No Agreement Made On EU Copyright Directive, As Recording Industry Freaks Out About Safe Harbors Too
from the maybe-dump-article-13 dept
Today was the latest set of "Trilogue" negotiations for the EU Copyright Directive, between the EU Council, the EU Commission and the EU Parliament. When the trilogues were first scheduled, this was the final negotiation and the plan was to hammer out a final agreement by today. As we've been reporting lately, however, it still appeared that there was massive disagreement about what should be in Article 13 (in particular). And so, today's meetings ended with no deal in place, and a new trilogue negotiation set for January 14th. As MEP Julia Reda reports, most negotiators are still pushing for mandatory upload filters, so there's still a huge uphill battle ahead -- but the more regulators realize how disastrous such a provision would be for the public, the better.
Also worrisome, Reda notes that after the Parliament rejected Article 13 back in July, MEP Axel Voss agreed to add an exception for small businesses that helped get the proposal approved in September. Yet, in today's negotiations, he agreed to drop that small business exception, meaning that if you run a small platform that accepts user generated content, you might need to cross the EU off your list of markets should Article 13 pass.
One other important thing. Earlier this week, we noted that the TV, film and sports legacy companies were complaining that if Article 13 included a basic safe harbor (i.e., rules that say if you do certain things to remove infringing content, you won't be liable), then they no longer wanted it at all -- or wanted it to just be limited to music content. That suggested there might be some separation between the film/TV/sports industries and the music industries. But, no. Right before the trilogues, the legacy recording industries released a similar letter:
The fundamental elements of a solution to the Value Gap/Transfer of Value remain, as acknowledged by all three institutions in their adopted texts, to clarify that UUC services now defined as Online Content Sharing Service Providers (“OCSSP”) are liable for communication to the public and/or making available to the public when protected works are made available and that they are not eligible for the liability privilege in Article 14 of the E-Commerce Directive as far as copyright is concerned. We continue to believe that only a solution that stays within these principles meaningfully addresses the Value Gap/Transfer of Value. Moreover, licensing needs to be encouraged where the rightsholders are willing to do so but at the same time not be forced upon rightsholders.
Therefore, proposals that deviate from the adopted positions of the three institutions should be dismissed.
Unfortunately, for a number of reasons, the text now put forward by the European Commission would need fundamental changes to achieve the Directive’s aim to correct the Value Gap/ Transfer of Value.
For example, solutions that seek to qualify or mitigate the liability of Online Content Sharing Service Providers should be considered with an abundance of caution to avoid the final proposal leaving rightsholders in a worse position than they are in now. Any “mitigation measures”, should they be offered to OCSSPs, must therefore be clearly formulated and conditional on OCSSPs taking robust action to ensure the unavailability of works or other subject matter on their services.
This is pretty incredible when you get past the diplomatic legalese. These music companies are flat out admitting that the entire goal of this bill is to hit internet companies with crippling liability that makes it literally impossible for them to host any user generated content. This isn't -- as they claim -- about a "value gap" (a made up meaningless term). Rather this is the legacy entertainment industry going all in on an attempt to change the internet from a platform for the public, to a locked up platform for gatekeepers. In short, they want to take the internet and turn it into TV. Europe should not let this happen.
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 13, copyright, eu, eu copyright directive, intermediary liability, safe harbors
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"Just under the rib cage!" "No, through the arm-pit!"
I can't help but find it rather funny that the main stumbling block to this legislative disaster is a fight over how exactly to screw over the public, and how much, with objections being lodged that it's not bad enough holding it up. Nice to have their petty contempt of the public actually working in the public's favor for once.
Hopefully they'll bicker long enough for enough pushback to occur to kill the thing entirely, or refuse to accept it unless it's extreme enough, killing it that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Filters to prevent music/video sampling
Paid the licensing fee? Too bad. Maybe create something of your own next time. Recording a cover of a song where parts of it are in the public domain? Too bad. Maybe create something of your own next time. Filming a remake of a movie that already exists, and you're the owner of the original? Too bad. Maybe create something of your own next time. The thing you're creating is your own but the technology accidentally thinks it's similar to something someone else already created? Too bad. Maybe create something more of your own next time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Filters to prevent music/video sampling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Filters to prevent music/video sampling
That is a problem of distribution, branding, and the public's refusal to think for itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Filters to prevent music/video sampling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Filters to prevent music/video sampling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Filters to prevent music/video sampling
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4AeoAWGJBw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EU won't have internet. It will only effectively have TV via ethernet and wifi with NO individual user being able to do so much as post a text message to a forum without a billion dollar corporation allowing them to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Isn't Facebook already on TOR?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Facebook on Tor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Facebook on Tor
They were also the first ones to get an SSL certificate for an onion domain. They had to work with a CA to figure out the process: https://www.facebook.com/notes/protect-the-graph/making-connections-to-facebook-more-secure /1526085754298237
One of the stated reasons for having a Tor site was to improve accessibility (the implication being that some networks were blocking Facebook).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 13th, 2018 @ 2:47pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“But…but think of the content creators who would really be hurt if this doesn’t pass—you know, Disney, Warner Bros., and the like!”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[Citation Needed].
