EU Article 13 Copyright proposal discussion thread

[Freezic Vast]

Or maybe the internet is blowing this all out of proportion like they always do when the status quo is being changed. It's basically the argument of "I don't want change, everything has to be the same" crying narrative that people like Flutters keep spewing, with the same cognitive bias every time, regardless of everything else. This vote could very well not pass, and I for one am positive it won't and if it does, then oh well, sucks to be a European then.

[Vassenor]

But one of them is an MEP and so is apparently infallible.

Just like Tumbler is infallible, huh?

Anyway I'm not getting these from blogs. Stop dismissing anything not from the corporate media as just blogs.

>Not from corporate media

Here's a list of all the outlets published by the same corporation as your OP source. Looks pretty corporate media to me.

[The Flutterlands]

Just like Tumbler is infallible, huh?

Anyway I'm not getting these from blogs. Stop dismissing anything not from the corporate media as just blogs.

>Not from corporate media

Here's a list of all the outlets published by the same corporation as your OP source. Looks pretty corporate media to me.

Regardless. Those are not blogs but actual news sites.

Also, the EU is basically giving more ammunition to those who want to see the thing get dissolved. I would if that gets passed.

[-Ocelot-]

If that's true then how will they implement it? It sounds impossible since it prevents anything from working properly.

Except for the big main stream media companies that can afford it while everyone else cant. This effectively puts control of information back in the hands of old big media companies while killing off alternate news sites and smaller competitors. My cynical side tells me that is a feature, not a bug. With the lost of net neutrality and now this shit, the oligarchs must be trying to fight back against us who are abandoning them.

But if this happens, many people still stop using or trusting the internet. Sounds like a lose-lose scenario to me.

[The Flutterlands]

Except for the big main stream media companies that can afford it while everyone else cant. This effectively puts control of information back in the hands of old big media companies while killing off alternate news sites and smaller competitors. My cynical side tells me that is a feature, not a bug. With the lost of net neutrality and now this shit, the oligarchs must be trying to fight back against us who are abandoning them.

But if this happens, many people still stop using or trusting the internet. Sounds like a lose-lose scenario to me.

Well that is the irony of it. This law targets social media platforms, most of which are located in America. However, websites like Google and Twitter, American companies, could just choose not serve countries in the EU. So really the European Union is shooting itself in the foot really.

[Novum Texas]

inb4 Europe has a war over memes

[The Flutterlands]

inb4 Europe has a war over memes

Actually more like "inb4 Europe gets isolated from the whole internet due to it's bullshit copyright laws no sane social media platform would want to follow."

[Vassenor]

inb4 Europe has a war over memes

Actually more like "inb4 Europe gets isolated from the whole internet due to it's bullshit copyright laws no sane social media platform would want to follow."

Or it turns out to not actually be as cataclysmic as everyone keeps screaming that it will be.

[Proctopeo]

You do realise this is an alt-right hoax, right?

I'll write a Blogspot post explaining why the linked Tumblr post is actually a hoax created by the European Union to try and distract from the realities.

[Ethel mermania]

Actually more like "inb4 Europe gets isolated from the whole internet due to it's bullshit copyright laws no sane social media platform would want to follow."

Or it turns out to not actually be as cataclysmic as everyone keeps screaming that it will be.

If you like search engines to point to news articles with a summary, it is.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

But if this happens, many people still stop using or trusting the internet. Sounds like a lose-lose scenario to me.

Well that is the irony of it. This law targets social media platforms, most of which are located in America. However, websites like Google and Twitter, American companies, could just choose not serve countries in the EU. So really the European Union is shooting itself in the foot really.

They won't though, just like they don't with China.

[Vassenor]

Well that is the irony of it. This law targets social media platforms, most of which are located in America. However, websites like Google and Twitter, American companies, could just choose not serve countries in the EU. So really the European Union is shooting itself in the foot really.

They won't though, just like they don't with China.

Are you suggesting that corporations won't simply cut themselves out of large profitable markets because the internet demands they do?

