搜索
Table_bottom

标签云
Table_bottom

分类
Table_bottom

声明
文章若未特別註明,皆採用 知识共享许可协议 請自覺遵守
Table_bottom

鏈。。。
Table_bottom

存档
Table_bottom

匆匆过客
41900
Table_bottom

功能
Table_bottom

Against EU Copyright Directive Article 13

Description

While reading wikipedia these days, there is a new banner calling for against the new "Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market" (which will be voted on 5 July) / "EU Copyright directive" / "file 2016/0280(COD)".

The three buttons link to the following pages respectively:

A brief reading shows that many organizations/foundations (e.g. EFF, Creative Commons, Wikimedia Foundation) oppose to this directive.

The context of this directive can be found at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52016PC0593

The main against of this directive is Article 11 and Article 13, especially Article 13.

My words

I should say I agree with many of the disputes that Article 13 should be reformed before applied (explanation at the end). One most probable consequence is that MEMEs will become unavailable. (And this will be one more of the stupid things people have done in recent years, just to satisfy the stale copyright laws.)

I don't know what really works, but I found three sites describing some ways:

Explanation

The texts in the given link differs some bit between what's described in that wikipedia article. I presume this because of the different versions of the document.

Article 13 grants the censoring and blocking ability and obligation to "Information society service providers" (mostly social networking websites, including both commercial ones, e.g. twitter, facebook, and non-commercial ones, e.g. GNUSocial instances, if I understand correctly). This ability suggests them to use "effective content recognition technologies" to "prevent the availability on their services of works or other subject-matter identified by rightholders (through the cooperation with the service providers)".

Although this ability and obligation is supposed to be "appropriate and proportionate", but at least I don't believe commercial bodies (i.e. companies) will do this "appropriately" in a minimal effort way. They will overactive, both for their "compliance with the law" and for their profit purpose. Some companies in China have already demonstrated this, and I guess there are also some examples in Europe and America.

The piece of text says "identified by rightholders", but in reality "rightholders" in many cases are not a single human but a company. We have heard many stories how companies over-use their copyright to prevent what we as humans see as normal behaviours (let alone I don't totally agree with the copyright [law] nowadays because I think they are developed for paper-publishing era not digital era).

The "Information society service providers" are, most of the time, companies; companies are for profit. Therefore, the nature of capital makes them not sympathetic, and blocking the Internet doesn't really affect their profit (because "everyone" does this, leaving us no choice). https://twitter.com/EvenDragsnes/status/1014394747706925056 is definitely not a future I want.

(Terrorism and some other things shall be dealt with, but this directive has nothing to do with that.)

“連”與“聯”

“連”和“聯”是兩個很神奇的字:當你分開看的時候,明白它們的區別;但是當你看到它們作爲成分的詞時,你往往會忘掉它們的本意,進而搞混。

有此感慨是因爲三個詞:互lian2(連/聯)網、物lian2(聯)網、車lian2(聯)網。

說實話,我覺得祇有互lian2網算得上是個“詞”。這並不是因爲後邊兩個由我國“創造”,而是由於它們兩個根本就是錯誤的,原因見下。

先用常見的詞來描述一下兩個字分別是什麼意思:

連,連接;

聯,聯合,聯繫。

不論是“互聯網”或者“互連網”,均可解釋通:

  • 互聯網,互相聯繫的網絡(或其構成的網絡);
  • 互連網,互相連接的網絡(或其構成的網絡)。

而後邊兩個,按照我朝專家給出的說法,分別應該解釋作:

  • 物lian2網,將家具等物品全部連上網絡,以便可以在網絡上進行控制,比如開燈;
  • 車lian2網,將你的私家車連上網絡,以便通過網絡來導航、跟蹤丟失等。

讓我們對這兩個概念進行一個簡單的抽象:將某物連上網絡,以便通過網絡操作(做一些需要網絡的事)。

看到了麼,“連上網絡”,這是它們兩個的意義,很明顯和“連”更親近麼,而和“聯”這個東西關係不大。在此解釋下,“物lian2網”和“車lian2網”應當寫作“物連網”和“車連網”。

當然,由於這兩個東西實在不值得稱爲新概念(哪怕是當年剛提出時),而僅僅是三個字(修正後的三個字)的意義組合(即“字組”),我個人傾向於忽略之。畢竟,在現代(白話)漢語文情境下(若一個字組被當作名詞看,它的前半部分會被看作是定語,而定語後邊的是它所描述的東西),xx網描述的是一種網絡,而這兩個概念描述的並不是一種新網絡而衹是一種狀態或者行爲。

 

然而追溯本源,“物lián網”英文本爲Internet of Things (IoT),粗略直譯則是“物件/物品的網絡”。其所要追求的特性乃是各個物件可互相交流數據,並且採取合適的行爲,並非是前面所述專家所說的那麼簡單。由此觀之,取“聯”字更爲恰當。“車聯網”也是如此。