yeah that’s all
I love you so much and I wish I can give more than my trash art
Anonymous asked:
your-astro-mami answered:
I know people think they’re dating(I really like them together too, whether it’s real or not), but out of respect I’m not going to be that biased:
Phil’s Sun is in Dan’s 8th House. Phil is possibly very drawn to Dan and fascinated by him. Dan on the other side could be very sensitive to Phil’s actions and feel real intimate with him.
Dan’s sun is in Phil’s 7th House - This is a good aspect for bonding between two people. They could often lose their own identity and become a union together, because the other person feels like their other half. These people find a missing part of theirs in the other person and that creates a balanced relationship.
Phil’s Venus is in Dan’s 6th house- Again, great for partnership. They are very good at working together without fighting and always listening to the other person’s opinion. This is the domestic placement. They are very involved with eachother’s daily life and it’s pleasant for both of them. Might be dependent on the other person.
Dan’s Venus is in Phil’s 8th House - Dan is very captivated by Phil. In can signify emotional and physical bonding in a relationship. There are probably a lot of secrets shared between them. They have accepted eachother’s darker side and love it. His Mars is also in Phil’s 8th House which can be a magnetic sexual attraction. Take this however you want.
Wooh, Past Pearl!
It’s funny how y'all will reblog any and all US things but when whole Europe might lose access to internet then everything is quiet.
Hey, guys! It’s me, your friendly neighborhood law student!
I am seeing this circling my dashboard (yet again) and I would like to say a few things about it. Once again, as I have stated before when I’ve weighed in on something, I am not a lawyer (yet). But, that being said…
Please stop being sensationalist. There are many legitimate criticisms of this directive, but these are not the criticisms I am seeing being spread around. Instead, what’s being spread around amounts to fearmongering. I don’t blame you for doing so - the vast majority of this is being started by the people this will hit hardest, AKA big corporate giants such as Google, Amazon and Microsoft. They have the kind of press pull that very easily leads to this kind of panic.
So, for any of my followers having anxiety about this, let me soothe your worries and address them point by point.
1. “This will destroy the internet in two weeks”
No, no, it won’t. This is a directive, meaning (unlike, say, the the last thing to bring my work onto my tumblr, the fucking GDPR) that it leaves the goals of the directive open to somewhat free implementation by member states, as long as the basic goals of the directive are met on time. As such, it will be years before we actually see any binding legislation as a result of this directive, and how member states choose to implement it will vary on the state in question.
2. “Article 11 will completely restrict the use of links”
Article 11, AKA what is being referred to as the link tax, essentially implements what we call the ancillary copyright of press publishers. This right gives press publishers the right to demand compensation when snippets of their content are displayed on other web pages. So, essentially, this is an article almost directly designed to bop Google (who currently holds the kind of leading market position that the EU sees as incredibly problematic because it kind of goes against everything the EU stands for) on the nose. This would force Google (and, with it, other companies) to compensate the writers of articles that are mirrored to their sites in a truncated form, often leading to less traffic to the actual site in question and thus the mirroring site gaining the revenue that would otherwise be due to the writer of the article.
Now - there are legitimate criticisms of this, which mostly hinge on the fact that forcing people to pay the content creator for content they are using may lead some people to stop using that content. Personally, I think it’s better for people to receive compensation for their work, even if it comes at the cost of less sharing of the work. You are allowed to disagree. The most legitimate form of criticism of this article, in my humble opinion, is that it may lead to a picking and choosing of what content to share and what not to. The thing is - is this not something that is being done already? What does this article add to that other than to make sure that if you do choose to share someone else’s work, that other party gets compensated accordingly?
3. “Article 13 will destroy fandom culture”
No, no, it won’t. The vast majority of fandom culture falls under what US law refers to as fair use and most European national laws (which, in the case of EU countries, are harmonized according to the European Union Copyright Directive) refer to as private use. Article 13 in and of itself does not change the allowances made for private use of media in derivative works already. It merely mandates that companies must take effective measures to stop the users of their services from sharing media that infringes on copyright.
