The end of memes?

28
Found 20th Jun
Something that could have a direct impact on HUKD posting, so hopefully will be allowed as relevant.

A committee of MEPs has voted to accept major changes to European copyright law, which experts say could change the nature of the internet.

They voted to approve the controversial Article 13, which critics warn could put an end to memes, remixes and other user-generated content.

Article 11, requiring online platforms to pay publishers a fee if they link to their news content, was also approved.

One organisation opposed to the changes called it a "dark day".

The European Parliament's Committee on Legal Affairs voted by 15 votes to 10 to adopt Article 13 and by 13 votes to 12 to adopt Article 11.

It will now go to the wider European Parliament to vote on in July.

bbc.co.uk/new…620

Good or bad decision?
Community Updates
Misc
28 Comments
Bad decision as the internet is an educational tool 1st but the doubled edged sword of business investment is now crippling that. As for news I suggest people start blocking IP addresses of large businesses that are abusing these acts. I can understand that protection small authors is a good thing but I doubt this has been brought in for them.

Might force futher splits in the web as people start moving away from the mainstream web productions.
Like using a boulder to swat a fly.
Edited by: "RossD89" 20th Jun
34078261-3DsOJ.jpg
Its about time they addressed this.
Thank goodness they are tackling the big issues.
Brexit now!!!!

Do you see it now remainers?
Edited by: "Norseg" 20th Jun
Norseg4 m ago

Brexit now!!!!


We have a Parliament that made it a legal requirement to "opt in" to adult content when you take an internet connection.

The wider EU parliament will vote this down.
Edited by: "Krooner" 20th Jun
Krooner16 m ago

We have a Parliament that made it a legal requirement to "opt in" to adult …We have a Parliament that made it a legal requirement to "opt in" to adult content when you take an internet connection. The wider EU parliament will vote this down.


That's just one reason, there is plenty, we need to get rid of the EU and fake conservatives aka Tories,
Edited by: "Norseg" 20th Jun
"Article 11, requiring online platforms to pay publishers a fee if they link to their news content, was also approved."


well that's another nail in the coffin for news papers. People will just stop linking to their sites and traffic will die off.
catbeans6 m ago

"Article 11, requiring online platforms to pay publishers a fee if they …"Article 11, requiring online platforms to pay publishers a fee if they link to their news content, was also approved."well that's another nail in the coffin for news papers. People will just stop linking to their sites and traffic will die off.



I don’t think many people will shed a tear for newspapers
catbeans2 h, 43 m ago

"Article 11, requiring online platforms to pay publishers a fee if they …"Article 11, requiring online platforms to pay publishers a fee if they link to their news content, was also approved."well that's another nail in the coffin for news papers. People will just stop linking to their sites and traffic will die off.


It's stupid, publishers don't need to be paid by online platforms as they need clicks for ad money, to the point that they pay 'online platforms' such as Facebook to run sponsored posts!
If you took a picture and it went viral, would you not want a slice of the pie?
While memes add humour, most of teh time. There is someone who owns the rights to the original image and is getting nothing from it.
Oneday774 m ago

If you took a picture and it went viral, would you not want a slice of the …If you took a picture and it went viral, would you not want a slice of the pie?While memes add humour, most of teh time. There is someone who owns the rights to the original image and is getting nothing from it.


Maybe but that's not how copyright works,
If we go by that logic parody's/skits should be banned

Also last time I checked memes don't generate money
Edited by: "Norseg" 20th Jun
catbeans11 h, 14 m ago

"Article 11, requiring online platforms to pay publishers a fee if they …"Article 11, requiring online platforms to pay publishers a fee if they link to their news content, was also approved."well that's another nail in the coffin for news papers. People will just stop linking to their sites and traffic will die off.


The comments sections of news sites could then be used to discuss articles rather than every other forum/community-based site (such as this one, or reddit.com, for example) effectively stealing the content that a journalist has generated to re-post elsewhere.

The same news sites would see more traffic, could target visitors with revenue-generating advertising, & may also (if they do not do so already) introduce fee-paying memberships in order to read the content to recoup the cost of payments to journalists, photographers, video editors, web development/support staff &, in some cases, the subjects being interviewed for articles.

Those involved in the preparation & publishing of the information currently being taken for free (& used by many people without a second thought for the livelihoods of those involved) may then be able to remain employed & receive credit for their work.

That sounds fair doesn't it?
fanpages8 m ago

The comments sections of news sites could then be used to discuss articles …The comments sections of news sites could then be used to discuss articles rather than every other forum/community-based site (such as this one, or reddit.com, for example) effectively stealing the content that a journalist has generated to re-post elsewhere.The same news sites would see more traffic, could target visitors with revenue-generating advertising, & may also (if they do not do so already) introduce fee-paying memberships in order to read the content to recoup the cost of payments to journalists, photographers, video editors, web development/support staff &, in some cases, the subjects being interviewed for articles.Those involved in the preparation & publishing of the information currently being taken for free (& used by many people without a second thought for the livelihoods of those involved) may then be able to remain employed & receive credit for their work.That sounds fair doesn't it?


