EU Parliament's Legislative Affairs Committee Is Now Misleading Members Of Parliament In Effort To Fundamentally Alter The Internet

from the misinformation-at-work dept

We've had a bunch of posts today alone (and in the past few weeks) about the absolutely terrible EU Copyright Directive that the wider EU Parliament will vote on this Thursday. The version that will receive a vote on Thursday was only just released and it shows that the legislative affairs committee, JURI, that voted for it a few weeks ago actually took a really bad proposal and made it significantly worse. As more and more people have woken up to this fact and started calling it out, it appears that JURI is going on the offensive. And I mean "offensive" in both definitions of the word.

JURI sent sent the attached document to Members of Parliament, trying to defend its position on Articles 11 and 13. The email it sent reads as follows:

Dear Colleagues,

Before Thursday's vote on the mandate of the copyright file, you will find attached an update on the content of the text adopted in JURI, accompanied, with regard to explanations, by the text passages of the corresponding compromises. This to try to answer, once again, the massive disinformation campaign that we are experiencing.

Thank you for taking note.

Kind regards,

There is only one "massive disinformation" campaign going on, and it's by those in favor of Articles 11 and 13, and JURI is a key player in it, judging from this complete nonsense document. Let's dig in:

ON THE ARTICLE 11

The paragraph 1 of the article makes it clear that the remuneration of press publishers is only an option:

“1.Member states shall provide publishers of press publications with the rights provided for in article 2 and article 3(2) of directive 2001/29/ec so that they may obtain fair and proportionate remuneration for the digital use of their press publications by information society service providers.”

This gives a lot of flexibility to the application of this provision.

Actually, it does not. Remember the original point of the EU Copyright Directive was to "harmonize" copyright laws across the EU, because trying to comply with many different copyright laws was harming the ability to produce and release content in the EU. Under the terms of Article 11, all member states now need ("shall provide") to create a brand new right for publishers. And while the directive gives "a lot of flexibility," that's because (despite requests from many!), the drafters decided to ignore pleas to give some direction on what this right would apply to. It could have only applied to works covered by copyright -- which would require more than a minimal snippet and also would require an element of creativity. But the EU Commission and JURI, bizarrely, refused to include that. Instead, they leave it up to the member states to implement as they want. That "flexibility" means that any member state can put a snippet tax on the use of a single word.

And, then, because the whole point of the freaking directive was to allow a harmonization so that works could be published across the EU, whichever EU country comes up with the most ridiculous, and most limiting publishers' rights will "win" and everyone will have to live down to that standard in order to avoid infringing on this new right. So that "flexibility" actually argues against JURI here, because it's a large part of what makes the snippet/link tax so incredibly dangerous. Without putting any real effort towards protecting the rights of users, but allowing the flexibility for states to create rights that harm the public, it pretty much guarantees that result.

Moreover, it is important to note that Member States shall ensure that authors receive an appropriate share of the additional revenues that press publishers receive for the use of a press publication by information society service providers.

I'm curious if JURI has done any research on how corrupt Collection Societies have been over time. The idea that the money will flow from publishers to authors is laughable. For years we've been collecting stories of how collection societies -- often "controlled" by large legacy industry players -- collect lots of money for copyright licenses, but magically seem to have trouble doling it out to actual creators. Creating a new such collection society and a new right on top of existing rights doesn't change any of that.

In order to answer those who are worried about consequences on social networks:

NO, hyperlinks are not included in this article, and it is very clear in the text:

“2a. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall not extend to acts of hyperlinking.”

We already discussed the whole addition of the "shall not extend to acts of hyperlinking" text this morning. It's meaningless. The rest of the Article makes it clear that states can implement this in a way that will clearly impact hyperlinks, in part because most hyperlinks contain a snippet. And, again, JURI disregarded requests by many to make it clear that snippets should have to be more than just a single word or phrase -- thus leaving that open.

NO, there will be no impact on individual users since private and non - commercial uses of press publications are not covered by the article.

“1a. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall not prevent legitimate private and non-commercial use of press publications by individual users.”

This is the most ridiculous part. Most "legitimate private and non-commercial" users of press publications are using platforms to share links. So, of course it will impact them. Even beyond that, it will clearly limit what news and information people are able to find online. Remember, Spain implemented this kind of snippet tax, and a comprehensive study showed that it significantly harmed small publishers. So, uh, does JURI think it can just ignore the evidence? It certainly appears to be the case.

In addition, the right established by paragraph 1 of Article 11 only applies to press publications used by “information society service providers, which are defined in the text, and not to individual users that are excluded in the paragraph 1 (a) of Article 11.

“1.Member states shall provide publishers of press publications with the rights provided for in article 2 and article 3(2) of directive 2001/29/ec so that they may obtain fair and proportionate remuneration for the digital use of their press publications by information society service providers.”

“1a. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall not prevent legitimate private and non-commercial use of press publications by individual users.”

Same exact point I made above. The fact that it doesn't apply directly to end users is meaningless, since those end users pretty much all rely on the platforms -- the "information society service providers" under the directive -- that the law will impact. Who actually takes JURI seriously here?

ON THE ARTICLE 13 AND ARTICLE 2 (DEFINITIONS)

It aims to make platforms accountable, but not all platforms. Article 13 needs to be seen in conjunction with article 2 of the draft directive.

“Article 2 (4a) ‘online content sharing service provider’ means a provider of an information society service one of the main purposes of which is to store and give access to the public to copyright protected works or other protected subject-matter uploaded by its users, which the service optimises. “

“Services acting in a non-commercial purpose capacity such as online encyclopaedia, and providers of online services where the content is uploaded with the authorisation of all concerned rightholders, such as educational or scientific repositories, should not be considered online content sharing service providers within the meaning of this directive. Providers of cloud services for individual use which do not provide direct access to the public, open source software developing platforms, and online market places whose main activity is online retail of physical goods, should not be considered online content sharing service providers within the meaning of this directive.”

Only those that are active, so that optimize the content posted online.

