Free Software Foundation Europe Comes To Its Senses After Calling For EU To Fund Open Source Upload Filters

from the producing-better-shackles dept

Most EU digital rights groups are still reeling from the approval of the EU Copyright Directive and its deeply-flawed idea of upload filters, which will seriously harm the way the Internet operates in the region and beyond. Matters are made even worse by the fact that some MEPs claim they blundered when they voted -- enough of them that Article 13 might have been removed from the legislation had they voted as they intended.

But one organization quick off the mark in its response was the Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE), the local offshoot of the main Free Software Foundation. Shortly after the EU vote, it issued a press release entitled "Copyright Directive -- EU safeguards Free Software at the last minute". This refers to a campaign spear-headed by the FSFE and Open Forum Europe called "Save Code Share" that sought successfully to exclude open source software sharing from Article 13. As the press release said:

We are glad we were able to raise awareness and understanding of what drives software development in Europe nowadays among many policy makers. The exclusion of Free Software code hosting and sharing providers from this directive is crucial to keep Free Software development in Europe healthy, solid and alive.

It went on to say:

As upload filters are now introduced, we urge the European Commission to avoid filtering monopolies by companies this directive actually intended to regulate.

That is, indeed, a real threat: Google has spent over $100 million developing its Content ID filtering system for YouTube. Few other companies will be able to match that. Rather ironically, Article 13 may end up giving Google a near-monopoly over large parts of the upload filtering market. Here’s how the FSFE proposed to tackle that problem:

We call on the European Commission to promote the dissemination of Free Software filter technologies, including financial support, for instance within the framework of research programmes Horizon2020 and Horizon Europe.

Perhaps the FSFE was so keen to promote free software everywhere that it didn't really think this through. Anyway, a couple of days later, the FSFE came to its senses, and deleted the call for "Free Software filter technologies", and half-apologized:

The original version of this press release urged the European Commission to act to avoid filtering-monopolies, but our description of our position on filters was unclear and incomplete. The FSFE is not, and has never been, in favour of developing "fundamentally flawed filtering technologies". The FSFE has been fighting against upload filters since the beginning, e.g., as a signatory of Copyright for Creativity or Create Refresh, and joined more than 80 organisations asking the EU member states to reject the harmful Article 13 (now, Art. 17). The FSFE will support solutions to preserve users' right to be in control of technology and ethical standards for service operators.

That's more like it: the correct response to the authorities making shackles compulsory is not to try to make better shackles, but to point out how bad any kind of shackle is. The FSFE now seems to agree unequivocally.

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

Filed Under: copyright, eu, eu copyright directive, filters, free software, open source
Companies: fsfe

After Insisting That EU Copyright Directive Didn't Require Filters, France Immediately Starts Promoting Filters

from the because-of-course dept

For months now we've all heard the refrain: Article 13 (now Article 17) of the EU Copyright Directive would not require filters. We all knew it was untrue. We pointed out many times that it was untrue, and that there was literally no way to comply unless you implemented filters (filters that wouldn't work and would ban legitimate speech), and were yelled at for pointing this out. Here's the MEP in charge of the Directive flat out insisting that it won't require filters last year:

Over and over and over again, this is what they insisted. Of course, we all knew it wasn't true, and the German government quietly admitted that filters were necessary a few weeks ago. That didn't stop the vote from happening, of course, and the Parliament questionably moving forward with this plan. Still, it's rather striking that just a day after the vote, as pointed out to us by Benjamin Henrion, France's Minister for Culture gave a speech in which he admits that it requires filters and hopes that France will implement the law as quickly as possible in order to start locking down the internet. The quotes here are based on Google translate, so they may not be perfect, but you get the idea. Incredibly, in talking about the Directive, Riester starts off by saying that the passing of the Directive was "despite massive campaigns of misinformation" which seems rather ironic, since it's now clear the misinformation came from those who insisted it didn't require filters, because soon after that he says:

I also announce that the Higher Council of Literary and Artistic Property, the HADOPI and the CNC will jointly launch in the coming days a "Mission to promote and supervise content recognition technologies".

In other words, now that the law is passed, it's time for everyone to install filters.

