Axel Voss Says Maybe YouTube Shouldn't Exist

from the say-what-now? dept

I'm beginning to think that Axel Voss, the Member of the European Parliament in charge of ramming through the EU Copyright Directive, doesn't have much of a clue about how either copyright or the internet works. Last week, we pointed out that he was making provably false statements about Article 13, and wondered why he'd be doing that. But the more he talks, the more I'm wondering if he simply doesn't understand the basics of either copyright law or the internet. The latest comes in some quotes he gave in a great article by DW.com, which correctly highlights how Article 13 is going to lead to widespread censorship. Voss tries to defend it with some truly bizarre claims:

“We are just concentrating on platforms that are infringing on copyrighted works like YouTube. Not for dating platforms or merchandising or local social platforms. Only 1.5% of internet platforms will be affected.”

Only 1.5% of platforms will be affected? I think we're going to need to slap a giant "citation needed" on that one. According to the released text, the law will apply to the following:

‘online content sharing service provider’ means a provider of an information society service whose main or one of the main purposes is to store and give the public access to a large amount of copyright protected works or other protected subject-matter uploaded by its users which it organises and promotes for profit-making purposes. Providers of services such as not-for profit online encyclopedias, not-for profit educational and scientific repositories, open source software developing and sharing platforms, electronic communication service providers as defined in Directive 2018/1972 establishing the European Communications Code, online marketplaces and business-to business cloud services and cloud services which allow users to upload content for their own use shall not be considered online content sharing service providers within the meaning of this Directive.

The special carve-outs for "non-profit online encyclopedias, not-for profit educational and scientific repositories, open source software developing and sharing platforms" came after Wikipedia and Github pointed out how impossible Article 13 would make their future existence. Either way, the giant misunderstanding here, is that basically everything is covered by copyright. So, any site that enables user-generated content, and is a for profit entity, will "store and give access to a large amount of copyright protected works or other protected subject-matter uploaded by its users which it organizes and promotes for profit-making purposes." That's called the internet. The law clearly impacts way more than 1.5% of internet platforms.

Even more to the point: even if Voss and his allies can scrape together some nonsense by listing out all sorts of other websites that wouldn't be impacted by this, the number of websites is the wrong metric. The real question is about how much of the internet that people interact with on a daily basis would be impacted: and there the answer is a ton of it. There are a whole bunch of rankings of the "top websites" out there, but skimming through a bunch of them you see that a huge number of the most popular websites would be impacted by this: Facebook, Google, Twitter, Instagram, Reddit, YouTube, Pinterest, Linkedin, Twitch, Imgur, Pornhub, Wordpress and more. If you add in some of the top Chinese sites, it gets even bigger.

But here's the bigger issue: Voss then seems to suggest none of these sites should even exist. No, really:

“We all have legal obligations to fulfill. If you have a massive platform like YouTube you will have to use a technological solution. Everyone has these obligations. They have created a business model with the property of other people – on copyright protected works. If the intention of the platform is to give people access to copyright protected works then we have to think about whether this kind of business should exist. The new legislation is improving the situation for the European creators industry.”

Say what now? Not exist at all? This whole thing seems to be based on the false premise -- often pushed by the RIAA and MPAA -- that YouTube was solely created to allow users to upload others' professional content. That's not accurate at all. The entire basis for YouTube was to allow people to express themselves. And they do. The top channels on YouTube are not people uploading other people's infringing content, but independent creators creating their own amazing new content that wouldn't have been possible in an age before YouTube.

So how is it that Axel Voss is considered an authority on this? He doesn't seem to understand that every new work is covered by copyright, so any website that hosts user-uploaded content -- audio, video, text, images, etc. -- is subject to this law. He also doesn't seem to understand that none of these sites are built with the intent of having people upload infringing material, it's just that some segment of the population will do that. Because that's part of how the internet works. But the good from all this -- the ability for anyone to create and share their content, as well as the vast ability of people to find and discover new and amazing content -- greatly outweighs the fact that it might change the business model for a few legacy companies.

