Netflix, Disney Throttle Video Streams In Europe To Handle COVID-19 Internet Strain

from the throttle-me dept

Netflix, Disney, YouTube, and Instagram have all announced they're temporarily throttling their video streams in Europe to help mitigate the bandwidth strain created by COVID-19, as millions hunker down to slow the spread of the pandemic. In a blog post, Netflix stated the company was throttling back the streaming quality of its titles by around 25% for 30 days after European regulators asked the company to do so to handle the pandemic-driven bandwidth surge:

"We immediately developed, tested and deployed a way to reduce Netflix’s traffic on these networks by 25% - starting with Italy and Spain, which were experiencing the biggest impact. Within 48 hours, we’d hit that goal and we’re now deploying this across the rest of Europe and the UK."

Netflix had already integrated settings that let users on slower or capped broadband plans manage their bit rate and stream quality. According to the company, the impact on visual quality should be minor (for everybody but videophiles, anyway):

"In normal circumstances, we have many (sometimes dozens) of different streams for a single title within each resolution. In Europe, for the next 30 days, within each category we’ve simply removed the highest bandwidth streams. If you are particularly tuned into video quality you may notice a very slight decrease in quality within each resolution. But you will still get the video quality you paid for."

So far, Netflix has yet to indicate that similar measures will be coming to the United States, though it's certainly possible as more and more locations engage in everything from voluntary self-quarantines to mandatory shelter in place requirements. Disney's Disney+ service, which launches across Europe on Tuesday, will similarly incorporate a bitrate throttling scheme for the foreseeable future. The company's launch of Disney+ in France has been delayed until April 7 at the request of the French government.

Many telecom executives and experts I've spoken to about the strain COVID-19 will place on U.S. networks have remained largely optimistic the U.S. internet will be able to handle the load, though many are quick to point out that it's hard to make predictions given the unprecedented nature of the pandemic--and the US' historic inability to craft accurate broadband speed and availability maps:

"Blair Levin was a former FCC chief of staff and co-author of the agency’s 2010 “National Broadband Plan."...

“I don't think anyone knows,” Levin said. “First, the FCC has done such a poor job of collecting data that we don't know where we are on many points. Second, we really don't know how much bigger the bandwidth demands will be. So this situation will be a stress test and show us where we are strong and where we are weak."

Most of those weaknesses shouldn't be particularly surprising for Techdirt readers. The central transit core of the US internet shouldn't have problems; it's the spotty, expensive, and slow "last mile" where a lot of headaches will pop up. US telcos, who've neglected their infrastructure for years, have refused to upgrade (or in some instances even repair) the nation's aging DSL lines. As entire families attempt to use sluggish era-2003 speeds to teleconference and stream video, games, and music, problems will inevitably arise (especially on the upstream side). VPNs could also be another congestion point.

But the biggest problem remains affordability and availability. For years, arguments that broadband should be seen as an essential utility were brushed aside, and now the "digital divide" could easily become a matter of life and death. Some 44 million Americans can't get any kind of broadband whatsoever, and thanks to limited U.S. competition (especially at faster speeds), many more can't afford a decent connection. This patchy, expensive, barely competitive nature of US telecom networks is something the industry's biggest players have lobbied to perpetuate for years, and now the check is likely coming due for many.

Filed Under: bandwidth, covid-19, europe, networks, streaming, throttling, video streams
Companies: disney, instagram, netflix, youtube

Leaked Document Suggests Possible Facial Recognition Ban In Europe

from the an-unlikely-outcome-but-we-can-hope dept

Bans of facial recognition tech are popping up across the United States. Facial recognition tech use by law enforcement is currently banned in the state of California and a few cities in Massachusetts have blocked local government agencies from deploying the tech.

Given the tech's relative inability to do its job, along with a host of other concerns including built-in biases that make it far more likely minorities will suffer the effects of false positives, lawmakers are finally putting the brakes on approving facial recognition use by government agencies.

A white paper leaked to Euractiv appears to indicate the biggest ban so far is under consideration in Europe -- one that would affect most of the continent.

