Full title: Life-Altering Copyright Lawsuits Could Come to Regular Internet Users Under a New Law Moving in the Senate
Is this something akin to the EU’s Articles 11 and 13...?
That court will be clogged with cases. Guess they want to build another big, new bureaucracy. Who’s going to pay for it? Not a hard guess.
No new court systems or tribunals to protect the “interests” of abusive monopolies ALL of which steal works by private citizens and abuse their OWN intellectual property rights of copyright.
The news steal “viral video” without pay every damn day.
Zapruder’s name would be unknown today and his footage would be considered “public domain” by the monopolies.
Nope Nope Nope.
If there are any 24/7 members on this thread, someone should direct this thread Rush Limbaugh’s way...
Not even joking. This is the anti-meme gestapo and they are coming for Pepe, you and I...
This could be counter productive to those with copyrights also though. Free samples and exposure sells more popularity.
Bottom line is that Disney can afford to rent more Congressmen than you or I can. So Big Media can get whatever they want.
European Copyright Directive: What do articles 15 and 17 mean?
I would love to see Google sued into oblivion for all the copyrighted music and movies they have on Youtube that anyone can download for free. I dont know how the hell they get away with that, just about every song ever recorded is on that thing. That would be one way to bring down the commie globalist election interfering bastards.
Copyright on the internet is a very complicated issue, and any big change in law is bound to have unintended consequences. Improvements in the law should only be tried in small well thought out steps which are reversible if things go badly.
TELL THE SENATE NOT TO ENABLE COPYRIGHT TROLLS
I had the same experience with this service animal crap. The trolls are very busy and it is a nice part time job for them.
Just terminate anyone who comes after you.
I guess since ‘fair use’ is not a provision of the constitution, any new law can be enforced, except perhaps under the premises of the first amendment free speech clause. I really feel like this will need to be challenged if used to charge people who are not copying large portions of copyright protected work or abusing trademarks and trade secrets. It’s within both free speech and fair use to allude to, cite, and reference material, as long as you are not duplicating and broadcasting it, particularly for profit and without citing authorship.
Thank you for posting this.
They will sue when there is no violation. Innocent users will pay to avoid trouble.
Google steals content all day long with their stealing news articles in their searches and youtube has copyright violations galore.
Are they TRYING to start a shooting civil war?
Refuse to pay. Good luck, I’ll go VPN, Anon, and you won’t even know it was me. Or the web goes dark. Idiots think they can run people’s mind. Legislative actions are already ignored or randomly enforced. But if they have no one to charge and no pockets to empty they are spinning their wheels in a grasp at nothing.
So if I make a snapshot of a bias CNN headline to post on Facebook I could be sue by CNN for copyright. This is a threat to the First Amendment.