Hello everybody welcome back to another episode of Anabaptist Perspectives. I'm here in southern Pennsylvania with David Berceau. You've wrote numerous books about Anabaptism, early Christianity, and we're going to dive into an interesting topic today. Particularly the topic of salvation, the Anabaptist view of that. It's a little bit unique maybe some would say and so to kind of lay a foundation, explain the obviously you're going to have to abbreviate some of this, but the dominant view is in there, but the Protestant and the Catholic Theologies. And that's always a little tricky when we talk about the Catholic view because there's a difference often between what the official teaching of the Catholic Church is and what the typical Catholic in the street might believe. So I just want to make that distinction as we go. Now and let me maybe contrast it with another view. I would say a very common view out there that obviously we would disagree with and evangelicals disagree with and it's not biblical. Is this idea if you're just a good person then you get to heaven? And I'd say most unchurched people if they believe in God, that's what they think on salvation. If I leave a good life, you know, that's that that's fine. And there's a lot of nominal Catholics who might think that is as well. Now the Catholic Church itself would teach, you know, we're saved by faith and grace, but how we live also plays a role in that. It would actually be somewhat similar to the Anabaptist except now in the Middle Ages and until Vatican II you also had to be part of the Catholic Church. There was no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Now that's changed since Vatican II on on that aspect. And it's also tied in more to the sacraments that let's say have a mortal sin that you have not confessed to a priest and you die with a mortal sin that and you have not been, you know, given a penance by the church or forgiveness, then you're lost. It would have been the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. It may not be now, I'm not sure, but that's generally been the teaching in that respect. Okay then along comes Luther and he's not so much reacting to the official teaching, but the man in the street in the Middle Ages, it was all about almost earning your salvation. You know, if I can be wicked, but if I give money to this and that, then I can, you know, get my way into heaven. And whether that was the official teaching or not, it's how it worked out. There was not sufficient teaching, filtering down on grace that and God's mercy and forgiveness. So Martin Luther was just overwhelmed with, you know, his own sin and, you know, how can I ever be good enough to get into heaven and that sort of thing?  I kind of suspect it was more than what the average Christian is dealing with the fact it was such an issue with him and the extreme that he went to. So he overreacted, which this is the story of almost every doctrine in Christian history. Someone goes, drifts, either they drift, the church drifts this way in the wrong direction or somebody comes along and teaches it and people overreact to the exact opposite extreme. And so he went from, instead of getting it back to, okay, let's have a balanced perspective, it was, it's all of faith, you know, nothing you do except believe. So you're, and then he gave works kind of a bad name. Works meaning not works of the law that, you know, Paul talks about that are worthless as far as salvation or even works of the Catholic church, like going on pilgrimages, those are worthless too. But he was saying just to being Christ, you know, he called that works, you know, to live by Jesus' teachings, you know, that has no role in salvation, you know, and if you think it does, then, then you're not saved. And so he went to the opposite extreme of salvation by faith alone, grace alone, this teaching that none of us can be righteous, it's Christ's righteousness is transferred on the books of heavens to us. We have no actual righteousness of our own, you know. So that's the Protestant teaching that it would still be the dominant view today among evangelicals. Unfortunately, a lot of this is filtered into the Anabaptist churches as well. So yeah, we probably need to talk at some point about yeah, what the actual Anabaptist teaching is. Well, yeah, that's, that's what I was curious because so we have two options. It's like a pendulum swung one way, and then you had a reaction swinging the other way. The Anabaptists, I've heard it called the third way. Yes. So they obviously historically chose something quite different from those two options. So obviously, say what that is, but then also compare it with the early Christian, like following Christ, what the early church would have believed as well. And you're exactly right. There's a there's a third way. Most people don't even know there's a third way. You know, they just know these two extremes of, you know, trying to be good or be a good person or earn your way. Or yeah, it's all just belief and nothing else. Well, yeah, there is a third way. And I'm going to start with the early Christians because that was my journey. You know, before I was an Anabaptist, I discovered, okay, what is the faith from reading the early Christian writings, going back into the scriptures from there? And what I liked about their view, the evangelical view, and I, you know, was a member of an evangelical church for 10 years. You know, they had their list of proof texts, but I couldn't help but notice, wait a minute, there's all these other verses. How come we don't pay any attention to these verses, you know? And then other people take those other verses and they ignore some of the teachings on grace that are essential part of it. And so when I was reading the early church is like, oh, they take it all.  I mean, we cannot earn our salvation that without grace we couldn't possibly be saved. On the other hand, works is not a bad word.  He gave us commandments, and there are commandments. A lot of evangelicals were saying, oh, there's no commandments in the New Covenant. Well, Jesus certainly gave a lot of commandments. The early Christians took them very seriously in that, yes, you've got to live a godly life. You have to live obediently to Jesus Christ, but God doesn't expect perfection. He knows our makeup. And so he's a merciful God, but he does expect confession and repentance. Yes, he will forgive over and over and over if we're repentant, but to think that we don't have to ask forgiveness of our sins. And I was told that as an evangelical. Look, once you're saved, not only are all of your past sins forgiven, but every sin you're ever going to commit in the future is already pre-forgiven, you know. And that is false doctrine. It's terrible doctrine. So you have no sense of repentance at that point? Yeah, I mean, no, many evangelicals do. I mean, there are plenty of godly, you know, evangelicals. I'm not, you know, trying to paint a picture here of everybody. I remember the first time I was with some evangelicals and we were praying, and I prayed the Lord's prayer as just part of my prayer, you know, or at least a modified version of it. And part of that is forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors, you know. And when I was finished praying, they said, David, you don't have to ask forgiveness of your sins. That was already done. You know, I mean, that's already been done. You don't have to ask that every time you pray. Oh, okay. You know, and I kind of bought that for a while until I read the early church.   And Jesus said, pray this way. Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors. So there has to be that. And not just saying the prayer doesn't, or praying it doesn't do anything. It has to be inside. One of the verses they quoted that, you know, of course, we all had read, but that I saw it, this is really central to the idea of salvation is John 15, which gets ignored too much. And that's where Jesus talks about, I am the vine, you are the branches. And he talks about bearing fruit. That parable almost has has it all because he says, without me, you can do nothing.  We can't even walk in Christ's way. I mean, he has to be living in us. But then unless you produce fruit, it is an automatic or he wouldn't be giving this dire warning.    We have to produce fruit. So the way I describe it is a love, faith relationship with Jesus Christ. There's not a formula for salvation. It's not, oh, you say this prayer or, you know, this many works or something like that. It's a relationship, just like a relationship with husband and wife or children. I mean, you can't define some line. It has to be a faith, a relationship of faith and a relationship of love. And Jesus said, if you love me, you will keep my commandments. So if we're not keeping his commandments, we're kidding ourselves if we think we love Christ because we don't. We don't appreciate what he did on the cross.  It's so wonderful. But hey, don't put any burdens on me. I don't want to do anything. Yeah, that's not loving Jesus Christ. That is almost exactly what the Anabaptist taught. I mean, I don't know that there is any difference between the early church and the original Anabaptist teaching. And the only reason I say original is, like I say, we have led a lot of the Protestant Luther's teaching come into our churches and affect us that way. At Sadler College, our goal is to produce well-rounded students who, as the Scriptures say, can rightly handle the word of truth. To do this, we integrate discipleship with academic excellence. For our academics, we believe in implementing a rigorous and well-defined Christian core curriculum. These are classes that everyone takes regardless of your major. These classes include expository writing, oral communication, history, biology, and statistics. But in addition to that, every student will also take courses in Old Testament, New Testament, Apologetics, Biblical Greek, Biblical Hebrew, and Church History. You get those classes regardless of your major. For more information, please schedule a call with our admissions team, download a course catalog, or even better, come visit our Boston campus. So kind of two questions rolled into one. First of all, what you just said, what difference does that make? And then also, how have other church groups responded to these things that you're saying? The difference it makes is how it affects we live. It's not a matter of Jesus' Unjudgment Day. He's going to hand us a quiz and, okay, now you explain salvation, and if you put it down wrong, I'm not going to let you into heaven. He's already told us on Judgment Day he's going to look at our life, Matthew 25. If you have the idea that Christ doesn't care whether you obey, that it's all of grace, that there's no point even trying to live a Godly life because you can never be good enough anyway, that tends to affect how you live. And that's what I've seen with the Protestant churches. They used to take a strong stance on divorce, no divorce in their churches. I mean, that was not originally a particular distinctive of the Anabaptist that we