I've seen a few people -- including MEP Axel Voss, who is responsible for this monstrosity -- keep making this point, and it's so ridiculous as to make me question if any of these people have ever actually used the internet. This definition will absolutely apply to a ton of online platforms. That they carved out a few, very narrow and very specific exceptions, after a few organizations complained, does not mean that Article 13 is not a bulldozer coming for a large part of the open internet.

Part of what makes the internet valuable is that it's a communications medium, by which anyone can communicate with anyone. That's the wonder of user-generated content platforms -- and all of those will pretty much qualify under Article 13, because if they accept input from users, that input is going to be covered by copyright. Even the idea that "cloud services" are carved out is laughable, because note the caveat on those: it only applies if they "do not provide direct access to the public." Can you name a cloud service provider that does not include a "share" button? That's what makes the cloud valuable. If it's just to store my personal stuff, why not just park a drive in my closet?

Also, no general filtering measures are included in Article 13. The text even emphasizes that this practice is prohibited:

1.b members states shall ensure that the implementation of such measures shall be proportionate and strike a balance between the fundamental rights of users and rightholders and shall in accordance with article 15 of directive 2000/31/ec, where applicable not impose a general obligation on online content sharing service providers to monitor the information which they transmit or store.”

This is the "plausible deniability" clause similar to Article 11's "but this doesn't apply to hyperlinks" nonsense. You can say that article 13 doesn't create a requirement for upload filters all you want, but when there's literally no conceivable way to suggest you're complying without installing an upload filter, it's a meaningless assertion. Besides, the very next claim completely debunks this one:

However, active platforms need to put in place measures in cooperation with rightholders when they alert platforms about the public availability of infringing content.

1a. Member states shall ensure that the online content sharing service providers referred to in the previous sub-paragraphs shall apply the above mentioned measures based on the relevant information provided by rightholders.”

So... there are no mandatory upload filters... but "active platforms need to put in place measures for dealing with rightsholders. That... certainly sounds like a requirement for upload filters.

Finally, Article 13 will not lead to censorship of the entire internet.

It does not threaten freedom of expression or fundamental rights.

Who are you going to believe on this one? An EU Parliamentary committee that has already shown a fundamental inability to understand how the internet works... or David Kaye, the UN's special rapporteur for freedom of expression, who wrote JURI a long and detailed report explaining exactly how Article 13 threatens freedom of expression and fundamental rights? I'm going to have to side with the UN's free speech expert on that one.

The meme, mash-up, the gifs are already allowed and included in an existing exception and will still be after the adoption of this directive (article 5, directive 2001/29/EC

3. Member States may provide for exceptions or limitations to the rights provided for in Articles 2 and 3 in the following cases: (k) use for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche

I'd like to highlight an important sneaky bit here. Note how earlier, all of the stuff about online platforms used the word "shall" for implementing these upload filters? Now look at the text JURI highlights here claiming that there are "existing exceptions." See the different word? It's not "shall," it's "may provide." May is different than shall. And not every EU state has provided for such user rights.

But there's a larger point here. We all know that determining what is considered non-infringing as "caricature, parody or pastiche" is not something that is done easily. It's certainly not something done by an algorithm. In many cases it takes years long trials and appeals, with lots of disagreement. Yet, the text of Article 13, and apparently the geniuses on JURI seem to think that online platforms can put in place effective measures to make those determinations (1) in a split second and (2) without any chance of getting it wrong and (3) without a likelihood of taking down protected, non-infringing speech.

If whoever wrote up this nonsense for JURI actually believes that, then let them create such a filter, because it doesn't -- and cannot -- exist.

A provision was even added to ensure a complete protection of users’ data, even though GDPR naturally applies to all legislation:

2.2 Moreover, in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC, Directive 2002/58/EC and the General Data Protection Regulation, the measures referred to in paragraph 1 should not require the identification of individual users and the processing of their personal data.

Again, this shows a rather stunning level of technical ignorance. First they demand that all content be tracked to make sure it's not infringing... and then at the same time, they insist that such a system can't make use of individual data. This is, effectively, JURI telling internet platforms "you are required to base your servers on the sun and... you're not allowed to transmit data through space." These requirements are written by people who have no idea what they're talking about.

Small and medium-sized enterprises

Any platform is covered by Article 13 if one of their main purposes is to give access to copyright protected content to the public.

It cannot make any difference if it is a “small thief” or a “big thief” as it should be illegal in the first place.

Small platforms, even a one-person business, can cause as much damage to right holders as big companies, if their content is spread (first on this platform and possibly within seconds throughout the whole internet) without their consent.

This may be my favorite part of this nonsense. Remember how just a few paragraphs above this JURI was insisting that it wouldn't impact individuals and that everyone was ignoring that Article 13 only applied to a tiny subset of internet sites? Now, here, it's arguing the exact opposite, saying straight up that it must apply to basically all internet sites, even ones that are run by a single person. And they use "one-person business" ignoring the fact that tons of individuals will, say, post ads or donation links on their personal websites, just to pay for the hosting. But that will suddenly turn them into being "commercial" businesses under the umbrella of the censorship requirements of Article 13.

So, which is it JURI? Does Article 13 apply to these platforms or not? Ah, it totally does:

In view of such a small business potentially causing such a tremendous damage to right holders, the compromise text does not foresee any exemption for SMESs.

Seriously, it feels like whoever wrote this portion of the document apparently has never met whoever wrote the earlier part of the document trying to play down how many sites it would impact. Someone should introduce them to each other.

However, the text provides safeguards that will benefit SMEs. Measures must be appropriate and proportionate.

We cannot demand the same thing from an SME as from Youtube.

Since the measures may be very different in nature, from the content recognition system to a simple notification system, there are many possibilities for SMEs to find measures corresponding to their means and size.

Okay, so I run a small platform. You tell me that the measures must be "appropriate and proportionate." I have no freaking clue what that means for me. I don't need to implement ContentID, which is good because ContentID cost more to build than Techdirt probably makes in a century. But... as a small site I'm left with zero understanding of what I need to do, other than block the EU or hire some very, very expensive lawyers who probably still can't stop me from getting dragged into court.

This kind of uncertainty is going to be a massive drag on smaller sites.

Finally, solutions compatible with the Directive already exist on the market, are affordable for SMEs and the market will continue to develop in this direction.

