Casinos

Casinos By Status

Popular Filters

By Banking Options

Games

All Games

Bonuses

Popular Bonus Filters

Forums

Popular Forums

Forum User Features

Complaints

Submit A Complaint (PAB)

PAB Rules and Guidelines

Browse PABs

Gambling News

Popular News Sections

About Us

About Us

external image

More crap for webmasters and anyone else in the business...

Article 13 puts more onus on websites to enforce copyright and could mean that every online platform that allows users to post text, sounds, code or images will need some form of content-recognition system to review all material that users upload.
Click to expand...

Now that is some scary stuff... :mad::eek:
 
This 'censorship bill' or new Directive on Copyright was first proposed in 2016 and has been a mess since the very beginning. It's quite obvious that lots of people who will be voting over this in EU parliament have no idea what it's really about. It was same with the GDPR - European Commissioner for Digital Single Market is an ex-communist with soviet background and it makes me cringe when he talks about internet and digitalization in the public. I'm moving in couple of years, far far away.
 
Just reading a letter from juncker to mariya gabriel [Commissioner for the Digital Economy and Society] and some of it sounds good but in the end it will involve just more centralisation of power to unelected career civil servants.

extract:
"The Commission needs to look into the challenges the online platforms create for our democracies as regards the spreading of fake information and initiate a reflection on what would be needed at EU level to protect our citizens."

The democracies are a shadow of their former selves, they have to do what the EU tells them to do. And who's pulling juncker's strings, you can't tell me he thinks up all these things and the direction europe is heading in all by himself, who did his job interview that's what I would like to know and who decides when juncker gets a p45.

listen to this waffle

"Working with the First Vice-President, in charge of Better Regulation, Inter-Institutional Relations, the Rule of Law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Vice-President for the Digital Single Market and the Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality in developing legislative and nonlegislative initiatives to allow the non-personal data economy to thrive"

Reading this and you just know all of their publications are full to brimming with this type of technocratic legalistic BS, which is probably why Trump mistrusts all of these globalist institutions, he knows you only use this convoluted language if you're basically up to no good.
 
Last edited:
Hi GrandMaster,
with little help from Google I think I can.
This is European Commissioner for Digital Single Market -
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

From that same Wikipedia page: "He was an Instructor in the Industry Department and Head of the Organisational Department of the Tartu District Committee of the
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
from 1986 to 1988."
He has studied chemistry, went to Russian army (Estonia was part of Russia til 1991). I don't believe he has red agenda, but people with his background / upbringing / education should be kept away from subjects like internet, freedom, digitalization.
 
osulle said:
So currently I am unable to access any US online newspapers. This bill could kill Wikipedia, You Tube in Europe. These autocrats in Brussels are mad.
Click to expand...

Yes, there's always a workaround and we can use proxies/VPN's in the future... just like they do in countries like China, Kuwait, North Korea. Orwell's nightmare vision and full censorship might be not here yet, but it's important to understand that it's a gradual process and it's all getting tighter and tighter for us, not the other way.
 
Last edited:
wikipedia is dodgy on political issues, very neocon orientated. But for factual info, its very useful.

Just a thought :rolleyes: but I wonder if the end result of these changes will be some sort of internet access tax a bit like the tv licence fee, and then whatever site you go on with copyrighted articles/content the site gets a cut of the tax.

When I go on wikipedia or the guardian newspaper [very rare I might add, I'm definitely not a guardianista] a banner often pops up asking for donations, plus other sites have their newspapers behind a paywall but it doesn't work they are losing readership and influence, and the billionaire owners don't want to carry on subsidising the business to the extent they currently are.
 
Last edited:
Yes! I was getting worried there.
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


MEPs have voted to reject a controversial copyright law in its current form, deciding to return to the issue in September.

The law would have put a greater responsibility on individual websites to check for copyright infringements.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
 
I think there are pretty big freedom of speech implications to this, imagine I wanted to upload a segment of a tv news broadcast onto youtube and then deconstruct the narrative to expose propaganda, new copyright laws coming into place probably prevent this. I think the commercial aspect of protecting copyright holders in areas like music and film is all well and dandy but it may not be the only purpose of these new laws.

Seeing some clips today regarding the EU and hungary it's clear this monolithic organisation needs to be reformed itself and cut down to size. I'll wager Brexit won't save the UK from these new copyright laws either, what a charade and stitch up leaving the EU has turned out to be, it seem that once you join this union you can't really ever leave :mad:
 
mack341 said:
Col are you in approval or could this directive have been better thought out? Is there an implementation period I wonder?
Click to expand...

Could have been better thought out?

This question was raised in EU court before the vote:

"How will startups be able to afford developing and maintaining algorithms that complies with the new rules"

And the answer was:

"What is an algorithm?"

The people in charge over at the EU are braindead idiots who are voting in favor of things they don't understand.
 
This vote went through despite strong opposition from us commoners. I am going to make my vote count in May. It's clear that the EU has become autocratic and for big corporations and don't care about the people at large. I think they knew well what they were doing. They want to shut down alternative media so only their narratives get told. These autocrats are evil in my personal opinion.
 
