Copyright law could put end to net memes

[Carl the Llama]

Scandalous decision with zero popular support. 

[Guest MattP]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yep, it's bloody stupid and I hope it gets fought tooth and nail too.

Hopefully, but I wouldn't hold my breath. The EU is very good at bullying nation states who don't do what they are told, here's the full write up from The Verge.

 

Quote

 

The European Parliament has voted in favor of the Copyright Directive, a controversial piece of legislation intended to update online copyright laws for the internet age.

The directive was originally rejected by MEPs in July following criticism of two key provisions: Articles 11 and 13, dubbed the “link tax” and “upload filter” by critics. However, in parliament this morning, an updated version of the directive was approved, along with amended versions of Articles 11 and 13. The final vote was 438 in favor and 226 against.

The fight is far from finished

The fallout from this decision will be far-reaching, and take a long time to settle. The directive itself still faces a final vote in January 2019 (although experts say it’s unlikely it will be rejected). After that it will need to be implemented by individual EU member states, who could very well vary significantly in how they choose to interpret the directive’s text.

The most important parts of this are Articles 11 and 13. Article 11 is intended to give publishers and papers a way to make money when companies like Google link to their stories, allowing them to demand paid licenses. Article 13 requires certain platforms like YouTube and Facebook stop users sharing unlicensed copyrighted material.

Critics of the Copyright Directive say these provisions are disastrous. In the case of Article 11, they note that attempts to “tax” platforms like Google News for sharing articles have repeatedly failed, and that the system would be ripe to abuse by copyright trolls.

Article 13, they say, is even worse. The legislation requires that platforms proactively work with rightsholders to stop users uploading copyrighted content. The only way to do so would be to scan all data being uploaded to sites like YouTube and Facebook. This would create an incredible burden for small platforms, and could be used as a mechanism for widespread censorship. This is why figures like Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales and World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee came out so strongly against the directive.

The Copyright Directive is set to reshape the internet globally

However, those backing these provisions say the arguments above are the result of scaremongering by big US tech companies, eager to keep control of the web’s biggest platforms. They point to existing laws and amendments to the directive as proof it won’t be abused in this way. These include exemptions for sites like GitHub and Wikipedia from Article 13, and exceptions to the “link tax” that allow for the sharing of mere hyperlinks and “individual words” describing articles without constraint.

In remarks following the vote in Parliament this morning, MEP Axel Voss, who has led the charge on Articles 11 and 13, thanked his fellow politicians “for the job we have done together.” “This is a good sign for the creative industries in Europe,” said Voss. Opposing MEPs like Julia Reda of the Pirate Party described the outcome as “catastrophic.”

Despite these disagreements, what’s clear is that if the Copyright Directive receives final approval by the European Parliament in January, it will have a huge, disruptive impact on the internet, both in the European Union and around the world. Exactly how the legislation will be interpreted will be up to individual nations, but the shift in the balance of power is clear: the web’s biggest tech companies are losing their grip on the internet.

 

 

[Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo]

What about "fair use" etc? For people not making any money from memes, who gives a shit if they don't own the right to the image? It's different if someone is printing shirts and selling them on, or if a website that heavily relies on memes to generate income (Buzzfeed etc), but for day-to-day bullshit, who gives a goatshit?

[davieG]

I don't understand how it helps newspapers etc, I use nnewsnow and that has links to various newspapers which I then visit presumably that impacts positively on their advertising revenue. If the links aren't there then I'm not going to visit them?

[Innovindil]

Utter horseshit decision. By all ****ing means police the internet for pedos and jihadis but this policing uploads for copyright shite can get in the bin. 

 

Imagine if this crap was alive and kicking when the internet was created. There wouldn't be any of the big sites alive now. How on earth do you expect small start ups to make a go of it now. 

[davieG]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-47239600

 

The final version of a controversial new EU copyright law has been agreed after three days of talks in France.

 

Google has been particularly vocal about the proposed law, which it says could "change the web as we know it".

Article 13 of the EU Copyright Directive states services such as YouTube could be held responsible if their users upload copyright-protected movies and music.

In a few weeks, MEPs will vote to decide whether it becomes law.

The EU last introduced new copyright laws in 2001. The EU says it wants to make "copyright rules fit for the digital era", but not everyone agrees with the proposed changes.

If the UK leaves the EU with a deal, and the directive becomes law, it would apply to the UK during any transition period.

What is Article 13?
Article 13 is the part of the new EU Copyright Directive that covers how "online content sharing services" should deal with copyright-protected content, such as television programmes and movies.

It refers to services that primarily exist to give the public access to "protected works or other protected subject-matter uploaded by its users", so it is likely to cover services such as YouTube, Dailymotion and Soundcloud.

However, there is also a long list of exemptions, including:

non-profit online encyclopaedias
open source software development platforms
cloud storage services
online marketplaces
communication services
What does Article 13 say?
Article 13 says content-sharing services must license copyright-protected material from the rights holders.

If that is not possible and material is posted on the service, the company may be held liable unless it can demonstrate:

it made "best efforts" to get permission from the copyright holder
it made "best efforts" to ensure that material specified by rights holders was not made available
it acted quickly to remove any infringing material of which it was made aware
These rules apply to services that have been available in the EU for more than three years, or have an annual turnover of more than €10m (£8.8m, $11.2m).

Article 13 says it shall "in no way affect legitimate uses" and people will be allowed to use bits of copyright-protected material for the purpose of criticism, review, parody and pastiche.