Follow

My take/doubts on #Article17 (was #Article13) 

So like everyone at the moment I'm encouraged to act against the adoption of the EU Copyright Directive.

One of the dominant argument is that it will prevent creative transformations, break what the Internet is about (), and will benefit large tech/publishing industry/platforms who are the only ones able to implement the directive.

However, reading the text (it's tedious but short), it's not quite exactly like this. First, the usual things like quotation, criticism, review, caricature, parody or pastiche are all exempted. Second, the only ones targetted by the directive are the large for-profit services/platforms.

So basically are fine. But most importantly, large *for-profit* platforms/publishers are *not* going to benefit from this directive. Because it's impossible to automagically make sure that the content circulating in their system is (copy)rightfully owned and/or licensing for the purpose it's being used for. There will a lot of useless and to provide an ersatz of large scale moderation, but ultimately it will lead to massive loss of users because the experience of their... product... will be shit, and their business will take a major hit as a result.

So what is this campaign about? or ?

My take/doubts on #Article17 (was #Article13) 

The pro/against campaigns surrounding , , etc are the manifestation of an economic war between two predatory practices, the function of which is the exploitative capitalisation of culture production.

On one side (pro), there is the old world made of collecting societies, traditional publishers and all the structures that have built their business outside of the net relying on the old doctrine. On the other side (against), there is the new world of multi-national tech related industries that have fine tuned the publishing/distribution of digital media in the form of platforms while developing surveillance capitalism.

The old world never understood the net and it's now trying to get a cut via this new EU copyright doctrine, which is a problem for the new world because this new doctrine is like taking away the duck who laid golden eggs. To counter this and because the new world is getting finally some well deserved heat in the recent years for its exploitative nature, it has lost lobbying credibility, and it is now taking action via astroturfing.

In the meantime, culture producers are asked to choose between Scylla and Charybdis, are denied agency, are taken hostages, end up with Stockholm syndrome on a scale unseen before.

Show thread

My take/doubts on #Article17 (was #Article13) 

@320x200 Save the public money and use it elsewhere?
Of course it is doomed to fail, who remembers Hadopi. Still better for art 14/17 just not being accepted.

My take/doubts on #Article17 (was #Article13) 

@320x200 ugh 14-1... Sunday evening..

My take/doubts on #Article17 (was #Article13) 

@wendy How is that better for art?

My take/doubts on #Article17 (was #Article13) 

@320x200 Hey, honestly I don't remember why art all of a sudden was there. Was I distracted? Autocorrection? (should not toot on phone).
I think these measures are a waste of money, time and effort. Money will be spent on studies, getting it into a law, software development - outsourcing to google? pfffft!

The other thing to consider is how do you 'tag' or differentiate parody? Degrees of subtlety are not the strong points of automated filtering..

But anyway, water under the bridge, the monster got approved..

My take/doubts on #Article17 (was #Article13) 

@320x200
apparently, the obligation of licencing/filtering would apply to anyone after 3 years, even small non profit, so the fediverse is not immune to this bad politics, and while the bigs would "suffer" in the long term a bit while adapting, the small would fall by not affording legal fees against the industry or allegations from politics (on terrorism charge)

opening the door for the obligation of content filtering is bad, imho

@wendy

My take/doubts on #Article17 (was #Article13) 

@Olm_e @wendy No, it *only* targets for profit 'online content sharing service provider’, including for the rule you mention.

My take/doubts on #Article17 (was #Article13) 

@320x200 @Olm_e
What is 'Profit'?

😕

My take/doubts on #Article17 (was #Article13) 

@wendy that's my whole point. These filters are going to be a nightmare to put in place. They will need to go the FB road, relying on machine learning and community monitoring (user flagged content and moderation) and that will make the whole thing unusable. it will damage the services from Google/FB/etc. They are not going to benefit from it in any possible way. Nothing will be outsourced to them, the task is absurd and cannot be dealt with in any sensible way. So once again, this whole campaign feels like astroturfing. That for profit platform owners, startupers, social liberals to anarcho-capitalists, and those who want the net to become a for-profit information market are very vocal against Article 17, I understand completely because they all compete over the monetisation of intellectual property in an endless old world vs new world economic war. But it's a bit consternating to see how these groups managed to gain support from those who come from anti-capitalist, anti-commercial, not-for-profit backgrounds, and are usually operating outside of these interests, working around or countering them.

