EU Parliament Paid News Publisher AFP To Create Bogus Propaganda Video In Favor Of EU Copyright Directive

from the that-doesn't-seem-right dept

So we recently wrote about the bizarre situation in the EU whereby the EU Parliament's official Twitter feed had tweeted a pure propaganda video in support of the EU Copyright Directive. This was weird on many levels. First of all, the Copyright Directive has not yet been voted upon, and you would think that the EU Parliament itself should be neutral on the question of whether or not a law should be passed -- especially one with as much controversy as the Copyright Directive. Second, the video was filled with a bunch of blatantly false information (mostly from MEP Axel Voss). It's one thing for the EU Parliament to be promoting a specific outcome on a legislative vote, and it's another altogether to support that with false information delivered by just one MEP. Does the EU Parliament do this on other issues as well? The third oddity, is that the video certainly looked very professionally produced, raising questions of just who put it together.

MEP Julia Reda used her position as an MEP to ask those questions of the Parliament and now has the answer. The EU Parliament -- for reasons that are still unclear -- paid Agence France Press (AFP) to produce the video:

AFP, of course, is a giant publisher that stands to potentially benefit from Article 11 in particular. And, apparently, AFP has been one of the more aggressive lobbying organizations in Brussels pushing for Article 11. Hell, all the way back in 2005, AFP actually sued Google for linking to its stories (spoiler alert: it did not win). So for the EU Parliament to then use public funds to ask a clearly interested party to produce a propaganda video seems highly questionable. This is the akin to say, the US Congress asking Pfizer to produce a video that will go out under "Congress" official imprimatur, about prescription drug pricing. That would be a scandal. Yet, in the EU, not too many officials seem particularly bothered by this.

Of course, it should be noted that AFP does not exactly have the greatest track record on copyright itself. In 2010, the company was caught having used someone's photo of the earthquake aftermath in Haiti without licensing, and when called on it, AFP sued the photographer with a bizarre argument that anything that was posted to Twitter was free for anyone to use (no, really). Eventually, AFP was forced to pay out $1.2 million for that debacle. You'd think that experience might make the company a little more careful about supporting extremist copyright positions, but for some reason in the copyright debates, the maximalists never think the law will seriously apply back to them.

Meanwhile, instead, AFP is publishing hysterically misleading articles (that feed out to various licensees of AFP content) all about how evil Google is actively lobbying over Article 11. No, really. While (at least) the AFP article notes that AFP supports Article 11, it leaves out its active participation in the lobbying effort -- including the creation of the aforementioned video, framing the entire story about how big bad Google is doing all the lobbying over the law.

Filed Under: article 11, article 13, axel voss, bias, corruption, eu copyright directive, eu parliament, julia reda, propaganda
Companies: afp

Major Labels Split On Support For Article 13; As Music Publishers Whine That They Can't Make Money From Parodies

from the say-that-again dept

Billboard Magazine reliably publishes the views of folks inside the music industry, so a recent column exploring various views regarding Article 13 in the EU Copyright Directive is enlightening. As we've discussed, the record labels released a letter saying that they no longer supported Article 13 because it "no longer meets the objectives" they originally wanted -- which was basically "Google cough up all the money."

However, Billboard notes that there's significant disagreement among the three major labels concerning their views on Article 13:

Of the three major labels, industry sources say Universal is the most opposed to the final version; Warner largely favors it, though executives think the text contains flaws; and Sony Music is between the two.

It still feels like the "opposition" from legacy copyright companies is mostly for show. When discussing Article 13, they all seems to freak out any time anyone points out reasons to drop it -- so it feels like the "oh, we oppose it" has mostly been an attempt to see if they can go for broke and make the law even worse. However, if Universal Music really opposes Article 13, it should speak up.

The even odder bit in the Billboard piece is watching some execs whine that in trying to respond to (accurate) claims about how Article 13 will stifle memes, it will mean they might not be able to get money from people making parodies of their works:

At present, in markets where parody exceptions do not exist, rights holders are able to monetize music parody videos. If passed, Article 13 potentially shuts down that source of revenue.

