
EU copyright law proposal rejected - iMerNibor
https://twitter.com/Senficon/status/1014814460488413185
======
squarefoot
It is extremely important not to lose focus on the problem because they're
going to try again and again to pass it, one way or another. They'll never
stop: it's about profit both for the corporations bribing for those laws and
the politicians being bribed to push for them, so they'll just keep pushing
until they find the right weapon of mass distraction to keep the public
attention away.

Also it is important to keep in mind the old tricks used to pass bad laws:
they push initially for worse laws then after public protest they slowly step
back to the initial goal to pretend people were listened to, so that not only
they get what they wanted, but the public is also being fooled into believing
their protest were successful and they have politicians who actually listen to
them. How lucky!

~~~
ryrobes
I recall seeing a tweet this morning stating the same for ethics committees in
academic research papers. Students are being taught to put questionable things
in - that are easy to excise. They get challenged, remove the red herring, and
are approved since the "offended party" feels appeased.

Anyways, Interesting analog. Intellectual dishonestly aside...

I have no first hand knowledge, but it seems highly probable.

~~~
stcredzero
_Students are being taught to put questionable things in - that are easy to
excise. They get challenged, remove the red herring, and are approved since
the "offended party" feels appeased._

I've heard similar stories with regards to censors. I've also seen it at work
with release reviews. Pointy-haired management was given something obvious to
correct, to keep them from thinking of something out of left field.

~~~
drtillberg
It's a weak strategy. If you make an obvious error in many contexts you are
very likely to (at best) invite a cascade of critique that otherwise would
have been skipped. At worst, you'll be written off permanently as a fool,
fired and/or sued.

~~~
stcredzero
_It 's a weak strategy. If you make an obvious error in many contexts you are
very likely to (at best) invite a cascade of critique that otherwise would
have been skipped._

It depends on who is on the other end. Against someone who isn't that
intelligent, who prioritizes and really just wants to show their dominance, it
can work great. Against a genuinely observant and intelligent perfectionist,
it's the wrong move.

I've seen it done with alignment and spelling errors. The pointy haired boss
feels superior and useful in their attention to detail, and everyone has their
needs fulfilled.

------
izacus
This battle is nowhere near over, copyright holders are constantly bribing and
pushing towards more and more draconian laws to keep competition out and
maximize profits.

Having said that, it's good to see EU didn't sell us out at the first chance.

~~~
KozmoNau7
The copyright holders and their lobbyists are untiring in their push, because
they only need their proposals to be successful once to go through, but we
need to continuously get them voted down to retain our freedoms.

It's very much an uphill battle.

~~~
alkonaut
Can’t laws that are equivalent but opposite be formulated? Laws that specify
what is legal and should not be considered infringing. Similar to US
constitutional formulations “congress shall pass no law..”?

~~~
kbart
Such contra-laws are would be 'only' useful for casual citizens, so there's no
way to get multi-million lobbying support for them by mega corporations.

~~~
fghtr
This is why we need to support organizations like EFF. Even if they are not
multi-billion, they may be strong enough sometimes.

------
akuji1993
The good thing also is, that the Worldcup will be over when the law is
discussed again. You can spot pretty easily how laws like this are always
pushed in a time where most people are occupied with something else, usually
around summer. It's ridiculous how often that happens. Let's hope we don't
have a big distraction coming up in September.

~~~
petepete
It's funny you should mention The World Cup, FIFA are hugely annoying when it
comes to copyright.

It's only just making the _normal_ news[0], but their pettiness has plagued
the sharing of small clips and highlights.

Do they really want me to wait for an incident to be televised before I can
discuss it online? Should I have to track down specific moments in a game
using my own recording in order to be able to discuss it? FIFA, the World's
Most Corrupt Organisation™, should realise that fans enjoying and discussing
their events adds a lot of value and will drive more viewers.

[0] [https://inews.co.uk/video/fifa-delete-twitter-video-of-
boy-c...](https://inews.co.uk/video/fifa-delete-twitter-video-of-boy-
celebrating-world-cup-goal/)

~~~
Already__Taken
FIA are pretty in the dark ages with F1 too. FE is slightly different and
seems to be where they're experimenting. GTE is getting better too.

~~~
michaelscott
F1 hasn't been too bad; you can access live recordings of the Grand Prix, race
highlights and sometimes even links through to third party retrospectives
through their Youtube channel.

