
Four Wikipedias to ‘Black Out’ over EU Copyright Directive - okket
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/03/20/four-wikipedias-to-black-out-over-eu-copyright-directive/
======
koonsolo
Here are part of the lyrics of "Enter Sandman" of Metallica:

Exit light Enter night Take my hand We're off to Never—, Neverland Now I lay
me down to sleep Pray the Lord my soul to keep If I die before I wake Pray the
Lord my soul to take

YCombinator is now in violation of article 13. Some filter should have
prevented me from posting this.

That is what article 13 is about.

~~~
avar
Article 13 is bad enough without needing to make up absurd interpretations of
it. EU law is enforced on the basis of proportionality, and the wording of the
proposed directive already covers that.

There's never going to be some legal obligation to remove something like the
quote you just posted.

Furthermore, since it's a directive each member state will need to implement
it in a way that's compatible with both the directive and its own laws. The
countries in the EU all have some sort of concept that's analogous to "fair
use", even if that's not what they call it.

~~~
belorn
That might be true from the law perspective, but a major objection to
copyright filters is that they go beyond the requirements of copyright law and
ignores fair use. Youtube filter being a prime example.

If you include the above quoted snippet of the song in a youtube video, the
probability that it will receive a copyright claim is close to 100%. Fair use
is a legal defense that a person can use in court, but the purpose of
copyright filters and thus the purpose of Article 13 is to resolve the issue
in favor of the author before it end up in court. Article 13 in practice
eliminates fair use.

Article 13 do not require copyright filters to consider fair use. If it did we
would likely see a very nuanced discussion since it would force youtube to
change their system in order to be compliant, but alas thats not the case.

If HN implemented a copyright filter we should expect from experience that
such filter would not consider fair use, nor would it enforce copyright on the
basis of proportionality. We could claim that this result is not the fault of
article 13, but that is a naive perspective.

~~~
dwild
> Youtube filter being a prime example.

Youtube filter is there not only to follow the law, but also to please their
advertisers/copyright holders.

Their latest change in the filter made Youtuber life so much worst and Youtube
definitively know how they depends on theses Youtubers (and are lucky to have
them). Thing is the cash come from advertisers/copyright holders and that's a
much bigger issue for them right now.

To me that filter is beyond the requirements of the law, not for the law
itself, but for the advertisers/copyright holders.

------
est31
The big websites participating in the blackout like Wikipedia or some porn
sites do have vast access to eyeballs across europe, and would be affected
directly and adversely by the new rules. As the lobbying fight has already
been mostly won by the local publisher industry, they use their access to
those eyeballs to fuel democratic protests of the rule.

I hope they win and that Article 11 and 13 will be removed.

I think this is an important moment in the birth of EU democracy, because it
feels to me that one of the first times, there is a big public discussion
about an issue and the people at the center aren't national politicians like
Merkel or Macron but EU MEPs, namely Voss vs Reda. The EU has rightfully been
criticized of not being democratic enough, and this discussion feels like it's
very much democratic.

~~~
TomMarius
I don't think it's democratic at all. In case of my small country, almost
literally no one wants this law - but that doesn't matter, we're a small
country. The whole thing feels terribly wrong - _10 million_ people, the 100%
majority of this rather big geographical location that is even separated by
mountains on all sides, are just overruled, while they don't even understand
the language these politicians are talking in...? Why couldn't we have our own
rules regarding copyright, like up until now? Democracy doesn't just mean that
there is some voting, it means that the people rule. In my country, our people
no longer rule, now the Germans and the French rule our country (because we
have less than 2% of votes in the EU parliament) and there is absolutely
nothing democratic about that, the polar opposite actually. We're no longer a
country, we've been reduced to a lowly region, and you people praise the EU
for that while my grandfathers died for us to be sovereign and have a say in
our matters. It feels sickening. I truly hope this law passes and it
significantly reduces everyone's high opinion of the EU so we can finally talk
about fixing this.

The funny/sad thing is that my people had more say over our country during the
communist regime than we have today. The Soviets at least accepted bribes.