[Thermodolia]

inb4 Europe has a war over memes

Actually more like "inb4 Europe gets isolated from the whole internet due to it's bullshit copyright laws no sane social media platform would want to follow."

It’s this the 2345th time you’ve claimed that, “such and such is going to destroy Internet”. It’s getting old.

Tbh there’s not much difference between you and the guy who stands on the street corner yelling about the end of the world

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

They won't though, just like they don't with China.

Are you suggesting that corporations won't simply cut themselves out of large profitable markets because the internet demands they do?

Yes. Yes I am.

[The Flutterlands]

Well that is the irony of it. This law targets social media platforms, most of which are located in America. However, websites like Google and Twitter, American companies, could just choose not serve countries in the EU. So really the European Union is shooting itself in the foot really.

They won't though, just like they don't with China.

China doesn't do link tax though and have insane Copyright laws that keep stiff getting on the web in the first place. They just censure shit that they don't like.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

They won't though, just like they don't with China.

China doesn't do link tax though and have insane Copyright laws that keep stiff getting on the web in the first place. They just censure shit that they don't like.

And you think that will make the difference do you?

[The Flutterlands]

China doesn't do link tax though and have insane Copyright laws that keep stiff getting on the web in the first place. They just censure shit that they don't like.

And you think that will make the difference do you?

Do you really think Google will give up it's search engine? Or better yet, everything will pretty much be "This content is not available in your country".

[Estado Novo Portugues]

Oh God, what's next? Requiring all web users to register with government censors so they can be tracked easier if they say something that ruffles oligarch feathers?

If this law passes, European websites should move their servers to Belarus – if they won't listen to the EU on abolishing death penalty, they sure won't listen for something like this.

[Valrifell]

Memes are fucking annoying anyway.

[Tybra]

The intend of the article is actually quite good. It seeks to address a 'value imbalance' between copyright holders and hosting services. According to the EU, currently when a user uses a hosting service to share copyrighted material the hosting site profits off of the use of its sharing service while the copyright holder doesn't earn a profit. This directive seeks to redress this imbalance. I can admire the intend, but the execution is awful.

The problem with the article is that it both unclear and goes against existing practices, technical capabilities, other EU directives, the European Charter of Human Right (ECHR) and existing jurisprudence set by the Court of Justice (CJEU).

First it shifts the burden of copyright infringement from individual users to hosting services, this would go against current copyright enforcement and current CJEU case law. It would require hosting services to monitor every piece of data hosted through their service out of fear of liabilities. The problem with this is that such a form of general monitoring is in direct violation with rulings set by the CJEU which explicitly states that general monitoring is in direct violation with the ECHR.

Article 13 would also be in conflict with the Ecommerce directive which says that member states aren't allowed to do the things this article says member states should do. I tried looking in to what would happen when such a conflict in directives happen but i haven't found it.

The there's just the general vagueness of the article. It says that "Those measures, such as the use of effective content recognition technologies, shall be appropriate and proportionate"but it is utterly unclear what appropriate and proportionate is. Same with the storing of large amounts of work. It is unclear what that means. The vagueness would imply that member states can set their own standards but that would go against the harmonization principle of the EU.

Should the copyright directive pass, i'm fairly certain it would be stricken down by the CJEU, If only because it tries to circumvent the standards set by the court, and i have yet seen a judge that isn't territorial.

An article mentioning the relevant directives and court cases

[The Flutterlands]

The intend of the article is actually quite good. It seeks to address a 'value imbalance' between copyright holders and hosting services. According to the EU, currently when a user uses a hosting service to share copyrighted material the hosting site profits off of the use of its sharing service while the copyright holder doesn't earn a profit. This directive seeks to redress this imbalance. I can admire the intend, but the execution is awful.

The problem with the article is that it both unclear and goes against existing practices, technical capabilities, other EU directives, the European Charter of Human Right (ECHR) and existing jurisprudence set by the Court of Justice (CJEU).

