I now disagree with this. Copyright infringers should be told, not have their work removed. x I disagree with Articles 13 and 11. I agree with a form of Article 13 I agree with a form of Article 13 that offers subsidised, appropriate copyright filtering, optional paid links and education about how to makes sales using meditation. I see the concerns about Article 13 as unfounded, and privacy fears about censorship are not as important as upholding the intellectual property laws, which can be fair because it is the same as before, just enforced, and artists obtain licenses for free. The concerns about how to make sales, having accredited training can b.e allayed. If they can't get a licence or have violated copyright, then they should look into other means of expressing themselves, perhaps by paraphrasing, writing a new song or paraphrasing code. Teenagers can view life art with free etc., licences so that providers can observe human rights. Going outside to VPNs to avoid blocked content is not necessary with new material because it will be mainly licensed, and old material that has copyright violations, e.g. PhD theses or videos will need to be gradually updated. It would look silly to block individual lines of a PhD required for research because this would interrupt the flow of understanding, so maybe these works need to stored in an interim location. A sophisticated idea would be to change the offending lines to be paraphrased or paraphrase the cover song's lyrics and change the backing track to keep the sound of the voice and instruments but with different chord progressions and features! - Can we sustain automated sales (which needs meditation and programming), training? Can we have reviews, etc., free licences, option for an unlimited sharing licence? - My sales app's development and a possible new market - Subsidised spiritual training in a needed business or product department would automatically be added to the bill when systems detected thoughts/content that required it (these are thoughts deliberately placed by the person in a public area using computational telepathy) - Sites may keep memes, shares and news with free licences. - Companies may have to charge users to cover paying paid licences of content and copyright filter software. - Would companies charging users to cover paying paid licences of content cancel out and would the copyright laws be timely, given the possible large costs and the possible question over closing small businesses? Money or no money: I agree with Article 13 without the link tax being mandatory (so, publishers can set price as free or paid). The government should subsidise the software to detect copyrighted material for small businesses; otherwise they would be forced to go on to servers with other businesses, I make $50 per year from my business per year and have web hosting costs, so I cannot afford expensive copyright filter software. - Upload filtering could prevent non-copyright material being filtered by using more sophisticated software - Artists should license reviews, parodies, mixes, covers, etc. from the copyright holder. - An original copyright holder should log in to a website to create a copyright claim to their uploaded work, coordinated on other sites, or this should be done automatically when they upload it. - Generic terms, out-of-copyright public domain and works such as some fonts should have free licences Moral sides - Users should be able to upload whatever they want, with help to avoid copyrighted material from elsewhere on the web, perhaps sentence by sentence. It is problematic to copyright a circle, but anything non-generic may be copyrighted. Money - What is copyright? - Fonts, web design, text, images, videos, code Human rights from better software to detect and correct copyright material where citations, small quotes should be excepted from copyright or can approach copyright holder for a licence - Facebook should be free; YouTube users should pay, Gmail should be free, in fact, all should pay - The nature of Facebook means that thoughts that it takes care of should be taken care of anyway, without payment, or paid where ads should be paid for a page by users if they have one, perhaps it should have some content with free licences - YouTube doesn't pay enough so should pay more, but there are problems with legally targeting it individually - Gmail is guilt-ridden to pay because it is interactive, so perhaps leave it free Facebook doesn't want to be paid, except for advertising, so could have free licences for copyright materials if agreed to by the copyright holder, or ask for payment for copyright materials to cover paying them, but in fact this wouldn't be profitable for the user, so perhaps payment as part of the law should be excluded. YouTube should have a separate law or boycotts to ask it to pay for royalties. YouTube should pay artists, so then ask for subscription fees Could asking companies to pay artists who charge a certain licence fee be too much to pay if there are many views, not necessarily offset by the artist (who the company pays, so could they be asked to pay a subscription fee or admin costs?). Or, could payment by viewers to cover the licence costs be too expensive and lead to going to VPNs to access blocked content, or will the viewer subscription fees cover this? If the government prevents VPNs, then licence and subscription costs should be capped to make them affordable. Roughly, companies will pay equal royalties. If some artists had free licences for whatever reason, perhaps they had no sales meditation machinery, then they wouldn't need to be paid, or viewers pay - Sales meditation machinery is not everyone's interpretation, but my interpretation that computational philosophy (in the form of Prolog algorithms covering customers' thoughts) is needed to satisfy customers in order to pass professional requirements to encourage them to pay for sales, along with budget, need, being a paying authority and timing (which this algorithm idea is part of). A sale is 80 breasonings or 50 As of 80 breasonings each, depending on the undergraduate/business or masters perspective. Sales breasonings that are not specifically on the topic of customers’ thoughts, e.g. on problems and solutions about the product, will not be successful in making sales. I am writing a set of algorithm writers, having written a Prolog interpreter that runs programs and the start of a mind reader program that can find customer problems out, that I plan to release on the app store in the coming years. I am one developer and others may be others in the future, and this service would take next to nothing from the sales and would need to be offered to each prospect to entice them to buy. There are other aspects of business, but I hope that my Sales App that uses Algorithm Writer to generate possible customer thoughts will help bridge the divide between businesses and them having the confidence to make sales to the general public. Some businesses make sales to those they know, but to be serious, I think they will need the equivalent of the Sales App. Training for business, education, meditation, medicine, etc. could be provided by the app or another app, or businesses could choose appropriate training from an accredited provider, e.g. a MOOC. - Homeless, moneyless can have a universal income to help pay small, in their case subsidised subscription cost of the Internet If artists would like royalties, then they will need to attract paying subscribers to their web sites, requiring, e.g. sales meditation machinery. Using sales meditation machinery is viable and accessible, so there should be no problem with an internet-wide subscription to visited sites and one-click listen/pay buttons, and the issue of copyright melts away to the ability to offer works for free or paid licences. If you can't sell an object, then sell thoughts or something interesting.