EU's Mandatory Copyright Content Filter Is The Zombie That Just Never Dies
from the back-again dept
For the past few years, there's been a dedicated effort by some to get mandatory filters into EU copyright rules, despite the fact that this would destroy smaller websites, wouldn't work very well, and would create all sorts of other consequences the EU doesn't want, including suppression of free speech. Each time it pops up again, a few people who actually understand these things have to waste a ridiculous amount of time lobbying folks in Brussels to explain to them how disastrous the plan will be, and they back down. And then, magically, it comes back again.
That appeared to happen again last week. EU Parliament Member Julia Reda called attention to this by pointing out that, despite a promise that mandatory filters would be dropped, they had suddenly come back:
A huge scandal is brewing in the European Parliament on the #CensorshipMachines. Last week, rapporteur @AxelVossMdEP had shown signs to drop the harmful filtering obligation. Now it’s back, and it’s worse than ever. Read it here: https://t.co/ejmGCcwgLU #FixCopyright
— Julia Reda (@Senficon) March 14, 2018
The draft of the proposal included a requirement that any site that doesn't have licensing agreements with rightsholders for any content on their site must take "appropriate and proportionate technical measures leading to the non-availability of copyright or related-right infringing works...." In other words, a mandatory filter.
Incredibly, as Reda discovered, despite the fact that this issue is now in the hands of the EU Parliament, rather than the EU Commission, the metadata on the draft rules showed it was created by the EU Commission. After meeting with the MEP who is in charge of this, Reda posted that that individual, Axel Voss, claimed it was a "mistake" to include the requirement for "technical measures" (uh, yeah, sure), but still plans to make platforms liable for any infringement on their platforms.
One of the many problems with this is that the people who demand these things tend to have little to no understanding of how the internet actually works. They get upset about finding some small amount of infringing content on a large internet platform (YouTube, Facebook, etc.) and demand mandatory filtering. Of course, both YouTube and Facebook already have expensive filters. But this impacts every other site as well -- sites that cannot afford such filtering.
Indeed, Github quickly published a blog post detailing how much harm this would do to its platform, which in turn would create a massive headache for open source software around the globe.
Upload filters (“censorship machines”) are one of the most controversial elements of the copyright proposal, raising a number of concerns, including:
- Privacy: Upload filters are a form of surveillance, effectively a “general monitoring obligation” prohibited by EU law
- Free speech: Requiring platforms to monitor content contradicts intermediary liability protections in EU law and creates incentives to remove content
- Ineffectiveness: Content detection tools are flawed (generate false positives, don’t fit all kinds of content) and overly burdensome, especially for small and medium-sized businesses that might not be able to afford them or the resulting litigation
Upload filters are especially concerning for software developers given that:
- Software developers create copyrightable works—their code—and those who choose an open source license want to allow that code to be shared
- False positives (and negatives) are especially likely for software code because code often has many contributors and layers, often with different licensing for different components
- Requiring code-hosting platforms to scan and automatically remove content could drastically impact software developers when their dependencies are removed due to false positives
A special site has been set up for people to let the EU Parliament know just how much damage this proposal would do to free and open source software.
Of course, the requirements would hit lots of other platforms as well. Given enough uproar, I imagine that they'll rewrite a few definitions just a bit to exempt Github. It appears that's what they did to deal with similar concerns about Wikipedia. But, that's no way to legislate. You don't just build in a list of exemptions as people point out to you how dumb your law is. You rethink the law.
