Latest Text Of EU Copyright Directive Shows It's Even Worse Than Expected: Must Be Stopped
from the the-internet-is-at-risk dept
One of the oddities of the vote a few weeks back in the EU Parliament's JURI Committee concerning the proposed EU Copyright Directive, was that there was no published text of what they were voting on. There were snippets and earlier proposals released, but the full actual text was only just released, and it's not in the most readable of formats. However, what is now clear is that the JURI Committee not only failed in its attempts to "fix" the many, many, many problems people have been raising about the Directive, but it actually makes many of the problems worse -- including saying that online platforms become legally responsible for any copyright infringement on their platforms. This new text effectively says that the internet should only be a broadcast medium, and no longer allow for open user platforms.
MEP Julia Reda has an excellent analysis of what's problematic about the released text, but I want to focus in on a few of the more bizarre changes in particular. First, on the whole Article 11 "link tax" bit, JURI apparently thought they could quiet down the protests by adding a line that says:
2a. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall not extend to acts of hyperlinking.
So now supporters of Article 11 will point to this new line and say "see?!? it's not about a link tax." Which would be great... if the rest of the text actually lived up to that. Unfortunately, basically every bit of the rest of Article 11 undermines that. Because it still creates a license requirement on a snippet of any length, and most URLs these days include a "snippet" of the headline of an article within the URL itself. Unless everyone starts stripping the text that includes such snippets -- making URLs significantly less useful -- those links will still run afoul of this licensing/tax requirement. Thus, them declaring that a hyperlink is not covered is meaningless if the rest of the directive can only be read in a manner that would include nearly all links.
Once again, it appears this amendment was written by someone who has no functional understanding of how the internet works, and thus does not realize how badly drafted this proposal is. It's the kind of thing a non-technically-inclined lawyer would write in response to people calling this a "link tax." "Oh," they would say, "well, let's just say it doesn't apply to links," even if any reading of the directive would mean it absolutely must apply to most links -- especially any that use any sort of descriptive text. On top of that if you share a link on a platform like Twitter or Facebook that automatically sucks in some snippet text, you're now violating the law as well.
Another change made by JURI is much, much, much more concerning. This is on Article 13, the part about mandatory upload filters. For unclear and unknown reasons, JURI decided to expand Article 13 to make it even more ridiculous. First, it redefines an "online content sharing services" to completely wipe out any intermediary liability protections for such platforms. The most standard form of protecting platforms from liability is to note (correctly!) that a platform is just a tool and is not the publisher or speaker of works posted/uploaded by third-party users. That's sensible. You can then (as the EU already does) put certain restrictions on those protections, such as requiring a form of a notice-and-takedown regime. But, the fundamental, common sense, idea is that a platform is the tool, and not the actual "speaker" of the third party content.
But JURI wiped that out. Instead, it explicitly states that any content shown via online platforms are the responsibility of those platforms by saying that such platforms "perform an act of communication to the public" in showing the content uploaded by users. This is a massive change and basically wipes out all intermediary liability protections for platforms:
Online content sharing service providers perform an act of communication to the public and therefore are responsible for their content. As a consequence, they should conclude fair and appropriate licensing agreements with rightholders. Therefore they cannot benefit from the liability exemption provided...
That's... bad. It's much, much worse than the original text from the commission, which made it clear that intermediary liability protections in the E-Commerce Directive still applied to such platforms. Here they explicitly remove that exception and say that platforms cannot benefit from such protections. As Reda points out, under this reading of the law almost any user-generated site on the internet will be in violation, and potentially at significantly greater legal liability than the various "pirate" sites people have complained about in the past:
By defining that platforms – and not their users – are the ones “communicating” uploaded works “to the public”, they become as liable for the actions of their users as if they had committed them themselves. Let’s imagine a company that makes an app for people to share videos of their cats. If even one user among millions uses the CatVideoWorld3000 app to record a Hollywood movie off a theater screen rather than their kitty, that’d be legally as bad as if the business’ employees had committed the copyright infringement themselves intentionally to profit off of it. The Pirate Bay, MegaUpload and Napster were all much more innocent than any site with an upload form will now be in the eyes of the law.
