Posted on Sep 12, 2018
Why Europe's copyright plan was so controversial
25.7K
53
16
15
15
0
Is social media as we know it going to drastically change as a result of this new legislation in the EU?
Looks like this new law will kill memes and sharing of music, reports, or stories online. Companies like Twitter, Facebook, youtube, and RP can be fined for copyright infringement.
What are your thoughts?
Looks like this new law will kill memes and sharing of music, reports, or stories online. Companies like Twitter, Facebook, youtube, and RP can be fined for copyright infringement.
What are your thoughts?
Why Europe's copyright plan was so controversial
Posted from bbc.co.uk
European Union
Memes
Music
Online Media
Social Media
Posted 6 y ago
Responses: 10
6
6
0
Thank you my friend LTC (Join to see) for sharing the perspective from BBC about Article 13 - the 'upload filter' proposed by the European Parliament as well as Article 11 - the 'link tax'
1. Current examples of abusing the rights IMHO
"YouTube already has a system to scan for copyright infringement in uploaded videos automatically. But there are innumerable examples of the system getting it wrong, including:
One musician recorded 10 hours of "white noise" - like television static - and got five copyright claims
In 2012, Daniel Unedo made a video about salad in a field, and had a copyright claim made for the sound of birds chirping"
2. To be honest, I think the EU bureaucracy will probably make this a moot issue since
a. "If eventually adopted by the European Parliament, the directive will be sent to the EU Council, which also has to approve it - a process that could take months."
b. "Usually, the Parliament and the Council agree - but if they don't, they'll form a committee to try and reach consensus."
c. "Once they've both agreed and approved the directive, it has to be put into law by every member state on a country-by-country basis, in a process the EU calls transposition.
That can take a year or two, as each country navigates its own legal and parliamentary system."
Below is the full text from the linked article.
"But as the EU tried to transform its copyright laws for the digital age, that's exactly what happened - and MEPs rejected the directive on copyright.
So what was the problem? It all came down to just two small parts of the proposed text.
Article 13, critics claimed, would have made it nearly impossible to upload even the tiniest part of a copyrighted work to Facebook, YouTube, or any other site.
That would have meant no more stills from movies, no more song remixes, and the danger of constant blocks by automatic systems getting it wrong.
Article 11, the other controversial part, might have made linking harder because it would have given news publishers better control over their content.
All this led to more than 800,000 signatures on a petition against the proposals by the time the vote came - and MEPs, it seems, heard the outcry.
But the EU commissioner behind the proposed law had rubbished critics' objections, and it had the support of newspapers and many top musicians.
Article 13 - the 'upload filter'
Article 13 was all about the "use of protected content" by sharing services.
In a nutshell, it said that any website which "gives the public access to copyright protected works... uploaded by its users" had to get permission from whoever owned the copyright - probably through a licensing agreement.
If it didn't have that permission, the site would need to block it.
This seems straightforward - that copyright owners (including ordinary people who take a great photo, for example) should be paid for their work, and have control over where it appears.
Many opponents agreed that this was a good idea. But the proposals put the onus on websites to check everything uploaded by users. That's impossible for humans to do.
On YouTube, for example, 400 hours of video are uploaded every single minute - a volume that can't be managed by real people.
The proposed law allowed for exemptions for small businesses, but everyone else would almost certainly have needed to use an automatic system.
And that is potentially fraught with problems.
YouTube already has a system to scan for copyright infringement in uploaded videos automatically. But there are innumerable examples of the system getting it wrong, including:
One musician recorded 10 hours of "white noise" - like television static - and got five copyright claims
In 2012, Daniel Unedo made a video about salad in a field, and had a copyright claim made for the sound of birds chirping
Popular Irish YouTuber Clisare allowed RTE to use one of her videos - and last week had the original version blocked automatically
This automated copyright system has cost YouTube at least $60m.
Critics of the proposed EU copyright rules predicted that similar expensive, imperfect systems would need to be rolled out by every website if Article 13 became law.
