12 ms·

EU Countries Back Copyright Reforms Aimed at Google, Facebook

161 points by d0ne 8y ago

lbj 8y ago
Who is John Galt? The man who decided to stop the engine of the world, and did. I think he's about to make an appearance.
levosmetalo 8y ago
What a bullshit title. It is not aimed at Google and Facebook. Those are the companies that have more than enough resources to be compliant. It's the small and aspiring companies that are not yet established that would suffer the most from this directive. Googles, Amazons and Facebooks would be just fine, safer then ever since the barrier to entry is bigger and bigger with every new directive.
- Bartweiss 8y ago
  You're right about the consequences, and the title is misleading, but I think the exact words are probably true. This is aimed at Google and Facebook, in the sense that the people voting for it cite Google and Facebook as targets, and the companies advocating it view Google as decreasing their profits. That's where publishers are hoping to find new revenues, and where lawmakers are using public anger to garner support. Unfortunately, the people drafting the law have terrible aim, so it's going to hit primarily startups and not-for-profit sites, raising Facebook's staffing costs slightly while crippling creativity and public access to information. Presumably the people looking to profit on Google links simply don't care about that, although I can't tell whether the lawmakers supporting this don't care about the harms or are genuinely too incompetent to understand what they're doing.
Jyaif 8y ago
The response is to offer Google News in europe with snippets from newspapers from Québec, Mexico, Brasil, Saint-Marin...
phoe-krk 8y ago
They are supposedly aimed at Google and Facebook but have enough range to burn most of other services in the European Internet in the process.
- DanTheManPR 8y ago
  This seems to me like it will have exactly the opposite intended effect, that the large players are the only ones who will be able to operate under this new regulatory burden.
  - microcolonel 8y ago
    > ...the large players are the only ones who will be able to operate under this new regulatory burden. And even YouTube is pretty sure they'll struggle to comply, despite having the most sophisticated and error-resistant rights management system on the market.
    - pojzon 8y ago
      Beside ML and AI hugely based on farms in Indonesia watching everything reported... Its proven that its impossible to track whole content of ytb because simply it is "too much of data and ppl always try to screw over your detection system"
beezischillin 8y ago
This is sad and disgusting, our speech is being limited completely unfairly and without our consent and we're being told that it's a good thing. The fact that they're trying to package it as some sort of well-deserved revenge against silicon valley big tech is just tasteless. The EU's big gripe against these companies is their tax situation, if they really wanted to change that then they'd be looking into a unified approach to taxing companies within the EU borders, not hitting the final nail into the coffin of fair use in Europe. I really envy the US for its constitution sometimes.
- mvanga 8y ago
  I wanted to add that, in the US, it isn't primarily the constitution that protects its freedoms, but rather the structure of their government and how it's been setup for gridlock among all the parties involved (not that that property has been preserved too well of late). Antonin Scalia explained it really well in one of his appearances in front of a Senate Judiciary Committee: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggz_gd--UO0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggz_gd--UO0 I admit to not fully understanding the intricacies of the EU system but, on the surface, it does appear to be setup for much lower friction when attempting to pass sweeping legislation like this one.
  - HannibalBaka 8y ago
    Believe me, there is way more friction in the EU system, especially due to the principle of subsidiarity. This copyright directive enjoys the benefit of only requiring a qualified majority in the Council (legislative chamber representing the national governments). Most sensitive issues require unanimity, meaning that every member state has the power to veto legislation.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > I wanted to add that, in the US, it isn't primarily the constitution that protects its freedoms, but rather the structure of their government and how it's been setup for gridlock among all the parties involved That protects established injustices as much as it protects established freedoms. Perhaps more, since the fundamental structure incorporates a number of injustices.
izacus 8y ago
Huh? If anything, the reform codifies systems like Content ID and makes it horribly expensive to compete with Google and Facebook. And all that to cater to US copyright industry - a fine example of EU shooting itself in the foot.
- jillesvangurp 8y ago
  All we need now is an independent content id system that companies might use to check content against. Doing nothing will leave this to the wrong parties to implement and turn into a control point. IMHO a simple open platform could allow content creators to register their content. Anyone could then choose to check content id against such a platform. In case of conflicts, that platform would be the place to resolve things with escalation options and arbitration built into the platform. Basically getting to a world where people register ownership of content they created would make sharing that content safe. IMHO this is a very sane solution to this problem. Right now the problem is that we rely on content id based on databases provided by the media industry. Any conflict in these systems means the wrong decisions get taken. With an open platform, you could argue that you checked and in case of conflicts with competing systems decide even document the outcome of any manual evaluation of ownership. IMHO this would be in the spirit of this law, protect content owners against abuse of their content, and do so in a fair and transparent way where all sides have a chance to get their rights respected. The only problem with the current way of doing content id is that it is unfair and biased towards whatever version of the truth big media companies push as the truth.
  - zanny 8y ago
