3 ms·

I wish that the EFF would include links to the updated directive. The latest I can find is the language as of 2018-05-25 (http://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/3

I wish that the EFF would include links to the updated directive. The latest I can find is the language as of 2018-05-25 (http://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/35373/st09134-en18.pdf http://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/35373/st09134-en18.pdf) which doesn't contain the terms "commercial platforms", "news site" or link. It does leave the definition of "unsubstantial parts" up to member states, which is indeed worrying from a single market perspective. Furthermore, that wording contradicts EFF's assertion for article 13 that unlicensed content is not allowed to appear, "even for an instant." Since all that is needed to avoid liability is to perform effective and proportionate efforts to prevent availability and to react expeditiously upon notification. Proportionality and effectiveness explicitly depend on the size of the content provider: a new streaming video service would explicitly need to do less than YouTube. Has the updated documentation explicitly removed the provision about expeditious action upon notification? Because the exception proves the rule (the rule being that unlicensed content is indeed allowed to appear for more than an instant). So... links to spam commissioners but no links to verify that EFF is presenting a fair reading of the updated documents.

dmitriid 8y ago
This is a much better update: https://juliareda.eu/2019/01/article-13-almost-finished/ https://juliareda.eu/2019/01/article-13-almost-finished/ It describes the changes and why they will/will not work
- BlackFly 8y ago
  That is indeed. Thank you for that. Instead of requiring filtering on behalf of rightsholders that refuse to license to platforms (an asymmetric relationship that just increases costs for one party), I wish that the EU would legislate FRAND style royalties. As in, if you want copyright protection then you have to issue Fair, Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory licenses to any platform that may want to host the content. Don't want to issue such a license? Then the EU won't help you protect your work. In that way a platform could just host the content using a central database and performing deduplication instead of using the same central database to forbid viewing. Rightsholders would get royalties by virtue of the license agreement, EU would spend less money policing copyright since there would be many more legal avenues to access content.

dmitriid 8y ago

This is a much better update: https://juliareda.eu/2019/01/article-13-almost-finished/ https://juliareda.eu/2019/01/article-13-almost-finished/ It describes the changes and why they will/will not work

BlackFly 8y ago
That is indeed. Thank you for that. Instead of requiring filtering on behalf of rightsholders that refuse to license to platforms (an asymmetric relationship that just increases costs for one party), I wish that the EU would legislate FRAND style royalties. As in, if you want copyright protection then you have to issue Fair, Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory licenses to any platform that may want to host the content. Don't want to issue such a license? Then the EU won't help you protect your work. In that way a platform could just host the content using a central database and performing deduplication instead of using the same central database to forbid viewing. Rightsholders would get royalties by virtue of the license agreement, EU would spend less money policing copyright since there would be many more legal avenues to access content.