The European Commission is considering measures to impose a temporary ban on facial recognition technologies used by both public and private actors, according to a draft white paper on Artificial Intelligence obtained by EURACTIV.

If implemented, the plans could throw current AI projects off course in some EU countries, including Germany’s wish to roll out automatic facial recognition at 134 railway stations and 14 airports. France also has plans to establish a legal framework permitting video surveillance systems to be embedded with facial recognition technologies.

Noting that the GDPR requires certain information disclosures by companies and agencies deploying the tech, the white paper [PDF] suggests going live with facial recognition tech might be unworkable, given that every person passing by an AI-enabled cam would have to consent to data collection. It suggests a moratorium might be the best solution until all the regulatory kinks can be worked out.

Building on these existing provisions, the future regulatory framework could go further and include a time-limited ban on the use of facial recognition technology in public spaces. This would mean that the use of facial recognition technology by private or public actors in public spaces would be prohibited for a definite period (e.g. 3-5 years) during which a sound methodology for assessing the impacts of this technology and possible risk management measures could be identified and developed.

That's just one of the five options being considered by the European Commission. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to be one of its favorites. The paper says the most likely approach the Commission will take is a combination of options 3, 4, and 5. The ban is option 2.

But the GDPR definitely causes problems for the rollout of facial recognition tech in public places -- something the government agencies itching to deploy it don't appear to have considered seriously. It's pretty much unworkable unless the governments rolling these out are going to claim that being in a public place waives GDPR protections.

The desire to subject citizens to biometric collections may result in a rewrite of the GDPR or a blanket exception for collections in public places. This will only make a bad law worse.

But overall, the paper makes it clear the tech will be subject to tight regulation and much more oversight than we've seen deployed in the United States. Amendments to safety and liability laws are being considered that would allow tech companies to be held responsible for data breaches or misuse of collected biometric information. There would also be some sort of "trusted vendor" program put in place that would push companies to meet certain standards before they can be considered for government applications.

The ban is a long shot but it's still in the running. Given the number of changes that may need to be made to make facial recognition tech comply with existing European privacy laws, a temporary moratorium might be the best call to make. Clearly, the legal atmosphere in Europe isn't exactly welcoming for new data collection tech. But the narrative that more surveillance = safer countries will always have powerful proponents, which may override the privacy concerns of millions of European citizens and subject them to mass surveillance.

Filed Under: eu, europe, facial recognition

European Law Enforcement Officials Upset Facebook Is Warning Users Their Devices May Have Been Hacked

from the screw-the-little-people,-we've-got-bad-guys-to-hack dept

Oh boy. Facebook has just added fuel to the anti-encryption fire. And by doing nothing more than something it should be doing: notifying users that their device may have been compromised by malware.

The Wall Street Journal article covering this standard notification is full of quotes from government officials who aren't happy a suspected terrorist was informed his phone had possibly been infected by targeted malware. [Non-paywalled version here.]

A team of European law-enforcement officials was hot on the trail of a potential terror plot in October, fearing an attack during Christmas season, when their keyhole into a suspect’s phone went dark.

WhatsApp, Facebook Inc. ’s popular messaging tool, had just notified about 1,400 users—among them the suspected terrorist—that their phones had been hacked by an “advanced cyber actor.” An elite surveillance team was using spyware from NSO Group, an Israeli company, to track the suspect, according to a law-enforcement official overseeing the investigation.

Facebook is no fan of NSO Group. In fact, very few people are fans of NSO Group, other than their customers, which have included UN-blacklisted countries and a number of governments that rank pretty high on the Most Human Rights Violated charts. Facebook sued NSO back in November, making very questionable allegations about CFAA violations. Facebook's servers were never targeted by NSO's malware. Only end users were, which makes it pretty difficult for Facebook to claim it has been personally (so to speak) injured by NSO's actions.

Back to the matter at hand, Facebook didn't just warn suspected terrorists about detected malware.