    How about instead of spending billions of man hours and dollars on an antiquated conception like intellectual property when the fundamental assumptions of its premise have changed (primarily, that information was not functionally free to store and transmit instantly to anyone, anywhere) you say "hey, maybe it doesn't make sense to create artificial state run monopolies for an imaginary incentives structure we have no evidence actually works and could try something else, including nothing, and see how that goes".
paglia_s 8y ago
I have been searching for this but couldn't find any answer, let's say a company has a generic public platform where people can upload text, images, videos, audio, ... how are they supposed to be able to check for copyright infringment against every single upload? I know that Youtube has its own content id system, but for anyone without YT's resouces, is ther any 3rd party service to which you can pass content and get back a yes/no answer to "anyone copyrighted this thing?", if yes, what are the costs? the effectiveness?
- Filligree 8y ago
  > how are they supposed to be able to check for copyright infringment against every single upload? They aren't. You can't. I'm not sure if this is an oversight, or deliberate -- the law was written by lots of people, so the truth is probably in-between -- but your best bet is to avoid the EU, or stick to major hosting providers like YouTube.
  - salzig 8y ago
    i deeply hope, as a EU citizen, that reddit, youtube, and all other platforms kill access by EU citizens the day this law takes effect. Shouldn't take longer than a Week to get this rolled back.
- rotorblade 8y ago
  I heard that voiced as a worry, and the logic goes something like this: A small organisation that does not have the capability (money or otherwise) to implement their own content filter, have to look elsewhere for it. Where to go? Probably Google, etc, once they start selling those services. So the net effect will not be negative for the big companies (if those now are the actual target for the copyright directive), since they will now instead have a new market to exploit; small organisations burdened by the content filter requirements demanded by the copyright directive.
- matteuan 8y ago
  This is still not final, but startups and small business should be exempted from the law. But I guess there are still many platforms in the middle: big enough to not fall in the exempted category, but too small to build their own content id system. Paradoxically, Google/Facebook could profit A LOT from this.
daxterspeed 8y ago
The final vote hasn't happened yet as stated in the article. If you're an EU citizen there's still time to contact your representatives to ensure they understand the many issues with Article 11 (the link tax, though now it is now more akin to a publisher controlled fee for showing snippets of articles) and Article 13 (the copyright upload filter). I've already e-mailed my representatives and have gotten responses stating that they will not support Article 11 or Article 13 in the upcoming vote (and they have in previous votes voted against this reform).
- arghwhat 8y ago
  May I ask which country you are from?
  - daxterspeed 8y ago
    Sweden. Out of 20 Swedish representatives 18 are against and 2 have no track record (neither clearly against or supporting): https://saveyourinternet.eu/se/ https://saveyourinternet.eu/se/ You can see how representatives in other countries voted by navigating from https://saveyourinternet.eu/act/ https://saveyourinternet.eu/act/
    - arghwhat 8y ago
      Unfortunately, out of the 13 Danish MEPs, only 2 are against with 1 having no track record. :(
josteink 8y ago
Let’s be optimistic. This will severely impact social media. It will be censored like never before, and attacking opponents by “reporting” their posts will be more effective than ever. Trolls will have a EU-sanctioned field-day. And what real users are going to bother staying on a platform like that? Maybe this will revitalize hosting of personal websites where there’s no “platform” to censor your free speech?
- microcolonel 8y ago
  > Maybe this will revitalize hosting of personal websites where there’s no “platform” to censor your free speech? Then you have basically unlimited liability, as far as I can tell; hardly seems like an upside.
  - josteink 8y ago
    No, not unless you allow user uploads from other users.
    - Silhouette 8y ago
      Like having a comment form on your blog?
- Brakenshire 8y ago
  Would decentralized platforms be liable? Something like Mastodon still requires a host, so I assume the host would be expected to meet these standards. I suppose you could have shift towards human-curated platforms rather than platforms operating at scale.
- oytis 8y ago
  Not gonna happen in Germany. In Germany if you own a website, you're obliged to tell the world your home address. (That is, by the way, why everyone knows where Lennart Poettering lives).
  - apples_oranges 8y ago
xorand 8y ago
Create. Produce original content. Keep the copyright. Don't consume canned content.
- hannasanarion 8y ago
  Fair use exists. This law makes it illegal to use clips of a movie in critiquing it, or cut snippets of images to form a collage, or point to examples of art, film, and music in an educational setting. Copyright was never intended to be pervasive and absolute. Copyright is supposed to protect the commercial potential of the original work by keeping people from making copies that supplant the market for the original, ie, piracy. Content filters and link taxes are a bastardization of Copyright.
  - Dahoon 8y ago
    No it does not. This is the GDPR discussion all over again. "This will kill the internet" and "All sites will be subscription only" etc. I'm not for the proposed law but it does not does not block fair use.
    - creato 8y ago
      > "This will kill the internet" In a small way, it kind of did, didn't it? I see people on reddit and hackernews constantly complaining how they can't access some random local news website in the US because they've chosen to simply not deal with GDPR.
    - adrianN 8y ago
      The law doesn't block fair use, but the only way for content platforms to be compliant is rampant overfiltering which will kill fair use.
      - xorand 8y ago
