EU link tax and upload filter will move to a final vote

[Syt]

https://www.cnet.com/news/article-13-eu-approves-controversial-meme-busting-copyright-law/

Article 13: EU approves controversial meme-busting copyright law

The vote could change the way memes spread and gifs are shared. Tech companies and citizens alike are not impressed.

The European Parliament on Tuesday voted in favor of adopting a controversial new law that will bring sweeping reforms to how copyrighted content posted online is governed. The legislation was adopted with 348 votes in favor and 274 against.

For proponents of digital rights, the decision will come as a huge blow after over a year of campaigning for what they perceive as the upholding of the integrity of the internet. Member of the European Parliament Julia Reda, one of the most vocal critics of the directive said on Twitter that the vote signals a "dark day for internet freedom.

Years in the making, the EU Copyright Directive has been heavily debated and divisive among politicians, as well as a cause of concern for the tech industry. One part of the proposal in particular -- Article 13, which will govern the way copyrighted content is uploaded to the internet -- has many in the tech community throwing their hands up in despair.

The effects of the law may be felt well beyond Europe's borders, given the global nature of the internet and the need for tech companies to come up with policies that can be broadly applied. That's what happened when the EU enacted the privacy-focused General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, in May 2018.

"In a stunning rejection of the will five million online petitioners, and over 100,000 protestors this weekend, the European Parliament has abandoned common-sense and the advice of academics, technologists, and UN human rights experts, and approved the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive in its entirety," said rights group the Electronic Frontier Foundation in a blog post.

Before the text can be adopted in European law, it must next be approved by the Council of the European Union. It's still possible that the directive may not be passed by the Council, but that would involve at least one key country changing its mind. A vote is expected to take place on April 9.

A second section of the directive, Article 11, which says search engines and news aggregators will be charged to display snippets of news they're linking to (known as a link tax), is also frustrating tech companies.

Back in January, Google said it may have to pull its news service from Europe entirely if the directive passes in its current state. Screenshots captured by Search Engine Land showed how Google news results could appear in Europe if Google doesn't pay the tax (spoiler alert: they're just a bunch of empty boxes). Google didn't immediately respond to a request for comment following the outcome of the vote.

Article 13 dictates that anyone sharing copyrighted content must get permission from rights owners -- or at least have made the best possible effort to get permission -- before doing so. But this doesn't just mean full songs, movies, TV shows and images. It also means gifs, memes and screenshots. [They did add some stipulations that exclude e.g. memes]

In order to enforce this, internet platforms will be forced to use upload filters to evaluate anything they put online. Even the wealthiest online services such as Facebook and YouTube, which have spent years developing this technology, haven't been able to prove pre-moderation of content is a foolproof method for preventing content from surfacing online that shouldn't be there.

Ahead of the vote on Tuesday, EU Commissioner for the Digital Single Market Andrus Ansip pointed out that nothing in the text of the legislation stipulates the use of upload filters. But it's hard to imagine a way in which tech platforms and social networks could otherwise realistically comply with the rules.

The concern is that the legislation will lead to a far more locked-down and less creative version of the internet as we know it today. It may also stymie competition between internet platforms, as only the biggest and wealthiest may be able to afford to comply with the legislation.

[Grey Fox]

Fixing the web 2.0 is hard. I don't think this will work but I'm happy someone is willing to try.

[Tamas]

Fixing the web 2.0 is hard. I don't think this will work but I'm happy someone is willing to try.

They do try hard to make sure no content provider can ever rise in Europe to rival the current big media.

You sure seem to strongly support state-enforced monopolies.

[Grey Fox]

Fixing the web 2.0 is hard. I don't think this will work but I'm happy someone is willing to try.

They do try hard to make sure no content provider can ever rise in Europe to rival the current big media.

You sure seem to strongly support state-enforced monopolies.

Especially if they are state-owned. Which, sadly, is not the case here.

So far this idea of rivaling big media only served to create even bigger media that seem to shed all responsibilities.

[Syt]

My expectation: Google will stop linking to any news site that doesn't give them permission to link their content.

Major players will either tighten the screws on their content filters, or severely limit what EU users can see/upload on their platforms.

Take Twitch: they would have to assure that all content streamed live on their platform is properly licensed. I expect most gaming companies will happily give blanket permissions, but you have plenty people running commercial music in their streams as background, or they might play a game (GTA) with licensed music in it that can't be re-broadcast.

Many smaller platforms might be struggling to comply. Considering this applies to any "commercial" platform that has been around for at least 3 years (or makes a certain amount of money/attracts a certain amount of visitors - I suspect most will be caught by the "3 years" rule) is liable for their content. In the past, courts in Germany defined "commercial" very widely. Running paid ads on your website might be enough.

Additionally, what would happen with comments sections on news sites? Would the site have to screen every comment for possible copyright violations, i.e. someone quoting a topical work of literature or music?



Axel Voss, the EU MoP who was championing/leading the new law efforts was interviewed by several outlets and showed an astonishing lack of understanding of the digital world, not to mention that he couldn't answer basic questions.

Q: "If I share a news link on my Twitter account my Twitter account contains a link to my employer, is this a private or commercial post?"
A: "Uhm, That's for the judiciary to determine."

Voss: "Of course I expect that it will be fine if I share a news article with my 500 Facebook friends."
Interviewer: "But how would you consider this to be different from photocopying the article 500 times and passing it out to people on the street?"
Voss: "... That will depend on how the law is applied."



Proponents of the law say it will support content creators to be fairly paid. However, other parts of the directive re-open the door for "total buyout", i.e. being able to buy 100% rights to something without the creator retaining any stake in the content, and for a regulation that allows licensing companies to give more money to publishers and less to writers - something a German court recently struck down.

[mongers]

I blame Timmay for bringing this down upon our heads, what with his years of thread spamming. 

[Josquius]

It will help the UK out after we leave 

Isn't the UK introducing even worse rules?

[Richard Hakluyt]

It will help the UK out after we leave 

Isn't the UK introducing even worse rules?

No  ?

[Tamas]

It will help the UK out after we leave 

Isn't the UK introducing even worse rules?

No  ?

He thinks of porn.

[Tamas]

BTW what if a service just has its servers outside of the EU?

[Syt]

BTW what if a service just has its servers outside of the EU?

I'm guessing they will either have to comply or use geoblocking - see some US blocking EU IPs because they don't want to expose themselves to GDPR issues.

[Tamas]

BTW what if a service just has its servers outside of the EU?

I'm guessing they will either have to comply or use geoblocking - see some US blocking EU IPs because they don't want to expose themselves to GDPR issues.

But why would the EU have jurisdiction over what's on a -say- American server?

[Syt]

Don't ask me about the finer points, but the argument as I understand it is that if you can reach the content from within the EU, and/or make money within the EU then EU law applies to you ... how enforceable this is is debatable, but it's not unheard of that European countries require ISPs to block certain sites (e.g. torrent sites).

[Tamas]

[Solmyr]

Well good thing I have a lifetime VPN subscription.