had a more strict teaching on divorce than, say, the Presbyterians or those churches. We were all the same. The difference is because as Anabaptists we recognize how essential it is to obey Jesus Christ. He gives us specific teachings on divorce, so we obey them even when there's a sacrifice involved. Whereas the Protestant churches have all caved in on that because, hey, you're saved by grace. It's not going to affect your salvation. In fact, the church I was attending as it was a Bible church. I remember even reading what Dallas Theological Seminary said, and our church was tied into them. Our pastors all came from Dallas Theological Seminary, and they had a strict teaching on divorce. This is sin. It is not God's will to get divorce, but if you're truly saved it will not affect your salvation. Well, that's all people wanted to hear. Oh, it's not going to affect my salvation. In the church I was, I'd say when we started going there, I was in my late 20s, I would say easily 75% of the couples that were my age are now divorced or divorced and remarried. That's the problem when you have the wrong view of salvation. It's not that God's going to give you a quiz. It does affect how you live. I mean, there's a lot of things that, you know, a lot of us would rather just ignore that teaching because it's hard, but we know these aren't suggestions. These aren't commandments. I mean, we can stumble and ask for forgiveness, but we can't just ignore them, and I'm sorry Jesus, I'm not going to obey that. That's not an option for a Christian. Yeah, and we kind of see this with the whole love your enemies thing, too, in the Protestant church. Well, that's for another time or for whatever, but we're going to be okay with the military. And I'm like, well, how does shooting your enemy loving them? Well, it makes for a very awkward situation. Like, do you take your Bible literally or not? Now, your second question was how have people responded to this teaching or maybe a better way? How popular is this? It is not popular as you can imagine. It wasn't popular when the Anabaptists taught it. Now, they got a lot of people did convert to the Anabaptists because there are a lot of people. I mean, they saw the ungodliness in the evangelical churches. They saw they were not obeying Jesus' teaching. So, yeah, people, there were a lot of people becoming Anabaptists. But in general, it was still a very small, and it will always be a narrow way compared to, hey, you can live however you want. As long as you say this prayer, you acknowledge I'm a sinner and all of that. Well, of course, that is more appealing, particularly when it comes with this guarantee. And you are guaranteed heaven and you can never lose your salvation. Well, people want to believe that and they've got proof texts to go along with it. Yeah, the narrow way, Jesus said, it's going to be a hard way. There's going to be a lot of sacrifice and it's not going to be appealing. And so, yes, people are always going to go for a doctrine, a way of life that's easier to follow. So, they don't like it that I bring up what the early church believed or try to reawaken the Anabaptists and say, hey, we need to contend for the faith that was once for all handed to the saints. Our forefathers got it correct on salvation and we have slipped, we have let our Protestant doctrine infiltrate our churches and we need to get back to the truth. That's not always a popular message. I'm not saying these things because it's like, wow, this is going to really make me popular or all of that. I'm deeply concerned because once people embrace Luther's doctrine of salvation by faith alone or grace alone or whatever, they are not going to go for the heavy teachings on dressing different, you know, modest dress, whatever is going to be hard, that's going to make you different from the world and people around you. If none of this matters for our salvation, then that kind of says, well, it must not matter that much to Christ either. I've noticed in our churches once they embrace Protestant theology on salvation, if nothing else just on salvation in a generation or two, they're basically Protestant. They're not playing any longer. They've lost the teaching on divorce. They've lost so many of these things. No, it doesn't make them happy for me to kind of be a spoiled apart and say, hey, this is wrong teaching. We need to get back. On the other hand, there are a lot of Anabaptists who have been very supportive and I've appreciated that. And a lot of people who aren't Anabaptists, who will listen to one of my messages on that and they say, yes, that's what I've been seeing in the Bible too. And I thought, was I the only one seeing this? And so I've gotten lots of feedback from people saying, thank you for putting this out there because that's what it seemed to me the Bible was saying and to know this is actually the historic faith. Yeah, has meant a lot and has helped people then to cement that down and to make the sacrifices that Christ expects us to make to be one of his followers. So one thing that I've heard people ask is if salvation actually causes a true lifestyle change, a deep change in your life versus, you know, God just changing some record in heaven or something. How does that work with possible imperfections? Like when we do fail, when we slip up. And I get asked that a lot. Some of the ways it's sometimes worded to me is I'm saved and then now I've committed this sin. So does that mean now I'm not saved and I've got to get saved over again? It's like playing ping pong. It's like what side are you on? Am I in and out? And it doesn't work that way. And that's why I like using that term, an obedient love faith relationship, you know, the relationship doesn't end, let's say, with your spouse. You do something inconsiderate, unselfish, unbiblical, whatever. And it might cause a strain there in your relationship. And if you don't ever repent of it, yeah, that strain is going to remain there. You're still married. I mean, the relationship is still there. Christ doesn't just cast us off every time we fail. That's why he told us to pray, you know, forgive us our debt. So he knows that we are going to sin. We are going to fail on a daily basis. And that's why we ask forgiveness on a daily basis, but also why we forgive others, you know, their sins, because he said, if you don't forgive others, I'm not going to forgive yours. But he did say at some point, if you're not bearing fruit, you're cut off the vine. So it's not a matter of, you can commit a heinous sin. I mean, you can be committing adultery.  And that doesn't mean necessarily you've been cut off the vine at that point. He gives you time to repent. It's not that any sin is so bad except the sin against the Holy Spirit that you can't be forgiven and that suddenly you're not saved anymore.  And that's something that happens in eternity. I mean, in heaven, I mean, we don't necessarily see it. You maybe get the picture when you kind of see that someone has drifted away from Christ, but I myself would never make that decision. Okay, yeah, they've been cut off the divine. I'm going to assume they're still on it and they can be, you know, revived back. And he said, you know, my father, he's the vine dresser. He's going to be working. He doesn't want to lose us. You know, if we persist in disobedience and we don't repent, yeah, at some point we're cut off. And if not in this life on judgment day, yeah, we are not going to enter the kingdom of heaven, you know, the heavenly kingdom. We're in the kingdom now, but we're not going to enter the heavenly part of it. But yeah, we don't have to despair. Oh, no, I've lost my salvation. It doesn't work that way. Yeah.  It's almost like someone's not just going to lose their salvation unless they're just like, you know what, I'm not even interested in following Christ anymore. Is that maybe a way of saying it? Yeah. And people, that happens. And sometimes they can't be brought back. You know, Hebrews does talk about that. And that's why we need to be very careful, you know, about trampling on the blood of Christ, you know, just the forgiveness is there, but let's not take it for granted. We want to have that healthy fear. On the other hand, understand there is grace. You know, we do serve a loving master, a very forgiving and understanding Lord. People think, yeah, that if you don't believe in eternal, you know, unconditional eternal security, then you're always in insecurity. No, I would say only if you don't have a real love, faith relationship with Christ, that's the only time you're going to be having that insecurity. And if you're feeling that insecurity, then yeah, you need to either, you haven't ever been saved or you need to understand how that works, you know, that relationship. So would you have anything else you would like to share? Yeah, if you've embraced Luther's theology, I mean, please understand, hey, you have drifted not only from the Anabaptist faith, I mean, we don't worship our Anabaptist forefathers or feel like we can't question anything they have. You've drifted from the historic faith, the faith handed down to the saints, and what the Bible clearly teaches. Right now I'm working on a commentary on Matthew, not my commentary, but what the early Christians believed, what the Anabaptists believed. And Jesus is overwhelming how much he talks about how we live over and over and over. You can't read Matthew without and think, oh, Jesus doesn't care whether you obey his commandments or it's not necessary. In fact, Luther, the only way he could promote his theology was to say, Romans is the chief book of the Bible, he said. And if you never read, this is something he actually said, I have it right here on my bookshelf. Even if you never read Matthew, Mark and Luke, you would have all you need for salvation without reading those books. And he said, you know, Romans and Ephesians and Galatians are far, far above Matthew, Mark and Luke. Wait a minute, Matthew, Mark and Luke contain most of Jesus' teachings. You're saying we can be a Christian without even knowing what Jesus taught? And so that's the problem. Yeah, go back and read Jesus if you have a problem with this. In the same way, if you're listening to this, you're not an Anabaptist and you're thinking, oh, this David is pushing work salvation, whatever, go and read Jesus and see what he said about salvation. Go to Matthew, read the whole book, read all of Luke, read all of John, not just little proof texts, you know, John 3, 16, but read everything including John 14, John 15, where Jesus really goes into this about obedience. And you'll see, hey, this is the teaching of Jesus Christ. And if I truly love Jesus, if I truly do appreciate what he did for me on the cross, then why would I not obey him? If I really love him, if I really appreciate that he did this for me, and he suffered for me, and yet I'm not willing to be inconvenienced for him, then, yeah, I must not really love him. Thank you so much for the time you spent studying. Yeah, well, thank you, Reagan. I've enjoyed the discussion. Yeah, this is very good. Thank you.