WhatsApp’s Oct. 29 message to users warned journalists, activists and government officials that their phones had been compromised, Facebook said. But it also had the unintended consequence of potentially jeopardizing multiple national-security investigations in Western Europe about which Facebook hadn’t been alerted—and about which government agencies can’t formally complain, given their secret nature.

Would these government officials rather have not been warned about threats? Were any of these government officials receiving warnings the same ones now complaining the warning allowed a terrorism suspect to vanish? Maybe so. The one quoted in the article seems very short-sighted.

On the day WhatsApp sent its alert, the official overseeing the terror investigation in Western Europe said, he was stuck in traffic on his way to work when a call came in from Israel. “Have you seen the news? We’ve got a problem,” he said he was told. WhatsApp was notifying suspects whom his team was tracking that their phones had been hacked. “No, that can’t be right. Why would they do that?” the official said he asked his contact, thinking it a joke.

"Why would they do that" indeed. Maybe to protect their users from cybercriminals and state-sponsored hackers. It's not about allowing suspected criminals to dodge law enforcement, even though it will undoubtedly have that effect. It's about keeping users and their communications protected -- users that include journalists, activists, and government officials.

This response indicates the investigators pursuing the suspected terrorist would rather hundreds of innocent people be harmed than someone suspected of terrorism go free. But it really doesn't matter what unnamed officials think about Facebook's "you may have been compromised" notifications or the harm these might do to ongoing investigations. Facebook's voluntary warnings will soon be mandatory in Europe. By the end of 2020, all service providers and telcos will be obligated to warn customers of security threats.

That fact -- and the apparent willingness to allow innocent people to be victimized by targeted attacks -- makes the article's closing statement all the more ridiculous.

Gilles de Kerchove, the European Union’s counterterrorism coordinator, says encryption shouldn’t allow criminals to be “less accountable online than in real life.”

I have no idea what that means. I know what the official thinks it's supposed to mean -- that "online" is bad because sometimes criminals get away -- but even that interpretation doesn't make sense. Criminals discover their phones have been tapped and stop using those lines. Criminals talk to each other in person to avoid creating records of conversations. Criminals get tips from other criminals they're under surveillance. This stuff just happens. Investigations don't always run smoothly.

A standard warning about possibly-compromised devices and services is just good business -- something that protects everyone who uses the service, not just the people governments think are OK to protect. These warnings are essential and they benefit everyone, not just the people governments want to lock up.

Filed Under: disclosure, europe, hacking, law enforcement, malware, terrorists
Companies: facebook, nso group, whatsapp

European Court Of Justice Rules On Three Big Copyright Cases

from the not-great dept

Last week, the European Court of Justice ruled on three separate cases regarding copyright, and exceptions to copyright. We had covered two of these cases back in the summer of 2017 and we finally have rulings. Two of the rulings are... not good. One is okay. We'll save the best for last.

The first of the cases, the Pelham case, was about whether or not sampling was infringing in Germany. This case actually goes back to the turn of the Millennium. In fact, all the way back in 2012 we wrote about how this (then) 12-year-old case had finally come to an end. If only. It involved a German rapper in the late 90s using 2 whole seconds of a 1977 Kraftwerk song "Metall auf Metall." The question was whether or not such a tiny sample could be infringing. At the heart of the case was the ever-present conflict between copyright and freedom of expression. And here, the court said copyright trumps freedom of expression and creativity, even when it's a tiny 2 second music sample. The only exception is if you somehow distort the sample so that it's not recognizable.

In today’s judgment, the Court states, first of all, that phonogram producers have the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit reproduction in whole or in part of their phonograms. Consequently, the reproduction by a user of a sound sample, even if very short, taken from a phonogram must, in principle, be regarded as a reproduction ‘in part’ of that phonogram so that such a reproduction falls within the exclusive right granted to the phonogram producer.

