#if anyone has a good meme about democracy hit my line

[daydreamoftheendless]

no context spoilers from d20 live london night one

[tomorrowusa]

Mike Godwin is an internet legend. He was the first known person to use the word meme in its internet context. He's also the originator of what's become known as "Godwin's Law".

In a recent interview, Mr. Godwin stated that comparisons of Donald Trump to Hitler or Nazis are fair and appropriate.

So to be clear — do you think comparing Trump’s rhetoric to Hitler or Nazi ideology is fair? I would go further than that. I think that it would be fair to say that Trump knows what he’s doing. I think he chose that rhetoric on purpose. But yeah, there are some real similarities. If you’ve read Hitler’s own writing — which I don’t recommend to anyone, by the way — you see a dehumanizing dimension throughout, but the speeches are an even more interesting case. What we have of Hitler’s speeches are mostly recorded, and they’re not always particularly coherent. What you see in efforts to compile his speeches are scholars trying to piece together what they sounded like. So, it’s a little bit like going to watch a standup comedian who’s hitting all of his great lines. You see again and again Hitler repeating himself. He’ll repeat the same lines or the same sentiment on different occasions. With Trump, whatever else you might say about him, he knows what kinds of lines generate the kinds of reactions that he wants. The purpose of the rallies is to have applause lines, because that creates good media, that creates video. And if he repeats his lines again and again, it increases the likelihood that a particular line will be repeated in media reporting. So that’s right out of the playbook. You could say the ‘vermin’ remark or the ‘poisoning the blood’ remark, maybe one of them would be a coincidence. But both of them pretty much makes it clear that there’s something thematic going on, and I can’t believe it’s accidental. The question is why do it on purpose. Well, my opinion is that Trump believes, for whatever reason, that there is some part of his base that really wants to hear this message said that way, and he’s catering to them. He finds it both rewarding personally for himself and he believes it’s necessary to motivate people to help him get elected again.

He adds this cautionary comment about the state of American democracy...

When I was growing up and being taught the American system of government, we would always be taught that the U.S. government has checks and balances in its design, so you can’t take it over with a sentiment of the moment. But I think what we’ve learned is that the institutions that protect us are fragile. History suggests that all democracies are fragile. So we have to be on the alert for political movements that want to undermine democratic institutions, because the purpose of democratic institutions is not to put the best people in power, it’s to maintain democracy even when the worst people are in power. That’s a big lift.

[yuzuruspoohsan]

[Source to Anthony Kwan to the photograph taken above]

Right now, Hong Kongers are protesting against China’s attempts to pass the Extradition laws in Hong Kong, which will potentially give China the power to “extradite political opponents without local legislative oversight” outside of their immediate domain (mainland China).  [Source, The Washington Post]

That means China will be able to entrench and rid of Hong Kong politicians, protesters, and activists who are against China’s political invasion. China will be able to dismantle Hong Kong’s political independence more easily for if the Extradition laws are passed, Hong Kong would be forced to hand over such individuals (more or less deemed “enemies of the state” by China’s government) to China and be punished by China’s terms without any say by Hong Kong’s jurisdiction. 

I have decided not to put the more graphic images and videos on to this post because I understand not everyone is able to stomach blood or want to reblog an “unpretty post.” But please give me a bit more of your time if you would like to gain something out of reading this as it appears everyone nowadays likes to be cratered to and have a gain in everything.

Here are links to articles that give a great overview of the stakes and what is going on.

The Washington Post: 1 2  The Guardian: 1 Bloomberg News: 1 CNN: x Hong Kong Watch @ twitter.

CBSN has a great news video that gives you a sense of what is going on:

In light of this issue, I’ll be the first one to say, I am guilty of turning a blind eye to international issues occurring in the world, but this time...I felt something slap me in the face.

I was first made aware of this issue by watching my friend post videos onto her instastory, and I’m just laying in my bed watching videos and seeing images of protesters getting bloodied by riot SWAT sent to dissipate peaceful protesters. They were exhausted, but not from getting beaten up, tear gassed, and being threatened by the SWAT -- they were exhausted because no matter how much they tried to reason with people behind the plastic wall, they were unheard. 