What's going on everyone? Sam here with late in sports cards and I am ripping two boxes for Michael K one of them being a 2022 tops archive signature series baseball and an autographed uh 2022 tri-star hidden treasures autographed basketball which is back here. So good luck Michael. Uh, see what we got in here. Start off with the archives. See what we can get. All right, we've got nice 28 of 99 Alec Baum or Alec Baum. Is it bone or bomb? Forget that every now and then. That's on a 2019 Bowman paper. Nice one there. Grats on that one, Michael. Now let's do the autographed basketball. See something big. Let's see like the the MJ. Is there an MJ in here? Yeah, it's a LeBron and D-Wave. There's a Colby. See something really cool. I think I'm opening this upside down, but we've got, okay, that's pretty cool actually. Where is it? Sorry, it's in silver. It's in silver. You can't really see it super well right there, but this is Gordon Hayward. Now a member of the Charlotte Hornets, former Jazz and Celtics legend. Gordon Hayward. And here is the tag to go with it. That's Gordon Hayward autographed ball. That's pretty cool. Again in silver ink right there. Leave it on it for a second there. Really messing with me trying to find the photograph on this. Nice one there, Michael. Congrats on that one. I don't do it for your boxes there, Michael. Congrats on both the hits. We'll get those right out to you. Thanks again, man.


This is Stocktimer 9C23A. We are here at Summit Automotive in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin. You're new and used Chrysler and Minivan headquarters. Today we are checking out this super clean 2019 Chrysler Pacifica limited with the S appearance group. From this HD video you will be able to tell that this van is extremely clean all the way around and nicely equipped. Ocean blue metallic is the color we shoot all of our videos in 1080p so if you have HD capabilities on your computer tablet or smartphone device turn them on right now because it is like you're right here looking at the vehicle with me and definitely your best way to check out the vehicle before seeing it in person. It comes with the Granite Crystal 20 inch painted alloy rims, Falcon 24550 R20 tires. Lots of tread left on those tires only about 5,000 miles on this vehicle so most of the tread left on those tires projector lamp headlamps, LED running lights and LED fog lamps. Front bumper is in excellent condition no dense dings or cracks on that. You get the blacked out grille and fog light bezels. Passenger side fenders in excellent shape as well no dents or dings and the passenger side rim is in nice condition too. Down this side of the vehicle you can see just how clean the body is how reflective and mirror like that paint as we take these HD videos so if you are far away or even if you're close by and just cannot make the trip down you can still see the vehicle hear the vehicle and have confidence in what you're looking at before you even get here so that when you do get here there's absolutely no surprises. It has the integrated roof rack rails. Down this side is very very clean no dense or dings. Back rim is in excellent condition as well no scuffs or scrapes on that four-wheel disc brakes on this vehicle as we come around to the back of the vehicle rear bumpers in really nice shape no major cracks on that backup parking sensors has the LED tail lamps and the rear gate is in excellent shape as well. You get the granite crystal limited symbol as well as a Pacifica symbol and the S appearance group symbol. Back storage area is very clean as well we have the stole and vac system back here that's what this is carpeting is very clean back here and these are power fold down seats so you just press stole and they will actually power go down and then into the floor they go down very nice and flat and to put them back you just hit normal and they go right back up to get this rear gate down you just press this button right here it'll beep at you three times then it'll come on down as we go down this side of the vehicle just as clean as that passenger side no denser dings on the rear quarter it does have the capitalist feel for which is a really nice feature if you've ever used that you're never gonna get gas in your hands again and the back rim is an excellent condition as well down the rest of the side of the vehicle no dense no dings scuffs no scrapes has the built-in blind spot indicators as well as the directional signal those are heated mirrors has the enter and go system the limited package gives you the black leather interior with the gray piping no rips or tears on these seats power driver seat with lumbar factory floor mats throughout has auto headlamps power windows power locks power mirrors power folding mirrors they also power fold back up as we hop inside the vehicle you can see that this one has 5,521 miles has the seven-inch digital LCD display and digital speedometer you got the outside temp and the time has the heated leather wrap steering wheel cruise controls on the right information center controls and Bluetooth audio controls on the left and it has radio controls on the back of the steering wheel this one comes with the 8.4 4C radio means it has android on auto-enabled carplay capabilities this one also has the factory navigation system and FM and serious XM radio capabilities on this vehicle as well this is also where your backup camera shows up has the start stop feature nine-speed automatic transmission dual climate control and your electronic parking brake backup sensors you can turn those off and it does have stability control as well this one also has the power sunroof with the second-row Vista roof and it also has a third-row roof as well glass roof passenger seat is very clean as well no rips or tears on that and the factory floor mat on that side is very clean this vehicle has never been smoked in smells very clean inside driver's side door slides rice nice and smooth second-row seating you get the heated quad seats latch child safety system no rips or tears in that seat does have the stolen go system so the seats do go flat into the floor you get rear air controls and it also has the side window shades as well they got a easy access you just press this pull this lever there and that seat folds up flat forward to get to the third row third row seats are very clean as well no rips or tears back here and that's where your stove and vac system goes we'll take a quick look under the hood I would personally like to thank you for checking out the video today hopefully from this HD video you'll have been able to tell just how clean this vehicle is all the way around inside and out under the hood we have the 3.6 liter Pentastar v6 motor engine bay is very clean runs very smooth this van has been fully safety and inspected by our service shop has a fresh oil and filter change all the fluids have been checked and topped off and this van is 100% ready to go to see more pictures of this van or one of our other 450 new and used cars trucks SUVs minivans Wranglers half tons three-quarter tons one tons you name it we got it go to our website www.summitauto.com full pictures and descriptions of every single vehicle from two locations all at summitauto.com if you'd like to check out more HD videos you can go to youtube.com slash summit auto fact in a second you will see a link to subscribe to our YouTube channel on your left a link to more used inventory videos like this one on your right if you have not been on our website on the bottom link to this vehicle on our website click those check us out we really look forward to helping with this super clean 2019 Chrysler Pacifica limited minivan thanks again


start with Julia Rieda. She's the member of the European Parliament for European Pirate Party and vice chair of the Greens Eva group and her first talk at 31 C3 she talked about copyrights and now we go one step further to copyrights 2.0 the stage is yours and give a warm round of applause please for Julia Rieda. Hello everybody I was here two years ago for 31 C3 and back then I was a freshly elected member of the European Parliament and I was quite optimistic that finally the time had come for a meaningful copyright reform in Europe and actually things were going okay for about a year. The Parliament actually proposed some improvements to copyright law based on my initiatives and then nothing really happened for about a year until everybody's favorite year came around 2016. If you think that 2016 was a terrible year ask a copyright activist within one week in September two pretty dramatic things happened first the European Commission released its proposal for the long-awaited reform of copyright law and you're going to hear me rant about it for the next hour so that gives you an idea of about how bad it was and the other thing that happened during that week was that the European Court of Justice made a ruling where it decided that hyperlinks can constitute a copyright infringement so you would think that a person who is linking is not the one who is actually putting the stuff online so they shouldn't be liable for copyright infringement. However the European Court of Justice asked itself well what if the person who is linking to that content actually knows that that content is illegal they think in this case there should be a copyright infringement so they decided that this is the case now and then they decided that if this link is made with a profit motive somebody's trying to make money then you can pretty much assume that they know that whatever they are linking to is a copyright infringement and they actually have to prove that they didn't know which is quite a difficult thing to do so in this particular case it was about a right-wing populist website that was for profit that was linking to unreleased playboy photos so you might think okay maybe I don't feel too bad for them specifically but what does it actually mean for other websites will they now have to monitor continuously everything that's going on on the website that they have said link to to find out we can look at one ruling that already took place based on that by everybody's favorite court the district court of Hamburg I see there are some some fans of the district court of Hamburg in the audience so the district court of Hamburg had a case where somebody had linked from their own website from their about me page to a different website on which there was a photograph that looked a little bit like this it's not exactly this picture actually with some ufs UFOs and this photo had been modified the photo photographer of the original picture without UFOs had put the photo under a creative commons license and the person who put it on their website actually attributed it to the correct photographer however they did not mention that the original picture actually didn't contain UFOs so therefore it was copyright infringement so the court decided that since the website owner of the website who linked to this sells educational materials on the same domain not on the about me page and not related to this particular link they have a profit motive for that link which is quite a stretch so the defendant in this case the person with the about me page had an obligation to actually verify that everything on the website there were linking to is legal a hyzer journalist tried this out in practice and actually wrote to the court asking hey I want to write about this court case and I want to link to the website of the district court of Hamburg can you please verify to me that everything on your website is legal for some reason the court didn't want to do that so if you