My take/doubts on #Article17 (was #Article13) 

@320x200 From my point of view it's a bit more complicated than that. The reason why large corps are said to benefit is because they already mostly have systems do deal with this, (ContentID). It's smaller startups etc, that won't have the resources & would be forced to outsource the tech to the large corps & thus allowing to see the corps every file that passes via their systems, preventing truly private storage etc.

My take/doubts on #Article17 (was #Article13) 

@320x200 Additionally, most memes etc. are (unfortunately) stored at the large providers & their response is going to be even more paranoid than they already are.

ContentID is already extremely abusive to independent #YouTube creators who often risk their living when they channels get bogus takedown notices & strikes and this will only make it worse.

My take/doubts on #Article17 (was #Article13) 

@320x200 It's not that it will have *zero* impact on the large tech monopolies, It will. But it won't crush them. It will also however have an impact on smaller businesses & may very well cripple them.

I know I shelved some of my plans due to this for now at least.

My take/doubts on #Article17 (was #Article13) 

@320x200 I think of it the same way as 'fast lanes' - it's not that they wouldn't not have impacted #Netflix at all, it would, but they'll lick their wounds and go on, not so much smaller sites.

How are for example things like SpiderOak be impacted?

My take/doubts on #Article17 (was #Article13) 

@MatejLach Yes, I agree and understand that, and that's why I think that the way the argument is presented is manipulative, because indeed some services/platforms/providers will be very cautious and even though the larger for-profit providers may have some solutions in place, they are indeed quite crappy and it will be even worse if they try to adapt to the new draconian rules. So as a result we have something that will hurt the for-profit tech industry. My problem is that the campaign is being presented as a threat on digital culture, net culture, free speech, using stereotypical tear-jerking emotional arguments whereas it seems to only exist to defend the interests of the tech industry.

My take/doubts on #Article17 (was #Article13) 

@320x200 Yes, it will hurt the tech industry. But the tech industry as a whole doesn't equal JUST the large corps, it equals also small companies who don'r deserve to be hurt. If you hurt the large players a bit, but hurt the smaller ones a lot, because they can't deal with this, you effectively eliminated competition for the large players.

This is not going to significantly hurt Google, Facebook etc. A bit, not much. Places like SpiderOak? You bet.

My take/doubts on #Article17 (was #Article13) 

@320x200
In addition, the reason why it's a problem for net culture is because a lot of it is being made available via platforms like YouTube, Reddit etc. If they're going to be mega aggressive in taking down content, it's going to mostly impact independent creators, DJs etc. whose creations will no longer be accessible to a large audience, amplifying the reach of established, polished, overproduced & properly licensed Taylor Swift & the like.

My take/doubts on #Article17 (was #Article13) 

@320x200 I can see what you're saying if we define 'tech industry' narrowly as SV multinationals, but that's not at all the entire tech industry, Mastodon itself is a product of this industry if you will.

In fact after this passes, the only tech industry that's viable anymore may in fact be the SV multinationals.

My take/doubts on #Article17 (was #Article13) 

@320x200 In summary, just because something is not good for the big tech companies does not automatically make it good for us. We need to be more nuanced about this than that.

Should we have let SOPA pass because Google was also against it?

My take/doubts on #Article17 (was #Article13) 

@320x200
Much criticism can be voiced over how the campaigns against the copyright reform have been run, and maybe that is partly because of involvement from the (smaller players in) internet industry. However, I believe based on the *case at hand*, the alliance made sense.

My take/doubts on #Article17 (was #Article13) 

@320x200
It is also a bit simplistic to assume they all are just neo-liberal turbo capitalists that want to exploit user behavior. Don't forget that a company is in many cases the only form of organization that allows to sustainably create software, also one that can have a broad positive impact, so the motivation on the business side can be diverse, too.

My take/doubts on #Article17 (was #Article13) 

@320x200
Finally, a market-based exchange of information, as you mention it, is not even in the best interest of Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc. Their interest is to be the thin layer everyone has to poke through to get to anything. Providing the required filters, even if they work badly, would put them in control and enrich their wealth of *legal* data of all kinds.

My take/doubts on #Article17 (was #Article13) 

@320x200
Capitalism, and digital capitalism in particular, is about the individualization and separation of users. It works best when every single user sees something different than the other and public space and discourse is minimized. Development in that direction will be accelerated with the filters, regardless of their ability to actually perform their tasks.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
post.lurk.org

Welcome to post.lurk.org, an instance for discussions around cultural freedom, experimental, new media art, net and computational culture, and things like that.