Copyright Industry Lobbyists Can't Even Get Their Story Straight On Article 13: Does It Expand Copyright Or Keep It The Same?
from the get-your-act-together dept
Last week, we pointed out that while you might hear copyright industry lobbyists and EU regulators repeatedly insisting that all of the concerns being raised about the EU Copyright Directive are being driven by "big tech" lobbying, the actual data shows that over 80% of the lobbying effort has come from legacy copyright industries, pushing really, really hard for a massive expansion in copyright law that will fundamentally change how the internet works (and not in a good way). It's become clear, watching these lobbyists in action, that they will say absolutely anything, no matter how ridiculous, if they think it will lead to getting their beloved Article 13, where the sole purpose is to fundamentally change the internet from a communications medium, in which anyone can share anything they create, to a fully broadcast medium, where everything must first be licensed. Obviously, the legacy copyright companies want this badly, because they're in the business of licensing. And, if everyone suddenly needs to get licenses, suddenly they become relevant again.
But, as we mentioned last week, those same lobbyists are freaking out that EU regulators might possibly add a "safe harbor" to Article 13. Even with a safe harbor, Article 13 is a problem, but without a safe harbor it's a disaster. The "safe harbor" would just mean that if internet companies follow specific steps to rid their platforms of infringing works, then they can't get sued. But the copyright players badly want to be able to sue, because that's how they rid the internet of this amateur competition -- by making it too costly to continue to host.
But in one of the letters sent last week, by the movie and sports industries, they made an odd argument against the safe harbor. Hilariously, they claim that a safe harbor would change copyright law, and the purpose of Article 13 is to codify existing case law. Really:
The initial goal of Article 13 was to codify the existing case-law in a way that would enable right holders to better control the exploitation of their content vis a vis certain OCSSPs which currently wrongfully claim they benefit from the liability privilege of Article 14 ECD. Unfortunately, the Value Gap provision has mutated in such a way that it now creates a new liability privilege for big platforms and therefore even further strengthens the role of OCSSPs to the direct detriment of rightholders.
First of all, this is a completely laughable attempt to rewrite history. The E-Commerce Directive's Article 14 contains safe harbors that have always been held to apply to internet service providers. But, still, it's odd to see them claiming that Article 13 isn't supposed to do anything new.
Apparently, however, this new message didn't make it to all the lobbyists working on this thing (either that, or they just don't care one bit if they give conflicting messages, as long as they get what they want). Neil Turkewitz, a former RIAA VP, who was a huge part of the RIAA push to dismantle the internet bit by bit over the past few decades, has written up some crazy rant about Article 13, where he makes exactly the opposite argument that his buddies in the film and TV industries were making. Rather than merely codifying existing law, Turkewitz wants you to know that Article 13 is a wonderful new idea:
Articles 11 and 13 are designed to create markets where none presently exist, or are marred by unfair competition — to breathe life into property interests that are themselves protected under international law.
This is obviously crazy as well and has no basis in reality. There is no "unfair competition." What Neil and his buddies consider "unfair competition" is any competition in which the deck isn't stacked in massive favor for the record labels. Anything that allows an open internet, where there is competition and artists can (*gasp*) go direct to the audiences they want, and explore new business models, is an abomination that must be destroyed. And the best way is to call it "unfair competition."
Still, these two arguments can't go together. Is Article 13 codifying existing law, as the MPA says? Or is it creating new markets where none presently exist, as per the ex(?) RIAA guy?
Once again, these guys are showing why you can't trust a single word that they say. They will say absolutely anything to get their way and fundamentally take away the open internet.
On a separate note, Turkewitz's laughable article gets more laughable the more you read. I particularly enjoy this part:
But regardless on one’s views of existing safe harbors, one thing is clear — Congress and the Administration should refrain from locking in what is essentially the beta version of internet governance — rules adopted at the dawn of the commercial internet.
If you know anything about the past three decades that Turkewitz spent at the RIAA, one of his focuses was doing exactly what he's now complaining should not be done. He was a key player in pushing the worst aspects of copyright law into every international trade agreement, locking in bad ideas such that they couldn't be changed -- in particular the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA. For him to now whine about an attempt to use the same mechanisms to include the "protective" elements for user-rights and free speech in the form of the safe harbors of the DMCA is particularly bold. It's amazing anyone takes him seriously.
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, intermediary liability, intermediary liability protections, neil turkewitz, safe harbors
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
You're right to put "protective" in scare quotes here. Calling the DMCA takedown rule a "safe harbor" is an Orwellian abuse of the language. What it is is a tool for extortion, which is abused in essentially every case in which it is used. (Over 99.9% by some metrics!)
As I've said before, the only copyright policy which actually makes sense is diametrically opposed to the way the DMCA handles it:
We need to push back, to get the DMCA repealed and replaced with something sane, so that people like this stop using it as a foundation upon which to build even bigger abominations. (And before anyone says "but the DMCA is a US law and we're talking about European law," keep in mind that the US law has given them a precedent to point to in order to get bad laws passed elsewhere in the world.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No need to tiptoe
Apparently, however, this new message didn't make it to all the lobbyists working on this thing (either that, or they just don't care one bit if they give conflicting messages, as long as they get what they want).