And that could have affected more than just video. There were fears Article 13 could place a ban on memes: those popular, recognisable images (usually from films or TV) with text emblazoned across it to express ideas.
Julia Reda, an MEP from the German Pirate Party, wrote a widely shared blog post attacking the proposal, which she described as "upload filters, shoddily hidden".
"Article 13 applies to every platform with an upload form and every app with a 'post' button," she argued. "These filters are bound to block legitimate acts of expression... because they can't tell apart valid uses like quotation from infringement."
And getting a licence for every type of content that exists from every publisher would be "plainly impossible", she said.
She's not alone. Dozens of influential technology leaders, including inventors of key internet technologies Vint Cerf and Tim-Berners Lee, rallied against Article 13.
Article 13 "would mandate internet platforms to embed an automated infrastructure for monitoring and censorship deep into their networks," a joint letter said.
Those in favour of the new rules pointed out that many exemptions existed in the directive for legitimate use of material, and that there would be a complaints process.
It also had the backing of major musicians like Sir Paul McCartney, who want to see their music better protected.
But the way EU directives work means that every single country would have implemented the rules in national law the way it saw fit - and it wasn't clear how each country would define what was acceptable and what was not. Many critics felt that internet services which operate across borders would be likely to play it safe.
And unlike blocked websites, which can be circumvented using a VPN (Virtual Private Network), these checks would all have been done by on the systems of each website - and it's not clear how easy such checks would be to get around.
Article 11 - the 'link tax'
The other controversial part of the proposed law was about the "protection of press publications".
The intent was to protect newspapers and other outlets from the use, without payment, of their material by internet giants like Google and Facebook - again, something many people agreed was a good idea.
But the proposal said it was up to each individual country to decide what an "insubstantial part" of a news report would be - and anything else would need a licensing agreement.
The fear was that this could lead to problems with even the tiniest sentence fragments being used to link to other news outlets - something that many news outlets, including the BBC, does every day.
Article 11 could, critics said, cause huge problems for links on platforms like Facebook, which pulls in a "snippet" and thumbnail of the article to give readers some idea what the story is about.
The proposals made an exception for private, individual use - but it could be argued that anything on Facebook (or other sites that make money) is a "commercial use".
Wikipedia, one of the world's largest websites, has been particularly vocal about the issue.
Its co-founder Jimmy Wales took to social media campaigning against it, writing on Reddit that "Articles 11 and 13 are nightmares".
On another Reddit thread, Mr Wales wrote: "Publishers, I predict, will instantly cave in and give Google and Facebook free licences... but smaller providers - dead.
"They don't have the clout to get permission to use a snippet or thumbnail, and they can't afford to pay."
For Wikipedia, its campaigning paid off - the final version of the proposed law included an exemption for "online encyclopaedias" and other non-profit purposes.
But the organisation continued its campaign, arguing that "our overarching mission is heavily dependent on a free and open internet ecosystem".
What happens next?
The proposed directive is due to be revisited in September, with a European Parliament debate and possible changes.
It's not yet known whether Articles 11 and 13 will be removed or amended.
If eventually adopted by the European Parliament, the directive will be sent to the EU Council, which also has to approve it - a process that could take months.
Usually, the Parliament and the Council agree - but if they don't, they'll form a committee to try and reach consensus.
Once they've both agreed and approved the directive, it has to be put into law by every member state on a country-by-country basis, in a process the EU calls transposition.
That can take a year or two, as each country navigates its own legal and parliamentary system."
