Article 11 and 13 and the Potential Implications for Tapology

I have no idea what you're talking about but my point is simply this, nothing is limited on the internet. You can access anything & everything you want at any and all times 24/7, 365. "They'll" do fookin nuttin. 

I'm in two minds about this.A Tax for simply linking or sharing a few images is ridiculous, but I don't believe it will work as simplistically as that. It is more likely is that the content owners would generate the equivalent of licensing fees by issuing publishing rights to select third party outlets.The whole thing seems counterintuitive to me frankly because all this would achieve would be to limit the publicity that any type of media receives. I suppose the powers that be who are lobbying for this thing suppose that they will corner the market coverage of high-interest events. They're probably right.

Is it unfair? Yes and no. Ultimately, content creators should have some say, more or less, in who uses their content and for what. And so should third parties who pay licensing fees, because as it stands, you've got a bunch of ****tards on youtube making bank for having done nothing. And nothing about that is fair.

What I don't like about it:

This will limit the ability of people to critique products and services, and the people who do this will be held to ransom by content creators. Either they will give favorable reviews to their products and services, or they simply won't be licensed to do it anymore under penury. That's bad for consumers. It will also funnel exclusivity and power to media megahouses, which is also bad for consumers--and it's not great for the truth, either. Article 13 is the worst, because it basically puts on every site on the hook for everything that is ever posted, and small sites simply will not have the resources to manage their indemnity. All this will do is make the big players bigger and more powerful, because the mandated effective content recognition technologies' don't come cheap.


 it is good in the sense that it protects the IP of content creators and will make it much more difficult for rip-off merchants, especially on youtube, to make money from 'reviews' of games, fights, films and other media which are essentially useless and achieve nothing other than to make them money. There are so may channels like this, and they are basically just parasites. They need to be stamped out.

On balance however it's basically cancer.

Both do. However, both can be either positives or negatives. I do not like remixes, for example, but I do like memes and meme culture. I think this is actually a really important part of cultural development and satire. Both would be threatened under the new proposals.

Fair use is mostly just code for 'I can't create anything myself, so I'm going to steal as much of someone else's IP as I can feasibly get away, add some facile commentary and/or tweaks, and make money from contributing nothing'. Most of the time, anyway. I have no respect, nor sympathy for such people and they should rightly be destroyed.Fair use is useful in some capacities as I have previously stated, such as critiquing products and services. TI feel this is extremely valuable and should be protected, so I'm against these new laws overall on the basis of this alone.

What is particularly scary about it all is how broad the definitions are, and the sheer scale of the discretionary power they give to content creators and IP holders. It's ugly. And yes, I agree--as they are written, these laws are a bridge too far and should be scrapped.

 

* Edited at 09.12.2018, 12:53 AM ET *

This whole thing is Foogazi lmfao 

@Greg I'm actually surprised you're so nonchalant about this really. A large part of Tapology seems to me at least, to be content aggregation.Most of the MMA events  listed on this site are backlinked and these would be considered IP violations under the new legislation. Now, I would expect that only an extremely small percentage of these would ever actually be C& D'ed....but the fact remains that issuers now have the right to do that, if  the whim takes them. This isn't an option under the protocols of the current DMCA.

The actual nuts and bolts of it are pretty horrific, considering that link Taxes will mean that a host cannot include a single word from an article headline. Literally, not a single word. Tapology would also have to run bots of some kind to make sure it is in compliance.Everything would have to be scanned and mirrored against...well, I have no idea what--some kind of IP database? It's basically deep packet inspection. Just the act of running said bots will have serious implications for the performance of the site.



It's EU Law however, and the main MMA market and interest base is American. So there's that. I just don't see how this is good for Taology at all. I don't own the business however and you know more than I ever will. But what data is routinely stolen from Tapology? Analytics and raw data won't be affected by any of this in any way--it's basically media which Tapology to my knowledge doesn't produce. That's not the bag. Threads like the 'what song are you listening to right now' would have to go. Replays of ACB cards/highlights couldn't be posted, even the results of European hosted cards couldn't be backlinked...they would have to be entered in manually.

I dunno, Greg. The more I learn about this thing, the more I don't like it. Everyone is saying things like 'oh well at least it hits facebook and google the hardest' but that's patently untrue, it's the big guys like that who will be able to absorb and mitigate the problems this causes for the easiest.