Unfortunately, when it comes to this zombie censorship machine, it appears it's an issue that just won't die.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: axel voss, censorship, code, copyright, eu, filters, julia reda, open source
Companies: github
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Seriously, that's the only possible effective way, unless the copyright system is reformed to enforce registration and a central database that can be queried.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, obvious to most anyone outside of Facebook, who apparently never saw any potentially negative consequences about its decision to ask everyone to submit their nude photographs of themselves so Facebook could check for any unauthorized use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uh, that's not how it works
Besides: do you really expect a bot to understand mixed licensing scenarios, "scenes a faire", and code that mixes copyrightable and non-copyrightable elements?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh, that's not how it works
And Github missed the biggest problem: if they scan for something, and find it, then what? How can an automated system possibly know whether it was authorized? This is true even without complex mixed licensing; if you upload the binary of a GPLed program, and the README has a working source code link it's probably fine. If not, it's non-compliant. More liberal licenses often still require a copyright statement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only one way to deal with zombies
Yes, the person who'd manage to pull it off most likely goes to jail, but not everything that's legal is right and vice versa.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MAYBE!!
Can you see all the Fonts being Copy protected, or extending CP to fonts that are in a NEW venue..
Many companies have already LOCKED UP pictures to be rented/sold for use.. ANd it can be done. So Why is this happening.
How about CP on News items??
CP on Publishing.. Which would mean that Any distribution would Require Proof that it is/was purchasing or givin to the agency.
There is 1 other thing about this..There are ways to protect your site and data..but Who is responsible? Forcing others to be responsible MEANS I dont have to do anything, except send out letters..
Random letters going around looking for my data..
But HOW to prove it is yours, and NOT someone elses, or a mis-sent Take down.
Its also another Step to control Data on the net. Bombard a site with notices, and they have to protect themselves and PROVE every bit of data is independent and PAID FOR..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Automation is good
And btw, it has absolutely nothing to do with those extra anonymous campaign contributions.
Have a nice day!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To put the rights of few above the rights of many is folly. Literally few. Literally folly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So you're okay, "Rapnel", if majority vote away your rights?
Clearly you have not thought that through to might have adverse consequences for you as a minority of one, and appear to be unable to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So you're okay, "Rapnel", if majority vote away your rights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just like print media. Why should "teh internets" be different?
Somehow print media handled this problem. That of course was before Ivy League McEducated Kleptomaniacs had websites on which to daily claim that using content that others make is legal, let alone moral.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just like print media. Why should "teh internets" be different?
---
Webster Tarpley told this joke:
How many economists does it take to change a light bulb?
None! When the one they were given in grad school burns out, they're in the dark!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just like print media. Why should "teh internets" be different?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How many out of the blues does it take to make one common law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How's that John Steele defense fund coming along, blue boy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just like print media. Why should "teh internets" be different?
>
> How many economists does it take to change a light bulb?
Not yours, but fair use. With an automated copyright filter you would have been filtered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Copyright-types never did have the ability to think ahead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just like print media. Why should "teh internets" be different?
To: Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2018 @ 4:51pm
What the actual Hell? Honestly, I thought you were Mr. Big Content yanking our chains again but no, you're really that thick.
YOU must make a positive factual case for the rampant "freedom" to use other people's content / work, not just float out equivocal adjectives and shriek, "Innovation!" -- I'll need actual examples, and they can't be near identical clones that change a few text strings, all trying to gain money easily. That's not innovation, it's same old focus on money...
Fair use. You're welcome.
Somehow print media handled this problem.
Fair use. If they can't comment on stuff they can't do their jobs. Think about it (for once!): if they had to bow to copyright every time they'd have to blur or pixellate the backgrounds of every film or photo they ever took or get permission to take photos or film in which shop fronts and artworks appear. They'd have to get a licence to quote from newspapers, documents, etc. because copyright is automatic from the momement the work is fixed in tangible form.
That of course was before Ivy League McEducated Kleptomaniacs had websites on which to daily claim that using content that others make is legal, let alone moral.
I note you're not demanding licence fees from Mike for your post. He's using your content, Blue. Using content that others make is both legal and moral at all times, even without a licence, where fair use applies. Of course, posting here implies that you've given Mike permission to use your pearls of wisdom...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just like print media. Why should "teh internets" be different?
Has it? If I grab someone else's writing and send it as a letter to the editor, would they be liable for printing it? Are they expected to scan everything just in case?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
feature or bug?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]