English News
Go to content
Article Author: English News.org / Article Published: 27th Night of Ēostrē-mōnaþ 2269.RE / 27th Night of April 2019.CE
The EU Copyright Directive: non-NPC Original analysis of its potential consequences.
Potentially a very Positive Outcome for increasing awareness of censored truths.
The EU Copyright Directive Copyright enforcement policy only applies to services that have been available in the EU for over 3 years or a profit of over £8.8 million (€10million, $11.2million). It is clear that this does not impact new services that are setting up or that operate for 3 years then switch to a new service variant whilst not making more than £8.8 million in their annual turnover.

Additionally Article 13 will permit small sections of copyright-protected materials for the purpose of criticism, review or parody however this had to be for non-profit purposes. Thus the vested interest groups such as YouTube (JewTube), Google (Joogle), Facebook (Jewbook) and various parasitic career YouTubers, Streamers and fake original "content creators" have been campaigning loudly (using their own platforms) against this law. However in many ways this new law will help to force people off sites and services such as Google and YouTube (which will force the average internet user out of their censorship systems) and onto smaller start-up services, search engines and independent video and social sharing platforms. Google, Youtube and others we know are already censoring truthful materials and care nothing for actual internet freedom. This is the real reason why the major established " information society services" have engaged in such a vocal campaign against the Article 13 section of this revision of a prior EU Copyright law designed for the 'digital single market', otherwise known as accessing the Internet from within the EU.

Here is the actual text of Article 13:
It seems that much of the 'hype' over Article 13 is actually as a result of disinformation by Jewish owned tech companies such as Facebook, Youtube and Google. These predominantly Jewish owned and Jewish ideology dictated social media content platforms have a vested interest. The major tech companies have used their influence to wage a war against Article 13 as it means they have to have reduced profits via having to pay for huge efforts to make sure their content is not violating the copyright entitlements of the original creators of content. This means they will have to employ huge numbers of human or AI checks like they have already started to do with YouTube's copyrighted music and video recognition programs. These content accumulators cannot shift the blame onto users with 'strikes' and such they themselves have to take action and this will cost them multiple hundreds of millions of many years to achieve a 100% operating system, which means whilst they lazily flounder around trying to get their systems in compliance with this, they could be disallowed from showing unchecked content in the EU. They will likely get numerous notices of violation and lawsuits otherwise in accordance with this new law.
Most of this law is a victory for original content producers (I mean actual original content not tacky streamers or Youtube freaks who use other people's things or talk about things other people discovered or use pictures, sounds, video, music from actual original sources). Many of these streamers who operate daily in violation of various people's copyrighted materials 'campaigned' against Article 13, frankly because they saw other people doing it and it became a popular thing to be speaking against even though 99% of them have not read Article 13 and probably never will. They were the willing NPC chorus echoing Youtube's objections from laziness, concern for their profit margins via the inevitable expenditures they will have to engage in to ensure they comply with this new standard for copyright enforcement. These online content presentation sites waged their massive online campaign against Article 13 out of their fear over the feasibility of implementing systems to ensure they are in compliance with the law on digital copyright.

This changes substantially their business model via forcing them to engage in a much improved system of checks on re-use of other people's copyrighted content. It does not in any way stop any educational, non-profit use. It does however kill streamer's and YouTuber's profits if they want to use popular, copyrighted images, music, video clips from original sources etc, which is a good thing as almost all YouTubers are degenerates and fake-opposition types who should not be getting money for lying to their viewers or gate keeping anyway.  However it does not negatively impact original content creators, infact it helps to protect them from lazy YouTubers who just consume and then regurgitate other people's content. If you put up a video and someone takes a clip of that video, something may actually happen vs Youtube just lazily refusing to do anything about their violation of your copyrighted original content. In this regard Article 13 will actually mean more original content and the fake self-declared "content-creators" of Youtube and all other law-abiding websites will have to actually be inventive and make their own pictures, videos, sound clips and music, unless they use the massive reservoir of non-copyrighted content that exists already online.
In this regard it is also a victory for licensed copyright holders: photographers for example, cartoonists, video producers, musicians and all forms of artists, which means things like Pepe, which was created by one cartoonist who has the copyright protections could demand that they are compensated for the use of their creation by sites showing it. However non-copyrighted, public domain content is not touched by this. Many memes and such (which seems to be a silly popularized complaint against this) have acquired new forms which have no discernible copyright owner. These things will not be touched, unless some sneaky person who made the memes holds proof of their original creation and then ambushes the content presentation websites of their content later on with a lawsuit. This possibility along with the strict stance on 'information society service provider's' responsibilities to ensure "the functioning of agreements concluded with right holders for use of their works" will force companies to be stricter in their screening systems for content uploaded.