Voss' final line is a real kicker. "Improving the situation for the European creators industry." Uh, no it's not. More people are creating than ever before, and they're using the tools that Article 13 will punish to do so. When people have fewer places to share their content or to make money from their content, that's not helping creators or the "creators industry." Sure, it might help a very small number of old gatekeeper companies -- record labels, book publishers, movie studios -- be in a position to demand more money from internet companies, but thinking that those old gatekeepers represent the "creators industry" is ludicrously out of touch.

Still the fact that Voss is now admitting that the real goal behind Article 13 is to move us to a world where "maybe" YouTube "shouldn't exist," perhaps he can apologize for his comments last week in which he insisted that all he really wanted "is what already exists" and which "online platforms have already put into practice." Yes, just last week, he was saying that the rules "will not go beyond what is currently in place and things will largely remain as they are now." And this week he's saying, well, actually maybe "this kind of company should not exist."

Axel Voss seems willing to say anything, no matter how contradictory, how obviously incorrect, to push through Article 13.

Filed Under: article 13, axel voss, copyright, eu, eu copyright directive, internet platforms, user generated content
Companies: youtube

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

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

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

EU Copyright Directive Has Been Made Even More Stupid, And Some Are Still Trying To Make It Even Worse

from the yet-it-moves-forward dept

So yesterday, we noted that Article 13 was back on thanks to an apparent "compromise" between the French and the Germans as to whether or not small internet platforms would be exempted from Article 13. France was pushing for no exemption and that the same rules apply to everyone, while Germany demanded some protections for smaller companies (those making less than €20 million per year). We knew, according to the reports coming out of Brussels, that France had won, but now the details have come out and it's worse than we thought.

The new plan does have an "exception" for small companies, but it is so ridiculous as to be non-existent. To qualify, a company has to be:

• Less than 3 years old
• Have less than €10 million in revenue
• Have less than 5 million uniques per month

Upload filters required

• Discussion boards on commercial sites, such as the Ars Technica or Heise.de forums (older than 3 years)
• Patreon, a platform with the sole purpose of helping authors get paid (fails to meet any of the three criteria)
• Niche social networks like GetReeled, a platform for anglers (well below 5 million users, but older than 3 years)
• Small European competitors to larger US brands like Wykop, a Polish news sharing platform similar to Reddit (well below €10 million turnover, but may reach 5 million visitors and is older than 3 years)

And, yes, it would also likely apply to our comments as well. We don't make €10 million per year, nor do we have 5 million monthly uniques... but we are way older than 3 years old. Even for the tiny number of companies who do qualify for the exception, the text of the directive still demands that they make "best efforts" to license the works. In other words, the whole thing sets up a shotgun negotiation where any platform will be required to license all content, which means that license holders can set any rate they want, and if you don't license, they can accuse you of violating the law. This is madness:

On top of that, even the smallest and newest platforms, which do meet all three criteria, must still demonstrate they have undertaken “best efforts” to obtain licenses from rightholders such as record labels, book publishers and stock photo databases for anything their users might possibly post or upload – an impossible task. In practice, all sites and apps where users may share content will likely be forced to accept any license a rightholder offers them, no matter how bad the terms, and no matter whether they actually want that rightholder’s copyrighted material to be available on their platform, to avoid the massive legal risk of coming in conflict with Article 13.

Hey, and it gets even worse. Whereas in the older draft, it at least required copyright holders to tell platforms what was infringing, that's now been removed:

If you can't see that, it shows that the draft of the text has removed the notice requirement for copyright holders to alert platforms to any infringing material, directly removing the phrase "for which the rightsholders have provided the service providers with the relevant and necessary information or submitted a notice..." In other words, copyright holders don't even have to alert the platforms any more -- and platforms might still be deemed liable for any infringing content appearing on their platform. Even if they don't know about it. Which is insane.

