10 ms·

This will be an unpopular perspective on the matter, so you have been warned: Article 13 only affects for-profit platforms that host and share copyrighted mater

• ralala 8y ago
  This also affects small online communities, who pay for their servers by running a few ads. There are a lot of these platforms.
  • marcodave 8y ago
    > small online communities, who pay for their servers by running a few ads if those communities are aiming for a break even at best, would those as well be considered "for profit", though?
    • tehbeard 8y ago
      Who will be able to afford the better lawyers in that fight to argue if they're for profit? MediaCorp(tm) or the small community that got a little too popular/spotlighted?
    • everdev 8y ago
      In the US you need to register as a non profit, have a board of directors, etc. Even an LLC or INC that loses money is a "for profit" company. Most VC funded startups fall into this category where they lose money each year with the goal of eventually turning a profit.
    • tremon 8y ago
      Yes. For-profit is a de-facto legal term, and includes every enterprise that isn't registered as a non-profit.
  • Funes- 8y ago
    It does affect them, but differently: "Member States shall provide that, in respect of new online content-sharing service providers the services of which have been available to the public in the Union for less than three years and which have an annual turnover below EUR 10 million, calculated in accordance with Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC 20 , the conditions under the liability regime set out in paragraph 4 are limited to compliance with point (a) of paragraph 4 and to acting expeditiously, upon receiving a sufficiently substantiated notice, to disable access to the notified works or other subject matter or to remove those works or other subject matter from their websites. Where the average number of monthly unique visitors of such service providers exceeds 5 million, calculated on the basis of the previous calendar year, they shall also demonstrate that they have made best efforts to prevent further uploads of the notified works and other subject matter for which the rightholders have provided relevant and necessary information." Paragraph 4 says this: "4. If no authorisation is granted, online content-sharing service providers shall be liable for unauthorised acts of communication to the public, including making available to the public, of copyright-protected works and other subject matter, unless the service providers demonstrate that they have: (a) made best efforts to obtain an authorisation, and (b) made, in accordance with high industry standards of professional diligence, best efforts to ensure the unavailability of specific works and other subject matter for which the rightholders have provided the service providers with the relevant and necessary information; and in any event (c) acted expeditiously, upon receiving a sufficiently substantiated notice from the rightholders, to disable access to, or to remove from, their websites the notified works or other subject matter, and made best efforts to prevent their future uploads in accordance with point (b)." Sorry for the wall of text, but I think this is quite illustrative. Anyhow, do you have an example of a small content-sharing service provider that would be affected? I'm sincerely curious. This is a personal opinion, but I don't think any content-sharing platform should profit from copyright infringement; I don't think forums or other kind of communities the main goal of which isn't to profit from that activity would be affected.
    • c3o 8y ago
      > I don't think any content-sharing platform should profit from copyright infringement That is not a requirement to fall under Article 13! Are you maybe mistaking "copyright-protected material" for "copyright-INFRINGING material"? Every creative text and photo is "copyrighted material", so this covers any for-profit UGC platform. MEP Reda proposed making the above change in the text, that proposal was rejected. So the broad coverage is intentional.
  • swebs 8y ago
    How small are we talking here? They could switch to a donation model to bypass it. A Linode 1GB is only $5 a month.
    • mcjiggerlog 8y ago
      Unless you're a registered charity donations are income.
    • slavik81 8y ago
      Linode is a for-profit business. Won't they need filters on sites hosted by them?
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  • IanCal 8y ago
    Has the minimum size been taken out of A13? Earlier drafts I'm pretty sure had minimum turnover/staff counts which were far above small community scale (tens of millions/year).
    • mantas 8y ago
      No, but they added another rule that only platforms younger than 3 years get exemption.
      • deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
  • C14L 8y ago
    This law will force them to migrate to Facebook and Youtube. How ironic.
• Juliate 8y ago
  One could even argue that this could trigger a new wave of self-hosting/publishing.
  • Funes- 8y ago
    That's something I've been wishing for, yes. It would certainly be the best possible outcome, although I am not sure how the entire thing will actually unfold (I don't think anyone can be sure about it yet).
  • tremon 8y ago
    Probably not, as self-hosters are disproportionately affected by spurious or malicious copyright claims (they don't have the pooled resources to fight).
    • Juliate 8y ago
      That's precisely why there are societies of authors, editors, publishers, etc. => in part in order to protect from malicious claims.
      • glennpratt 8y ago
        Sounds exclusionary.