However, the Court notes that, where a user, in exercising the freedom of the arts, takes a sound sample from a phonogram in order to embody it, in a modified form unrecognisable to the ear in another phonogram, that is not a ‘reproduction’. In that context, the Court underlines that to regard such use of a sound sample taken from a phonogram as a reproduction subject to the authorisation of the phonogram producer would run counter, in particular, to the requirement to strike a fair balance between, on the one hand, the interests of the holders of copyright and related rights in the protection of their intellectual property rights guaranteed by the Charter and, on the other hand, the protection of the interests and fundamental rights of users of protected subject matter, which are covered by the freedom of the arts, also enshrined in the Charter, as well as the public interest.

So, all you German musicians out there, make sure to distort your Kraftwerk samples.

The only commentary I'll provide here is that if you're unfamiliar with just how much damage this kind of attitude has done to hip hop in particular, where creative sampling created tons of amazing transformative works before the lawyers jumped in, you really don't know much about how creativity and music works. While I've seen some copyright folks who claim to support musicians cheer about this ruling, it will actually do tremendous damage to the creativity and music -- especially in historically more marginalized communities where sampling is much more readily available, compared to expensive instruments.

Moving on. The second case is really about copyright v. press freedoms. Here a German newspaper published a confidential military report, and the government sought to use copyright to block the publication. While the court recognizes that there might not be a legitimate copyright in this particular document, it does say that freedom of the press cannot be an excuse for making use of a copyright-covered work. That is unfortunate.

In today’s judgment, the Court makes clear that it is for the national court, first of all, to ascertain whether the conditions are satisfied so that military status reports are protected by copyright. Those reports can be protected by copyright only if they are an intellectual creation of their author that reflects the author’s personality and are expressed by free and creative choices made by that author in drafting those reports.

The Court adds that, if those conditions were satisfied and military status reports could therefore be regarded as ‘works’, freedom of information and freedom of the press are not capable of justifying, beyond the exceptions or limitations provided for in the Copyright Directive, a derogation from copyright, in particular, from the author’s exclusive rights of reproduction and of communication to the public.

What this means -- though the court won't come out and say it -- is that copyright is a fine and dandy tool for censoring the press. That's really, really bad.

Finally, there's a similar case that has a marginally better outcome. This case involved reporting on a copyright-covered document. The case involved a politician who was facing some negative press over a manuscript he had allegedly published under a pseudonym years earlier. When it came to light, he claimed that the publisher had altered the meaning of the text. A news organization posted a copy of the original manuscript to show that claim was not accurate. He then sued for copyright infringement. The questions here, similar to the previous case, concerned how freedom of the press intersected with copyright. The court said that various exceptions to copyright law were specific to each member state, so there are no European-wide rules on that (beyond the limits in the law on what user rights are allowed). But, the court does note that if something is covered by a user right (i.e., an exception to copyright law), then they don't need to get authorization to use the work:

In particular, as regards the possibility for the Member States to allow the use of protected works in connection with the reporting of current events (to the extent justified by the informatory purpose and as long as the source, including the author’s name, is indicated, unless this turns out to be impossible), the Court holds that, in applying such an exception or limitation, the Member States cannot subject the exception or limitation to a requirement for the author’s prior consent.

To me, that seems kind of like copyright 101. The whole point of user rights (what people often call "exceptions and limitations" to copyright) is that those are the cases when the works can be used without permission. So, this is just repeating that basic fact. That's okay, because it would have been worse if things had gone the other way, but other parts of this case are still pretty messy.

All in all, this is not great, as it appears to be cases where the court has made it clear that copyright can be used for censorship of music and the media. That can't lead to good outcomes.

Filed Under: copyright, eu, europe, pelham, sampling

German Government's Bullying Of FOI Group Provides A Warning Of How EU's New Upload Filters Will Be Used For Censorship

from the making-life-for-whistleblowers-even-harder dept

One of the many concerns about the upload filters of the EU's Copyright Directive is that they could lead to censorship, even if that is not the intention. The problem is that once a filtering mechanism is in place to block unauthorized copies of materials, it is very hard to stop its scope being widened beyond copyright infringement. As it happens, the German government has just provided a good example of the kind of abuse that is likely to become a commonplace.