Later on, the draft also removes a phrase that requires the copyright holders to work with the platforms, because that's apparently too much of a burden for the copyright holders:

I do wonder if this will get Hollywood and the legacy recording industries back on board.

However, here's the incredible bit. Despite Article 13 now being demonstrably even more ridiculous, the MEP in charge of pushing it forward, Axel Voss, is complaining that it's not idiotic enough yet. In response to this draft from the EU Council (which is expected to be approved on Friday), Voss stated:

“What France and Germany have agreed is a new safe harbor for small platforms, able to exist beyond what we already have today. It’s something we can’t accept,” Axel Voss said at a conference in the European Parliament.

Are you fucking kidding me? He's saying even that tiny, useless safe harbor that will apply to basically no one is too much?

Voss and the entertainment industry are going for broke here. They recognize this is their last best chance to really fundamentally change the internet. It is an attempt to completely wreck its intended purpose as a communications medium and turn it into a broadcast medium of licensed content controlled by gatekeepers (the legacy companies who used to control movies, music, news and books). Don't let them get away with this. Tell the EU Parliament that this is completely and totally unacceptable. EU Parliamentary elections are coming up in a few months, and any MEP should be told over and over and over again that voting to destroy the internet in this way means that they no longer deserve their job in the EU Parliament.

Filed Under: article 11, article 13, axel voss, censorship, copyright, eu, eu copyright directive, eu council, eu parliament, intermediary liability, licensing, safe harbors, upload filters

Guy In Charge Of EU Copyright Directive Claims He Didn't Know What He Voted On, Needs To Fix Things

from the well,-that-builds-confidence dept

Following the decision earlier this week of the EU Parliament to vote for the destruction of the open web by putting in place some pretty awful copyright proposals, people began highlighting more and more problems with the bill. Most of the focus before the vote had been on two particular articles, Article 11 and Article 13. But there are many other problems in the Directive as well -- it was just getting to be overwhelming to get into the weeds on all of them. One area of concern was in Article 12, which included a special new form of copyright for sporting events. Specifically, with no debate or discussion the legal affairs committee of the EU Parliament added in text saying that sporting event organizers would gain absolute control over recording, sharing and presenting any film clips -- even those that would otherwise be deemed legal in other copyright contexts. And yes, the law implies that if you're at a sports event, you can't even film anything from your own seat as that is reserved solely to the event organizers.

Incredibly, after the vote approving the directive, reporter Emanuel Karisten of the Swedish publication Breakit, asked Voss about this and Voss gave a fairly astounding answer, stating that "this was kind of a mistake" and that "no one had been aware of this." Later he states that he didn't know it was in there and he'll have to fix it:

Voss: This was kind of mistake I think by the JURI committee. Someone amended this. No one had been aware of this.

Reporter: But it was passed...

... discussion by someone with Voss saying that it's really about gambling/betting operations before Voss jumps back in ...

Voss: I didn’t know that this was in the proposal so far, so of course I have to deal with it now.... I do not consider that the commission and council will have this inside the proposal.

Later he says "because of the time and pressure" they concentrated on other areas of the bill. Which... does not seem like a good excuse.

You can listen to the exchange here:

Meanwhile, MEP Julia Reda is calling bullshit on the claim that Voss was "unaware" that this was in the proposal, noting not only that she had written about the issue prior to the vote, but that she had raised it directly with Voss and his colleagues:

There are a few possibilities here, none of which make Voss look any good. He either voted for an amendment he hadn't read and/or didn't understand, or he's lying to this reporter. It also suggests that rather than taking the concerns of critics like Reda seriously, Voss just tuned them out and happily voted away for such horrible proposals.

We've raised questions before about Voss's views on all of this, as he seems almost hysterically uninformed about how actual copyright policy works, even as he drives forward such a horrible policy. This seems to be yet more evidence that a few special interests made it clear to Voss what they wanted to do, and he just agreed to do that, no matter what concerns anyone else had.