"I don’t think you’ll find many rights holders who will come out and say they like [Article] 13.5. In territories where they don’t currently have these exceptions, you are potentially reducing revenues for a particular use of content," says one exec.

Cry me a river. Oh, you can't make money if someone parodies your song. What a shame.

Of course, what's odd, is that later in the same damn article, they quote someone saying that Article 13.5 doesn't actually let this happen, even though that's the claim earlier in the article:

"Is what we’re giving away something we can live with? The general reaction among rights holders, labels and publishers is yes," agrees John Phelan, director general of international music publishing trade association ICMP, which had previously joined IFPI and IMPALA in opposing an earlier, weaker version of the directive. He says the final text fixed many of those issues. A key revision was the removal of language that suggested platforms would not require licences or be liable for user-generated content that fell under the categories of caricature, parody or pastiche.

"It was critical that was changed," says Phelan. "If that provision was included, we couldn’t have supported Article 13, nor the directive."

So, uh, wait. Under Article 13.5, are memes and parodies allowed for free... or not? If you look at the actual text, it shows how this game is being played:

The cooperation between online content service providers and rightholders shall not result in the prevention of the availability of works or other subject matter uploaded by users which do not infringe copyright and related rights, including where such works or subject matter are covered by an exception or limitation.

Member States shall ensure that users in all Member States are able to rely on the following existing exceptions and limitations when uploading and making available content generated by users on online content sharing services:

a) quotation, criticism, review,
b) use for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche.

Let's be clear: there are all sorts of problems with this. First off, it only applies in states that already protect parody and such, so parodies and memes and the like will be blocked in countries that don't have those exemptions already under the law. That's a pretty big deal.

Second, this paragraph is nonsense. The law requires that platforms don't allow any copyright-covered material be uploaded (which is why everyone will need to use filters). How the hell does a filter determine if it's for quotation, criticism, or review, or a caricature, parody or pastiche? The draft bill is entirely silent. All it says is "don't let that stuff be blocked." It's the ultimate in "nerd harder." Basically block everything, except the stuff that looks identical to the other stuff, but if you get anything wrong we'll fine you out of business. Anyone who understands the first thing about platform liability recognizes that the only way to stay on the right side of this law is to block things -- even if they fall under these exceptions.

This clause serves literally no purpose other than for those who support the law to point to in an attempt to blunt criticism of the impact of Article 13. Yet none of them can explain how this part of the law would work in practice, beyond some "nerd harder" mumbling about how the tech companies will have to "figure it out."

Filed Under: article 13, copyright, eu, eu copyright directive, labels, parodies, upload filters

Clash Of EU's Poorly Thought Out Laws: German Data Protection Commissioner Warns That Article 13 Might Violate GDPR

from the fight-fight-fight dept

As we've been noting recently, the EU really seems to be bending over backwards to pass poorly thought out laws about the internet (sometimes, though not always, with the best of intentions). For example, the GDPR certainly seems to have good intentions behind it, but in practice it has been a disaster in many specific cases, where it seems obvious that those who crafted the law simply ignored warnings about how it would intersect with real world situations -- especially those regarding free speech. Then, of course, there's the EU Copyright Directive and Article 13, where as far as I can tell, the EU is rushing forward with this effort, knowing that it's awful, because the entire point of the law is to be so awful that internet companies are pressured into grovelling before Hollywood not to sue them for violating a law with which it is literally impossible to be in compliance with.

Of course, in a bit of irony, at least one German official is recognizing that the intersection of these two laws may, in fact, cause some significant concerns. Despite what supporters have said about Article 13, it will require that most online platforms use upload filters. While supporters insist the law does not say that, when pressed on this issue, they only note that filters are one way to try to comply, and basically say that tech companies might need to "nerd harder" to come up with alternatives. However, in all practicality, this law is a giant government handout to filter companies. Indeed, as we noted, some of the strongest lobbying in favor of Article 13 came from Audible Magic, which is the recognized leading independent upload filtering company (many, many other companies use its technology, with the one major exception being Google, which built its own filtering tech).

