• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Final Version of the EU's Copyright Directive Is the Worst One Yet

See I this is what I mean you believe that copyright holders should have unlimited power over their work, no matter what. They are not making money from the music, it is fair use, if it can be considered use at all.

You don't seem to understand Twitch. You can make money on your Twitch stream. PewPewDie is the most visible example.
 
Disagree to an extent. If the news organization and the writers put the work in and put the story into circulation, they should be paid in some way for the work. That work should not be allowed to be distributed far and wide without some compensation.

Just put a paywall on their content, like various press agencies already do.
 
You don't seem to understand Twitch. You can make money on your Twitch stream. PewPewDie is the most visible example.

But people are not there for the music, they are there for the gaming. The music is purely incidental.
 
But people are not there for the music, they are there for the gaming. The music is purely incidental.

Then it isn't needed. Look, if someone is going to use music to assist them in making money, the music creator deserves to have been asked for permission or given a small cut. Part of every single download and use agreement is to not reproduce for the purpose of making money. There is literally no leg to stand on for your argument.
 
Not if he paid for it and not if he uses it to make money in some way. Which is why Twitch dinged him, they don't want the headache of multiple claims on a stream the artist and the user can both make money from.

But... I wasn't, you could barely hear it. But the twitch algorithm heard it...
 
Disagree to an extent. If the news organization and the writers put the work in and put the story into circulation, they should be paid in some way for the work. That work should not be allowed to be distributed far and wide without some compensation.

However a news organization can protect its content from being distributed all over the net. I believe once the news organization puts out it's content for public viewing it's over. The NYT post articles on the net but they charge a fee to read them, so does the Washington Post, if you want to read an article it cost $1. That may be the way all news outlets protects it's content. But by not charging they get their content out there to get a bigger viewership.
 
Websites can use hyperlinking to prevent copy/pasting and save as functions. You aren't quite as tech savvy as you think you are.

... a webpage can't completely overwrite the host browser's functionality - the browser's own save feature would still be usable. Not to mention that basic scripts that use those copy+paste blocks (which IMO are sheer idiocy) could be dealt with by use of addons, or using a browser's inspector tools, and dev/debugging tools..
 
I got dinged by twitch because my wife was listening to music in the background and my mic picked up enough to trip their copyright strike rules.

It seems you can listen to most entire albums on a youtube video.
YouTube
 

Well, so long as Brexit happens I can't see it affecting me all that much... I can't think of a single EU media source I use regularly that isn't from the UK.

That doesn't mean the legislation doesn't suck, though.

My biggest issue right now is the trend for newspaper websites like WaPo moving behind paywalls. I'm sure their online advertisers are thrilled about that.
 
Back
Top Bottom