> An error rate of even one percent will still mean tens of millions of acts of arbitrary censorship, every day.
And a redundant -- positively defiant -- link and page title:
"Today, Europe Lost The Internet. Now, We Fight Back."
Firms with 50 or less employees should stay that small, really.
VPN providers in North and South America FTW.
Platforms are expected not only to avoid taking down the wrong content, but they are obligated to have stuff (not computers) that rapidly examine any complaints about unlawful take-downs and re-instate the content.
That doesn't change the fact that the upload filter in particular is something that even Google can't seem to get right, so it's highly questionable what they really expect from this.
Of course, I understand there are many ways this could go wrong. Law most of the time plays catch-up...
That is a bit much, it is not close to becoming a regulation yet. True, the EU Parliament could have stopped this regulation. However now it moves on to the national governments to be argued over.
This Directive, once approved by EU parliament in the spring (this is just rubber-stamping, it extremely rarely goes the other way), member states will be required to implement the directive. That too is just rubber-stamping at the nation level: there’s sometimes some wiggle room in phrasing and details, but everything the directive clearly spells out has to be implement exactly that way.
The European Parliament may approve or reject a legislative proposal, or propose amendments to it. The Council is not legally obliged to take account of Parliament’s opinion but in line with the case-law of the Court of Justice, it must not take a decision without having received it.
Interestingly the one who spearheaded article 11 and 13 - Axel Voss - is a german CDU politician. Preach water and drink wine?
It will happen what always happens: they tell you that they are against it, but were obligated by the EU to pass such a national law.
Anecdotally, I don't know anyone personally who thinks this is a good thing.
I do however know many that are in great approval of GDPR (as I am).
Anecdotally, I don't know anyone personally who's actually paid any amount of attention to the details of this.
Article 13 will affect the entire Internet, not just people in Europe. Most people on the Internet use large, multinational platforms. Those platforms will set rules according to the lowest common denominator, because it's the easiest to implement.
This means that people all over the world are going to have a much more difficult time with any user-generated content. That's true even for user-created content, even if there is no other copyright holder involved (look at how badly Content ID has played out).
The harms to Freedom of Speech -- i.e. impossible 99% accuracy in content filtering still results in far too much censorship --
so significantly outweigh the benefits for a limited number of special interests intending to thwart inferior American information services which also currently host "art" and content pertaining to the "useful arts"; that it's hard to believe this new policy will have it's intended effects.
Haven't there been multiple studies which show that free marketing from e.g. content piracy -- people who experience and recommended said goods at $0 -- is actually a net positive for the large corporate entertainment industry? That, unimpeded, content spreads like the common cold through word of mouth; resulting in greater number of artful impressions.
For countries in the EU with less than 300 million voters, if you want:
- time for your headline: $
- time for your snippet: $$
- time for your og:description: $$
- free video hosting: $$$
- video revenue: $$$$
- < 30% American content: $$$$$
Pay your bill.
And what of academic article aggregators? Can they still index schema:ScholarlyArticle titles and provide a value-added information service for science?
> In his speech, Khrushchev promised that communism will be built "in the main" by 1980. His phrase "The current generation of Soviet people will live under communism" was the final phrase of the new Program of the CPSU adopted at the congress.
> The latter political slogan is attributed to Kremlin speechwriter Elizar Kuskov, who allegedly quipped "this slogan will survive centuries".
The Affordable Care Act and Family Medical Leave Act both kick in at 50.
This new Copyright Directive seems to be an accident in the opposite direction, with Axel Voss as rapporteur.
It's not an accident. Look who will profit from the link tax the most... the Axel Springer Verlag, owner of many large publications in Germany, especially the tabloid BILD. The boss of ASV is Friede Springer... who happens to be good friends with Chancellor Angela Merkel. Axel Voss is in the same party (CDU). Now add in that for a very long time the BILD was considered to be the "inofficial voice" of the CDU/CSU (the refugee influx changed that a bit, as BILD heavily went down the racist route and attacking Merkel's refugee politics but still, the paper is leaning heavily conservative).
Sascha Lobo, German journalist for SPIEGEL, has outlined the entire stuff here (in German, though): http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzpolitik/leistungsschutzre...
If it’s “racist” to debate that, then racism as a word has lost all meaning. If anything Syrian refugees have been granted greater privileges than Bosnian-Serbs. It would seem that policy could, be considered racist. Folks have bent over backwards to be as “unracist” as possible and thus, bad policy has happened because any debate on the topic is automatically shut down as racism. You can’t have a legitimate policy debate without being called a racist anymore.