~~~
vesinisa
Yeah sure - I bet if you live in a region where no company has bought
exclusive television rights to F1. In my country, a pay channel owns exclusive
rights to all F1 broadcasting, so all official F1 content on YouTube etc. is
simply blocked here (shows the infamous "This content is not available in your
country" error.)

They have gone to great lengths to ensure the only way I can view live F1 GPs
legally is to pay 25€/mon subscription to the cable company. _If_ I had a
choice, I would actually be happy to subscribe to UK's Sky Sports F1 channel,
who for 20€/mon have much more extensive coverage of the whole GP weekend,
with world-class commentators in studio and on track-side, including retired
F1 drivers' title holders. The cable company broadcasting in my country has
lower quality and less content, so I don't feel like paying them each month
more than I pay to my ISP.

But of course, due to the very same geo-blocking rules, Sky Sports F1 is
unable to sell their subscription to my country, because they only have rights
for UK broadcasting. Same thing applies to Netflix etc., where some content
may be available in one EU country but not in another.

This is actually a violation of the EU's core single market principle
(customers should be able to freely procure services from providers in any EU
country, not just providers in their home country). And a few years ago, the
EU Parliament was actually bullish about abolishing the whole practice of
digital content geo-blocking within EU.[1] They eventually did pass new
digital market regulations, but of course the content industry was able to
water it down so that it doesn't actually apply to them _at all_![2]

[1]: [https://torrentfreak.com/europe-will-abolish-geo-blocking-
an...](https://torrentfreak.com/europe-will-abolish-geo-blocking-and-other-
copyright-restrictions-150506/)

[2]: [https://juliareda.eu/2018/02/eu-did-not-end-
geoblocking/](https://juliareda.eu/2018/02/eu-did-not-end-geoblocking/)

------
dalbasal
I am always impressed by the support efforts to curb copyright expansion, as
it relates to practical freedoms of expression, information and control over
the internet. It's a nuanced issue, international and unrelated directly to
any major political wing or ideology. So, the fact that it attracts a
dedicated and effective activist base is both surprising and heartening. This
for the "cause" least likely to get you laid.

Thank you to whoever is involved. You are fighting for _me_ and I appreciate
it. I'm going to make a habit of writing MEPs and generally getting behind you
guys. I want my next comment on the subject to be in the first person (we).

But.....

I feel like _we 're_ at a real structural disadvantage. Copyrights (up
generally) are under constant expansive efforts. Expanding rights. Expanding
duratii. Expanding enforcement. Practical enforcement edforts that will result
in dragnets (like this, now defeated proposal).

The saintly activists are working to defeat restrictions, but they can't win
every fight. This proposal will be back, in modified form. It's a ratchet.
Sometimes we don't lose. Other times we lose. There are no wins, just defense
against loss.

For a practical example: YouTube is the biggest video site, and it does not
honour fair use. You can't (easily, anyway) automate fair use detection, so it
gets caught in the copyright violation dragnets. In practice this weakens fair
use rights. I'm sure pressure from copyright holders played a role on
YouTube's policy decisions.

Is there (or can there be) an activist effort that puts pressure on YouTube
(just for example) to protect fair use rights, and freedom of expression
generally.

Are there wins we can aim for? Is an effort to shorten copyright duration
feasible? I think the economic argument is on our side, even if we accept the
other side's premises. Is a fair use expansion campaign possible?

~~~
walterbell
We need new business models for new media, which are not based on artificial
scarcity. Then new media can afford to outspend old media. It's unfortunate
that the current flag-bearers for new media are funded by advertising, rather
than creativity and innovation unlocked by fair use and remix culture.

~~~
bjelkeman-again
I hope efforts like the Dutch De Correspondent works out in the long run. I
know readers that love their work and happily pays for it.