        >rampant overfiltering which will kill fair use True! However, according to the draft of the Article 13, this may happen in the case of providers "of an information society service whose main or one of the main purposes is to store and give the public access to a large amount of copyright protected works or other protected subject-matter uploaded by its users which it organises and promotes for profit-making purposes." [1] This is not an argument in favor of upload filters. Maybe we should push for legislation about the obligation to make any upload filter completely transparent (program source). [1] definition from the top of the document https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Art_13_unofficial.pdf https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Art_13_unoff...
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
porpoisely 8y ago
This is what I despise about "news". If this was china or russia or venezuela, etc, the headline would be "China tightens grip on their people" or "International community concerned as China becomes more authoritarian" or "Pro freedom activists protest against China's draconian censorship". It would be spun as something more ominous than "reform". But reuters being reuters and also a major supporter of censorship, of course spins it in a pro-censorship manner. Also, considering that google and facebook support these "reforms", how are they "aiming" it at them? These laws will entrench google and facebook and secure their monopoly positions. The biggest beneficiaries of these laws are google and facebook and of course large media companies, like reuters. I wonder what the headline would be if reuters and the news industry was against these "reforms".
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  This is not true, and the headlines are not misrepresentations. This is not an authoritarian move by the EU. It's actually quite fair, or a reasonable premise to posit that neither you nor Google have the right to publish copyrighted material. They are enacting laws for basic copyright protections - which seem wild only due to the fact that the web has been a 'wild west' since inception and it's what we are used to. I'm against this law, but there are very real arguments for this. The arguments against the law are actually more pragmatic than anything, i.e. small sites will have trouble complying and it could make information more difficult to access. The headline is fine.
- kakarot 8y ago
  The first issue is that this is called a "Copyright" reform. The language is loaded from the start and discussion can never get off on the right foot. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.en.... https://www.gnu.org/licenses/copyleft.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/copyleft.en.html
- wbl 8y ago
  Nothing is being censored. You can say whatever you want.
AndyMcConachie 8y ago
Does anyone have a link to the actual law? All I can find are news stories with too little information.
- HannibalBaka 8y ago
  The current draft compromise is not yet published. Article 11[0] and 13[1] have been leaked by Julia Reda, though. [0]: https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Art_11_unofficial.pdf https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Art_11_unoff... [1]: https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Art_13_unofficial.pdf https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Art_13_unoff...
- kmlx 8y ago
  i assume ther are multiple drafts and such based on various negotiations. here’s a press release that features one draft: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2018/05/25/copyright-rules-for-the-digital-environment-council-agrees-its-position/ https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2018... but i found the wikipedia article to be very informative: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_on_Copyright_in_the_Digital_Single_Market https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_on_Copyright_in_th...
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  Nobody complaining about the law has actually read the law. Julia Reda doesn't want you to read the law she's opposed to, she wants you to be opposed to it based on the "link tax" and "upload filter" nicknames that have been coined for it.
  - AsyncAwait 8y ago
    > Julia Reda doesn't want you to read the law she's opposed to, she wants you to be opposed to it I've skimmed the relevant passages and it didn't seem to me like she's claiming anything that's not true. You can play the word game of if that particular phrase was there or not, but the intent is clear for anyone, except perhaps those with vested interest in having this passed.
xorand 8y ago
"‘online content sharing service provider’ means a provider of an information society service whose main or one of the main purposes is to store and give the public access to a large amount of copyright protected works or other protected subject-matter uploaded by its users which it organises and promotes for profit-making purposes. Providers of services such as not-for profit online encyclopedias, not-for profit educational and scientific repositories, open source software developing and sharing platforms, electronic communication service providers as defined in Directive 2018/1972 establishing the European Communications Code, online marketplaces and business-to business cloud services and cloud services which allow users to upload content for their own use shall not be considered online content sharing service providers within the meaning of this Directive." https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Art_13_unofficial.pdf https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Art_13_unoff...
factsaresacred 8y ago
To get an idea of how the European Commission thinks, you really need to read their retracted Medium post: http://archive.fo/cZa14 http://archive.fo/cZa14 It oozes contempt, is filled with strawman arguments, and makes no effort to disguise its disdain for "the big Californian companies". Some highlights: > Good journalism costs money and without a free press there is no democracy. > Because if creative people don’t get paid, they can’t afford to be creative. No Mon = No Fun > At the moment the balance of power in who gets paid for such royalties resides overwhelmingly with the big Californian companies — who are worth around $1 Trillion. > Are we in a world where ordinary people side with the fire breathing dragon against the knight with a blue and yellow shield?
yarrel 8y ago
Hahahahahahaha. No.