FYI LTC Jeff ShearerSGT Philip Roncari Sgt Arthur Caesar ]Lt Col Jim CoeCWO3 Dennis M.SGT (Join to see)PO3 Bob McCordSGT Jim Arnold Sgt Albert Castro PO3 Phyllis Maynard Maj Robert Thornton 1SG Carl McAndrews SPC Douglas Bolton Cynthia Croft PO1 H Gene Lawrence SGT Brent Scott CW5 John M. CMSgt (Join to see) PO2 Kevin Parker
1. Current examples of abusing the rights IMHO
"YouTube already has a system to scan for copyright infringement in uploaded videos automatically. But there are innumerable examples of the system getting it wrong, including:
One musician recorded 10 hours of "white noise" - like television static - and got five copyright claims
In 2012, Daniel Unedo made a video about salad in a field, and had a copyright claim made for the sound of birds chirping"
2. To be honest, I think the EU bureaucracy will probably make this a moot issue since
a. "If eventually adopted by the European Parliament, the directive will be sent to the EU Council, which also has to approve it - a process that could take months."
b. "Usually, the Parliament and the Council agree - but if they don't, they'll form a committee to try and reach consensus."
c. "Once they've both agreed and approved the directive, it has to be put into law by every member state on a country-by-country basis, in a process the EU calls transposition.
That can take a year or two, as each country navigates its own legal and parliamentary system."
Below is the full text from the linked article.
"But as the EU tried to transform its copyright laws for the digital age, that's exactly what happened - and MEPs rejected the directive on copyright.
So what was the problem? It all came down to just two small parts of the proposed text.
Article 13, critics claimed, would have made it nearly impossible to upload even the tiniest part of a copyrighted work to Facebook, YouTube, or any other site.
That would have meant no more stills from movies, no more song remixes, and the danger of constant blocks by automatic systems getting it wrong.
Article 11, the other controversial part, might have made linking harder because it would have given news publishers better control over their content.
All this led to more than 800,000 signatures on a petition against the proposals by the time the vote came - and MEPs, it seems, heard the outcry.
But the EU commissioner behind the proposed law had rubbished critics' objections, and it had the support of newspapers and many top musicians.
Article 13 - the 'upload filter'
Article 13 was all about the "use of protected content" by sharing services.
In a nutshell, it said that any website which "gives the public access to copyright protected works... uploaded by its users" had to get permission from whoever owned the copyright - probably through a licensing agreement.
If it didn't have that permission, the site would need to block it.
This seems straightforward - that copyright owners (including ordinary people who take a great photo, for example) should be paid for their work, and have control over where it appears.
Many opponents agreed that this was a good idea. But the proposals put the onus on websites to check everything uploaded by users. That's impossible for humans to do.
On YouTube, for example, 400 hours of video are uploaded every single minute - a volume that can't be managed by real people.
The proposed law allowed for exemptions for small businesses, but everyone else would almost certainly have needed to use an automatic system.
And that is potentially fraught with problems.
YouTube already has a system to scan for copyright infringement in uploaded videos automatically. But there are innumerable examples of the system getting it wrong, including:
One musician recorded 10 hours of "white noise" - like television static - and got five copyright claims
In 2012, Daniel Unedo made a video about salad in a field, and had a copyright claim made for the sound of birds chirping
Popular Irish YouTuber Clisare allowed RTE to use one of her videos - and last week had the original version blocked automatically
This automated copyright system has cost YouTube at least $60m.
Critics of the proposed EU copyright rules predicted that similar expensive, imperfect systems would need to be rolled out by every website if Article 13 became law.
And that could have affected more than just video. There were fears Article 13 could place a ban on memes: those popular, recognisable images (usually from films or TV) with text emblazoned across it to express ideas.
Julia Reda, an MEP from the German Pirate Party, wrote a widely shared blog post attacking the proposal, which she described as "upload filters, shoddily hidden".
"Article 13 applies to every platform with an upload form and every app with a 'post' button," she argued. "These filters are bound to block legitimate acts of expression... because they can't tell apart valid uses like quotation from infringement."
And getting a licence for every type of content that exists from every publisher would be "plainly impossible", she said.
She's not alone. Dozens of influential technology leaders, including inventors of key internet technologies Vint Cerf and Tim-Berners Lee, rallied against Article 13.
