collected by] such a central filter. -- In any case this is a
technical solution to a social problem and therefore it won't work to
stop (C) infringement.
Article 3 restricting data-mining to scientific research is another
issue. This discriminates against freelance scientists and artists who
are not affiliated with some organization. This is the part I oppose most.
The Article 11's "link-tax" is debatable. I'm fine with it as long as
it
does not become illegal to properly quote articles with references and
it remains legal to copy entire articles for public archives (public
library, archive.org).
yours truly,
robin