Riester also suggests that France may be the first to transpose the Directive into French law, meaning that it may be implemented long before required under the Directive. As he said: "there is no time to lose on this subject." If you're a site that has any user-generated content in France, good luck. Your government just sold you out. Of course, if you're a company selling filters, I guess send your lobbyists over to Paris quick and cash in.

Filed Under: article 13, copyright, eu copyright directive, filters, france, franck riester, minister of culture

EU Puts An End To The Open Internet: Link Taxes And Filters Approved By Just 5 Votes

from the a-sad-day-for-the-open-internet dept

Well, it was a nice run while it lasted, but the EU Parliament has just put an end to the open internet. By the incredibly thin margin of just five votes, the Parliament voted against any amendments to the proposal -- which was a necessary step to fixing or deleting Articles 11 and 13. After that, they voted to approve the EU Copyright Directive, including the terrible versions of both Article 11 and 13. This is an inauspicious day and one that the EU will almost certainly come to regret. While we now need to see how each of the member states will implement the actual laws put forth in the Directive (meaning the damage in some states may be more mitigatable than in others), on the whole the EU Copyright Directive requires laws that effectively end the open internet as an open communications medium. Sites that previously allowed content creators to freely publish content will now be forced to make impossible choices: license all content (which is literally impossible), filter all content (expensive and failure-prone), or shut down. Sites that used to send traffic to news sources may now need to reconsider, as doing so will inexplicably require payment.

At best, the EU--for all its complaints about Google and Facebook--has just locked both companies into a dominant position. They can afford this. Others cannot. And, the legacy gatekeepers in the media and entertainment business will quickly pivot to seeking to export this model elsewhere.

The MEPs who voted for this are up for election in two months, and hopefully the EU shows them the door, but in the meantime, today is a sad day for the open internet. I am sure that some will be celebrating on the false belief that this will magically "help artists." It will not. You just handed more power to giant companies, and took it away from creators. In time, one hopes, those who mocked the protesters and activists and actual experts will come to realize just how much they destroyed today.

Filed Under: article 11, article 13, censorship, closed internet, copyright, eu, eu copyright directive, eu parliament, filters, free speech, link tax, open internet

Swedish MEPs Announce Support For Article 13, Demonstrate Near Total Ignorance Of What It Actually Entails

from the not-a-good-sign dept

As MEPs get ready to vote on the EU Copyright Directive -- and specific amendments concerning Articles 11 and 13 -- many have not yet said how they are going to vote. However, two Swedish MEPs, Jytte Guteland and Marita Ulvskog, who many had believed would vote against the plan, have suddenly switched sides and say they plan to vote for it. In a rather astounding interview with reporter Emanuel Karlsten the MEPs reveal their near total ignorance of what Article 13 does and what it would require.

Guteland spoke to Karlsten by phone, and he asked all the right questions. It's worth reading the entire conversation, but here are a few snippets with my commentary. When Karlsten pointed out the problems with filters, Guteland insisted that Article 13 doesn't mean filters:

It is not a filter, it’s more about the sites taking reasonable steps, some of which can be free or cheap

That is... utter nonsense. The directive would require sites to block re-uploads of reportedly infringing material, and that means it requires a filter. There is no other way to do this. And there are no "free" filters. Currently, there aren't even any "cheap" filters. Karlsten asks about this and Guteland changes the subject.

What do you mean when you say “free or cheap” ways to take the measures needed to stop copyrighted material from being distributed?

“You shouldn’t need to commit to expensive technical solutions, but measures taken must be proportionate and reasonable based on the content you have. If you’re a commercial player with huge amounts of content, then you’ll need to implement other solutions”.

Got that? You shouldn't need filters, but... if you're a company then obviously you can afford expensive filters.

From there, the interview gets even worse. Karlsten points out that lots of speech will certainly get taken down, especially since filters can't determine what is parody or otherwise exempt, and Guteland's response -- I kid you not -- is basically first "well, they can appeal their censorship" and when it's pointed out that this could lead to content being censored for a long time, retorts that it's somehow magically in the best interests of tech platforms not to censor the content too long:

There shouldn’t be lengthy court proceedings. Even big platforms have an interest in avoiding long court proceedings

"Shouldn't be." Apparently Guteland is unfamiliar with what has happened for years with notice-and-takedown regimes that are a lot less onerous than the ones that will be implemented post-Article 13. When pressed on this, she appears to give the Swedish equivalent of "Nerd harder, nerds."