[http://www.niemanlab.org/2018/05/dutch-news-organization-
de-...](http://www.niemanlab.org/2018/05/dutch-news-organization-de-
correspondent-is-getting-more-money-toward-its-global-expansion/)

------
6ue7nNMEEbHcM
If you'd ask me personally I think Article 15 is far worse than Article 13.
Computer programs are also copyrighted so this would make really hard time for
anyone trying to maintain the business once it grows. If this is passed (if I
understand this correctly) a subcontractor could sue you for extra money you
gained on some of his contributions. It's like contracts no longer define how
much you owe to people because everything may change if you succeed. How do
you reinvest the money in such conditions? Do you hold some cash just in case
someone pops up demanding more money?

~~~
bluecalm
I think that when you hire someone you are not:

    
    
      entering into a contract for the exploitation of the rights
    

because you are the of the rights yourself. The person you hired to write a
program for you doesn't have any rights to it. That being said, the whole
article is ridiculous. If it passes you will be on the hook for % of the
profits you make possibly forever if you licensed any kind of work to run your
business. Maybe they should add another article where you can apply to get
some of your money back if you don't make or lose money trying to run your
business.

~~~
6ue7nNMEEbHcM
Thanks for slightly optimistic reply in this regard. But I think it will all
come down to how this will be implemented in member states (and I'm sure it
will be far from common in EU), here where I live not all rights are
transferred as part of the contract, some rights are non-transferable.
Nevertheless it's scary how this is developing, I wonder who will be deciding
about "fairness" of compensation, will it be courts deciding how much some
services are worth... I wonder if UK will accept it, if not I'd expected lots
of business moving there from EU.

~~~
madhadron
"Work for hire" rights have been enshrined for a long, long time, and don't
affect just software. It would affect every memo, marketing campaign,
advertisement, or drawing made for pay. Something that would destroy the
entire white collar economy would get fixed pretty fast.

~~~
walterbell
Or, we could avoid breaking the economy while hoping that it can be fixed
quickly.

------
derriz
I have to say (and I am not a fan of modern copyright law at all) that I'm
undecided about this law.

I guess the contrarian in me requires more analysis and reasoning than I've
found in the top google search results or following some of the links posted
here on Hacker News. In fact I'm aware that I often take positions based on
disliking the presentation of arguments and this is a personal flaw.

But I have to say most of the pieces I read rub me up the wrong way by
seemingly just repeating arguments from authority or presenting
interpretations without any logical reasoning built on primary sources (i.e.
the text of the directive).

Many of the pieces, even by respected sources, seem very click-baity where it
seems there is competition to come up with the most apocalyptic claims. The
directive will lead to the end of the internet itself seems to be the bar.

When I finally found a piece which actually quoted text from article 13, for
example, it didn't seem to explicitly support many of the claims. Is there a
mandate or even reference to upload filters in the text of the article? Does
it reference memes at all? I'm happy to be correct if there is. But if there
isn't, I don't see an obvious path from the primary text to these sort of
claims.

The actual text of the article that I've seen quoted seems to simply codify
the status quo that currently exists in nearly all countries. Which is that
content aggregators are oblidged to cooperate with copyright holders to block
copyright infringement. Google, youtube, eBay, etc., etc. have been doing this
for years without "killing the internet". Don't all countries with copyright
laws already provide legal mechanisms for holder to force content aggregators
to remove infringing material?

If that's the case, then this is simply a typical EU directive - which just
represents some sort of minimum standard based on the existing laws in the 28
countries.

As I said, I'm happy to be corrected if someone can provide an argument based
on the text. Please reply with links or references instead of down voting :)

~~~
bad_user
I would argue that controversial laws have to be at least delayed in order for
all the points to be address.

I would rather _not change anything_ instead of risking broken legislation
that does more harm than good.

> Google, youtube, eBay, etc., etc. have been doing this for years without
> "killing the internet".

Google has the infrastructure and resources to do so with YouTube, going out
of its way to detect copyright infringement and to react automatically to take
down notices. Smaller players don't have Google's resources.

This is not the same issue as with GDPR. Even if companies need to invest
resources in being GDPR compliant, it can be argued that business models
relying on the ignorance of users are criminal enterprises and that GDPR-style
consent should have been asked for without having a law for it, being common
sense in a world where people don't understand the repercussion of their
actions when using technology.

But copyright? That's a government granted monopoly and like all government
granted monopolies it can do more harm than good. It can be argued that
copyright is flawed, especially given the forever extending duration,
currently being life plus 70 to 120 years, which is absolutely ridiculous.
Give us 20 years, like patents and then we can discuss about extra protections
otherwise fuck media companies lobbying for even more protections.

~~~
skrebbel
> > Google, youtube, eBay, etc., etc. have been doing this for years without
> "killing the internet".