161 points by d0ne 8y ago

lbj 8y ago

Who is John Galt? The man who decided to stop the engine of the world, and did. I think he's about to make an appearance.

levosmetalo 8y ago

What a bullshit title. It is not aimed at Google and Facebook. Those are the companies that have more than enough resources to be compliant. It's the small and aspiring companies that are not yet established that would suffer the most from this directive. Googles, Amazons and Facebooks would be just fine, safer then ever since the barrier to entry is bigger and bigger with every new directive.

Bartweiss 8y ago
You're right about the consequences, and the title is misleading, but I think the exact words are probably true. This is aimed at Google and Facebook, in the sense that the people voting for it cite Google and Facebook as targets, and the companies advocating it view Google as decreasing their profits. That's where publishers are hoping to find new revenues, and where lawmakers are using public anger to garner support. Unfortunately, the people drafting the law have terrible aim, so it's going to hit primarily startups and not-for-profit sites, raising Facebook's staffing costs slightly while crippling creativity and public access to information. Presumably the people looking to profit on Google links simply don't care about that, although I can't tell whether the lawmakers supporting this don't care about the harms or are genuinely too incompetent to understand what they're doing.

Jyaif 8y ago

The response is to offer Google News in europe with snippets from newspapers from Québec, Mexico, Brasil, Saint-Marin...

phoe-krk 8y ago

They are supposedly aimed at Google and Facebook but have enough range to burn most of other services in the European Internet in the process.

