Will the stricter European legislation on online copyright protect authors or is it nothing less than a restriction on freedom of expression?

I get so sick of that screech about “limiting freedom of expression”-of course you may express your opinion, as long as that opinion does not hurt another.Your freedom ceases where another freedom begins, after all. It is almost always those who have a objectionable “opinion” (in which OA is found that anyone who does not think as if she should be gagged) after keeping that here hardest about screaming when someone says you can’t say something oid.

I don’t think the more stringent copyright regulations restrict freedom of expression and most certainly protect authors from the wild plaice of the uncontrolled swiping of someone else’s work.Plagiarism seems to be cool nowadays within the general framework of the stupidity of society, in which retarded are considered to be the highest good and cleverness despises and/or is treated with distrust. Stricter regulations are needed because you just can’t give people the free hand. That cannot be because people usually choose the bad option instead of the good. And who does not want to hear, must feel. Writers work hard and sometimes come to genius things-for that they are writer. And it’s best to pay for it, find it. There is nothing more painful and annoying to have a beautiful piece of prose written and then to see that some mind-bending creature simply copies it and claims it as his own work. Or business without mentioning sources. I think it is right to have stricter regulations.

If there are people who think that it is not good and/or that it should not, then I would like to ask them where their votes were when the EU imposed stricter rules on mobile phone providers regarding roaming costs.

Coincidentally, I have for years been writing to a social website for writers, readers and all the kinship and plagiarism is a death sin on the site-when it is discovered that you have pirated, you fly out of it and you will be banned from the site forever.It is in the terms of use and is brought to the attention several times when you publish something. Who does not want to hear, must feel. Period.

First of all, that it would be a restriction of freedom of expression is of course nonsense.It does not limit what you may or may not say, but limits what you can freely take over from other sources of the Internet.

Large parties (Facebook, YouTube) earning money by the ‘ quoting ‘ of links are henceforth owed money to the sources that provide information.

There is actually nothing new under the sun.That was always the case in printed information. There is a restriction of text that you can freely quote, you want more quoting you need permission from the author. And that usually costs money.

Problem than it is by the Internet some kind of sprawl.Information and protection of image rights has arisen. I shoot as a hobby. I’ve taken some pretty good pictures. In the current legislation, someone who places a picture of me on his site in violation, someone who places that photo in the same way, but does so by loading the photo of my site, can do this without any more. So someone who ‘ steals outright ‘ by making a copy of my work is in violation, but someone who ‘ links ‘ to my photos, and so lets pay me for the net traffic for the photos on his site is ‘ well busy ‘.

What I am afraid of is for a huge refuge of ‘ Fake News ‘.If you are no longer allowed to link to source information on large sites, then someone can claim the most idiotic things and hide behind ‘ I cannot post links ‘ when asked for proof.

At the moment it is so, that often shows, that it tells information from the original sources something completely different than how the original poster of the information that had given information.

Nice example was a message recently where someone claimed that in Great Britain a woman had been convicted because she refused to speak to a transgender woman with ‘ she ‘ and ‘ her ‘.In the same newspaper article where that person went to linked that the convicted woman had been convicted of stalking her ex husband, who now continued as a woman through life, because she could not accept his gender change.

So that was a lot different than refusing to speak to a trans woman with ‘ she ‘ and ‘ her ‘.

These kinds of stories of thoughtfully read stories that are distributed with a very personal interpretation will happen a lot more often, if in social media restrictions are imposed on the posting of source information.

Another drawback what I see… I blog about WordPress.And there are several RSS aggregation sites that take over my blogs. I have absolutely no problems with this, in fact, I welcome it! It continues to spread my information and the people who read an aggregation article often come back to my site after clicking a link.

So this is free advertisement for me!I wonder whether these aggregation sites may still be in the future.

So I am very mixed with it.In a number of areas, the new regulations address a number of issues that were not legally or poorly regulated by the emergence of digital media. But I feel that a lot of children are thrown away with the bathwater.

Imagine Quora if no one would be allowed to link to source information.

Every protection of authors makes it harder to criticize these and is therefore an effective means of protecting the expression of the author.In general, in formulating his opinion, an author has also put much more effort than the critic. Hence a firmer protection of the authors is in reason.

Administration is like entropy: it strives for a maximum.I fear that the bulk of administration time will disappear. So that the authors will see very little of its cost. Now it is so that scientific publishing costs considerably and does not give income. Politics has always liked the information checked.The Internet was not 100% controllable, so one tries to control the freedom of expression. But that is no longer there.Newspapers and broadcasters do not publish anything wrong about cars or gas: they are their sponsors! If one dares to sue that the heavy electric cars now generate more CO2 than a good diesel, then one is whistled back, it was the fate of Damien Ernst on the RTBF. Voiture 茅lectrique: L’article scientifique du professeur Damien Ernst qui redistribue les hypoth猫ses! Statistics clearly indicate that people live considerably longer than Pas-de-Calais or Scotland in Paris or London.So that NO2 and fine dust are less important than many other factors? But the scientific world also makes sense under a kind of internal censorship, which is then called “Peer review”. True progress is a lot of lighter vehicles. Whether it’s cars, buses or trains doesn’t matter. But that is also taboo.

Leave a Reply