BTW yes, most people here would rather be poor and sovereign than the EU
alternative. And we had no idea this is what we're joining back in 2004, and
no one asked us when it changed - in fact, significant pressure that I deem
absolutely unethical was made on our politicians to not let our people decide
in a referendum.

~~~
hnra
Obviously a political and economic union will impose laws on its member
states. Your country, holding 2% of the votes, being able to overrule the
entire union wouldn't be very democratic either.

It sounds like you want to have the cake and eat it too. Get the benefits of
the union but be able to refuse the laws it imposes. If the EU decides on a
law, that the majority of the union agrees on but your country doesn't, then
your country has the option to leave the union.

Your country might not agree with these laws, other countries might not agree
with laws regarding the environment, or human rights, etc. But the union as a
whole agrees on them and if you want to benefit from the union then you have
to follow.

~~~
TomMarius
I absolutely don't think an economic union (our citizens did not vote in a
referendum to join a political union, that was forced on us) needs to impose
such laws (environment, human rights) not regarding international trade
between member states and third state policies. It should impose treaties
regarding export and import between member states, and maybe provide a civil
court.

Whatever the EU is, it's not an "economic union" for at least a decade. We
don't want any of that cake, as you say - you forced that upon us, I was
talking about that in my previous comment.

And no, our country doesn't have an option to leave. Germans bought key state
corporations from the corrupt post-revolution government and they won't let us
(the people) do it, on top of that it has been proved that the EU will try to
take revenge by all means and not wanting to be in the EU means they will
destroy you. So much for the "friendship among nations" goal - paid friendship
is not friendship.

~~~
pimmen
You can elect a government that can trigger article 50. There is no exception,
any country can do it.

------
IdiocyInAction
As an EU citizen, I hope large portions of the internet will just block us. A
couple of days without YouTube, Wikipedia and other services would create
sufficient outrage to put pressure on the EU for introducing these idiotic
laws.

I mean, GDPR is bad enough for start ups, but Article 13?

~~~
gerdesj
GDPR and Article 13 (in The Directive on Copyright) are totally different and
unrelated things.

I happen to be a small business owner in the EU and I have many customers who
are the same. We all have registered with the ICO (UK) for something like £60
pa and filled in a short questionnaire. We have read the clear guidance on
what records to keep and what to not keep - it's not rocket science. That is
GDPR for most small businesses. Now, if your business is predicated on
building profiles on people or pestering them on the phone or flogging ads etc
then I can't help you there - it may be a pain.

Now Article 13: It is designed to try and make the likes of YouTube
responsible for not carrying copyrighted works by putting the onus back on
them. I believe they hide behind carrier status. I understand that A13 looks a
bit like an anti-meme effort but it isn't because that is generally covered by
parody or reasonable use regulations.

In the end, are you really sure you want the world to block us?

~~~
dleslie
> In the end, are you really sure you want the world to block us?

Yes. Let's end the cycle of pretending that we can prevent information from
being free.

Copyright is a dinosaur of an idea that belongs in the annals of history and
out of the present.

~~~
dingaling
> Copyright is a dinosaur of an idea that belongs in the annals of history and
> out of the present.

Then don't copyright the content you make, just release it out into the public
domain. Be the change you want to see.

But let's be honest, the people most vocal against Article 13 are those who
want to leech other people's creations for free. Not those people actually
creating the content.

~~~
furi
> the people most vocal against Article 13 are those who want to leech other
> people's creations for free.

Why would such people be at all concerned about Article 13? Torrent sites and
swarms have been in flagrant disregard of the law since forever, one more law
isn't going to change much. Likewise the other popular pirate mechanism, the
old "upload an archive with the content to Mega or similar" technique, already
frequently uses encrypted archives to make sure only people coming through the
right channel (often an ad laden website + several even more ad laden URL
shorteners) get access to the content, making a filter requirement ineffectual
there as well.