DanTheManPR 8y ago
This seems to me like it will have exactly the opposite intended effect, that the large players are the only ones who will be able to operate under this new regulatory burden.
- microcolonel 8y ago
  > ...the large players are the only ones who will be able to operate under this new regulatory burden. And even YouTube is pretty sure they'll struggle to comply, despite having the most sophisticated and error-resistant rights management system on the market.
  - pojzon 8y ago
    Beside ML and AI hugely based on farms in Indonesia watching everything reported... Its proven that its impossible to track whole content of ytb because simply it is "too much of data and ppl always try to screw over your detection system"

beezischillin 8y ago

This is sad and disgusting, our speech is being limited completely unfairly and without our consent and we're being told that it's a good thing. The fact that they're trying to package it as some sort of well-deserved revenge against silicon valley big tech is just tasteless. The EU's big gripe against these companies is their tax situation, if they really wanted to change that then they'd be looking into a unified approach to taxing companies within the EU borders, not hitting the final nail into the coffin of fair use in Europe. I really envy the US for its constitution sometimes.

mvanga 8y ago
I wanted to add that, in the US, it isn't primarily the constitution that protects its freedoms, but rather the structure of their government and how it's been setup for gridlock among all the parties involved (not that that property has been preserved too well of late). Antonin Scalia explained it really well in one of his appearances in front of a Senate Judiciary Committee: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggz_gd--UO0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggz_gd--UO0 I admit to not fully understanding the intricacies of the EU system but, on the surface, it does appear to be setup for much lower friction when attempting to pass sweeping legislation like this one.
- HannibalBaka 8y ago
  Believe me, there is way more friction in the EU system, especially due to the principle of subsidiarity. This copyright directive enjoys the benefit of only requiring a qualified majority in the Council (legislative chamber representing the national governments). Most sensitive issues require unanimity, meaning that every member state has the power to veto legislation.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > I wanted to add that, in the US, it isn't primarily the constitution that protects its freedoms, but rather the structure of their government and how it's been setup for gridlock among all the parties involved That protects established injustices as much as it protects established freedoms. Perhaps more, since the fundamental structure incorporates a number of injustices.

izacus 8y ago

Huh? If anything, the reform codifies systems like Content ID and makes it horribly expensive to compete with Google and Facebook. And all that to cater to US copyright industry - a fine example of EU shooting itself in the foot.

jillesvangurp 8y ago
All we need now is an independent content id system that companies might use to check content against. Doing nothing will leave this to the wrong parties to implement and turn into a control point. IMHO a simple open platform could allow content creators to register their content. Anyone could then choose to check content id against such a platform. In case of conflicts, that platform would be the place to resolve things with escalation options and arbitration built into the platform. Basically getting to a world where people register ownership of content they created would make sharing that content safe. IMHO this is a very sane solution to this problem. Right now the problem is that we rely on content id based on databases provided by the media industry. Any conflict in these systems means the wrong decisions get taken. With an open platform, you could argue that you checked and in case of conflicts with competing systems decide even document the outcome of any manual evaluation of ownership. IMHO this would be in the spirit of this law, protect content owners against abuse of their content, and do so in a fair and transparent way where all sides have a chance to get their rights respected. The only problem with the current way of doing content id is that it is unfair and biased towards whatever version of the truth big media companies push as the truth.
- zanny 8y ago
  How about instead of spending billions of man hours and dollars on an antiquated conception like intellectual property when the fundamental assumptions of its premise have changed (primarily, that information was not functionally free to store and transmit instantly to anyone, anywhere) you say "hey, maybe it doesn't make sense to create artificial state run monopolies for an imaginary incentives structure we have no evidence actually works and could try something else, including nothing, and see how that goes".

paglia_s 8y ago

I have been searching for this but couldn't find any answer, let's say a company has a generic public platform where people can upload text, images, videos, audio, ... how are they supposed to be able to check for copyright infringment against every single upload? I know that Youtube has its own content id system, but for anyone without YT's resouces, is ther any 3rd party service to which you can pass content and get back a yes/no answer to "anyone copyrighted this thing?", if yes, what are the costs? the effectiveness?

Filligree 8y ago
> how are they supposed to be able to check for copyright infringment against every single upload? They aren't. You can't. I'm not sure if this is an oversight, or deliberate -- the law was written by lots of people, so the truth is probably in-between -- but your best bet is to avoid the EU, or stick to major hosting providers like YouTube.
- salzig 8y ago
  i deeply hope, as a EU citizen, that reddit, youtube, and all other platforms kill access by EU citizens the day this law takes effect. Shouldn't take longer than a Week to get this rolled back.
rotorblade 8y ago
I heard that voiced as a worry, and the logic goes something like this: A small organisation that does not have the capability (money or otherwise) to implement their own content filter, have to look elsewhere for it. Where to go? Probably Google, etc, once they start selling those services. So the net effect will not be negative for the big companies (if those now are the actual target for the copyright directive), since they will now instead have a new market to exploit; small organisations burdened by the content filter requirements demanded by the copyright directive.
matteuan 8y ago
This is still not final, but startups and small business should be exempted from the law. But I guess there are still many platforms in the middle: big enough to not fall in the exempted category, but too small to build their own content id system. Paradoxically, Google/Facebook could profit A LOT from this.