TorrentFreak points us to a letter to the EU Parliament from Germany's Data Protection Commissioner (basically, the person in charge of enforcing the GDPR), warning that since there are so few filter companies, and Article 13 will more or less mandate their usage, it will raise significant concerns about all the data those companies (really: Audible Magic) will collect on people and their internet habits. The letter was first translated into English by Florian Mueller, who received an official "approval" from the German Federal Commissioner that his translation was accurate.

The letter starts off by brushing away the silly claim that Article 13 won't require filters:

The Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information, Ulrich Kelber, therefore warns against the potential consequences of the reform in question: "Even though upload filters are not explicitly mandated by the bill, they will be employed as a practical effect. Especially smaller platform operators and service providers will not be in a position to conclude license agreements with all [copy]right holders. Nor will they be able to make the software develoment effort to create upload filters of their own. Instead, they will utilize offerings by large IT companies just the way it is already happening, for one example, in the field of analytics tools, where the relevant components created by Facebook, Amazon and Google are used by many apps, websites, and services."

From there, Kelber notes that with so few filter vendors on the market, significant data protection concerns are raised about the government mandating these companies basically sift through the entire internet:

"At the end of the day, this would result in an oligopoly consisting of a few vendors of filtering technologies, which would then be instrumental to more or less the entire Internet data traffic of relevant platforms and services. The wealth of information those vendors would receive about all users in the process is evidenced by, among other examples, current media coverage of data transfers by eHealth apps to Facebook."

Therefore, the Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information sees a clear and present danger of a further concentration of data in the hands of an oligopoly of vendors as an adverse effect of the present EU proposal. Against the background of the decision the Federal Cartel Office [Germany's national antitrust authority] handed down against Facebook a few weeks ago, the objective should actually be to achieve the opposite [of such concentration of data].

Ulrich Kelber calls for further steps to be taken to avert the previously-outlined scenario: "If the EU believes platform operators can meet their new obligations [under the proposed copyright directive] without upload filters, it must make a clear showing. That is why I am awaiting with great interest the [European] Commission's forthcoming recommendations. In the other event, data privacy considerations require a thorough overhaul of the bill. Notwithstanding the need to update the protection of author's rights in our times, such a measure must not harm or compromise the protection of Internet users' data."

In other words, it looks like Article 13 in the EU Copyright Directive might run headlong into the GDPR's restriction on the collection and use of data. This kinda feels like something that should have been thought out way earlier, but seems consistent with the slapdash manner in which the EU is regulating the internet these days: with little to no understanding of how the internet actually works, demands to do the impossible, and threats of massive fines for any company that then fails to do the impossible. This is no way to actually regulate, but apparently it's par for the course in the EU right now.

Filed Under: article 13, copyright, data protection, eu, eu copyright directive, gdpr, germany, monopoly, upload filters
Companies: audible magic

Article 13 Supporters Find Smoking Gun That Isn't: Majority Of Tweets Criticizing Copyright Directive Are Not Coming From DC

from the flop dept

Volker Rieck runs a German anti-piracy operation, and over the last year or so has been an increasingly vocal -- if somewhat unhinged -- supporter of Article 13 and the EU Copyright Directive. I won't link, but a few quick Google searches will find some examples of Rieck trying to build out conspiracy theories of big giant American internet companies secretly running the entirety of the anti-Article 13 push in Europe. You could say that some of them dip into red yarn on a corkboard territory. Of course, as we've discussed before, the idea that any attacks on Article 13 are all really because of Google has been a key part of the pro-Article 13 lobbying strategy from the beginning. Of course, as we've highlighted, if you look at the actual lobbying, it's been almost entirely from legacy copyright organizations, with very little coming from the internet industry. This has created all sorts of conspiracy theories, including the crazy claim by a German MEP that he knew the emails he was getting against Article 13 were really astroturf from Google... because many of the senders had Gmail accounts.

