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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Um, what?

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

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

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

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

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

Article Quoting Norwegian Mass Murderer Anders Breivik's Manifesto Gets Caught In Right-To-Be-Forgotten Memory Hole

from the obscuring-history dept

As we've been covering the big push in Europe to use the "right to be forgotten" concept to delete parts of history, each time media outlets have articles removed, it's only acting as an opportunity to bring those articles some renewed attention.

And, indeed, the Telegraph in the UK has now released a big list of articles that will lose some Google juice in Europe thanks to right-to-be-forgotten requests. The one getting the most attention is actually just an excerpt from the manifesto of Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik.

To understand what's happening, you have to remember that the entire article doesn't disappear from the Google index, it's just that it won't show up if you search on a specific name. And since the RTBF is not supposed to apply to public personalities, chances are it's not Breivik who is the issue here. In fact, the quoted part of the manifesto includes Breivik talking about his godmother, a political refugee from Chile, and a few other foreign friends he had as a kid, as part of his proof that he's "not a racist." Most of his childhood friends only have their first names listed, but the godmother is named in full -- and you might understand why she's not exactly happy to be connected to a sociopathic mass murderer whenever someone Googles her name.

But... is that really a legitimate reason to remove the search result? It still seems immensely troubling that the end result of this is to remove accurate responses to research queries. Yes, it may be embarrassing, depressing and even emotionally stressful to see such Google results -- but it's also accurate. Shouldn't we be more focused on dealing with the issues of why it's so problematic to have your name associated in this manner instead of trying to pretend it never happened at all?

Filed Under: anders breivik, europe, free speech, history, manifesto, right to be forgotten

A Manifesto For Creativity In The Modern Era

from the join-in dept

Multiple people have passed along this fantastic manifesto of modern creativity that was put together by five curators of an exhibition for Les Rencontres Arles Photographie called "From Here On."

One friend noted just how inspiring that graphic alone was, but reading the more detailed manifesto is worthwhile as well. It talks about just how much the internet and digital technologies have changes our lives, and changed the way art and creativity works -- in undoubtedly positive ways. Here's just a snippet of the larger piece:

The growth of the Internet and the proliferation of sites for searching out and/or sharing images online—Flickr, Photobucket, Facebook, Google Images, eBay, to name only the best-known—now mean a plethora of visual resources that was inconceivable as little as ten years ago: a phenomenon comparable to the advent of running water and gas in big cities in the nineteenth century. We all know just how thoroughly those amenities altered people’s way of life in terms of everyday comfort and hygiene—and now, right in our own homes, we have an image-tap that’s refashioning our visual habits just as radically. In the course of art history, periods when image accessibility has been boosted by technological innovation have always been rich in major visual advances: improved photomechanical printing techniques and the subsequent press boom of the 1910s-1920s, for instance, paved the way for photomontage. Similar upheavals in the art field accompanied the rise of engraving as a popular medium in the nineteenth century, the arrival of TV in the 1950s—and the coming of the Internet today.

Digital appropriationism
Across-the-board appropriation on the one hand plus hyper-accessibility of images on the other: a pairing that would prove particularly fertile and stimulating for the art field. Beginning with the first years of the new millennium—Google Images launched in 2001, Google Maps in 2004 and Flickr the same year—artists jumped at the new technologies, and since then more and more of them have been taking advantage of the wealth of opportunities offered by the Internet. Gleefully appropriating their online finds, they edit, adapt, displace, add and subtract. What artists used to look for in nature, in urban flaneries, in leafing through magazines and rummaging in flea markets, they now find on the Internet, that new wellspring of the vernacular and inexhaustible fount of ideas and wonders.

What I love most about this is how inclusive it is, and how much of it is about recognizing and embracing what an amazingly creative time this is for artists. All too often, we hear of artists who decry such things, who complain about the fact that their club doesn't feel as exclusive any more. For artists and an art exhibit to not just embrace, but joyfully celebrate the way creativity works today, while recognizing how these tools mean that anyone and everyone are creating art all the time, is really wonderful to see.

Filed Under: appropriation, art, creativity, manifesto, sharing
Companies: ebay, facebook, flickr, google, photobucket

'We, The Web Kids': Manifesto For An Anti-ACTA Generation

from the future-in-safe-hands dept

One of the striking features of the demonstrations against ACTA that took place across Europe over the last few weeks was the youth of the participants. That's not to say that only young people are concerned about ACTA, but it's an indication that they take its assault on the Internet very personally -- unlike, perhaps, older and more dispassionate critics.