Hong Kong wants to keep their civil freedoms and they know that China will take them away. As someone, myself, who has visited Mainland China will tell you, the censorship over there is not to be trifled with. You can’t access Tumblr, Google, Google Maps (any apps that run on Google’s interface), Facebook, Youtube without a good and reliable VPN. China does this to make it easier to control over the people they govern and feed them the information they want to. China will ban keywords and phases from web searches if they find it necessary. For example, they recently banned Winnie-the-pooh from web searches because a comparative meme was undermining Xi Jinping’s image (China’s President).��Laughable as that may sound, it goes to show how far China’s government will go in order to maintain their image, their dominance, and their power over people.

Videos of violence subjected upon Hong Kong protesters are numerous, but what hit home to me was when one mom finally stood up against a throng of SWAT, just her in this dark grey and yellow mist from all the gas that had been released....just her crying in the middle of the empty road and torn.....and screaming and pleading to the SWAT to stop. She was so emotionally broken down, but she was still trying to get some sense into the SWAT. [video with translations]  And I cannot stop my tears from rolling down my face every time I watch it. And it’s not because I understand Cantonese that makes it more heart wrenching, it’s because I too have been in a similar state like hers when I’ve been so emotionally drained in an argument that all I have left is the volume of my voice -- yelling in frustration because reason and words no longer reaches the other side.  It must have been even more taxing on her throat considering how hazy the air is from gas, how dried out it must be. How much strength and anguish must one feel to stand up to yell despite your safety, to stand up against something you know is wrong and get shot point blank. Rubber bullets or not, the protesters have done nothing to deserve that sort of treatment.

I could not ignore her pleads. She knocked sense into me, those kids she mentioned, I could have been one of them. I cried. I cried because a part of me felt like she was defending me too. She isn’t anyone special, guys. She could be anyone we know right now defending for civil rights and defending you because she cares.  Perhaps I am readily rallied to the cause in understanding how important that part of the world is to me, and I admit my own hypocrisy. I’ve ignored other causes before, and “oh” at things....but I can now see how these issues can hit closer to home than you would like to think.

Hong Kong is an example that your liberties can be compromised anywhere in the world even in first-world nations.

What you must understand is.... Although Hong Kong is not a nation, it has had it’s own government and laws that make it possible for them to govern themselves and keep their own civil liberties, which is a stark contrast from how China governs their nation, which has heavy censorship and will take necessary action to maintain a firm grip and control over its people. China had already started to overstepped the political boundaries before the Extradition Laws, but now they’re at a huge turning point.

Let me put things into perspective, if you live somewhere largely metropolitan or a place that has democracy, imagine everything around your city or town is not a democracy and is threatening to take away your civil liberties with a law that will cut through your government proceedings. And so you attempt to overturn this with all the power you still retain, but your city is now under martial law. That is essentially what Hong Kong is like right now.

Hong Kong is a very metropolitan place like New York City, and in some ways even more metropolitan and stream lined than the Big Apple (I can say this cause I’ve visited Hong Kong, and live in NYC). Hong Kong also has many businesses and a strong presence in the global market. But now imagine this liberal and booming spot like New York City being swallowed up by a communist nation, who could fathom such thing? But it is very real and happening right now. It is almost too surreal, right? But Big Brother is watching.

To go back to what I promised you earlier, what do you have to gain from reading what is going on? 

The answer is: R E S I S T A N C E

We may not be able to fly to Hong Kong and join them in their fight, but I don’t want innocent people to keep getting hurt without being heard. China has a media black out on the issue within their nation because they don’t want their own people to turn against them, and if they could, they would have wanted to black out media internationally. 

In addition to hurting protesters:

Yes, they’re arresting protesters in hospitals.

And China is going to great lengths to do this because passing the Extradition Laws will be very beneficial. 

In educating yourself in the issue, you have become more aware and less likely to turn away from a future issue that is similar. I understand that it is incredibly emotionally taxing to emphasize with a cause that is quickly becoming violent, but you do yourself a personal favor in resisting evils rampant in society and in the world.