Rieck's latest move, however, goes into really nutty territory. In a now deleted story, Rieck claimed to have found something of a smoking gun, proving that Article 13 criticism was really being driven by US corporate interests: in a "study" that he helped "conduct," and resulted in him sending an explosive "warning" letter to Members of the EU Parliament, he claimed to have uncovered that "more tweets (88,000) came from Washington (DC) alone than from the entire EU (71,000)." That would certainly be interesting if it were true.

The problem with that claim? It's not even close to true. It is based on Rieck not fully understanding the software they used to do this analysis, called Talkwalker. Luca Hammer initially called into question the use of Talkwalker (while our own Glyn Moody had called out another big problem with the data used in the study months ago). But the biggest issue was this: Talkwalker itself admits that if users haven't turned on location tracking on Twitter, then it just "guesses" their location based on a few factors -- with a fallback being language. And, if there are no other indicators of location, Talkwalker will associate all English tweets with being in Washington DC, i.e., the capital of the largest country where English is the primary language.

In other words, what looks like a grand conspiracy of a bot sending tweets about EU copyright policy out of the lobbying den of Washington DC, actually appears to be some pro-copyright maximalists completely misunderstanding the tool they were using to do an analysis. Not a good look.

Of course, some of the supporters of Article 13, like IMPALA Music have continued tweeting this "study" despite it being totally debunked, but I guess that's to be expected.

In the meantime, as law professor Annemarie Bridy correctly points out, even if this is about legislation for the EU, it's crazy to think that people in the US have no stake in the outcome. First off, EU legislation can reach well beyond the borders of the EU and into the US: witness GDPR and the Right to be Forgotten (remember, in France, they've been arguing that the RTBF, as applied in the EU, must be global in nature). Second, as we've seen for decades, copyright maximalists push ever more crazy copyright policies in one region of the world, and then demand "harmonization" elsewhere, pushing that the same rules be applied in other places. Going to Europe to get a crazy copyright law put in place, and then rushing back to the US to demand matching laws is not a new idea. It's literally how we got the DMCA in the first place.

So, no, the criticism of Article 13 is not being driven by some sneaky campaign out of Washington DC, but that also doesn't mean that American voices shouldn't be able to participate in a debate that will undoubtedly impact us and the internet we use.

Filed Under: article 13, eu, eu copyright directive, germany, lobbying, talkwalker, tweets, volker rieck

Why Does MEP Axel Voss Keep Lying About Article 13?

from the a-simple-question dept

It's been really quite incredible to see MEP Axel Voss -- the main EU Parliament cheerleader for Articles 11 and 13 -- making the rounds over the past few weeks to insist that all the complaints about the EU Copyright Directive are wrong. Just last week we saw him make incredibly misleading statements about which platforms were impacted by the law, leaving out that the minor exemption only applied to companies less than three years old. And now, his political group in the Parliament, EPP, has put out an astoundingly misleading interview with Voss, which makes claims that make me wonder if he even knows what's in Article 13.

If you can't watch the video (which has English subtitles, as Voss is speaking in German), here's what he says, with my commentary on just how wrong he is in between each sentence.

This reform will not lead to a kind of censorship or more filters.

This is an astounding level of ignorance on so many levels. It absolutely will lead to both of those things, and anyone arguing otherwise it is either intellectually dishonest or totally ignorant. If a platform already has filters -- like ContentID -- it will still face increasing liability (as Voss admits in a moment) meaning that they will tighten those filters up even more to let less through. Already as we've seen with ContentID and other such filters, they lead to quite a bit of censorship. So, we already know that filters create censorship and if these filters will now need to be even more strict, by definition it will lead to more censorship.

And it will absolutely lead to more filters, because the law requires filters for nearly every platform. It won't necessarily lead to new filters for the companies that already have them, but it will for lots of other companies. How can he possibly deny that?

What we want is what already exists

Hi, Mr. Voss, a question please: if it already exists, why do you need a new law?

... which is what the European Court of Justice has already ruled

Yeah, same question. If the EU Court of Justice has already said this is the case, then... why do you need a new law that will fundamentally change basically the entire open internet?

... and online platforms have already put into practice.