This is what should be known as "the Audible Magic lie." Supporters of Article 13 love to point to Audible Magic -- who makes a filter platform for music -- to claim that there are products on the market. There are a few major problems with this claim. First of all, the idea that they are "affordable" is laughable. As I've noted in the past, we spoke with a smaller platform who noted that Audible Magic quoted them a price of approximately $50,000 per month. That's over half a million dollars a year. And this was not a large site. Smaller sites don't have an extra half a million dollars lying around to hand off to some company to provide a tool that doesn't work very well and which serves no real purpose other than to annoy its users and drive them elsewhere.

Second, such filters may exist for music (and possibly video), but that's not the case for lots of other content. Photos? Not really. Text? Nope. Yet, Article 13 applies to everything.

JURI's attempt to salvage the horrible internet-destroying directive it passed a few weeks ago is confused, ignorant and disingenuous. Hopefully MEPs don't buy it. If you haven't yet, NOW is the time to tell MEPs to #SaveYourInternet. Because if they don't, we're going to have a very, very different internet in the near future. And the public isn't going to like it.

Filed Under: article 11, article 13, censorship machines, copyright, copyright directive, eu, eu copyright directive, juri, link tax, mandatory filters, snippet tax, upload filters

Copyright Industries Reveal Their Ultimate Goal: An Internet Where Everything Online Requires A License From Them

from the now-would-be-a-good-time-to-stop-it-happening dept

Yesterday, Mike took apart an extraordinarily weak attempt by the UK's music collection society, PRS for Music, to counter what it claimed were "myths" about the deeply-harmful Article 13 of the proposed EU Copyright Directive. On the same day, the Guardian published a letter from the PRS and related organizations entitled "How the EU can make the internet play fair with musicians". It is essentially a condensed version of the "myth-busting" article, and repeats many of the same fallacious arguments. It also contains some extremely telling passages that are worth highlighting for the insights that they provide into the copyright industries' thinking and ultimate goal. Here is the main thrust of the letter:

This is not about censorship of the internet, as the likes of Google and Facebook would have you believe. The primary focus of this legislation is concerned with whether or not the internet functions as a fair and efficient marketplace -- and currently it doesn't.

Once again, there is no attempt to demonstrate that Article 13 is not about censorship, merely an assertion that it isn't, together with the usual claim that it's all being orchestrated by big US Internet companies. The fact that over two-thirds of a million people have signed an online petition calling for the "censorship machine" of Article 13 to be stopped rather punctures that tired argument.

More interesting is the second sentence, which essentially confirms that for the recording industry, the Copyright Directive -- and, indeed, the Internet itself -- is purely about getting as much money as possible. There is no sense that there are other important aspects -- like encouraging ordinary people to express themselves, and to be creative for the sheer joy of creating, or in order to amuse and engage with friends and strangers. The fact that all these non-commercial uses will be adversely affected by Article 13 is irrelevant to the recording industry, which seems to believe that making a profit takes precedence over everything else. However, even if they choose to ignore this side of the Internet, the signatories of the letter are well-aware that there is a huge backlash against the proposed law precisely because it is a threat to this kind of everyday online use. Attempting to counter this, they go on:

It is important to recognise that article 13 of the proposed EU copyright directive imposes no obligation on users. The obligations relate only to platforms and rightsholders. Contrary to some sensationalist headlines, internet memes will not be affected, as they are already covered by exceptions to copyright, and nothing in the proposed article will allow rightsholders to block the use of them.

Techdirt pointed out yesterday why the first part of that is intellectually dishonest. The Copyright Directive won't impose obligations on users directly, but on the platforms that people use, which amounts to the same thing in practice. The letter then trots out the claim that Internet memes will not be affected, and specifically says this is because they are already covered by EU exceptions to copyright.

This is simply not true. Article 5 of the EU's 2001 Directive on the "harmonization of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society" lays down that "Member States may provide for exceptions or limitations", including "for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche". However, that is optional, not compulsory. In fact, nineteen EU Member States -- including the EU's most populous country, Germany -- have chosen not to provide an exception for parody. Even assuming that memes would be covered by parody exceptions -- by no means guaranteed -- they are in any case illegal in 19 EU nations.

Licensing is not an option here. There are many diverse sources for the material used in memes, most of which have no kind of organization that could give a license. The only way for online companies to comply with Article 13 would be to block all memes using any kind of pre-existing material in those 19 countries without a parody exception. Worse: because it will be hard to apply different censorship rules for each EU nation, it is likely that the upload filters will block all such memes in the whole EU, erring on the side of caution. It will then be up to the person whose meme has been censored to appeal against that decision, using an as-yet undefined appeals mechanism. The chilling effect this "guilty until proven innocent" approach will have on memes and much else is clear.

The blatant misinformation about whether memes would be blocked is bad enough. But in many ways, the most shocking phrase in the letter is the following:

Actually, article 13 makes it easier for users to create, post and share content online, as it requires platforms to get licences, and rightsholders to ensure these licences cover the acts of all individual users acting in a non-commercial capacity.

There, in black and white, is the end-game that the recording industry is seeking: that every online act of individual users, even the non-commercial ones, on the major platforms must be licensed. But the desire to control the online world, and to dictate who may do what there, is not limited to the recording companies: it's what all the copyright industries want. That can be seen in Article 11 of the Copyright Directive -- the so-called "snippet tax" -- which will require licensing for the use by online sites of even small excerpts of news material.

It's also at the root of the core problem with Article 3 of the proposed EU law. This section deals with the important new field of text and data mining (TDM), which takes existing texts and data, and seeks to extract new information by collating them and analyzing them using powerful computers. The current Copyright Directive text allows TDM to be carried out freely by non-profit research organisations, on material to which they have lawful access. However, companies must pay publishers for a new, additional, license to carry out TDM, even on material they have already licensed for traditional uses like reading. That short-sighted double-licensing approach pretty much guarantees that AI startups, which typically require frictionless access to large amounts of training data, won't choose to set up shop in the EU. But the publishing industry never cares about the collateral damage it inflicts, provided it attains its purely selfish goals.