Yea, but have you ever put on your decontamination suit and gone in to the cess pit of a comment section that is on many articles over on dailymail.co.uk ?
RossD898 m ago

Yea, but have you ever put on your decontamination suit and gone in to the …Yea, but have you ever put on your decontamination suit and gone in to the cess pit of a comment section that is on many articles over on www.dailymail.co.uk ?


Yes, I read the comments from time-to-time.

I suspect they just let the nonsense continue because it brings in traffic to the site & suspending the ability to add comments will mean their content is not read at all.
Bad decision, both OP and RossD89 would fall foul of the law by posting links to news sites. HDUK would be liable so you can be sure that in the future in order to protect themselves HDUK will ban outside links. This may also lead to less deals being posted.
We really should try and stand up to this slow erosion of the internet, its ours not theirs.
123thisisme1 h, 18 m ago

Bad decision, both OP and RossD89 would fall foul of the law by posting …Bad decision, both OP and RossD89 would fall foul of the law by posting links to news sites. HDUK would be liable so you can be sure that in the future in order to protect themselves HDUK will ban outside links. This may also lead to less deals being posted.We really should try and stand up to this slow erosion of the internet, its ours not theirs.



The Internet is everyone's yes but we don't own the content.
It should be viewed where the original creator posted it.
123thisisme1 h, 22 m ago

Bad decision, both OP and RossD89 would fall foul of the law by posting …Bad decision, both OP and RossD89 would fall foul of the law by posting links to news sites. HDUK would be liable so you can be sure that in the future in order to protect themselves HDUK will ban outside links. This may also lead to less deals being posted.We really should try and stand up to this slow erosion of the internet, its ours not theirs.



The (online &, in majority, revenue-generating) "Deals" threads that HotUKDeals [HUKD] offers would not be able to function without the ability to access external links.

I presume you just mean just links to news/journalistic online articles.

Note the co-incidence with how this site has recently clamped-down on discussing topics like this?

Regarding the legislation, Article 11 (or the "link tax") forces sites (or individuals) using snippets of journalistic content to gain a licence from the publisher in advance of making hyperlinks available for others to use.

Article 13 (or "censorship machines") intends to make platforms responsible for monitoring & blocking copyright infringements; including, but not limited to, copy'n'pasting content from one site to another.
Norseg10 h, 24 m ago

Maybe but that's not how copyright works, If we go by that logic …Maybe but that's not how copyright works, If we go by that logic parody's/skits should be bannedAlso last time I checked memes don't generate money



Memes are a channel to generate money.
They drive traffic to the site hosting, that can then push adverts in your face.

Look at it another way. Just suppose you are caught making some weird face, after eating a super sour sweet.
That gets captured in a photo that you think is funny and Whatsapp it to family.
Then it gets onto Facebook where is suddenly goes Viral and a monetized site turns it into a meme.
That site then gets lots of hits due to your wierd face that you now see all over the place.
If you then want it taken down, how do you suppose that happens?
Article 11, requiring online platforms to pay publishers a fee if they link to their news content, was also approved.


Won't that be a major problem for Wikipedia, many of their citations are news content.
Oneday7714 m ago

Memes are a channel to generate money. They drive traffic to the site …Memes are a channel to generate money. They drive traffic to the site hosting, that can then push adverts in your face.Look at it another way. Just suppose you are caught making some weird face, after eating a super sour sweet.That gets captured in a photo that you think is funny and Whatsapp it to family.Then it gets onto Facebook where is suddenly goes Viral and a monetized site turns it into a meme.That site then gets lots of hits due to your wierd face that you now see all over the place.If you then want it taken down, how do you suppose that happens?




Copyright the image of your face.

£Ker-ching.

Seriously, though, are you aware of the historic way in which Adam Ant (Stuart Goddard) claimed copyright infringement (& sought financial recompense for damages) when photographs of the stripe across his nose (applied by theatrical make-up) in his early career were used without permission?

The stripe was deemed to be a painting & reproduction without consent was unlawful.
fanpages20 m ago

The (online &, in majority, revenue-generating) "Deals" threads that …The (online &, in majority, revenue-generating) "Deals" threads that HotUKDeals [HUKD] offers would not be able to function without the ability to access external links.I presume you just mean just links to news/journalistic online articles.Note the co-incidence with how this site has recently clamped-down on discussing topics like this? Regarding the legislation, Article 11 (or the "link tax") forces sites (or individuals) using snippets of journalistic content to gain a licence from the publisher in advance of making hyperlinks available for others to use. Article 13 (or "censorship machines") intends to make platforms responsible for monitoring & blocking copyright infringements; including, but not limited to, copy'n'pasting content from one site to another.


melted8 m ago

Article 11, requiring online platforms to pay publishers a fee if they …Article 11, requiring online platforms to pay publishers a fee if they link to their news content, was also approved.Won't that be a major problem for Wikipedia, many of their citations are news content.