I see before me a mechanism being developed that doesn’t exist today, where now we have recognition technology, but no appeal process. In the future it should become second nature for platforms to examine whether content is satirical, so that it can be reposted quickly. That means it’s about recognition becoming a two-stage process where today it’s only one. That way it becomes easier to make judgments.

Full employment for satire-detectors! Also, the rest of this paragraph is utter nonsense. She acts as if there's no current appeals process for content taken down today. There is and it's a disaster that doesn't work well at all. And under Article 13 it will be even worse, because the liability and penalties for leaving up the wrong content are much more severe than in the past. And that's why she's totally and completely wrong in saying that platforms will be quick to put this content up. Indeed, the only thing she's right about is that they have incentives to "avoid long court proceedings." And the way you do that is by KEEPING DOWN any content that might be questionable to avoid the liability.

It's disappointing, especially as the vote is coming in just a few hours, that those supporting Article 13 still seem completely ignorant of how any of this works.

Filed Under: article 13, copyright, eu, eu copyright directive, fair use, filters, intermediary liability, jytte guteland, marita ulvskog, satire

New Report: Germany Caved To France On Copyright In A Deal For Russian Gas

from the horse-trading:-the-public-internet-for-russian-gas dept

In the hours leading up to the vote in the EU Parliament on the EU Copyright Directive, the German publication FAZ (which has been generally supportive of the Directive) has released quite a bombshell (in German), suggesting that the reason Germany caved to France on its terrible demands concerning copyright was in order to get France's approval of the controversial Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline from Russia.

If you don't recall, the German delegation had actually pushed back on the more extreme versions of Article 13 -- and, in particular, had demanded that a final version have a clear carve-out for smaller companies, so as not to have them forced out of business by the onerous demands of the law. However, after some back and forth, Germany caved in to France's demands, with many left scratching their heads as to why. However, some noted the "coincidence" in timing, that right after this, France also withdrew its objections to the pipeline which is very controversial in the EU (and the US, which is threatening sanctions).

FAZ notes that there were whispered rumors about Germany and France basically trading these two proposals, with Germany effectively selling out the open public internet in exchange for easier access to Russian gas. However, it has now seen documents that support this claim. Germany's economic minister, Peter Altmaier apparently promised startups that Germany would not cave on its promise to create a carve-out for all companies with less than 20 million euros in revenue per year -- only to drop that demand the very next day.

According to FAZ, the French delegation directly suggested the idea of France backing away from its opposition to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline if Germany backed away from its concerns about Article 13. And, voila, within days, Germany gave up on its demands regarding Article 13 and, a few days later, France switched sides and agreed to support the pipeline. So, as the German MEPs go to the polls tomorrow, we'll see if they think it was a fair deal to sell out the public internet in exchange for some Russian gas.

Filed Under: article 13, copyright, eu copyright directive, france, germany, internet, nord stream 2, oil, pipelines, russia

Supporters Of Article 13, After Denying It's About Filters, Now Say It's About Regulating Filters Which They Admit Don't Work

from the get-your-freaking-story-straight dept

As the EU Parliament gets ready to vote on the EU Copyright Directive and Articles 11 and 13, the desperation from the supporters of these laws is reaching a fever pitch. It's gotten to the point that their own arguments no longer make any sense and are totally inconsistent with what they've been saying for months. Late last week, a new group sprung up with a website called Manifesto4copyright.eu. It is an astounding document in so many ways, not the least of which is it admits that Article 13 is about filters, while also admitting that filters don't work.

It starts off with a huge misrepresentation: that the authors supporting it are for an "open and fair internet without censorship." Except that's belied by the rest of the "manifesto," which makes about as much sense as any other ranting internet manifesto:

We all live among the digital revolution. We want to shape it, not prevent it. Authors must be paid. Therefore, the internet needs good rules. There is no freedom without rules! Otherwise, only the strongest will prevail as has happened with the internet-giants. We are no technophobes. We want good governance for the digital world. We want an open and fair internet.

