Slashdot Mirror

I'm not construing anything. You can read the final wording here. The "anti-DMCA" is in article 13.4:

If no authorisation is granted, online content sharing service providers shall be liable for
unauthorised acts of communication to the public of copyright protected works and other
subject matter, unless the service providers demonstrate that they have:

(a) made best efforts to obtain an authorisation, and

(b) made, in accordance with high industry standards of professional diligence,
best efforts to ensure the unavailability of specific works and other subject
matter for which the rightholders have provided the service providers with the
relevant and necessary information, and in any event

(c) acted expeditiously, upon receiving a sufficiently substantiated notice by the
rightholders, to remove from their websites or to disable access to the notified works
and subject matters, and made best efforts to prevent their future uploads in accordance
with paragraph (b).

They have to a) make a best effort to get a license and b) make a best effort to ensure unavailability of unlicensed works, if they have been given information about those works in advance, and c) take down when notified (and prevent reuploading). If they cannot prove they did all that, they are liable. There are two big differences in contrast to the DMCA: One is the that they have to make a best effort to obtain a license. Collecting societies are rejoicing. This practically forces everyone to make licensing deals with all of them. The other big difference is the requirement to ensure unavailability of unlicensed works based on information provided about works. These are the "upload filters" that everybody's talking about. And again, if they don't (provably!) do all of that to the satisfaction of the courts, they're liable, so they would have to err on the blocking side. This is so onerous that I am certain that this will be the end of sites with user-contributed content in the EU.

This foolishness has to be stopped before it gets onto the EU statute books.

Definitely the preferred option. I've been following Julia Reda's site for updates on this and writing to my MEP at key points like votes, etc., but it looks like the EU has finally decided that Brexit isn't worth any more of their time and is looking to its own business, including trying to get at least some bits of EU legislation through in the current session, this included. That they're trying again with Articles 11 and 13, despite heavy opposition to those specific clauses on previous attempts, indicates that this is probably one of those they really want to pass for some reason (e.g. someone has already been paid), so we can probably expect *something* to get through somehow.

Here's the thing though; the EU isn't listening here, and the implications of this for the average citizen are going to be even more visible than all those cookie consent popups. Having a good chunk of the web go dark because the EU wasn't prepared to listen (regardless of how the EU media spins the coverage so it's not the media's fault) might just make more people aware of the growing disconnect between the MEPs in the EU parliament and the voters and businesses that they're meant to be representing. That disconnect has already got them the train wreck of Brexit, several other EU countries in varying levels of turmoil, and a general rise in extremism and nationalism right across the union. They *need* a wake up call, and if a few media conglomerates have to go to the wall that might actually be a smaller price to pay than a few more xxExits, or a collective swing to the far right (by EU standards) rather than the current level of diversity.

The following overview says where France stands with respect to upload filters and link tax. Yes, France is among the worst in Europe. The French attack the press with full force.

Just read the law itself, it's the exact of what the summery states. The link's in that article and it also explains in small words that this is a link tax. It's an exact mirror of the existing German law that does the same thing.

This is a leaked draft impact assessment(PDF alert)

Note: you have just repeated the URL from the article; just repeating a source does not make it any more genuine, and may make it actually less convincing.

you can read more about it here: European Copyright Leak Exposes Plans to Force the Internet to Subsidize Publishers

If this were an alternate source, I'd consider that it might lend more credibility to the assumption that the putative leak is genuinely what it is purported to be. But this is not an alternate source for it; rather, it is the EFF's analysis is of the very same putative leak indeed, to the URL. It therefore does not give said putative leak more credibility.

This is what Julia Reda (MEP) says about it: Commissioner Oettinger is about to turn EU copyright reform into another ACTA:

This is not a copyright fit for the digital age. It’s a copyright that tries to protect the big players of the past from the future.

Again, an analysis the same putative leak, to the URL, not an alternate source. As an opinion piece on the question of paying for news excerpts, it is certainly relevant; as a proof that the purported leak is genuine, it is not.

Note that I do not belittle the EFF or Reda's analyses, and I certainly don't think less of their opinions on copyright; my point was initially, and still is, "how do we know rather than assume that this is really a leak of a EU Commission document intended to be the Commission's proposal?" and I find no convincing answer to this question in opinions based on the very assumption I am questioning.

(oh, and before anyone asks, or skips the asking and states outright: I find the idea of trying to make news "sources" collect pay for excerpts of their "content" bad in several respects, including for the very ones it is supposed to benefit. But just because I disagree with a document does not make that document genuine, nor does it allow me to disregard checking whether it is. Fact-checking is -- well, should be -- anisotropic.)

This is a leaked draft impact assessment(PDF alert), you can read more about it here: European Copyright Leak Exposes Plans to Force the Internet to Subsidize Publishers

This is what Julia Reda (MEP) says about it: Commissioner Oettinger is about to turn EU copyright reform into another ACTA:

This is not a copyright fit for the digital age. It’s a copyright that tries to protect the big players of the past from the future.

Europe’s publishing, film and music industries have clearly found that influencing Commissioner Oettinger to write laws is easier and more lucrative than adapting to progress and competing fairly.

Here's another theory, from an MEP (Julia Reda, Pirate Party, DE) who thinks it's German publishers wanting to charge "ancillary copyright" licence fees for linking to their publications.