Unlike what Jew tube wants you to think, this is actually a good thing as it will create less widely shared mass-consumption content that will force more individual creativity, or at least remove financial incentives behind such as memes and other mass consumption media works will have to forfeit copyright protection on their content.

It reminds me of what George Orwell advocates in his essay Politics and the English Language where he warns against the use of cliché phrases, particularly ones used by the (Jewish) media because of the degenerative effect it could have (and does have)on our language and thus ultimately our political consciousness and our day to day thoughts and the terms we use when describing any subject, example, thing or idea.

However this is not the intention of the EU's Judeo-Bolshevik long term plan, where Copyright may in the future be used to stop anyone sharing anything anyone else has created if they enforce a copyright on all things. Ironically they could use intellectual copyright rights to crush the dissemination of ideas or the showing of quotes for example made by other people in any media format. For example they could try to use this trajectory to ban videos of the Barbara Spectre quotes (where she/it  admits the Jewish role behind mass immigration and articulates for a plan of genocide against us Europeans) or Wesley Clark quotes (where he/it admits Israel created ISIS) which were both from video sources, the repetition of which to show what their effect is could and likely does breach the copyright of the original producers.

However there are exemptions to this for the 'online  content  sharing  service  provider’ to regulate including when the content, in the context of the above examples is being used by Non-Profit online encyclopaedias. So websites that collect those quotes in a wiki or encyclopaedia format without any commercial gain, for informational purposes cannot be affected. However those websites can be targeted by lawsuits and other political laws in Europe, such as laws in Germany or France for example: against saying the truth about how the Holocaust is a vicious lie invented post war and schemed about in the minds of Jewish Supremacists as a narrative of victimhood as early as the 1920s. It is important to note that we should be opposing those laws far more than Article 13 of the "Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the Digital Single Market" which is something the lazy, profit driven 'content  sharing  service  provider’s such as Jewbook, JewTube and Joogle want us to be campaigning against as it will mean their platforms will be negatively impacted (as they will never be able to fully comply with the new laws, and to come anywhere near they will have to invest heavily in screening systems) as they will be unable to fully implement checks of uploaded content resulting in the potential for numerous lawsuits or notices of infringement (and potentially government level blocking by EU member states of sites like Youtube or enforced across the EU via the courts) which will simply result in them engaging in a much reduced (official, approved of content providers only) version of their services where less established re-broadcasters (which is what all news companies are, re-broadcasting information mostly received through convenience organisations such as Reuters) will have to go through checks or simply be removed from the platform in the EU. This could result in a situation where only major media companies, political parties and advertisers are visible on sites like YouTube from any IP address within the EU and that those IP addresses can only access a local version of Youtube instead of the usual .com universal YouTube. However YouTube has already been starting this process. Often you will see videos that say "this content is unavailable in your country".

Knowing how YouTube already shuts down and removes thousands of videos every single day criticising Jewish Supremacists or exposing their own quotes or detailing their subversion (after lobbying from the likes of the Jewish ADL cartel and other groups and governments)  I think that Article 13 will be very good for the internet for this reason; it will force people off of the established sites and into an uncontrollable network of semi-illegal (in relation to this new law) video sharing platforms that will make it a nightmare for the EU to ever regulate the internet. Right now it is mostly just 'extreme' i.e. truthful racial-awareness videos, posts, comments and images that are removed from this sites (along with the legitimate removal of criminal materials and degenerate Jewish-Subversive authored criminal porn and other criminal content).

Soon it will be millions of random videos in every conceivable category of content and about every subject that will be censored.

The effect of the legislation (that will backfire on them) will not be evaluated for 5 years at a minimum! In typical EU Bureaucracy (communist 5-year plan) style. This means Jewish Supremacists will not be able to effectively lobby against it for half a decade. That gives independent platforms basically 5 years to start building up their following against the hegemony of Google, Facebook, Youtube, etc.
This will help to wake up a lot more people and force them onto content providers that do not give a fuck about illegitimate laws and who have a better sense of morality than anyone at JewTube or JewBook. This will mean people will then see racial-awareness awakening videos and videos exposing Jewish Subversion again whilst they are looking for content produced by sources or individuals who stopped using the established "information society services" due to their concern about not being able to show copyrighted content. This is why YouTube, Google, Facebook and others are opposed to this law. This legal enforcement of an impossible to enforce policy will result in the democratisation of the internet to less popular forms of (nicer) dark-web "information society services" that are impossible to censor, the limiting of the access to these sites will force more people into using VPNs and services such as TorBrowser which will in turn make it harder for the EU to spy on citizens of the EU! This use of VPNs and ID protection browsers will also then make people more willing to read alternate (truthful) news sources which will lead to an increase in our awakening versus our replacement and versus Jewish Supremacist efforts of censoring all evidence exposing their subversion against us.
English News: 1 Weekly Email - Sunna's day at 9.09pm GMT

Back to content