EU Internet Companies Warn EU Parliament Not To Vote For Articles 11 & 13; Say They'll Hand The Internet To Google
from the don't-do-it dept
Just as so many sites are protesting today, and people plan to be protesting this weekend, 130 EU-based internet companies have signed a powerful letter to the EU Parliament explaining why it must reject Articles 11 and 13. It goes through many of the same explanations many of us have made over the past few months, but also (importantly) highlights that passing this legislation will basically hand the internet to Google, one of only a very tiny number of companies who can actually deal with the consequences and requirements of such heavy-handed, poorly drafted laws:
The companies signing this letter to the European Parliament are urging you to vote against Articles 11 and 13 of the proposed copyright directive. The text of the trilogue agreement would harm the European economy and seriously undermine the ability of European businesses to compete with big Internet giants like Google.
We support the goal of the legislation to protect the rights of creators and publishers, but the proposed measures are inadequate to reap these benefits and also fail to strike a fair balance between creators and all other parts of society. The success of our business enterprises will be seriously jeopardized by these heavy-handed EU regulations.
The letter -- written and signed by people who have helped build key components of the internet, explain just how Article 13 will undermine the internet ecosystem, and Article 11 will ruin a bunch of important businesses:
Especially Article 13 is dangerously experimenting with the core foundation of the Internet’s ecosystem. Making companies directly liable for the content of their users forces these businesses to make billions of legal decisions about the legality of content. Most companies are neither equipped nor capable of implementing the automatic content filtering mechanisms this requires, which are expensive and prone to error.
Article 11 is creating a completely new intellectual property right for press publishers. The experience with similar laws in Germany and Spain raises serious doubts about the expected benefits, while the negative impact would be very real. An additional layer of exclusive rights would make it harder to clear the necessary legal hurdles to start new projects. It will make entrepreneurs more hesitant to just launch new projects. Europe would lose any chance to play a significant role on the world stage. Startups that build services based on aggregated online information would go out of business, and every company that publishes press summaries of their appearance in the media would be in violation of this law.
And then it highlights (again, because some of us have been pointing this out), that for all the talk of how Articles 11 and 13 were needed to push back on the big American internet companies, all they will really do is lock them in, and harm all of the EU internet companies who signed the letter:
Although the purpose of these regulations is to limit the powers of big US Internet companies like Google or Facebook, the proposed legislation would end up having the opposite effect. Article 13 requires filtering of massive amounts of data, requiring technology only the Internet giants have the resources to build. European companies will be thus forced to hand over their data to them, jeopardizing the independence of the European tech industry as well as the privacy of our users. European companies like ours will be hindered in their ability to compete or will have to abandon certain markets completely.
Given all of these issues it is noteworthy that the final trilogue agreement lacks meaningful safeguards for small and medium enterprises. The broad scope of this law would most likely lead to less new companies being founded in Europe and existing companies moving their headquarters out of Europe. For all those reasons we urge every pro-Startup politician to vote against Article 11 and Article 13.
One hopes that the EU Parliament will actually listen -- though I can't wait to hear Axel Voss and friends explain how this letter from Google's competitors who are warning about how the bill will entrench Google and limit competition is really "Google shilling."
It remains truly disappointing to me how few Article 13 supporters have actually been willing to engage on the specific concerns and criticisms of the bill. No matter what anyone says -- even those who explain how it will lock Google into a dominant position are dismissed as promoting Google's message. The lack of intellectual honesty displayed by supporters of Article 13 is truly a shame.
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, censorship, copyright, eu, eu copyright directive, europe
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The twists in logic that will be necessary for such an argument will likely make said argument look like a Möbius strip of bullshit. It will be hilarious and I will have my popcorn at the ready.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What makes them think the EU cares?