Although it's rather breathtaking to see the copyright world openly admit that its ultimate aim is to turn the Internet into a space where everything is licensed, we shouldn't be surprised. Back in 2013, Techdirt wrote about the first stages of the EU's revision of its copyright law. One preliminary initiative was called "Licences for Europe", and its stated aim was to "explore the potential and limits of innovative licensing and technological solutions in making EU copyright law and practice fit for the digital age". What we are seeing now in the proposed Copyright Directive is simply a fulfillment of these ambitions, long-cherished by the copyright industries. If you aren't happy about that, now would be a good time to tell the EU Parliament to Save Your Internet. It may be your last chance.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: article 13, broadcast, copyright, copyright directive, eu, eu copyright directive, intermediary liability, license

Axel Voss, MEP Behind Awful Internet Destroying EU Copyright Directive, Tries To Defend His Plan

from the and-fails-miserably dept

Axel Voss, the German Member of the EU Parliament in charge of pushing through the absolutely awful EU Copyright Directive is apparently (finally) feeling some of the heat from people speaking up about just how terrible Articles 11 (link tax) and 13 (mandatory upload filters) will be for the internet. He's put out a video attempting to defend the plan. Even if you don't speak German, I'd recommend watching the video to see his smirk throughout the whole thing. He does not seem to care, nor does he seem to understand the actual implications of what he's doing. Considering that many have tried to explain this to him already, I doubt that we will change his mind, but it's worth exploring just how clueless he appears to be on this issue, and how that should worry Europeans about the future of their internet.

We have at the moment an extreme imbalance in the whole copyright system, on the platforms everything is up loaded, but there is no remuneration of the concerned author, this is getting more by number and that is why I think it is urgently necessary to adapt the copyright to the digital environment.

What, exactly, is the "imbalance"? This is an important question, because the answer is that there is no "imbalance." We live in a time when more content than ever before in history is being created. But it goes beyond that: thanks to the internet, more content creators than ever before in history are able to create and release their own content. And more creators than ever before in history are able to make money from their creations. The idea that "there is no remuneration" isn't just nonsense, it suggests a level of ignorance so high on the part of Voss that he shouldn't be allowed anywhere near questions related to copyright. Tons of different platforms -- the very platforms which will be hit hardest by this nonsense -- are instrumental in building new audiences for artists and helping them get paid.

Bandcamp, Patreon, Kickstarter, Vimeo, Medium, Etsy, DeviantArt, Shapeways, Wordpress, Wix, Lulu, PledgeMusic, Artistshare, Blurb, Scribd, Smashwords, Redbubble, CreateSpace. These are all platforms that are helping a variety of creators create, build up an audience and make money. Yet all of them will be hit hard by Article 13's ridiculous mandatory upload filters, which will in turn do tremendous harm to artists, taking away or greatly limiting their ability to use these platforms. The idea that there's some "imbalance" that Voss can magically fix is nonsense. He's been hearing too much from a few old school legacy businesses that failed to adapt to the internet and now blame Google. And his response is to saddle tons of internet platforms with an unworkable system that will harm all sorts of content creators. Meanwhile, his main target, Google, already has in place a system that has paid out billions of dollars to creators. Yet he continues to lie and claim there is no "remuneration"?

How does anyone take him seriously?

Meanwhile, nothing in the Copyright Directive is likely to get actual artists paid, so whatever false imbalance he sees isn't "cured" by his plan. Google already has an upload filter for YouTube, so nothing changes there. The link tax has already been proven to be an utter failure in Germany and Spain and hasn't gotten legacy publishers any more money -- but has taken away some of their traffic (making them lose money).

So, again, why can't Axel Voss explain what this mythical "imbalance" is?

After that, Voss talks specifically about upload filters, and claims that people complaining about them are engaged in "fake news." Seriously.

This 'nice' fake news campaign that is done by the big platforms, with key words such as 'censor machine' or upload filter, etc so that everybody jumps up without ever having done a reflection on our systematic we established here. If you really look at it, it only concerns platforms, 1 to 5 per cent at all from the global internet and also only those that actually publish copyright protected content, by the clicks they earn money without dripping a single contribution. That we try now is to establish a recognition software for copyright protected content.

We already discussed much of this in responding to PRS's silly attempt at "myth busting" claims about these upload filters. The fact that the law only targets platforms doesn't mean that it doesn't impact the users of those platforms.

Again, a filter would be a massive expense for many of the platforms I named above, and for many, it would make no sense at all. Yet, under the law, many would be obligated to try to build or buy such a filter. Others might simply stop operating in the EU altogether.

As for his attempt to downplay who it impacts, again, this shows just how incredibly ignorant Voss is of how the internet works. As we've mentioned in the past, under Article 13, a site like Tinder would be required to invest in an expensive copyright filter to scan all the images people upload. After all, it publishes lots of copyright-protected content, and it earns money on those images as a commercial business. But is anyone actually going to Tinder for copyright infringement? Of course not, but Voss doesn't seem to care or notice.

And, thanks to the way copyright is now, every platform that allows for user generated content involves publishing "copyright protected content" and assuming it has ads or collects money in anyway, it's commercial. So, this includes forum sites, for example. Are they going to have to pre-scan every comment to make sure it doesn't infringe on some copyright? Voss seems to think only in terms of the largest platforms, and doesn't even give a second thought to the fact that much of the internet is for communicating with one another - and that will involve platforms where users upload content as part of communicating with others. All of that content needs to be scanned?

Voss then responds to other MEPs speaking out against the Directive, calling it "nonsense."

To 99,9 per cent do I assume that they have not once read article 2 and article 13 together. Then I have to say if you don’t pay attention to what we do here, then I have to declare it as nonsense. When you take a look at what we try to achieve, to apply after all copyright, if we want to abandon this or if the German colleagues want to abandon this all, so they need to say so, but only to harp on about it, because it is now ‘en vogue’ to use that word, this I think is wrong.

This is both insulting and ridiculous. The complaints are well thought out and argued and point out just how little Voss actually understands about the damage he's about to do to the internet, and he insults them and brushes it off pretending that "99.9%" haven't even read the Directive. This is not about what's "en vogue," this is about stopping Voss from fundamentally mucking up key parts of how the internet works because a few legacy industries went crying to him over their own inability to adapt to the changing world.

