The Gang of Five
Beyond the Mysterious Beyond => The Fridge => Topic started by: WeirdRaptor on May 31, 2018, 07:00:07 PM
-
https://saveyourinternet.eu/#newmode-embed-4348-4465 (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.
-
https://www.communia-association.org/2017/09/14/updated-position-paper-article-13-remains-terrible-idea-needs-deleted/ (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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Still, though, this is not a good law. Like Rhombus said, I would be very concerned if I lived in the EU right now.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 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.
-
Just to be clear, this won't be the first step in turning the EU into a Fascist State?
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwR34cT1grw[/youtube]
-
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180531/00285739946/eu-parliament-members-play-hardball-terrible-copyright-policies-article-highlighting-sketchy-tactics-magically-disappears.shtml (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180531/00285739946/eu-parliament-members-play-hardball-terrible-copyright-policies-article-highlighting-sketchy-tactics-magically-disappears.shtml)
"EU Parliament Members Play Hardball On Terrible Copyright Policies, Article Highlighting Sketchy Tactics Magically Disappears
from the not-cool dept
Last week we wrote about how the new proposal for the EU Copyright Directive has some really destructive ideas in it, and is very close to becoming official. Last week (on GDPR day) the various EU member states basically gave the proposal their blessing, and the only thing left is that the Legal Affairs Committee in the EU Parliament who will vote on June 20th (or possibly the 21st). Many, many experts have raised serious concerns about elements of the proposal -- including the link tax and the mandatory filters for content, both of which will create tremendous problems for innovation and speech online. We'll have even more on this next week, but for now, it's worth looking at just how messed up the lobbying process has gone as supporters of the bill (including big publishers and legacy copyright industries) want to get it across the finish line, apparently not caring very much how they do so.
Earlier this week, MEP Julia Reda alerted the world to an article in EU Today, which described how the Christian Democratic Union of Germany (CDU) was using another party, the EPP, to basically shake down other MEPs to get them to vote, saying that if they didn't do so, they will effectively be stripped of all power, blocked from being given reports or parliamentary positions. At one point the article said the following:
But the German EPP party has been accused of “openly lobbying” on behalf of Axel Springer by contacting members of the legal affairs committee and urging them to back the proposals in a vote by the committee on 20 and 21 June.
It is claimed that some committee members have been told of “possible repercussions” if they fail to support the proposal.
They have allegedly been told that to “stay away” from the meeting if they intend to reject the new law, with substitute members, who are more sympathetic to the plans, lined up to vote instead.
British MEP Dan Dalton, a member of the Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs committee (LIBE), said: “I am not surprised by this, given how controversial this issue is, even within the EPP. But it doesn’t reflect well on the EPP that they want to silence their own members on an issue as controversial as this.” Dalton, a member of the European Conservatives and Reformists Group and who opposes the so-called “neighbouring right” in the directive, added, “By resorting to these methods it only further demonstrates that there are huge concerns throughout the European parliament, including within the EPP with the neighbouring right.
If you can't see that, it says:
A member of the JURI committee, who said he did not wish to be named, said, "I know that several members of our committee have come under huge pressure to vote in favour of this particular proposal. The German CDU, via its EPP affiliate, has been reportedly pressuring them to vote what you might call the 'right' way. As part of their efforts to convince them to do this there have been reports of threats of members not being allocated reports and parliamentary positions if, basically, they don't do as they are told. The alleged involvement of the German publishers gives cause for some concern.
He added, "I understand how things work in this parliament and lobbying is part and parcel of the EU decision making process but when it comes to 'threats and warnings' that is crossing a line."
That part of the article is not in the version I see in the Internet Archive, but rather in Reda's tweeted screenshot. However, the Google cache version I currently see includes the quote that Reda screenshotted. You can also see it on Archive.Today.
And if you're wondering why I have to point to the Internet Archive version, the Archive Today version, and the Google Cache version, it's because EU Today magically decided to entirely memory hole the original article. It does not exist. You don't even get a typical 404 page, but rather the following error message: "Unable to find the template "_layout" in "404" at line 19." Someone was apparently in quite a rush to make that article disappear.