Have you ever been reminded when visiting Wikipedia that their service is not free & donations for funding are welcome?

The licence (or, I guess, "license") fees for such sites would have to either be at a very preferential rate, or Wikipedia will become a fee-paying service for everybody.
fanpages22 m ago

Have you ever been reminded when visiting Wikipedia that their service is …Have you ever been reminded when visiting Wikipedia that their service is not free & donations for funding are welcome?The licence (or, I guess, "license") fees for such sites would have to either be at a very preferential rate, or Wikipedia will become a fee-paying service for everybody.


I do throw Wikipedia a donation every now and again
fanpages30 m ago

Copyright the image of your face.£Ker-ching.Seriously, though, are you …Copyright the image of your face.£Ker-ching.Seriously, though, are you aware of the historic way in which Adam Ant (Stuart Goddard) claimed copyright infringement (& sought financial recompense for damages) when photographs of the stripe across his nose (applied by theatrical make-up) in his early career were used without permission?The stripe was deemed to be a painting & reproduction without consent was unlawful.


No I wasn’t aware of that story.

Though while my face may not be copyrighted. If I take a picture it is mine to do what I like with. Unless I give it to a sight royalty free and no T&Cs then I still retain all rights to it. Unless I’m over simplifying it.
fanpages1 h, 30 m ago

The (online &, in majority, revenue-generating) "Deals" threads that …The (online &, in majority, revenue-generating) "Deals" threads that HotUKDeals [HUKD] offers would not be able to function without the ability to access external links.I presume you just mean just links to news/journalistic online articles.Note the co-incidence with how this site has recently clamped-down on discussing topics like this? Regarding the legislation, Article 11 (or the "link tax") forces sites (or individuals) using snippets of journalistic content to gain a licence from the publisher in advance of making hyperlinks available for others to use. Article 13 (or "censorship machines") intends to make platforms responsible for monitoring & blocking copyright infringements; including, but not limited to, copy'n'pasting content from one site to another.


Article 11. I suppose it will depend upon what the definition of journalistic content, are offers on other website journalistic?
Article 13. Copy & paste, thats Dave stuffed then.
fanpages4 h, 21 m ago

The comments sections of news sites could then be used to discuss articles …The comments sections of news sites could then be used to discuss articles rather than every other forum/community-based site (such as this one, or reddit.com, for example) effectively stealing the content that a journalist has generated to re-post elsewhere.The same news sites would see more traffic, could target visitors with revenue-generating advertising, & may also (if they do not do so already) introduce fee-paying memberships in order to read the content to recoup the cost of payments to journalists, photographers, video editors, web development/support staff &, in some cases, the subjects being interviewed for articles.Those involved in the preparation & publishing of the information currently being taken for free (& used by many people without a second thought for the livelihoods of those involved) may then be able to remain employed & receive credit for their work.That sounds fair doesn't it?



I personally don't like any laws that restrict the freedom of the internet, especially when it effects freedom of discussion and pushes users to heavily regulated biased echo chambers, but yes those people deserve to get payed. I also think these places drive traffic a lot more than you think, especially getting user's who stick to one source or none (in my case) to visit these sites driving add revenue that gets them payed.


I will use myself as an example, i have 3 ways i can think of that i even view content from these sites. Social media reposts/ various forums threads, the occasional scroll down through Google Chrome mobile browser and directly through facebook for my local rag (mainly for the laughs of how terrible it is). Only the last would exist anymore because there is no way Google or Facebook will be paying for those news articles, Google will probably launch its own news service and what Facebook, YouTube and [insert forum here] are going to be paying every time a user posts a link? Nope, are they going to be auto deleting all the reposts and links? Nope. Guaranteed the User wont be paying either.

Personally i do not follow or use a specific mainstream news source nor will i if these laws greatly effect the ways i already consume journalism, i also doubt a fair chunk of the population do to nowadays.
Oneday773 h, 10 m ago

Memes are a channel to generate money. They drive traffic to the site …Memes are a channel to generate money. They drive traffic to the site hosting, that can then push adverts in your face.Look at it another way. Just suppose you are caught making some weird face, after eating a super sour sweet.That gets captured in a photo that you think is funny and Whatsapp it to family.Then it gets onto Facebook where is suddenly goes Viral and a monetized site turns it into a meme.That site then gets lots of hits due to your wierd face that you now see all over the place.If you then want it taken down, how do you suppose that happens?


If you're in a Public place or on someone else's property than they can take a picture of you
If it's on your property than their maybe some legal backup, you cant have something taken down on the internet

The website may get more traffic because of memes but the uploader doesn't get that money
Edited by: "Norseg" 21st Jun
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text

    Top Discussions

    Top Merchants