European copyright reform including 'Article 13' approved, will become law within two year...

Posted:
in General Discussion
Countries in the European Union have approved a refresh of copyright law approved by the European Parliament in March, including the controversial "Article 13" change that may affect user-generated content, with member states now having to implement the directive within each country's laws within the next two years.

The European Parliament in Strasburg
The European Parliament in Strasburg


In a vote by EU member states, 19 voted in favor of the rules becoming law, with six voting against the changes, while three abstained. Under EU law, the directive previously approved by the European Parliament has to be transposed into regional versions of laws within 24 months, even in countries where that state voted against the rule changes.

The copyright changes will place a greater emphasis on protecting owners and licensors of the content by forcing tech companies and distributors to offer increased protections to rights holders. Known as Article 13, the most controversial element makes firms put more efforts into policing the content on their services, including properly licensing copyrighted material, or be held liable for illegally shared content.

The rules not only apply to firms based in the European Union, as it also will impact practically every company that has an online presence accessible within the EU, including those on other continents. The full rules apply to larger firms, but smaller companies and startups have relatively fewer requirements.

"With today's agreement, we are making copyright rules fit for the digital age," said European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker. "Europe will now have clear rules that guarantee fair renumeration for creators, strong rights for users and responsibility for platforms. When it comes to completing Europe's digital single market, the copyright reform is the missing piece of the puzzle."

It is thought firms like Google and Facebook will have to increase their copyright monitoring efforts with regard to user-generated content, to prevent those simply uploading copyrighted items. There are exceptions to the rules, protecting non-commercial purposes like Wikipedia and GitHub posts, as well as private cloud storage services such as Apple's iCloud and Dropbox.

Critics also believe the rules will effectively ban the creation and distribution of memes, but the European Parliament has already expressed the belief that "quotation, criticism, review, caricature, parody, or pastiche" will continue to be protected by existing mechanisms.

A secondary section, "Article 11," will require news aggregators to license anything larger than a "short extract" of a story that is shared with the audience. This effectively covers services like Google News, which offers headlines and short story snippets, as well as apps and services performing a similar task.

The introduction of the changes, said to be modernizing EU rules on data from as far back as 2001, but the EU is not the only entity to try and change how copyright is dealt with online.

The United States government made similar reform attempts in 2011 under the Stop Online Privacy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA) House and Senate bills, preventing the sale of pirated or copyrighted goods online. The rules were criticized in many ways, including how it effectively applied to all websites in the world, cut off access to websites by DNS changes and potentially blocking all financial transfers to a site deemed to have infringed, even if it was only a small part of a larger overall online presence.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 15
  • Reply 2 of 15
    carnegiecarnegie Posts: 664member
    There's so much wrong with this, where does one begin?

    My question is, what happens if other jurisdictions decide to respond to this by enacting rules which effectively require that online platforms do the opposite? The EU is, effectively, presuming to impose its choice of regulations on much of the planet. (I don't mean to suggest that it is the only jurisdiction that has so presumed.) It isn't just regulating actions which are actually taken within its rightful jurisdiction.

    So what if other jurisdictions, understandably bristling at that arrogance and disagreeing with these regulatory policies, pass regulations which effectively prohibit online platforms from blocking (or removing) uploaded content which would otherwise be allowed, based on the possibility that it might violate copyrights, unless and until a judicial determination is made (on a case-by-case basis) that given content does violate copyrights? That, to me, seems like an obvious response which other jurisdictions might consider as sort of a protest to the EU's arrogance and, what some might see as, misguided regulations. What would global platforms do then?

    Also, this general response from the European Parliament and supporters of Article 13...

    Critics also believe the rules will effectively ban the creation and distribution of memes, but the European Parliament has already expressed the belief that "quotation, criticism, review, caricature, parody, or pastiche" will continue to be protected by existing mechanisms.

    ... evades the point. The issue isn't whether given content is or isn't protected (from copyright claims) based on it being, e.g., parody or review. The issue is, how can an online platform possibly know ahead of time (e.g. ahead of a judicial determination) that given content is so protected? Without devoting implausible amounts of resources to making individual determinations with regard to uploaded content? The only plausible policy might be to treat all content as not protected. That's one of the problems which this regulation creates or exacerbates.

    gatorguyelijahg
  • Reply 3 of 15
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 30,836member
    Say goodbye to the EU. It was (not a lot of) fun while it lasted.
    jbdragonracerhomie3elijahg
  • Reply 4 of 15
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,278member
    carnegie said:
    There's so much wrong with this, where does one begin?

    My question is, what happens if other jurisdictions decide to respond to this by enacting rules which effectively require that online platforms do the opposite? The EU is, effectively, presuming to impose its choice of regulations on much of the planet. (I don't mean to suggest that it is the only jurisdiction that has so presumed.) It isn't just regulating actions which are actually taken within its rightful jurisdiction.