Filed Under: axel voss, copyright, eu copyright directive, julia reda, sports

Guy In Charge Of Pushing Draconian EU Copyright Directive, Evasive About His Own Use Of Copyright Protected Images

from the do-as-I-say,-not-as-I-do? dept

There's one person who wields more power than anyone to shape the awful EU Copyright Directive: the MEP Axel Voss. He's the head of the main Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) that is steering the Directive through the European Parliament. Voss took over from the previous MEP leading JURI, Therese Comodini Cachia, after she decided to return to her native Malta as member of the national parliament. Her draft version of the Directive was certainly not perfect, but it did possess the virtue of being broadly acceptable to all sides of the debate. When Voss took over last year, the text took a dramatic turn for the worse thanks to the infamous "snippet tax" (Article 11 of the proposed Directive) and the "upload filter" (Article 13).

As Mike reported a couple of weeks ago, Voss offered a pretty poor defense of his proposals, showing little understanding of the Internet. But he made clear that he thinks respecting copyright law is really important. For example, he said he was particularly concerned that material is being placed online, where "there is no remuneration of the concerned author." Given that background, it will probably come as no surprise to Techdirt readers to learn that questions are now being asked whether Voss himself has paid creators for material that he has used on his social media accounts:

BuzzFeed News Germany ... looked at the posts from the past 24 months on Voss's social media channels. In the two years, BuzzFeed News has found at least 17 copyrighted images from at least eight different image agencies, including the German press agency dpa.

As good journalists, BuzzFeed News Germany naturally contacted Axel Voss to ask whether he had paid to use all these copyrighted images:

Since last Thursday, 5 July, BuzzFeed News Germany has asked Voss's office and his personal assistant a total of five times in writing and several times over the phone whether Axel Voss or his social media team has paid for the use of these copyrighted photos. Voss's staff responded evasively five times. Asked if the office could provide us with licensing evidence, the Voss office responded: "We do not provide invoices to uninvolved third parties."

Such a simple question -- had Voss paid for the images he used? -- and yet one that seemed so hard for the Voss team to answer, even with the single word "yes". The article (original in German) took screenshots of the images the BuzzFeed Germany journalists had found. That's just as well, because shortly afterwards, 12 of the 17 posts with copyrighted images had been deleted. The journalists contacted Axel Voss once more, and asked why they had disappeared (original in German). To which Axel Voss's office replied: anyone can add and remove posts, if they wish. Which is true, but fails to answer the question, yet again. However, Axel Voss's office did offer an additional "explanation":

according to the current legal situation (...), if the right-holder informs us that we have violated their rights, we remove the image in question according to the notice and takedown procedure of the e-commerce directive.

That is, Axel Voss, or his office, seems to believe it's fine to post copyrighted material online provided you take it down if someone complains. But that's not how it works at all. The EU notice and takedown procedure applies to the Internet services hosting material, not to the individual users of those services. The fact that the team of the senior MEP responsible for pushing the deeply-flawed Copyright Directive through the European Parliament is ignorant of the current laws is bad enough. That he may have posted copyrighted material without paying for it while claiming to be worried that creators aren't being remunerated for their work, is beyond ridiculous.

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

Filed Under: article 13, axel voss, copyright, copyright directive, eu, eu copyright directive, eu parliament, infringement, licensing

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

Forget The GDPR, The EU's New Copyright Proposal Will Be A Complete And Utter Disaster For The Internet

from the wake-up-folks dept

Today is GDPR day, and lots of people are waking up to a world in which EU regulations are having a widespread (and not always positive) impact on how the internet works. As we've detailed over the past couple of years, while there are many good ideas in the GDPR, there are also many ridiculously bad ones, combined with poorly thought out drafting, and we're already seeing some of the fallout from that. But, believe it or not, there's an even larger threat from the EU looming, and it's received precious little attention: the EU's new copyright reform proposal is set to be voted on next month and it will truly be disastrous to the internet. As it currently stands, it will require widespread censorship in the form of mandatory filtering and also link taxes that have already been shown to be harmful to news.

