EU Article 13

[WeirdRaptor]

https://saveyourinternet.eu/#newmode-embed-4348-4465

"Don't let the EU break our Internet - tell your MEP to save it before 20 June

On 20-21 June, the European Parliament will vote on the Copyright Directive. Members of the parliament are the only ones that can stand in the way of bad copyright legislation. Tell them you need them to protect your Internet against surveillance and censorship machines!

How is the Internet awesome?

The Internet lets us access more information than ever before, find a rich diversity of news sources, keep in touch with our friends, find new music and videos, and more. Why is it so awesome? Because what you see and do online is up to *you* not some big business or bureaucrat.

How is it threatened?

The European Commission and the Council want to destroy the Internet as we know it and allow big companies to control what we see and do online. Should Article 13 of the Copyright Directive proposal be adopted, it will impose widespread censorship of all the content you share online. The European Parliament is the only one that can step in and Save your Internet.

What can I do?

Contact Members of the European Parliament before 20 June and tell them you need copyright laws that protect your Internet, an Internet where you can share news and culture with your friends and family, where you can expect to be treated fairly and where your rights as EU citizens are protected."

Just some signal boosting here.

[WeirdRaptor]

https://www.communia-association.org/2017/09/14/updated-position-paper-article-13-remains-terrible-idea-needs-deleted/

Um, guys, you really need to be paying attention to this.

[rhombus]

Article 13
Use of protected content by information society service providers storing and giving access to large amounts of works and other subject-matter uploaded by their users

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.

2.Member States shall ensure that the service providers referred to in paragraph 1 put in place complaints and redress mechanisms that are available to users in case of disputes over the application of the measures referred to in paragraph 1.

3.Member States shall facilitate, where appropriate, the cooperation between the information society service providers and rightholders through stakeholder dialogues to define best practices, such as appropriate and proportionate content recognition technologies, taking into account, among others, the nature of the services, the availability of the technologies and their effectiveness in light of technological developments.

This is one of those things that always concerns me about these legal instruments.  Taken on the surface this particular article appears benign enough (as many providers already have policies like this as broadly defined), but the lack of a clear protection of "fair use" of copyrighted material, the lack of a requirement of such providers to also protect others from false copyright takedowns, and the fact that this directive will not be a unified law but rather will be applied differently in each European nation, all lead to unnecessary confusion and a potential restriction on the right to freedom of expression in the European Union. Directives like this often lead to the most restrictive and legalistic national implementing law being the one that everyone caters to (see the German Bundesdatenschutzgesetz for an example of this) in order to avoid having their data blocked or penalized.  It is stuff like that which makes me glad this forum is now self-hosted on a US server as we can now ignore some of these kinds of regulations.  The potential effects on YouTube and like platforms though are quite concerning.

[WeirdRaptor]

Article 13
Use of protected content by information society service providers storing and giving access to large amounts of works and other subject-matter uploaded by their users

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.

2.Member States shall ensure that the service providers referred to in paragraph 1 put in place complaints and redress mechanisms that are available to users in case of disputes over the application of the measures referred to in paragraph 1.

3.Member States shall facilitate, where appropriate, the cooperation between the information society service providers and rightholders through stakeholder dialogues to define best practices, such as appropriate and proportionate content recognition technologies, taking into account, among others, the nature of the services, the availability of the technologies and their effectiveness in light of technological developments.

This is one of those things that always concerns me about these legal instruments.  Taken on the surface this particular article appears benign enough (as many providers already have policies like this as broadly defined), but the lack of a clear protection of "fair use" of copyrighted material, the lack of a requirement of such providers to also protect others from false copyright takedowns, and the fact that this directive will not be a unified law but rather will be applied differently in each European nation, all lead to unnecessary confusion and a potential restriction on the right to freedom of expression in the European Union. Directives like this often lead to the most restrictive and legalistic national implementing law being the one that everyone caters to (see the German Bundesdatenschutzgesetz for an example of this) in order to avoid having their data blocked or penalized.  It is stuff like that which makes me glad this forum is now self-hosted on a US server as we can now ignore some of these kinds of regulations.  The potential effects on YouTube and like platforms though are quite concerning.

So this can't and won't effect the entire world. The EU can't dictate what everyone does. Right? This isn't the end of the internet as all the alarms are sounding, right? This isn't the Marxist dystopia we've been warning about, right?

[rhombus]

It isn't like that.  The main issue would be that people in Europe might be subject to even more over-reactive copyright restrictions on YouTube and other content providers, and that some of those more restrictive copyright-takedown policies might not stay localized to Europe on some platforms that like to cut costs (see: TapaTalk).  But I think for the United States the direct effects of this directive would be minimal. If I were a resident of the European Union I would be quite concerned, however.