The narrative pushed by BILD was that for anything from antisemitism over rising housing costs to "rises" in criminality was caused by refugees (and refugees alone, never mind still dominant Nazi antisemitism, capitalism and fabricated statistics), that refugees are dangerous, that Islam is dangerous and other stuff that basically echoed what the local right-wing extremist party AfD also said.
It's perfectly valid to debate refugee (or other) politics, but if one crosses that thin line of feeding the population outright lies or incite hatred, one deserves to be called a racist hate monger.
There is nothing wrong in calling out the bullshit represented in certain Islamic groups (e.g. Salafism or Wahhabism).
What BILD (and a boatload of other racist outlets) do, however, is throwing all the millions of Turks, the refugees and other Muslims in Germany, in the same boat as ISIS, Saudi-Arabia and al-Quaeda. This is the hate mongering that's really dangerous for societies.
It promotes apathy.
Because my browser rejects all third-party cookies (obviously), they keep losing these preferences and I have to keep telling them that I don't want these cookies.
The newspaper, sporting event, TV, and movie library companies went to their buddies at the EU and got GDPR passed which banned modern adtech under the guise of privacy and data nationalism. Now they've changed copyright law to place restrictions on social, search, and aggregators.
Might as well call it the FIFA Fucks FAANG Act of 2018.
Agreed, though I could really have done without every damn site having an extra popup that gives me a choice that isn't a choice...click accept.
It's not "blackmailing" and it's not "forcing your consent." The EU looks like it's turning more and more into a non-free regime. And your comment, among many others, signals that it's exactly what many Europeans want. Which is sad.
That would be a violation of the GDPR, this is the site owners actively ignoring the rule and just being a dick.
Also, since opting-out has to be as easy as opting-in those popups should be displayed on every page view after you've accepted.
I would not want to be a member state of an organization that thinks this is remotely ok either.
If rolling strikes on national infrastructure and marches in the streets won't do it, where next?
I assumed that MEPs from the UK represent the UK. Isn't that the case?
I don't think this changes the fact that UK people voted those MPs and they are expecting to be represented by them in the EU Parliament and vote on laws(i.e. this law) on their behalf.
I am hugely pro-european but things like this make me despair.
I don't know whether those responsible for creating it did so on purpose, or by incompetence.
The problem is, in countries like France, EVERY elected official (and EVERY political candidate) is in favor of this, and the public doesn't seem to care at all...
Hysterics are always directed towards America, but time and time again it is Europe that falls flat on its face.
Trade our shitty copyright for your shitty healthcare. :)
Reporters Without Borders had a nice write-up about it.
For some odd reason, we think that europe ( which gave us nazism, fascism and communism ) is some bastion of freedom. It's not. It's never been. And it looks like it never will be.
It's not europe catching up to russia, china or turkey when it comes to censorship or surveillance. It's actually russia, china and turkey catching up to europe.
Additionaly there is also this picture from Julia Reda: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dm5kGq5X0AANQZs.jpg
Doesn't sound so bad...
They are just ignorant of all the fallout and they care much more about, that this is directed against the "tech-giants", who happen to be mostly US companys.
"We maybe cannot compete on internet technology, but we can regulate you".
Plus, there is also allmost a economy war going on right now ...
And of course to set up censorship in general.
To start to fight hate speech, fake news, terror propaganda ... and whatever else might be inconvinient.
Btw, there are plenty of steps after the EU parliament before this becomes law.
I think "stupid" is a fairly reasonable appraisal.
This is what it’s really about. They’re trying to ram through legislation that requires content providers to remove “extremist content” (as defined by our benevolent overlords) within an hour:
two words, one similar meaning
Ignorant of some negative sides when you want something else is not necessarily stupid.
As to the content of this article:
> Article 13: the Copyright Filters. All but the smallest platforms will have to defensively adopt copyright filters that examine everything you post and censor anything judged to be a copyright infringement.
It's worth to mention what is smallest.
Annex to Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC Article 2.2 states:
Within the SME category, a small enterprise is defined as an enterprise which employs fewer than 50 persons and
whose annual turnover and/or annual balance sheet total does not exceed EUR 10 million. 
They will not censor anything that is not copyrighted material and you have right to dispute that censoring (it's also in article 13) in case you have copyright to material posted/it's not copyrighted material. In which case they can't stop you posting that based on this law.
Any action taken by platforms to check that uploads do not breach copyright rules must be designed in such a way as to avoid catching non-infringing works. As stated in
Article 13.2a: Member States shall provide that where right holders do not wish to conclude licensing agreements, online content sharing service providers and right holders shall cooperate in good faith in order to ensure that unauthorised protected works or other subject matter are not available on their services. Cooperation between online content service providers and right holders shall not lead to preventing the availability of non-infringing works or other protected subject matter, including those covered by an exception or limitation to copyright. 