~~~
mrep
Torrents aren't really good for small things that quickly change like news
whereas websites like reddit are and I'm pretty sure the people who are
pushing for articles 11 and 13 are news agencies. Here is my thought process:

News agencies know they are using dark patterns to skirt by GDPR while still
using targeted advertising but since they know the fines will eventually start
hitting, they want to move to paywalls. However, A paywall for a news company
is practically useless as any major story one makes gets linked to and
paraphrased by dozens of other news agencies within minutes. Users won't pay
for a news website when they can get practically the same stories only
slightly delayed at a free one that just paraphrases and links back to the
original. Article 11 solves that problem and article 13 is to prevent 1 user
who does pay for a website from copying the entire article and pasting it in a
comment (I see that and archive/outline links all the time here and on
reddit).

------
knight17
It is interesting to me that only four of them are protesting—German, Czech,
Danish, and Slovak—by blacking out their sites on 21 March 2019 in opposition
to the proposed EU Copyright Directive.

Why is it that other EU Wikipedia language editions like French, Italian,
Polish, Portuguese and Spanish not joining in the protests? Did they come up
with a different conclusion on the potential impact of the new copyright
directive? Can people who know about the politics of other EU language
Wikipedia comment whether they had discussed of joining this black out?

~~~
bArray
I support their point of view and agree with their protest, but one reason
against this could be the potential politicizing and weaponisation of
Wikipedia. Do you want one of the largest collectives of human information to
take sides (in any debate) and selectively remove its service?

I think I would prefer a banner or a landing page more as it doesn't introduce
any barrier to the information they provide.

~~~
duozerk
> Do you want one of the largest collectives of human information to take
> sides (in any debate) and selectively remove its service

When that debate is about access to that information, definitely, yes.

~~~
colechristensen
The point is well taken that doing such things should be rare and done very
carefully.

~~~
TomMarius
You feel this isn't one of the cases when it's necessary?

~~~
piker
The parent's implication being that this is one of the cases where people
could reasonably believe it isn't necessary.

~~~
TomMarius
Yeah and I am asking explicitly because it seems unbelievable and I'd like to
hear why.

------
hansflying
This law was strongly pushed by the "Axel Springer" company. This company is
so evil that there are even browser extensions to just block their websites
(see Axel Springer Blocker in chrome extension store)

------
xiphias2
The interesting part was while not the whole EU does the protest? It would
send a clearer message.

~~~
aequitas
AFAIK my country's EU representatives are against, so Wikipedia in the
Netherlands might not see a need as rallying citizens doesn't change a thing
without a clear call to action.

~~~
xiphias2
Aha, I see, that makes sense, still 4 countries are not that many

------
Sujan
Shame that the CTA of e.g. the German Wikipedia is so weak: "Kontaktieren sie
ihre Abgeordneten " (translted: contact your representative) which links to
[https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/de/home](https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/de/home).

Besides the site being super slow right now, I couldn't even figure out how to
actually find _my_ representative. Is my representative the one of the city
where I live? How can I search by city? Is this even by city? Doesn't seem so.
So now I have a list of 96 random people. Which ones can actually influence
this? Or which one actually need their opinion changed?

I also wouldn't really know how to contact them - just send an email and write
that I hate that the make so bad politics that Wikipedia had to shut down
their site in protest?

Politics is hard :/

~~~
lostmyoldone
Julia Reda usually posts the good links, so go to her site and have a look
around!

------
bArray
"Fixing" the page (return to normal):

1\. In the style sheet, remove:

    
    
        color: #111 !important;
        background: #111 !important;
        border: 1px #111 solid !important;
    

2\. In the HTML, remove:

    
    
        background:#000;color:#000
    

That's all I could find on a few page visits.

~~~
mqus
alternatively: use reader mode on firefox. this may not enable everything but
is at least you can read it...

(I'm somewhat conflicted on using and/or helping circumventing wikipedias
efforts)

~~~
MrGilbert
I'm a bit disappointed that they didn't remove the content completely, using
302-redirects. I'm using uBlock origin, and the whole website looks like a
mess. It doesn't even show the "call-to-action" banner, which is required for
Average Joe to understand why Wikipedia looks the way it looks.

They could have done better.

------
testuser2131
Making content providers liable about the content they publish seems to me
essential to have an healthy internet: I don't understand all the problem
about censorship; Am I missing something?

~~~
koonsolo
You are missing the "user content" part.

