European Parliament votes to back controversial 'Article 11' and 'Article 13' copyright re...

Posted:
in General Discussion
Members of the European Parliament have approved legislation to revise copyright laws in a decision that has both angered and relieved some internet users because of conditions it may place on content providers.

The European Parliament in Strasburg where today's vote was held
The European Parliament in Strasburg where today's vote was held


This directive was originally blocked in July because of criticism over two controversial elements called Articles 11 and 13. These have been revised since that draft but remain substantially as they were.

Article 11 is concerned with "protection of press publications concerning digital uses" and opponents say it amounts to a tax on sharing articles. It's being called a "Link Tax" and the directive does concern "fair and proportionate enumeration."

However, Article 11 also explicitly states that this "shall not extend to acts of hyperlinking."

Article 13 is about the misuse of copyright works with users uploading material they don't have rights to. Opponents including Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the web, have lobbied the European Union, arguing that Article 13 will cause "damage... to the free and open internet as we know it".

The aim of the directive, though, is specifically to target commercial platforms whose main purpose is to provide access to this material.

In an open email to Antonio Tajani, President of the European Parliament, Berners-Lee and others maintain that this isn't enough.

"In particular, far from only affecting large American Internet platforms (who can well afford the costs of compliance), the burden of Article 13 will fall most heavily on their competitors, including European startups." claimed the letter.

Before the vote, Stephen Fry tweeted his thoughts on the matter.

#Article13 threatens EU creators, leaving us vulnerable to censorship in copyright's name. Don't believe the creepy pretence that it's there to protect holders. It's about putting power in the hands of media corporations. We can stop it! Contact your MEP https://t.co/xwFpzW6sIY

— Stephen Fry (@stephenfry)


Proponents of the directive argue that if this is correct then the result will be that smaller platforms won't show copyrighted works and larger ones will pay to do so. That's exactly the stated aim -- to get creators of material paid for their work.

There is the argument that this will require platforms to monitor and check every single item uploaded to them and that is a significant burden. However, the directive's aim is not to block everything until checked, with the proposed legislation saying that "non-infringing works and other subject matter shall remain available."

How this kind of positive vetting might actually work in practice is an issue and isn't addressed by the directive. Laws in the United States at present have provisions protecting internet providers from violations by users of the services -- but those "Safe Harbor" protections have been challenged on multiple occasions.

Wednesday's vote in Strasburg was 438 in favor, 226 against, with 39 abstentions. The Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market will now go ahead to a final vote in January 2019. If it is passed into law then there will be a further delay as each member country of the European Union enacts its own versions.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 16
    Lol. Copyright protection. Right.
    I wonder, how much time it will take before it is used to silence the critics of the EU on the grounds of copyright violation. This future law makes no sense, unless you wanna create an easier way to shut people up, without inviting too much attention during earlier stages of transitioning from the EU into the EUSSR, when this whole process is in its most vulnerable state.
    edited September 12 SpamSandwichlkruppYoRHarepressthislamboaudi4jbdragonviclauyyc
  • Reply 2 of 16
    After reading this article I still can't understand the issues.

    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 3 of 16
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 6,293member
    Lol. Copyright protection. Right.
    I wonder, how much time it will take before it is used to silence the critics of the EU on the grounds of copyright violation. This future law makes no sense, unless you wanna create an easier way to shut people up, without inviting too much attention during earlier stages of transitioning from the EU into the EUSSR, when this whole process is in its most vulnerable state.
    Yep, sounds like a back door to censorship much like Facebook and Twitter are doin right now.
    Oferjbdragon
  • Reply 4 of 16
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,102member
    Another nail in the coffin for the EU, perhaps. 
    anton zuykovSpamSandwichrepressthisjbdragon
  • Reply 5 of 16
    After reading this article I still can't understand the issues.

    Some posters are making borderline paranoid comments about censorship in this circumstance. Unless you think it could be used to censor reviews? Copyright doesnt' apply to political criticisms.

    Freedom of speech doesn't mean I (or Facebook or Twitter) need to provide a platform for you to spread your words without conduct policies - it just means I can't stop you from saying them in your own forums.

    The main valid concern deals with copyright abuses - I've seen video commentary from several posters who get regular copyright claims on music in videos for content that is clearly public domain or was legitimately licensed form the correct copyright owner but other entities are claiming ownership.

    Content carriers are concerned with the required effort required to detect infringements, deal with protests that there isn't infringement, etc. YouTube has (barely functional) mechanisms in place, startups wouldn't be able to set those up without huge initial investments - so potentially reduced competition.

    This article does a good job of more thoroughly explaining the issues with the two articles: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/09/an-eu-copyright-bill-could-force-youtube-style-filtering-across-the-web/
    edited September 12 spheric
  • Reply 6 of 16
    mknelson said:
    After reading this article I still can't understand the issues.