And that's not all that JURI did. It also outlawed image search with an amendment. No joke.
Use of protected content by information society services providing automated image referencing
Member States shall ensure that information society service providers that automatically reproduce or refer to significant amounts of copyright-protected visual works and make them available to the public for the purpose of indexing and referencing conclude fair and balanced licensing agreements with any requesting rightholders in order to ensure their fair remuneration. Such remuneration may be managed by the collective management organisation of the rightholders concerned.
This was not discussed previously and not recommended by the EU Commission. But, what the hell, while they're outlawing Google News, why not outlaw Google Images in the same shot.
There's a lot more in the text, but it's really, really bad. Effectively, the document envisions a world in which everything on the internet is "licensed" and any platform will be legally liable for any content on its platform. What you get in that world is not the internet -- the greatest communications medium ever made. What you get is... TV. A limited broadcast medium only for those who are pre-checked by gatekeepers.
It is incredibly important that the EU not move forward with this Directive. Contact the EU Parliament now and tell them to #SaveYourInternet before they vote on this proposal this Thursday.
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: article 11, article 13, broadcast, copyright, copyright directive, eu, eu copyright directive, intermediary liability, juri, link tax, platforms, upload filters
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Seems like it's what they want
Governments interested in control are just as happy. Far easier to pressure a few publishers than shut down millions of conversations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seems like it's what they want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trying to get this to not pass is not enough. We need to actually push back.
We need to get a reform bill in Congress that undoes the damage of the DMCA and subsequent abuses. At the top of the agenda should be decreasing copyright terms, doing away with the morally indefensible notice-and-takedown regime, and stripping legal protection from DRM. If we begin to move things back in the right direction, it will take the wind out of the Europeans' sails by making it more difficult to claim they're following worldwide trends.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Links
Why would you assume the letters making up a hyperlink would be covered by the tax, when they say "shall not extend to acts of hyperlinking"? If I want to read it as pessimistically as possible, I might note that the transmission of a hyperlink is not part of the "act of hyperlinking"--IOW, you can make a link, you just can't share it. I don't find either of these to be reasonable interpretations of the text.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Links
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Links
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Links
Sure, why not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Links
I get it, but don't you think that's exactly the type of claim "shall not extend to acts of hyperlinking" was meant to help us with? It's quite a tortured reading to suggest the tax does extend to hyperlinking if the hyperlink happens to have some text embedded (especially if it needs to be there to work—technically, Techdirt links are valid if the text is removed).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Links
Perhaps, but why is that an exception? The problem at its core is that the link tax applies by default, which is a complete change to how it is now. It shouldn't need to be something protected by a measly exception, especially when--as the article points out--everything else in the section goes to great lengths to undermine it.
It's quite a tortured law in the first place. There's a lot of ambiguity, and the powers behind it have done nothing to suggest they're acting in good faith. There's no reason to believe this simple little exception is going to actually fix anything.
I actually did not know that about Techdirt articles. But it actually doesn't matter, since the practice of putting the title in the URL text itself is already commonplace. It might be easy to work around here, but that doesn't apply to every site. And also, the reason it's done is to make the URL easier to read. Why do we need to even start worrying about having to change that just to comply with one stupid arbitrary law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Links
I believe it will fix the exact problem described in the quoted text (URL contains a "snippet"), and nothing else. Everything else you wrote is true; it's a terrible law, based on copyright maximalism rather than any intent to benefit the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or by someone who does, and they are out to destroy the Internet. Everybody knows who the suspects are, they were behind SOPA, and this is a better version by the back door.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While there should not in theory be any differences in meaning between the different translations, it's a sure bet that different interpretations of language will arise and have to be dealt with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Declare
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two things come to mind. First, let's just identify all European users a la:
lauren.vortex.com/2018/06/12/a-modest-proposal-identifying-europeans-on-the-internet-for-their-p rotection
Second, maybe a handful of large corporate players (Google, Amazon, etc) should just publicly announce they will no longer service EU countries at all. I bet that would last about an hour before MEPs suddenly achieved enlightenment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And as if by magic
https://news.slashdot.org/story/18/07/03/1517253/wikipedia-italy-blocks-all-articles-in-protest-of-e us-ruinous-copyright-proposals
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In this one piece are TWO zombie "accounts" with SIX YEAR GAPS!
