2. Freedom to Share
  3. web
  4. Turkish
  5. Translate

Translation

faq->entries->are-you-against-authors->body
Not at all. We want to update copyright so that it's compatible with modern reality and people's preferences. We believe modern technology is an opportunity for authors, not a problem. We also believe that it's harmful for authors to depend on and support very unfair and unpopular status quo of copyright laws. Some authors might be appreciated and know by people much more thanks to file sharing.
0/3980
Key English Turkish State
faq->entries->i-like-being-social-why-p2p-file-sharing-should-be-better-than-distribution-platforms->title I like being social. Why p2p file sharing should be better than distribution platforms?
faq->entries->i-like-being-social-why-p2p-file-sharing-should-be-better-than-distribution-platforms->body Because p2p file sharing allows you to be really social: when you share files, at the same time you get files from other people. Interacting with an algorithm is not being social. P2p sometimes optimizes bandwith usage, when you are collecting a file that is available at many other clients, many of them might send you different parts at the same time, considerably reducing transfer time.
faq->entries->how-much-will-it-cost-for-users->title How much will it cost for users?
faq->entries->how-much-will-it-cost-for-users->body There is a spectrum of possible implementations of our proposal. We believe it's possible, with modern empirical methods and evidence-based economics, to calculate the fair compensation for the various scenarios.
faq->entries->how-will-freedom-to-share-files-benefit-artists->title How will freedom to share files benefit artists?
faq->entries->how-will-freedom-to-share-files-benefit-artists->body They will receive money for the use of their works from file sharers. Moreover they will allow citizens to access their works by means that are not under control of third parties: authors will enjoy more freedom and their works will be at hand.
faq->entries->if-file-sharing-is-free-how-will-artists-earn-money->title If file sharing is free how will artists earn money? Eğer dosya paylaşmak serbest olursa, sanatçılar nasıl para kazanacak?
faq->entries->if-file-sharing-is-free-how-will-artists-earn-money->body They will receive a share of the fair remuneration collected for use of their works. This will add to their usual means of remuneration.
faq->entries->what-should-authors-do-to-make-sure-that-their-work-is-available-for-file-sharing->title What should authors do to make sure that their work is available for file sharing?
faq->entries->what-should-authors-do-to-make-sure-that-their-work-is-available-for-file-sharing->body Publish it and wait for citizens to share it. If they want, they can also personally make available their work through file sharing networks.
faq->entries->what-if-an-author-does-not-agree-to-have-his-work-shared-through-file-sharing-networks->title What if an author does not agree to have his work shared through file sharing networks?
faq->entries->what-if-an-author-does-not-agree-to-have-his-work-shared-through-file-sharing-networks->body He is free to not publish his work and then his work will not be shared. Once a work is public, all citizens have some right (sing privately, make copies for personal use and, we believe, use file sharing networks for personal use).
faq->entries->how-should-money-be-distributed-among-authors-and-other-right-holders->title How should money be distributed among authors and other right holders?
faq->entries->how-should-money-be-distributed-among-authors-and-other-right-holders->body Collecting societies already have different methods to share among authors and other right holders the fair remuneration collected (money collected from the private copy levy, etc.). We believe that distribution of fair compensation collected for file sharing could be very fair if done properly. As way of example, it could be possible to develop transparent and fair statistics on the works shared through file sharing networks implementing a safe "counter" measuring the number of transfers for each file and dividing the total amount collected proportionally between content creators.
faq->entries->are-you-against-authors->title Are you against authors?
faq->entries->are-you-against-authors->body Not at all. We want to update copyright so that it's compatible with modern reality and people's preferences. We believe modern technology is an opportunity for authors, not a problem. We also believe that it's harmful for authors to depend on and support very unfair and unpopular status quo of copyright laws. Some authors might be appreciated and know by people much more thanks to file sharing.
faq->entries->are-you-against-rightsholders->title Are you against rightsholders?
faq->entries->are-you-against-rightsholders->body No, as long as they pursue the stated objectives of copyright (and author rights), that is the promotion of culture and social progress. Majors lost an opportunity when they attacked Napster in the early 2000; they could have sided with it and gained a free money machine. Instead they missed a decade and now they depend on royalties from Spotify, Apple, etc. for their survival. Our proposal is an opportunity for collecting societies, publishers, record labels and other rightsholders too.
faq->entries->are-you-against-digital-platforms->title Are you against digital platforms?