daxterspeed 8y ago

The final vote hasn't happened yet as stated in the article. If you're an EU citizen there's still time to contact your representatives to ensure they understand the many issues with Article 11 (the link tax, though now it is now more akin to a publisher controlled fee for showing snippets of articles) and Article 13 (the copyright upload filter). I've already e-mailed my representatives and have gotten responses stating that they will not support Article 11 or Article 13 in the upcoming vote (and they have in previous votes voted against this reform).

arghwhat 8y ago
May I ask which country you are from?
- daxterspeed 8y ago
  Sweden. Out of 20 Swedish representatives 18 are against and 2 have no track record (neither clearly against or supporting): https://saveyourinternet.eu/se/ https://saveyourinternet.eu/se/ You can see how representatives in other countries voted by navigating from https://saveyourinternet.eu/act/ https://saveyourinternet.eu/act/
  - arghwhat 8y ago
    Unfortunately, out of the 13 Danish MEPs, only 2 are against with 1 having no track record. :(

josteink 8y ago

Let’s be optimistic. This will severely impact social media. It will be censored like never before, and attacking opponents by “reporting” their posts will be more effective than ever. Trolls will have a EU-sanctioned field-day. And what real users are going to bother staying on a platform like that? Maybe this will revitalize hosting of personal websites where there’s no “platform” to censor your free speech?

microcolonel 8y ago
> Maybe this will revitalize hosting of personal websites where there’s no “platform” to censor your free speech? Then you have basically unlimited liability, as far as I can tell; hardly seems like an upside.
- josteink 8y ago
  No, not unless you allow user uploads from other users.
  - Silhouette 8y ago
    Like having a comment form on your blog?
Brakenshire 8y ago
Would decentralized platforms be liable? Something like Mastodon still requires a host, so I assume the host would be expected to meet these standards. I suppose you could have shift towards human-curated platforms rather than platforms operating at scale.
oytis 8y ago
Not gonna happen in Germany. In Germany if you own a website, you're obliged to tell the world your home address. (That is, by the way, why everyone knows where Lennart Poettering lives).
- apples_oranges 8y ago

xorand 8y ago

Create. Produce original content. Keep the copyright. Don't consume canned content.

hannasanarion 8y ago
Fair use exists. This law makes it illegal to use clips of a movie in critiquing it, or cut snippets of images to form a collage, or point to examples of art, film, and music in an educational setting. Copyright was never intended to be pervasive and absolute. Copyright is supposed to protect the commercial potential of the original work by keeping people from making copies that supplant the market for the original, ie, piracy. Content filters and link taxes are a bastardization of Copyright.
- Dahoon 8y ago
  No it does not. This is the GDPR discussion all over again. "This will kill the internet" and "All sites will be subscription only" etc. I'm not for the proposed law but it does not does not block fair use.
  - creato 8y ago
    > "This will kill the internet" In a small way, it kind of did, didn't it? I see people on reddit and hackernews constantly complaining how they can't access some random local news website in the US because they've chosen to simply not deal with GDPR.
  - adrianN 8y ago
    The law doesn't block fair use, but the only way for content platforms to be compliant is rampant overfiltering which will kill fair use.
    - xorand 8y ago
      >rampant overfiltering which will kill fair use True! However, according to the draft of the Article 13, this may happen in the case of providers "of an information society service whose main or one of the main purposes is to store and give the public access to a large amount of copyright protected works or other protected subject-matter uploaded by its users which it organises and promotes for profit-making purposes." [1] This is not an argument in favor of upload filters. Maybe we should push for legislation about the obligation to make any upload filter completely transparent (program source). [1] definition from the top of the document https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Art_13_unofficial.pdf https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Art_13_unoff...