    Some posters are making borderline paranoid comments about censorship in this circumstance. Unless you think it could be used to censor reviews? Copyright doesnt' apply to political criticisms.
    Really? If someone posts a meme to mock a political leader, and the meme has something copyrighted, then it becomes illegal. How is that paranoid?
    repressthiscommand_f
  • Reply 7 of 16
    asdasd said:
    Another nail in the coffin for the EU, perhaps. 
    Should make the countries thinking about leaving the EU speed their decision making.
  • Reply 8 of 16
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,041member
    mknelson said:
    After reading this article I still can't understand the issues.

    Some posters are making borderline paranoid comments about censorship in this circumstance. Unless you think it could be used to censor reviews? Copyright doesnt' apply to political criticisms.
    Really? If someone posts a meme to mock a political leader, and the meme has something copyrighted, then it becomes illegal. How is that paranoid?
    Good point. Popular meme's, particularly political ones, may be some of the first copyright casualties under this new law assuming it passes without any changes, which is apparently the expectation. 
  • Reply 9 of 16
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,314member
    YoRHa said:
    mknelson said:
    Some posters are making borderline paranoid comments about censorship in this circumstance. Unless you think it could be used to censor reviews? Copyright doesnt' apply to political criticisms.

    Freedom of speech doesn't mean I (or Facebook or Twitter) need to provide a platform for you to spread your words without conduct policies - it just means I can't stop you from saying them in your own forums.

    The main valid concern deals with copyright abuses - I've seen video commentary from several posters who get regular copyright claims on music in videos for content that is clearly public domain or was legitimately licensed form the correct copyright owner but other entities are claiming ownership.

    Content carriers are concerned with the required effort required to detect infringements, deal with protests that there isn't infringement, etc. YouTube has (barely functional) mechanisms in place, startups wouldn't be able to set those up without huge initial investments - so potentially reduced competition.
    Test? Hello?

    I don’t know what happened to my comment. I wrote it all out and it disappeared when I hit post. I’ll try again, I guess? Was it the video link?

    Thanks for the well poisoning. That’s exactly what it is designed to do. You have to pay for a license to have speech under the law. You have to pay for a license to link to URLs. LINK. TO. URLS.

    You don’t know what freedom of speech is, much less how it relates to public spaces or fair use. It is impossible to create a platform to compete with any of the preexisting services, both monetarily in startup expenditure for hardware and infrastructure, and due to government regulation stopping them from existing. 

    But that continues under the new laws.


    No, the article specifically says that hyperlinks are permissible.  Linking to any URL should be permissible as there is nothing copyrightable about the URL itself.   It's just automating the user re-typing the URL.   
    command_f
  • Reply 10 of 16
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 1,825member
    So basically Google will stop all News links and snippets as they're not going to pay for that stuff. It'll just be all of the EU at this point. They of course will complain as their traffic disappears. See they want things both ways. Blind as a bat. Looks like the EU wants to make things much harder overall for any Startup's. I'm sure Google and Facebook and other large American company's love, love, love Article 13. The next effect is it protects them from any new Startup's. The overall Costs skyrocket where only these big company's can afford it. It is the EU, nothing like a big fat government kiling everything in it's path.
  • Reply 11 of 16
    gatorguy said:
    mknelson said:
    After reading this article I still can't understand the issues.

    Some posters are making borderline paranoid comments about censorship in this circumstance. Unless you think it could be used to censor reviews? Copyright doesnt' apply to political criticisms.
    Really? If someone posts a meme to mock a political leader, and the meme has something copyrighted, then it becomes illegal. How is that paranoid?
    Good point. Popular meme's, particularly political ones, may be some of the first copyright casualties under this new law assuming it passes without any changes, which is apparently the expectation. 
    And I mean, why would anyone be conserned about nasty political memes...?    /s
    Except that this IS the whole point of why there is this free speech thingy in the first place - to be able to criticize anything and everything in order to have peaceful feedback loop, for correcting the course of where a society is going, without the need for violence!
    If this law passes, memes will be the first to go... in fact, memes aside, free speech will be the first caualty of this law. Of course, it will be a small part of free speech to go, at first. But, if you are trying to be smart about usurping power, you never do that in one big motion. Instead, chipping away is the best way, as it is slow enough for the victim not to notice it...until it is too late.
    Death by thousands of very tiny, but real, cuts...
    edited September 12 YoRHa
  • Reply 12 of 16
    After reading this article I still can't understand the issues.

    The best I have been able to figure out, the EU wants the likes of Google and Facebook to pay the creator of content anytime the content shows up on their platforms. To bring this home to AI, if you post a link to content which was specifically created by someone who claims to have a copyright on the information, then AI would have to pay the originator of the content for the right to show the content on the AI platform. AI would be forced to stop allowing you to post links, images and so on of anything which could be deem copyrighted. AI was already force by Google to remove an article which people here had specifically discussed a topic which Google advertisers deem offensive and did not want their Ads showing up on any sites which had any reference to that content.

