EU digital distopia With new copyright law - Unless the parliament stops it

Community Tech Policy & News
1

EU is on the verge to re-working the archaic copyright EU laws with something that has the potential to be even worse that the previous situation. It is only still in the approval phase so there are still chance to pressure for amendments. After that it will be impossible to make any changes.

Most glaring issues are the censoring bots basically making the youtube id system a requirement:

https://juliareda.eu/eu-copyright-reform/censorship-machines/

And The link tax that is absolutely insane:

https://juliareda.eu/eu-copyright-reform/extra-copyright-for-news-sites/

Fully summary of debate situation:

https://juliareda.eu/2018/05/censorship-machines-link-tax-finish-line/

This will be either stopped by the EU parliament or we must look forward for the youtube mess to become the norm in most digital media in Europe.

Mozilla’s campaign site for pressuring the MEPs:

4 Likes
2

It’s worth giving a clearer understanding of whats happening here. The proposal that people are worried more about is one made by the commission in 2016, however this proposal isnt being agreed by anyone yet and the council have been offering amendments that they will accept if it were to go though.

The commission (those who propose legislation) do not have the power to make legislation into law, it has to be agreed by the commission, council, and parliament, or by the council and parliament.

For example. The proposal being used in the media describes article 11 in regards to link previews (your second source) as follows:

Article 11
Protection of press publications concerning digital uses

  1. Member States shall provide publishers of press publications with the rights provided
    for in Article 2 and Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC for the digital use of their
    press publications.
  2. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall leave intact and shall in no way affect any
    rights provided for in Union law to authors and other rightholders, in respect of the
    works and other subject-matter incorporated in a press publication. Such rights may
    not be invoked against those authors and other rightholders and, in particular, may
    not deprive them of their right to exploit their works and other subject-matter
    independently from the press publication in which they are incorporated.
  3. Articles 5 to 8 of Directive 2001/29/EC and Directive 2012/28/EU shall apply
    mutatis mutandis in respect of the rights referred to in paragraph 1.
  4. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall expire 20 years after the publication of the
    press publication. This term shall be calculated from the first day of January of the
    year following the date of publication

The councils counter is as follows

Article 11
Protection of press publications concerning online uses

  1. Member States shall provide publishers of press publications established in a Member State
    with the rights provided for in Article 2 and Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC for the
    online use of their press publications by information society service providers.

    The rights referred to in the first subparagraph shall not apply in respect of uses of
    insubstantial parts of a press publication. Member States shall be free to determine the
    insubstantial nature of parts of press publications taking into account whether these parts are
    the expression of the intellectual creation of their authors, or whether these parts are
    individual words or very short excerpts, or both criteria.

  2. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall leave intact and shall in no way affect any rights
    provided for in Union law to authors and other rightholders, in respect of the works and other
    subject-matter incorporated in a press publication. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 may
    not be invoked against those authors and other rightholders and, in particular, may not deprive
    them of their right to exploit their works and other subject-matter independently from the
    press publication in which they are incorporated.
    When a work or other subject-matter is incorporated in a press publication on the basis of a
    non-exclusive licence, the rights referred to in paragraph 1 may not be invoked to prohibit the
    use by other authorised users. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 may not be invoked to
    prohibit the use of works or other subject-matter whose protection has expired.

  3. Articles 5 to 8 of Directive 2001/29/EC and Directive 2012/28/EU shall apply mutatis
    mutandis in respect of the rights referred to in paragraph 1.

  4. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall expire 1 year after the publication of the press
    publication. This term shall be calculated from the first day of January of the year following
    the date of publication.

  5. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to press publications first published before [entry into force of the
    Directive].

Paragraph 1 of article 11 from the councils proposal excludes the use of insubstantial parts of press publications from falling under this article.

In regards to Article 13 (your first link) to do with monitoring for copyright works etc. The commissions proposal in paragraph 1:

Information society service providers that store and provide to the public access to
large amounts of works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users shall, in
cooperation with rightholders, take measures to ensure the functioning of agreements
concluded with rightholders for the use of their works or other subject-matter or to
prevent the availability on their services of works or other subject-matter identified
by rightholders through the cooperation with the service providers. Those measures,
such as the use of effective content recognition technologies, shall be appropriate and
proportionate. The service providers shall provide rightholders with adequate
information on the functioning and the deployment of the measures, as well as, when
relevant, adequate reporting on the recognition and use of the works and other
subject-matter.

The councils proposal changes this

Paragraph 1:

Member States shall provide that an online content sharing service provider performs an act
of communication to the public or an act of making available to the public when it gives the
public access to copyright protected works or other protected subject matter uploaded by its
users.

An online content sharing service provider shall obtain an authorisation from the rightholders
referred to in Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 2001/29/EC in order to communicate or make
available to the public works or other subject matter. Where no such authorisation has been
obtained, the service provider shall prevent the availability on its service of those works and
other subject matter, including through the application of measures referred to in paragraph 4.
This subparagraph shall apply without prejudice to exceptions and limitations provided for in
Union law.

