Tag Archives: 13

Japanese Govt Intervention Fails to Stop Mass Dragon Ball Super Piracy

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/japanese-govt-intervention-fails-to-stop-mass-dragon-ball-super-piracy-180319/

Earlier this month, fans of Dragon Ball Super in Mexico started a movement on social media which suggested that everyone should be able to watch episode 130 (titled “The Greatest Showdown of All Time! The Ultimate Survival Battle!!”) together in public.

Surprisingly, this movement started receiving support from various local governments, many of which agreed to erect large screens in public places, from town and city squares to football stadiums.

Official government Twitter accounts lit up with announcements from the authorities, with posters like the one below issued for many of the events.

While this all sounded wonderful in practice, there was a huge problem. According to Toei Animation, the Japanese company behind the hit anime show, no one had the licensing rights to show Dragon Ball Super in public.

The company issued a statement condemning the plans, branding the proposed performances as “illegal screenings that incite piracy” while urging people to support the creators by only watching on officially licensed platforms.

As Saturday drew near, some regions announced that without permission from Toei, their screenings would not go ahead. Others, however, offered no cooperation whatsoever, effectively informing Toei that it was powerless to do anything to stop what would amount to government-approved mass piracy.

Whether Toei had anything to do with it or not isn’t clear, but on Friday the ambassador of Japan took the highly unusual step of writing to various local governments with a demand for them to cancel the events. El Espanol obtained a copy of the letter, as shown below.

The letter from the Ambassador of Japan

“The Government of Japan is aware that episode 130 and 131 of the Dragon Ball Super series, whose copyright belongs to Japanese company Toei Animation, will be shown in public places and places without the author’s due authorization,” the letter reads.

“In the event the exhibition is illegal, the Government of Japan wishes that it be suspended.”

It seems that as a result of the letter, some of the screenings were canceled, causing much disappointment for the fans of the series. However, in some areas of Mexico the events went ahead anyway, with tens of thousands of massively enthusiastic people in attendance.

But it didn’t stop there. The DBS fever also spread to Chile, Peru, El Salvador and Ecuador, with outdoor events attracting huge cheering crowds.

Whether there will be any diplomatic fallout from these shows of defiance isn’t yet clear but if anyone needed a visualization of what torrent sharing might look like if it took place in the physical realm, there are no better examples than these videos. In Ecuador, where more than ten thousand people gathered in just one location, fun was had by all.

Why Toei didn’t make the most of this opportunity is anyone’s guess but it looks like the company could have made a killing selling official t-shirts alone. Nevermind, maybe next time.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Founder of Fan-Made Subtitle Site Lose Copyright Infringement Appeal

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/founder-of-fan-made-subtitle-site-lose-copyright-infringement-appeal-180318/

For millions of people around the world, subtitles are the only way to enjoy media in languages other than that in the original production. For the deaf and hard of hearing, they are absolutely essential.

Movie and TV show companies tend to be quiet good at providing subtitles eventually but in line with other restrictive practices associated with their industry, it can often mean a long wait for the consumer, particularly in overseas territories.

For this reason, fan-made subtitles have become somewhat of a cottage industry in recent years. Where companies fail to provide subtitles quickly enough, fans step in and create them by hand. This has led to the rise of a number of subtitling platforms, including the now widely recognized Undertexter.se in Sweden.

The platform had its roots back in 2003 but first hit the headlines in 2013 when Swedish police caused an uproar by raiding the site and seizing its servers.

“The people who work on the site don’t consider their own interpretation of dialog to be something illegal, especially when we’re handing out these interpretations for free,” site founder Eugen Archy said at the time.

Vowing to never give up in the face of pressure from the authorities, anti-piracy outfit Rättighetsalliansen (Rights Alliance), and companies including Nordisk Film, Paramount, Universal, Sony and Warner, Archy said that the battle over what began as a high school project would continue.

“No Hollywood, you played the wrong card here. We will never give up, we live in a free country and Swedish people have every right to publish their own interpretations of a movie or TV show,” he said.

It took four more years but in 2017 the Undertexter founder was prosecuted for distributing copyright-infringing subtitles while facing a potential prison sentence.

Things didn’t go well and last September the Attunda District Court found him guilty and sentenced the then 32-year-old operator to probation. In addition, he was told to pay 217,000 Swedish krona ($26,400) to be taken from advertising and donation revenues collected through the site.

