Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

EU Copyright Directive Passes; "Terrorist Content" Regulation Proposed; Astroturfing?

posted by martyb on Wednesday September 12 2018, @06:54PM   Printer-friendly
from the Get-a-Load-of-EU dept.

An Anonymous Coward writes:

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.

An Anonymous Coward writes in with news of another EU proposal, which may have an even greater impact than the Copyright Directive:

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.

PiMuNu writes:

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

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
EU Copyright Directive Passes; "Terrorist Content" Regulation Proposed; Astroturfing? | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 84 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by quietus on Thursday September 13 2018, @04:22PM

    by quietus (6328) on Thursday September 13 2018, @04:22PM (#734309) Journal
    The following article is the famous 'link tax' referred to in the pieces who claim to fight for a free Internet, freedom of expression and so on (source linky [europa.eu]).

    Article 11
    Protection of press publications concerning digital uses

    1.Member States shall provide publishers of press publications with the rights provided for in Article 2 and Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC for the digital use of their press publications.

    2.The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall leave intact and shall in no way affect any rights provided for in Union law to authors and other rightholders, in respect of the works and other subject-matter incorporated in a press publication. Such rights may not be invoked against those authors and other rightholders and, in particular, may not deprive them of their right to exploit their works and other subject-matter independently from the press publication in which they are incorporated.

    3.Articles 5 to 8 of Directive 2001/29/EC and Directive 2012/28/EU shall apply mutatis mutandis in respect of the rights referred to in paragraph 1.

    4.The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall expire 20 years after the publication of the press publication. This term shall be calculated from the first day of January of the year following the date of publication.

    Following are Article 2 and 3 of the first directive referred to (again: linky [europa.eu]):

    RIGHTS AND EXCEPTIONS

    Article 2

    Reproduction right

    Member States shall provide for the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit direct or indirect, temporary or permanent reproduction by any means and in any form, in whole or in part:

    (a) for authors, of their works;

    (b) for performers, of fixations of their performances;

    (c) for phonogram producers, of their phonograms;

    (d) for the producers of the first fixations of films, in respect of the original and copies of their films;

    (e) for broadcasting organisations, of fixations of their broadcasts, whether those broadcasts are transmitted by wire or over the air, including by cable or satellite.

    Article 3

    Right of communication to the public of works and right of making available to the public other subject-matter

    1. Member States shall provide authors with the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit any communication to the public of their works, by wire or wireless means, including the making available to the public of their works in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.

    2. Member States shall provide for the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit the making available to the public, by wire or wireless means, in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them:

    (a) for performers, of fixations of their performances;

    (b) for phonogram producers, of their phonograms;

    (c) for the producers of the first fixations of films, of the original and copies of their films;

    (d) for broadcasting organisations, of fixations of their broadcasts, whether these broadcasts are transmitted by wire or over the air, including by cable or satellite.

    3. The rights referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not be exhausted by any act of communication to the public or making available to the public as set out in this Article.

    You can read the other referred articles 5 to 8 in that same link; simply note that that directive is in force since 2001/2, and nobody has taken down the Internet yet.

    I've written [soylentnews.org] in previous post(s) that there's an astroturfing campaign going on to torpedo the proposed directive: the one actor I identified there was Europe's largest publisher of magazines and books, Axel Springer SA. In that specific case, Axel Springer SA used politico.com/.eu to present this directive as an attack on civil liberties and so on (without ever mentioning their own name, ofcourse -- it just happens to be that they own the place). Other players identified by the Financial Times (e.g. 1 [ft.com], 2 [ft.com], 3 [ft.com] and so on) are Google, Apple, Facebook, with support of wikipedia's Jimmy Wales and the Mozilla Foundation, just to name the most prominent luminaries. Google is the most prominent of them, and does not shy away of using abrupt arm-twisting techniques [ft.com].

    Some (readily available) insight into the reasoning behind their actions can be found in this El Reg article: Article 13 pits Big Tech and bots against European creatives [theregister.co.uk].

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2