First it shifts the burden of copyright infringement from individual users to hosting services, this would go against current copyright enforcement and current CJEU case law. It would require hosting services to monitor every piece of data hosted through their service out of fear of liabilities. The problem with this is that such a form of general monitoring is in direct violation with rulings set by the CJEU which explicitly states that general monitoring is in direct violation with the ECHR.

Article 13 would also be in conflict with the Ecommerce directive which says that member states aren't allowed to do the things this article says member states should do. I tried looking in to what would happen when such a conflict in directives happen but i haven't found it.

The there's just the general vagueness of the article. It says that "Those measures, such as the use of effective content recognition technologies, shall be appropriate and proportionate"but it is utterly unclear what appropriate and proportionate is. Same with the storing of large amounts of work. It is unclear what that means. The vagueness would imply that member states can set their own standards but that would go against the harmonization principle of the EU.

Should the copyright directive pass, i'm fairly certain it would be stricken down by the CJEU, If only because it tries to circumvent the standards set by the court, and i have yet seen a judge that isn't territorial.

An article mentioning the relevant directives and court cases

So why are they pushing this if it's essentially illrgal? Usually when Courts say these things that is usually the end of it.

[Purpelia]

So why are they pushing this if it's essentially illrgal? Usually when Courts say these things that is usually the end of it.

Because certain powers within the EU really, really, really want to abolish proper informed democracy and a part of that is establishing tight control over the media and internet via censorship. That is why the link tax in particular is problematic and the most dangerous part of all this. Imagine if every blogger, every independent journalist, hell everyone who posts an article he took from a news outlet with access to proper information* for discussion on an internet forum had to pay for doing so. Suddenly discussions dry up.

And I am not making this up either. I wish I was. It's a thing that's been happening for ages now. I remember watching an interview with the former Greek finance minister who openly talked about how EU leaders essentially told him: "We don't care you've been democratically elected. We don't care your people voted for you on the explicit grounds that you want to do X, Y and Z. You are going to do what we tell you to do instead."

And that was years ago. And now you look at the migrant crisis and the EU threatening sanctions to its own members for disobeying the party line. It's scary.

* "proper" news outlets get special passes that get them called to press conferences and be privet to press releases and such and thus are the only ones that get first hand information.

[The Flutterlands]

So why are they pushing this if it's essentially illrgal? Usually when Courts say these things that is usually the end of it.

Because certain powers within the EU really, really, really want to abolish proper informed democracy and a part of that is establishing tight control over the media and internet via censorship. That is why the link tax in particular is problematic and the most dangerous part of all this. Imagine if every blogger, every independent journalist, hell everyone who posts an article he took from a news outlet with access to proper information* for discussion on an internet forum had to pay for doing so. Suddenly discussions dry up.

And I am not making this up either. I wish I was. It's a thing that's been happening for ages now. I remember watching an interview with the former Greek finance minister who openly talked about how EU leaders essentially told him: "We don't care you've been democratically elected. We don't care your people voted for you on the explicit grounds that you want to do X, Y and Z. You are going to do what we tell you to do instead."

And that was years ago. And now you look at the migrant crisis and the EU threatening sanctions to its own members for disobeying the party line. It's scary.

* "proper" news outlets get special passes that get them called to press conferences and be privet to press releases and such and thus are the only ones that get first hand information.

They are literally shooting themselves in the foot though. No tech Company would do business with them. Heck, I'm not sure Nationstates would want to comply.

[Purpelia]

They are literally shooting themselves in the foot though. No tech Company would do business with them. Heck, I'm not sure Nationstates would want to comply.

And thus they win.

If tech companies comply with their demands they get censorship. If they don't comply the EU gets grounds to fine or even get its ISPs to ban services provided by said tech companies and they get their censorship.

[The Flutterlands]

They are literally shooting themselves in the foot though. No tech Company would do business with them. Heck, I'm not sure Nationstates would want to comply.

And thus they win.

If tech companies comply with their demands they get censorship. If they don't comply the EU gets grounds to fine or even get its ISPs to ban services provided by said tech companies and they get their censorship.

They can't do anything to American companies. Like I said, they just won't comply. Again, though, this is all moot as the courts will most likely strike it down... Again.