Eugen Archy took the case to appeal, arguing that the Svea Hovrätt (Svea Court of Appeal) should acquit him of all the charges and dismiss or at least reduce the amount he was ordered to pay by the lower court. Needless to say, this was challenged by the prosecution.

On appeal, Archy agreed that he was the person behind Undertexter but disputed that the subtitle files uploaded to his site infringed on the plaintiffs’ copyrights, arguing they were creative works in their own right.

While to an extent that may have been the case, the Court found that the translations themselves depended on the rights connected to the original work, which were entirely held by the relevant copyright holders. While paraphrasing and parody might be allowed, pure translations are completely covered by the rights in the original and cannot be seen as new and independent works, the Court found.

The Svea Hovrätt also found that Archy acted intentionally, noting that in addition to administering the site and doing some translating work himself, it was “inconceivable” that he did not know that the subtitles made available related to copyrighted dialog found in movies.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal upheld Archy’s copyright infringement conviction (pdf, Swedish) and sentenced him to probation, as previously determined by the Attunda District Court.

Last year, the legal status of user-created subtitles was also tested in the Netherlands. In response to local anti-piracy outfit BREIN forcing several subtitling groups into retreat, a group of fansubbers decided to fight back.

After raising their own funds, in 2016 the “Free Subtitles Foundation” (Stichting Laat Ondertitels Vrij – SLOV) took the decision to sue BREIN with the hope of obtaining a favorable legal ruling.

In 2017 it all fell apart when the Amsterdam District Court handed down its decision and sided with BREIN on each count.

The Court found that subtitles can only be created and distributed after permission has been obtained from copyright holders. Doing so outside these parameters amounts to copyright infringement.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Local Governments in Mexico Might ‘Pirate’ Dragon Ball

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/local-governments-mexico-might-pirate-dragon-ball-180316/

When one thinks of large-scale piracy, sites like The Pirate Bay and perhaps 123Movies spring to mind.

Offering millions of viewers the chance to watch the latest movies and TV shows for free the day they’re released or earlier, they’re very much hated by the entertainment industries.

Tomorrow, however, there’s the very real possibility of a huge copyright infringement controversy hitting large parts of Mexico, all centered around the hugely popular anime series Dragon Ball Super.

This Saturday episode 130, titled “The Greatest Showdown of All Time! The Ultimate Survival Battle!!”, will hit the streets. It’s the penultimate episode of the series and will see the climax of Goku and Jiren’s battle – apparently.

The key point is that fans everywhere are going nuts in anticipation, so much so that various local governments in Mexico have agreed to hold public screenings for free, including in football stadiums and public squares.

“Fans of the series are crazy to see the new episode of Dragon Ball Super and have already organized events around the country as if it were a boxing match,” local media reports.

For example, Remberto Estrada, the municipal president of Benito Juárez, Quintana Roo, confirmed that the episode will be aired at the Cultural Center of the Arts in Cancun. The mayor of Ciudad Juarez says that a viewing will go ahead at the Plaza de la Mexicanidad with giant screens and cosplay contests on the sidelines.

Many local government Twitter accounts sent out official invitations, like the one shown below.

But despite all the preparations, there is a big problem. According to reports, no group or organization has the rights to show Dragon Ball Super in public in Mexico, a fact confirmed by Toei Animation, the company behind the show.

“To the viewers and fans of Dragon Ball. We have become aware of the plans to exhibit episode # 130 of our Dragon Ball Super series in stadiums, plazas, and public places throughout Latin America,” the company said in an official announcement.

“Toei Animation has not authorized these public shows and does not support or sponsor any of these events nor do we or any of our titles endorse any institution exhibiting the unauthorized episode.

“In an effort to support copyright laws, to protect the work of thousands of persons and many labor sectors, we request that you please enjoy our titles at the official platforms and broadcasters and not support illegal screenings that incite piracy.”

Armando Cabada, mayor of Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, was one of the first municipal officials to offer support to the episode 130 movement. He believes that since the events are non-profit, they can go ahead but others have indicated their screenings will only go ahead if they can get the necessary permission.

Crunchyroll, the US video-streaming company that holds some Dragon Ball Super rights, is reportedly trying to communicate with the establishments and organizations planning to host the events to ensure that everything remains legal and above board. At this stage, however, there’s no indication that any agreements have been reached or whether they’re simply getting in touch to deliver a warning.