When there’s a bully in school and you see them hurting someone smaller than them, but that smaller person keeps getting up over and over again to get beaten down. Wouldn’t you want that smaller person to win for sticking up for themselves?

But all right, let’s say you too are weaker than that bully and you can’t help the victim, what can you do?

You enlist help from other people. You tell other people about what is going on. You rally help from other people. Even if that bully’s parent is the principal for that school and is a complete tyrant, who can defend the tyrant from the scorn and criticism from everyone around them? 

China’s government is that bully. It’s wrong to act that way and they know it and they want you to remain ignorant of it and turn a blind eye. They want you, the international viewer, to look away from they’re doing and what business they have with their own people. They don’t want you to judge to them. They don’t want your opinion. They don’t want you to intervene in what they’re building up to. And China’s government is not an evil entity per say, but their intentions have definitely hurt people and continually oppressed them. The evil I’m referring to specifically is what is latent within the intention of said oppression and the result from it -- that terrible core infesting within the intention. 

Here’s what I want you to take away from reading this far: I want you to become someone more aware of what is going on and be in on the resistance. You may not think you play a role, but pressure from a mass of people, even a silent one, can be a true presence and menace to a regime that is trying to scramble to rise as a superpower in the world. I want that bully, that system to feel the pressure of the world staring at it and feel that pressure pressed on them, applied onto them with a even firmer stance than their own, to halt its control and pressure them to change. 

But even more so....I don’t want the protesters’ cries to go unheard. They are fighting and the worst thing that could happen to them now is not being jailed, but to be jailed or killed without any one knowing why because no one gave a damn. That would be the greatest dishonor to what they are trying to accomplish.

It is because we are privileged enough to sit here comfortably behind a screen that we should give a damn. Because we are privileged to live in a nation that still allows us to have the freedom of speech that we must see to it that these protesters are heard and acknowledged in their attempts to keep the same rights we simply just have. 

I know that I do not have a very large following, but I cannot sit around and do nothing about it. With the little influence that I have, I hope to spread this news to at least 10 people and then that ten can spread to 2 or 5 or another 10, but to remain silent would definitely be the wrong choice.

So, I’m not writing this as to plead, but for you to take one step back to look at the larger picture and then take one step forward towards a collective path for peace and civil rights for all.  Just knowing what they stand for is already a big step forward. Because one day when you’re in pain you’ll want someone to be there to help as well. If you’re fighting for a good cause, you would want someone to hear you too because that would mean your efforts were acknowledged.

And Hong Kong isn’t the only one being targeted by China’s government, there’s still Taiwan which is another state/nation that has been trying to keep China’s government away from taking its political Independence. China also monitors ethnic minorities within mainland China in order to keep order and the status quo in check. There’s a lot at stake for millions of people and we’re not completely isolated from their issue. Because again...China is a rising superpower and they have some skeletons in their closet that they don’t want outsiders to dish out and criticize them for.

Finally, I will end with this post with a video from laowhy86, an American Youtuber who lives in China whose sentiments are similar to my own. He elaborates more on why the protest is crucial and how scary the situation is by  discussing the Tienanmen Square incident:

Feel free to comment, add links to the post that could help others understand more of what is going on, like, and reblog.

Or you can reblog this post that is more pleasant to look at if you don’t want this hefty post on your blog.

Thank you for your time, I hope you have gained some more sympathy and empathy....and hope in this world because I have so much respect for the Hong Kong protesters. I certainly feel more grateful for the rights I have while others struggle to keep theirs.

Edit: I added this video from serpentza who elaborates more on the implications and how surreal it is for a place like Hong Kong, one of the most influential economic hubs in the world, is being taken and wither away by China’s Government:

[mostlysignssomeportents]

EU Commission Decides To Mock The Public; Insists Fears About EU Copyright Directive Are All Myths

On Thursday, the European Commission posted -- on its official Medium page -- an astoundingly juvenile and obnoxious post, lashing out at those who have complained that Articles 11 and 13 in the EU Copyright Directive will be destructive. The post was snide and condescending, and suggested that most of the opposition was fake and "astroturfed" and that anyone who really believed that the EU Copyright Directive was a problem was brainwashed by Google and Facebook. It was... quite a post. On Friday evening, I wrote up a (mostly) line-by-line response to its utter nonsense and planned to post it this week once people were back in the office to review it. However, on Saturday, after widespread criticism, the EU Commission "removed" the post without an apology -- but with the standard cop out of someone who did something bad but can't admit it:

We have removed this article as it has been understood in a way that doesn’t reflect the Commission’s position.