From what I have seen of this Article 13 shit, the EU is obviously as irredeemably corrupt as the modern GOP. All this calling us bots, mobs, Google puppets, then trying to move the vote two weeks early, the lies, and secrecy! Its corruption! All of it! Why would after all this time, the EU suddenly change it's mind after us peasants say "pretty please", when the lawmakers have gotten or will be getting, briefcases of cash from the legacy companies?
I really have no reason to be confident that we can wi this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
They'll just stuff their ears with the dark money they got bribed with and go "LALALALALALA! CAN'T HEAR YOU! SMALL EUROPEAN COMPANIES SAY WHAT?!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What makes them think the EU cares?
I really have no reason to be confident that we can wi this.
Giving up is a good way to make sure they do win. Don't give up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Oh the Corruption That The EU Is.
Oh the corruption the EU is. They never listen to us even when we speak the truth. This whole lobbying will backfire on them, and they don’t want to stop it because they’re greedy pigs! If Old McDonald had these pigs on HIS farm, we’re having rosted ham tonight!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Oh the Corruption That The EU Is.
Back fire how? They want to destroy the internet. These articles will do so everywhere for everyone. That is all they want. Because they're greedy fascists. What makes you think this will back fire unless it fails?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Oh the Corruption That The EU Is.
They don't want to destroy the internet. They want to make publishers rich while justifying the bribes they received from said publishers.
The reality is that they'll destroy the internet but that's not their goal. I'm sure they can see it.
They're just too corrupt to admit it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Platforms should be held accountable for what their users do.
Companies that can't handle protecting others from harm inflicted by their users have defective business models and shouldn't exist. As noted, Google and Facebook apparently can comply with the law. If other businesses can't, that's their problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Please explain how, and to what extent, YouTube should be held accountable for the woman behind the “Fantastic Adventures” channel abusing her children.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If defamation is spread via a phone call, the phone company isn't held responsible for it. If a package delivery company delivers something which violates copyright, the package company isn't held responsible. Why should it be different for Internet companies?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
John your are not getting your mailing list the other scammer took. From you from you back lol
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Existing law explicitly disagrees with you. Regardless of what you believe.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Jabs/insults are far more effective with an English-speaking audience when you use readable English.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You premise all on never further action to break up GOOGLE.
I bet that Freudian slip springs from actual knowledge and firm belief that the fix is in on Google, it'll never be brought under anti-trust because a valued intrinsic part of the Deep State. -- Oh, conspiracy kook talk? Snowden said that Google provides NSA "direct access".
Oh, you want honesty? About Google shills? How's this suit ya, Google-boy?
https://copia.is/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/sponsors.png
[pro-tem horizontal rule substitute]
Yup, appears that the horizontal rule is no longer allowed. Can't even put a string of underlines or dashes now!
I have an effect here and beyond. Thus far I've got the outdated press.php page taken down, the subject line length cut to probably minimum of 64, and all the fanboys regard me with mixture of awe and fear, blame me for everything.
It's astounding. Weirdest site on teh internets.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Knowledge = responsibility.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Who are you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Knowledge = responsibility.
And a delivery company is allowed to open packages to check for contraband?
I think not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You’re a whiny asshole. Why am I supposed to be afraid of you, again?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Knowledge = responsibility.
Whoops. The Internet prematurely inserted.
As I've written before: "Internet companies" have the ability to look and SEE what's in thos "packages". Indeed, the whole point of delivering content is for people to SEE it. So they aren't delivering closed boxes without any knowledge short of ripping them open, time consuming at best, unwarranted mostly. -- But "Internet companies" CANNOT AVOID knowledge.
[By the way Grande Comm got its attempt to avoid knowledge nixed and is now definitely on the hook for aiding infringement by NOT acting when TOLD of it. Solid law: knowledge = responsibility.]