European Parliament member Julia Reda is sounding the alarm and asking people to speak out. As she notes, many of the folks now freaking out about the GDPR wish they got involved over two years ago when it was being debated. And if you're concerned about how problematic this new copyright reform will be for the internet, now is the time to speak out (yes, even if you're not in the EU):

On the topic of copyright, you NOW have the chance to have an influence – a chance that will be long lost in two years, when we’ll all be “suddenly” faced with the challenge of having to implement upload filters and the “link tax” – or running into new limits on what we can do using the web services we rely on.

In stark contrast to the GDPR, experts near-unanimously agree that the copyright reform law, as it stands now, is really bad. Where in the case of the GDPR the EU institutions pushed through many changes against the concerted lobbying efforts of big business interests, in the copyright reform they are about to give them exactly what they want.

Parliament and Council have had over a year and a half to fix the glaring flaws of the Commission proposal – but despite their growing complexity, the latest drafts of both institutions fail to meet basic standards of workability and proportionality

Reda's post goes on to detail the many, many problems of the current copyright proposal -- in which merely linking to a news site may require paying money (link tax) and where concerns about how that might negatively impact the entire internet are being woefully ignored. Perhaps even worse is the mandatory filtering idea. The big record labels and movie studios have, of course, been pushing for this kind of thing for years to get back at Google (mainly) and Facebook (a little bit). But, here's the thing: both Google and Facebook already have those filters (and spent tens of millions of dollars on them). This kind of law fucks over everyone else.

And, it's actually even worse than a mandatory filtering rule -- because the EU realized that such a rule would violate other EU laws. So, instead, it decided to hack away at intermediary liability protections to make mandatory filtering necessary:

Make platforms directly liable for all copyright infringements by their users, and then offer that they can avoid that unreasonable liability if they can show they’ve done everything in their power to prevent copyrighted content from appearing online – namely, by deploying upload filters (Article 13, paragraph 4). Which remain totally optional, of course! Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

Tragically, the only remaining point of disagreement in Council is whether this proposal is bad enough, or should be made worse.

We've already spent years explaining how this will lead to widespread censorship online, but it will also be a disaster for basically all of the non-Google/Facebook platforms out there. Mid-size companies like Github have already talked about how this could effectively destroy its ability to operate, and lots of other sites would be impacted as well. Any kind of forum site would be at serious risk. Reddit, Pinterest, Twitch, Imgur, Wordpress, Medium, Vimeo. This would create massive liability for all of those sites, making it nearly impossible for many of them to function in the EU.

Reda notes that a new draft could make this situation even worse in noting that even having filters won't be enough to avoid liability:

Mr Voss’ latest draft expands the scope of the censorship machines proposal to all web platforms (a) whose purpose is to “give access to copyrighted content uploaded by users” and which (b) “optimise” that content. What counts as optimising? Among a long list of actions, we find that “displaying” the uploads already makes platforms legally liable for any copyright infringement they may include (Recital 37a).

And in his version, web services can’t even avoid liability by implementing upload filters. To protect themselves from being sued, they would need to get licenses from all rightsholders that exist on the planet before allowing user uploads to go online, just in case the upload may contain (parts of) any of their works.

He also claims that checking every new user upload for whether it includes one of hundreds or thousands of specific copyrighted works somehow does not constitute “general monitoring” (Recital 39), which would be forbidden – now that’s some wishful lawmaking.

As Reda also points out, most of the EU member states appear to be supportive of these horrible ideas (or even pushing to make it worse). What now stands between this horrible law making a mess of the internet is just the EU Parliament which is currently scheduled to vote on this in late June (probably the 20th or 21st). If you are in the EU now is absolutely the time to speak up. If you're outside the EU, it also would help to speak up and let the EU Parliament know that this is a horrible idea that will have significant problems for the wider internet, free speech and innovation.

Filed Under: axel voss, censorship, copyright, eu, eu parliament, intermediary liability, julia reda, link tax, mandatory filters