Article 13 "would mandate internet platforms to embed an automated infrastructure for monitoring and censorship deep into their networks," a joint letter said.
Those in favour of the new rules pointed out that many exemptions existed in the directive for legitimate use of material, and that there would be a complaints process.
It also had the backing of major musicians like Sir Paul McCartney, who want to see their music better protected.
But the way EU directives work means that every single country would have implemented the rules in national law the way it saw fit - and it wasn't clear how each country would define what was acceptable and what was not. Many critics felt that internet services which operate across borders would be likely to play it safe.
And unlike blocked websites, which can be circumvented using a VPN (Virtual Private Network), these checks would all have been done by on the systems of each website - and it's not clear how easy such checks would be to get around.
Article 11 - the 'link tax'
The other controversial part of the proposed law was about the "protection of press publications".
The intent was to protect newspapers and other outlets from the use, without payment, of their material by internet giants like Google and Facebook - again, something many people agreed was a good idea.
But the proposal said it was up to each individual country to decide what an "insubstantial part" of a news report would be - and anything else would need a licensing agreement.
The fear was that this could lead to problems with even the tiniest sentence fragments being used to link to other news outlets - something that many news outlets, including the BBC, does every day.
Article 11 could, critics said, cause huge problems for links on platforms like Facebook, which pulls in a "snippet" and thumbnail of the article to give readers some idea what the story is about.
The proposals made an exception for private, individual use - but it could be argued that anything on Facebook (or other sites that make money) is a "commercial use".
Wikipedia, one of the world's largest websites, has been particularly vocal about the issue.
Its co-founder Jimmy Wales took to social media campaigning against it, writing on Reddit that "Articles 11 and 13 are nightmares".
On another Reddit thread, Mr Wales wrote: "Publishers, I predict, will instantly cave in and give Google and Facebook free licences... but smaller providers - dead.
"They don't have the clout to get permission to use a snippet or thumbnail, and they can't afford to pay."
For Wikipedia, its campaigning paid off - the final version of the proposed law included an exemption for "online encyclopaedias" and other non-profit purposes.
But the organisation continued its campaign, arguing that "our overarching mission is heavily dependent on a free and open internet ecosystem".
What happens next?
The proposed directive is due to be revisited in September, with a European Parliament debate and possible changes.
It's not yet known whether Articles 11 and 13 will be removed or amended.
If eventually adopted by the European Parliament, the directive will be sent to the EU Council, which also has to approve it - a process that could take months.
Usually, the Parliament and the Council agree - but if they don't, they'll form a committee to try and reach consensus.
Once they've both agreed and approved the directive, it has to be put into law by every member state on a country-by-country basis, in a process the EU calls transposition.
That can take a year or two, as each country navigates its own legal and parliamentary system."
FYI LTC Jeff ShearerSGT Philip Roncari Sgt Arthur Caesar ]Lt Col Jim CoeCWO3 Dennis M.SGT (Join to see)PO3 Bob McCordSGT Jim Arnold Sgt Albert Castro PO3 Phyllis Maynard Maj Robert Thornton 1SG Carl McAndrews SPC Douglas Bolton Cynthia Croft PO1 H Gene Lawrence SGT Brent Scott CW5 John M. CMSgt (Join to see) PO2 Kevin Parker
(6)
(0)
LCpl George Williams
How will you know if you cross the red line, and who drew it in the first place?
(1)
(0)
6
6
0
The only time I share any meme's is on FB. Haven't seen any copyright symbols on them.
(6)
(0)
SSgt Boyd Herrst
I’ve gotten some pics that had a meme on top or bottom of a popular character’s pic and I wanted to use the pic. So I took a pic of it and then a 2d pic and blocked the meme out. And put one of my own in.. on top or bottom. Hadn’t had one removed yet .. had one of Pelosi making a inane motion to rid the constitution of a important article of one of our rights and another of Jefferson or one of or 3 or more signers saying she really is a special kind of stupid.
