E.U.'s Articles 11 and 13 Copyright Directive Survive and Head For E.U. Parliament Approval

[engine]

The E.U.'s Copyright Directive, including the controversial Articles 11 and 13, have reached a new point where they are headed for E.U. Parliament approval sometime in March or April.

There was some hope that there would be some form of compromise, which surfaced in January, but that has now been resolved without any significant change.

In effect, the two article have been dubbed the link tax and and the upload filter.

Under the new rules, Google and other online platforms will have to sign licensing agreements with rights holders such as musicians, performers, authors, news publishers and journalists to use their work online.

Google’s YouTube and Facebook’s Instagram and other sharing platforms will be required to install upload filters to prevent users from uploading copyrighted materials.

[reuters.com...]

Earlier stories
E.U.'s Copyright Update Articles 11 and 13 Under Threat [webmasterworld.com]
YouTube's CEO, Susan Wojcicki: E.U. Article 13 Threatens Creativity [webmasterworld.com]
E.U. Parliament Approve New Copyright Changes, Article 11 and 13 [webmasterworld.com]

[graeme_p]

No one seems to want the laws in their current form, not even the copyright industry groups who lobbied for it in the first place.

So what is keeping it going? Is just in the machinery so keeps going? Do the politics favour a compromise no one is happy with?

[tangor]

The licensing side (and the revenues it will generate) are one thing. The potential fines for infringement (and government control over content ... such as political memes) is very attractive for centralized control.

[archiweb]

I am more than fine with the new Copyright Directive and I believe every author should be treated with respect.
The actual text of the Copyright Directive contradicts all the FUD that is spread around by Google and rest of the leeches - way too many to list them all.

[graeme_p]

If you are fine with it you probably do not understand it. It effectively mandates automatic filters, and removes fair use/fair dealing with regard to new.

Even the people who originally lobbied for it agree it is bad.

[glitterball]

I am more than fine with the new Copyright Directive and I believe every author should be treated with respect.
The actual text of the Copyright Directive contradicts all the FUD that is spread around by Google and rest of the leeches - way too many to list them all.

I couldn't agree more.

If you are fine with it you probably do not understand it. It effectively mandates automatic filters, and removes fair use/fair dealing with regard to new.

Fair Use has become little more than a safe haven for parasites. To my mind, 'Fair Use' should be when something is used because it is genuinely in the public interest: e.g. when an image of a product needs to be reproduced in the media because that product may be contaminated and there is a product recall. I.e. There is a public health risk.
On the other hand, channels that re-hash 'This Week's Top Ten Viral Videos' are nothing more than parasite scum and these channels need to die.

It has become the norm that YouTube Channels/Facebook pages and Instagram channels that do little more than steal and re-hash real creator's images and videos become much more successful than those that actually write the music/take the landscape photos or create the original videos. If anything those platforms favour this type of theft over the actual creators.

Unfortunately I come across this type of thing all the time - about a month ago I discovered a facebook page with about 10x my following that was composed entirely of my YouTube videos (with the soundtracks replaced by copyright music). Two months ago I found an Estate Agent in Italy that had stolen one of images for their homepage. Last week, a politician using one of my images in a campaign. Don't even get me started on Instagram.

One reason why we need this legislation in Europe is because it is virtually impossible to pursue small copyright claims across-borders: you can do it, but you will need very deep pockets and you will not find any no-win, no fee lawyers. There is also no equivalent of statutory damages based on works registered with the library of congress - and I don't see how this could be introduced given the diverse legal systems in Europe.

[mack]

I tend to agree that the fair use clause has been abused way beyond what it was originally intended for. Take reaction videos that are all over YouTube. Do they serve a meaningful purpose? Yet the uploaders are very often monetized and generate revenue from them. If they have the copyright owners permission that fair enough, if not I view it as nothing more than leaching off someone else's work.

YouTube has a lot to lose from article 13, hence the reason that are so against it. If article 13 is passed they will be accountable for what is hosted on their servers. They have been getting away with so-called "safe harbour" for way too long.

Mack.

[tangor]

@mack ... very true. There is a not-so-fine point on fair use for the purpose of scholarly report, parody, and derivative works. As always, the human critter will eventually fail to be on their honor and will gleefully seek to deceive, take, convert, or USE the work of others for personal gain. So that part of the EU proposition I agree with. What I do not agree with is forcing private third parties to enforce that paradigm out of their own pockets and at their own risk, becoming ipso facto protectors of copyright---thus turning long established copyright law on its head. Copyright protection originally (and still does) fell upon the copyright holder to protect their product. This new-fangled version forces EVERYONE ELSE to protect the copyright holder!

Guess who gets to keep their money as regards lawsuits to protect copyright and guess who now has to deal with money if they screw up failing to protect a third party's copyright?

[IanKelley]

One point that hasn't been mentioned in this thread is that putting the onus on content providers will be troublesome for the Googles and Facebooks of the world, something they can afford to deal with if they choose to... but it will be prohibitive for innovators outside of the giant internet companies.

Thus consolidating power further and limiting or crippling future game changers who don't have large financial backers.

It also (provided the rest of the world accepts it as happened with the EU's recent privacy laws) supports the precedent that the EU is the de facto authority on internet legislation.

It may be time for the rest of the world to consider that a governing body which has shown repeatedly that they either don't understand the internet, or do and want to turn it into something else, is not who we want in charge of it.

[graeme_p]

Ian, that is the central point of objections from people like the Open Rights Group.

The other thing is that, for just this reason, the companies that originally asked for this legislation are now opposed to it.

[archiweb]

Well, the free ride provided by 47 U.S.C. § 230 and other such loopholes is pretty much over.
Wanna host user-generated content? Gonna cost you!
If you got your own domain and webserver and you are the IP holder... then you will be fine.
Whats so fuzzy about this jazz?

EU's recent privacy laws?
Let's get real, GDPR was two decades too late.
The big offenders will start feeling some real heat this year.
Then again, the 99% of the sites, including webmasterworld.com are not GDPR-compliant.
Wanna load sniffers from Google, a thing or two from PayPal or rely on CloudFlare, etc; and you've got site visitors/users who are citizens of EU? You ought to face the music at some point!

Last but not least, the ePrivacy is coming.
If GDPR and the Copyright Directive feels way uphill... then better get your act together or deal with the consequences?

[tangor]

@archiweb ... glad to have you at Webmasterworld!

The EU stuff will be a pain ... for those that do biz n the EU. I doubt that other sovereign nations are interested in having their copyright laws flouted by EU directions. We'll have to see how this shakes out.