"... it has been understood..." Not "we wrote an insulting, misleading and condescending article that we shouldn't have posted." Not, "we're sorry that we lashed out at the public we're supposed to represent." No, it's all your fault in that you "misunderstood" our obnoxious, snide remarks to be both obnoxious and snide.

Given that so many people missed it and that I already had this post written with much of the original quoted -- what follows is my original post.

This is quite incredible. Earlier this year, we wrote about the Legislative Affairs Committee of the EU Parliament putting out a "Q and A" page about the EU Copyright Directive that was so full of wrong that it was insulting. However, now it appears that the EU Commission has decided to one up its colleagues in the Parliament by posting an article to Medium of all places (one of the many sites that will be massively harmed by the Directive) insisting that you're all fools for thinking that anything bad might happen, and that it's all the fault of Google/Facebook. Thankfully, for at least the time being, I am free to quote large parts of their article and respond to it without having to "buy a license" from the Commission, so let's take advantage of that remaining bit of freedom.

Take this test: Type in ‘EU Copyright Directive’ into the search box in Youtube. The majority of results in the top 20 will be passionately against it. Here’s some of the headlines, if you’re not sure:

‘Shocking update on the Copyright Directive.’ ‘Today Europe lost the Internet’ ‘How the new copyright laws will destroy the internet’ ‘Censorship machines’, ‘EU to end the internet’ or ‘Europe to ban all memes’

Of course, we know from recent elections and referendums that simple memorable slogans — however untrue or unobtainable — can go a long way to winning over hearts, minds and voters. And so it was, that the wholly inaccurate phrases ‘ link taxes ’ and ‘ censorship machines ’ started to be part of the campaign against the proposed Copyright Directive. Never let the truth get in the way of a catchy slogan.

Note the opening here is dripping with condescension, suggesting that even though basically everyone is not only against this law, but speaking out against it, they're all just silly fools, tricked by a slogan. Note that this does not respond to any of the massive problems many, many experts have raised about the approach in the Copyright Directive -- especially on Articles 11 and 13. It just sneers about what it says are inaccurate phrases (spoiler alert: those phrases are not inaccurate).

The idea behind the Directive is to bring copyright rules into the 21st century. The current rules are very analogue and designed for the world before the web. Things have changed. Search and social media platforms largely define the way we enjoy content today, but their market dominance has now tilted the balance in their favour and away from those who design and create original things.

This is hogwash. The "laws" they are trying to change include things like the EU's E-Commerce Directive that was (oh, look at that) passed in the 21st Century, when the web was already around and thriving. Second, the idea that search and social media platforms have "tilted the balance... away from those who design and create original things" is ludicrous. As we've shown for years, the internet has given a massive boost to content creation -- enabling more creation in nearly every single category. It has made it easier to create, produce, release, distribute, share, build a fan base and to make money than at any time in history. The internet has enabled more people than ever before in history to not just create, but to make money from their creations.

If you want to know who it's tilted the playing field against, it's the legacy gatekeepers: the old record labels, movie studios and publishers, who used to operate in an oligopolistic world, with little competition, where they could demand all of the rights from creators in exchange for a small chance of success -- and if success came, those gatekeepers would still suck up nearly all of the rewards. Can anyone tell me if Return of the Jedi is profitable yet? Has Lyle Lovett's record label paid him a dime yet? Meanwhile, artists who are embracing the internet are finding that it can pay off massively.

The world of Article 11 and 13 is a move towards going back to the old system. To force artists and creators into the arms of a small group of gatekeepers who decide if you can even post your content online at all, let alone try to make money from it. For the EU Commission to repeat a completely made up myth that artists are somehow worse off today is not just revisionist history bullshit, it's insulting.