have a website yourself you may wonder now hang on I have some links on my website am I actually committing copyright infringement I can help you there it's quite easy to find out with this handy chart so whether your link is a copyright infringement depends on whether the link tries to circumvent a paywall whether it was published or the thing that you're linking to the content that might be infringing whether it was published with the rights holders consent or not whether you as the website owner who is linking have a profit-making intention whether you knew that the content you're linking to was unlawful all these things can have an impact on whether your links are legal or not so the claim that the link is under threat from copyright law is by no means an exaggeration at this point and what neither court considered neither the European court of justice nor the district court of Hamburg is the following scenario so if linking to an infringement can be an infringement of copyright law shouldn't then linking to the link to the infringement also be an infringement of copyright law so anyone who was wondering whether their website is violating copyright law at this point chances are if the website is in any way commercial then the answer is yes but not everything about 2016 was bad there are some good news I can report there's this Günther Ettinger the digital commissioner who is responsible for copyright law in the European Commission but perhaps best known for being too close to lobbyists for example flying around in their private plane the guy who called net neutrality net neutrality defenders Taliban and used racist slurs for Chinese people this guy is leaving he's leaving his post as digital commissioner it's not entirely good news unfortunately because he's actually being promoted to be the commissioner responsible for the EU budget and human resources that means among other things it will be his job to enforce the code of conduct for commissioners what that says how they have to deal with lobbyists and their diversity strategy so that's an interesting choice but at least for us we can say he's gone unfortunately he left a copyright proposal this September and this proposal is here to stay this copyright reform actually could have been great two years ago when the new commission was starting out there was actually a wide acknowledgement that there was a problem with copyright law there was too complicated but the appointment of Günther Ettinger as the digital commissioner was a bad sign already back then unfortunately he surpassed even our worst nightmares and managed to make a proposal that achieves the unimaginable to make a bad situation even worse this proposal even though Commissioner Ettinger will no longer be responsible for her for it is now out of the hands of the European Commission so the guy who is taking over vice president Ansip he will still participate in negotiations but mostly this will be up to the European Parliament and the Council where the national governments of the EU are organized and both of these bodies can reject the proposal or make changes to it so this is where we are going to have to change and to stop this legislation and in order to show you why I have prepared 10 everyday things that would become illegal you won't believe number eight number one sharing news from 20 years ago so if you have a website with a list of online news articles for example about the copyright wars with short quotes like this you better take it offline because before this law becomes is in place number two tweeting a creative headline so here you don't actually even have to link to any newspaper content the publishers are getting a new right and they hope that in a case like this where you're tweeting isn't passed it's a famous headline from a German tabloid newspaper built after the election of the last pope it means we are the pope and the publishers hope that whenever you tweet something like this Twitter will pay them a blanket blanket license for that in order to keep it legal but if they don't do that and I don't think they will then you will be liable for copyright infringement or this new publishers right infringement if you tweet something like this number three sharing a magazine article on social media Twitter and Facebook and a lot of other social media create automatic previews from a URL look something like this this will be no longer legal they would have to disable this function and not just for links to news but also any magazine article or any blog article as long as the blog has multiple authors number four pinning a photo to a shopping list using Pinterest or another visual bookmarking service like this number five indexing the web luckily not all of the web I mean the problem here is that a search engine engine that is indexing the web for you and showing you search results will have to make copies of those indexed web pages this will no longer be allowed for news websites magazine websites and blogs unless they have given specific permission for it number six unmonitored photo uploads if you're using a host provider such as photo community this is a website where people are sharing their photographs this company will have to make sure that whenever somebody uploads something that it is not a copyright infringement so they will have to scan all the photos that are being uploaded for potential copyright infringement and this applies to all kinds of different copyrighted content such as for example software so this obligation can apply to a platform such as github which is also a file hoster and if you're uploading your commits there they may very well be under a free license however they are still protected by copyright so they will have to make sure that nothing illegal is being uploaded there number eight the same will go for Wikipedia so you might think now okay all the stuff that is on Wikipedia is either already in the public domain or its creative commons so what is actually the point of this unfortunately this new law does not distinguish between hosting platforms where there actually is a significant problem with copyright infringement or not so unfortunately platforms like like github or Wikipedia would be affected by this and nine I think this one is a little bit less of an everyday thing than the other examples at least for now if you want to train your artificial intelligence with publicly available content on the web such as large bodies of texts or pictures you will have to probably make copies of them in some form and the new proposal may also cause problems with that and finally number ten all the stuff that is already illegal that makes no sense whatsoever is going to remain illegal because almost none of the many many things that all of you and lots of other people have highlighted to the commission as being fundamental problems with copyright law have not been addressed in this proposal so for example taking photos of architecture in or or public artworks in public places will continue to be a copyright infringement in many European countries and also the large amounts of online pop culture that are going on that are not really in line with the copyright laws such as reaction gifs let's play videos lip dubs and remixes they are not being addressed at all so people will continue to do a lot of great cultural activity that just doesn't really fit the copyright system and this one may surprise you a little bit one hosting provider that actually won't be affected by these laws at all is mega upload the law is not actually aimed at sites that that play fast and lose with copyright it's meant to get the really big money makers the social networks and the search engines Google mostly to pay money to struggling European cultural industries and this is all that this law is aimed at so how can you get such wildly contradictory and weird results well there are two proposals in this new draft copyright law that going to I think I has presented that cause all these problems one is an attack on the hyperlink beyond all the problems with linking and copyright that we already have and the other one is an attack on the legally sound hosting of files on the Internet so the first one is it comes in the form of a new extra layer of copyright protection for the benefit of publishers this is a so-called neighboring right and it applies on top of the copyright that journalists already get in the articles they write and that they usually transfer in the form of exclusive rights to the publishers so it's not like the publishers cannot enforce journalist copyright at the moment but this is an extra layer of protection that would apply in addition to the already existing copyright this is the legal text or part of it where you can see okay we are talking here about a new protection for press publications for which will allow the publishers on the one hand to control the copying of those articles and the making available of those articles on the Internet and this right lasts for 20 years after publication of a press publication this may sound familiar to you there has been something similar introduced in Germany a few years ago where the the amount of protection is one year because they consider well actually news articles are not that valuable after a while but they consider 20 years is a good time for this new protection and it would actually apply retroactively so that means if you are running a website with a list of new stories about an abster case with quotes from articles about the copyright wars in different ways this will be illegal you may think now but wait a second isn't quoting generally legal isn't there a copyright exception that allows us to quote well in a lot of European countries the quotation exception for example in Germany only applies when the quotes are in a broader context of criticism or review so simply having a list of interesting articles where you are taking the headline of that article or the short part of the text wouldn't count you actually would have to write some kind of academic treatise about the thing and who is actually the intended target of this proposal so what is it trying to achieve who does he want to pay money for these for these new snippets to the publishers he has actually answered that in a number of interviews and what he said there is the targets are Twitter the iPhone tablets and Facebook I think it gives you a bit of an idea of his technical understanding between the differences between an online service a particular company's product and the technology but okay I think the gist of it is that the kinds of automatic previews that a lot of social networks do when you post a URL will no longer be allowed and you really have a problem if the URL itself already contains the headline which let's face it is not that uncommon so and it's also it's very odd to see how how this would play out because the publishers actually employ social media experts who optimize these previews to make sure that as many people as possible click on them and they change the codes of their websites to make sure that exactly the right pictures and texts are chosen for those previews but even though this law goes beyond the failed German version of this law the license Schutzrecht the logic is quite the same here we look at which companies are making money in the internet ecosystems oh they're all American tech companies let's take that money from those companies that are sending traffic to the German publishers who by the way are also lobbying for this law and let's have them give this this money in on top of the traffic that they're already sending them I'm going to I