Authors are paid. If they sell their works to willing customers, they get paid. Nothing has changed. Indeed, artists are making more money than ever before. Also, what's with the Orwellian "there is no freedom without rules" line in there?

Of course, the next paragraph suggests who might actually be behind this particular manifesto. See if you can figure it out by looking at the "myths" they claim they are busting:

The criticism we have is merely of the myths and fighting talk, which are poisoning the current debate: A free internet at no charge, publishers as evil exploiters, authors ripped off by collecting societies, the enforcement of copyright as censorship.

Wait, who's asking for an internet free of charge? No one that I know of. And also, if you don't believe that copyright is frequently and regularly used for censorship, you simply have not been paying attention and have no place in this debate. You are ignorant.

But, let's focus in on the other one: complaining that it's a myth that publishers and collection societies rip off those they supposedly represent. I'm guessing that this manifesto was put together by those very collection societies. And since they insist this is a myth, let's go for a little walk down memory lane about collection societies.

• There was the Spanish collection society, SGAE which was raided by the police after its top execs were accused of stealing $550 million from artists.
• A UK government-backed inquiry into abuse by collection societies received so many entries from people so angry that it felt it needed to block their release.
• In the US, ASCAP both announced that it was taking in more money than ever and that it was cutting payments to artists on the same day.
• In India, courts had to step in to block collection societies from collecting money from concerts they had no right to collect money from.
• In Germany, GEMA told musicians that they were simply not allowed to offer music for free as it would violate GEMA's rules.
• In Peru, another corruption scandal found that a collection society there was diverting revenue from artists to friends.
• In Kenya, a collection society was found to be paying less than one-third of the money it was supposed to be giving out. That resulted in a court having to step in and bar the collection society from continuing to collect.
• In France, the local collection society made bands pay the collection society in order to make their own albums, and again in order to get paid the money they are owed.

And those are just a few quick examples from Techdirt in doing a quick search. There are many, many, many more such stories. In 2012 there was an entire paper detailing more examples. And, since that was 7 years ago, last year, a second version of the paper was published with even more examples.

So, gee, I wonder where we get the idea that collection societies rip off creators?

And, from there, things get even weirder in the manifesto:

Google and Facebook are already using filter algorithms. They filter not only – as intended – illegal content (e.g. pornographic or terrorist content), but also completely legal content (e.g. photos of naked bodies). They do so arbitrarily and without democratic regulation. The new directive, however, will regulate filters. At the same time, the platforms currently earn their money by making third parties’ content accessible and advertising it, without paying appropriate fees to the creators of this content – photographers, musicians, authors, graphic artists. This is where the new directive on European copyright law comes in: Article 13 regulates how licensing works for platforms. Platforms should pay creatives fair and reasonable remuneration by obtaining licences for the global repertoire. If they have such flat-rate licences from collecting societies, they do not need to filter content.

Um, what?

Google and Facebook are already using filters. We agree. But then... it admits that the filters don't work, because they work "arbitrarily." And then they admit that Article 13 will "regulate filters" which apparently no one told them they're not supposed to admit to until after Article 13 becomes law. Indeed, every time we mention that Article 13 will require filters, someone shows up in our comments with some demand about how the law says nothing anywhere about filters. Yet here, whoever is behind this manifesto appears to be arguing the following:

1. Google and Facebook already use filters.
2. Those filters are arbitrary and block legal content
3. Article 13 will "regulate filters"
4. And then they don't need to use filters any more.

I'm honestly stumped. It's true that filters don't work very well. But nothing in Article 13 fixes that. I think they're trying to say that if companies just pay to license up every bit of content (i.e., throw lots of money at collection societies described above) then they won't need to use filters any more, but that is not what Article 13 says by any stretch of the imagination. First, for that to be true, it would only apply if a site could be guaranteed that it was even possible to license every possible bit of content ever. Which it is not. And thus, they would still need to use filters. Which will lead to mass, automated censorship.