As it stands, big internet platforms such as Facebook or Google make a lot of money from ads that appear on their sites alongside copyrighted material such as music or clips. The more people view, the more money platforms can earn from those adverts.

Very little of the content appearing on Facebook and Google is infringing. Yes, both sites will send a lot of traffic to content elsewhere, and make money on ads from that service, but that's different. Meanwhile, both Google and Facebook have spent many millions of dollars on automated filters to block out infringing content (or to allow copyright holders to monetize that content). So if the idea is to attack those companies with a new law requiring such filters, how does this law "improve" anything?

Answer: it does not. The new law is designed to ramp up the liability even higher -- such that when such filters fail (and they always fail because it is impossible to get right), the fines will be catastrophic. As such, the entire point of Articles 11 and 13 is to be so ridiculous and so draconian, that Google and Facebook would have no choice but to pay up to avoid getting hit with tons of lawsuits. It's an extortionate plan, put together by the EU bureaucrats, to favor legacy gatekeepers.

Just as Google and Facebook are being rewarded financially for all their hard work in producing amazing software, clever algorithms and exciting designs, we think authors, film-makers, journalists and musicians should also be rewarded for their endeavours too. At the moment the balance of power in who gets paid for such royalties resides overwhelmingly with the big Californian companies — who are worth around $1 Trillion.

This implies -- totally falsely -- that "authors, film makers, journalists and musicians" are not being rewarded today for their endeavors. They are. Some successfully. Some unsuccessfully. Demanding that EVERY INTERNET COMPANY that hosts content (not just Google and Facebook) cough up massive sums of money to gatekeepers (who have a history of not paying actual creators) doesn't seem like a smart path forward. It sounds like an utterly corrupt one.

The Copyright Directive is an attempt to create a level playing field where everyone can gain from the amazing options that the new technologies offer. Musicians, artists, video producers and the whole creative sector will benefit by having a fairer negotiating position.

"Everyone can gain"? By making platforms no longer work? By making it impossible to post and share content? By forcing small companies out of business? By killing off the ways in which many independent creators now earn their livings? The EU Commission is so bizarrely disconnected from reality.

Journalists and online publications will have more money to keep on financing quality research and news. Despite what you might read, the Copyright directive supports a free press and could enable journalists to get some money when their articles are shared online. Good journalism costs money and without a free press there is no democracy.

Remember, Article 11 has already been tried in both Germany and Spain, and failed in both places. It did not lead to more money for journalists or publications. It did not help support a free press. It actually harmed a free press. How the EU Commission can just push out blatant lies without people laughing at them is beyond me.

Fair remuneration for and from the platforms and a fairer market place is what we want. We cannot achieve a real European digital single market which makes us all better off, if copyrighted material is misused or poorly remunerated. Because if creative people don’t get paid, they can’t afford to be creative. No Mon = No Fun

Define "fair"? Is it "fair" that Return of the Jedi never made a profit and people who were supposed to share in its profits never did so? Is it fair that Lyle Lovett never received any royalties? It does seem fair that artists who build up a strong fan base, like Amanda Palmer, are able to earn a really nice living supported by her fans. It will be too bad when the platforms that helped her do so -- like Patreon and Kickstarter -- find that they are unworkable under Article 13. That seems... unfair. And again, right now more artists than ever before are getting paid. And that's happening because of the internet that Article 13 will fundamentally change.

And, uh, "no mon = no fun"? Isn't this the same damn post where the EU Commission itself was mocking "slogans"? But let's be clear here: there is currently both more "mon" and more "fun" based on literally every single study of the market place today. The internet has enabled wild creativity -- but also tremendous remuneration. The real problem that the EU Commission has is that this is now being spread around much further, and the old gatekeepers with their strong lobbying relationships aren't able to capture as much of it.

The EU Copyright Directive is corrupt cronyism at its worst.