think I has also told us something about what exactly how short attacks can be so it applies to it and he says that yes headlines are intended to be covered by this so this really creates a problem for hyperlinks for very often the headline is part of the URL and he says we're not talking about purely factual headlines like airplane crash in Africa I think he thinks that Africa is a country otherwise I'm not sure why he thinks this is a common headline but in any case there is nothing in the law that actually exempts single words or small snippets of text from this protection and Ertinger and the publishers keep saying that individuals won't be affected by this law but actually there is no exception for private individuals or for non-commercial use in this law unlike the German one by the way so something like via bit synth pops will be an infringement under this new law and unlike what Ertinger says here it probably won't matter at all whether it's a purely factual headline or not because these neighbouring rights to copyright don't have a requirement that the thing they protect is an original intellectual creation because the publishers aren't originally creating anything in the first place so the only way that somehow factual headlines could be exempted is if a court decides we can't actually tell whether it was taken from this newspaper article or from another one so what is up with this indexing thing I think this is probably a really big problem with this law that not everybody has fully considered because the indexing of course of websites creates copies and you may think well if somebody takes a full copy of an article isn't that a copyright infringement already it would be but so far this is legal under the only mandatory copyright exception that all of the member states in the EU have to do which allows the making of so-called incidental copies that are part of a technological process for the sole purpose of enabling a lawful use so you could say of course so far the displaying of search results has been a lawful use therefore this kind of copy that is just necessary for search engines is not an infringement however as soon as the search engines are no longer allowed to show the snippets of news articles of course the indexing of news websites will no longer be legal either so that's a bit of a headache and I'm not sure they have fully considered this so when you look at the definition of a press publication which is the stuff that's going to be protected by this new right it's not just about news articles as such but rather everything that is published in a press publication online so this could include for example what they call other works could be pictures or stuff like that and this is why Pinterest for example that only allow you to pin pictures will have to negotiate a license with the publishers however I don't think that Pinterest will be too much up in arms about this proposal because they have a much bigger problem the article 13 is probably the most dangerous of this new proposal it contains a the monitoring obligation for host providers that I have mentioned earlier so who is covered by this new obligation it's hosting providers that store and provide to the public access to large amounts of works uploaded by users so when they fall under this definition they will have to choose between two alternative obligations either they get a license from the rights holders probably from collecting societies or large rights holders organizations and they will have to make sure that those licenses are enforced and helpfully in the recitals that go along with this proposal the commission suggests that they could enforce them by using content monitoring technologies if they don't want to do that then they have to prevent the availability of copyrighted works identified by the rights holders for example by using content monitoring technologies so those are the two options if you're familiar with Internet law a little bit the way it works at the moment is if you run a file hoster and somebody notifies you that there is a copyright infringement on your service you have to take it down it's a notice and take down procedure and the preventing availability that is included in this new provision of course implies that these retroactive takedowns after the infringement has already taken place will not be enough anymore preventing availability means that the content needs to be controlled and scanned before the upload actually becomes accessible to the public and if you're looking at this it might all look a little bit familiar to you and there's clearly an elephant in the room here and that's YouTube if you look at the analysis the economic analysis of why the commission is doing this it all comes down to the music industry complaining about YouTube and this is connected to their content ID content monitoring system that is used to find protected pieces of music on YouTube what the music industry has done about YouTube so far as they have tried to enter licensing deals with YouTube and actually these licensing agreements are in place in most countries but the rights holders are not very happy with those deals because they think that YouTube doesn't pay enough and this is this new law is their solution to this problem so they want to make the licensing deals that they already have with YouTube the less painful option because the other option the content monitoring technologies in the case of YouTube is something that YouTube only offers to a relatively small number of smaller rights holders so content ID is not available for everyone who uses YouTube and they think that if YouTube can no longer threaten okay well if you don't take our licensing agreement where we pay you very little then we'll just take down all the content but the rights holders actually want to be on YouTube so they're in a very weak bargaining position and they think that this law will somehow make it so unattractive for YouTube to take down the content that they will pay them more money it's a bit of a gamble and it's also not a very obvious way of addressing this problem because unfortunately you can't pass a law that only applies to YouTube they've tried believe me so this law would of course apply to all kinds of host providers and all types of copyright it works as long as there are large amounts uploaded by users so the question of why GitHub now falls under this well you can look at the content that is stored there it's software software is covered by copyright law and the question is is GitHub an information society service provider that provides access to large amounts of works uploaded by users so an information society service provider is a service that is provided and it says so in another law normally for remuneration so what does that mean normally for remuneration it means that for example if GitHub or also photo community are freemium services which they are so there's a free version of it but you can pay to get some extra feature then it's a service normally provided by for remuneration so they're covered by this however also non-commercial host providers can accidentally be covered by this provision a service normally provided for remuneration can be for example a service that regularly asks for donations and this is where Wikipedia comes in and even something like archive.org where academics are uploading articles could be covered by this new provision if there are similar services available that do charge money at that are in some way in competition with archive.org so in this way even a service that is completely non-commercial and completely for free to use can still fall under this definition you may also wonder well is this really a problem for archive.org or for Wikipedia because there aren't really a lot of infringements taking place there but nowhere in the article 13 does it actually say that this only applies to host providers with large amounts of copyright infringements it just says large amounts of uploaded works so CC licensed content or articles that have already been published with an academic publisher and then our put on archive would very well fall under this definition and there's a final question what exactly large amounts of works means it's completely undefined and probably the 28 member states of the European Union would find different definitions of this so that's a great idea if you want to encourage trade but all of these services that I've named host well over a million works so we can assume that they would all be covered so that means that host providers find themselves in a very difficult position under this new law because they must either pay rights holders for content they don't really want to use in most cases or start filtering everything that's uploaded but filter for what exactly I mean the YouTube case is relatively straightforward and maybe the photo community case as well if you're looking for recordings of music or photographs you can use a fingerprinting technology where you check every upload against the reference database it's not completely trivial but it's doable unfortunately copyright it works can be all kinds of things for example the sculpture on this slide is protected by copyright and a photograph of the sculpture at least if you're in a country without freedom of panorama would also be a copyright infringement which means that this technology would actually have to identify a photograph of this sculpture from every possible angle translations of texts can be copyright infringement so the software would need to make sure whether a translated text is actually equivalent to the same text in another language that is protected also using a character from a popular novel or a popular film in your own film or re-using code of somebody else in your own software without respecting the license conditions for example because you didn't post the GPL notice all of these can be copyright infringements and they're not as easy to detect as somebody has uploaded a music video to YouTube and as we have learned in the beginning hyperlinks can be a copyright infringement if the person who linked to the infringing content had knowledge that it was infringing so what does that mean for host providers will they have to scan not just the content yet that users upload but also the content on websites of the that the users link to possibly the content of websites that link to the websites that users link to and will they have to scan users brains to find out whether they knew that this was a copyright infringement so it's a very difficult technological challenge I think but at least you'll all be getting a lot of work from this. There's just one big problem with Ertinger's plan aside from the kind of technological issues there are there's a legal problem and that is that this new proposal violates existing EU law. Remember the current notice and takedown procedure that I've told you about it protects host providers and also other types of providers such as internet service providers and intermediaries from liability for the actions of their users this is written in the e-commerce directive another piece of EU legislation and this e-commerce directive includes what is called the safe harbour and the safe harbour means as long as a host provider takes down the legal content as soon as it gains actual knowledge about it then they are fine they're not liable for what the users are doing so how does that fit I mean in the same law it actually says explicitly that these intermediaries cannot be forced by law to scan everything that the users upload they only have to do the notice and takedown so how can the