The manifesto goes on from there, with some other nonsense -- such insisting that "Memes are safe!" -- but it's really not worth spending more time on it, other than to suggest that if this is truly the best that collection societies could do with their propaganda, perhaps next time they should pay their writers more to write something coherent, and which doesn't disagree with basically all the other lobbying messaging about Article 13.

Filed Under: article 13, censorship, copyright, eu copyright directive, filters, manifesto, upload filters

Huge Protests Across Europe Protest Article 13; Politician Lies And Claims They Were Paid To Be There

from the not-bots dept

As expected, people took to the streets in the EU this week to protest the EU Copyright Directive, the censorship filters of Article 13, and the snippet tax in Article 11. Most of the protests took place in Germany, where reports are that over 150,000 protesters showed up to let their elected officials know that this law is a disaster (other reports put the number closer to 200,000 protesters).

Indeed, things got so crazy, that the Berlin police announced that there were way more people than expected, and protesters needed to change their planned route to roads that could better accommodate such a large crowd.

Many of the signs included memes, or the statement "we are not bots," which appears to have confused some in the media, such as DW.com, which claimed people said: "banners included the phrase "We are not bots," a reference to robotic-like social media posts." Uh, no. The reference to "we are not bots" is in direct response to supporters of Article 13 lying and claiming that all of the arguments against Article 13 were simply coming from internet bots as a way to discount the concerns of millions of EU residents as well as those of us around the world.

Of course, what happens when the politicians who insisted it was "just bots" arguing against Article 13 have to contend with the fact that at least 150,000 real live humans showed up on their doorstep to protest? They just keep lying. German MEP Daniel Caspary, who chairs the large CDU/CSU group in the EU Parliament told a German publication a completely made up lie -- reminiscent of the kind of "fake news" propaganda that has been used elsewhere, that all of the protesters were actually paid to be there. He literally called them "bought protesters" and said that a non-profit organization offered protesters €450 to show up at the protest. And then insisted that this was all a threat to democracy (per the translation):

"Now it is obviously being attempted to prevent the adoption of copyright even with bought protesters. Up to 450 euros are offered by a so-called NGO for the demonstrators. The money seems to come, at least partially, from major American Internet corporations. When American corporations with massive use of disinformation and bought protesters try to prevent laws, our democracy is under threat. "

Think about that for a second. A major political leader is so infatuated with his false belief that real people couldn't possibly be upset about the plan to fundamentally move away from an open internet, that he insists Google must have paid the protesters €450 each to show up. That's insane, and nothing that any elected official should be saying. Journalist Emanuel Karlsten looked into the details of this and found that Caspary had taken a completely different bit of information and used it to attack the integrity of all the protesters. What had really happened was a few weeks earlier, the digital rights organization EDRi had offered to cover travel costs for a small number of activists to come talk to MEPs. It was not for the demonstrations, but for a small group of activists, who otherwise could not afford to meet the MEPs in person, to travel. Somewhere around a dozen such grants were made and it allowed this small group of folks to meet with MEPs last week, totally unrelated to the protests.

As more and more people started calling out Caspary, he refused to correct his misleading statement for an entire day, before insisting that everyone misunderstood him and he never really meant that all demonstrators got paid. However, the "statement" he links to is simply more pro-Article 13 propaganda, insisting that the protesters cannot be taken seriously because some idiot sent Axel Voss a death threat. Meanwhile, Caspary's own thread -- that he insists is clarifying his position -- then immediately says we should still criticize financial support for those seeking to lobby politicians. He says that as if the lobbyists in favor of Article 13 didn't also provide "financial support" for some musicians and creators to go lobby them as well. It is standard practice for NGOs to pay travel costs for activists to present their position before elected officials, because otherwise politicians would only hear from lobbyists, and not from the actual people. This happens on all sides of every issue -- and it's not paying them for their testimony, but for their travel expenses to get somewhere they couldn't otherwise go.

So I'm curious if Caspary will now agree to discount any lobbying he heard in favor of Article 13 from artists who received travel support to go see him too? Or does his position only cover the other side?