Just like everyone else, the EU loves culture, cinema, art and music. We have no intention in restricting young people’s access to all these wonderful things on- or offline. Oh and by the way, no matter what some people (and paid-for campaigns) may tell you, you will never be prevented from having a laugh online. WE ARE NOT BANNING MEMES. On the contrary, there will be a guarantee that platforms respect your right to self-expression. That includes pastiche, critique and parody.

They keep saying this and it is nonsense. They demand filters -- and then say that platforms will have to "nerd harder" to figure out how not to use those filters to block memes. What they ignore (purposefully, because this has been explained in great detail) is that no filter can understand the context to recognize what is a "meme" or what is parody. Indeed, popular memes have been at the center of multiple copyright cases.

Nonetheless, it appears as if the largest search and video platforms in the world are afraid of regulation — despite having overwhelming dominance on the internet.

This might be the only accurate statement in this whole damn article. They may very well be afraid of regulation. And maybe for good reasons -- because such regulation will massively and fundamentally change the very nature of the internet -- not just for themselves, but for everyone else as well. That's the concern.

Furthermore, there is ample evidence from respected sources, here and here and perhaps here or here or indeed here that ‘Big Technology’ has even ‘created’ grassroots campaigns against the Copyright Directive in order to make it look and sound as if the EU is acting against the ‘will of the people’.

This is the absolute most disgusting part of this. In one paragraph -- much of it linking to a group of people known for (a) being paid by competitors to Google or (b) conspiracy-theory levels of insanity regarding the internet -- the European Commission simply brushes away millions of citizens and their views. While it's entirely possible that the big internet companies are pushing their viewpoint here, the above paragraph is overly inflated nonsense. The public is going crazy about this, in large part because of nonsense like this that is being put out, where it is clear that the bureaucrats in Brussels don't know (a) how the internet works, (b) what this law will actually do, or (c) what the public is actually saying.

Over at Change.org there's a petition protesting this with nearly 5 million signatures, making it the largest petition in Change.org's entire history. You don't fake that. People are angry. And with good reason, when the bureaucrats, who are supposed to represent their interests, are spewing utter nonsense along these lines.

And the most incredible part? Right after totally dismissing the views of the vast majority of the public, these numbskulls state the following:

That’s another myth. Unlike Google and Facebook, the EU is answerable to the public and to democratically elected politicians.

Answerable to the public? You just pretended the views of the public weren't legitimate. You ignored the largest petition in history. You are not representing the interests of the public, but rather a very small legacy industry which failed to adapt. The whole thing is completely disgusting.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190215/18005841607/eu-commission-decides-to-mock-public-insists-fears-about-eu-copyright-directive-are-all-myths.shtml

[neptunecreek]

Nickelback's Record Label Abuses Copyright to Silence Political Speech

EFF legal intern Samantha Hamilton co-wrote this blog post

Nickelback never asked to become a meme. And yet, after the Internet decided it hated the Canadian alternative rock band and due to the lead singer’s unique voice, users have shared their image millions of times. But their record label decided to draw a line at President Trump tweeting a meme putting the Biden-Ukraine controversy into a Nickelback music video. We may tend not to think of memes as political speech, but they can be. And when someone expresses a political message via meme, using copyright law to silence their speech when it is very clearly fair use is an abuse of copyright.

In July, President Trump pushed Ukrainian officials to investigate Hunter Biden, presidential candidate Joe Biden’s son, for corruption. Trump stoked the fire on October 2 when he tweeted a video clip from Nickelback’s music video for their 2005 hit “Photograph,” in which lead singer Chad Kroeger holds a picture frame up to the camera. This particular moment, where Kroeger whines out “look at this photograph,” is a very recognizable, popular meme.

In Trump’s tweet, the frame contained a photo of Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and two other men, one identified as “Ukraine Gas Exec,” and the other unidentified, all on a golf course. The meme was only part of the video, which began with a clip of Joe Biden telling a reporter in a 2015 interview, “I’ve never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.” The video then cut to the shot in question, of Kroeger holding the golfing photo in a frame. It then zoomed in on the photo itself, pushing Kroeger out of view.

