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.

Comments

Article 15

[KiloByte]

I somehow don't see much uproar against art 15, which is worse than 11 and 13. It pretty much forbids any free software licenses, as it disallows perpetual licenses where payment is deemed to be too cheap.

Re:Article 15

[halivar]

That is absolutely a problem for open-source.
1) Developer A writes free software B under an open-source license.
2) Companies X, Y, and Z incorporate B into their products.
3) X, Y, and Z make a brazillion dollars.

This happens all the time. Now we can add step 4:
4) A asserts his Article 15 rights to extract money from X, Y, and Z.

Maybe that seems fair to you. But if this scenario happens with any regularity, companies will cease using FOSS altogether. People will be putting out free software and the corporate world will say "don't look, don't touch."

Re:Forget "good intentions"

[Joce640k]

It's like this whole model has been upended and spun around by 180 degrees.

Only in the imaginations of a few deranged old men.

I've seen them arguing, it really doesn't occur to them that Google will simply turn of the links and their web site will vanish from the 'net.

Even funnier: That nobody will want to advertise on a site that Google doesn't link to.

Re:Crazy European Privacy Laws...

[houghi]

Some laws are good. Some are bad.. Here one gave power to the people, the other takes it away, (not the same thing they gave.) GDPR is a good one, this is a bad one if this is the final form.

Re:Forget "good intentions"

[penandpaper]

Tell me more about holocaust denial in Europe. I also like that such subjective conditions and restrictions such as "prevention of disorder" or "morals" are reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech yet the ECHR is the biggest defender of freedom of speech. Seems to me rather contradictory. Do you think the government can limit that right based on dubious philosophies like morals and disorder or vague legalities like "necessity in a democratic state"?

How can the ECHR be the biggest defender of freedom of speech when it has arbitrary subjective exceptions to limit that freedom?

Re:Nobody anticipated the level of DMCA abuse.Coun

[loonycyborg]

Counter notices are rarely sent because existence of such a possibility is rarely advertised. More people would use it if, say, youtube would present you a form to contest the takedown automatically once it started blocking you.