providers prevent the availability of specific works on their services without scanning everything that is uploaded the commission's quite creative solution to this is that in the recitals of this new proposal and recitals are supposed to be explanations of a new law that don't change its content all that much in these recitals they simply redefine what an intermediary host provider is under the e-commerce directive by saying that the safe harbour only applies to a host provider if they are not optimizing the presentation of the uploaded works or promoting them even by automated means so that means that Wikipedia or github who are actually presenting the uploaded content in a meaningful way providing search functions providing articles of the week etc they would no longer fall under the safe harbour and would be directly liable for any copyright infringement by their user but mega upload which doesn't provide a search function where people are just dumping their files and can link to it they would still be covered by the safe harbour makes a lot of sense however I think there is a chance that even if this loss passed that this won't work out because the court of justice of the EU has in the past not only ruled that putting such an obligation on a service provider to scan for a copyright infringement doesn't just violate the e-commerce directive it violates the fundamental rights to privacy to freedom of speech to freedom of information and to the freedom to conduct a business so we'll see how that works out in practice but I wouldn't recommend to just wait until the European Court of Justice rules on this law because that could take many years and the damage to the internet ecosystem in the meantime could be quite significant finally there is this proposal on tax and data mining exception which is also part of this proposal that most people would think this is a good thing there is a new exception to copyright so there's some more flexibility added but there is a problem with this because tax and data mining so far has been more or less a legal gray zone it's the question of whether or not you can copy material that you already have legal access to for the purposes of data mining so for example researchers who analyzed the vocabulary in Agata Christi novels had to take copies of all the novels to find out whether the author developed Alzheimer's disease over the course of her life by seeing how broad the vocabulary was now the thing here is that theoretically it's perfectly possible to do this without making copies you just have to sit down and basically do the counting manually but of course this is really inefficient and especially in research tax and data mining is just becoming increasingly something that researchers want to do to make their research more efficient and they were actually the ones who asked the European Commission for clarification that this kind of copying is not a copyright infringement by introducing such a tax and data mining exception and the main reason was to stop academic publishers from bullying them and saying no you can't download these articles for tax and data mining you need a license for that the Commission proposed an explicit exception for tax and data mining that's good but unfortunately in this proposal it only applies to research organizations the problem with that is if they're explicitly allowed the research organizations it may follow or a judge may argue that individuals or companies who want to do tax and data mining are then explicitly forbidden and that would mean that individuals or companies training their artificial intelligence with stuff they find on the internet may run foul of copyright law also there's not really much movement on bringing an anti-geoblocking so this video is not available in your country and messages like that even though the Commission two years ago said that it was a priority to get rid of that so that is by and large what we have in this new proposal so you may wonder okay how could it be that two years ago the Commission said we're going to make everything easier we're making it simpler we want to unleash Europe's digital potential so how did we end up with this the easiest explanation for that is that this copyright reform was hijacked by a number of powerful industry interests this is a picture of Commissioner Ertinger with a number of Axel Springer lobbyists Axel Springer is one of the publishers who first lobbied for the Leistungschutzrecht in Germany and is now behind the lobbying effort for the extra copyright for publishers on a European level so they get a tool against Google and Facebook the German collecting society Gamer that could never agree with YouTube on a deal get something to pressure YouTube into making a licensing agreement and the film industry got spared from a ban on geo-blocking which they continue to want to do so this reform is clearly not about how to make copyright fit for the digital age or how to use technologies potential to create new business models that actually work with the internet instead it's about how can we change the internet so the old media companies don't have to and how can we subsidize our European cultural industries with the profits of American technology companies and two basic building blocks of the internet are attacked by this proposal the freedom to link and share news on the internet is a fundamental for the freedom of speech online we are seeing with the monitoring obligation a privatization of law enforcement where the takedown of illegal material will no longer be done on the basis of court orders but by private companies will probably err on the side of caution and takedown more than they actually have to it will probably keep startups and smaller internet companies small and actually ensure the position of the large multinational companies that this proposal is supposedly targeting and at the end of the day only companies like Google or Facebook can actually afford the content recognition technologies that would be required to comply with this law and they can probably even count on getting a free license for using new snippets from publishers because of all the traffic that they're actually sending to the publishers websites in this proposal no attention is actually paid to non-commercial projects or to open licenses and the interests of individual users the problem is that this will not work for anybody the protectionism of these past business models won't actually save these industries from having to change and go with the times and I'm afraid that at the end of the day these measures will end up hurting those who promote them today so if you look for example at the effects of this right for publishers probably people will not start paying them but rather link to websites that do not require this sort of thing so for the EU based publishers who are asking for this it would probably mean fewer readers and less revenue and it probably won't be a problem for any of the misinformation or propaganda sites who are getting their funding from different ways and whose main purpose is to be spread as far and wide as possible I think copyright law is fundamentally the wrong tool to stop or to shape this technological and structural change that we're seeing in the media industry so it's now up to us to do something about this and I think that actually there is hope there is especially when it comes to this new proposed neighbouring right for publishers because it's already relatively unpopular in the European Parliament the European Parliament has already voted against such ideas in the past when it made its recommendations and there is by now a pretty large group of members of the European Parliament from across the political spectrum who are pledging that they want to save your right to link and I think it's important though first of all to support them publicly I think we're always well pointing out when a politician is doing something wrong and sometimes these people are going against their own party line and saying this is something that is just not going to work and also these members of parliament need to be made aware of the dangerous court rulings that are actually making linking a copyright infringement itself and this is something that we could actually fix through a change of copyright law one civil society organization open media has started a campaign save a campaign page save the link.org where you can write to members of parliament or just get informed about the topic at large and I've also written about it extensively I've just published a blog post with these 10 things that the EU Commission wants to make illegal it's great if you if you spread these news it's actually quite easy to contact your own representatives in the European parliament because they do not get contacted all the time when they're the parliament is in session you actually have a good chance of simply getting them on the phone and the debate about these proposal in the national public's it's also dearly needed because at the end of the day the council where the national government sit will have just as much influence over where this copyright proposal is going to go as the European parliament has and finally if you yourself have heard something in this talk where you feel this is going to affect me directly for example if you run a file holster or discussion forum and you think it may fall under this definition talk about it and talk about whether or not it's possible for you to actually imply comply with this law and write about it and spread the news to other people finally you can also contact me directly if you want to join the fight against these proposals and I hope that over the course of the next year we'll be able to beat these proposals and can hopefully go back to the urgent task of actually making copyright law easier and saner for everybody I wish you all a great new year 2017 and I hope you remember it's up to all of us to make sure that it's better than the last one thank you so we have time for questions and please queue up at the eight microphones we've spread out throughout the hall and we start with our signal angel a question from the internet please does a bittern file or a magnetic link count as an illegal illegal contents since it's technically impossible to verify the content without downloading it I think it's a bit tricky there have been court rulings in the past that argued that the website the pirate bay was at least had a so-called accessory liability so there are different ways you can be liable you can be liable simply because you have committed a copyright infringement and this is what this new question of whether linking is a copyright infringement or not is about but you can also have an accessory liability where a court can prove that you aided and abetted the copyright infringement of somebody else so even if technically this link would not be a copyright infringement it's still possible that you as the person running the website would be liable for it so and next please microphone three yeah hi question I know as far as I know in education there will be no exception for education so it will be difficult for teachers and everyone to share this material and the question my question would be whether this is also discussed within within the revision project and maybe you can give some insights on that there is one exception that applies to education that is in the proposal I have not mentioned it because it's not really clearly good or bad what this proposal does is it says that it will be mandatory for every member state in the EU to allow the use of different copyrighted content