These platforms will moreover be required to establish rapid redress systems (operated by the platform’s staff, not algorithms) through which complaints can be lodged when an upload is wrongly taken down.
As stated in article 13.2b: Members States shall ensure that online content sharing service providers referred to in paragraph 1 put in place effective and expeditious complaints and redress mechanisms that are available to users in case the cooperation referred to in paragraph 2a leads to unjustified removals of their content. Any complaint filed under such mechanisms shall be processed without undue delay and be subject to human review. Right holders shall reasonably justify their decisions to avoid arbitrary dismissal of complaints. Moreover, in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC, Directive 2002/58/EC and the General Data Protection Regulation, the cooperation shall not lead to any identification of individual users nor the processing of their personal data. Member States shall also ensure that users have access to an independent body for the resolution of disputes as well as to a court or another relevant judicial authority to assert the use of an exception or limitation to copyright rules 
> Article 11: Linking to the news using more than one word from the article is prohibited unless you're using a service that bought a license from the news site you want to link to.
This is wrong unless you make money of what you do, which point 1a clearly states:
Article 11.1a: The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall not prevent legitimate private and non-commercial use of press publications by individual users. 
Additionally if you make money of it you can link to the article and include individual words:
Article 11.2a: The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall not extend to mere hyperlinks which are accompanied by individual words. 
> Article 12a: No posting your own photos or videos of sports matches. Only the "organisers" of sports matches will have the right to publicly post any kind of record of the match. No posting your selfies, or short videos of exciting plays. You are the audience, your job is to sit where you're told, passively watch the game and go home.
You know that exactly the same law applies to artists on concerts? You can legally record that and make selfies for your personal use but you can't share recordings publicly without consent? Most artists/copyright holders ignore that, this is why you see recordings on social media, youtube etc. But if they wanted to they could sue you.
But sports at the moment is different. Some EU countries introduce protection of sports events on national level but not all.
Look at ECJ (European Court of Justice) decision in Premier League v QC Leisure  in which court stated that sports events as such (notably football games) do not qualify as protected subject matter under EU copyright law. The Court explained that in order to be classified as a “work of authorship” the subject-matter concerned would have to be original in the sense of the author’s own intellectual creation. However, sporting events cannot be regarded as intellectual creations within the meaning of the EU Information Society Directive. This applies in particular to football matches, which are subject to rules of the game which leave no room for creative expressive freedom. The Court went even further and stated that sports events are not protected by European Union law on any other basis in the field of intellectual property, excluding therefore neighbouring or related rights to copyright (including database suigeneris rights) as well. 
Terms and conditions of access attached to sport event tickets have nowadays developed into quite lengthy lists of contractual obligations, which can vary depending on the type of event and on its commercial relevance. By way of illustration, together with the prohibition to carry into the stadium items considered dangerous or otherwise inappropriate, the use of recording and broadcasting equipment, the unauthorized transmission and/or recording
through mobile phones or other recording devices, and sometimes even flash photography are explicitly forbidden. These rules are purely contractual. Therefore, in the case in which a spectator has, without authorization, succeeded in recording the match on a personal device such as a smartphone and has uploaded the video on an online platform, a third party acting in good faith (such as the online platform) will not be bound by that contractual agreement. It follows that the platform operator, as well as any other third party,
cannot be forced merely on this contractual basis to take down the content from the platform. Whereas it has been argued that amateur recordings do not really pose serious commercial threats to sports organisers (and in any case they still represent a breach of contract), the gap in the “house right” based legal protection of sports organisers is in the absence of third-party effects. 
This is the reason why article 12.a was introduced, not someone personal selfies. Context is really important when commenting on law.
 403/08 and 429/08 Football Association Premier League Ltd and others v QC Leisure and others and Karen Murphy v
Media Protection Services Ltd (2011) ECR-I-9083.
 Margoni, T. (2016) The protection of sports events in the EU: Property,intellectual property, unfair competition and special forms of protection.
What if someone write app that rewrite article using most common synonyms not present in the article?
That's the benefit of a working democracy where decisions are taken within the reach of the people.
When legislation like this is steamrollered through the EU, it's obvious that resistance is futile.
The narrative funded through GOOGL (and its affiliate EFF) and other big platforms is that this is evil doing of big content distribution monopolies.
What is missing in this picture is that this Directive gives affordable enforcement muscle to all content producers, including the smallest ones.
This Directive is the death knell for these platforms, which peddle content produced by 'nobodies' (their users) without any remuneration. There is nothing natural, just or given about it.