One region that has already confirmed its event won’t go ahead is Mexico City. The head of the local government there told disappointed fans that since they can’t get permission from Toei, the whole thing has been canceled.

What will happen in the other locations Saturday night if licenses haven’t been obtained is anyone’s guess but thousands of disappointed fans in multiple locations raises the potential for the kind of battle the Mexican authorities can well do without, even if Dragon Ball Super thrives on them.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Dolby Labs Sues Adobe For Copyright Infringement

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/dolby-labs-sues-adobe-for-copyright-infringement-180314/

Adobe has some of the most recognized software products on the market today, including Photoshop which has become a household name.

While the company has been subjected to more than its fair share of piracy over the years, a new lawsuit accuses the software giant itself of infringement.

Dolby Laboratories is best known as a company specializing in noise reduction and audio encoding and compression technologies. Its reversed double ‘D’ logo is widely recognized after appearing on millions of home hi-fi systems and film end credits.

In a complaint filed this week at a federal court in California, Dolby Labs alleges that after supplying its products to Adobe for 15 years, the latter has failed to live up to its licensing obligations and is guilty of copyright infringement and breach of contract.

“Between 2002 and 2017, Adobe designed and sold its audio-video content creation and editing software with Dolby’s industry-leading audio processing technologies,” Dolby’s complaint reads.

“The basic terms of Adobe’s licenses for products containing Dolby technologies are clear; when Adobe granted its customer a license to any Adobe product that contained Dolby technology, Adobe was contractually obligated to report the sale to Dolby and pay the agreed-upon royalty.”

Dolby says that Adobe promised it wouldn’t sell its any of its products (such as Audition, After Effects, Encore, Lightroom, and Premiere Pro) outside the scope of its licenses with Dolby. Those licenses included clauses which grant Dolby the right to inspect Adobe’s records through a third-party audit, in order to verify the accuracy of Adobe’s sales reporting and associated payment of royalties.

Over the past several years, however, things didn’t go to plan. The lawsuit claims that when Dolby tried to audit Adobe’s books, Adobe refused to “engage in even basic auditing and information sharing practices,” a rather ironic situation given the demands that Adobe places on its own licensees.

Dolby’s assessment is that Adobe spent years withholding this information in an effort to hide the full scale of its non-compliance.

“The limited information that Dolby has reviewed to-date demonstrates that Adobe included Dolby technologies in numerous Adobe software products and collections of products, but refused to report each sale or pay the agreed-upon royalties owed to Dolby,” the lawsuit claims.

Due to the lack of information in Dolby’s possession, the company says it cannot determine the full scope of Adobe’s infringement. However, Dolby accuses Adobe of multiple breaches including bundling licensed products together but only reporting one sale, selling multiple products to one customer but only paying a single license, failing to pay licenses on product upgrades, and even selling products containing Dolby technology without paying a license at all.

Dolby entered into licensing agreements with Adobe in 2003, 2012 and 2013, with each agreement detailing payment of royalties by Adobe to Dolby for each product licensed to Adobe’s customers containing Dolby technology. In the early days when the relationship between the companies first began, Adobe sold either a physical product in “shrink-wrap” form or downloads from its website, a position which made reporting very easy.

In late 2011, however, Adobe began its transition to offering its Creative Cloud (SaaS model) under which customers purchase a subscription to access Adobe software, some of which contains Dolby technology. Depending on how much the customer pays, users can select up to thirty Adobe products. At this point, things appear to have become much more complex.

On January 15, 2015, Dolby tried to inspect Adobe’s books for the period 2012-2014 via a third-party auditing firm. But, according to Dolby, over the next three years “Adobe employed various tactics to frustrate Dolby’s right to audit Adobe’s inclusion of Dolby Technologies in Adobe’s products.”

Dolby points out that under Adobe’s own licensing conditions, businesses must allow Adobe’s auditors to allow the company to inspect their records on seven days’ notice to confirm they are not in breach of Adobe licensing terms. Any discovered shortfalls in licensing must then be paid for, at a rate higher than the original license. This, Dolby says, shows that Adobe is clearly aware of why and how auditing takes place.

