This is now a daily occurrence. Wake up, discover which lie Crispin has been told and repeated in public, all the while dodging the substance of the critique of his organisation's support for mass internet surveillance and censorship.
Who can forget the day he said that my (bestselling) first novel was a failure, and that my publisher thereafter rejected me? (All my novels are bestsellers, and my publisher just bought another one from me).
Or the day he found a hatchet-piece about seven-year-old blog post I'd written defending copyright, and tweeted that it was evidence that I didn't respect copyright?
Giving creators more copyright powers to combat exploitation by monopolistic corporations is like giving your kid more cash to compensate for having his lunch money stolen by schoolyard bullies. They'll take that too.
Give creators 100 years of copyright, and corporations will require that it be assigned to them for the full duration as a condition of publication.
Give them the right to license - and thus, prohibit - excerpting, and corporations will take that right as a condition of access to the market.
Today Members of the European Parliament adopted three terrible proposals in the new #CopyrightDirective and rejected every good one, setting the stage for mass, automated surveillance and arbitrary censorship of the Internet. (1/6) eff.org/deeplinks/2018…
#Article13: the Copyright Filters. All but the smallest platforms will have to defensively adopt copyright filters that examine everything you post, and censor anything judged to be a copyright infringement. (2/6) eff.org/deeplinks/2018…
#Article11: Linking to the news using more than one word from the article is prohibited unless you're using a service that bought a license from the news site you want to link to. (3/6) eff.org/deeplinks/2018…
Regards #Article13, I wrote up a little command-line false-positive emulator; it tests 10 million events with a test (for copyrighted material, abusive material, whatever) that is 99.5% accurate, with a rate of 1-in-10,000 items actually being bad.
For that scenario - all of which inputs are tuneable - you can see that we'd typically be making about 50,000 people very upset, by miscategorising them as copyright thieves or perpetrators of abuse:
But let's vary the stats: @neilturkewitz is pushing a 2017 post by very respected fellow geek and expert @paulvixie in which Paul speaks encouragingly about a 1-to-2% error rate; let's split the difference, use 1.5% errors, ie: 98.5% accuracy: circleid.com/posts/20170420…
Our live coverage of the EUs Parliamentary vote on “Copyright in the Digital Single Market" directive—including #Article13 and #Article11—begins now. Follow us @efflive for commentary. This committee vote may be the last chance a democratic institution has to modify the bill.
What’s being voted on?
#Article11 of the proposed law would create a new quasi-copyright power that would let news organizations charge others for linking and quoting tiny snippets of their news stories—even when they describe well-known facts, like "Trump Travels to Korea."
#Article13 would require mandatory copyright filters on any site that lets users upload their content to the world. These filters would scan every contribution to the Web, and refuse to accept anything that its algorithms believe may be copyrighted material.
Everyone needs to know just how wildly dangerous the European Union’s vote this week could be for the global Internet, and the undecided members of the European Parliament must consider the massive worldwide ramifications of their votes. (1/24)