    • svantana 8y ago
      On the other hand, the copyright owners will have a harder time finding the allegedly infringing material. A bot that can find and scrape media on any website needs to be pretty advanced, especially if the site is using encrypted media extensions. And after that, getting into contact with the owner of the site is not trivial. It won't be worth the effort in the majority of cases. The centralisation of media on youtube, soundcloud etc has been very practical for litigious copyright owners.
    • drchaos 8y ago
      Those services do not necessarily need to be publicly accessible. Think of a federated network of private servers with closed user groups, which allow to share stuff easily with selected users on other servers. The directive would probably not even apply to this, but even if it does, it would be pretty hard to go after you, ay long as you don't share critical material with people you don't know.
• stronglikedan 8y ago
  > Article 13 only affects for-profit platforms that host and share copyrighted material. For now, but where will it stop (or will it)? Another commentor pointed out that even small services running ads to pay for hosting could be considered "for-profit". Maybe not now, but it's just a matter of when. First they came for the platforms run by big corporations...
  • Funes- 8y ago
    >Another commentor pointed out that even small services running ads to pay for hosting could be considered "for-profit" If those small services' main purpose is "enabling users to upload and share a large amount of copyright-protected content with the purpose of obtaining profit from that activity", then they are turning a profit from copyright infringement, whether it is to pay for their hosting or not, so they will be targeted, as the document establishes. That's my take on it, at least, but I think it is quite clear.
    • dannyobrien 8y ago
      Everything online is “copyright-protected”. Copyright automatically applies to anything fixed in a tangible medium of expression. So it applies to any service that lets you share content.
  • ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    Copyright enforcement has always been about going after big abuses. With some incredibly rare exceptions, generally speaking, nobody has ever been at serious risk for sending one copy of a movie or music CD to a friend. There is too much sharing and too many individual parties to chase after every way people technically violate copyright law. Many of the cases out there involved people sharing on a large scale. Examples like The Pirate Bay or Sci-Hub or Aaron Swartz, which involve distribution of large amounts of content to large numbers of people. The smaller the platform, the less anyone will care about it, even if it is distributing a little bit of copyrighted content. Small scale copyright violation is so widespread, and the benefits of fighting individual cases of it so small, that there's simply no value to taking it on and they aren't bothering.
• Gudahtt 8y ago
  Not all for-profit websites are run by big corporations. The companies you're describing here are also the ones that will find it easiest to comply with these new regulations. YouTube for example was already pressured to create a filtering system, ContentID. Behemoths like Facebook will have a far easier time adapting than your typical startup. Article 13 dooms smaller companies and startups, thus further entrenching these big corporations. There was a provision added to Article 13 to protect "small and medium-sized enterprises", but according to the EFF [0] this "protection" is fatally flawed. It only protects them for 3 years, or until they attain 5 million unique visitors, or until they attain annual revenues (not profits) of €10 million. That's not to mention that the exceptions for not-for-profit services also has been regarded as vague, which could be problematic. [0] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/03/european-copyright-directive-what-it-and-why-has-it-drawn-more-controversy-any https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/03/european-copyright-dir...
  • Funes- 8y ago
    >Article 13 dooms smaller companies and startups, thus further entrenching these big corporations. Only "smaller companies and startups" whose main purpose is "enabling users to upload and share a large amount of copyright-protected content with the purpose of obtaining profit from that activity". That's what the document says; how it will actually be enforced is still a mystery, of course. P. S. I have pointed to that "protection" on a previous comment [0]. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19491806 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19491806.
    • Gudahtt 8y ago
      That description includes any for-profit services that involve user-generated content. That doesn't make me any less concerned. Also that link appears to be dead, so I'm not sure what comment you're referring to.
      • gpm 8y ago
        It's a link to a comment of theirs that is dead - not sure why it seems like a pretty good comment. I've vouched for it, hopefully a few other people with enough karma to do so will and it will resurrect itself.
• vedantroy 8y ago
  I don't know whether Article 11/13 are good or bad (although at first glance they seem to be bad), but I don't think this attitude of "forcing freedom" onto others is good. The entire attitude that I should "regain [my] freedom" seems condescending. I don't want to use a P2P alternative to YouTube or Reddit, because 99% of the content is on Reddit/YouTube. I'm well aware that YouTube collects and sells my personal data, I just don't care. The idea that legislation is good because it forcefully restricts my choices (indirectly, by harming YouTube), thus preventing me from harming myself seems to be a form of unneeded parenting/hand-holding/babying that I'm not a fan of.