If you didn't have an EU the big corporations pushing for this law change would have had to lobby each individual country's parliament and get the copyright law passed through, without amendment.

So the EU makes it far easier for an oligarchy to rule Europe, you've only got to win one vote and there are ways you can do this, pressure, blackmail, bribe etc...
 
mack341 said:
If you didn't have an EU the big corporations pushing for this law change would have had to lobby each individual country's parliament and get the copyright law passed through, without amendment.

So the EU makes it far easier for an oligarchy to rule Europe, you've only got to win one vote and there are ways you can do this, pressure, blackmail, bribe etc...
Click to expand...

Theres no way the UK would have objected to this anyway
 
The UK actually just voted it through, so I don't see that we'd have done much extra debating or amending.....

And we're on the same side as the Germans, which is a nice note of harmony in these fractious Brexit times.

upload_2019-4-16_21-4-40.webp
 
ChopleyIOM said:
The UK actually just voted it through, so I don't see that we'd have done much extra debating or amending.....

And we're on the same side as the Germans, which is a nice note of harmony in these fractious Brexit times.

(In fact, looking at the numbers, if the UK had voted against, it would have failed to pass, so we have loads of influence in Europe, we just chose not to use it.)

View attachment 107482
Click to expand...

Chopley you like this new copyright law then? I can't seem to find any articles etc.. in favour of it, it seems to just = more regulation/control over the internet.

But I'm all for youtube having to share some more of their massive profit with the original copyright holders of material that garners views, but that issue could've been simply remedied I think.
 
mack341 said:
Chopley you like this new copyright law then? I can't seem to find any articles etc.. in favour of it, it seems to just = more regulation/control over the internet.
Click to expand...

Honestly mack, I don't know enough about it to really pass comment. I'll get involved in a Brexit debate because I consider myself to be reasonably well informed after three years of following it very closely, but when it comes to this new copyright directive I just don't have the knowledge to reach an intelligent judgement.

I was simply noting that the UK waved it through, so it's not like the EU is foisting this upon us against our will, since the UK used its vote to actually vote in favour of it.
 
ChopleyIOM said:
Honestly mack, I don't know enough about it to really pass comment. I'll get involved in a Brexit debate because I consider myself to be reasonably well informed after three years of following it very closely, but when it comes to this new copyright directive I just don't have the knowledge to reach an intelligent judgement.

I was simply noting that the UK waved it through, so it's not like the EU is foisting this upon us against our will, since the UK used its vote to actually vote in favour of it.
Click to expand...

That's not quite the same though as our mp's, who we can vote in or out, debating and passing it.

Presumably the person representing the uk govt voted for it, and as can be clearly seen with Mrs May's Brexit deal the uk govt/civil service have different ideas to the british people of what's in their best interests.

edit: I must admit I don't really know much about the law other than it could affect free speech as it limits use of copyright material, so referring to a newspaper article on this forum will likely have to be done differently than before. I hoped Colinsunderland was going to explain it and save me the bother of trying to read up on it :p
 
Last edited:
mack341 said:
That's not quite the same though as our mp's, who we can vote in or out, debating and passing it.

Presumably the person representing the uk govt voted for it, and as can be clearly seen with Mrs May's Brexit deal the uk govt/civil service have different ideas to the british people of what's in their best interests.

edit: I must admit I don't really know much about the law other than it could affect free speech as it limits use of copyright material, so referring to a newspaper article on this forum will likely have to be done differently than before. I hoped Colinsunderland was going to explain it and save me the bother of trying to read up on it :p
Click to expand...

Too much to type lol, plus I haven't read it all properly yet :)

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


That gives a rough idea.
 
Apparently a part of it means businesses will need to ensure all content uploaded to their services is completely protected and if not, they must seek out the rightful copyright owner or take the content down immediately.

So @ChopleyIOM I wonder would one of your videos, like the god of war one or the last of us, be affected? Would you be able to post the youtube link on CM or not? I think it might affect gaming videos, gonna be a headache for all concerned.
 
Done a bit of googling re video game content, and read the bbc's take on it:

Video gamers who share their gameplay on video-streaming services such as Twitch and YouTube highlight the complexity of copyright online.

"Multiple copyrights can exist in a single product," explained lawyer Kathy Berry, from Linklaters. "Video game studios own various copyrights in their games: the underlying code, the graphics, music, dialogue.

"When a gamer creates a video game video for YouTube, the video itself is a new copyright work owned by the gamer. However, as it also incorporates copyright works owned by the video game studios, the authorisation of both the gamer and the studio would be required to put it online."

"Studios tend not to enforce their rights against YouTube gamers in order to avoid the PR implications of being heavy-handed with fans, and because the videos can have significant promotional value," said Ms Berry.

Gamers may be able to argue that their videos are exempt from Article 13 because they have added their own commentary, criticism or review. But Ms Berry warned: "These defences have been largely untested in the courts in this context".