If I anonymously upload copyrighted material to YouTube, I can sue YouTube.
Same with Reddit, Facebook, Steam, Kongregate, Pinterest, Imgur, Instagram,
... .

I'm building a platform where anyone can make a game and share it. If someone
names his game "Zelda" or "Tetris", I can get sued. If my competitor uploads
his own material to my site, they can sue me.

Theses platforms should have "automated filters that detect copyrighted
material, and make a distinction between original and parody". If you know of
such system, please tell me.

Staying in Europe with a user content platform makes no sense.

~~~
testuser2131
If the user is anonymous, so as copyright holder, or target of harassment or
whatever I can't know who is the creator of the content, it makes perfectly
sense for me that you, as host of the content are liable of the content
itself. I don't see anything strange about it.

~~~
i_cannot_hack
You own small a grocery store, and as an altruistic service to the community
you provide a public bulletin board at the store entrance. Town residents can
use this to share public messages and advertisements. Someone with no relation
to you anonymously pins a poster with copyrighted images to the bulletin board
at the entrance.

You originally had no idea the images were not the property of the creator of
the poster (how could you?), but as soon as you are made aware of the problem
you remove the poster in a timely manner.

Does it make perfect sense to you that I (owner of the images) can now
successfully sue you (the owner of the store and provider of the bulletin
board service) for copyright infringement, and have you pay damages to me as
compensation for the time the poster was visible at the bulletin board?

More importantly, do you think making the store owner vulnerable to litigation
is 1. in line with how similar laws usually work? 2. a fair administration of
justice? 3. a net benefit to the town and society at large?

------
jhabdas
Re Article 11 foundation states for-profit information aggregators will be
restricted to snippets. This is good for liberating information as it will
help increase the breadth of useful search results for original content.

Re Article 13 and placing increased pressure against the DCMA, you'll probably
stop seeing so many 1080p movies on YouTube (hence NewPipe) when you search
for "x264 YIFY". That sucks.

------
porsager
For anyone in Denmark, here are contact details for the MEPs:

\- Margrete Auken - +4561625450 - margrete.auken@europarl.europa.eu -
[https://twitter.com/MargreteAuken](https://twitter.com/MargreteAuken)

\- Bendt Bendtsen - bb@bendt.dk -
[https://twitter.com/BendtEU](https://twitter.com/BendtEU)

\- Ole Christensen - +4522200830 - ole.christensen@europarl.europa.eu -
[https://twitter.com/oleeu](https://twitter.com/oleeu)

\- Jørn Dohrmann - +4561623349 - jorn.dohrmann@europarl.europa.eu -
[https://twitter.com/mepdohrmann](https://twitter.com/mepdohrmann)

\- Rina Ronja Kari - +4526701816 - rina@folkebevaegelsen.dk -
[https://twitter.com/rinakari](https://twitter.com/rinakari)

\- Rikke-Louise Karlsson - rikke-louise.karlsson@europarl.europa.eu

\- Jeppe Kofod - +3222837463 - Jeppe.Kofod@ep.europa.eu -
[https://twitter.com/jeppekofod](https://twitter.com/jeppekofod)

\- Morten Løkkegaard - +4521608001 - morten.lokkegaard@europarl.europa.eu -
[https://twitter.com/loekkegaard_mep](https://twitter.com/loekkegaard_mep)

\- Morten Messerschmidt - +4561624232 - Morten.Messerschmidt@ft.dk -
[https://twitter.com/MrMesserschmidt](https://twitter.com/MrMesserschmidt)

\- Morten Helveg Petersen - mortenhelveg.petersen@europarl.europa.eu -
[https://twitter.com/mortenhelveg](https://twitter.com/mortenhelveg)

\- Jens Rohde - jens.rohde@europarl.europa.eu -
[https://twitter.com/rohde_jens](https://twitter.com/rohde_jens)

\- Christel Schaldemose - +4540768626 - christel.schaldemose@ep.europa.eu -
[https://twitter.com/schaldemosemep](https://twitter.com/schaldemosemep)

\- Anders Primdahl Vistisen - +4553860080 - anders.vistisen@europarl.europa.eu
- [https://twitter.com/AndersVistisen](https://twitter.com/AndersVistisen)

~~~
bemmu
What specifically should one ask them to vote against? I'm sure they have a
lot on their plate, so what's a good way to make it easy for them to
understand which vote this is about?