Meanwhile, as Communia noted, in quite a contrast, at the same time as these protests were happening across Germany and elsewhere, in France, supporters of Article 13 -- the execs from collection societies who stand to profit (literally) the most from the passage of Article 13 -- gathered to drink champagne and hold up little yellow pieces of paper in support of the law:

You really should click to open the images and to see the contrast. Thousands upon thousands of people take to the streets to protest against a law that will close off the open internet, while those who will profit from such a closed internet sip champagne at a private party and smile meekly while holding up pieces of paper in support of screwing over the public. How nice.

Either way, no matter what lies politicians tell themselves, they might want to think about so many people coming out to protest over this issue, especially given that the next EU Parliamentary elections are in just a few months. Or will they just claim that Google paid them to vote, too?

All images in this post come from Netzpolitik, which says they are free for anyone to use -- which may only be true until Article 13 is enacted into law, at which point, it would be an impossible liability risk to continue posting them on most sites.

Filed Under: article 11, article 13, bots, copyright, daniel caspary, eu, eu copyright directive, filters, germany, protests

Sites Warn EU Users Of Just How Bad Article 13 Will Be

from the speak-up dept

As we mentioned, a bunch of websites started protesting yesterday in the lead up to next week's vote on Article 11 and Article 13 that will fundamentally change the nature of the internet. The main ones were various European Wikipedia editions, which completely blacked out and posted a warning message. Here's the one in Germany (with automatic browser translation -- the original, obviously, is in German):

Different sites are doing different things -- and for some it depends on whether you're visiting from the EU or not, but it's good to see so many sites coming together on this. Reddit, as explained in a blog post on its site, are telling any EU Redditor who tries to post something new that it's blocked:

Lots of others have stepped up as well. The ever popular online streaming site Twitch is warning people in a variety of ways, including creating a video about its concerns:

And has also put the message all over its social media:

Patreon, the very popular website for helping creators get paid has warned its creators that under Article 13, it may need to block their content:

Others who have spoken up include Creative Commons and the Internet Archive:

Another site that joined in -- which we'll refrain from screenshotting -- is the most popular porn site on the internet, Pornhub.

Between all of this, the question now remains: will the EU Parliament ignore all of these voices? Ignore all of the over 5 million people who signed a Petition against Article 13? Will it ignore all the companies who have said that Article 13 will put them at a disadvantage compared to Google? Will it ignore of the content creators who rely on platforms like Twitch and Patreon?

Filed Under: #saveyourinternet, article 11, article 13, censorship, copyright, eu, eu copyright directive, filters, intermediary liability
Companies: creative commons, internet archive, patreon, reddit, twitch, wikipedia

Independent Musician Dan Bull's New Song, Robocopyright, Warns Of The Dangers Of Article 13

from the for-the-artists dept

You know how supporters of Article 13 keep insisting it's "for the artists?" Well, successful independent musician Dan Bull has just put out his latest song and video: Robocopyright, calling out all the ways in which Article 13 will harm him as a creator:

The key message: Article 13 and its requirement for filters (and, yes, it requires filters) will mean more gatekeepers, more censorship, and less freedom for creators. Algorithmic policing of content does not work as it cannot take into account context. It fails in both directions in blocking legit content and failing to block infringing content (which will only open up platforms to even greater liability). In short, to anyone who understands technology, it will be a huge mess.

Go watch it and then let the EU Parliament know not to pass Article 13.

Filed Under: article 13, copyright, dan bull, eu, eu copyright directive, music, robocopyright

MEPs Realizing How Bad Article 13 Could Be, Begin To Back Away From EU Copyright Directive

from the but-more-is-needed dept

The online protests around the terrible Article 11 and Article 13 only began yesterday. This weekend there are expected to be significant in-person protests as well, leading up to the big vote next week. Already the protests are having an impact. MEP Julia Reda passes on the news from Polish MEP Michal Boni that the major Polish political party, Civic Platform (or Platforma) has said they will not vote for the EU Copyright Directive if it contains Article 13:

That's a big win for the internet, and people should go thank Boni for that. However, many others in the EU Parliament have not yet said how they will vote and need to hear from people in the EU. The future of the internet -- and whether it's an open platform for all, or a closed platform for gatekeepers, depends on it.

Filed Under: article 13, censorship, civic platform, copyright, eu, eu copyright directive, filters, michal boni, platforma, poland