    So what if other jurisdictions, understandably bristling at that arrogance and disagreeing with these regulatory policies, pass regulations which effectively prohibit online platforms from blocking (or removing) uploaded content which would otherwise be allowed, based on the possibility that it might violate copyrights, unless and until a judicial determination is made (on a case-by-case basis) that given content does violate copyrights? That, to me, seems like an obvious response which other jurisdictions might consider as sort of a protest to the EU's arrogance and, what some might see as, misguided regulations. What would global platforms do then?

    Also, this general response from the European Parliament and supporters of Article 13...

    Critics also believe the rules will effectively ban the creation and distribution of memes, but the European Parliament has already expressed the belief that "quotation, criticism, review, caricature, parody, or pastiche" will continue to be protected by existing mechanisms.

    ... evades the point. The issue isn't whether given content is or isn't protected (from copyright claims) based on it being, e.g., parody or review. The issue is, how can an online platform possibly know ahead of time (e.g. ahead of a judicial determination) that given content is so protected? Without devoting implausible amounts of resources to making individual determinations with regard to uploaded content? The only plausible policy might be to treat all content as not protected. That's one of the problems which this regulation creates or exacerbates.

    +1. Very well stated.

     I see a whole lotta upload filters being put in place and erring heavily to the conservative side. I also see far less distribution of opinion and news ahead. Does a site like AI need to pay a company like The Financial Times for including a quote from one of their articles, or does that obligation extend to the search provider who surfaces the AI article that includes those quotes. Heck it's not even clear what counts as a short snippet of the results when surfacing links. 10 words OK? Only 5? maybe 25 depending? Searches are going to get a lot more difficult and time-consuming. 
  • Reply 5 of 15
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,141member
    gatorguy said:
    carnegie said:
    There's so much wrong with this, where does one begin?

    My question is, what happens if other jurisdictions decide to respond to this by enacting rules which effectively require that online platforms do the opposite? The EU is, effectively, presuming to impose its choice of regulations on much of the planet. (I don't mean to suggest that it is the only jurisdiction that has so presumed.) It isn't just regulating actions which are actually taken within its rightful jurisdiction.

    So what if other jurisdictions, understandably bristling at that arrogance and disagreeing with these regulatory policies, pass regulations which effectively prohibit online platforms from blocking (or removing) uploaded content which would otherwise be allowed, based on the possibility that it might violate copyrights, unless and until a judicial determination is made (on a case-by-case basis) that given content does violate copyrights? That, to me, seems like an obvious response which other jurisdictions might consider as sort of a protest to the EU's arrogance and, what some might see as, misguided regulations. What would global platforms do then?

    Also, this general response from the European Parliament and supporters of Article 13...

    Critics also believe the rules will effectively ban the creation and distribution of memes, but the European Parliament has already expressed the belief that "quotation, criticism, review, caricature, parody, or pastiche" will continue to be protected by existing mechanisms.

    ... evades the point. The issue isn't whether given content is or isn't protected (from copyright claims) based on it being, e.g., parody or review. The issue is, how can an online platform possibly know ahead of time (e.g. ahead of a judicial determination) that given content is so protected? Without devoting implausible amounts of resources to making individual determinations with regard to uploaded content? The only plausible policy might be to treat all content as not protected. That's one of the problems which this regulation creates or exacerbates.

    +1. Very well stated.

     I see a whole lotta upload filters being put in place and erring heavily to the conservative side. I also see far less distribution of opinion and news ahead. Does a site like AI need to pay a company like The Financial Times for including a quote from one of their articles, or does that obligation extend to the search provider who surfaces the AI article that includes those quotes. Heck it's not even clear what counts as a short snippet of the results when surfacing links. 10 words OK? Only 5? maybe 25 depending? Searches are going to get a lot more difficult and time-consuming. 
    Not to mention posters on AI with a ton of links they've been supplied to post ... might they be included in such filters? 😳
    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 6 of 15
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 320member

    It’s clear E.U. legislators did not have a full grasp of what they were implementing.  I suspect this will prove to be another drag on the overall E.U. economy.  We’ll have to see how this plays out over time in the courts.

    Although I thought Brexit was an unfortunate mistake, I do understand why so many in the U.K. want out.  Instead of the E.U. implementing punishing terms on the U.K. Brexit deal, the E.U. might instead reflect on why so many are repulsed by it.

    jbdragon
  • Reply 7 of 15
    mcdavemcdave Posts: 1,114member
    carnegie said:
    There's so much wrong with this, where does one begin?

    My question is, what happens if other jurisdictions decide to respond to this by enacting rules which effectively require that online platforms do the opposite? The EU is, effectively, presuming to impose its choice of regulations on much of the planet. (I don't mean to suggest that it is the only jurisdiction that has so presumed.) It isn't just regulating actions which are actually taken within its rightful jurisdiction.

    So what if other jurisdictions, understandably bristling at that arrogance and disagreeing with these regulatory policies, pass regulations which effectively prohibit online platforms from blocking (or removing) uploaded content which would otherwise be allowed, based on the possibility that it might violate copyrights, unless and until a judicial determination is made (on a case-by-case basis) that given content does violate copyrights? That, to me, seems like an obvious response which other jurisdictions might consider as sort of a protest to the EU's arrogance and, what some might see as, misguided regulations. What would global platforms do then?

