Slashdot Mirror
EU Takes First Step in Passing Controversial Copyright Law That Could 'Censor the Internet' (theverge.com)
The European Union has taken the first step in passing new copyright legislation that critics say will tear the internet apart. From a report: This morning, the EU's Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) voted in favor of the legislation, called the Copyright Directive. Although most of the directive simply updates technical language for copyright law in the age of the internet, it includes two highly controversial provisions. These are Article 11, a "link tax," which would force online platforms like Facebook and Google to buy licenses from media companies before linking to their stories; and Article 13, an "upload filter," which would require that everything uploaded online in the EU is checked for copyright infringement. (Think of it like YouTube's Content ID system but for the whole internet.) EU lawmakers critical of the legislation say these Articles may have been proposed with good intentions -- like protecting copyright owners -- but are vaguely worded and ripe for abuse.
This is where all those crazy European internet laws like GDPR inevitably lead.
Nah, you don't get it.
The media is run by a bunch of old men who imagine that Google needs them, that Google will pay good money to link to them. They've actually been fighting for this law for about a decade.
Yes, it's going to be fucking hilarious when Google stops linking and they disappear from the Internet.
No sig today...
Unless you're looking at a more up to date version, you seem to be wrong. The text of article 15 says:
Member States shall ensure that authors and performers are entitled to request additional, appropriate remuneration from the party with whom they entered into a contract for the exploitation of the rights when the remuneration originally agreed is disproportionately low compared to the subsequent relevant revenues and benefits derived from the exploitation of the works or performances.
President Clinton could not have stopped the Digital Millennium Copyright Act from becoming law.
The Constitution allows 20 percent of either house to force a recorded vote or 34 percent to uphold a presidential veto. If a bill lacks enough dissent to force a recorded vote, there certainly isn't enough to uphold a veto.
In 1998, Newtros Newtros-Gingy's crop of Republicans still controlled the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate. The DMCA passed both houses by unanimous consent, also called a voice vote. Which if any Republican members of Congress went on record as opposing the DMCA?
Actually the ECHR doesn't say anything about hate speech. Here is the entire article relating to freedom of expression:
Article 10 â" Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
This is broadly in line with the position in the US, where there are exceptions for things that may injure others, state secrets, libel, doctor-patient confidentiality and the like.
The anti-hate-speech laws in the UK have been severely limited by the ECHR, which is one of the reasons why the current government wants to get rid of it.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Yes this seems aimed at record companies and movie studios who use accounting voodoo to give artists small change compared to what they make. Key words here are "contract for the exploitation of the rights" so doubtful this could be used as kiloByte says.
And Russia was kicked out of the G-8 and sanctioned Russia.
Now Trump, flush with Russian bribes and money laundering wants to let Russia back in the G-7, remove sanctions, and declare that Russia had a right to invade its neighbor (our ally Ukraine) and steal its land.
Treason, bribery, money laundering, and the pee tape have given Russia total control over our country's executive branch. It's time to lock him up!
I was involved in multiple drafts of the DMCA before it became law, discussing the draft with people involved in many different aspects of the internet. People had different concerns and things were changed in the drafts to improve it.
Three major categories of people had different concerns:
Content producers
Hosting companies and ISPs
Web sites using content
Previously, when a content producer saw their content was being unlawfully copied on a web site, they would contact the hosting company. The liability of the hosting company was questionable - probably AFTER having received notice, they would most likely be liable if they didn't take it down, but that was murky. Different hosting companies had different policies. Some shut the site down right away. Some ignored the notices, which meant content producers would contact their upstream providers, who would often put pressure on the hosting company. Different companies had different policies about protecting their customers from invalid complaints (fair use etc). Most would just shut it down - they didn't want to get involved in a legal fight. It was all very inconsistent and messy.
Here's the process we ended up with:
Content provider would notify the site or hosting company, identifying exactly what infringed copyright.
Hosting company would inform the site owner, who had three options:
A. Deny the infringement (counter-notice)
B. Take down the content
C. Ignore the notice
If the site owner / poster denies there is infringement, that's the end of it. The hosting company is not liable, because they've received a statement saying there is no infringement. For some reason we didn't anticipate, very few people choose this option. It's the best and easiest option if you have content that isn't infringing.
Once the site owner or the person who posted the content says it doesn't infringe, the DMCA notice process ends and the content producer has to sue in federal court in order to move forward.
If the site owner sees there is likely infringement and takes the content down, that resolves the complaint process also. (Though the producer *could* still sue in federal court).
If the site owner ignores the notice and doesn't say "nope, not infringing", the web host will take down the content. This is the worst option. We didn't expect it would be the most common. Much better for the web site to respond to the notice somehow - either by taking down infringing content if they agree, or by sending back a note saying it's not infringing (a counter notice).
That seemed like a good, fair process, to most people. It's not exactly what content producers would choose if they got to pick, and not exactly what people re-using content would pick, but it's a fair compromise, we thought.
Two things didn't work out the way we expected. First, very few people send back a counter-notice. I can't explain why this is. It's so easy to just send back an email saying "nope, I disagree. This isn't infringement because it's educational fair use. That essentially nullifies the original DMCA notice.
Secondly, perhaps BECAUSE almost nobody responds to a DMCA notice, some producers started sending out way too many notices, not being sufficiently careful that they are accurate. Nobody anticipated that at the time the law was written. If I had an opportunity to do it over again, I would have suggested adding penalities for recklessly sending noticed, but that possibility never came up in the discussion.
Initially, the law was welcomed by most people in all the different areas. It set up a consistent, fair process that almost everyone used. Most people running sites and posting content were reasonably happy with it - they didn't violate copyright anyway, at least not much (maybe some clip art), and if they received a notice they'd gladly swap out any infringing content. They were glad to know that in a dispute, the hosting company would back them up - as long as they notified the hosting company that there WAS a
This already happened in Germany in 2014. Several newspapers complained that Google should pay them for showing snippets of their articles and links to the source in Google News. They wanted 11% of gross worldwide revenue on any search that showed one of their articles. Google removed them from the service and page views at these publications dropped. Well, these newspapers didn't like that one bit and complained that Google should be required to carry their articles. Fortunately, German regulators shot down the idea of forced publication.
Same the happened in Belgium a few years before. Damned if you do, damned if you don't