And that brings us to the whole link tax bit:

Neighbouring rights should in principle support the press work, the work of journalists is in a certain way accompanied, so to say the analogue platform for their content; it is legally and factual secured and there is an economical responsibility.

This now completely put into question, due to the fact that there are platforms that use simply the achievements of the publisher without paying anything. And by this the whole press system in a democratic structure becomes dependent from platforms. This is something we don’t want to accept this. Therefore we need to ask ourselves the question if we want an independent press in our democratic society, also financially independent and does it represent a value. And if we believe in this value we should look into ensuring it.

This... not only misunderstands how the internet works, but also how media works. Again, the target here is Google News, which Voss incorrectly seems to think is somehow responsible for many newspapers' economic struggles. But that's nonsense. Google News drives traffic to these websites. And, if they don't think it's valuable, it literally takes 5 seconds for any publisher to opt-out of having its stories appear in Google News. But they won't do that, because they know it's valuable. Destroying Google News won't save news publishers.

He continues, arguing that the link tax isn't really a link tax:

Everybody that wants to create link for a private purpose can continue to do so, this part we excluded precisely, but those who gain again money through this, by a commercial use, they should ask if they can do it or not.

I don’t understand the whole excitement, this is common and part of our value and justice system and to transfer it to the internet and to get this impression that nothing is allowed now, no single person won’t be touched by this. The contrary, we will make it possible that each one can up load content, can use it without being in a legal obligation and this reform brings this positive aspect.

Got that? If you make money by linking, you need to ask permission first. That's... insane. It completely and fundamentally changes the way the internet works. The whole freaking idea behind the internet is you can link to anywhere on the internet... and Voss just wants to completely toss that out he window. And then complains that he "doesn't understand the whole excitement."

Voss doesn't seem to understand that lots of "amateur" and "hobby" sites put up advertisements, or take donations or crowdfunding, just to fund the site. But, those sites "gain money" and thus are "commercial" under his confused view of the world -- and therefore can no longer link without first getting permission. Again, this is so mind-blowingly backwards, and goes against everything that the internet itself was built around. And for what purpose? Because a few old school newspapers can't adapt and are demanding Google pay them money.

What becomes abundantly clear is that Axel Voss has no business being in charge of copyright reform in the EU. He doesn't understand copyright. He doesn't understand the internet. And yet, he's very, very close to fundamentally changing the thing he doesn't understand, based on ideas he doesn't seem to comprehend.

On Thursday, the EU Parliament will vote on this awful plan, and it's incredibly important to contact MEPs to let them know to not to let Voss's ignorance ruin the internet.

Filed Under: article 11, article 13, axel voss, copyright, copyright directive, eu, eu copyright directive, link tax, upload filters

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.

Filed Under: article 11, article 13, broadcast, copyright, copyright directive, eu, eu copyright directive, intermediary liability, juri, link tax, platforms, upload filters

Music Industry's Nonsense 'Myth Busting' About EU's Censorship Machines Is Basically Saying 'Nuh-uh' Repeatedly

from the that's-not-myth-busting dept

A few weeks back we busted the bogus myth busting by the big EU publishers who were trying to fight back against people explaining why the proposed EU Copyright Directive's Article 11 "link tax" was so damaging. That myth buster was so full of nonsense that it was easy to take apart. However, at least the publishers tried to explain their position, even if they failed miserably. Now, on the other bad part of the Copyright Directive, Article 13 with its mandatory upload filters and censorship machines, the UK's music collection society PRS for Music (an organization which, among other things, used to call up random small businesses and, if they heard music in the background, demand a license or claim that you need a performance license to play music to your horses) has now come out with a an Article 13 myth buster claiming to counteract what it claims are myths about that part of the Copyright Directive.

This one is pretty easy to debunk as well, but mainly because... PRS doesn't even bother to make any arguments or cite anything. It basically just makes a claim about what critics are saying and then says "nuh uh" and moves on. Here's the very first "myth" and PRS's attempt at myth busting:

FALSE: Article 13 will censor the internet

It will not lead to censorship of the internet. This argument is not based in fact, and easily dispelled by even a superficial review of the proposed directive. It is being propagated by companies which, ultimately, have a vested interest in not sharing their income fairly with creators.

That's it. No explanation. No, nothing. So, let's myth bust PRS's myth busting. It says "a superficial review of the proposed directive" will show that it won't censor the internet. And, I mean, if you want to be pedantic, of course Article 13 -- as a thing itself -- won't be censoring the internet. But that's not the concern that people have raised. The issue is that Article 13 will force many internet platforms into censoring perfectly legal speech across the internet.

And, because PRS couldn't bother to do so, I'll post the actual text of Article 13 that's so problematic. Here's straight from the proposal that was approved by the EU Parliament's JURI Committee a few weeks ago:

In the absence of licensing agreements with rightsholders online content sharing service providers shall take, in cooperation with rightholders, appropriate and proportionate measures leading to the non-availability of copyright or related-right infringing works or other subject-matter on those services, while non-infringing works and other subject matter shall remain available.

And, yes, it includes the trailing point saying that "non-infringing works" can remain available, but does not bother to point out how you can accomplish the first part while allowing the second as well. Basically everyone who understands how basic technology works recognizes that the only way to have measure that block the availability of copyright infringing works is to put in place a mandatory copyright filter. Those are (1) incredibly expensive and (2) incredibly bad at not taking down non-infringing works. YouTube has spent more money than anyone else on its ContentID filter. In 2016, YouTube revealed it spent $60 million building ContentID (and it's probably significantly more today) and anyone who has any experience with ContentID knows that it's terrible at taking down non-infringing works. It happens multiple times every day.

And yet PRS and other supporters of Article 13 want to imagine that every other online platform -- literally none of which have the resources that Google/YouTube put behind ContentID -- will magically build or buy a better filter that won't censor non-infringing material? What sort of fantasy land are they living in? Because the whole point of Article 13 is to force companies to put in these filters (and to buy licenses), if a platform implements a filter that actually respects fair use and other user rights, you can be damn sure that PRS will be one of the first in lines to sue. I mean, it's already sued other platforms.