Warner Music Group, Nickelback’s record label, sent a takedown request to Twitter under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which gives copyright holders an expedited mechanism to take down allegedly infringing works online without oversight from a court of law. It makes taking down content very easy. This ease and lack of judicial oversight makes it subject to abuse, abuses which we at EFF have documented and fought against for years.  Because platforms have to respond to DMCA notices by taking down content in order to maintain the valuable safe harbor provided by the law, this gives copyright holders a de facto ability to censor any criticism and commentary that they do not like.

But that problem gets even worse in the context of political speech: DMCA abuse turns copyright into a back door for censorship in an area that should be the most protected.

Copyright and free speech are always in tension, and that’s why we have the fair use doctrine to protect many kinds of speech that use copyrighted material without permission—for example, if the use is for educational purposes or commentary.

Because memes, by their nature, pull content from one context and place it in another, thereby giving it new meaning, memes are generally fair use. And memes are often even more transformative, meaning they do even more to express an additional or different message from the original work being used, which helps to establish that a use is fair. Political speech in particular is at the core of First Amendment protection, and is especially likely to be recognized by a court as valuable and as a fair use.

DMCA abuse (the act of sending fraudulent takedown requests) can be less about copyright and much more about the message of the transformative work. “What motivates these takedowns is often not copyright, but issues not within the DMCA’s purview, such as concerns over reputation and false endorsement,” the Center for Democracy and Technology wrote in a 2010 report on campaign advertisements and the DMCA.

Section 512(f) of the DMCA states that anyone who “materially misrepresents” that content is infringing will be liable, but this provision does not have enough teeth to deter fraudulent takedown requests. And even when the Ninth Circuit decided in 2018 in Lenz v. Universal Music Group that a requester must consider whether the infringing work is fair use, the court held that the law only requires a subjective belief that the use is fair, even if that subjective belief is objectively unreasonable.

Neither of these mechanisms do enough to establish proper safeguards for free speech. What we’ve ended up with as a result is takedown requesters who avoid fair use analysis and content hosts that don’t have the time or incentive to do it. So, when a copyright holder doesn’t like the way a work is used, a takedown request is a cheap and easy way to censor the unwanted use, even when that use would be protected under the law if a judge were involved in the process.

It should be noted that the speaker of the political speech is not without recourse. If a platform takes down her content, she can file a counternotice explaining why she believes her work is fair use, and the platform may put the content back up. However, this rarely happens. Speakers often don’t want to risk a lawsuit, and other factors such as timing often deter a legitimate speaker from bothering with a counternotice.

We wrote about this same issue in 2015 when Don Henley, lead singer and guitarist of the Eagles, sent a DMCA takedown request in response to a political ad that used the melody to “Hotel California,” with different lyrics. The campaign didn’t send a counternotice since the ad wouldn’t have been restored for two weeks, and elections run at such a fast pace that campaign officials decided a counternotice wasn’t worth the effort. This incident highlights an important truth: copyright abuse can effectively censor speech long enough for a news cycle or political race to move on, without recourse.

The upshot from the Trump-Nickelback case and others like it is that it shows how transformative works can end up subject to fraudulent takedowns simply because of high visibility. Visibility leads to censorship under the DMCA, and this means that a message that resonates (or one that is newsworthy because it comes from the President) can vanish right when it’s most relevant.

The takedown request is not about copyright, but about controlling what viewpoints can be expressed through reference to and adaptations of existing aspects of culture.

Warner’s motivation for the takedown request might have been to protect Nickelback’s good name, but the fact is that no matter how much a copyright holder may despise a speaker or their message, fair use protects everyone’s right to use, adapt, or remix copyrighted works for political commentary. Censoring political speech is only one type of abuse the DMCA facilitates. When proponents of new speech restrictions hold up the DMCA takedown regime as a model, we need to remember that this regime has opened the door to serious abuse without recourse for victims, something that impoverishes public discourse.

Political speech, including memes, is too important to public understanding and the political process to fall victim to the whims of copyright holders. We will continue to work to protect dissent and creativity from the censorial power of takedown abuse.

from Deeplinks https://ift.tt/2Wnuqz7