  • jonny_eh 8y ago
    YouTube doesn't sell your data.
    • fock 8y ago
      no, because it's using the data themselves to make even more money out of you. When once one agency collected data, sold it to advertisers, which sold ads to companies, which bought space in papers, YT is collection-agency, ad-agency and paper all in one – which should be kind of scary for any regular user.
      • deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
  • deltron3030 8y ago
    >The idea that legislation is good because it forcefully restricts my choices (indirectly, by harming YouTube), thus preventing me from harming myself seems to be a form of unneeded parenting/hand-holding/babying that I'm not a fan of. That's the catholic and lutheran authoritarian mindset that is deep ingrained into the minds of EU politicians and large parts of Europe itself, that's what they mean with "democracy". They don't really trust people and their individuality. Just check the backgrounds of the politicians who voted in favor, you'll find that most have this religious background and distrust in people and are easily manipulated by others "higher up the chain", like those cultural snobs in Paris.
• pierreb 8y ago
  Sorry -- not all affected platforms are run by "big corporations". All for-profit plateforms over 3 years old are affected, even small ones. This will severely harm the EU startup scene in that category.
  • unicornporn 8y ago
    > All for-profit plateforms over 3 years old are affected, even small ones https://www.politico.eu/pro/germany-weighs-in-on-copyright-with-last-minute-proposals/ https://www.politico.eu/pro/germany-weighs-in-on-copyright-w... So, what happened to that? ^ Parliament wanted: > Apply the law to platforms that “optimise and promote” significant amounts of user-uploaded works and are not small businesses (turnover below €10M and less than 50 employees) According to: https://juliareda.eu/2018/10/copyright-trilogue-positions/ https://juliareda.eu/2018/10/copyright-trilogue-positions/
    • makomk 8y ago
      Apparently, France happened to that: https://juliareda.eu/2019/02/article-13-worse/ https://juliareda.eu/2019/02/article-13-worse/
      • unicornporn 8y ago
        So you're saying this is what passed? If it wasn't for the "Available to the public for less than 3 years", I wouldn't be as worried. --- Upload filters must be installed by everyone except those services which fit all three of the following extremely narrow criteria: * Available to the public for less than 3 years * Annual turnover below €10 million * Fewer than 5 million unique monthly visitors
        • Gudahtt 8y ago
          Yes, this is what passed. The "5 million unique monthly visitors" point is concerning too, because that term is not clearly defined.
  • 8y ago
• dannyobrien 8y ago
  I wish this was true: in the negotiations, it was clear that many of the supporters of Article 13 felt that this was too much of an exception, and will, in the upcoming transposition into national law, seek to cover as much as they can. As someone else mentioned, one way is to say that anything not run as an official non-profit for its official purposes is covered. Another is to target the inevitably commercial elements of even not-for-profit platforms (services that offer pre-packaged Mastodon instances for instance). One of my priorities in the next two years is to protect as much of the decentralised Web from the effects of the Copyright Directive, but it's not going to be easy. The large platforms, in their negotiations with the rightsholders who pushed for this directive, will have the explicit intent to turn it into a moat that can limit the growth of competitors, including non-commercial alternatives. The rightsholders see even the smallest platform as a lawless environment that has no redeeming features, and worse than the now-regulated giants. Without active and co-ordinated lobbying by decentralised Net advocates, they will paint these alternatives as a "new generation of Pirate Bays", just as they did with YouTube and its predecessors.
• duxup 8y ago
  Non profit platforms are easily bullied by legal threats. I really don't think they're the island of hope you're thinking of.
• mcv 8y ago
  "Such [content-sharing] services should not include services that have a main purpose other than that of enabling users to upload and share a large amount of copyright-protected content with the purpose of obtaining profit from that activity." Well, if that's true, then the big question becomes what counts as for-profit. Do you need to be incorporated? What about a blog that has some ads to pay for server costs? Will Europeans be able to upload to Youtube as long as they turn monetisation off? If being non-profit is the big way out, then that goes a long way to mitigate the damage from this. Although it still sucks for small content creators who do want to monetize their own creations but lack the resources to create their own platform.
  • fock 8y ago
    If it's your own blog, you are basically responsible for your own stuff. If you document where you got your assets from, I think every court will give you a pass, if someone wants to get you with the laws resulting from this directive (though the existing copyright-laws still apply to you). Youtube is the target of this law and as they earn money with your video, they have to comply with European law, if they want to be active in Europe.
