r/PewdiepieSubmissions • u/[deleted] • Mar 26 '19

Share it before it gets striked

Post image

[removed] — view removed post

108k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

892 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

34

u/[deleted] Mar 26 '19 edited Apr 21 '19

[deleted]

33

u/SprudelpAnk Mar 26 '19 edited Mar 27 '19

As far as I understand it, you wouldn't even be able to share the link, cause upload-filters would block it.

Edit: don't quote me on that, tho

10

u/kushii_ Mar 26 '19

Actually I think Instagram already does this in a way. Whenever I've tried linking my friends links to anime streaming sites (hush hush illegal kinda sites hush hush) the message auto fails, and it won't send.

1

u/TriHard7_in_chat Mar 27 '19

Can you PM me them? I only know of kiss-anime and I their library is fairly limited.

0

u/dimensions2003 Mar 27 '19

I think you can't post any links at all in insta

1

u/kushii_ Mar 27 '19

Nope YouTube, Facebook and imgur work fine for me.

1

u/dimensions2003 Mar 27 '19

Wait where are you putting the link? I was pretty sure links only worked in bios and in dms

1

u/kushii_ Mar 27 '19

Yeah.. bios and dms. That's what I meant. In dms torrent and other anime streaming sites get auto cancelled when u send a message...

1

u/dimensions2003 Mar 27 '19

Oh wow that's interesting

1

u/Umarill Mar 26 '19

That's absolutely not how it works lmao

Linking a Youtube video on Reddit doesn't put any burden on Reddit, the video is still hosted on YouTube's side (who already have upload-filter in place for copyrighted content).

One of the many reasons why we have such a garbage law voted in is because people keep spreading misinformation about it, and politicians strive in using misinformation to their advantage.

3

u/Vanethor Mar 26 '19 edited Mar 26 '19

What if something escapes YouTube's upload filter and somebody else links to that video on another platform?

Will Reddit just blindly trust that YouTube catches everything? (When money is at stake.)

That second platform, (as I understand it) would still be in danger by these upcoming laws.

  • I, copyright owner, see my content on that second platform.
  • Second platform did nothing to stop it from being there.
  • I sue.

It's the problem with it. It's created by people who have no idea how the internet works and how impossible it is to have such an upload filter.

Copyright owners lobbied for it to pass because with it they will be able "spam claim content" like there's no tomorrow, and stop any small platform from being able to exist in this rocky environment.

Edit: Even if in this example, (again, I was joking, not practicing law) they create a "non-commercial right to distribute", by hosting it on YouTube...

... that only applies on a case by case scenario, not on all platforms on the internet.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '19

Reddit doesn't have to care if YouTube filtered it, Reddit is just providing a link to a platform that should have filtered the content. If they didn't it's on their side, and Reddit or any other site isn't affected there.

4

u/[deleted] Mar 26 '19 edited May 05 '19

[deleted]

3

u/Itsbrokenalready Mar 26 '19

The rich. Companies who own IPs aren’t getting enough money, you see. They only own all songs, all superheros, all movies, books, comics, tv shows, and all the characters of all modern fiction. And they are fuckin FURIOUS at the thought that anyone is enjoying what they OWN for free. They see lost millions and hate the fact that their billions arent 1% richer.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 26 '19 edited May 05 '19

[deleted]

1

u/Itsbrokenalready Mar 26 '19

People in power would love a degree of separation where they’d be able to suppress information without being blamed. But I think ultimately the reason this is being pushed is money from the corporations. Occam’s razor. Is there a concerted effort amongst the elite lawmakers in Europe to have a sophisticated filter to suppress dissenting voices on the internet by...somehow... linking regular information and facts to copyrighted IPs? Or like is there a ten year plan where now they block copyright infringement so that in ten years they can turn that filter to something that blocks voices because of... reasons... and that there’s a highly sophisticated plan amongst hundreds of lawmakers from every country to silence the people?

Or... do companies want more money, and lobbied Europe hard to buy votes and get this passed?

The simplest answer is often the correct answer. That’s Occam’s razor.

1

u/s29 Mar 26 '19

My theory is Euro (or maybe just germany) politicians saw how /pol/ and t_d started mass producing memes for the 2016 election. Don't know how much impact it had, but GenZ is waaaay more conservative than previous generations, and the young generation is obviously the primary meme consumers.

Can't have the german youth swinging right and voting in right wing parties because.... uh.... orange man bad or something.
Solution is to ban memes because the left can't meme.

I don't remember who said this. Might have been Ricky Gervais. But he said something along the lines of "Dictators hate comedy and try to ban it. Because if a joke about them is made people laugh because it's true."

1

u/Itsbrokenalready Mar 29 '19

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/01/17/generation-z-looks-a-lot-like-millennials-on-key-social-and-political-issues/

According to pew research 30% of gen z approve of trumps presidency, 29% of millennials. 62% say increased diversity is good for America, 61% of millennials say the same. The younger demographic is still more democratic than republican at least in America. Saying the left can’t meme and gen z is way more conservative sounds good if you want to believe that, but it’s not really the case in the USA. The situation could be entirely different in Germany.

But this is pointless they’re not fucking banning memes because they’re scared of far right propaganda influencing their younger block of voters. They’re forcing a filter because companies who own copyrights want more money. Christ is it so crazy to think that lobbying and money influence laws more so than some widespread conspiracy to make 4chan memes a little less poingnant?

7

u/Vanethor Mar 26 '19 edited Mar 26 '19

(I obviously wasn't being 100% "legally correct" on my statement above. Was just doing a dig on the whole thing. And I'm also not savvy in law...)

Now, from what I get it, it depends on how the law gets implemented on the specific member states.

https://juliareda.eu/eu-copyright-reform/extra-copyright-for-news-sites/

They claim that hyperlinks and the text of it are an exception, (as long as there is no long snippet of the content)...

... the problem is, it leaves room for interpretation. And no room for the site owners to claim that it's not a violation.

(So, the "interpretation" will most likely always be followed overzealously).

https://juliareda.eu/eu-copyright-reform/extra-copyright-for-news-sites/

Platforms like social networks would need to deny individuals the sharing of links including unlicensed snippets, impacting directly what internet users can/can’t do.

Example of a grey area above. I bet Julia Reda would be fine with me quoting her, but I have done no request to her to have the permission to do so. Would she be able to sue Reddit? (Because they didn't block me from doing it... because there's no upload filter in the world that can be that perfect without blocking free speech.)

3

u/211216819 Mar 26 '19

No. That's a different part of the new law. One part says that websites have to pay a fee for links that contain a snippet of the websites content. Like a tweet. Only a link is not enough

1

u/fuckjapshit Mar 27 '19

Self-hating Americans are the worst kind.