Get ready - Internet as you know it will be gone "The EU is About to Destroy The Internet"

a reply to: Puppylove

They're not taking it away. Its about charging for links etc. Only the largest (MSM) will survive. We see how that has turned out for a free press.

The EU is the 4th Reich. The fascists realised they could not win a physical war against freedom loving people, so they did it through subterfuge, legislation and governments. Make no mistake, the players are the same, but the game is different.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

They're doing more than enough.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

Just like we used to back when dial was all we had.

Did somebody say move to the U.S.? Don't waste your time. If the EU does this, the U.S. won't be far behind.

The internet is where money is now, so yeah, they want it. Haven't we always said they would charge for air if they could figure out a way to do it?

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Chapter 13 has to do with copyright laws

European Union is in the process of revising copyright laws, and many people are alarmed about the impact that passage of the law as it is drafted at this point could have on the sharing of information online. The main focus of attention is Article 13 of the Copyright proposal of the European Commission which would seemingly drastically curtail fair use, which is the doctrine that certain copyrighted material can be used in limited ways without permission from copyright holders. I haven’t had time to dig deeply into all the legal ramifications, but what many observers are saying is that if the law is implemented it could drastically change the way the internet operates

e-catworld.com...

Like what I just posted. It could be copyright infringement, and the writer could bill ATS for it. Oh noz!

Sooo.....

These measures would in practice require monitoring and filtering of everything that European citizens upload to content-sharing services from social media sites (like Twitter and Facebook), outlets for creative expression (like YouTube, DeviantArt, SoundCloud, and Tumblr), to informational sites (like Wikipedia and the Internet Archives), to open source software repositories (like GitHub). It would be the responsibility of these services to play judge, jury, and executioner for copyright enforcement — businesses large and small could be held liable for the content their users access and share.

a reply to: angeldoll
As long as we keep the enemy (DNC/Communists) from taking away our second amendment, I really doubt this is in our future. And it would not matter anyways, clearly people will pay whatever it takes to get their signal fix. I seen people who are hungry with empty fridges still have their internet and video game specific subscription to play their WOW.

This is the land of the zombies. If you sell it, they will buy.

But I blame a lack of personal firearm ownership in the EU for the continued slide into attacks on personal liberty and rights. Now, you have to ask, is the internet really a right?? It is absolutely zero percent necessary for any part of staying alive or living a comfortable life in the 21st century. I kind of wish they would all get together and ban the entire internet out of existence for like at least a year as a global social experiment.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

You don't have to move here.

We can invade you, the economy will boom!
Win win.

originally posted by: rickymouse
It isn't going to stop with the EU.

WE may have freedom of speech here in America, that doesn't mean that they can't charge us to use the privilege.

Takes the "free" out of freedom.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Hey the eu is all about free speech!

Just ask the UK!

I mean yeah, they will jail people for reporting on child rape cases, then gag the media for reprting on that arrest, and arrest people for having dogs make gestures or quoting rap lyrics.

But as long as you only say government approved speech, you can say whatever you want!

So being forced to pay for media articles is such super better more free speech!

Europe never had freedom of speech nor any laws protecting it.

The government always has to step in and make things better.

I did some research on this on my own because of how heavily spun most stories on ATS are these days. What I found out about the link tax was enough to be against this law. Apparently, there will be some red tape involved if someone wants to link to and quote a news source, which I do on ATS all the time and consider to be good policy.

Google is mostly being targeted for showing snippets of other websites in search results. I disagree with punishing Google for this, as I think it only benefits those who show up in the search results. How else do they expect to get viewers if viewers can’t find them on search engines?

In fact, when a law like this appeared in Spain, Google simply stopped showing Spanish news outlets in their search results.

Here is a news source with further information from Forbes:

Forbes

It turns out the law would require someone to have a license to link to a news story. This is simply ridiculous and gets in the way of the Information Age.

edit on 01pmFri, 01 Jun 2018 19:38:25 -0500kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)

edit on 01pmFri, 01 Jun 2018 19:38:39 -0500kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: angeldoll
The internet is where money is now, so yeah, they want it. Haven't we always said they would charge for air if they could figure out a way to do it?

Those who seek money would destroy the internet to get it. That is the idea behind repealing net neutrality, as well.

a reply to: Grambler

I already proved my point about Tommy Robinson in the thread we debated in - he broke the law, was on a suspended sentence, then broke the law again - he even went so far as to illegally record video in a court room, which is also illegal in the U.S.. and in another case he attempted to reveal the identities of some people in a court case whose identities were protected by law. What happened to him was fair and just. You either didn’t research the whole story or were purposely leaving out key details to be misleading.

It’s a shame that you and your conservative allies can go to such lengths to taint such fine arguments with fabricated propoganda.

Other than that, I do agree with you that the media gag orders go a bit far, and I’ll agree that it was going too far to punish the guy who made videos of his dog doing the Nazi salute.

I also agree that the link tax / registration requirement is nonsense. Hell, I think it’s nonsense that people can’t play music in the background of their gaming streams without being punished for copyright infringement.

