European Journalists Point Out That Article 11 Will Enrich Publishers At The Expense Of Journalists
from the this-is-not-helping dept
Promoters of the EU destructive copyright directive keep pushing the bogus line that it is necessary to give money to "artists and journalists." Take, for example, MEP Axel Voss (the EU Parliament member in charge of all of this nonsense) and his press release touting the final text:
Internet platforms face incentives to pay for artists and journalists’ work used
Except, actual journalists in the EU are realizing exactly what many of us have been talking about for months: nothing in the Directive will lead to more money for journalists. Instead, at best, it might lead to more money for publishers (though, even that is suspect, given the utter failure of similar plans already in place in Spain and Germany). While Voss's announcement claims that "Journalists must get a share of any copyright-related revenue obtained by their publishing house," journalists are pointing out that the opposite is actually true.
The International Federation of Journalists, along with the European Federations of Journalists put out a statement noting that Article 11 "makes a mockery" of their rights and will only serve to help publishers strip the journalists of their own rights:
While the directive acknowledges an obligation for journalists and all authors of the works incorporated in a press publication to receive an "appropriate share" of the revenues press publishers receive for the use of their publications online, it enables publishers to avoid such requirements by relying on existing "contractual arrangements" and "laws on ownership".
Such moves could deny journalists any revenue arising from the re-use of their work online.
These discriminatory provisions and proposals contained in Article 11 and Recital 35 of the text dash any hopes that the Directive would support authors in the press sector in obtaining fair and proportionate remuneration for their work under this law or in future national legislation.
Instead they boost the system whereby powerful publishers force employed journalists and freelancers alike to sign contracts giving up all their rights – thereby offering them a proportionate or appropriate share of nothing
In short, the final text pays lip service to the idea that publishers should pass on money to journalists, but also provides a massive loophole in that all the publishers need to do is write this requirement out of any contract and not have to worry about it.
It appears that this kind of tactic is found throughout Articles 11 and 13. The text says you don't have to use filters, but provides no workable alternative. The text says that memes are allowed, but never explains how a site can comply with the law without blocking all memes. The text of the directive basically pays lip service to all the complaints and obvious consequences, but rather than deal with the consequences, it just says "and don't let those consequences happen." This is no way to make policy.
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, copyright, eu, eu copyright directive, journalism, journalists
Reader Comments
The First Word
“So basically, the journalists are about to experience what "artists" (particularly musicians and actors) have been experiencing for decades now under the modern copyright regime: having all of the money that's supposed to be going to them diverted into publishers' coffers instead?
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This is what happens when you let people who have no fucking clue about how the Internet works in 2019 make laws that will govern how the Internet works in 2019.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is what happens when pirates break the law so egregiously that measures like this are necessary.
Journalists could work independently as well, or form a co-op, OR negotiate better terms with their publishers. If the "employment model" no longer works, because of the internet, it's obsolete and needs to be replaced.
What needs to go is piracy. Perhaps honest people will finally get fed up with the thieves causing their precious internet to "break."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The funny thing is, you have exactly one good point in here:
Because yes, I happen to agree: If a business model can be destroyed by the Internet, it deserves to be destroyed by the Internet.
But then you fuck it all up with this:
Because it isn’t “piracy” that breaks the Internet — it is lawmakers making laws that attempt to stop “piracy” that break the Internet. Articles 11 and 13 will do jack shit to stop large-scale filesharing, but they will place new restrictions on legal (and seemingly legal) activities for the sake of “doing something” to enforce copyright even harder. Like DRM, Articles 11 and 13 will affect otherwise law-abiding citizens more than it will ever affect any “pirates” — and the Articles will do that by design.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If we go by neccessary why are you allowed limbs and genitalia when you can use them to rape and murder? Don't blame me for the mutilation it is the murderers' and rapists' fault!
Neccessity is the excuse of tyrants and their minions to do what they want without reflection. Especially when it is never asked /how/ it is necessary or how the supposed measure will help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Pirates as you like to call them are actually consumers. Labeling them with a word that you hate does nothing to change reality. You are the one with the problem, you need to understand that your world view is wrong and detrimental to the world in general.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Dishonor on your, dishonor on your cow, dishonor on your whole family!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The major issue publishers were complaining about was what is displayed in search results. The claim, mostly bullshit, was the display was keeping people from viewing the article. The reason it is mostly bullshit is the context of the search and interest of person. I might be only interested in the headlines about the story so a glance at the results is all I will do. Or I might want to read more about the story, then I will click on one of the links. Also with say 20 links available I will probably only click on 1 or 2 of them.