Member States shall provide that when an authorisation has been obtained, including via a
licensing agreement, by an online content sharing service provider, this authorisation shall
also cover acts of uploading by the users of the service falling within Article 3 of Directive
2001/29/EC when they are not acting on a commercial basis.

The referenced paragraph 4 (this is not in the commissions proposal, as this essentially replaces the “content recognition technologies” part of their paragraph 1)

In the absence of the authorisation referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 1,
Member States shall provide that an online content sharing service provider shall not be liable
for acts of communication to the public or making available to the public within the meaning
of this Article when:

(a) it demonstrates that it has made best efforts to prevent the availability of specific works
or other subject matter by implementing effective and proportionate measures, in
accordance with paragraph 5, to prevent the availability on its services of the specific
works or other subject matter identified by rightholders and for which the rightholders
have provided the service with relevant and necessary information for the application of
these measures; and

(b) upon notification by rightholders of works or other subject matter, it has acted
expeditiously to remove or disable access to these works or other subject matter and it
demonstrates that it has made its best efforts to prevent their future availability through
the measures referred to in point (a).

This has come up a few times, and I think it has been poorly reported on, hopefully @wendell and @ryan report it better if they put it in their news.

Is this something you should contact your MEP about? Yes, if you have input to give you are within your rights, and more people should write to their MEP about these things, its literally part of the process.

If you want to understand more about the process of a proposal being adopted this is a good info-graphic.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/external/html/legislativeprocedure/default_en.htm

(As far as i’m aware this hasn’t hit the first reading yet)

Sources:

Latest proposal from the council: Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF
THE COUNCIL on copyright in the Digital Single Market - Agreed negotiating mandate

The original commission proposal: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2016:0593:FIN

All documents relating to this proposal: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/HIS/?uri=consil:ST_9134_2018_INIT

6 Likes
3

Well now thats just stupid.

4

Which part?

5

From what I understand here, and if the EU is as dense as the law makers in ireland with count dankula, that sorta law would literally break the way the internet flows. Not only would memes melt off, most image boards would have to make significant changes to comply with laws.

Thats just really really stupid. You can’t govern the internet, it doesn’t work.

6

I feel like you may have missed my post? The council is disagreeing with the commission, the commission proposed the no exceptions linking problem.

Article 13 applies more to this than the linking issue in article 11. However it depends… like most things. An image created by a person is theirs, if it is used by someone else without permission right now, that’s a breach of copyright right now.

the council proposal asks for best efforts to prevent copyright infringement by the users of a platform, best effort in most cases is likely removal where the copyright is known to be in violation. that’s why subsection b exists, in that if the copyright holder asks for it to be removed, it is removed.

What I’ve not included also is that the proposal tries to account for proportionality

The measures referred to in point (a) of paragraph 4 shall be effective and proportionate,
taking into account, among other factors:

(a) the nature and size of the services, in particular whether they are provided by a
microenterprise or a small-sized enterprise within the meaning of Title I of the Annex to
Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC, and their audience;

(b) the amount and the type of works or other subject matter uploaded by the users of the
services;

(c ) the availability and costs of the measures as well as their effectiveness in light of
technological developments in line with the industry best practice referred to in
paragraph 8

There’s a fairly significant difference between the original proposal and what the council wants, and imo the councils current proposal is far better. Improvements to be made? probably, but i’ve not seen anyone actually propose any improvements.

That was in Scotland. I agree it was a dumb decision.

2 Likes
7

lol woops

Either way I think governing the internet is a bad idea. Especially with this, it’ll just give corporations another way to attack writers and youtubers. I don’t like it.

8

In what way? This in theory gives writers and youtubers better rights over their creations from misuse.

1 Like
9

By that I mean rather than go through the YouTube process or DMCA process they can just one shot it and its just gone.

I’ll have to see people talk about it to get it fully I think. I’m missing something.

10

@Eden has laid out the groundwork for why this story isn’t as terrifying as it seems.

  1. This hasn’t reached the 1st Reading Yet - ie it isn’t as close to becoming law as some make it out to be.
  2. The latest proposal allows for exemptions and accounts for free press and fair use.
  3. The proposal is focused on bringing the Copyright Law for the EU with the digital age in mind which in my opinion is a very good thing.

This is something that should be watched to see what comes.

3 Likes
11

The thing i wanted to see was if i was on the right track with my thinking, glad that i am.

1 Like
12

Capitan, we already have such a strong copyright laws that people go to prison because of that. We really don’t need any more of them.