> Google has the infrastructure and resources to do so with YouTube, going out
> of its way to detect copyright infringement and to react automatically to
> take down notices. Smaller players don't have Google's resources.

Worse, _even Google sucks at it_. There are _so many_ original creators whose
youtube video get slapped ads on because someone else used their music in a
Youtube video before the original author did. Google wrote a fully automated,
non-appealable copyright judge and jury. This is scary shit! I don't
understand how anyone can look at stuff like that and think "wow, awesome, we
need more of that!"

~~~
glogla
> Google wrote a fully automated, non-appealable copyright judge and jury.

And executioner. Because they remove accounts over this.

~~~
skrebbel
I'm not sure the analogy extends that far. Sure, Google auto-vaporizes
accounts and that's terrible, but they'd do that too if they didn't have
Content ID. It's not very related to copyright anymore, just to The Google
Suck.

------
laumars
The vote was worryingly close though:

    
    
        In favour: 278
        Against:   318
    

The pessimist in me can't see this getting rejected a second time :(

~~~
Cthulhu_
What I'm reading is that they'll mostly just adjust some part of this proposal
until it does pass; whether Article 11 or 13 make it (which are the most
controversial) then is to be seen.

Yet, I'm worried now that those articles were just ludicrous distractions for
the real problem. That is, it shouldn't pass without those articles, but those
that would oppose it normally would now vote in favor of it because "at least
it doesn't have those articles anymore".

like how [politics] the current political climate and news coverage is pushing
what used to be extreme-right standpoints more towards the more acceptable
political middle. As in,"well at least we're not separating kids from parents
anymore"[/politics]

~~~
krn
"US Congress quietly slips cloud-spying powers into page 2,201 of spending
mega-bill"[1].

Could the EU copyright law be slipped in the same way?

[1]
[https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/03/23/cloud_act_spending_...](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/03/23/cloud_act_spending_bill/)

~~~
chki
Technically: maybe. But the EU legislative process is very transparent (which
is partially caused by the different legislative bodies that need to
participate) and the European Parliament would probably not approve of such a
hidden policy change.

~~~
krotton
Actually they did (in 2005) try to slip a vote on software patents in by
scheduling it for an "Agriculture and Fishery" meeting. Luckily, they failed.

[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2005/jan/23/eusd...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2005/jan/23/eusdirtytrick)

------
whizzkid
I think that current implementations of update filters are not ready and
satisfactory to make internet a better place, thus I am glad that it is
rejected for now.

When youtube content id matches 10 seconds of black screen as a copyrighted
material, it shows that these systems are nowhere near production ready.

I am all for fair use and credits when it comes to creators getting paid for
what they deserve but, when you need couple of lawyers to dispute something as
a student on internet against enterprises, then freedom and equality of
Internet disappears.

~~~
bkor
> I think that current implementations of update filters are not ready

There's no one filter nor any way to do this. YouTube designed and implemented
a system. Some other sites might have their own design. Most have nothing.

Try to think about what's needed to create something like a filter. It's
quickly obvious that it's a massive undertaking (expensive). If I'd be Google,
I'd actually be happy with a strict law as YouTube has a filter. All other
competitors would immediately have a huge disadvantage.

Note: I quite like Formula 1 and I've noticed that people quite easily get
around the YouTube filter. They make the video a bit smaller, add some moving
stuff around it and they're done. This while the filter blocks valid use
cases.

------
asb
Interesting how The Guardian are choosing to report this: "YouTube and
Facebook could escape billions in copyright payouts after EU vote"
[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/05/youtube-c...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/05/youtube-
could-escape-billions-in-copyright-payouts-after-eu-vote)

~~~
scribu
I think they're right to point out that there are corporate interests on both
sides, but I also think they're doing the public a disservice by failing to
mention the effect on smaller companies and even on regular internet users.

------
stakhanov
...listening to BBC Radio 6 today, I was pretty shocked about how they only
portrayed it in a positive light. Their spin was that it's all about making
sure YouTube can no longer pretend they're not benefitting from copyrighted
material being uploaded illegally, and how Paul McCartney thinks that's a
great thing for artists.

~~~
bogle
Radio 4's Today show had Jimmy Wales and William Orbit on with Justin Webb
(08:32 GMT). Rory Cellan-Jones introduced it pretty well as the Beeb's Tech
correspondent. Their thoughts, roughly summarised: copyright is good as
creators need to get paid; mandatory upload filters aren't going to work and
will certainly be a barrier for smaller players. Generally an excellent
discussion. Wales said we needed to look at how artists are being paid by, for
instance, Google but as they already have upload filters in place this isn't
useful leverage.