The real problem for news organizations is they have depended on casual readers for decades as subscribers. Most subscribers usually skimmed the headlines, read a couple stories that interested them, maybe read the sports page, etc. With the Internet and bookmarks, one can effectively subscribe to those sites that consistently carry stories that interest them. General news, not so much. So the business model has collapsed for many newspapers and subscribers have fled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If anyone wants a "Free Market" that is unburdened by government regulations, then obviously Piracy is the logical outcome. Free is a viable market alternative to paying exorbitant fees. Copyright is an artificial market limitation imposed by governments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Oh, for crying out load! Put a sock in it, will you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sometimes it IS malice
I'm not so sure, nor willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. At this point they really have no excuse not to know how much their proposed laws will screw things up, so assuming malice seems only fair.
It's not that they don't know the damage their vaguely worded garbage is going to cause, rather they know and the 'and don't let those bad things happen' bits are merely the CYOA part of the text, where they can claim after the fact that they didn't demand filters, so the fact that sites 'chose' to implement them is entirely on the sites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sometimes it IS malice
Exactly! The people pushing this Directive are malicious, fascist fucks hoping to murder the internet to kill off dissent and creativity. Protecting Copyright and Journalists are just excuse used as a means to that end. They are a parasitic people who are lower than rat, and there is only one way to deal with Fascists rats. You EXTERMINAT them like the rats they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This just in (see https://www.permanentrepresentations.nl/permanent-representations/pr-eu-brussels/documents/policy-no tes/2019/02/20/joint-statement-regarding-the-copyright-directive ):
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
they do,nt care about free speech ,
or they are very stupid .
They think sending someone an email is the cutting edge of technology .
They are making a law out of a list of demands from old legacy companys ,stop anyone else from
making money from any content made by newspapers ,
record companys or or any big media companys .
This law outlaws parody , fair use , memes ,remix culture .
.
Its like saying all traffic laws and the rules regarding self driving cars
will be made by a 60 year old person who has never learned to drive and only travels by train and bus and lives in a rural village .
Most of the websites i use would be illegal since they quote snippets of articles and link to any website they deem relevant without getting a license .
The way memes work is by taking a photo and putting
your own caption on it,
the ones that are funny or relevant spread like a viral video .
Even if i make a great meme it,ll be blocked by eu
websites , as they have no way of knowing who owns the image and they i get a license for it .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The EU does not want you to get a license, but require that all sites block infringing contents, and have suggested, but not built into the law any mandatory license. They are assuming that the entertainment industry will follow the newspapers lead and issue licenses, while ignoring that there are potentially more sites that would ask for a license than Google, Facebook and Twitter. They are not setting up any mandatory licensing, or any mechanism for dealing with license requests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so, as has been said multiple times, all that will happen is that those who think that the likes of Google is getting monies atm, that will migrate to the publishers. similarly, the entertainment industries that have been after total control of the Internet will get it, thanks to pricks like Voss, and the world will be all the more worse off for it! what is needed is for how much he is being paid and by which industries for him to bring this crock of crap law into being. even worse, once in place, it'll never be gotten rid of, regardless of the damage it does
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So basically, the journalists are about to experience what "artists" (particularly musicians and actors) have been experiencing for decades now under the modern copyright regime: having all of the money that's supposed to be going to them diverted into publishers' coffers instead?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yep.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another arrogant BLUE BOY paying for attention.
For those new to the site, "blue" and "out_of_the_blue" refer to those arrogant commentors who pay for the privilege of putting their deathless wit in Techdirt's unique "First Word" and "Last Word", the highlighting done by hyper-links (hence the name "out of the blue"), usually large and always annoying. You see those only rarely because reviled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh blue/liar(but I repeat myself)...
You know, no matter how many times you lie about that people aren't going to believe you, if for no other reason than numerous other people will happily pop in to point out that you're lying, again, and in a most hilariously obvious manner no less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL
Haha. Nobody even referenced you blueboy, yet somehow you feel the need to do some damage control on your reputation by lying about what's going. Something so simple that most people can tell you're lying at first glance?
