Europe - The Official Thread

He has religious views? I really haven't encounted a video of him talking about it.

Most of his views are from a psycologist point of view if anything.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/do-you-believe-in-god.111312/page-711#post-12528515

But to censor her because she's saying something that might offend religious people... and fairly factual I might add, not as bad as the "God Hates Fags" stuff we get... it comes across as quite scary from my perspective. How can you even know what is a crime and what isn't?
I have to wonder whether censorship of holocaust denial would be equally wrong provided the deniers could back it up. That said I'd like to see them try given the existence of concentration camps and The Final Solution so I guess the point is somewhat moot.
 
Last edited:
Given the utter junk that YouTube hosts these days, I wouldn't shed any tears if it bites the dust...

Article 13 can affect all sites, not only YouTube ...


protip: don't watch crap on the YT then, there is enough of good content so it would be loss for the EU inhabitants
 
Article 13 can affect all sites, not only YouTube ...
The chickens are coming to home to roost on platforms such as Youtube who have made a fortune by allowing people to share material that they have no right to use or share.

protip: don't watch crap on the YT then
I don't - but that isn't the point..
 
The chickens are coming to home to roost on platforms such as Youtube who have made a fortune by allowing people to share material that they have no right to use or share.


I don't - but that isn't the point..


Aha, so that "utter junk" was copyrighted material which was uploaded without the right to do so. I got you.

Point is that Article 13 as is proposed now, would make platform holders (not only YT) responsible for every potential copyright violation and because Youtube have no tools to identify it, they would simply block YT for the EU.
 
Aha, so that "utter junk" was copyrighted material which was uploaded without the right to do so. I got you.
No. The fact that YouTube is full of junk means I wouldn't lose any sleep if it wasn't available, for whatever reason.

Point is that Article 13 as is proposed now, would make platform holders (not only YT) responsible for every potential copyright violation and because Youtube have no tools to identify it, they would simply block YT for the EU.
And whose fault is that?! Like I say, the chickens are coming home to roost - perhaps if YouTube had taken a more responsible approach to copyright law in the first place, it wouldn't be facing such a problem now. Same goes for other 'businesses' who earn money by effectively stealing other people's property. I can see the law having a detrimental impact for a lot of people, but in the longer term it is an opportunity for content providers such as YouTube to clean up their act and to ensure that they are not being used as convenient tools for people who don't care a jot about copyright law.
 
No. The fact that YouTube is full of junk means I wouldn't lose any sleep if it wasn't available, for whatever reason.


And whose fault is that?! Like I say, the chickens are coming home to roost - perhaps if YouTube had taken a more responsible approach to copyright law in the first place, it wouldn't be facing such a problem now. Same goes for other 'businesses' who earn money by effectively stealing other people's property. I can see the law having a detrimental impact for a lot of people, but in the longer term it is an opportunity for content providers such as YouTube to clean up their act and to ensure that they are not being used as convenient tools for people who don't care a jot about copyright law.

You are missing the point. GTplanet could be punished by someone simply posting a copyrighted content (memes, photos, videos etc.) of a game, car or movie. The article goes beyond the people who do it with malicious or for profit intent.
 
You are missing the point. GTplanet could be punished by someone simply posting a copyrighted content (memes, photos, videos etc.) of a game, car or movie. The article goes beyond the people who do it with malicious or for profit intent.
I wouldn't say I was missing the point as such, but maybe not fully appreciating the ramifications.

@novcze made the point, however, that it is the fact that sites like YouTube lack the tools to abide by the new law, whereas I would guess that many sites (such as GTPlanet, that already have strict rules on piracy etc.) may have to change their own rules a bit, but do not lack the tools or the ability to address the issue.
 
I wouldn't say I was missing the point as such, but maybe not fully appreciating the ramifications.

@novcze made the point, however, that it is the fact that sites like YouTube lack the tools to abide by the new law, whereas I would guess that many sites (such as GTPlanet, that already have strict rules on piracy etc.) may have to change their own rules a bit, but do not lack the tools or the ability to address the issue.

The point is that it restricts the internet. How can you filter out memes?
 
The point is that it restricts the internet. How can you filter out memes?

The internet is already 'restricted' by the law in many ways - which is mostly a very good thing. As far as I can see, the 'fair use' doctrine will still apply, and I doubt that many sites will face legal action for allowing things like memes to be posted. The problem appears to be in how sites are deemed to be in control over the content that appears on their sites, hence so long as this can be addressed sufficiently then there will likely not be a problem i.e. for sites like ours.
 
@novcze made the point, however, that it is the fact that sites like YouTube lack the tools to abide by the new law,

The point wasn't lack of tools, but shift in responsibilty from uploader to platform owner, YT is capable of doing strict filtering, they already do some with their Content ID but that opens another can of worms with freedom of expression, abuse of power, etc.

No. The fact that YouTube is full of junk means I wouldn't lose any sleep if it wasn't available, for whatever reason.

I would, I agree that some content is "utter junk" (whatever that means) but some content is really good.
 
The point wasn't lack of tools, but shift in responsibilty from uploader to platform owner, YT is capable of doing strict filtering, they already do some with their Content ID but that opens another can of worms with freedom of expression, abuse of power, etc.

I would, I agree that some content is "utter junk" (whatever that means) but some content is really good.
But if the platform is profiting by its users recycling copyrighted content from other users or other sources shouldn't they share some of the responsibility?
 
Early signs of reawakening the European Sovereign Debt Contagion Crisis?

-1x-1.png


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...spreads-to-credit-deepening-worries-on-growth
 
But if the platform is profiting by its users recycling copyrighted content from other users or other sources shouldn't they share some of the responsibility?