for digital teaching activities so for example if you are using some kind of online service for students to download texts or if you're live streaming your lectures to students in other countries however there are two caveats with this one is that the member states can decide for themselves whether or not there is a compensation for this and for example in Germany there is an exception for education however it hasn't really worked recently because the compensation the collecting society that is responsible for collecting the compensation this guy is waving at you the money that the collecting society is collecting they have gained a court ruling that said that the universities actually have to tell them who exactly or how many times a particular work has been used and so on so the bureaucratic effort is so large that because of the compensation requirement it hasn't really worked very well that's one problem the other problem is that this proposal also says that if there are appropriate licenses available on the market then the member state can decide that the exception doesn't apply and this is also something that we know from the German context that a publisher may say that there is an appropriate license available but it actually is not really usable for institutions so there is definitely an attempt from different educational organizations to improve this exception and I think the most important thing would be to address these two parts and make sure that this exception would actually apply in practice but in any case it would not be the same as a general education exception that applies also to what is happening inside the classroom or what is happening in non-formula education it's really only for digital users because the commission says this is where there is a cross-border problem so there's definitely a lot of room for improvement when it comes to this provision we go ahead with microphone number four here yeah this history you told reminds me a lot but we heard in Spain a couple years ago when they pushed a law that basically forced Google to pay newspapers for the news it linked and the result was that Google closed Google news in Spain so I wonder if this case made these people reconsider some positions the people in the European Commission who made this proposal know perfectly well about the failure of the Spanish law and they know perfectly well about the failure of the German law and they decided to do it anyway which they call an evidence-based approach the European Commission actually did a public consultation where thousands of people wrote to them and told them what they think about this question of a neighbouring right for press publishers and there were actually a number of Spanish publishers who said we changed our mind we don't want this anymore it has actually harmed us in Spain we're getting less traffic we're getting less ad revenue please don't do this but the majority of publishers who wrote and I think most of them were German again still were in favour of this so I think it shows that it's really important to find also differing voices among the right-solders it's not like every author thinks that this kind of copyright law is a good idea and probably not even every publisher or any right-solder's organisation so I think it's really important to try to find these different voices and see that not everybody agrees with this approach so we have a lot of questions queued from the outside so we take another from the signal angel, please how is this regulation relevant to businesses not based in the EU but in the USA or in Russia? that's a very complicated question so copyright law is territorial which means that the copyright law applies of the country in which the copyright relevant act is taking place when it comes to copying that's relatively easy if you're, I don't know, you're at home and you're making a copy and you live in Germany then German copyright law applies if you're making something available on the internet it's a lot more complicated and it's not actually fully decided whether it's the country where the server is hosted it's the country where the website is legally established or it could even be the country where the user is located so this is one of the reasons why you see geoblocking sometimes because a rights holder can actually go to court in the country where the content is available so if something is on the internet that's pretty much every country and that's also one of the reasons why we need a European copyright instead of 28 different ones because if you want to actually know for sure that what you're doing is legal you pretty much have to have a doctorate in copyright law and have studied all the 28 different laws and that's just for the European Union We go ahead with microphone number one over here Yeah, to elaborate on that would it help to escalate the situation? For example, when we're talking about our friends from the court in Hamburg we just have to look at their decisions and what they link to in their decisions and declare it illegal in their decisions to have perhaps a means to just tell them that they have a link linking to an illegal thing and therefore they have to take it down or they are responsible for it and then escalate it on a European level just hack the process Well, the court rulings themselves probably don't have links as such they may have strings of texts that indicate the location of URLs but of course that's not the same thing as a link it's actually quite an interesting philosophical distinction that if you can click on it it's a link if it's just the text then, well, I suppose it's not a link it's just a string of texts Copy-pasting a string and not having the link directly would also be an option I don't know, sometimes I think that it's actually the European Court of Justice that is trying to hack the system by making law or making rulings that just make no sense whatsoever that will force us to reform the exclusive rights that underlie the copyright law because if a link can be a communication to the public and therefore a copyright relevant act well then everybody is infringing on copyright and maybe we need to change it at some point so I think you might have some friends at the European Court of Justice who are hackers themselves We continue with microphone 8 at the left-hand side top, please What chances are that the current proposal is refused that the status quo is capped and if it is capped what do we do about it and against it? I'm not sure that a rejection of the entire proposal would be such a good idea because for example there is this exception for education that at least if it's improved could be a step in the right direction there is also an exception now this is really revolutionary that would allow libraries to make copies of books that they already have So I don't actually want to reject the entire thing I think ideal would be to reject the article 11 which is this neighboring right for publishers and the article 13 which is the content monitoring provision and the recitals that are redefining what a host provider is and then try to improve the other parts and the way to do this is of course a little bit more difficult than for example with Akta or Sopa and Pipa where you could simply go to the streets and say reject this entire thing I think if it stayed the way it is then we should reject it then it's doing more harm than good but we actually have a number of people working on it in the European Parliament who are relatively sensible the rapporteur for this proposal is a member of the European People's Party the Conservatives and she's from Malta her name is Therese Komodini and she has actually promised to meet every single stakeholder who asks for a meeting with her and is willing to come to Brussels so if you are feeling like a lobbyist today you could also try and explain this to her and my impression of her has been that she at least tries to understand how this stuff works technologically and tries to find a solution that works for everybody so I think what we need to do now is really start a public debate about these things and especially when it comes to the neighbouring right the debate has already changed considerably when this was being discussed in Germany a few years ago the publishers were basically having a field day all the media were writing that this is a great thing this is very different today you have a lot of especially online journalists who are writing against the best interests of their publishers as they should and so you can see that there is a way of addressing this and making it a public issue and if we do that then I think it's possible to delete these two proposals and make sure that the rest of the proposal actually gets turned into something meaningful and something that will make the situation better we continue with microphone number two here in the front thank you Julia, excellent talk so far what if I even follow all these rules and check the link and everything is fine then publish it and as a sudden the content behind the link changes and it has a copyright conflict do I still get into jail? so the European Court of Justice says if you're a commercial provider there's a rebuttable assumption that you knew the content was illegal so if you can prove for example that you haven't clicked the link since the content was changed or something like that for example your website has been completely static since then then maybe you can get out of it but generally if it's a commercial website and you're linking to it then the assumption is that you knew about it and you're liable unless you can prove the opposite we can hack this by this way so we continue with microphone number four back there hello, you talked about Google and having problems with indexing the internet so this would also hit archiving pages like Wayback Machine that would mean we would lose all independent archiving of the news of the last 20 years what do you think about this? well there are a lot of archiving websites like the internet archive for all the abandonware websites for old software and stuff like that that basically operate on the assumption that the people who are the rights holders probably don't care about this anymore nobody is really hurt if there is abandonware available because it's no longer commercially on the market and so they can rely on this notice and takedown mechanism they only have to take it down if the rights holder tells them to but the rights holder never will because there is no damage so this actually works pretty well and for them they wouldn't have to take down the content with this monitoring technology either unless the rights holder notifies them however all it takes is one rights holder to sell them you need to make sure that my stuff is not available that would require them to install this content monitoring technology so the administrative and financial overhead would become a lot larger and probably it would make the running of not-for-profit abandonware websites pretty much well impossible unless you have somebody with 3DD pockets the only ones who might be able to do it would be libraries that would be able to rely on an exception or another but if it's platforms where the users actively upload stuff then they would fall under this okay we go over to our signal angel please what should we expect from the new digital commissioner? so for the time being the new digital commissioner is Andrus Ansep he has been the vice president of the European Commission for Digital Affairs and he's from Estonia which is one of the more digitally minded countries in the EU I think on the