Come to think of it, I’m also a fan of Dragonball Z Abridged, a great fan-based parody that often comes under fire for violating copyright restrictions - yet this series is what got me interested in Dragonball in the first place, and I’ve since purchased various Dragonball merchandise including DVDs and mangas.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight


Is there no anti-government leader amongst the population of the European Union?

The last thing you want to do is move away. Your top priority should be to fight the individuals who are attempting to screw you over. The PEOPLE have the REAL POWER.

Um... not in the EU they aren't...

UNREAL. So they're just going to bend over and take it? So sad...

I didn't say that either, but anyone who think that the EU serves the people is in for a rude awakening.

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese
a reply to: BlueAjah

It isn't a pending law. It's a proposal, distorted by two layers of commentary.

A proposal that Germany isn't happy with - something everyone, even the guy who made the video, has either missed or ignored.

File alongside all those Daily Mail articles who turn pastel conditional verbs into strong imperative ones.

That's how it looked to me too, but I can at least hope that some percentage of the population in the EU wakes up and realizes what a fix they are in that such a proposal could gain heft and the taken seriously, THEN for that percentage to realize how little they could do to stop the machine.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk

originally posted by: toms54

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
It's an interesting subject to contemplate. I've actually been waiting for something like this to happen for a long time. Seizing control of the internet for the purposes of taxation will not be an easy undertaking, and it will likely destroy the internet was we know it today in the process. It was only a matter of time really. The establishment elite politicians have been drooling over the internet for many, many, years...trying to figure out a way to get their money grubbing mitts into it.

The problem though with their diabolical plan is, the "Internet" is smarter than they are. Smarter almost in an AI way (even though no one was thinking AI when all the routing protocols were developed). So, one of the first things they'll have to do is cut all the regional links (which they can do), but the second they do this the value of the 'Internet' as an entity is severely diminished. Consequently, the basis for tax revenue is also severely diminished. And this has been the problem...until now.

The other way to go after the internet is what the EU approach is; threaten people based on something which can't move around (like routing tables can). Threaten them where they "live", and this is the EU approach.

Maybe people felt the same way about radio when that first started. Now all of the radio and TV stations are absorbed into a few conglomerate Borg entities run by just a handful of people. As this progresses, expect every website to be required to purchase a broadcast license. The copyright licenses for content are exactly the same as the royalty system used throughout the music industry. It is inevitable. Resistance is futile.

Interesting thought, but I'm not so sure. And, radio is a great example of why too. Radio was able to be licensed only in certain areas of the RF spectrum, and the principle reason for this is ERP and range. The HF band, for example, can't really be licensed (other than the quasi-honor system used now) because range is practically unlimited with very little ERP relatively speaking due to properties of the Earth's magnetosphere. Other bands lend themselves better to licensing because range can be controlled via ERP limitations.

The 'Internet' like HF radio has an unlimited 'range' with relatively low power requirements. So, a packet can reach anywhere on the globe relatively easily, much like an HF radio signal.

Further, when you look at Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) and understand how routing tables work, then you will see why "channelizing" the internet isn't really possible without destroying it first. Routing tables 'learn' from each other and they have to be allowed to do this. If you stop this from happening then you compartmentalize the internet.

I'm not thinking in router terms when I talk of organizing the internet into channels. I am talking about the way internet is marketed by the corporate powers that be. Maybe you are too young to remember AOL or the net neutrality debates. All these internet portal sites like Yahoo and Prodigy that tried to organize internet into channels as a way to monetize the traffic with referral fees. It's not about how far a signal transmits. If they're not making money, they don't want to transmit anything for free.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Puppylove

They're not taking it away. Its about charging for links etc. Only the largest (MSM) will survive. We see how that has turned out for a free press.

That's what I believe. It's all about money. Why don't they tax porn if they want money?

originally posted by: darkbake
I did some research on this on my own because of how heavily spun most stories on ATS are these days. What I found out about the link tax was enough to be against this law. Apparently, there will be some red tape involved if someone wants to link to and quote a news source, which I do on ATS all the time and consider to be good policy.

Google is mostly being targeted for showing snippets of other websites in search results. I disagree with punishing Google for this, as I think it only benefits those who show up in the search results. How else do they expect to get viewers if viewers can’t find them on search engines?

In fact, when a law like this appeared in Spain, Google simply stopped showing Spanish news outlets in their search results.

Here is a news source with further information from Forbes:

Forbes

It turns out the law would require someone to have a license to link to a news story. This is simply ridiculous and gets in the way of the Information Age.

I don't like the idea but I can understand it this way. If you are a content creator in the music industry and create a song that contains snippets off other songs within it the people that created those other songs want to get paid for it. You are using their copyrighted material to cobble together your own creation. You benefit from their work.

How many websites aggregate news clips maybe with some commentary? These places are using someone else's copyrighted material. What's the difference? They have to pay just like a radio station that plays different artist's music.

a reply to: muzzleflash

Hahaha ...still waiting for he treasures from the liberation of Afghanistan & Iraq. Oh I forgot...the spoils go to the Corps. While the taxpayer foots the bill