Return to Video

Copywrongs 2.0 (33c3)

  • Not Synced
    Today we start with Julia Reda
  • Not Synced
    she's the member of the European Parliament
    for European Pirate Party
  • Not Synced
    and vice chair of the greens' ifa group
  • Not Synced
    and her first talk at 31c3
    she talked about copywrongs
  • Not Synced
    and now we go one step further
    to copywrongs 2.0
  • Not Synced
    the stage is yours
    and give a warm round of applause, please
    for Julia Reda
  • Not Synced
    Hello everybody
  • Not Synced
    i was here two years ago for 31c3
  • Not Synced
    and back then i was a freshly elected
    member of the European parliament
  • Not Synced
    and i was quite optimistic that finally
    the time had come for a meaningful
    copyright reform in europe
  • Not Synced
    and actually things were going okay
    for about a year
  • Not Synced
    the parliament actually proposed some
    improvements to copyright law based on my initiatives
  • Not Synced
    and then nothing really happened for about a year
  • Not Synced
    until everybody's favourite year came
    around, 2016
  • Not Synced
    if you think that 2016 was a terrible year
  • Not Synced
    ask a copyright activist.
  • Not Synced
    we've been one week in September
    two very dramatic things happened
  • Not Synced
    first the european commission released
    its proposal for the long awaited reform of copyright law
  • Not Synced
    and you're going to hear me rant about it
    for the next hour, so this gives you an idea
  • Not Synced
    of about how bad it was
  • Not Synced
    and the other thing that happened during
    that week was
  • Not Synced
    that the European court of justice
    made a ruling where it decided
  • Not Synced
    that hyperlinks can constitute
    a copyright infringement
  • Not Synced
    so you would think that a person
    who is linking is not the one
  • Not Synced
    who is actually putting the stuff online,
    so they shouldn't be liable for copyright infringement
  • Not Synced
    however the european court of justice
    asked itself, well
  • Not Synced
    what if the person who is linking to the content
    actually knows that that content is illegal
  • Not Synced
    they think in this case there should be
    a copyright infringement
  • Not Synced
    so they decided that this is the case now
  • Not Synced
    and then they decided that if this link
    is made with a profit motive
  • Not Synced
    somebody is trying to make money
  • Not Synced
    then you can pretty much assume
    they know that whatever they are linking to
  • Not Synced
    is a copyright infringement and they
    actually have to prove that they didn't know
  • Not Synced
    which is quite a difficult thing to do
  • Not Synced
    so in this particular case it was about
  • Not Synced
    right wing populist website that for profit
  • Not Synced
    that was linking to unreleased playboy photos
  • Not Synced
    so you might think 'okay maybe i don't
    feel too bad for them specifically'
  • Not Synced
    but what does it actually mean for other websites
  • Not Synced
    will they now have to monitor contiunously
  • Not Synced
    everything that's going on on the website that
    they have set a link to
  • Not Synced
    to find out, we can look at one ruling
    that already took place based on that
  • Not Synced
    by everybody's favourite court, the
    district court of Hamburg.
  • Not Synced
    applause
  • Not Synced
    i see there are some fans of the
    district court of Hamburg in the audience
  • Not Synced
    so the district court of Hamburg had a case
  • Not Synced
    where somebody had linked from their
    own website, from the about-me page
  • Not Synced
    to a different website on which there was
    a photograph that looked a little bit like this
  • Not Synced
    it's not exactly this picture actually
  • Not Synced
    with some ufos.
  • Not Synced
    and this photo had been modified, the
    photographter of the original picture without ufos
  • Not Synced
    had put the picture under a creative commons
    license
  • Not Synced
    and the person who had put in on their website
    actually attributed it to the correct photographer
  • Not Synced
    however they did not mention that the original
    picture didn't contain ufos
  • Not Synced
    so therefore it was copyright infringement
  • Not Synced
    so the court decided that since the website
    owner of the website who linked to this
  • Not Synced
    sells educational materials on the same domain,
  • Not Synced
    not on the about-me page.
Title:
Copywrongs 2.0 (33c3)
Description:

more » « less
Video Language:
English
Duration:
01:01:26

English subtitles

Incomplete

Revisions