No. Some online platforms -- namely Google and Facebook -- have already put this into practice. Most others that will be impacted by this law do not have filters in place. This site, Techdirt, accepts users' comments. We are older than 3 years old so not exempted from this law. Do I need to go buy a filter to block out copyright-covered works from being posted in the comments?

Again, Voss has this issue: he's clearly trying to tax Google and Facebook to pay his supporters in the news and entertainment industry. We get that. But notice the ridiculous two-step that Voss constantly does. When it's convenient to play down the impact of this, he uses Google and Facebook as if they represent the entire internet. But when people point out that those are just two platforms out of many, he then points to the very minor exemptions, which don't apply to nearly every other platform. Meaning that they are all going to need to buy filters, even if filters don't make any sense, or shut down in Europe.

... meaning that this will not go beyond what is currently in place and things will largely remain as they are now.

Okay, so why do you need a law? If this doesn't change anything and doesn't go beyond what is currently in place, why is a new law needed? And, if this is really only about stopping bad behavior from Google and Facebook (while you admit that they already do what you want), why are you forcing it on the entire internet?

None of the logic here makes any sense.

The only difference is that platforms will be required to pay closer attention to which content is copyright protected and they have to compensate creators of that content more fairly.

The "only" at the beginning of that sense is carrying an awful lot of water for Voss here. Again, "paying closer attention" means ratcheting up the triggers on the filters, which by definition means greater censorship -- the very thing Voss just insisted seconds earlier wouldn't happen. It's almost as if he has not the first clue about how any of this works.

Second, the entire argument again seems to be based on the false belief that the entire internet is Google and Facebook, while admitting that those companies mostly already do what the law says -- and yet, magically, because of this law, they'll suddenly "compensate creators more fairly."

Third, what the hell does "more fairly" mean in any of this? This line keeps getting used by Voss and other supporters, and none of them choose to define "more fairly" other than that it means "give much more money to the record labels." And that's what this is actually about. It's shaking down successful internet companies to give that money to less successful record labels. If Voss were honest, he'd just admit that.

Instead, he has to play this charade, where he makes these ridiculous and easily debunked statements to support an unconscionable law that will lead to massive internet censorship and change the very fundamental nature of the internet itself. Voss has been making these kinds of statements for the past year now. It's shameful that more people don't challenge him on these obviously misleading statements every time he makes them.

Filed Under: article 13, axel voss, censorship, copyright, eu, eu copyright directive, filters, free speech
Companies: facebook, google

Supporters Of Article 13 Briefly Tried To Move Parliament Vote Up Before Scheduled Protests; Now Deny Plan That They Clearly Had

from the so-many-lies dept

Despite following this stuff for decades, sometimes even I'm surprised at the levels of intellectual dishonesty coming from those supporting bad copyright policy. The latest is that, despite widespread controversy and criticism over Article 13, some in the EU Parliament thought the appropriate strategy was to speed up the timeline to the vote on the Directive -- specifically holding the vote before a massive EU-wide protest that is planned for March 23. Rather than recognize that millions of people across the EU are so up in arms over the problems in Articles 11 and 13, German Member of the EU Parliament, Manfred Weber, the leader of the powerful European People's Party (EPP) simply proposed voting before the protests could even happen.

Of course, after this started getting some attention, the EPP was forced to deny that it supported such a plan, leaving MEP Julia Reda to reveal that she'd kept the receipts, namely revealing the memo sent out by the EPP Group to hold the vote within the next two weeks:

It's good that they backed off, but just the fact that they started, at least quietly, trying to push through such a vote shows exactly how scared supporters of the EU Copyright Directive are becoming. And that's all the more reason why, if you're based in Europe, you should be (a) contacting your MEP, and (b) getting out there and participating in various protests on March 23.

Update: And, of course, now there are reports that despite denying any such plan, the EPP Group has not actually withdrawn its request to move the vote up:

So it's still possible that the vote could be rushed...