“After more than three years of attempting to audit Adobe’s Sales of products containing Dolby Technologies, Dolby still has not received the information required to complete an audit for the full time period,” Dolby explains.

But during this period, Adobe didn’t stand still. According to Dolby, Adobe tried to obtain new licensing from Dolby at a lower price. Dolby stood its ground and insisted on an audit first but despite an official demand, Adobe didn’t provide the complete set of books and records requested.

Eventually, Dolby concluded that Adobe had “no intention to fully comply with its audit obligations” so called in its lawyers to deal with the matter.

“Adobe’s direct and induced infringements of Dolby Licensing’s copyrights in the Asserted Dolby Works are and have been knowing, deliberate, and willful. By its unauthorized copying, use, and distribution of the Asserted Dolby Works and the Adobe Infringing Products, Adobe has violated Dolby Licensing’s exclusive rights..,” the lawsuit reads.

Noting that Adobe has profited and gained a commercial advantage as a result of its alleged infringement, Dolby demands injunctive relief restraining the company from any further breaches in violation of US copyright law.

“Dolby now brings this action to protect its intellectual property, maintain fairness across its licensing partnerships, and to fund the next generations of technology that empower the creative community which Dolby serves,” the company concludes.

Dolby’s full complaint can be found here (pdf).

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts, offers and coupons

AWS Documentation is Now Open Source and on GitHub

Post Syndicated from Jeff Barr original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/aws-documentation-is-now-open-source-and-on-github/

Earlier this year we made the AWS SDK developer guides available as GitHub repos (all found within the awsdocs organization) and invited interested parties to contribute changes and improvements in the form of pull requests.

Today we are adding over 138 additional developer and user guides to the organization, and we are looking forward to receiving your requests. You can fix bugs, improve code samples (or submit new ones), add detail, and rewrite sentences and paragraphs in the interest of accuracy or clarity. You can also look at the commit history in order to learn more about new feature and service launches and to track improvements to the documents.

Making a Contribution
Before you get started, read the Amazon Open Source Code of Conduct and take a look at the Contributing Guidelines document (generally named CONTRIBUTING.md) for the AWS service of interest. Then create a GitHub account if you don’t already have one.

Once you find something to change or improve, visit the HTML version of the document and click on Edit on GitHub button at the top of the page:

This will allow you to edit the document in source form (typically Markdown or reStructuredText). The source code is used to produce the HTML, PDF, and Kindle versions of the documentation.

Once you are in GitHub, click on the pencil icon:

This creates a “fork” — a separate copy of the file that you can edit in isolation.

Next, make an edit. In general, as a new contributor to an open source project, you should gain experience and build your reputation by making small, high-quality edits. I’ll change “dozens of services” to “over one hundred services” in this document:

Then I summarize my change and click Propose file change:

I examine the differences to verify my changes and then click Create pull request:

Then I review the details and click Create pull request again:

The pull request (also known as a PR) makes its way to the Elastic Beanstalk documentation team and they get to decide if they want to accept it, reject it, or to engage in a conversation with me to learn more. The teams endeavor to respond to PRs within 48 hours, and I’ll be notified via GitHub whenever the status of the PR changes.

As is the case with most open source projects, a steady stream of focused, modest-sized pull requests is preferable to the occasional king-sized request with dozens of edits inside.

If I am interested in tracking changes to a repo over time, I can Watch and/or Star it:

If I Watch a repo, I’ll receive an email whenever there’s a new release, issue, or pull request for that service guide.

Go Fork It
This launch gives you another way to help us to improve AWS. Let me know what you think!


2018-03-13 китайски лаптоп

Post Syndicated from Vasil Kolev original https://vasil.ludost.net/blog/?p=3380

(те всичките лаптопи се правят в Китай вече, ама не ми хрумва как да го кръстя иначе)

Преди някакво време разбрах за един проект на ентусиасти от Китай за нови дъна за стари лаптопи. От много време ми липсваше 4:3 дисплея, T420 от време на време ми беше бавен (дори с 16GB памет и SSD), по-новите thinkpad-и са с гадна клавиатура, а Retro проекта в крайна сметка не беше customizable и не беше приемлив (с тая NVidia карта и широк дисплей, да не говорим за цената).