~~~
aembleton
You can listen here. Just skip to 2:33
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b85mct#play](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b85mct#play)

------
christkv
The only long term solution is to create law that scuttles these kinds of
articles in the future. When you play on the defensive you are leaving the
definition power to the copyright lobby.

~~~
walterbell
What are precedent laws or legal principles that adopted this approach, in any
country, for copyright or licensing?

e.g. trade agreement, national constitution, fair use, orphan works,
compulsory licensing, RAND licensing, creative commons, public domain, freedom
of speech, freedom of information act, right to know, accessibility for
blind/deaf, access by libraries and archives, educational use, citation
rights, remix models, national incentives for creativity and innovation, ...?

~~~
christkv
The fundamental problem is that EU law can basically ride roughshod over
existing member laws undoing decades of organic law creation in each member
country. This means that you have to kind of pass those laws at the EU level
to ensure they don't get wiped out by something like article 11 and 13.

~~~
walterbell
An interesting experiment would be for a group of EU countries to agree on a
modern innovation/copyright regime, for which they would prioritize national
enforcement resources.

------
azernik
For those who want to see detailed breakdowns (by European party grouping, by
national party, by country, etc.) see
[http://www.votewatch.eu/en/term8-copyright-in-the-digital-
si...](http://www.votewatch.eu/en/term8-copyright-in-the-digital-single-
market-draft-legislative-resolution-vote-decision-to-enter-into-inte.html)
(note - you'll need to create a login).

Interesting takeaways:

1\. As is usual, party discipline was very strong on the national-party level,
but usually weak on the level of the European political grouping.

2\. The center-right EPP grouping voted by a large majority for the
regulation.

3\. There was a very strong national divide between France (>80% in favor) and
every other large state (small majorities against).

4\. Party discipline on the European level among the Socialists (S&D) broke
down completely, leaving them split about 50/50\. For example, German SPD
voted unanimously against; the French, British, Italian, and Spanish
socialists by large majorities in favor; and most of the socialists from small
states voted against.

5\. The liberals (in the European, FDP sense), were split _within_ parties at
a high rate.

6\. The nationalist far-right (the French party formerly known as the Front
National, Lega Nord, etc.) and the Eurosceptic right (e.g. UK Conservatives,
the governing Polish PiS, etc.), which usually vote similarly, split along
national-party lines.

------
pasbesoin
They'll never stop.

And, they're using your own money against you. Sales revenue, all the higher
and more profitable as they tighten their control.

Your tax dollars. Here in the U.S., there is an ongoing conversation about the
continued efforts to "criminalize" IP infringement. Not only do the "big
players" already have the advantage in terms of the ability to pay --
potentially endlessly -- for attorneys. They are trying to get the government,
with its deep pockets and salaried attorneys, to take over prosecution of
civil law infringements.

Which also means less government attention to crime that may actually concern
you, its citizens, more.

Now, if the world were getting better, one might debate whether these are
useful changes. Instead, it seems most people who take the time to understand
this, and who aren't benefiting from tacking on another 20 years to Micky
Mouse's exclusivity, find the changes both absurd and a hindrance to real
productivity and creativity.

Workers in the U.S. have had to compete not only against lower wages, but also
against lower costs of producers who don't respect and pay for the IP they
use. Some of the same companies that scream bloody murder about infringement
in the U.S., turn around and use those producers abroad because of their lower
costs.

They're using your own money against you.

(And, I've got nothing against the rest of the world catching up. I do resent
and oppose the arbitrage practiced by such entities, in combination with
convenient legal and political collusion, to greatly enrich themselves while
perhaps even impeding real progress.)

P.S. Regarding the "tricks" used to escalate their control, mentioned by the
parent commenter. One of those is the current proliferation of "trade
agreements". One member is convinced, bribed, coerced to increase an IP
"right". The trade agreement includes an automatic mechanism for
"harmonization" between members. The other member states use said
"harmonization" as the cause that increases that right in their own state.

People living in the latter may never have agreed to e.g. another extension to
length of copyright. But suddenly they have it, via "harmonization". And
politicians saying, "The treaty made us do it."

This has all been discussed before, on the Web. But I haven't seen it surface
prominently, in a while, and it bears repeating for those who are just
becoming familiar with the issue.