I was told I disrespected her position as ‘speaker of the....’ by another FB user. I sent it to another
Friend also in my Vet’s .org. (His own personal timeline). [i’d urged Him to go ‘Friends only’ on his timeline.. to insure there’d be no outside interference.. ] Since his timeline was public it opened him up to outside interference.. well me also.. somebody used a U.S. Code(I don’t know if properly or improperly). And they did not include a code no. So I ignored it. FB took their word as they purported to be a paralegal. To impugn a member in congress disrespectfully.. I didn’t accept the paralegal bit or the person Would of cited the code by number and para.
Then that little thing about the person that posted it may not had permission to post it.. where the meme should had been. I knew it’d be blocked again on messenger but maybe not as quick? It lasted 1 day but he got to see it. I remember back when I first got my iPhone, certain pics could be removed .. I even had a pic of a prime standing rib roast removed by Sprint. I had got it for my own to use with a recipe in another file. It had not even been posted on FB yet. I had asked sprint then why it was removed and they told me the company said it was only to be viewed not copied, Photographed..
I don’t even know how they knew.. when I photoed it, I seen no c in a circle.. I figured to be open pic..
At another time I had my laptop in to be cleaned .. the clown’s assistant clown said he’d seen copyright infringements in my file(100 recipes). I was fortunate to copy to a separate Hard-drive kit that was brand new... I’d also copied a file of my completed. Activity reports for my Vet’s org.
I was glad I done that ! When I took my laptop in and he looked at it he said he noticed there wasn’t much on it. I told him that at another time s’body cleared My computer of many files I needed.. it wasn’t happening this time.. So run your fancy wand game and clean it up ! The clown made a spurious claim I had copyrighted material or possible porno on my computer on my hard-drive.. So the FBI gets to confiscate my laptop(they had it 3 days and they sent to me UPS and cited no violated copywrited material. And NO porno. What they found was the idiot clown’s helper had put porn on it then erased out of a file they imported. It was on my Hard drive . But the date added was during when they had it ... The clown went to the big house (Fed custody) and clown junior being a minor (a nephew), and 16 was remanded to Juvenile custody, ward of state. For 4 years.
His Uncle was also charged with contributing to delinquency of a minor child. (Giving links to pornographic material. He attested the child only could transfer links not see what could be viewed it was all merely to blackmail clients to buy new hard drives (usually bad cheapies ). I was told I had a new better hard drive.. it was great quality. Did I trust it.. No ! I didn’t frick with them kind of sites.. but I still like my privacy.. I bought a new Hard drive. Same as what Had replaces the shoddy one. I boxed the FBI one in the box my new one came.. And them fools are waiting for s’thing to appear on their screen.. hahahahaha! I got my recipes going again (they were ones I’d modified(multiplied amounts ). To use for catering..
i’d Sent copies to a fellow Chef.. and gotten some in return after running a Virus scan. Still illegal I was told.. I told the guy: what he does after receiving is on him, not me ... I’ve read the laws/rules also.
He was P.O.’d he couldn’t erase valuable files.. he had that hard drive .. what he couldn’t decipher was the encoding for amounts. That was elsewhere not in the file..
Just to see : SRR- ghi-556 or hij 667. It wasn’t in comp. file.., that frustrated he couldn't Destroy that too . That’s what I surmised drove him to implicate me in a porno charge.. see earlier -^. Clown Junior’s mama blames me not the uncle .. for her baby going to juvenile custody.. I only signed the paper with the U.S. Dist. Atty and State Atty. It seems Uncertain Sam can house murdering minors but not those involved in cyber crime.
So the state houses them.. I wonder if in general population or segregated ?... I would hope segregated to protect for future hearings.. some get in trouble, get seriously hurt, murdered .. It’s 2019.. I don’t remember if Clown junior went to Fed big house or got a new start in life.. hopefully away from computers !
