[ad_1]
On Thursday, the European Parliament rejected a controversial proposal to revise the European Union's copyright laws that critics say would seriously undermine the freedom of the European Union. internet
. This means that the proposed rules, which pbaded the legal branch of the European Parliament last month, will be debated in September.
The proposal is to modernize copyright laws for the digital age and its supporters – including top musicians like David Guetta and Paul McCartney – say it will protect artists from stealing from their work on the Internet. But opponents fear that the bill opens the door to widespread censorship.
The directive would require sites like Facebook and YouTube to pay for licenses before they can link people's creative content (articles, videos, etc.) to information that people get.
And the laws would additionally apply an algorithmic filter on any content uploaded to the Internet, which would also put parody and satire (read: our memes and gifs) on the line. Thus, Wikimedia, which owns a dozen other open-source forums like Wikipedia, issued a statement last week against the Internet. She highlighted the main points of concern against the Copyright Directive.
His board of directors, consisting of senior technical executives like Quora's CFO, Kelly Battles, and the former director of Gizmodo Media Group. Executive Director Raju Narisetti, highlighted three key grievances in his statement, which is part of a series of Wikimedia open runs and his properties have done against the proposed legislation.
The entire Wikimedia empire is built on open-sourcing – it's called the world's largest free knowledge repository of the world – and its board has baderted that the proposed laws contradict the objective of the platform to make knowledge free and accessible to all
The new restrictions, if adopted, could result in a loss of income, which is also a giant, since its funding is mainly based on user contributions, with a limited scope after the proposed laws, the funding would probably also fall.
"If pbaded, it would limit the freedom of expression and cause serious harm to collaboration and participation. diversity ", says the statement." Instead of truly modernizing copyright in Europe and promoting the participation of all in the information society, p ropositioners threaten online freedom and creates new hurdles by imposing new hurdles, filters and restrictions. "[The laws] if pbaded, will significantly limit Internet openness, diminishing the capacity of people around the world entire access to knowledge, while stifling innovation and imposing unreasonable costs on new or smaller websites. "
Stephen LaPorte, a Legal Counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation, told Mashable that while it is important to keep offline the hacked hardware, the algorithms that control the "Information will not do justice to people's content – how to create an online space that protects and protects people like us from copyright infringement," LaPorte said. "Laws should reflect the way people use or want to use the Internet, and show how users are creators and not just content consumers."
He said it was worrying that the laws being considered use algorithms (similar to the one used by YouTube) to filter all downloaded content, which could lead to censorship of criticism and parodies.
An algorithm would not have the ability to distinguish between stolen copyrighted material and creative content using copyrighted material to advance the conversation. Think of it as a robot teacher who can identify when students reference the work of others in one essay, but can not contextualize that the quote is used as a quote.
Only people, said LaPorte, have the ability
Although the laws are designed for people sharing content within the EU, the large population of Internet users in the Schengen area would bring about global changes in the freedom of expression
19659020] Think of the bill as YouTube's copyright infringement filter, which has been implemented to ensure that no content from its platform steals the work of another creator.
He previously deleted all types of videos without copyright infringement. like the video parody of Star Wars of Greenpeace and the French National Front, the French political party resigned all its chain last month
. While this sounds proactive, the mandate could have a significant impact on privacy and freedom of expression.
"These battles are frankly not transparent and restrict people's ability to communicate," LaPorte said. "This contradicts the vision of the Internet."
This means that sharing platforms and platforms would be radically changed: what would happen to Twitter if only people who had the rights to an image could retweet it? What happened to live tweeting the Grammys when we can not post Blue Ivy shushing Jay Z and Beyoncé?
Harm Collaboration
Unbridled collaboration probably hits the hardest for Wikimedia and its various properties.
Almost anyone can edit the innumerable forum pages on its affiliates like Wikipedia , Wiktionary and Wikinews, covering mainly large-scale culture categories, all of which are based on creative work.
The best example is highly obsessive ndoms – nicknamed Wikias – that Wikimedia supports. Likeminded fans maintain detailed notes on shows and characters for anyone who might also like to obsess about every detail of a show or who just wants to brush their teeth before a new season. Wikias also serves as an introduction to viewers who are unsure of wanting to spend time watching seven seasons of the Game of Thrones.
The use and access to these forums could eventually become restricted if the copyright laws had been enacted, only hindered the freedom to share information, but it would also have omitted a large number of contributors.
Ruin diversity online
Increased restrictions on who can share content (due to licensing issues that new laws may have established) limiting the distance information and knowledge can travel
If everyone There is not an accessible way to contribute to Wikipedia – or any of Wikimedia's properties – the diversity of voices contributing to the forums would decrease considerably
. would also have a limited impact if people allowed to share creative content were restricted, and this limited scope would increase the internet echo rooms that are being criticized worldwide.
"This is a good opportunity to strike a balance between copyright and more restrictions," LaPorte said. "I think it's not that balance."
[ad_2]
Source link