So, yes, Article 13 will lead to widespread censorship and PRS must know this or they're even more clueless about technology than I had previously thought.

FALSE: Article 13 will restrict internet users

Article 13 imposes no obligation on users. The obligations relate only to platforms and rightsholders.

Actually, Article 13 makes it easier for users to create, post and share content online, as it requires platforms to get licenses and for rightsholders to ensure these licences cover the acts of all individual users acting in a non–commercial capacity. In short, most users no longer need to obtain separate licences.

Again, this is an incredibly intellectually dishonest framing by PRS. It is correct that Article 13's target is platforms... but it's the users who use these platforms. And if the requirements of Article 13 -- as laid out above -- force these platforms to crack down on how users use the platform (which it totally does), then clearly it will restrict internet users. They won't be able to do the things they want to do on the platforms they have used for years to post their thoughts and writings and memes and music and videos.

FALSE: Article 13 threatens online blogging platforms, code-sharing services and encyclopaedias like Wikipedia

Article 13 would only be applied to certain types of services, specifically those whose main purpose is to make a profit from storing and making available copyright-protected works.

Services operating on a non-commercial basis, or where the presence of copyright works are supplementary, such as blogging sites, are specifically excluded from the requirements to obtain a licence.

Online encyclopaedias and open source software services are also specifically excluded.

Once again, the intellectual dishonesty here is astounding and obnoxious. As PRS knows damn well, the original draft of Article 13 didn't carve out "online encyclopedias and open source software services." The issues was that both Wikipedia and Github pointed out how Article 13 would make their sites illegal... and when the technically clueless drafters of Article 13 realized that might be a problem, rather than go back and rethink the entire approach to Article 13, they just wrote a carve-out for each of those sites, and only those sites. There are thousands of sites (many of which were way too small to get anyone's attention) that will be impacted by Article 13. They didn't get attention for the problems of Article 13, and no carve-out has been written for them.

Pointing to the two specific carve-outs that were written in response to two specific complaints doesn't prove that Article 13 won't threaten various platforms. Also, the definitions of the carve-outs are so specific and so narrowly tailored to Wikipedia and Github as they are today, it could restrict both sites in their ability to grow and launch new services for fear of suddenly being dragged back under Article 13's draconian requirements.

FALSE: Article 13 will stifle creativity This is an argument which is as old as copyright itself and time and again has proven to be untrue.

In fact, the opposite is true, as the proposed changes will benefit creators of user generated content. Under the current system, it is the user who is required to clear the individual rights for the creation.

Once again, this is a "nuh uh" response, rather than any actual rebuttal. It's also wrong. The reason why Article 13 will almost certainly stifle creativity is that it will severely limit the ability of thousands of platforms that content creators rely on today to create, to distribute, to promote, and to sell their works. Can Bandcamp operate under Article 13? It'll be tough and phenomenally expensive. Patreon? Again, incredibly expensive. Kickstarter? Same. Many of these platforms may just leave the EU altogether or put severe restrictions on how the platform is used. That is seriously going to stifle creativity.

Contrary to what the old school recording industry wants you to believe, content creators and the various internet platforms are aligned in their interests. The platforms enable creators to do so much -- often without having to go through the old school gatekeepers. So, yes, it will stifle a massive amount of creativity. Of course, it's the kind of creators that PRS rarely deals with, so why should it care?

FALSE: Article 13 will make memes illegal

Parodies, such as memes, are already covered by exceptions to copyright, and nothing in the proposed Article 13 will allow rightholders to block the use of them.

Parodies are widely available on sites which already deploy content recognition tools and there is no evidence that this process has been detrimental. Currently, it is possible for there to be disputes between uploaders and rightholders as to whether a specific usage is covered by an exception – but the Copyright Directive will not alter this.

Right. Parodies are an exception to copyright. But nowhere does any of the backers of Article 13 explain how the "appropriate measures" to block any infringing works can magically determine what is, and what is not, parody. Or a meme. Indeed, we've already seen over and over again that ContentID -- the one system that has had the most time and investment, has no clue how to figure out "exceptions to copyright" (better described as user rights).

The point of the discussion about memes is not that Article 13 "outlaws" memes, but that is the effective result. Because it will require platforms to put in place filters that make any copyright covered work "non-available," that will naturally sweep up lots of memes, which make use of the work of others. And until we can teach computers to tell what is and what is not fair use or parody or whatever, that's going to block a lot of memes.

And that's not even touching on the point that it's not exactly settled law that "memes are parodies" and are "already covered by exceptions to copyright." There have been quite a few lawsuits over copyright in memes, and it's not at all a settled area of law.

FALSE: Article 13 will kill remixes

Services can be licensed to support remixes – and many already are. Look no further than the recent announcement about Mixcloud’s new licence.

In most cases, mash-ups are covered by existing copyright exceptions (such as parody, criticism, citation). So, they can be created and posted by citizens on the basis of these exceptions.

Notice the nice little twist in the answer here? "Services can be licensed to support remixes." The complaint that people were making is not about services, but about the fact that the standard way in which remixes are made -- whereby amateurs playing around remix stuff for fun and upload it to share... that will no longer be allowed. It will only happen on the few platforms that pay a massive license to allow remixes. And those platforms will have to pay for that license somehow, meaning they're less likely to allow amateurs and those just messing around to use their services for remixes. It seems quite likely that Article 13 will greatly diminish the number of remixes out in the world.

FALSE: Article 13 will be too expensive for small business and start-ups

Article 13 clearly states that Member States shall ensure that the measures shall be appropriate and proportionate, meaning that the types of measures which are deployed must reflect the specific size and scope of the service. The market already provides a wide range of content identification system at a wide range of prices.

Article 13 could clearly state that every EU citizen gets a baby zebra and it would be just as meaningless. A content upload filter is expensive, period. Again, YouTube spent $60 million building its filter. Supporters of Article 13 often like to point to Audible Magic, who sells upload filters, as proof that it's not that expensive. But when we spoke to small and medium sized platforms who have discussed using Audible Magic's filters, it was not at all cheap. One small platform was pitched Audible Magic at around $50k per month. That's over half a million dollars a year. And this was not a large platform. Half a million dollars would bankrupt this platform. So is PRS saying that if a platform can't afford that... it doesn't have to do anything? I highly doubt that, especially given PRS's litigious past against internet platforms.