Not in the way how it is proposed in Article 13, right now if such content is identified they pay rightsholders so they already share responsibility ... have a look at this.
 
As many questionable things as Youtube has been doing throughout the decade, I often find myself questioning where else I'm supposed to be getting my fix of original gaming content and classic NASCAR. So far, the answer is absolutely nowhere, so you bet I'll be fighting tooth and nail to keep my access to the site intact, regardless of how out-of-touch lawmakers feel about that.

Truthfully I don't even care if the quality content creators are violating some copyright as I fundamentally disagree with the current uptight system in the first place.
 
where else I'm supposed to be getting my fix of original gaming content and classic NASCAR. So far, the answer is absolutely nowhere, so you bet I'll be fighting tooth and nail to keep my access to the site intact

What about if those things were provided by the copyright holders on their own platforms for a small fee?
 
What about if those things were provided by the copyright holders on their own platforms for a small fee?
I've already bought a MotoGP videopass once, but the likes of NASCAR and Indycar would need to offer an equally high quality service (no missing races or limited content for starters) for me to consider doing the same with them.

For the more relaxed entertainment that mainly includes Let's Plays - I don't see the point whatsoever. In most cases I already own the game, anyway.
 
For the more relaxed entertainment that mainly includes Let's Plays - I don't see the point whatsoever. In most cases I already own the game, anyway.
This sounds to me like saying that if you own a set of golf clubs there's no point in watching the PGA Tour. I own nearly every Forza and GT game and would miss channels like FailRace and SuperGT.
 
Coming in as an American to say that I don't agree with Article 13. Think about how many people would get hurt by this. It starts at the top with the companies and falls down to the users, creators and employees on those networks.
 
Is Paris burning, or is it false news? Are these merely student riots like in 1968? How serious is this?

  • 'Yellow Vest' supporters staged fresh protests on the Champs-Elysees which leads to the Arc de Triomphe
  • They vowed to continue rioting until Christmas after riot police used tear gas and water cannon to fight back
  • Dozens of cars were torched, the Arc de Triomphe was graffitied and shops and houses were ransacked
  • French President Emmanuel Macron promised that protesters would be 'held responsible for their acts'
  • It comes a week after rioters brought chaos to Paris in a movement against fuel prices and high living costs
By PETER ALLEN and TIM STICKINGS FOR MAILONLINE and CONNOR BOYD FOR MAILONLINE and REUTERS and AFP

PUBLISHED: 04:18 EST, 1 December 2018 | UPDATED: 19:17 EST, 1 December 2018

The centre of Paris was on lockdown tonight after masked protesters stole an assault rifle from police, clashed with riot squads and set fire to cars and Christmas trees on the Champs-Elysees in furious demonstrations against the French government.

Protesters said today's actions were 'the start of a revolution' that would eclipse the mass strikes and occupation of universities and factories in1968 when the country was on the cusp of civil war.
 
Is Paris burning, or is it false news? Are these merely student riots like in 1968? How serious is this?

The French are famous for protesting. (which they are also proud of) However in this instance the situation has gone out of hand with historical landmarks having been damaged, rocks thrown at police and teargas used to diffuse the situation. 412 people have been arrested and 133 injured (23 policeofficers).
 
Is Paris burning, or is it false news? Are these merely student riots like in 1968? How serious is this?
I'm sure you're aware of some of the sources of unedited content on the net. It does look like it's quite crazy to say the least. Hundreds of police and what looks like thousands of very angry protestors and rioters. One wonders if Macron is fiddling while Paris burns.
 
I'm sure you're aware of some of the sources of unedited content on the net. It does look like it's quite crazy to say the least. Hundreds of police and what looks like thousands of very angry protestors and rioters. One wonders if Macron is fiddling while Paris burns.
I suppose the proles in France do have a sort of national hobby of protest. Yet perhaps France is splitting into opposing camps of downtrodden populists and elite globalists? Unlike the roughly 50/50 split in other western democracies, maybe the split in France is more lopsided? Even so it does not as yet seem to manifest in voting.
 
I suppose the proles in France do have a sort of national hobby of protest. Yet perhaps France is splitting into opposing camps of downtrodden populists and elite globalists? Unlike the roughly 50/50 split in other western democracies, maybe the split in France is more lopsided? Even so it does not as yet seem to manifest in voting.
If polls are to be believed, Macron's popularity is stunningly low. These riots always contain an element of rioting just for the fun of rioting so who knows how much of the unrest is organic and how much is young men that still have some testosterone left, blowing off some steam by burning down their own city or stealing trinkets. I do find it ironic that they seem to be rioting for a relatively small increase in petrol tax when they are already paying more than double what might be considered "free market" prices. I was looking at something recently that showed they pay more in fuel taxes in the Netherlands than I pay for my entire litre of fuel and our prices in Canada are 15-20% higher than just across the bridge last time I checked. They probably should have been rioting there 40 years ago.
 
They probably should have been rioting there 40 years ago.

If there is one thing the Dutch don't do, it's massive demonstrations. A lot of complaining, but actually going out and do something about it, nope.
 
The French are famous for protesting. (which they are also proud of) However in this instance the situation has gone out of hand with historical landmarks having been damaged, rocks thrown at police and teargas used to diffuse the situation. 412 people have been arrested and 133 injured (23 policeofficers).
I wonder where our French friends got the idea of violent protest from. ;)
*In modern terms.
*I also find it funny how we are so different than Europe but we all seem to have similar problems.
 
Last edited:
Back