It's the latter, all but guaranteed. They'll say whatever they think will help them the most at any particular moment, even if they've said the exact opposite before, safe in the knowledge that in almost every case they won't be called out on it.
For him to now whine about an attempt to use the same mechanisms to include the "protective" elements for user-rights and free speech in the form of the safe harbors of the DMCA is particularly bold. It's amazing anyone takes him seriously.
The word you're looking for here is 'hypocritical', not 'bold'. As in 'it's grossly hypocritical for him to be objecting to the same thing he was supporting previously'.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just out of curiosity
The discussion had started with European newspaper publishers - notably Springer - claiming that Google needed to share some of their "massive" revenue made from stolen headlines. When that was debunked, Rightsholder wanted a share of Youtube "massive" profits made at the expense of musicians.
By now, Youtube's contentID system has magically transformed into a gold standard of content protection that everyone else should adopt.
Which raises the question: What problem are they actually trying to fix, and how big is said problem? Compared to the cost of fixing it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Just out of curiosity
Which raises the question: What problem are they actually trying to fix, and how big is said problem? Compared to the cost of fixing it?
In rough order:
Competition.
Immense to those too stubborn/greedy to adapt, minor to those that can and do.
Given the proposed 'fix' is to kill and/or massively harm the 'problem' of competition, the cost is overkill along the lines of nuking a house to get rid of mold in one room.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Just out of curiosity
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unless registration fees started out massively high(which would punish smaller creators) that would actually benefit the larger companies, as they could handle the fees for a good while whereas smaller creators could not.
No, one duration granted upon registration(14 years might actually be too long these days), one more optional if they decide it's valuable enough to manually renew it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What I meant to say above
The problem is self publishing, as it removes their abilities to profit from the works of creators while also deciding the shape of culture by selecting very few works for publication.
The size of the problem, is more works published in a minute on the Internet than they can publish in a year. They can see their business being marginalized by the flood of self publishing that the Internet has released, by bypassing the filter they had on what got published. The internet has boosted creative output, by allowing self publishing, which if it gains an audience of one or two, especially if that audience offers encouragement and constructive criticism, keeps the creators trying to do better.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
To do what ive said for years but always been shouted down, TO GIVE COMPLETE CONTROL OF THE INTERNET TO THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRIES, WITH GOVERNMENTS, SECURITY FORCES AND COURTS GIVING AS MUCH ASSISTANCE AS POSSIBLE TO ACHIVE THIS AIM! The biggest help as far as Europe is concerned voming from the European Commission. This bunch does absolutely anything the entertainment industries say! I cant help wondering what form the encouragement comes in? Hint, hint!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"unfair competition" means someone else selling your products.
C'mon, Masnick. You have many times written what "unfair competition" means in a copyright context. Evidently you've become so fixated on your own lies that are forgetting the little real law that you've put on this tiny little piratey site.
What "unfair competition" means is you can't compete with free when that's your own products which you worked and paid to make, and which fat slugs like Kim Dotcom host for only cost of bandwidth.
Since you can't keep the law straight, you misunderstand Turkewitz, and then go off on a mistaken rant.
Last blockquote, on "locking in the beta version" is another gem of your quote-and-contradict method, showing it only so can go on irrelevant rant as if answered. -- At best, what you want is the current infringements both personal and commercial-scale to continue, because you promote piracy and grifting.
You near the end of possible schtick, Masnick. When whatever is passed and the internet doesn't collapse, as it didn't over "net neutrality", you'll just figure out some way to either cast it as a win for you, or use it to predict doom's-a-coming. After 20 years of this, no one reasonable thinks you're credible. You can pick out only one in four topics on Torrent Freak that's at all favoring pirates. Techdirt is smaller every year and gone is the bold pirate boasting; the FEW fanboys barely whimper now and I've suppressed the astro-turf zombies. Anyhoo, why not just CLOSE THE SITE and go away while still can pretend you ever mattered?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You don't have ANY push, kids.
So, whatta ya been waitin' for last 20 year, puddin'? Push! Hard as you can, you Mikrobe.
Sheesh. Again, PIRATES: YOU HAVE NO SAY IN OR OVER WHAT PRODUCTIVE PEOPLE DO WITH WHAT THEY MAKE. The works are effectively THEIR money, see? It's what they TRADE with other producers. That's why it's property. You thieves think can cut yourself in on other's money? Nope.
But here you are with fantasy that you do. -- And it's interesting that you're resigned to live with copyright, just trying to get better terms. -- But they're NOT going to bargain, first don't have to, and mainly you wouldn't respect ANY copyright, anyway!
Only reason people in gov't pay any attention to you thieves is because they like thieves, they like to give away what productive people make, and they like to thereby destroy civilization.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Remember your bible?
Jesus Christ would have whipped them clean, those who enforce Article 13 today. This is a holy battle you are waging. The temple is our free Internet. They are the money changers. In the name of all that is holy, rebuke them! Don't let them win. All of you who rightfully fight for this battle are anointed with the power of Christ Jesus. And so it is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Suck it, blue!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: You don't have ANY push, kids.