faq->entries->are-you-against-digital-platforms->body No, if they do not abuse of their power to control and profile people. The various internet services which have come to dominate the digital distribution of culture can be a net positive because they make distribution more efficient. Disintermediation can also reduce the amount of money wasted on middlemen who do not produce any additional culture. However, we don't see why giant centralised internet services run by few multinationals should be in control of culture in the digital era. Efforts like article 17 in directive 790/2019 ("upload filters") were misguided, and will inevitably fail, because they failed to attack the root problem.
faq->entries->do-you-want-to-destroy-existing-digital-distribution-channels->title Do you want to destroy existing digital distribution channels? Mevcut dijital dağıtım kanallarını yok etmek mi istiyorsunuz?
faq->entries->do-you-want-to-destroy-existing-digital-distribution-channels->body No. Services survive in the long run because consumers like them, not because politicians write this or that law.
faq->entries->file-sharing-platforms-are-competitors-of-netflix-spotify-and-other-content-distribution-platforms->title Are file sharing platforms competitors of Netflix, Spotify and other content distribution platforms?
faq->entries->file-sharing-platforms-are-competitors-of-netflix-spotify-and-other-content-distribution-platforms->body No. Because they are networks, there is no single competitor: file sharing networks are distributed (there is no mandatory intermediary). File sharing networks are owned by the citizens that participate in it.
faq->entries->is-it-true-file-sharing-gives-the-opportunity-to-find-stuff-very-rare-no-more-on-the-market-located-in-some-unknown-place-difficult-to-find->title Is it true file sharing gives the opportunity to find stuff very rare / no more on the market /located in some unknown place, difficult to find?
faq->entries->is-it-true-file-sharing-gives-the-opportunity-to-find-stuff-very-rare-no-more-on-the-market-located-in-some-unknown-place-difficult-to-find->body Yes, as long as some part of the network has it. Sometimes, when usual channel fail, some stuff is already there, ready to be collected. On some networks nowaday, there are 10-40 million files available, with million nodes-users.
faq->entries->this-is-only-a-dream->title This is only a dream!
faq->entries->this-is-only-a-dream->body We realise that our proposal is the only way to go ahead for a copyright based on fundamental rights. We think sometimes such ambition is needed.
faq->entries->this-is-not-a-new-idea->title This is not a new idea!
faq->entries->this-is-not-a-new-idea->body Admittedly, it's mostly an old idea. The most famous variant is probably Fisher's proposal of a statutory license to solve problems like Napster being shut down because it was only able to stop 99,4 % of copyright infringement but not 100 %. <a href="http://www.free-culture.cc/freeculture.pdf">See "Free culture" (2004), p. 307.</a>
faq->entries->you-want-to-violate-copyright->title You want to violate copyright! Sizler telif haklarını ihlal etmek istiyorsunuz!
Key English Turkish State
act->content <p>Spread this inititative with your friends and contacts: write them, spread the communication materials, talk to them, etc.</p>
<p>Get in touch with us and contribute to the organization and spreading of the campaign in your country coordinating with other campaigners: <a href="#proca_dialog" data-turbolinks="false">subscribe!</a></p>
<p>Help to translate: <a href="https://l10n.rio.hn/projects/freedom-to-share/web/">Weblate</a></p>
<p>Support the campaign making a donation:</p>
act->title Take action now!
contact->fiscal_code Fiscal Code
contact->presentation GOIPE is a no-profit association according to art. 36 of Italian civil code made especially for the purpose of organizing European Citizen Initiatives.
This "Freedom to share" ECI has been officially submitted to the European Commission by citizens from eight European countries:
creative-commons->text Creative Commons License
creative-commons->url http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
eci->description->body To legalise sharing – via digital networks, for personal use and non-profit purposes – of files containing works and other material protected by copyright, related rights and sui generis database rights, with a view to striking a balance between the rights of authors and other rightholders and the universal right to science and culture.
eci->description->title Description Açıklama
eci->name Name of the European Citizen Initiative Avrupa Birliği Vatandaş İnsiyatifinin Adı
eci->official_text <p>Our initiative calls for the adoption of a legislative act providing for a waiver of copyright, related rights, and sui generis database rights for natural persons sharing files via digital networks for personal use and non-profit purposes.</p><p>File-sharing came into existence in 1999, with the advent of Napster. Over the years, technology has made distributed (or peer-to-peer) file sharing ever more efficient (e.g., Gnutella, Freenet, BitTorrent).</p><p>From the outset, the main rightsholder companies have opposed the use of sharing technologies for works and other material subject to copyright, related rights, and sui generis database rights, and current legislation is broadly in line with their wishes.</p><p>However, one question remains: is it fair for copyright, related rights, and sui generis database rights to prevent the sharing of works and other material?</p><p>Copyright, related rights, and sui generis database rights should help towards fostering the dissemination of culture, innovation, and social progress.</p><p>Current legislation bans the sharing of files containing works and other material subject to copyright, related rights, and sui generis database rights and seriously curtails the freedom of access to science and culture enshrined in Article 27(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.