FragDenStaat -- literally "ask the State" -- is a German freedom of information (FOI) organization. It obtained and published a six-page report about the herbicide glyphosate. The document was written by the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, a publicly-funded body that provides scientific advice to Germany's federal government on issues relating to things like food, product, and chemical safety, as well as consumer health protection. Even though the report was paid for by the German public, obtained legally -- and can still be requested by anyone -- FragDenStaat is not allowed to distribute it. The Regional Court in Cologne has ruled that would be an infringement of the German State's copyright, and ordered it to be taken down. FragDenStaat says it will appeal -- to the Court of Justice of the European Union, if necessary -- and comments:

The federal government abuses copyright law to prevent the publication of public interest documents. This is possible because German copyright law is hopelessly outdated. We believe that copyright law should ensure that tax-financed documents such as the Glyphosat report may be used freely. But in contrast, the German government wants to tighten copyright law further, which will further reduce the amount of information the public receives about important topics like this.

Leaving aside the issue that all such reports funded by the public should by freely available unless there are very good reasons to withhold them -- not the case here -- there is the particularly troubling aspect of this bullying of FragDenStaat by the German government. At the moment, there is little to stop copies of this document being requested, then uploaded and shared around the Internet. But once the EU Copyright Directive's upload filters have been installed, it will be easy for the German government to require sites to block these attempts. The fact that the authorities were willing to waste money taking FragDenStaat to court over a six-page document suggests they won't hesitate for a second to use upload filters to block sharing.

It won't just be governments. It is inevitable that leaked documents showing evidence of wrong-doing by companies will be blocked on all the major sites once upload filters are available. No court order is required, so it will become the first thing companies trying to hide their dirty washing will do. Upload filters will not only cause legitimate material produced by Internet users to be blocked by over-cautious online platforms, it will also make life even harder for whistleblowers to expose the truth about corporate crimes and misdeeds. How convenient.

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

Filed Under: copyright directive, eu, europe, filtering, freedom of information, germany

EU's Never Ending Quest To Rip The Internet And Free Expression To Shreds Continues With The Terrorist Content Regulation

from the it's-not-good-folks dept

Many of us are still getting over the insanity of the EU's Copyright Directive decision, and already we need to worry about the next awful EU regulation on the horizon: the EU's Terrorist Content Regulation which is significantly worse than even Article 13/17 of the Copyright Directive, and will create a massive stifling effect on free speech on the internet.

Over at Stanford, Daphne Keller has put together a depressing, but thorough, look at how the Terrorist Content Regulation will allow the most censorial government officials to silence speech across the EU, and possibly around the world.

We've discussed some of the details in the past (and on a podcast), but one of the key parts of the law is that it will require any website to take down content deemed to be terrorist content within one hour, based on demands from "competent authorities" within countries (don't even bother trying to figure out who is a "competent authority," it'll drive you crazy.)

Another, perhaps equally (or more) concerning, is that the regulation seeks to promote platform terms of service over the rule of law. As I'm sure you know already, platform terms of service do not need to match up with local laws, and platforms can be much more free to block or ban any kind of content as a violation of a particular term. The EU's plan here elevates the power of the terms of service, by allowing "competent authorities" (those guys again!) to tell platforms that certain content is in violation of their terms, requiring companies to review the content and potentially remove it or face liability. And you know what that will lead to: widespread censorship.

Keller's piece focuses on this "TOS over rule of law" aspect of the Terrorist Content Regulation to highlight how it will effectively allow the most censorial in a position to spread their censorship across the EU. Effectively, because if platforms disagree with a "referral" concerning their Terms of Service, they face incredibly onerous conditions in response:

The Regulation provides two tools for national authorities. The first, and easiest for all concerned, is a Referral, which requires the platform to expeditiously review content under its Terms of Service. The second is a binding Order. Orders require the platform to take content down, based on authorities’ determination that it violates the law. Referrals are the easiest choice for law enforcement, because they involve little or no legal analysis and the paperwork is simpler. They’re easier for platforms as well – and complying helps maintain good relationships with authorities.