Why should the legacy copyright industry be the ones to decide which creative people get published, and who have their time wasted because they cannot get published.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You can't even get your lies consistent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It's almost as if they have no argument at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
And yet, if you had your way, “productive” people would only ever be able to publish their work through major corporations, as they would be the only organizations with the money, power, and time to publish works, defend the copyrights of those works, and effectively turn the Internet into a broadcast-only content delivery system. Seems like you want a bigger say in what “productive” people do than does anyone else here.
Hold on to the first part of that sentence. As for the “better terms” bit: Yes, is that a problem for you? For what reason should copyright last longer than a person’s life? (If you say “to give it to their heirs”, for what reason should those people be allowed to profit from works they had no hand in creating?)
The funny thing is, I would have respect for copyright if it were worth respecting in the Internet Age. But between the effective shutdown of the public domain by way of nearly-century-long copyright terms, the flagrant abuse of copyright to stifle legal speech, and the refusal of pro-copyright advocates to say that copyright requires a full-bore overhaul to account for both computers and the Internet, I see no reason to respect copyright—or anyone who advocates for stricter, tighter, “fuck Fair Use” copyright laws, for that matter.
Wow. “Destroy civilization”. Do you really think someone downloading a camrip of Into the Spider-Verse is an honest-to-God existential threat to human civilization on par with global climate change or potential nuclear war?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
After years of crap like yours, no one reasonable thinks you’re reasonable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
They cannot argue you properly, so they dig a mudhole and attempt to make you jump into it. And if that doesn’t work, they throw a scarecrow down there and say that it’s you. Sad, really.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: You don't have ANY push, kids.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
He thinks corporations should not have the power to censor “natural people”, yet he also thinks corporations should have the power to enforce the strictest possible reading of copyright in a way that would censor virtually anyone who makes use of copyrighted material under the principles of Fair Use. The cognitive dissonance would be hilarious if not for the fact that Blue only ever takes a contrarian position with whatever a given Techdirt writer says, then never comes back to defend his position. I can count on one hand the amount of times he has actually replied to my kicking his shit in, and he always prioritizes insults over fact-based reasonable discussion.
I appreciate that he keeps insulting everyone, though. It means that, in re: his posts, I have no obligation to be nice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Sad yes, but also funny and telling of both their character and position.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I see that Turkewitz is thinking of "property interests"…
Do you think that may explain why he's misunderstanding the whole issue? ; ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
It would be nice if during an interview or questioning period someone were to ask exactly how much those who demand 'a fair share' think that sites like YT get for a single view by a single person, and how much of that they think YT 'owes' the record label(who might perhaps, sometime down the line, give some of it to the actual musician.)
Claiming that YT only pays 'fractions of a penny per video' may make for a nice soundbite, but if they only get 'fractions of a penny per video' then demanding that they pay more is demanding that the company commit corporate suicide and kill itself off, all because some people and groups are too damn short-sighted and greedy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Whiners gonna whine
So are you a lying little bitch?
Or a little bitch that lies?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
> For what reason should copyright last longer than a person’s life? (If you say “to give it to their heirs”, for what reason should those people be allowed to profit from works they had no hand in creating?)
Ulysses S. Grant, stripped of his life savings by a con man, was able to keep his widow out of the poorhouse (with the aid and encouragement of publisher Mark Twain) by writing his war memoirs. He died of cancer just ten days after turning in the last page. Should we really have laughed in his face and told him his widow would get nothing?
Copyright should be for a reasonable term, *regardless* of the creator's life span. 28 years, renewable (for a significant fee) for another 28, was reasonable. Lifespan plus fifty years is ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lifespan plus 70, but I see your point. 28 to 56 years, though? Nah, fam. Up to 20 years (a 5-year term with three optional 5-year renewals) is more than enough time to make money off a work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I say go ahead, mess up the internet!
The copyright moguls are pushing us more and more to only use an internet that works for all and removes all copyright as it's goal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I say go ahead, mess up the internet!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I say go ahead, mess up the internet!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I say go ahead, mess up the internet!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That indifference comes from people who see modern copyright as a tool of corporate greed—of extortion, of censorship, of locking people out of truly owning something they bought—rather than as a tool for people to retain a time-limited, government-granted right of control over distribution so they can monetize their works before putting them in the public domain. If copyright were less strict and less…perpetual, attitudes about copyright could change. So long as copyright only ever works in favor of the big corporations, that shift in attitude will never happen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Oh he communicates just fine, the failure is in his ability to do so honestly, and that is almost certain very much a deliberate 'failure'.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Just out of curiosity: It is all but a proxy for fascism
So basically, they just want to burn down our Digital Library of Alexandria, because they are just a bunch of fascist assholes who like taking away rights for sadistic kicks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I say go ahead, mess up the internet!
70 extra years is not going to incentivize corpses to create anything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I say go ahead, mess up the internet!
Its value, then, is to provide the standing for commercial infringement lawsuits. Going after small fry is counter-productive.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: I say go ahead, mess up the internet!
[ link to this | view in thread ]