</p><p>This issue is of even greater relevance today, since the adoption of Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market.</p><p>The Directive has the opposite effect. On the one hand, Article 17 makes it easier for online content sharing service providers to obtain authorization to disseminate protected content, thereby facilitating their role as privileged intermediaries and encouraging their practices of technical control and citizen profiling. On the other hand, file sharing remains banned.</p><p>This initiative calls for citizens to be allowed to share files directly via peer-to-peer networks for them to have access to science and culture without being subject to checks and profiling. EU legislation enabling this would be perfectly compatible with international law if rightsholders were given fair compensation.</p><p>People and fundamental rights must be at the heart of political and legislative decisions. It is, therefore, necessary to change the current rules governing the sharing of files containing works and other material protected by copyright, related rights, and sui generis database rights in order to enable the potential for freedom and social, cultural, and economic development offered by digital networks.</p>
faq->acronym FAQ
faq->entries->are-you-against-authors->body Not at all. We want to update copyright so that it's compatible with modern reality and people's preferences. We believe modern technology is an opportunity for authors, not a problem. We also believe that it's harmful for authors to depend on and support very unfair and unpopular status quo of copyright laws. Some authors might be appreciated and know by people much more thanks to file sharing.
faq->entries->are-you-against-authors->title Are you against authors?
faq->entries->are-you-against-digital-platforms->body No, if they do not abuse of their power to control and profile people. The various internet services which have come to dominate the digital distribution of culture can be a net positive because they make distribution more efficient. Disintermediation can also reduce the amount of money wasted on middlemen who do not produce any additional culture. However, we don't see why giant centralised internet services run by few multinationals should be in control of culture in the digital era. Efforts like article 17 in directive 790/2019 ("upload filters") were misguided, and will inevitably fail, because they failed to attack the root problem.
faq->entries->are-you-against-digital-platforms->title Are you against digital platforms?
faq->entries->are-you-against-rightsholders->body No, as long as they pursue the stated objectives of copyright (and author rights), that is the promotion of culture and social progress. Majors lost an opportunity when they attacked Napster in the early 2000; they could have sided with it and gained a free money machine. Instead they missed a decade and now they depend on royalties from Spotify, Apple, etc. for their survival. Our proposal is an opportunity for collecting societies, publishers, record labels and other rightsholders too.
faq->entries->are-you-against-rightsholders->title Are you against rightsholders?
faq->entries->could-this-proposal-be-used-as-a-legal-blanket-for-the-distribution-of-private-information-such-as-personal-data-private-pictures-etc->body No. This proposal only concerns the distribution of published material. Sharing unpublished materials will remain illegal. In addition to that, distribution of personal data is illegal if does not comply with the GDPR.
faq->entries->could-this-proposal-be-used-as-a-legal-blanket-for-the-distribution-of-private-information-such-as-personal-data-private-pictures-etc->title Could this proposal be used as a "legal blanket" for the distribution of private information such as personal data, private pictures, etc.?
faq->entries->do-you-want-to-destroy-existing-digital-distribution-channels->body No. Services survive in the long run because consumers like them, not because politicians write this or that law.
faq->entries->do-you-want-to-destroy-existing-digital-distribution-channels->title Do you want to destroy existing digital distribution channels? Mevcut dijital dağıtım kanallarını yok etmek mi istiyorsunuz?
faq->entries->file-sharing-platforms-are-competitors-of-netflix-spotify-and-other-content-distribution-platforms->body No. Because they are networks, there is no single competitor: file sharing networks are distributed (there is no mandatory intermediary). File sharing networks are owned by the citizens that participate in it.
faq->entries->file-sharing-platforms-are-competitors-of-netflix-spotify-and-other-content-distribution-platforms->title Are file sharing platforms competitors of Netflix, Spotify and other content distribution platforms?
faq->entries->how-do-you-think-file-sharing-should-be-regulated->body We believe file sharing should be free for private use by citizens; authors and other right holders should receive a fair remuneration for the use of their works by citizens.
faq->entries->how-do-you-think-file-sharing-should-be-regulated->title How do you think file sharing should be regulated?
faq->entries->how-much-will-it-cost-for-users->body There is a spectrum of possible implementations of our proposal. We believe it's possible, with modern empirical methods and evidence-based economics, to calculate the fair compensation for the various scenarios.

Loading…

No matching activity found.

Browse all component changes

Glossary

English Turkish
No related strings found in the glossary.

Source information

Key
faq->entries->are-you-against-authors->body
String age
4 months ago
Source string age
4 months ago
Translation file
locales/tr.yml, string 46