Beyond these basic and to some extent pre-existing incentives, the Regulation adds major new ones. A platform that rejects a Referral and receives an Order is effectively choosing to accept major and unpredictable new obligations. For smaller platforms that have not already invested in content filters, getting an Order (or in some drafts several Orders) triggers the obligation to build them. That’s costly for any company, and may be financially insupportable for small ones. Companies that receive Orders also assume a new and poorly-defined relationship with authorities. They must submit annual reports describing their filtering efforts, and make engineering or product design changes if authorities aren’t satisfied. Since no one knows for sure who these new de facto regulators will be or how well they will understand available technologies, it’s hard to predict what they’ll ask for.

The best way for platforms to avoid these costs and uncertainties is to accept all Referrals – even if that requires changing how they interpret their TOS, and taking down previously permitted expression. That means accommodating even the most aggressive Referrals from national authorities, letting their requests shape online information access throughout the EU and around the world.

Yes, the lowest common denominator from whatever "competent authority" wins. As Keller points out, this "Rule of TOS" rather than "Rule of Law" is going to lead to some bad outcomes, but they're often ones that regulators can then turnaround and blame on the platforms rather than their own bad regulation that forces the platforms' hand. It is going to be an utter mess.

Filed Under: copyright directive, eu, europe, terrorist content regulation

EU Commissioner Gunther Oettinger Admits: Sites Need Filters To Comply With Article 13

from the the-lies-come-out dept

EU Commissioner Gunther Oettinger -- well known for being a bit of a bigoted Luddite -- basically crafted the plan that became the EU Copyright Directive when he was the Commissioner for the "Digital Economy" (despite not knowing anything about it). As you may recall, for many months now, supporters of Article 13 (now Article 17) have insisted that it doesn't require filters. They would shout down anyone who pointed out that it clearly does require filters.

But now that it's passed the EU Parliament, the truth is coming out. Last week, we noted that France's culture minister admitted it required filters to comply (and that he wanted sites to start installing them as soon as possible). And now, Oettinger himself is admitting that filters are required under the Directive (translated via Google):

EU Commissioner Günther Oettinger , also does not believe that the CDU model will prevent the filters. "I am convinced that the guideline sets relatively clear guidelines," says Oettinger. "As things stand, upload filters can not be completely avoided."

What's truly incredible about all of this is just how vehement these guys all were about how the directive didn't require filters and how much they insisted that the complaints about Article 13 were all "disinformation" and "propaganda." Now the truth is coming out. The disinformation and propaganda had been coming from those who pushed for Article 13 in the first place. It's truly incredible that they basically have started admitting this just days after the Parliament's vote.

Filed Under: article 13, article 17, copyright, eu, europe, gunther oettinger

The EU's Catastrophic Copyright Directive Can Still Be Stopped, If Governments Of Sweden And Germany Do The Right Thing

from the last-chance-to-save-the-Internet-as-we-know-it dept

Last week, the EU's Copyright Directive was passed by the European Parliament. Its supporters have wasted no time in dropping the mask, and revealing their true intent: installing upload filters on the Internet. First, France's Minister of Culture announced a "mission to promote and supervise content recognition technologies". More recently, EU Commissioner Günther Oettinger has confirmed that upload filters will be unavoidable. It's cold comfort that those who said that Article 13 (now officially Article 17) would inevitably bring in upload filters have now been proved right.

However, it turns out that the situation is not completely hopeless. Even though the vote in the European Parliament was the main hurdle the new copyright law needed to clear, there is one more stamp of approval required before it goes into effect. The little-known EU Council of Ministers must also agree, and it seems that is not a foregone conclusion.