No, kids, edge / obscure cases aren't the test: it's EASY to tell at a glance that a large file titled as current Hollywood movie and which glancing through will show is in fact that movie which is definitely copyrighted not put out for free. Hosts should be forced to start with the large / more costly content and THEN might discuss uncertainty with edge / obscure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is where Section 230 comes into play. The whole point of 230 is to ensure a platform’s protection from legal liability if a third party posts something illegal without the foreknowledge of the platform’s owners/operators and the platform deletes said illegal content upon learning of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
What type of mustard is typically put upon such pretzel logic?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You premise all on never further action to break up GOOGLE.
You're not to. I'm astonished that you do. I give you absolutely no reason to fear, simply put out my opinions in mild word with rare pejorative let alone vile.
You and rest of fanboys are irrational besides shallow and insecure. I can't help that, but like to HOOT it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Assume that the average movie, as a video file, is about 4.7 GB large when placed in a RAR file. If I put together a RAR file that is roughly the same size and name it after a currently-in-theaters film, but fill it with nothing but public domain images and documents, how can a filehost tell “at a glance” that my legal-to-distribute file is not the same as the illicit file?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
…says the long-time troll who talks of Google/Techdirt conspiracy theories and complains about “censorship” of comments he can copy-paste literally anywhere else on the Internet.
We get it, you like to roleplay as Rowlet in adults-only Pokémon chatrooms.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
A fine stone ground Dijon is proper, I believe.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Knowledge = responsibility.
Not contested. I've often stated that "platforms" are REQUIRED to police by Common Law terms. It's Masnick who says they're absolutely immune.
Now, I bet you're trying to meld that into another of Masnick's notions, that "platforms" are authorized to PREVENT access and outlet for viewpoints by whatever arbitrary rules they wish. But that's been decided NO in the Public Cable Access case:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/16-4155/16-4155-2018-02-09 .html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Techdirt farms remembers
Remember in the distant past of yesterday when you said you didn’t care about article 13.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You premise all on never further action to break up GOOGLE.
Well you must regard me with pure fear for every time I call you out on your BS that you post because you always run away and hide!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I’m important guys really!!
I have an effect here and beyond. Thus far In a decade of failure I've got the outdated page that was going to taken down already, taken down, spammed the subject line to the point anti spam measures were taken, and all the fanboys regard me with mixture of pity and fear, and laugh at me for everything. I’m an mentally ill liar who promised to never darken this websites door again. And yet I’m still here.
Fixed for truth bro
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Knowledge = responsibility.
Ah, so my question as to who you are is answered: the one who goes on and on about common law while ignoring all requests to clarify which portion of common law you're talking about and ignoring all requests to provide clarification as to what you mean by common law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
They are, yes. A White supremacist forum has every right to boot Black Lives Matter supporters from said forum. A platform can have a clear sociopolitical slant and still keep its 230 protections; you cannot point me to a law, statute, or court ruling that says otherwise.
And if platforms such as Twitter were regulated under that law, you might have a point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Knowledge = responsibility.
Sometimes they don't have the knowledge until after the fact (see streaming among other things). In many cases they don't have the information to determine if something is copyrighted or not.
What about the cases which isn't obvious (because the obvious cases of infringement IS handled today on all major platforms)?
I'm not talking about obscure or edge cases, I'm talking about everyday use of internet which impacts tens of millions of people. The cases that infringe free speech and fair use? That aren't infringement?
If you say that those cases are less important than the rights of a rightsholder you are against free speech.
Also, just because some people think article 11/13 is a bad idea they aren't for copyright infringement. Saying otherwise is disingenuous.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It's his way of grandstanding to stroke his own ego all the while the peanut gallery are laughing their asses off.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Responsibility would mean taking down defamatory content once put on notice that it's defamatory.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That's what counter-notices are for.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Because the internet company can see the posting and remove it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
And when presented with a valid court order where it has been determined by trial and judge that the content is defamatory, sites will always remove said content.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
No no, he's actually right here. I'm in awe that someone can be so dedicated to being so grossly dishonest for such a long period of time, and in fear that somewhere out there there might be another person with such abysmal standards that he might actually have kids.
