SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
European Parliament backs copyright changes
Controversial new copyright laws have been approved by members of the European Parliament. The legislation had been changed since July when the first version of the copyright directive was voted down. Critics say it remains problematic. Many musicians and creators claim the reforms are necessary to fairly compensate artists. But opponents fear that the plans could destroy user-generated content, memes and parodies.
Are EU citizens ready for the link tax and upload filter?
Also at Polygon.
[Ed addition] Since this story was submitted, Ars Technica posted a story that delves into some of the implications of the new legislation; What's in the sweeping copyright bill just passed by the European Parliament:
The legislation makes online platforms like Google and Facebook directly liable for content uploaded by their users and mandates greater "cooperation" with copyright holders to police the uploading of infringing works. It also gives news publishers a new, special right to restrict how their stories are featured by news aggregators such as Google News. And it creates a new right for sports teams that could limit the ability of fans to share images and videos online.
Today's vote was not the end of Europe's copyright fight. Under the European Union's convoluted process for approving legislation, the proposal will now become the subject of a three-way negotiation involving the European Parliament, the Council of the Europe Union (representing national governments), and the European Commission (the EU's executive branch). If those three bodies agree to a final directive, then it will be sent to each of the 28 EU member countries (or more likely 27 thanks to Brexit) for implementation in national laws.
That means that European voters who are concerned—or excited—about this legislation still have a few more months to contact their representatives, both within their national governments and in the European Parliament.
[...] The legislation avoids mentioning any specific technological approach to policing online infringement, allowing supporters to plausibly claim that this is not a filtering mandate. Yet it seems pretty clear what this will mean in practice. Big content producers want to see YouTube beef up its Content ID filtering technology—and for other online platforms to adopt similar strategies. Shifting liability for infringement from users to the platforms themselves will give content companies a lot of leverage to get what they want here.
[...] Balancing fairness to content creators against fairness to users is inherently tricky. Rather than trying to address the issue directly, the European Parliament is simply pushing the issue down to the national level, letting governments in Germany, France, Poland, and other European governments figure out the messy details.
[...] In addition to approving new rights for news publishers, the legislation also narrowly approved a new copyright for the organizers of sports teams. Copyright law already gives teams the ability to sell television rights for their games, but fans have traditionally been free to take pictures or personal videos and share them online. The new legislation could give sports teams ownership of all images and video from their games, regardless of who took them and how they are shared.
Antiterrorist Censorship: The EU Commission Wants to Kill the Decentralized Internet
This morning, as everybody was looking at the Copyright Directive adoption, the EU Commission released a proposal for a Regulation on the censorship of terrorist propaganda.
This proposal would impose new obligations to hosting service providers, including the removal in less than an hour of the reported content. This proposal trivializes police and private censorship as well as the circumvention of justice. Automated filters, which play a crucial role in the debate for the Copyright Directive, are being held as a key component for the censorship in the digital era.
I thought this article from The Register was interesting; making out that the opposition to Article 13 is dominated by astroturfing led principally by Google.
Article 13 pits Big Tech and bots against European creatives by Andrew Orlowski
Today's vote on Article 13 of the EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market in European Parliament has turned into a knife-edge referendum on whether European institutions can deal with Californian exceptionalism.
[...] The tweaks to copyright liability in Article 13 before MEPs this week have narrowed after months of horsetrading in Brussels – and they don't name names, but they're really about one company and the unique legal benefits it enjoys. That company is Google, and the perks arise from the special conditions attached to UGC [User Generated Comments] that YouTube hosts, which were originally designed for services such as cloud storage.
[...] The battle of Article 13 is remarkable for revealing two things: the extent of US technology lobbying networks in Europe, and the use of tools of automated consensus generation [...] Around 60,000 emails were received by each MEP in the build up to the June vote, while Twitter engagement appeared to be high. [...] But "What looked like grassroots movement from the outside was in fact a classic form of astroturfing – designed to create the appearance of a popular movement," [German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung's Volker] Reick said.
Previously: How The EU May Be About To Kill The Public Domain: Copyright Filters Takedown Beethoven
Original Submission #1 Original Submission #2 Original Submission #3
(Score: 5, Insightful) by canopic jug on Thursday September 13 2018, @05:44AM (3 children)
The European Parliament really rubbed citizens' noses in the fact that their representitives are not going to represent them. You can read the EU Parliament's press release, Parliament adopts its position on digital copyright rules [europa.eu], which is full of corporate lobbyist spin and vocabulary. The lobbyists wrote the legistlation. They seem to have written the press release as well.
The list of good and bad votes will soon be public. On the good side of the Parliament, MEP Julia Reda provides a brief summary of the situation and a bloc-level view of who voted which way [juliareda.eu]. Apparently the right (SD) and far right (EPP + ECR) were instrumental in pushing the giant mess through 438 to 226. The politicians' collective lack of how technology and, especially, the Internet work is starting to kill us. We've moved to a situation where the world depends on the Internet in general and the WWW in particular in such a way that in many cases it is not feasible to roll back, yet now they pulled the plug on the WWW . So this is a move that can't end well.
It is shocking and unacceptable that people don't know the fundamentals of the infrastructure running their society. However, it is all but impossible to learn because M$ has displaced all such possible courses and degree programmes with marketering and politics. So unless the politicians find a was to learn on their own they have no opportunity to learn. It's the same for anyone else, including future politicians. Looking around, those that know technology all seem to be self-taught even if they did pick up some material in school. That's not sustainable over time.
The directive comes up for a final vote (rubberstamp) right before next year’s European elections.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 13 2018, @08:31AM
EU elections are next year. So how pathetic it is that people think these elections don't count - EU elections are very important. Vote accordingly, or you'll be stuck with Nazis fascists in EU thanks to Hungary and related scaremongering propaganda about refugees just so they can grab more money for you for their own corrupt asses.
If we in EU are not careful, we'll become as fucked up as Putin's Russia.
(Score: 2) by quietus on Thursday September 13 2018, @08:16PM
These are strong words. Can you tell me where I can find the corporate lobbying and spin in this text?
(Score: 2) by quietus on Thursday September 13 2018, @08:22PM
Can you explain how, exactly, the plug was pulled on the WWW?
I'm honestly interested, as you don't seem to be one of those guys who thinks Facebook is the Internet. And what has Microsoft to do with all this, really?