Everything hinges on Sweden. As an article on the Bahnhof site (original in Swedish) explains, Sweden has previously voted in favor of the EU Copyright Directive, but can still change its mind. One way of achieving that is through a special parliamentary committee that helps to formulate Sweden's EU policy. The Swedish government's Web page about the committee says:

According to the rules, the Government is not obliged to act in compliance with the Committee on EU Affairs' opinions. However, the Committee on the Constitution has stated that the Government should act in compliance with the Committee's advice and opinions. The Committee on the Constitution has also stressed that if the Government does not act in compliance with the mandate it has received from the Committee on EU Affairs, it must have very good reasons for its actions.

If the Government does not follow the mandate given to it by the Committee on EU Affairs, it risks criticism, and ultimately, a vote of no confidence in the Chamber of the Riksdag [Swedish parliament].

Bahnhof's blog post is encouraging Swedish citizens to contact MPs on the EU Affairs Committee to ask them to instruct the Swedish government to vote against the EU Copyright Directive when it is discussed on April 15 at a meeting of EU agricultural ministers -- no, really (pdf). Two leading MPs have already said that they will work towards that goal. Tomas Tobé, Second Vice Chairman of Sweden's EU Affairs Committee tweeted (in Swedish, translated here by Microsoft): "We will force the government to say no. They did not have the mandate to say yes." Another key MP, Ilona Waldau, said on the same Twitter thread: "The European Council has not had the opportunity to make a decision, I answer the question how we should be able to get the government to say no. We are working on bringing the issue to the board."

As that indicates, it's not clear yet whether Sweden's EU Council will instruct the Swedish government to vote against the EU Copyright Directive, so nothing is certain. Moreover, as Florian Mueller points out, for the Copyright Directive to be blocked, Germany would also need to vote against it:

Even with Sweden changing its vote from Yes to No, we're still far short of a blocking minority as I'll explain further below. But Germany could single-handedly block the deal (as could the UK, by the way, though there's little hope of that happening). A Swedish reversal would embolden and encourage those who'd like the German government to withdraw its support.

Mueller's blog post goes on to explain why there are good grounds for believing that Germany might do that. Julia Reda of the Pirate Party says that the German parliament will be debating the issue soon. All-in-all, this means that there is still hope that the EU Copyright Directive can be blocked, although it would require a number of pieces of the political puzzle to fall into place perfectly for that to happen.

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

Filed Under: article 13, copyright, copyright directive, europe, germany, sweden

Here Comes The Splinternet: How The EU Is Helping Break Apart The Internet

from the this-is-not-great dept

In the wake of last week's unfortunate decision by the EU Parliament to vote for the terrible EU Copyright Directive, Casey Newton over at the Verge has a thoughtful piece about how this could lead to the internet splitting into three.

...this latest effort is hamfisted in the extreme, and may have the effect of splintering the internet beyond what seemed possible even a few years ago. In the wake of GDPR’s passage, Europeans couldn’t visit the websites of some US publishers for months as new privacy frameworks were put into place. That sort of thing may be about to become a lot more common. The time has now come to speak of the internets, plural. And to get around, you might just need a passport.

Basically, as Newton notes, it just might not be worth it for many sites to serve EU visitors:

Perhaps the big platforms will feel so motivated to preserve their European user bases that they will indeed negotiate the deals necessary to keep their existing services operating basically as is. But it’s just as easy to imagine them scaling back their services, as Google has already done, and further divide the internet into zones. If it goes far enough, the entire internet may begin to feel like Netflix, whose library of content varies dramatically depending on which country you log on from.

But that's just the big platforms. Smaller platforms aren't even going to be in a position or have the resources to negotiate those deals.

And, this is just one symptom of a broader trend. China practically has its own internet already. The EU's efforts here may create an EU-focused silo as well. India has been making noises about following China's lead, perhaps cleaving off its own internet in addition. And, of course, there's always Russia with its plan to unplug itself from the internet.

Perhaps this kind of splintering of the global internet was inevitable. Perhaps we, as a society, simply can't handle a global network for everyone. But, from my perspective, this is still incredibly disappointing. The grand experiment of a global open internet is on its way out. And it's especially depressing that the EU is the one who decided to lead the way on this.

Filed Under: article 13, copyright, copyright directive, eu, europe