Course, the main emotion I have when facing them is entertained, because hey, who doesn't get a chuckle out of watching an idiot make a fool of themselves over, and over, and over again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Once put on notice, as with what should be the case with Section 230, or what is the case with copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Oh the Corruption That The EU Is.
A self-publisher IS the writer. Same for those who make their own music.
What they don't want is independent distribution networks to thrive, but they can't stop that. The public has stopped it by continuing to stigmatize "self-publishing" and refusing to evaluate material for itself.
In 1994, "Sein Language" and "Stop The Insanity" were two of the three best-selling books, and they weren't exactly high quality. The third of the three? A book called "Navigating The Internet."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Not DiJHON?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
When the truth shoots your argument in the back...
It remains truly disappointing to me how few Article 13 supporters have actually been willing to engage on the specific concerns and criticisms of the bill.
Disappointing, but not in any way surprising. They can't defend it honestly, so it's no wonder it's been nothing but lies and dishonesty from those defending it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
That implies that the company has to know the context also.
Is satire defamation?
Is making fun of someone defamation?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Knowledge = responsibility.
The movie studios can't even tell which files are infringing movie uploads.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Notice-and-takedown works just fine.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knowledge = responsibility.
Notice and takedown is the general standard.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
And that “standard” has been used to take down perfectly legal content with a mere accusation. But I would bet that you think the “collateral damage” from such abuse is a price worth paying, even if it results in more legal content than illegal content being taken down.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How is that a fair system if the work being taken down is fully legal and protected by the First Amendment? How fair is a system that comes into direct conflict with, and can apparently override, the First Amendment?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
That assumes that there is not an automatic iy infringes our copyright response. Given the lack of effort to actually check a file is infringing, why would companies sending DMCA notices on behalf of the MAFIAA expend any effort in responding to counter notices, as that would take people, rather than an algorithm.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Who will be the one with the authority to "put on notice"? Unless you mean letting due process play out and with a judge and jury to determine if the content is defamatory or not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nice
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Jhon boy is sounding a bit tired today. He either had platelets taken out or more likely had the dream about being raped by an autistic bear again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
“Jabs/insults are far more effective with an English-speaking audience when you use readable English.”
Take your own advise bro.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It goes back up (counter-notices should take top priority), and those who file false notices can be held accountable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
That is not actually the case. Even so, the burden of getting a court order every time someone is defamed is too great. It is very easy to overwhelm a target that way. Just ask female victims of revenge porn.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bro how often are you gonna get that tired old bullshit debunked here? It’s a vintage prop at this point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Known Google shill Mike Masnick with an article about how checks notes a bill he vehemently opposes will entrench Google's supremacy.
Forget Axel Voss, I wonder what mental gymnastics a certain class of troll right here would use to write this off.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, then how could something be considered defamation if hasn't been declared defamation by a judge and jury?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
When was the last time somebody who abused the DMCA to take down content that was not theirs to take down been held accountable for anything??
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wasted effort
If the EU Parliament had any common sense, then they wouldn't even be voting on these "laws"--they never would've gotten to this point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
'It's too hard to do it legally' has never been an acceptable excuse, any more than 'I was just following orders'.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Self-fulfilling prophecy much?
Fight back and you might lose.
Give up and you will lose.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Does a stern wagged finger and/or a disapproving 'tut tut' count? I think some of them might have gotten at least that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Oh the Corruption That The EU Is.
Because then the big media companies won’t be able to put their content on the web because of the huge amount of filters.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What makes them think the EU cares?
Don't lose your faith. Remember John 2:13-22. Jesus throws merchants and moneychangers out of the Temple.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Viacom asked YouTube to remove content Viacom put up which was later determined legal.
You want to remove the step that requires plaintiffs to put up a burden of proof.