~~~
porsager
The new EU copyright directive. Specifically article 11 (link tax) and article
13 (upload filter).

This site explains it well i think: [https://juliareda.eu/2019/02/eu-
copyright-final-text/](https://juliareda.eu/2019/02/eu-copyright-final-text/)

------
josteink
Why only four? We need all of Wikipedia to black out. For everyone.

If you want to raise awareness, why do a half-assed job?

------
snazz
I cannot scroll the white-on-black text at all in MobileSafari. Although I
“should” be using the mobile site, this edge case should still be accounted
for.

------
horriblePun
Surprised not to see the Catalonian Wikipedia on that list.

------
austincheney
tldr; Subcommunities have the flexibility to take independent action regarding
policy position.

No so interesting. I was hoping to get a deeper dive into why they disagree
with the upcoming law.

~~~
cf498
Why they disagree with censorship? Its a great firewall with the enforcement
being pushed to every last person running a website. Its a totalitarian grasp
for the control of the internet as a whole. The protection fee for publishing
houses is just an added bonus for a few corrupt institutions on their
deathbed.

~~~
austincheney
Is enforcing copyright censorship? I am not being antagonistic as I have
actually no idea what is in this new law.

~~~
koonsolo
Let me give you a clear example. Look at this:

Exit light Enter night Take my hand We're off to Never—, Neverland Now I lay
me down to sleep Pray the Lord my soul to keep If I die before I wake Pray the
Lord my soul to take

These are the lyrics of Metallica "Enter Sandman".

YCombinator can now get sued because they didn't filter out my post. They
unlawfully published copyrighted material.

Without this law, I would be liable. With this law, YCombinator is liable too.

~~~
jaifraic
This is false. A13 Chapter 5[1] explicitly allows posts like yours:

 _The cooperation between online content service providers and rightholders
shall not result in the prevention of the availability of works or other
subject matter uploaded by users which do not infringe copyright and related
rights, including where such works or subject matter are covered by an
exception or limitation.

Member States shall ensure that users in all Member States are able to rely on
the following existing exceptions and limitations when uploading and making
available content generated by users on online content sharing services: a)
quotation, criticism, review, b) use for the purpose of caricature, parody or
pastiche._

It would however forbid you to post that lyrics without any commentary or some
sort of relection.

[1]: [https://juliareda.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2019/02/Art_13_unoff...](https://juliareda.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2019/02/Art_13_unofficial.pdf)

~~~
scarejunba
Here are the lyrics to Enter Sandman by Metallica:

Say your prayers, little one Don't forget, my son To include everyone I tuck
you in, warm within Keep you free from sin Until the sandman he comes

[Pre-Chorus] Sleep with one eye open Gripping your pillow tight

[Chorus] Exit light Enter night Take my hand We're off to never never-land

[Verse 2] Something's wrong, shut the light Heavy thoughts tonight And they
aren't of Snow White Dreams of war Dreams of liars Dreams of dragons fire And
of things that will bite, yeah

[Pre-Chorus] Sleep with one eye open Gripping your pillow tight

[Chorus] Exit light Enter night Take my hand We're off to Never Never-land

[Guitar Solo]

[Interlude] Now I lay me down to sleep (Now I lay me down to sleep) Pray the
lord my soul to keep (Pray the lord my soul to keep) And If I die before I
wake (If I die before I wake) Pray the lord my soul to take (Pray the lord my
soul to take)

[Bridge] Hush, little baby, don't say a word And never mind that noise you
heard It's just the beast under your bed In your closet, in your head

[Chorus] Exit light Enter night Grain of sand Exit light Enter night Take my
hand We're off to Never Never-land

[Interlude] Come on people Hey yeah, oh oh yeah

[Outro] We're off to never never-land Take my hand We're off to never never-
land Take my hand We're off to never never-land

------
titanix2
It's good big well known brands like Wikipedia are doing something but seeing
the language list (German, Czech, Slovak, Danish) only German is in the top 3
of languages spoken in EU (except English, which will not count in near future
anyway). There is missing Swedish and French, and given how French are into
protesting, it's sad they didn't join this initiative.