FALSE: Article 13 is in breach of fundamental privacy rights

Article 13 specifically states that the measures should not require the identification of individual users and the processing of their personal data and should be in full compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation.

Who do we believe? The company that calls up businesses and demands licensing fees if it hears music playing in the background, or the UN's special rapporteur on free speech who said that Article 13 is in clear breach of human rights laws? Yeah, I'm going to go with the latter. As for the specific question on privacy, it seems quite likely that Article 13 will lead to many GDPR violations. Because if it's requiring platforms to take "appropriate measures" to stop users from re-uploading the same works, it's going to need to keep track of users, and what they upload. That's going to be a lot of data -- and some of it may be quite sensitive.

FALSE: Article 13 will result in a monolithic blocking tool to stop content

At the core of this concept is the idea of a super app, which can identify every piece of copyright content across billions of uploads in every EU country – and then block it.

Even putting aside the impracticality of such a concept, the argument is flawed for the simple reason that it assumes creators and producers are incentivised to block access to their works.

Centuries of copyright have proven this is not the case. Indeed, one of the core principles of copyright is that it incentivises the licensing of works. Requiring online platforms to obtain a licence will not lead to mass-scale blocking of copyright works online.

So... wait. Now PRS is admitting that content upload filters are "impractical"? So... why is it supporting a law where the only way to satisfy the law is to implement such a filter or to force every internet platform to buy a license.... oohhhhhhh. I see. PRS doesn't think Article 13 is a problem, since instead of allowing users to upload, PRS is hoping that every platform will just buy a license and only allow uploads from artists it represents.

In other words, PRS is looking forward to the internet being locked down like radio, rather than the internet. It wants a broadcast medium, rather than a communications medium.

As for the claim that creators aren't incentivized to block works -- we've heard that claim before. It's also intellectually dishonest. Yes, most content creators do want their works out there for people to experience. But the copyright holders -- often different than the content creators, mind you -- seem pretty eager to threaten and sue lots of internet platforms for daring to have any of that content ever available without a license.

So, yes, clearly it will be used for censorship. We have dozens of stories on Techdirt alone about copyright -- and filters like ContentID in particular -- being used for censorship. And it goes beyond just professional content creators. We've seen rich billionaires using copyright to censor critics. We've seen Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan use copyright to censor critics.

Anyone who thinks copyright isn't and won't be used to censor isn't paying attention or is incredibly dishonest. So, PRS, which one is it?

The EU Parliament votes on the Copyright Directive later this week. Don't let PRS for Music and its intellectually dishonest bullshit win out. Tell the EU Parliament to Save Your Internet.

Filed Under: article 13, collection society, copyright, copyright directive, eu, eu copyright directive, mandatory filters, upload filters
Companies: prs, prs for music

EU Copyright Proposal That Would Destroy Internet Memes Being Protested With Internet Memes

from the meme-while-you-still-can dept

The EU is no stranger to bad laws, but its desire to "protect" copyright holders from the Wild West Internet™ is one of its worst. A proposed change -- known as Article 13 -- would force social media platforms and other service providers to preemptively block copyrighted content during uploads unless permission has been specifically granted by the rightsholder.

Here's what Mike Masnick had to say about the impossibilities Article 13 would demand:

How would a site like Instagram create a working filter? Could it catch direct 100% copies? Sure, probably. But what if you post a photo to Instagram of someone standing in a room that has a copyright-covered photograph or painting on the wall? Does that need to be blocked? What about a platform like Github where tons of code is posted? Is Github responsible for managing every bit of copyright-covered code and making sure no one copies any of it? What about sites that aren't directly about the content, but which involve copyright-covered content, such as Tinder. Many of the photos of people on Tinder are covered by copyright, often held by a photographer, rather than the uploader. Will Tinder need to put in place a filter that blocks all of those uploads? Who will that be helping exactly? How about a blog like ours? Are we going to be responsible to make sure no one posts a copyright-covered quote in the comments? How are we to design and build a database of all copyright-covered content to block such uploads (and won't such a database potentially create an even larger copyright question in the first place)? What about a site like Airbnb? What if a photo of a home on Airbnb includes copyright-covered content in the background? Kickstarter? Patreon? I'm not sure how either service (which, we should remind you, both help artists get paid) can really function if this becomes law. Would they need a filter to block creators from uploading their own works?

There's a movement underway to destroy this proposal before it gets implemented. One of the internet's greatest collective creations/forms of communication (ymmv) is memes. Memes are almost always composed of copyrighted material, but no one would seriously argue they somehow diminish the market for the underlying content. Some would disingenuously argue this, and those are the sort of people who are pushing impossible filters to block third-party uploads.

If it's memes that are (inadvertently) targeted -- along with the freewheeling nature of internet communications -- then it's memes that will be pressed into service to fight the war against Article 13. Beckett Mufson has compiled some of the best ones for Vice. The meme warriors started with a set of memes that cleared Article 13's copyright filters.

This was followed by a misguided, but hilarious, attempt to get the EU to destroy itself by placing its flag front-and-center when crafting memes.

Of course, the flag isn't capable of being targeted for preemptive takedown since it's in the Creative Commons, but the underlying message -- that the proposal is ridiculous and harmful -- still comes through.

But the best of the batch is this one, which speaks to a great deal of our coverage of the EU and its bizarre treatment of copyright protection, free speech, and other ancillary issues. When a terrible, extremely harmful law is proposed by the EU, it's just another day at work for the governing body.

Only the most antagonistic of rightsholders would view memes as a destructive force pushing creators into poverty. But the EU's proposal takes exactly this hard line: it wants platforms to treat every bit of copyrighted material being uploaded as infringing by default. This won't just bankrupt smaller tech companies and make millions of users miserable. It will also do serious damage to internet communications in general, pushing platforms towards restricting users' interactions with the service, either by limiting their ability to post content or by suspending/deleting accounts for alleged Article 13 violations. The law is stupid and dangerous. Far too often, so is the EU.