plus side you can say that he certainly has a lot more understanding of the technological topics than Ertinger does on the negative side well you can accuse him of having been in favor of Aktau when he was prime minister of Estonia so but I think at least he's kind of willing to talk to people and he generally also has more sympathy for smaller companies for startups so he probably will want to try to create an ecosystem where they can actually grow so I think that's good however we don't know whether he will be the digital commissioner in the long term because the reason for this reshuffle is that the Bulgarian commissioner left her job and went to the World Bank and now Bulgaria will need to appoint a new commissioner however Bulgaria is having a constitutional crisis I don't need to go into the details but they haven't appointed anyone yet and as soon as that happens the commission may decide to change the distribution of tasks completely again We go ahead with microphone number one please Hi Julia, thank you very much for your talk I have a question as a travel photographer I put the pictures around the world on my blog am I screwed right now? Well if you are uploading your own pictures to your own blog and other people can't upload anything to your blog then you're not a host provider well you're basically running your own website so this new provision only applies to host providers that provide a service for other people so at least on that front you're fine I would be careful with the linking that you do but it's probably okay Thanks Microphone number four please Okay so first of all thanks for your work and an amazing talk I have some question regarding remedies under new law because as a first I know actually under the old notice and takedown law when there was an infringement but nothing happened after the notice actually neither the user nor the hosting website would really risk anything so would that change? Maybe the proposal includes a provision that says that the host providers need to put in place a complaint mechanism that would be available both to the rights holders if their stuff is actually continuing to become available and also for the users for example if stuff has been takedown that is not an infringement unfortunately I don't think this will really work for the users because the exceptions to copyright law are different in every country and they also are not considered to be rights themselves so basically a platform could simply write into their terms of service we only accept licensed content and we don't care whether this is legal as a parody or whatever so the remedies are not really clear it also says that there has to be some kind of round table where all the different stakeholders come together so the host providers, the rights holders and so on and it really shows that the commission is thinking of large companies like the big major labels but not individual rights holders who are most certainly not gonna start a round table Thanks So I'm afraid that is all the time we had for Q&A with this talk so thank you Julia Rieder for this amazing talk and the time you took for question answering


Welcome to today's edition of Frightfleet Forgotten Horror Movies, but before we get started, what are we sipping on today? We are sipping on Hannigar Draft Lager. Today we're going to be talking about 1978's The Manitoum. It is directed by William Girdler and he hasn't done much, but he has done the kind of schlocky horror movie Grizzly. Tony Curtis is in this and he's a Hollywood legend, Houdini that he was in. It's a real story of Houdini, he all got punched in the kidneys.  Michael Ansara is in this. He was in a lot of TV, mostly TV, played Kang in the original series of Star Trek and Deep Space Nine and Voyager on top of it too, so it like connects them all. Susan Strasburg is in this, she plays the main female lead and of course Burgess Meredith is in this. We don't have to go into what he's done. The Manitoum starts off with this lady Karen going to the hospital because she has this strange tumor kind of growing on her shoulder. In the hallway, like not even in like a room, just like in the hallway like poking at it. This guy is kind of like a specialist on tumors and I've never really seen anything like this before in it. Right. He's like, you know what, it kind of looks like a fetus or something.   If you're good to the gods, the gods will be good to you. Then he kind of sees her out of his apartment and as soon as she's gone, he takes off the mustache and like puts it on the wall and puts it on all his disco. Yeah, he pours himself a beer, gets a phone call and it's Karen kind of find out they used to be a thing back in the day and she's kind of confiding in him and they get together and they meet.  In her sleep, she starts saying all these weird things, these weird words. She goes in for the surgery and goes to go make the incision and suddenly he's all mew, he cuts his own hand and they go flying back and all these tools. In the meantime, Harry's doing a card reading with this old woman and suddenly she starts going into this weird trance and then she starts like levitating and like going down the hallway of the apartment and she just kind of gets the end of these stairs and goes down the stairs and takes the railing right out with her ribs. Harry figures that there's something more to this tumor than just medical. So he goes to a couple of friends of his, true, legit card readers and mystics. Not frauds like him. Gather around a big table to do this seance to try and get more information about what's going on with Karen. This head comes up through the black glass and starts mouthing all these words and then goes back down. Mac, or Mike Love as we're going to call him, starts doing a little bit of research. They find the author of this book and this guy is actually some kind of weird eccentric archaeologist. These words that Karen was saying in her sleep, this Panna witchy salatou, is actually from an old extinct language, from an extinct native tribe. This sort of lump growing on her back, a 400 year old native medicine man that's starting to get reincarnated. He finally stumbles upon the door of a medicine man named John Singing Rock. Painted brown. Back in the day, he didn't actually hire a Native American to play Native American, just to get some guy and paint him. So John Singing Rock agrees to help Harry for $100,000 in 1978, which is huge. John Singing Rock and Harry go back to the hospital to try and help Karen and by this point that thing on her back is like huge and it's all like pulsating and everything too. Putting a ring of sand around the bed. Because there's a wall there, it doesn't actually make a circle, it just does half circle, like it doesn't have to be complete, you'd think, that's not a circle, my friend. That's a semi circle. Maybe $100,000 doesn't get you much on this. Obviously not, because he doesn't dry very hard, blows out these bones and then he's just sleeping. In the waiting room. He didn't even do anything. He just put some circle into this and then he goes to bed like, that's a lot of work.  This guy's head just bust right through the glass of the door. This medicine man kind of has stolen this guy's skin to become whole and he starts to get born. He actually starts to rip out of Karen's back and that's where we're gonna end it. It gets crazier than you expected to. The concepts of this movie is cool. There's an old world, right, against all this new world technology. That laser surgery and then it's all going around the room and everything, yeah. Machines have a manatee, so they use all the manatees of all the machines in the hospital to try to battle this medicine man. It's kind of neat.  Danny's thrust into the situation where it is dealing with black magic. It is real and now I actually have to fight it for real. Right, and it's somebody that he loves and cares about, right? They do a great job of being serious where they need to be and also they know what they're doing with the comedy. Especially with Tony Curtis with that fake mustache and the mystic things. It's like in the disco music. They're all trying to make him way younger than what he really is.  We're in those super tight white pants.  Like those tight leather jackets and, oh man.  And then that dye job, that super dye job hair, it's pretty tame, right? It stays tame.  Like that room is all splattered in blood after that guy gets skinned. Floor's all iced up. They were just cool. Yeah. Which is neat. And like the nurse is all frozen solid. They like fly back into the nurse and then the nurse's head comes right off. He goes into that glass pane. That guy's head all exposed. That doctor guy all blows up. It gets really gory, like, out of nowhere. It really ramps up. Yeah.  Yeah. And I like how he doesn't, he's only short. He's a little short, like, yeah. Yeah. But the thing is, you don't need to be tall to be powerful. And he's, like, super powerful. Even just the simple aspect of having something weird growing on you is kind of scary. Yeah. It's kind of unsettling.   That's even scarier. Like, he just keeps ramping up. Yeah. He keeps getting worse, yeah. This movie also reminds me a lot of like an NES game, like an old school Nintendo game. Adventure game. Yeah. Where you could be, you could play like Tony Curtis, and you're like fighting all these like medicine men or whatever. And there's different levels. Like you got to get to like the desert to, to get John Sting Rock as like a partner. A little dialogue screen comes up, like, I will help you. In the cave or whatever. And you could buy things. You have to get enough coins to get, to get the hundred thousand dollars. Yeah, yeah. By fighting like, to pay John Sting Rock. By fighting like these generic medicine men or whatever. Then you got to go to the hospital is like the final level and beat all the levels. Overall this movie is just like, it's a good story. It's a lot of fun. Like from start to finish, like it's tons of fun. Exactly. And the characters help with that. They're all clearly defined. And they're all fun characters, really. Everyone plays their part perfectly and everything like the chess pieces are placed perfectly and it all, it's kind of works really well together. Exactly. So if you want just a good fun 70s tongue-in-cheek kind of horror movie, right, doesn't take itself too seriously, but it knows when to take itself seriously. Exactly. Check out 1978's The Manitou. And make sure you dress really tight when you do it. A lot of leather and stuff that doesn't fit you at all. And keep drinking.


Hello, I'm Sarmader of the Army, Dan Daley. One of the greatest threats to our force is post-traumatic stress, depression, and other behavior health-related concerns. Army research shows that approximately 15% of operational Iraqi freedom veterans experience post-traumatic stress. Another 10 to 15% will experience some type of behavior health problem. This is not something we can change, but it is something we can treat. I'm here today to urge everyone to break the silence and promote dialogue within your formations at home and in your communities. Seek help and take the first step in recovery and overall resiliency. If you think you need help, get it. If you know someone who needs help, reach out. Anonymous screening is available for soldiers, families and government civilians 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and great resources can be found at www.militaryonesource.mil and at 1-800-342-9647. Break the silence and help our Army remain the most ready and resilient fighting force in our nation's history. Army strong.