Filed Under: article 11, article 13, copyright, epp, eu copyright directive, eu parliament, manfred weber, politics, protests, will of the people

Why Is The EU Parliament Pushing Fake Propaganda From Hollywood?

from the a-hollywood-story dept

What the hell is going on in the EU these days? The EU Commission put out a Medium post that literally mocked the public as an "angry mob" for raising legitimate concerns about the EU's proposed Copyright Directive. And that followed a bizarrely incoherent "Q & A" page put out by the EU Parliament's Legislative Affairs Committee (JURI), spewing pure nonsense about the Copyright Directive. In both cases, those involved were publicly mocked for this (to the point that the Commission even took down its post, but blaming others for misunderstanding it as the reason).

But now the EU Parliament is doubling down on this absurdity. Its official Twitter feed posted this bit of pure propaganda:

If, for some reason, you can't read that, it says:

Your memes are safe 🙌 Freedom of expression is not affected 👌 It's all about fair payment to content creators 💶

And then urges people to watch a short video that is simply bullshit propaganda put forth by an industry association, called "Europe for Creators." Think about this for a second. Here is the official feed of the entire European Parliament -- which has not yet voted on the EU Copyright Directive -- posting corporate propaganda from a trade group, pushing misleading to outright false messages, in support of a bill that is designed to financially benefit that industry.

In what world is that okay?

MEP Julia Reda has gone through and highlighted many of the problems with the video in a detailed Twitter thread. To make it easier to read, I'm turning that thread into plaintext here:

This video by @Europarl_EN on the draft #copyright directive has sparked a lot of outrage, and rightfully so! First, the Commission called critics of the reform as a mob, now the Parliament chimes in.... The Parliament should maintain neutrality in its communication until the final version of the #copyright directive is adopted. The video not only creates the impression that the directive has already been agreed, there are several factual mistakes and problematic aspects:

In the beginning of the video a balloon is shown, carrying the “Europe for Creators” logo. It belongs to a controversial lobby campaign by a group of collecting societies, music publishers and record producers. The logo of Europe for Creators tries to rip off the logo of @EFF, possibly to create the impression that this is a civil society campaign. Advertisements for commercial interest groups have no place in a video of a political institution.

The video claims that the reform is directed at “large platforms”: In fact, the size of the platform does not matter for the application of #article13, merely whether it hosts “large amounts” of protected content. This can also be the case for a platform run by a single person. The video says a lighter regime applies to platfoms that have an turnover below 10 Million *or* less than 5 million unique visitors. This is just wrong. Actually, the lighter regime only applies if both criteria are met, and platforms are also younger than 3 years old.

Another false statement is that “there is no requirement for platforms to put filters in place”: Yes there is, as soon as a rightholder does not wish to offer a license, para 4 (b) and (c) require platforms to use an #uploadfilter in order to escape liability.

The video says “your memes are safe”: This is misleading. #Article13 says that member states should allow parodies, but the criticism is not that memes will be illegal, but that filters will block them automatically, because they can’t distinguish a parody from ©️ infringement.

At the end, @AxelVossMdEP says that any change to a copyrighted work is allowed under #Article13. It’s not. There’s a list of exceptions in Article 13 (5) that should apply: quotation, criticism, review, caricature, parody & pastiche. Other transformative uses remain forbidden.

Reda then notes that, as a member of Parliament, she has submitted a request to inspect the internal documents that resulted in this video being made and published on the official EU Parliament Twitter feed. I actually think Reda could have gone even further. Beyond the flat out lies by Axel Voss in the video (saying 10 million Euros "or" less than 5 million uniques, and leaving out that those only apply to companies less than 3 years old), Voss also makes this odd statement, saying that if a company qualifies they are "a little bit exempted." How is one "a little bit exempted"? He's actually choosing his words carefully, because he knows that even if you qualify for all three conditions (which will only cover a very small number of platforms) you're not really exempted at all. You just have slightly less onerous conditions thrust upon you.

Of course, with elections coming up in just a few months, it does seem like the EU Parliament may regret this decision. Just skimming through most of the responses to this tweet, it doesn't seem to be convincing anyone of anything... other than that they want to vote the bums out in May.

And there are a lot more like that. Indeed, I don't seem to see anyone actually praising the EU Parliament's decision to post this nonsense, which makes you wonder why they even bothered.