~~~
Arkanosis
“French are into protesting”{{refnec}}

------
black-tea
It must have been ten years ago now that I first listened to Richard
Stallman's talk called "Copyright vs Community". It's a really enlightening
talk and makes it clear how much worse copyright has become over the years. It
makes me incredibly sad to see it now regressing even further.

We're already at a point where copyright severely restricts our ability to
share our own culture. A couple of years ago we lost what was, by far, the
greatest music collection ever put together. Meticulously maintained by people
who love music, but destroyed by people who love money. It pains me that
people can't even put up YouTube videos with certain music in the background.
People can't record their actual lives because parts of their life are owned
by other people.

Copyright belongs in the day of the printing press. It has long out stayed its
welcome.

------
funkythings
The EU started as a union to promote freedom of movement, peace and trade
inside Europe. Since then, it has grown to be an oversized bureaucracy that
restricts the freedoms of European citizens. Everyone who criticize it is
immediately labelled as a right winger.

~~~
jimmy1
I am not sure why you are being down-voted. I know people have a distaste for
political insights in general here, but it seems apt to have comments like
these on an article about protesting a governing body. Why is German Wikipedia
having to have a blackout? They are unhappy with the EU restricting their
freedoms.

~~~
p1necone
I downvoted it because the comment has no substance besides "EU bad". It adds
nothing of value to the discussion.

Explain _why_ the EU is an "oversized bureaucracy".

~~~
ar0
I also don't see the link to the topic at hand: It's not the (debatable)
"oversized bureaucracy" that has drafted and works on passing Article 13: It
is national governments (see the French / German "deal" on this topic) and the
European Parliament (and particularly the EPP) that are the source of Article
13 and the frustration that lead to this blackout.

~~~
sonnyblarney
" It's not the (debatable) "oversized bureaucracy" that has drafted and works
on passing Article 13: "

Article 13 is 100% an EU law.

Pointing to the fact that maybe it's really just in the interest of specific
French and German entities really only serves to highlight possible
existential issues of legitimacy of that body politic.

Also, the fact that Wikipedia and other entities have to take such drastic
action, never before seen, leaves no doubt as to how out of touch and
unrealistic this legislation is.

Together with the $1.5B in fines today, and of course recent special French
taxation legislation intended to get around the fact they view Ireland/Ducth
systems as 'havens' ... well it would seem there are indeed some existential
problems.

A 'winning' position would be to have something like Google based and operated
on the Continent somewhere, generating real returns and exports as well.

All of this is good for discussion, but ultimately they're moves of players
with a weak hand.

If long term conditions were set appropriately, the tables would be turned and
the problem would be Trump threats on imports (as he does with Volkswagen).
Those are 'good problems' to have.

------
MR4D
I think this is great, but I think it would be funnier to just replace all the
words with Klingon. That way, things would look like they work, but upon
closer inspection, not actually work. The effect would be frustration, and
could be made worse if done for a random amount of time.

~~~
MR4D
Whoever voted me down on this should understand the regulation and why my
response was stated as it was. ( for reference, a good critique of the law is
here [0]. )

My main issue is that the offenders are basically no longer really in trouble,
but the networks (google, FB, reddit, et al) now are. (yes, that's a
simplification, but bear with me).

This is akin to punishing the telephone company whenever someone makes a call
on their network as part of a crime.

So, at first glance, everything is normal, until it isn't. Hence my comment
about replacing the text on a page with Klingon instead - it looks fine, right
up until it doesn't. This mirrors the effect of the law - something looks
fine, right up until it's determined to be illegal, and then you are f'ed.

So if you disagree with me, then fine, but at least understand why my comment
is there - it is supposed to be insidious, because the law is insidious.

[0] - [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/02/final-version-eus-
copy...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/02/final-version-eus-copyright-
directive-worst-one-yet)