I was told I disrespected her position as ‘speaker of the....’ by another FB user. I sent it to another
Friend also in my Vet’s .org. (His own personal timeline). [i’d urged Him to go ‘Friends only’ on his timeline.. to insure there’d be no outside interference.. ] Since his timeline was public it opened him up to outside interference.. well me also.. somebody used a U.S. Code(I don’t know if properly or improperly). And they did not include a code no. So I ignored it. FB took their word as they purported to be a paralegal. To impugn a member in congress disrespectfully.. I didn’t accept the paralegal bit or the person Would of cited the code by number and para.
Then that little thing about the person that posted it may not had permission to post it.. where the meme should had been. I knew it’d be blocked again on messenger but maybe not as quick? It lasted 1 day but he got to see it. I remember back when I first got my iPhone, certain pics could be removed .. I even had a pic of a prime standing rib roast removed by Sprint. I had got it for my own to use with a recipe in another file. It had not even been posted on FB yet. I had asked sprint then why it was removed and they told me the company said it was only to be viewed not copied, Photographed..
I don’t even know how they knew.. when I photoed it, I seen no c in a circle.. I figured to be open pic..
At another time I had my laptop in to be cleaned .. the clown’s assistant clown said he’d seen copyright infringements in my file(100 recipes). I was fortunate to copy to a separate Hard-drive kit that was brand new... I’d also copied a file of my completed. Activity reports for my Vet’s org.
I was glad I done that ! When I took my laptop in and he looked at it he said he noticed there wasn’t much on it. I told him that at another time s’body cleared My computer of many files I needed.. it wasn’t happening this time.. So run your fancy wand game and clean it up ! The clown made a spurious claim I had copyrighted material or possible porno on my computer on my hard-drive.. So the FBI gets to confiscate my laptop(they had it 3 days and they sent to me UPS and cited no violated copywrited material. And NO porno. What they found was the idiot clown’s helper had put porn on it then erased out of a file they imported. It was on my Hard drive . But the date added was during when they had it ... The clown went to the big house (Fed custody) and clown junior being a minor (a nephew), and 16 was remanded to Juvenile custody, ward of state. For 4 years.
His Uncle was also charged with contributing to delinquency of a minor child. (Giving links to pornographic material. He attested the child only could transfer links not see what could be viewed it was all merely to blackmail clients to buy new hard drives (usually bad cheapies ). I was told I had a new better hard drive.. it was great quality. Did I trust it.. No ! I didn’t frick with them kind of sites.. but I still like my privacy.. I bought a new Hard drive. Same as what Had replaces the shoddy one. I boxed the FBI one in the box my new one came.. And them fools are waiting for s’thing to appear on their screen.. hahahahaha! I got my recipes going again (they were ones I’d modified(multiplied amounts ). To use for catering..
i’d Sent copies to a fellow Chef.. and gotten some in return after running a Virus scan. Still illegal I was told.. I told the guy: what he does after receiving is on him, not me ... I’ve read the laws/rules also.
He was P.O.’d he couldn’t erase valuable files.. he had that hard drive .. what he couldn’t decipher was the encoding for amounts. That was elsewhere not in the file..
Just to see : SRR- ghi-556 or hij 667. It wasn’t in comp. file.., that frustrated he couldn't Destroy that too . That’s what I surmised drove him to implicate me in a porno charge.. see earlier -^. Clown Junior’s mama blames me not the uncle .. for her baby going to juvenile custody.. I only signed the paper with the U.S. Dist. Atty and State Atty. It seems Uncertain Sam can house murdering minors but not those involved in cyber crime.
So the state houses them.. I wonder if in general population or segregated ?... I would hope segregated to protect for future hearings.. some get in trouble, get seriously hurt, murdered .. It’s 2019.. I don’t remember if Clown junior went to Fed big house or got a new start in life.. hopefully away from computers !
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
Guess we will just have to sit back and see what happens. Thanks for the post.
(5)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google