Filed Under: article 13, censorship machines, copyright, copyright directive, eu, eu copyright directive, mandatory filters, memes, protests

Dear EU Parliament: Why Are You About To Allow US Internet Companies To Decide What EU Citizens Can Say Online?

from the such-a-bizarre-thing dept

We've pointed this out over and over again with regards to all of the various attempts to "regulate" the internet giants of Google and Facebook: nearly every proposal put forth to date creates a regulatory regime that Google and Facebook can totally handle. Sure, they might find it to be a nuisance, but its well within the resources of both companies to handle whatever is thrown their way. However, most other companies are then totally fucked, because they simply cannot comply in any reasonable manner. And, yet, these proposals keep coming -- and people keep celebrating them in the false belief that they will somehow "contain" the two internet giants, when the reality is that it will lock them in as the defacto dominant internet players, making it nearly impossible for upstarts and competitors to enter the market.

This seems particularly bizarre when we're talking about the EU's approach to copyright. As we've been discussing over the past few weeks, the EU Parliaments Legal Affairs Committee is about to vote on the EU Copyright Directive, that has some truly awful provisions in it -- including Article 11's link tax and Article 13's mandatory filters. The rhetoric around both of these tends to focus on just how unfair it is that Google and Facebook have so much power, and are making so much money while legacy companies (news publishers for Article 11 and recording companies for Article 13) aren't making as much as they used to.

But, as more and more people are starting to point out, if the Copyright Directive moves forward as is, it will only serve to lock in those two companies as the controllers of the internet. So why is it that the European Parliament seems hellbent on handing the internet over to American internet companies? In the link above, Cory Doctorow tries to parse out what the hell they're thinking:

These proposals will make starting new internet companies effectively impossible -- Google, Facebook, Twitter, Apple, and the other US giants will be able to negotiate favourable rates and build out the infrastructure to comply with these proposals, but no one else will. The EU's regional tech success stories -- say Seznam.cz, a successful Czech search competitor to Google -- don't have $60-100,000,000 lying around to build out their filters, and lack the leverage to extract favorable linking licenses from news sites.

If Articles 11 and 13 pass, American companies will be in charge of Europe's conversations, deciding which photos and tweets and videos can be seen by the public, and who may speak.

In a (possibly paywalled) article over at Wired looking at the Copyright Directive, Docotorow is also quoted explaining just how massively this system will be abused for censorship of EU citizens:

"Because the directive does not provide penalties for abuse – and because rightsholders will not tolerate delays between claiming copyright over a work and suppressing its public display – it will be trivial to claim copyright over key works at key moments or use bots to claim copyrights on whole corpuses.

The nature of automated systems, particularly if powerful rightsholders insist that they default to initially blocking potentially copyrighted material and then releasing it if a complaint is made, would make it easy for griefers to use copyright claims over, for example, relevant Wikipedia articles on the eve of a Greek debt-default referendum or, more generally, public domain content such as the entirety of Wikipedia or the complete works of Shakespeare.

"Making these claims will be MUCH easier than sorting them out – bots can use cloud providers all over the world to file claims, while companies like Automattic (Wordpress) or Twitter, or even projects like Wikipedia, would have to marshall vast armies to sort through the claims and remove the bad ones – and if they get it wrong and remove a legit copyright claim, they face unbelievable copyright liability."

As we noted yesterday in highlighting a new paper looking at what happened when similar laws were implemented, the increase in censorship is not an idle threat or crying wolf. It happens. Frequently.

And, yet, we still have EU politicians and supporters of the Copyright Directive -- while they complain about Google and Facebook's power over the internet -- turning around and pushing for plans that not only will lock in both of those companies as the dominant internet companies, but also forcing upon them the sole power to censor the speech of EU citizens. And they're about to vote on this in just hours and don't seem to have the first clue about what a dumb idea all of this is.

Filed Under: article 11, article 13, copyright, copyright directive, eu, eu parliament
Companies: facebook, google

French Political Party Voting For Mandatory Copyright Filters Is Furious That Its YouTube Channel Deleted By Filter

from the but-we-didn't-mean-for-US dept

It's been a long tradition here on Techdirt to show examples of politicians and political parties pushing for stricter, more draconian, copyright laws are often found violating those same laws. But the French Rassemblemant National (National Rally Point) party is taking this to new levels -- whining about the enforcement of internet filters, just as it's about to vote in favor of making such filters mandatory. Leaving aside that Rassemblemant National, which is the party headed by Marine Le Pen, is highly controversial, and was formerly known as Front National, it is still an extremely popular political party in France. And, boy, is it ever pissed off that YouTube took down its YouTube channel over automatically generated copyright strikes. Le Pen is particularly angry that YouTube's automatic filters were unable to recognize that they were just quoting other works:

Marine Le Pen was quoted as saying, “This measure is completely false; we can easily assert a right of quotation [to illustrate why the material was well within the law to broadcast]”.

Yes, but that's the nature of automated filters. They cannot tell what is "fair use" or what kinds of use are acceptable for commentary or criticism. They can just tell "was this work used?" and if so "take it down."

Given all that, and the fact that Le Pen complained that this was "arbitrary, political and unilateral," you have to think that her party is against the EU Copyright Directive proposal, which includes Article 13, which would make such algorithmic filters mandatory. Except... no. Within the EU Parliament, Rassemblemant National is in a coalition with a bunch of other anti-EU parties known as Europe of Nations and Freedoms or ENF. And how does ENF feel about Article 13? MEP Julia Reda has a handy dandy chart showing that ENF is very much in favor of Article 13 (and the Article 11 link tax).

So... we have a major political party in the EU, whose own YouTube channel has been shut down thanks to automated copyright filters in the form of YouTube's ContentID. And that party is complaining that ContentID, which is the most expensive and the most sophisticated of all the copyright filters out there, was unable to recognize that they were legally "quoting" another work... and their response is to order every other internet platform to install their own filters. Really?

Filed Under: article 13, automated filters, contentid, copyright, copyright directive, copyright filter, enf, eu, eu parliament, fair use, front national, marine le pen, national rally point, rassemblemant national, takedowns
Companies: youtube