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

porpoisely 8y ago

This is what I despise about "news". If this was china or russia or venezuela, etc, the headline would be "China tightens grip on their people" or "International community concerned as China becomes more authoritarian" or "Pro freedom activists protest against China's draconian censorship". It would be spun as something more ominous than "reform". But reuters being reuters and also a major supporter of censorship, of course spins it in a pro-censorship manner. Also, considering that google and facebook support these "reforms", how are they "aiming" it at them? These laws will entrench google and facebook and secure their monopoly positions. The biggest beneficiaries of these laws are google and facebook and of course large media companies, like reuters. I wonder what the headline would be if reuters and the news industry was against these "reforms".

sonnyblarney 8y ago
This is not true, and the headlines are not misrepresentations. This is not an authoritarian move by the EU. It's actually quite fair, or a reasonable premise to posit that neither you nor Google have the right to publish copyrighted material. They are enacting laws for basic copyright protections - which seem wild only due to the fact that the web has been a 'wild west' since inception and it's what we are used to. I'm against this law, but there are very real arguments for this. The arguments against the law are actually more pragmatic than anything, i.e. small sites will have trouble complying and it could make information more difficult to access. The headline is fine.
kakarot 8y ago
The first issue is that this is called a "Copyright" reform. The language is loaded from the start and discussion can never get off on the right foot. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.en.... https://www.gnu.org/licenses/copyleft.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/copyleft.en.html
wbl 8y ago
Nothing is being censored. You can say whatever you want.

AndyMcConachie 8y ago

Does anyone have a link to the actual law? All I can find are news stories with too little information.

HannibalBaka 8y ago
The current draft compromise is not yet published. Article 11[0] and 13[1] have been leaked by Julia Reda, though. [0]: https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Art_11_unofficial.pdf https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Art_11_unoff... [1]: https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Art_13_unofficial.pdf https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Art_13_unoff...
kmlx 8y ago
i assume ther are multiple drafts and such based on various negotiations. here’s a press release that features one draft: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2018/05/25/copyright-rules-for-the-digital-environment-council-agrees-its-position/ https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2018... but i found the wikipedia article to be very informative: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_on_Copyright_in_the_Digital_Single_Market https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_on_Copyright_in_th...
ocdtrekkie 8y ago
Nobody complaining about the law has actually read the law. Julia Reda doesn't want you to read the law she's opposed to, she wants you to be opposed to it based on the "link tax" and "upload filter" nicknames that have been coined for it.
- AsyncAwait 8y ago
  > Julia Reda doesn't want you to read the law she's opposed to, she wants you to be opposed to it I've skimmed the relevant passages and it didn't seem to me like she's claiming anything that's not true. You can play the word game of if that particular phrase was there or not, but the intent is clear for anyone, except perhaps those with vested interest in having this passed.

xorand 8y ago

"‘online content sharing service provider’ means a provider of an information society service whose main or one of the main purposes is to store and give the public access to a large amount of copyright protected works or other protected subject-matter uploaded by its users which it organises and promotes for profit-making purposes. Providers of services such as not-for profit online encyclopedias, not-for profit educational and scientific repositories, open source software developing and sharing platforms, electronic communication service providers as defined in Directive 2018/1972 establishing the European Communications Code, online marketplaces and business-to business cloud services and cloud services which allow users to upload content for their own use shall not be considered online content sharing service providers within the meaning of this Directive." https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Art_13_unofficial.pdf https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Art_13_unoff...

factsaresacred 8y ago

To get an idea of how the European Commission thinks, you really need to read their retracted Medium post: http://archive.fo/cZa14 http://archive.fo/cZa14 It oozes contempt, is filled with strawman arguments, and makes no effort to disguise its disdain for "the big Californian companies". Some highlights: > Good journalism costs money and without a free press there is no democracy. > Because if creative people don’t get paid, they can’t afford to be creative. No Mon = No Fun > At the moment the balance of power in who gets paid for such royalties resides overwhelmingly with the big Californian companies — who are worth around $1 Trillion. > Are we in a world where ordinary people side with the fire breathing dragon against the knight with a blue and yellow shield?

yarrel 8y ago

Hahahahahahaha. No.