13

This, ladies and gents (and zurs I guess?) is how you lay out something for critical thought. This post is beautiful… The rest of the forum could follow this example… not to threadjack but a lot of these kinds of threads turn into a monty python-esque “I’d like to have an arguent. yes I have, no I haven’t” automatic naysaying whatever the other person says. I mention that because its kinda happening in this thread (looking at you with only the gentlest chastising eyes, @FaunCB because I know you’re very smart and capable of well articulating your position instead of a couple of throw-away sentences I can’t but help read in a fast-nose-exhale-snort type voice).

That’s kinda meta about the post/formatting itself. As for the intel it provides:
Eden is right, it does seem like an agenda is being pushed here beyond the laws.

I have been traveling so I am not read in on this “breaking news” as I would like. I will say that, based on what I’ve read so far, is that none of the language or lawmakers quoted here (at least in terms of what they’ve written) seem to understand copyright as I understand it. Copyright is a public good first and the carrot that drives the individual to participate in this public good is limited control of that copyrighted work for a limited time. We must endeavor to always frame the conversation about copyright in this way or else it becomes an immutable property right perpetual and static. That benefits no one but the highest bidder.

I would like to see the EU moving more toward that philosophy. There are hints some people may be thinking along those lines here, and maybr that’s why the agenda/freakout, but the only thing that’s clear is that the people involved so far have a deep misunderstanding of copyrights and that they are meant to be a balance of public good and a carrot that would drive private investment.

So very well done Eden and if we can have more quasi-political discussions framed up and discussed as civiliy and with [citation needed] as this, I could see us allowing political discussions more. And just a reminder, we’ll let a fair bit slide w/politics as long as it is tech related. And the discussion stays a discussion and not a python trope.

8 Likes
14

Senpai noticed me guys.

My point is that, yeah this could be used very well for the average consumer, but knowing europe its being set up as a good picture in the frame / gallery, but terrible in the actual house sorta deal.

If that makes sense.

15

Great summary.

The main issues with the council’s proposed amendments is that it does not really solve the issues as much pushing the issue to be resolved on the national level or the “market”.

For article 11 the directive still leaves the space for abuse of the system and any protection given will be completely relied on the whim of the political leaning of the various national government without giving any real protection. Its more like a “I wash my hand of this” situation yet giving the scaffold for abuse. In countries were the publishing lobbies are influential you will see abuse of the link tax, on the ones they are less not so much.

The main issue with that is that in many cases the people affected (like news agencies and media providers) will be inclined to follow the more stricter version of the national legislations instead of spending resources to make multiple versions of their content visible per country according to national law. This might in practice lead to an identical situation as with the original commission proposal.

There should be a single unified directive for this and it should give enough freedoms to reproducibility in order to avoid gray areas, abuse and legal battle. the legislation needs to be as liberal as possible on what a snippet is in order to avoid this.

For article 13

The council’s also do not really make things better here either. It removes the mandatory monitoring but it still makes the provider liable if the copyright holder complain that the platform is not doing enough. It is not exactly clear what enough actually is and gives no protection to the user of the platform for the process of considered guilty until proven otherwise (which is one of the main reason why the youtube system is so oppressive - if holder claims a violation against the user the user gets a strike or is hit with de-monetization until he proves he is not guilty instead of the other way round).

The council’s proposal does not really improve the original one significantly. It is still as bad as it sounds.

As @wendell said copyright is there as a common good. It is only useful if it is useful for general progress. Using link taxes or forcing (or coercing) providers to make filters is against that idea. It is better to let a less efficient less automated copyright enforcing system that does not involve the providers directly, that misses some actual infringement, than giving the publisher space to protect they IP to such a degree that put restriction on information sharing to the point of stopping actual creativity on media.

You cannot create if you do not reuse. And you cannot reuse if you are constantly stressed if a copyright holder will go against you even when using his stuff in fair use.

16

https://saveyourinternet.eu/the-european-parliament-legal-affairs-committee-voted-for-the-article-13-censorshipmachine-what-happens-next/

1 Like
17
18

image
image.jpg776x1972 307 KB

2 Likes
19

I can’t help but wonder if the vocal people(person) against this is detrimental to having a amended good law.

The councils amendments are fairly reasonable, but the opposition to this says that its what the commission proposes or nothing and if you don’t push to have this voted against then everything will go to hell. I’ve rarely seen black and white demands work, and when its them encouraging people to speak about it and giving the people their narrative on it, then you get the EU hearing about people who don’t want copyright using black and white words they’ve been told, and ignoring it because that’s ridiculous, rather than proposing good amendments.

1 Like
20

I have to agree with you. I don’t know the specifics, but we have the same problem in the states with a lot of things.

Group A proposes banning ponies outright.

Group B is not fervently for anything, but doesn’t like Group A’s proposal.

Group C starts picketing congress, demands that every citizen gets a pony and will accept nothing less than ratification of their Single Pony Platform.

The outcome is that Group A’s policy gets passed because it’s “reasonable” in comparison the the SPP.