Again, I am in the boring camp of agreeing with the EU - I believe it is better for people to be compensated for their work. If the way we are currently using media in fandom is infringing on copyright, then I think we should stop using it that way. You are entirely welcome to disagree with me on this. Notice how the wording of the article constantly emphasizes how measures taken must be appropriate and proportionate. How the the content recognition technology is mentioned as an example of effective measures that could be taken to stop the uploading and sharing of copyrighted works, not as the only way of doing so. Notice how the entire third paragraph of this article deals with best practices and appropriate and proportionate technology which takes into account the availability and effectiveness of technology - so, essentially, if it sucks and flags too many things as infringing on copyright, it should not be used because it is not appropriate, proportionate or effective. And that’s right there in the directive.
And, yet again, there are legitimate criticisms of this article, including the one mentioned in the OP I am replying to regarding the limitations of sharing copyrighted material on, say, Youtube. That’s true - but you haven’t been allowed to upload full films onto Youtube as is, have you? Videos with copyrighted music in the background have been muted or deleted, as well. The most legitimate criticism I’ve seen is that these automatic copyright infringement flagging algorithms are generally overzealous, and this could lead to over-censoring of content that would actually fall under fair use/personal use/whatever you want to call it. That’s true, very true - but the article doesn’t require countries to enforce algorithms being used if they don’t work as they should. See above paragraph.
So, in conclusion: yes, this directive could stand to be worded better. Yes, it may technically lead to the kinds of doomsday scenarios people are imagining - but I really don’t think it will. In fact, I doubt you’ll notice much difference when (in a few years) these laws actually start getting implemented. Notice how no one has heard about the GDPR for like three weeks now, even though we’re living in that supposedly apocalyptic post-GDPR world? (I say, bitterly, as I wade through piles of GDPR every day at work… :D)
Still don’t like the directive proposal? That’s totally fine. By all means, call up your MEP, take a stand! Now, you’re doing it for the right reasons.
Articles cited retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52016PC0593 on 21.06.18 at around 10AM GMT.
Hey look! Finally someone who knows what they’re talking about and can give some informative insight
Oh shit
I feel like no one realises how bad this actually is. To make it clear for y'all if this law passes, it’s going to be 1000x worse than net neutrality. This is a literal internet censorship.
Want to post a cute fanart? BLOCKED. A fanfic? BLOCKED. Do you have a friend in europe and want to send them a meme? BLOCKED. Youtube let’s plays? BLOCKED Dan’s meme videos? BLOCKED.
Nearly not enough people are talking about this so please, even if you’re not european, help us and take part. We did the same when net neutrality was trying to ruin all of our lives. I’ll put some useful links below.
- !anyone can sign!
x <- fixed link for call/email your local mps
- !you can only do this if you live in europe/uk!
Take part, lads🌸✨
Right so to add to this. My friend has already been affected by this shit today . Her gmail profile pic which was eevee (pokemon) has been removed apparently due to eu copyright laws. It was a fucking profile pic. @eu fuck u
also Philip DeFranco made a p good video about this topic. I’ll link it which according to the new laws will also be illegal.
🇺🇸 Another addition for y'all americans: Just so you know there’s quite a big chance a certain cheeto could get inspired by the shit eu is going to pass rn and then we’re all screwed.
🇬🇧 UK lads: UK is going to be affected by this until the day they officially leave the EU and that is in 2021. Contact your local MPs link is above.
🇪🇺 Members of the EU: Are basically all going to be fucked if we don’t do something! Contact your local MPs link is above.
🌏Rest of the world is hopefully sane but still…. please try to help even if this isn’t going to affect you directly.
Any help is appreciated but please try to spread the message as well as signing the petition. Thank u all
checked out the petition,,,, love u tumblr phandom ur doing gr8 sweetie
Phan x Riverdale AU???? I actually really like this one, I’m pretty proud!