Instead, EU Today published a "similar" article by the same reporter, Martin Banks. Incredibly, the new version, is... well... quite different. It notes in one sentence that "German publishers have strenuously denied knowledge of members being put under any undue pressure on the issue by the EPP" which is an odd statement in the first place, because why would German publishers know what's happening in the EU unless... they were involved in it. But then the EU Today piece gets even odder. Rather than following up on any of what it originally reported, and then memory holed, instead it flips the script and claims that the real heavy handed lobbying is coming from those darn internet companies:
Rather, it is claimed that what lobbying has taken place has been by the "big internet players" with one MEP saying, "Much pressure is being put on MEPs but this is coming from big internet players against the neighbouring rights for the press publishers."
Later, the article posts an entire statement from the German Press Publishers Association, which is pushing for the link tax, and expresses its support with the following utter nonsense:
A spokesman for the German Press Publishers Association also told this website they were unaware of any such pressure being applied.
“We got the impression that there is a very lively and open discussion in the Committee.We support the draft of the European Commission and have welcomed the recent decision in the Council,” added the spokesman.
The publishers go on to state, “To remain competitive and independently financed, Europe’s publishers need to be able to compete on all platforms.
“Whilst publishers have successfully transitioned from analogue to digital, they will only reach their potential with an appropriate and updated legal framework that addresses the complexities of online copyright and licensing and gives publishers the legal resource to protect their investment in the original, professional content that underpins the freedom of the press and democracy.”
They add, "What publishers need is a “publishers’ right” granting publishers the legal protection and clarity already afforded to broadcasters and film and music producers."
Of course this is laughable. We've already seen how this has played out in practice in both Germany (where it flopped and where publishers sheepishly agreed to give a free license to Google after Google stopped including snippets), and in Spain where it did massive damage to independent news providers.
There is no need for this law and basically everyone other than giant legacy publishers are against the link tax, recognizing that it would harm just about everyone else, including everyday internet users, smaller publishers and smaller internet platforms (the big guys can pay). Of course, maybe that's the goal of the big publishers: to harm smaller competitors.
Still, it is quite incredible the EU Today posted details of thuggish threats trying to pressure MEPs on the Legal Affairs Committee to support this, and then disappeared all of those quotes, and appears to have replaced them with a new article that accuses the other side of lobbying too aggressively, though the only evidence given is publishers saying this and then an MEP complaining about receiving some emails. Emails lobbying for a position are quite different than threatening to strip elected officials of power if they don't vote for what is nothing more than a hand-out to a few large publishers.
I wanted to ask EU Today why they did this, but when I click on their "contact us" link it just takes me back to the top of the page. I was also looking for some background on EU Today, and found that their "about us" link also just returned me to the top of the page. The same is true for the privacy policy of the site, which may create some issues with the GDPR, but I guess that's a whole other issue..."
-
This would be limited to the EU, from my understanding. If the Us was trying to copy such laws regarding copyright, then I'd be worried, but since the courts have consistently found a broad exemption for Fair Use" in the US its quite unlikely something similar would happen over here.
-
This would be limited to the EU, from my understanding. If the Us was trying to copy such laws regarding copyright, then I'd be worried, but since the courts have consistently found a broad exemption for Fair Use" in the US its quite unlikely something similar would happen over here.
Good. That puts me mind at ease, but I hate having a neighbor, so to speak, pass such a law, so close to the US.
-
Just found this article (https://www.wired.com/story/europes-new-privacy-law-will-change-the-web-and-more/) on Wired, which talks about the EU's other recent law and how it's impacted the world. If Article 13 passes, all the major tech companies will adapt and enforce internationally whether other countries are member states or not. Looks like Article 13 will destroy the internet by silencing The People after all.
-
i wouldnt be so paranoid Weird. corporations in the Us are not going to adopt the EUs law. They are bound by the US law, not the EUs. and that key. Doesnt matter what the EU passes, it only directly affects the countries within it.
-
Right, sorry for freaking out there.
-
The European Parliament has rejected the bill (http://www.alphr.com/politics/1009470/article-13-EU-what-is-it-copyright) so it will now need to be debated in September for a potential second vote. If past experience is any indication then the powers-that-be in the EU will propose variations of this law until they get what they want.
-
The European Parliament has rejected the bill (http://www.alphr.com/politics/1009470/article-13-EU-what-is-it-copyright) so it will now need to be debated in September for a potential second vote. If past experience is any indication then the powers-that-be in the EU will propose variations of this law until they get what they want.
Excellent! That means the proposed laws should be less severe next time they're proposed. And hopefully it might even be turned into something good.
-
I'm bumping this in case anyone needs the reminder.