Поръчах си един t60p от ebay, и след като дойде тръгнах да си поръчвам дъното. От форума на хората и някаква facebook страница намерих контакти, писах си с един човек, който ми предложи директно лаптоп, но аз си поръчах само дъното (in hindsight, да си бях взел цял лаптоп). Няколко неща по темата с поръчването:
– опциите бяха SWIFT и western union. Не ми се разхождаше, та го направих по SWIFT, и там се оказа, че има допълнителни такси, които взимат от получателя (които не могат да вземат от мен);
– За освобождаване от митница ми поискаха следните неща: фактура (която поисках да ми издадат, щото нямаше) която включва и цената и транспортните разходи, EORI номер, пълномощно да ме представляват и документ за направеното плащане (изискване на митниците за стоки от Китай и Хонг Конг, пише “SWIFT или PayPal”);
– EORI номер може да си издадете безплатно, ако имате електронен подпис и търпение (бях си издал за нещо друго, отне около седмица);
– DHL могат да пратят как изглежда митническата декларация, да си я платите с един online превод и да си получите нещата (иначе искат 24 лв да направят превода те);

Дъното беше $780 и доставка, вариантът за това дъно с цял лаптоп (без памет) беше $980 за 1400×1050 матрица и $1100 с 1600×1200 матрица (нови, IPS, по думи на продавача).

Хората си имат и форум, в който има и инструкции за сглобяване (google translate е ваш добър приятел за тия страници). При мен сглобяването се забави, понеже се оказа, че има вариант на T60p, който е с 16:10 матрица, за който дъното не става, и аз съм взел точно такъв, та си поръчвах нов и чаках да пристигне.

Последва сглабянето с помощта на добрите хора от adsys (на които им отрових живота, щото се оказа доста пипкава работа):
– има малко рязане по кутията (има го описано във форума, със снимки);
– болтовете за закачане са по-малко, дупките на някои са запушени;
– на дъното до конектора за монитор има превключвател за типа на дисплея (1024×768 или по-голям);
– трябва ви DDR4 памет;
– най-вероятно wifi картата от преди няма да ви върши работа, аз си взех моята от T420-ката, и малко трябваше да се лепне с тиксо, понеже е половината слот и нямам преходник;
– CD-то от T60 няма да влезе, понеже е PATA, а конектора на дъното е SATA (не, че ползвам CD). Трябва да си измисля нещо за запушване на дупката;

Неща за дооправяне:
– поне за момента под linux GPU-то не работи (забива на boot), и за това си ползвам xfwm4 вместо compiz, submit-нал съм bug report;
– горните бутони на touchpad-а спират да работят след suspend/resume, направил съм един fix, ама трябва да събера желание да рестартирам.

Моята работна среда на 4:3 се усеща доста по-приятно и най-накрая мога да си пусна email клиента в режим като преди (отляво списък папки, отдясно разделено на две – отгоре списък писма, отдолу отвореното писмо, вместо три вертикални колони, дето едвам пасваха). Също така с тоя процесор вече firefox-а се движи почти прилично, като си оправя и GPU-то, вероятно всичко ще лети.

U.S. Navy Under Fire in Mass Software Piracy Lawsuit

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/u-s-navy-under-fire-in-mass-software-piracy-lawsuit-180312/

In 2011 and 2012, the US Navy began using BS Contact Geo, a 3D virtual reality application developed by German company Bitmanagement.

The Navy reportedly agreed to purchase licenses for use on 38 computers, but things began to escalate.

While Bitmanagement was hopeful that it could sell additional licenses to the Navy, the software vendor soon discovered the US Government had already installed it on 100,000 computers without extra compensation.

In a Federal Claims Court complaint filed by Bitmanagement two years ago, that figure later increased to hundreds of thousands of computers. Because of the alleged infringement, Bitmanagement demanded damages totaling hundreds of millions of dollars.

In the months that followed both parties conducted discovery and a few days ago the software company filed a motion for partial summary judgment, asking the court to rule that the US Government is liable for copyright infringement.

According to the software company, it’s clear that the US Government crossed a line.

“The Navy admits that it began installing the software onto hundreds of thousands of machines in the summer of 2013, and that it ultimately installed the software onto at least 429,604 computers. When it learned of this mass installation, Bitmanagement was surprised, but confident that it would be compensated for the numerous copies the Government had made,” the motion reads.

“Over time, however, it became clear that the Navy had no intention to pay Bitmanagement for the software it had copied without authorization, as it declined to execute any license on a scale commensurate with what it took,” Bitmanagement adds.