I suppose the same could be said for slot streamers but I doubt the slot firms would be bothered, however there will have to be some sort of copyright checking system in place on youtube. Then again it's money, if you add all the streamers videos together how much does youtube get from imbedded adverts :confused: maybe Netent, BTG etc will want their cut...
 
mack341 said:
So @ChopleyIOM I wonder would one of your videos, like the god of war one or the last of us, be affected? Would you be able to post the youtube link on CM or not? I think it might affect gaming videos, gonna be a headache for all concerned.
Click to expand...

As I understand it reviews are covered by 'Fair Use', although as it stands now reviews get taken down by copyright claims. The film studio Lionsgate for examples are notorious for issuing copyright claims against negative reviews of their films on YouTube, even though the reviews should be protected by fair use, so it's not as if the current system is perfect.

The EU are insisting that Fair Use protections should be strengthened under the new directive, although how that will pan out in practice is potentially a different matter.

Where people are using copyrighted material for commercial ends, the water gets a lot muddier.

As I said mack, I genuinely don't know enough about this to really pass much of a comment. I would expect my God Of War video to be OK under the new rules as it's not commercial, it's a review/critical commentary piece, and should be permitted under fair use, if that actually turns out to be the case, I can't say.
 
ChopleyIOM said:
As I understand it reviews are covered by 'Fair Use', although as it stands now reviews get taken down by copyright claims. The film studio Lionsgate for examples are notorious for issuing copyright claims against negative reviews of their films on YouTube, even though the reviews should be protected by fair use, so it's not as if the current system is perfect.

The EU are insisting that Fair Use protections should be strengthened under the new directive, although how that will pan out in practice is potentially a different matter.

Where people are using copyrighted material for commercial ends, the water gets a lot muddier.

As I said mack, I genuinely don't know enough about this to really pass much of a comment. I would expect my God Of War video to be OK under the new rules as it's not commercial, it's a review/critical commentary piece, and should be permitted under fair use, if that actually turns out to be the case, I can't say.
Click to expand...

I think you're right, just clicked and started up those two review vids and there's no youtube advertising. I wonder though for the game reviewers who have a patreon link I can see it getting a bit more complicated.

For as long as we have the internet, youtube will likely carry on being a big part of it, and therefore attract a lot of advertising revenue, so this copyright law change is about the next 100 years. I read youtube made 13 billion in 2017, so obviously the film, music, gaming companies want their cut of this and I believe this law change forces youtube to get prior permission so it's likely a profit sharing deal will have to be made between youtube and the copyright holders otherwise youtube gets zilch and much less uploaded content.

Youtube is also owned by google, so maybe this part of the law change is a good thing, otherwise one company is gaining nearly all the advertising revenue from the whole web.
 
Last edited:
There are two sides to this really aren't there ? Those who wish to abuse and those who don't. And that's on both sides of the argument, as far as ability goes.

Firstly, they cannot force creators to chase copyrights. If you don't want to get paid, it's easy to not do so. Issue a public license on any material you release. There is some misnomer belief that you need a lawyer or an official to hold, display or otherwise, your own copyright. What is yours, is rightfully yours.

Some forums for example have it written in their terms that very few people read, making for example my post right here "property of the forum owner". That in itself is in some places illegal and in any place, immoral. I can but won't, name forums that do this. Due respect to CM here, they might have it. I shake my head in dismay at the thought of giving people a place to display their content which then means the place then owns it.

Memes. Gifs. Stolen facebook posts. Public photography. Youtube is ripping so many people off. Many people are doing it. It doesn't matter morally what the law states, what the webmaster puts in small print. If it belongs to someone else, you should rightly have permission to use it, before you use it. Facebook flat out lied and gave Google access beyond privacy statements. Facebook had to be pressured into adding a copyright system but if you are not in the data sniffing database, good luck. Someone can photoshop you and go viral, making money and you can't do a thing other than try to sue and possibly fail even though you own (shock horror) you.

This is all nothing new. It also goes way beyond the top 5 websites. Someone has realised there is a massive industry to had in copyright on the superhighway. It is [curseword] colossal.

Billions have been made from stolen content. You think illegal movie sites and p2p filesharing is huge.

How thin is that line between freedom of press and plagiarism ? I can't see it.
 

Similar threads

Valge
Social casinos: why they’re growing fast and quietly reshaping online gaming
Replies
7
Views
1K
maxd
maxd
conker
In The News Betfred receives 825k penalty from UKGC for AML and Social Responsibility failures
Replies
19
Views
1K
satchnz
satchnz
iGamer_addict
Notifications you love and hate in online gaming
Replies
20
Views
2K
Guntis
Guntis
mulven
Trends towards Tobique, Curacao cessations and Anjouan additions
Replies
15
Views
1K
mulven
mulven
Valge
Anjouan in 2026: The Renewal Reality Check
Replies
1
Views
637
conker
conker

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Accredited Casinos

Read about our rating system and how it's done.
Back
Top