~~~
TravisCooper
100% THIS. Great details here. Glad to see this posted and we need to make as
many people aware of the details in your post as possible.

------
sampo
Here is how different countries voted:
[https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/8wbbsy/analysis_of_...](https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/8wbbsy/analysis_of_the_copyright_vote_per_country/)

And here is how different parties voted:
[https://i.redd.it/xcr22o59g5811.png](https://i.redd.it/xcr22o59g5811.png)

------
giomasce
Wonderful, thanks to everyone that helped making some pressing on the MEPs,
from Wikipedia to the last of the tweeters!

------
Already__Taken
Looks like votewatch.eu has gone done, I presume from all of us checking what
MP's we're going to have the school.

~~~
azernik
Back up!

------
bluecalm
Seeing how close it was I am really pessimistic about EU and further
integration. I want my country to have a shot at sane copyright/patent/tax
laws. If they fail I want other countries to have that shot, maybe at least
one succeed and I could move there. With one centralized government there will
be nowhere to run if things like UK prison-for-wrongthink or German/Spanish
copyright and censorpship laws are implemented.

~~~
Tomte
That argument scales up and down, which makes it pointless without an
accompanying argument about absolute size.

Why is your country's current extent and size optimal? Why not split it up,
maybe even down to sovereign towns?

Why not unify it with one of your neighbours?

~~~
bluecalm
I am all for giving more power to the local governments. The more local it
gets the better. That being said at least on a country level there are people
who speak the same language and are brought in somewhat similar culture. There
is much bigger chance the laws are going to be acceptable for me if they are
made by people who live here, know our history and are brought in our culture.

For example after 45 years of in-fact occupation by the Soviets people here
won't easily accept censorship and wrong-think laws. Those things are too
fresh in memory. It might be easier for our politician to vote for that in EU
parliament when they are safely away from home (they didn't from what I
understand) but they would think twice voting for it here.

Another thing is that people follow country level politics much closer than
they follow EU politics which seems to be very detached. What usually happen
is "GDPR got voted in EU, we need to adjust our laws" without any kind of
public discussion about if we even want that law to begin with.

It may work somewhat better in USA where at least there is one language and
some common element in education system (history, civics etc.). Here it just
seems that People's Party Committeein in Brussels is making up laws and we are
supposed to just accept it.

~~~
bojan
> without any kind of public discussion about if we even want that law to
> begin with.

That is an omission of your politicians for not involving the public into the
discussions, as there certainly are deep debates at the EU level that your
elected politicians participate in.

------
Jacq5
This is still quite a defeat IMHO. The vote was won just by a margin of 40
votes. The real deal will cover up in September. If the margin gets smaller -
were kinda busted. If the negative votes increases - well, the internet might
be saved. Now only money talks and who takes which side will decide onto the
rest.

------
Kliment
List of votes is on pages 7-8 of this document:

[http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2f...](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2fEP%2f%2fNONSGML%2bPV%2b20180705%2bRES-
RCV%2bDOC%2bPDF%2bV0%2f%2fEN&language=EN)

~~~
coolspot
\+ 278

\- 318

0 31

Too close. They will try again.

------
quikoa
Nice, that's one bullet dodged! Back to the drawing board doesn't sound very
comforting.

~~~
r3bl
This isn't SOPA/PIPA, where the entire thing is bad and should be just tossed
in trash.

This is a copyright reform that needs to be adopted (its main purpose is to
reduce inconsistencies in copyright laws across EU countries), and the fight
is against two very specific articles (11 and 13) in the current version of
it, through which there was an attempt at doing something bad for the
Internet.

That doesn't mean that the entire copyright reform is just rotten to the core.
You'll notice that nobody asked for the entire thing to be abolished, just for
those two articles to disappear.

~~~
Kliment
You probably mean 11 and 13, just for reference

~~~
r3bl
Thank you for flagging, I've edited my comment.

------
nkkollaw
Wow, not by a huge margin. I'm sure it will pass sooner or later.

It's really amazing how people have to keep these idiots that are _supposed
to_ be there to guard our interests in check.