    So either google figures out a way to monetarize the content so they can pay the owner or they figure out a way to keep end users or their platform form posting copyrighted content.
  • Reply 13 of 16
    maestro64 said:
    After reading this article I still can't understand the issues.

    The best I have been able to figure out, the EU wants the likes of Google and Facebook to pay the creator of content anytime the content shows up on their platforms. To bring this home to AI, if you post a link to content which was specifically created by someone who claims to have a copyright on the information, then AI would have to pay the originator of the content for the right to show the content on the AI platform. AI would be forced to stop allowing you to post links, images and so on of anything which could be deem copyrighted. AI was already force by Google to remove an article which people here had specifically discussed a topic which Google advertisers deem offensive and did not want their Ads showing up on any sites which had any reference to that content.

    So either google figures out a way to monetarize the content so they can pay the owner or they figure out a way to keep end users or their platform form posting copyrighted content.
    I could see Google and Facebook abandoning the EU entirely under such moronic legislation.
  • Reply 14 of 16
    mknelson said:
    After reading this article I still can't understand the issues.

    Some posters are making borderline paranoid comments about censorship in this circumstance. Unless you think it could be used to censor reviews? Copyright doesnt' apply to political criticisms.

    Freedom of speech doesn't mean I (or Facebook or Twitter) need to provide a platform for you to spread your words without conduct policies - it just means I can't stop you from saying them in your own forums.

    The main valid concern deals with copyright abuses - I've seen video commentary from several posters who get regular copyright claims on music in videos for content that is clearly public domain or was legitimately licensed form the correct copyright owner but other entities are claiming ownership.

    Content carriers are concerned with the required effort required to detect infringements, deal with protests that there isn't infringement, etc. YouTube has (barely functional) mechanisms in place, startups wouldn't be able to set those up without huge initial investments - so potentially reduced competition.

    This article does a good job of more thoroughly explaining the issues with the two articles: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/09/an-eu-copyright-bill-could-force-youtube-style-filtering-across-the-web/
    In a perfect world your statement is accurate. current copyright laws have fair use, however, using copyright material to make political statement is not necessarily covered under fair use. You can not use someone else's copyright material to make your political statements. Simple you can not use material from CNN and make political statements, and say they CNN and not force you or the platform from using because you are claiming it your freedom of speak right under fair use.

    All it would take is savvy politician to copyright his name and likeness and claim ownership over specific content and you got a battle on your hands. We already have this person his name is Trump. He has copyright his name and how it can be used, Melania have copyrighted all the photos of her and the Trump family and has licensed them on gettyimages and makes 100's of thousands, on the use of those images.

    https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/trump?phrase=trump&sort=best#license

    Most of those images are photos which Melania owns especially those taken by photographers hired by the Trumps or the controlled by the Trumps.

    The media found out the hard way they were using stock photos of Trump and her only to find out when they paid the licensing rights it went to the Trump family not to some photographer trying to make a living. Today the media is avoiding using these images since they all hate the Trumps and do not want to pay them.

    Because of all these new rules and such we will see some level of self censorship or platforms going over board to avoid an issue which they do not want to be in the middle of.

    The EU thinks they helping the little guy, in the end the little guy will get hurt since large platforms will not allow their content to ever show up on their sites for any reason.

  • Reply 15 of 16
    maestro64 said:
    mknelson said:
    After reading this article I still can't understand the issues.

    Some posters are making borderline paranoid comments about censorship in this circumstance. Unless you think it could be used to censor reviews? Copyright doesnt' apply to political criticisms.

    Freedom of speech doesn't mean I (or Facebook or Twitter) need to provide a platform for you to spread your words without conduct policies - it just means I can't stop you from saying them in your own forums.

    The main valid concern deals with copyright abuses - I've seen video commentary from several posters who get regular copyright claims on music in videos for content that is clearly public domain or was legitimately licensed form the correct copyright owner but other entities are claiming ownership.

    Content carriers are concerned with the required effort required to detect infringements, deal with protests that there isn't infringement, etc. YouTube has (barely functional) mechanisms in place, startups wouldn't be able to set those up without huge initial investments - so potentially reduced competition.

    This article does a good job of more thoroughly explaining the issues with the two articles: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/09/an-eu-copyright-bill-could-force-youtube-style-filtering-across-the-web/
    In a perfect world your statement is accurate. current copyright laws have fair use, however, using copyright material to make political statement is not necessarily covered under fair use.

    But by criticizing what news orgs are putting up, you still make a political statement in a sense.. and it is covered under fair use. So, that dichotomy you presented in your post, is false. 
    edited September 12
Sign In or Register to comment.