    Also, this general response from the European Parliament and supporters of Article 13...

    Critics also believe the rules will effectively ban the creation and distribution of memes, but the European Parliament has already expressed the belief that "quotation, criticism, review, caricature, parody, or pastiche" will continue to be protected by existing mechanisms.

    ... evades the point. The issue isn't whether given content is or isn't protected (from copyright claims) based on it being, e.g., parody or review. The issue is, how can an online platform possibly know ahead of time (e.g. ahead of a judicial determination) that given content is so protected? Without devoting implausible amounts of resources to making individual determinations with regard to uploaded content? The only plausible policy might be to treat all content as not protected. That's one of the problems which this regulation creates or exacerbates.

    Someone hasn’t got a grip on their little defiance problem! Too used to being asked?
    They can’t legally enforce anything outside of their jurisdiction so I don’t get your rant.  Of course if they help usher in responsible business practice that’s fine by me.

  • Reply 8 of 15
    I put together a little video that pokes fun at Apple users with quick bits of Siri's voice dubbed over a scene from "South Park." Under the new UE rules, that might be okay. The problem is YouTube isn't going to hire the millions of people it would require to screen every upload and interpret the intention behind the use of copyright protected material. It's obviously just going to use automated filters to search for digital fingerprints and disallow anything that includes them. Thus the EU's claims of exemptions are meaningless because there's no practical way of accommodating them. Even if there were, hosts will be unwilling to risk allowing them for fear of punishment if their interpretation of intent differs from the regulating body in any particular case.

    I can even imagine publishers and distributors having trouble posting their own content, as the filters recognize the copyright but not their right to it.
    gatorguy
  • Reply 9 of 15
    JohnDeeJohnDee Posts: 28member
    Those people who firmly believe it necessary pushing the concept of the United States of Europe down people's throats never cease to amaze me.  
    I have not the slightest doubt that the UK will be the first and not the last to see the dangers and leave.
    seanjgeorgie01
  • Reply 10 of 15
    seanjseanj Posts: 37member
    Perhaps now Americans might begin to appreciate why Brits want out of the power crazed EU while we’re still allowed to leave. (Other countries may face occupation by the planned EU Army if they ever dare to try and leave.)
    elijahggeorgie01
  • Reply 11 of 15
    crowleycrowley Posts: 5,771member
    carnegie said:

    So what if other jurisdictions, understandably bristling at that arrogance and disagreeing with these regulatory policies, pass regulations which effectively prohibit online platforms from blocking (or removing) uploaded content which would otherwise be allowed, based on the possibility that it might violate copyrights, unless and until a judicial determination is made (on a case-by-case basis) that given content does violate copyrights? That, to me, seems like an obvious response which other jurisdictions might consider as sort of a protest to the EU's arrogance and, what some might see as, misguided regulations. What would global platforms do then?
    That seems like a very unlikely response to me.
  • Reply 12 of 15
    seanj said:
    Perhaps now Americans might begin to appreciate why Brits want out of the power crazed EU while we’re still allowed to leave. (Other countries may face occupation by the planned EU Army if they ever dare to try and leave.)
    Aside from being paranoid on a level that competes with tin-foil hats, that doesn't make any sense. The UK is the mother of all nanny states, with what seems the most "protective" legislation and red tape of any government on the planet, yet you're saying people voted to leave because being a member of the EU impinged personal freedoms? I have a hard time accepting that as having been the motivation for most voters.

    I'm not sure the current popular view of intellectual property is sound or even in society's best interest, but exaggerating this action into a harbinger of military occupation is utter hyperbole.
  • Reply 13 of 15
    nhtnht Posts: 4,429member
    I put together a little video that pokes fun at Apple users with quick bits of Siri's voice dubbed over a scene from "South Park." Under the new UE rules, that might be okay. The problem is YouTube isn't going to hire the millions of people it would require to screen every upload and interpret the intention behind the use of copyright protected material. It's obviously just going to use automated filters to search for digital fingerprints and disallow anything that includes them. Thus the EU's claims of exemptions are meaningless because there's no practical way of accommodating them. Even if there were, hosts will be unwilling to risk allowing them for fear of punishment if their interpretation of intent differs from the regulating body in any particular case.

    I can even imagine publishers and distributors having trouble posting their own content, as the filters recognize the copyright but not their right to it.
    Easiest solution is to flag the content and then not serve it to any EU IP address and just show an ad instead.

    Frankly the EU deserves a substandard internet experience because of how hostile they are to the US tech companies that support the internet.
  • Reply 14 of 15
    DPallmannDPallmann Posts: 1unconfirmed, member
    It's "remuneration", not "renumeration".
  • Reply 15 of 15
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,278member
    DPallmann said:
    It's "remuneration", not "renumeration".
    Thanks for that. I'm one of those who has misspelled that word for years then, and had no idea.  :/
Sign In or Register to comment.