    • mcv 8y ago
      True, but people posting comments could post copyright-infringing material. Then again, they don't get money from that (unless it's spam, I suppose).
      • fock 8y ago
        You should look at European laws (as should all the European citizens rightfully protesting stupid politicians)... For private blogs, the current process still will apply. I'm not even sure, if it does today include the provider privilege (which basically favors commercial platforms today), thus already enforcing moderation (or selling out discussion to disqus, etc). Also, people today could run around posting extremist propaganda in comments, which makes moderation necessary. As the result of this, most private (german) blogs I know are already implementing human content filters, e.g. post by email.
• nickik 8y ago
  This is just not fully realistic and even if it were, peer to peer platforms eventually will also create payment systems. It was always the excuse that 'only the big bad capitalists' will be hurt by this, but its simply not the case and has always been a false premise.
• sonnyblarney 8y ago
  This is not good advice. 1) The legislation in question has nothing to do with protecting individuals privacy. 2) The solutions you offer are essentially not productized, they are not usable to normal people. 3) There is absolutely nothing wrong with companies making money. This legislation is not being driven by Google and Facebook, it's being drive by Der Spiegel, Le Figaro, The Times etc.. It's also being driven by scared EU legislators who think that all their surpluses are going to American companies, it's a very weak hand to play, the 'strong hand' would be to have exceptional firms in Europe, doing things there. If Google were a Germany company, this legislation would not exist. Surely German media firms would still want it, but since the surpluses from the situation would remain in the EU, then legislators would be less assertive about it, to the point wherein I think it would fail. Instead of this legislation, we need: 1) Some tighter privacy rules that actually do affect G and FB 2) Taxation rules for the 20th century - ironically, this is an EU problem as they have Ireland/Netherlands/Luxembourg as their own loopholes 3) Stronger local entities, particularly in Europe to create a balance, that would lead to less motivation for political interference.
• ahallock 8y ago
  > These platforms are run by big corporations that turn a huge profit I take issue when people use the word profit to mean some evil, shameful thing. Youtube has amazing content and tools, and I'm sure a lot of their profit is re-invested in the platform. I doubt these other platforms come close in terms of functionality and UX. Peertube site design looks like it's from 2005. I know that might not be indicative of their core features, but first impressions are important, and this does not bode well. There's a reason mainstream users never flock to these decentralized platforms: they don't have the fit and finish of a commercial venture.
  • guelo 8y ago
    Design and "fit and finish" are some of the tools the bigs use to keep you locked into their increasingly user-hostile ecosystems. If you really want to escape their clutches you have to give up some of the creature comforts.
  • Funes- 8y ago
    >I take issue when people use the word profit to mean some evil, shameful thing. You left out the "by way of selling your personal data, violating your privacy, and having a persuasive (addictive) design in order to glue you to the screen so they can maximize their ad revenue, dismissing any human cost those practices entail" part. I don't associate the word profit with a bad connotation univocally; that's only an assumption on your end.
    • repsilat 8y ago
      These companies are self-interested, and for companies "self interest" usually means "customer-focus". Their reputation and the long-term health and loyalty of their users are worth a lot to them. But yeah, Facebook tries to make Facebook a site you want to visit. Youtube wants you to watch YouTube. Should they try to make sites that aren't engaging? Maximising ad revenue also seems not terrible for users? A week ago I saw an ad for some pants, and I'm wearing them now. I spent ages walking around town looking for pants I liked. Hopefully next week they start showing me shoes. IMO advertisers and these platforms tend to have incentives pretty closely aligned with their users'. (Dunno about selling data. I thought that had stopped happening, and I don't like the idea.)
• C14L 8y ago
  > only affects for-profit platforms And then there is the question how "for profit" is defined.
• tills13 8y ago
  > You can use Mastodon [0] instead of Twitter, PeerTube [1] instead of YouTube, Aether [2] instead of reddit, etcetera try convincing _anyone_ who isn't already on one of those platforms to switch. It's nice on-paper to say "don't like? don't use" but it's not going to happen.
• jpz 8y ago
  I appreciate the links. However - you need incoming revenue to maintain infrastructure as well as software. Wikipedia probably stands alone as a not-for-profit (as do, incidentally, government-sponsored services - so in the UK, BBC should be fine for any liability, but Sky would be screwed, for instance.)