You need help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: LOL
"Nobody even referenced you blueboy, yet somehow you feel the need to do some damage control on your reputation by lying about what's going."
It's not a sign of credibility when someone feels compelled to defend himself - in advance of anyone saying anything.
And yet, that's where old bobmail is at these days, apparently out of sheer habit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another arrogant BLUE BOY paying for attention.
This might be deserving of funniest of the week...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another arrogant Troll
Wait, what?
I thought "Blue" was short for "Blue Balls", the commentator that always posts with a funny name, from TOR, and complains that Mike isn't free-speechy enough.
Cause, he is posting from his parent's basement and never gets out. Thus "Blue Balls."
Confused now. Can't tell these anonymous Cowards apart anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Another arrogant Troll
"Confused now. Can't tell these anonymous Cowards apart anymore."
It's our good fortune that blue/bobmail's usual stripe of commentary is almost instantly recognizable.
Generally speaking if what has been posted consists of a demented hate-boner referencing a nonexistent phenomena as a cure for a completely unrelated topic while commenting on every possible detractor being paid by Mike to be mean to him you can usually assume the poster is dear old blue..or "bobmail" as i like to refer to him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The journalists might want to watch what they say, lest Voss alter the deal to reflect a model based on the academic publishing industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SO NEXT, obviously: regulate publishers to prevent harm.
This is broader problem intrinsic to "capitalism": allowing The Rich too much power. -- I'd fix 'em by taking away their notional wealth by which rule over us, but Masnick is for existing conditions because born into comfortable niche where HE lives well without having to compete.
Existing terms already exist so irrelevant.
**That TOO is an existing power. All that's claimed is FUD-ish: "will be worse".
ALL you're doing here is whining. And the changes will soon be in place...
So what's your "Step 2" for fixing this, college boy? This is a socio-economic problem and you claim a PhD. -- Trick question. You CAN'T make any suggestions for fix because your hidden positions are such that you don't support AOC (and me) in taxing the hell out of The Rich, which is the simple effective way to reduce most societal problems, and the only non-lethal offset to money power. -- And you support GOOGLE which you say will benefit from this: your motives are tangled at best.
And fact is that you don't suggest anything, never do.
Mere clickbait, then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SO NEXT, obviously: regulate publishers to prevent harm.
This is literally the entire point of copyright, as originally conceived.
It was a good idea then and it's a good idea now. It's a shame that we've gotten so far away from it in the intervening years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: SO NEXT, obviously: regulate publishers to prevent harm.
"This is literally the entire point of copyright, as originally conceived."
"It was a good idea then and it's a good idea now. It's a shame that we've gotten so far away from it in the intervening years."
That's just it - that was NEVER the point of copyright. Copyright was always intended to be a protectionist measure covering publishers first and foremost. Everything tacked on later on as window dressing is just a desperate attempt at trying to establish validity for a repurposed old political-religious censorship tool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SO NEXT, obviously: regulate publishers to prevent harm.
Well, you know, except for the massive amount of other tech blogs out there that he competes with. But you know, don't let facts get in the way of you spouting off a bunch of lies and nonsense.
Ah your one of those socialists who believes that anything you earn isn't yours and should be given equally to those around you. Because that has worked out so well in history.
What does support for a company on one particular topic have to do with anything? By that logic, I would say your motives are much more than tangled since you blatantly and openly support entertainment industries who regularly fleece the pants off the artists they sign.
Except for all those times he has. You are obviously a compulsive liar, there are people who can help with that. I suggest contacting them. If you can stop lying for enough time to admit you have a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'You shut up when we're talking for you!'
Why, you'd almost think that the people who are actually going to be impacted by this have seen what it's done in the past, aren't idiots and have actually read the text, and know that far from helping them it's merely handing them to the very groups they've been bypassing on a silver platter...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's an example of two guys who have made $4 million off their free podcast, which provides useful information to their audience:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/smallbusiness/how-to-lose-tens-of-thousands-of-dollars-on- amazon/ar-BBRHEqI?ocid=spartandhp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
what has this got to do with the topic at hand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Journalists? Where?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]