Fucking get bent, Jhon, and take your Asperger's rape fantasies with you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Thanks for ruining Sun and Moon for me, Stephen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
This coming from the guy who insists on spelling his shoddy pseudonym as "Jhon"...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pathetic whining and Russian sponsored imaginary grievances
It is hard to imagine that such horseshit occurs to multiple anonymous cowards and long time posters by accident. Tell the truth, please. This site is part Russia’s “disinformation” campaign intended to confound the west, and the majority of people who post here are actually socialist/communist errand boys carrying water for the Kremlin. I have read here many times about how the “means of production” should be the center of all decision making, how artists should be forcibly starved out of art, and how both big internet companies and small asshole sites like this one should be PROTECTED from big bad politicians.
Read the constitution. It’s the politicians that should be protected, not the blasphemers, because when politicians are smeared on sites like this one, EVERYONE is hurt. Trump, for example, has done more good for more Americans that any president in a LONG LONG time. Smearing him hurts EVERYONE in the US.
Your protections against lawsuits should be abolished. Content creator protections, copyright and patent laws, should be strengthened. The best and the brightest should be rewarded. The lazy and dishonest should be shunned.
You cheap pirates should be thrown out of your basement dwelling dreariness and taken to forced labor camps to pay for your stolen works. That would be good.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Notice-and-takedown works just fine.
... said no one ever who had any experience with any notice-and-takedown system.
They are always, always, always abused.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even so, the burden of getting a court order every time someone is defamed is too great.
If there is no court order, there is no determination as to whether or not defamation occurred, so uh, no. What you are asking for is an impossible standard. You are asking to put liability on platforms if they make the wrong determination about whether or not defamation happened.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: What makes them think the EU cares?
For which they nailed him to a cross and a millennium later his church was getting pretty fat out of selling indulgences in exchange for cold, hard cash.
I don't think the religious angle will help.
We should simply learn from history and do our best to dismantle the EU as an entity. Making sure every elected MEP has that on their agenda is a good start.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Pathetic whining and Russian sponsored imaginary grievances
You nailed it Ivan, your subject-line perfectly describes the content of your post.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
you download it and watch it. How else?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Pathetic whining and Russian sponsored imaginary grievan
When I was four I knew a really irritating girl who said “I know you are but what am I?”
Is it you, Pam? Still throwing the same crap against the wall?
To call you childish is to give you too much credit. You’re just an idiot with no excuse.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Pathetic whining and Russian sponsored imaginary grievances
This right here what you call a "snowflake", right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"Platforms should be held accountable for what their users do."
Lets extend that out...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I doubt that due process is any concern to these types of people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Third party liability is a fun and exciting game, can anyone play?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Pathetic whining and Russian sponsored imaginary grievances
Written like a true commie bastard.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Pathetic whining and Russian sponsored imaginary grievances
Clearly you’re the one who Smash Mouth mentioned as the one with “her finger and her thumb in the shape of an L on her forehead”
How bout I stick your fingers up your crack and make you eat your words.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Oh the Corruption That The EU Is.
"If Old McDonald had these pigs on HIS farm, "
Based on your comments, these appear to be the pigs from Animal Farm, not from McDonald's Farm.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Wasted effort
There you go again assuming that it isnt common sense when it is for those involved.
Always remember that common sense is NOT the same as good sense else we would never have gotten into these messes in the first place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Oh the Corruption That The EU Is.
Actually, A.C., I was referencing the song “Old McDonald Had a Farm”.
The pigs refer to the corrupt bastards that are the European Union members and the greedy companies that are trying to screw millions of people from the around the world (not just within Europe)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
... said no one ever who had any experience with any notice-and-takedown system.
Not so, I can think of one group who would make that claim, and you hinted at them in your following sentence.
They are always, always, always abused.
Someone's got to be abusing it after all, and for those individuals it would indeed 'work just fine'.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
DiJohn’s sounds like a toilet company.
[ link to this | view in thread ]