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What happened to that bombshell report on mikes finances bro?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Being anti-safe harbours is merely an attempt to go after the nearest easy target rather than do the work of actually stopping infringement. That's what you're supporting if you oppose it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Landowner has a deal with gangsters to use his land to dump dead rivals? Sure, have at him on conspiracy charges. Gangsters use a bit of empty ground to dump the bodies without the owner's knowledge? No, you should not get to prosecute the landowner for murder just because it's easier to find him than it is the actual killers.
Also, if you support removal of safe harbours for online services but don't also demand that mail, car rental and phone companies are held directly liable for illegal use of their services, you're a hypocrite and a fool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You know, demonstrable losses rather than the ""what if" crap that the RIAA's statements depend on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "safe harbors" is corporatist code for "above the law".
A) The very term does not apply in print media. Section 230 in US, other law in Europe, made NEW exemptions for what was previously illegal.
B) "safe harbors" were made for The People to easily access / use The Internet, not so that corporations could "monetize" copyrighted products without liability, besides arbitrarily control access to / use of the new "platforms" to suppress speech that doesn't fit corporate interests of gaining money without responsibility to society.
C) We now have PLENTY of evidence that piracy and corporate grifting off copyrighted products results from the current arrangement.
D) The creators are not being rewarded at all, usually, let alone fairly.
E) Google, the favorite corporation here because "sponsors" Masnick, gets to use links and other valuable content for free (especially on Youtube). -- No, it doesn't pay the creators by sending them traffic: Google / Facebook also suck up nearly all the advertising revenue. Any left for the originators is entirely by chance.
F) There's nothing holy or sacred about the current arrangement: it's NOT the only way that teh internets can work. Masnick / Techdirt and the pirates favor the current unfairness because advantages them against the people who produce the content that they grift off / steal from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "safe harbors" is corporatist code for "above the law".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "common law" is code for "troll".
B) Nope - 230 was actually made to allow companies to moderate user content. Please site your version of 230.
C) Vague but people with money do pay for laws. Not just corporations.
D) In what sense?
E) Please show evidence of this?
F) On the other hand, your dogma of muf freeze peach is sacred, eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, not really. Supermarkets have always had the right to moderate what is put up on their "public facing" bulletin boards in their "public" lobbies.
Please explain why should be any different, just because it's online.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I should also add, I don't believe (although I've never really researched this angle) we have ever held supermarkets responsible for the speech that others place on their bulletin boards, either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An absolute joke
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An absolute joke
I would pay to see this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think most videos containing music will simply be muted unless they are posted by nbc, mtv,vevo, etc
Even google cant afford to pay the cost if it was to be sued for millions of videos,
that contain a few minutes of music .
The present system sort of works,
a company can simply choose to take all ad revenue from a video or take down the video if it claims its infringing.
The user can choose to reupload the video and remove the music from it .
So basicly the record companys are going after
youtube to make them liable for all content.
Even though youtube pays billions to host music videos on vevo and other youtube accounts.
The legacy companys want to turn the internet
into cable tv or itunes , you can only watch
what is licensed and paid for even though this
will block most content from small creators, artists ,singers .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about the Rightsholders do their homework for a change?
As with Article 13, rights holders and collection societies are very happy with the situation - they collect the money, and, eh, look after it in case somebody comes along and claims it.
Before we even start talking about third parties respecting rights, somebody needs to work out what rights exist, who owns them, and exactly what is protected.
The current situation where anybody can come out of the woods and send demand letters claiming to own rights is bad enough; giving those letter senders the benefit of doubt, and putting the burden of proof on intermediaries is not only sheer madness, it is hard to see how it might serve the creatives or the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about the Rightsholders do their homework for a change?
Easy - they own everything and you own nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How about the Rightsholders do their homework for a chan
That is also the psychology of big banks and money creation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How about the Rightsholders do their homework for a
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about PIRATES STOP STEALING?
You do some rambling that's very little applicable.
Fact is that Copyright is firmly in the body of Western law, and it defines unauthorized viewing / enjoyment of copyright products as illegal.
Pirates, like other thieves, don't actually have any rights nor any basis in morality to bargain against producers. Problem is simply that pirates are difficult to catch and prosecute without much disruption to innocent people. Pirates are effectively using non-thieves as hostages so that they get entertainments for free. It's pirates who are outside of Law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How about PIRATES STOP STEALING?
Actually, making copies is what is illegal, sell, lend or give a copy that you legally obtained to somebody else and you are well within the law, and if you sell or give the copy away the new owner is free to do the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How about blues fuck off
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How about PIRATES STOP STEALING?
By viewing / enjoyment, do you mean copying / distribution? Because that is what copyright law is actually concerned with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How about PIRATES STOP STEALING?
No, his entire argument is predicated on fiction, and he needs to keep up the act. Even when that means making laughable claims that aren't supported by reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]