Got a YouTube account?

New: enable viewer-created translations and captions on your YouTube channel!

English subtitles

← Copywrongs 2.0 (33c3)

Get Embed Code
1 Language

Showing Revision 2 created 01/01/2017 by pseyfert.

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