As long as parties are allowed to accept contributions, things like this will
happen. It should be absolutely forbidden to give any politician any money--
both while campaigning and in case of victory. That way they would actually
work for us and not corporations.

------
shmerl
Congratulations! But they'll come back with some new garbage, they always do.
So there will another need to repeal something like that.

------
jopsen
Many commenters here point out that this is not necessarily the end, and that
lobbyist will keep trying. Seemingly implying that this is an eventuality.

I don't think so, if we keep fighting we can win this. I for one plan to keep
applying pressure to members of the legal committee.

Realistic optimism is not a cause for complacency. But we must also recognize
that this is battle we can win, as to not give up without a fight. For all the
faults of our democracies let's recognize that it worked today :)

------
dev_dull
This not only a problem with the EU, but with concentrated power in general.
It wouldn't be cost effective to lobby every single government to pass this
type of legislation, but when you concentrate it into a single place, suddenly
intense lobbying becomes cost effective.

I have a similar attitude to the US Federal government and why I think state
rights are supreme. You lose economies of scale, but gain a distributed and
hard(er) to corrupt system.

~~~
jopsen
Yet, both of these policies (article 11 and 13) have been tried out in a few
countries.

IMO concentration of power merely means that you need to be more careful with
it. The EU will rarely be critized for standardizing boring regulation.

I keep thinking that in the post brexit world maybe the EU should strive away
from controversial topics for a few years. But I could be wrong :)

------
chmike
Remove articles 11 and 13 with too ambiguous and fuzzy limits. They provide an
open door to abuse.

It's time to change business models and evolve. Destroying the internet just
to protect some profits should not be an option. Make subventions from states
to newspapers illegal. Make scholar journals selling other peoples work in
numeric form illegal.

Terminate google news and equivalent services. Journals don't deserve that
free publicity.

~~~
merinowool
Why having any of those articles anyway?

------
nl
People seem to be viewing this through the eyes of US copyright proposals
(longer terms, stronger enforcement etc).

That's not was this was at all. It was a change in the liability structure to
make platforms liable for content published on their platform.

It was basically about news. European news organisations hate that people are
getting news via Google and Facebook so they want to restrict that.

------
isthatart
Open Science fan here, I have some concrete questions about this copyright,
publishers and linktax story, for example: (0) - will Scihub be affected? (1)
- will arXiv link instead of the published article link be affected? (2) -
will the social media companies start to apply filters to the search results
and timelines???

~~~
isthatart
After more reading, it is horrible. Even if the answers seem to be (0) no (1)
maybe (2) yes, the main point of interest for researchers is that they will
become publishers slaves, or else they have to not publish (anything which
might result in a copyright filter). Give not publish, or be a slave.

------
cedivad
So the internet won... By a 6% margin.

------
nomercy400
So, is the EU Parliament postponing it because they didn't like the media
attention and want to try it again when there are other things that attract
media attention in three months time, or because they actually think it is a
bad idea?

~~~
rsynnott
How do you think a parliament works? It consists of multiple parties who
generally don't agree with each other; it does not generally do things as a
group.

~~~
josteink
He is right in that this was tried passed during the summer & world-cup when
most people are not paying attention though.

That's clearly not coincidental.

~~~
paulie_a
Why would the world cup be a factor?

~~~
josteink
The big masses are busy with the World Cup and not paying much attention to
news in general.

Not to mention that the newspapers themselves are reducing political coverage
significantly to give room for the World Cup, so that those who still would
like to pay attention have a reduced ability to do so.

------
duxup
Thank goodness, that thing was horrific. It even read like ISPs were supposed
to filter user content.

It was Copyright > everything else > freedom of speech (granted I get that's a
US phrase but you get my point).

------
jejones3141
Glad to hear it, but eternal vigilance etc. Keep an eye on them.

------
hmd_imputer
First #GDPR, now #Uploadfilter... What is next? A totally censored internet?
The EU is becoming more and more absurd with its regulations that do nothing
but hinder technological advancement. Already way behind than the East Asian
countries as well the US and Canada...

~~~
midasz
GDPR is good and this is not Twitter.

~~~
pabloski
In fact Twitter is one of the few who CAN comply with GDPR, because it costs
big ( very big ) money to comply.

------
bjrnio
Does anyone know if (and how) you can check which MEPs voted for and against
it? Does that data get published somewhere?

