Linux - NewsThis forum is for original Linux News. If you'd like to write content for LQ, feel free to contact us.
All threads in the forum need to be approved before they will appear.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
I found this to be very relevant particularly to websites that oh I dunno, have links to say open source projects - I wonder how that will affect github, websites hosting linux isos, etc? i.e. the "link tax" Hrmmmmmmmmmm
To clarify - this could also affect articles about anything, - "oi, you got a loicense for that Linux article?"
I say this all in jest perhaps - but, honestly I do not know how this will won't negatively impact EU citizens.....
How does this affect EU users on linuxquestions.org ?
thanks for the update! to you and Reda.
of course this politician has an agenda like every politician, but i guess the relevant parts of the article are fairly objective.
i will just requote myself from that other thread:
Quote:
i am by no means in favor of this new law.
BUT...
what little i understood - i can only repeat: the term "link tax" is misleading.
it is not the link itself that falls under copyright law (not tax afaiu), but actual content from the linked article.
the sort of automatically generated previews "platforms" like facebook use.
beyond that - i admit i did not read the law text itself.
i am not sure how much i can trust any politician to interpret it for me (but they probably wouldn't tell a straight lie).
i am not sure that i can trust a random youtube "activist" that then interprets these interpretations for me, with plenty of bravado and a loud voice.
i am sure that the proposed technological solutions are very unrealistic.
these little previews are called "snippets" in reda's article.
i don't think anybody wants to outlaw quotes, so i guess there will now be another heated argument about the difference between a "snippet" (falls under new law) and a "quote" (probably doesn't fall under new law).
Now, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki is adding her concerned voice to the chorus. Wojcicki spent the first portion of her letterto creators addressing Article 13, a new requirement that would give YouTube the sole burden of preventing copyrighted content from being uploaded and shared by its creators. Right now, YouTube allows remixed copyright material to exist on its platform under the Fair Use Act. But critics of Article 13 suggest that as YouTube becomes more liable for any copyrighted content, a harsher filter will apply to any video being uploaded to the platform, and that could stifle creators’ work. "
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
European Parliament backs copyright changes
YouTube CEO says EU regulation will be bad for creators