Filed Under: article 13, axel voss, bias, copyright, eu, eu copyright directive, eu parliament, julia reda, lies, propaganda

European Journalists Point Out That Article 11 Will Enrich Publishers At The Expense Of Journalists

from the this-is-not-helping dept

Promoters of the EU destructive copyright directive keep pushing the bogus line that it is necessary to give money to "artists and journalists." Take, for example, MEP Axel Voss (the EU Parliament member in charge of all of this nonsense) and his press release touting the final text:

Internet platforms face incentives to pay for artists and journalists’ work used

Except, actual journalists in the EU are realizing exactly what many of us have been talking about for months: nothing in the Directive will lead to more money for journalists. Instead, at best, it might lead to more money for publishers (though, even that is suspect, given the utter failure of similar plans already in place in Spain and Germany). While Voss's announcement claims that "Journalists must get a share of any copyright-related revenue obtained by their publishing house," journalists are pointing out that the opposite is actually true.

The International Federation of Journalists, along with the European Federations of Journalists put out a statement noting that Article 11 "makes a mockery" of their rights and will only serve to help publishers strip the journalists of their own rights:

While the directive acknowledges an obligation for journalists and all authors of the works incorporated in a press publication to receive an "appropriate share" of the revenues press publishers receive for the use of their publications online, it enables publishers to avoid such requirements by relying on existing "contractual arrangements" and "laws on ownership".

Such moves could deny journalists any revenue arising from the re-use of their work online.

These discriminatory provisions and proposals contained in Article 11 and Recital 35 of the text dash any hopes that the Directive would support authors in the press sector in obtaining fair and proportionate remuneration for their work under this law or in future national legislation. 

Instead they boost the system whereby powerful publishers force employed journalists and freelancers alike to sign contracts giving up all their rights – thereby offering them a proportionate or appropriate share of nothing

In short, the final text pays lip service to the idea that publishers should pass on money to journalists, but also provides a massive loophole in that all the publishers need to do is write this requirement out of any contract and not have to worry about it.

It appears that this kind of tactic is found throughout Articles 11 and 13. The text says you don't have to use filters, but provides no workable alternative. The text says that memes are allowed, but never explains how a site can comply with the law without blocking all memes. The text of the directive basically pays lip service to all the complaints and obvious consequences, but rather than deal with the consequences, it just says "and don't let those consequences happen." This is no way to make policy.

Filed Under: article 11, copyright, eu, eu copyright directive, journalism, journalists

As EU Politicians Insist That It's All Just 'Bots' And 'Astroturf' Tons Of People Showing Up In Real Life To Protest

from the look-at-all-those-bots dept

One of the more obnoxious elements of the EU politicians brushing off the concerns of the public concerning the EU Copyright Directive, is their repeated, insulting and incorrect, claim that there really isn't a public upswell against Articles 11 and 13 and that it's all just manufactured by Google and "bots" and "astroturfing." We've already pointed out that nearly 5 million people have signed the Change.org petition protesting Article 13 -- making it the largest petition on that site ever. And those are real people signing on.

And those real people are now showing up to protest as well. As highlighted by Drew Wilson at FreezeNet:

The ink has barely dried on the finalizing of Article 11 and Article 13 and now, protests are beginning to emerge in Europe.

All over Twitter there are examples of large protests springing up over the Copyright Directive.

I especially like the text of this one which, translated, says "But we are all just bots."

Boy those "bots" sure crossed the uncanny valley in a hurry. Here's another one, saying: "We are currently at #Artikel13Demo the one in Cologne or as MEP of the CDU, Sven Schulze would say: "A real fake action."-Yes exactly! You see, we're all just bots!" Look at all those bots:

And some more bots:

I'm sensing a theme:

Damn, that's a lot of bots.

I'm beginning to think that European politicians who mocked critics of Articles 11 and 13 as "bots" may realize that that was a strategic mistake. The "bots" have mobilized -- and they sure look like human beings who will be voting for the EU Parliament in May...

Filed Under: article 11, article 13, bots, copyright, eu, eu copyright directive, eu parliament, protests