Just look over the histories of "Advocate" and "Andrew". They're not long. Both over ten years old, both used two names, AND both have SIX year gaps. RE-MARK-ABLE, isn't it?
How many other "accounts" do you suppose are ODD? Well, I have a list for good guess, but have suppressed most of the zombies. These two among the most blatant keep popping out, though. My opinion is the Zombie Master is going to trot those out until I tire of pointing them up. -- That's not going to work because they CANNOT be made "normal", they'll be ODD forever.
Oh, and for kicker, there's "TripMN" not signed in, but the "account" of which has over 30 month gap!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In this one piece are TWO zombie "accounts" with SIX YEAR GAPS!
Just look over the histories of "Advocate" and "Andrew". They're not long. Both over ten years old, both used two names, AND both have SIX year gaps. RE-MARK-ABLE, isn't it?
I've asked this before, but you never seem to respond. What possible reason would there be for bringing back dead accounts? If you truly believe -- as you imply -- that we are somehow behind these accounts, why wouldn't we just create new ones?
Anyway, as others have explained to you multiple times, there's no conspiracy here. Most people read and don't comment (as opposed to you, who comments without reading). And when they do decide to comment, their account still exists. These days, many people use password managers, so it's no surprise that old accounts still work. And if they don't, we have (like every site) the ability to update your password if you forgot your old one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: In this one piece are TWO zombie "accounts" with SIX YEAR GAPS!
Because a bunch of new accounts which happen to mirror the 'correct' views are more obviously identifiable as sock-puppets than are existing accounts with established posting histories.
Of course, if one assumes you're willing and able to go that far, it would seem just as reasonable to assume that you could and would also retroactively create a false posting history for a new account, by inserting appropriately-dated comments into the database that stores such things; it would be more work, but also much less detectable. And if you could do that, why would you bother either resurrecting old accounts or creating new sock-puppet accounts?
Basically, if one starts out by assuming bad faith, it's possible to find "evidence" to support a conclusion of bad faith everywhere one looks. It just requires accepting a premise, and then deciding that because the premise is correct, any evidence which would conflict with it must be invalid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In this one piece are TWO zombie "accounts" with SIX YEAR GAPS!
The fun thing about humans is we like to see patterns even when there are none. And those who see patterns where they think they are nefarious and sneaky turn them into conspiracies. You are a conspiracist of the most inane kind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
All other technology leading up to the Internet, Phone Radio, film ans television, Either enabled faster and more convenient communications between two people, and over longer distances, or was a faster better printing press for the few authors able to get published via the technology.
The Internet is potentially more revolutionary that the printing press because it allows anyone to publish their thoughts and stories, and to attract an audience away from the old publishers who rely on controlling the market to maximize their profits. Now, just like the old aristocracy, who also controlled the church by pushing spare sons in that direction) the old publishers are fighting tooth and nail to retain their control, as are politicians who can see their power being eroded by the communities that spring up on the Internet.
I just hope that it does not require the wars and revolutions to create a new balance in society that the followed the invention of the printing press.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I thought it was bad enough when someone sued google to get rid of the 'View Image' button on their image search page.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Contact your MEP to stop this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'This time, THIS TIME they'll blink first!"
Yeah, they are banking hard that the major services like Google and Facebook will accept rather than pull out of the area, but with the law this insane I suspect that even major companies will consider it too risky to offer service in the EU, and if they think people are upset now just wait until Youtube, Facebook and many other sites disappear overnight for people in the EU.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Abolish Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time for revolution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Honestly EU has gone one step too far
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Honestly EU has gone one step too far
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Honestly EU has gone one step too far
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EU
Game over
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]