In its defense, the US Government had argued that it bought concurrent-use licenses, which permitted the software to be installed across the Navy network. However, Bitmanagement argues that it is impossible as the reseller that sold the software was only authorized to sell PC licenses.

In addition, the software company points out that the word “concurrent” doesn’t appear in the contracts, nor was there any mention of mass installations.

The Government also argued that Bitmanagement impliedly authorized it to install the software on hundreds of thousands of computers. This defense also makes little sense, the software company counters.

The Navy licensed an earlier version of the software for $30,000, which could be used on 100 computers, so it would seem odd that it could use the later version on hundreds of thousands of computers for only $5,490, the company argues.

“To establish that it had an implied license, the Government must show that Bitmanagement — despite having licensed a less advanced copy of its software to the Government in 2008 on a PC basis that allowed for installation on a total of 100 computers in exchange for $30,000 — later authorized the Government to make an unlimited number of installations of its advanced software product for $5,490.”

The full motion brings up a wide range of other arguments as well which, according to Bitmanagement, make it clear that the US Government is liable for copyright infringement. It, therefore, asks the court for a partial summary judgment.

“Bitmanagement respectfully requests that this Court grant summary judgment as to the Government’s liability for copyright infringement and hold that the Government copied BS Contact Geo beyond the limits of its license, on a scale equal to the hundreds of thousands of unauthorized copies of BS Contact Geo that the Government either installed or made available for installation,” the company concludes.

If the Government is indeed liable the scale of the damages will be decided at a later stage. The software company previously noted that this could be as high as $600 million.

This is not the first time that the U.S. military has been ‘caught’ pirating software. A few years ago it was accused of operating unlicensed logistics software, a case the Obama administration eventually settled for $50 million.

A copy of the motion for partial summary judgment is available here (pdf).

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts, offers and coupons

Two New Papers on the Encryption Debate

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/03/two_new_papers_.html

Seems like everyone is writing about encryption and backdoors this season.

I recently blogged about the new National Academies report on the same topic.

Here’s a review of the National Academies report, and another of the East West Institute’s report.

EDITED TO ADD (3/8): Commentary on the National Academies study by the EFF.

#CensorshipMachine: отново за чл.13 от проекта за директива за авторското право

Post Syndicated from nellyo original https://nellyo.wordpress.com/2018/03/10/copyright_draft_13/


В ход е ревизията на правната рамка на авторското право в ЕС.

Един от спорните текстове е на чл.13 – според вносителя

Член 13 въвежда задължение за доставчиците на услуги на информационното общество, които съхраняват големи обеми произведения и други обекти, качени от техните ползватели, и осигуряват достъп до тях, да прилагат подходящи и пропорционални мерки за гарантиране на действието на споразуменията, сключени с носителите на права, и да не допускат в техните услуги да се предлага съдържание, определено от носителите на права в сътрудничество с доставчиците на услуги.

Разпоредбата е тревожна. Върви се към изискване към сътрудничество на посредниците и оттам – към приватизирано правоприлагане. Доставчиците да не допускат нарушения – това означава да предотвратяват публикуване от трети лица – означава преценка от частни лица  – и означава още контрол на входа.

Българското председателство тази седмица е предложило редакция на спорната разпоредба.

Оценката на организацията за цифрови права EDRi:

Новият текст на председателството следва същия път към машината за цензура като предишните текстове. Доставчиците на онлайн услуги биха били отговорни за неправомерно “съобщаване или предоставяне на разположение на обществеността”, когато те не “предотвратяват наличието” на определено съдържание, което технически води към задължението за инсталиране на филтри.  За член 13 можем да кажем накратко –  “филтрирай или ще бъдеш филтриран”.

А за филтрите е говорено толкова много, че няма нужда да се повтаря.

Има подписки за заличаване на чл.13, призовават се членовете на ЕП да не подкрепят машината за цензура. Но подходът не е само в тази директива, той е и в Препоръката за съдържанието онлайн, ще видим как ще се развие и обсъждането на ревизията на медийната директива по отношение на платформите и, разбира се, мерките срещу дезинформацията и фалшивите новини.

Това, което наричат саморегулиране, е на път да се окаже приватизирано прилагане на ограничения  – особено от големите компании. Фейбук наема.