[WeirdRaptor]

It isn't like that.  The main issue would be that people in Europe might be subject to even more over-reactive copyright restrictions on YouTube and other content providers, and that some of those more restrictive copyright-takedown policies might not stay localized to Europe on some platforms that like to cut costs (see: TapaTalk).  But I think for the United States the direct effects of this directive would be minimal. If I were a resident of the European Union I would be quite concerned, however.

Okay, good. It's not good, but I'm glad that this isn't going to destroy the internet like a lot of people are saying it will. So it's just restricted to the member European countries, right? And I'm assuming this can be fought even if its voted in, right?

[Nick22]

The EU cannot force the EU  laws on other countries , such as the US.  This prposed governs  Fair use within the EU, but does so in a way that is not uniform. what we might see is a patch work approach, similar to, for instance, how the US states levy taxes on gasoline, it varies a LOT, some levy over $1 in taxes, others only levy a few cents.

[WeirdRaptor]

The EU cannot force the EU  laws on other countries , such as the US.  This prposed governs  Fair use within the EU, but does so in a way that is not uniform. what we might see is a patch work approach, similar to, for instance, how the US states levy taxes on gasoline, it varies a LOT, some levy over $1 in taxes, others only levy a few cents.

Okay, so this is a lot less horrible than I was thinking. Wonder why people are practically running out in the streets like Jimmy Stewart at the end of "Invasion of the Body-Snatchers" over this, if it's only potentially harmful, instead of absolutely devastating.

[Nick22]

Because people hear something, and they panic and overreact. The Internet, for better or worse, magnifies this sort of stuff.  The Old rule of thumb about any legislation, whether here, in the EU, Mexico wherever , is ' the Devil is in the details". Not just what the law says, but how it is  enforced, whether strictly or laxly. And whether it is actually enforceable. Prohibition springs to mind. It was never really enforceable, because too many people in this country like to have a drink now and then. The Old joke about hiring cops to watch the cops applies.

[WeirdRaptor]

Still, though, this is not a good law. Like Rhombus said, I would be very concerned if I lived in the EU right now.

[Nick22]

Not just in the EU, but where in the EU you lived. Italy for instance, might be less strict about such things than Germany.  I'm guessing this law requires unanimous consent from everyone?  In that case since there are nearly 30 countries in the EU, ratification is going to take a long time.

[WeirdRaptor]

Not just in the EU, but where in the EU you lived. Italy for instance, might be less strict about such things than Germany.  I'm guessing this law requires unanimous consent from everyone?  In that case since there are nearly 30 countries in the EU, ratification is going to take a long time.

Yeah, wasn't the EU able to make twitter suspend that one German lady's account because she was posting in Germany and the rules are different there?

[Nick22]

 I think that was because she in some way violated the terms of service that Germany had in place, although I could be remembering wrong, of course. Was that matter ever resolved?

[WeirdRaptor]

I think that was because she in some way violated the terms of service that Germany had in place, although I could be remembering wrong, of course. Was that matter ever resolved?

I don't know, but yeah, that was the case, exactly as you said.

[WeirdRaptor]

Just to be clear, this won't be the first step in turning the EU into a Fascist State?

[Nick22]

No, there is no risk of the EU turning Fascist, because of the variance on the laws of the countries. Fascism, would require uniformity, very strict enforcement, and the elimination of Fair Use, along with prosecution of anything that approaches udse of copyrighted material. Nothing in the proposal indicates that level of restrictiveness

[WeirdRaptor]

No, there is no risk of the EU turning Fascist, because of the variance on the laws of the countries. Fascism, would require uniformity, very strict enforcement, and the elimination of Fair Use, along with prosecution of anything that approaches udse of copyrighted material. Nothing in the proposal indicates that level of restrictiveness

But I've been speaking with other people who think the EU is trying to pull up their own Iron Curtain through this.

[Nick22]

In order for there to be an iron curtain , you would need a divide amongst the countries, with one group being more liberal and the other more restrictive. the original Iron Curtain came about out of the  aftermath of World WAr Ii whee Europe was split between the NATO countries ( Including West Germany) and the Warsaw Pact country ( East Germany, etc). You'd need a bloc committed to being very restrictive,  And I'm not sure you could get that bloc together, theres simply too much diversity between the countries.

[WeirdRaptor]

In order for there to be an iron curtain , you would need a divide amongst the countries, with one group being more liberal and the other more restrictive. the original Iron Curtain came about out of the  aftermath of World WAr Ii whee Europe was split between the NATO countries ( Including West Germany) and the Warsaw Pact country ( East Germany, etc). You'd need a bloc committed to being very restrictive,  And I'm not sure you could get that bloc together, theres simply too much diversity between the countries.

But the risk of censorship both within and without the EU is very real?

[WeirdRaptor]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwR34cT1grw[/youtube]