As sometimes happens, a text has been floating around that captures rather well the spirit of that generation. It was originally written in Polish, and released under a liberal cc-by license; there are now a number of translations. As its author, Piotr Czerski, wrote in an email to Techdirt, its origins were quite humble:

I was asked by the journalist from local newspaper to write a text explaining difference between "analog" and "digital" generations. I thought that I should write something more: text, which can offer some kind of self-identity for all this different people protesting against ACTA. So I used the poetics of manifesto.

The whole piece is really well-written and perceptive. Here's the key self-definition of those "Web kids" in the English translation by Marta Szreder:

We grew up with the Internet and on the Internet. This is what makes us different; this is what makes the crucial, although surprising from your point of view, difference: we do not ‘surf’ and the internet to us is not a ‘place’ or ‘virtual space’. The Internet to us is not something external to reality but a part of it: an invisible yet constantly present layer intertwined with the physical environment. We do not use the Internet, we live on the Internet and along it. If we were to tell our bildnungsroman to you, the analog, we could say there was a natural Internet aspect to every single experience that has shaped us. We made friends and enemies online, we prepared cribs for tests online, we planned parties and studying sessions online, we fell in love and broke up online. The Web to us is not a technology which we had to learn and which we managed to get a grip of. The Web is a process, happening continuously and continuously transforming before our eyes; with us and through us. Technologies appear and then dissolve in the peripheries, websites are built, they bloom and then pass away, but the Web continues, because we are the Web; we, communicating with one another in a way that comes naturally to us, more intense and more efficient than ever before in the history of mankind.

Because of this, the Web kids depend on the ability to access a vast range of content online:

Participating in cultural life is not something out of ordinary to us: global culture is the fundamental building block of our identity, more important for defining ourselves than traditions, historical narratives, social status, ancestry, or even the language that we use. From the ocean of cultural events we pick the ones that suit us the most; we interact with them, we review them, we save our reviews on websites created for that purpose, which also give us suggestions of other albums, films or games that we might like. Some films, series or videos we watch together with colleagues or with friends from around the world; our appreciation of some is only shared by a small group of people that perhaps we will never meet face to face. This is why we feel that culture is becoming simultaneously global and individual. This is why we need free access to it.

But they are not naive: they know that artists need to earn money to live, and even have practical suggestions about how that can be done in a world of digital abundance:

This does not mean that we demand that all products of culture be available to us without charge, although when we create something, we usually just give it back for circulation. We understand that, despite the increasing accessibility of technologies which make the quality of movie or sound files so far reserved for professionals available to everyone, creativity requires effort and investment. We are prepared to pay, but the giant commission that distributors ask for seems to us to be obviously overestimated. Why should we pay for the distribution of information that can be easily and perfectly copied without any loss of the original quality? If we are only getting the information alone, we want the price to be proportional to it. We are willing to pay more, but then we expect to receive some added value: an interesting packaging, a gadget, a higher quality, the option of watching here and now, without waiting for the file to download. We are capable of showing appreciation and we do want to reward the artist (since money stopped being paper notes and became a string of numbers on the screen, paying has become a somewhat symbolic act of exchange that is supposed to benefit both parties), but the sales goals of corporations are of no interest to us whatsoever. It is not our fault that their business has ceased to make sense in its traditional form, and that instead of accepting the challenge and trying to reach us with something more than we can get for free they have decided to defend their obsolete ways.

The text makes lots of other interesting comments, and I urge you to read it. It goes some way to explaining why so many young people were prepared to brave sub-zero temperatures across Europe to march against what is, after all, just a trade agreement -- not something that normally brings people onto the streets. It also suggests that the European Commission's tactic of referring ACTA to the European Court of Justice, in the hope that people will forget about it and move on to other concerns by the time the decision is handed down, is doomed to failure. As the Web kids manifesto explains:

To us, the Web is a sort of shared external memory. We do not have to remember unnecessary details: dates, sums, formulas, clauses, street names, detailed definitions. It is enough for us to have an abstract, the essence that is needed to process the information and relate it to others. Should we need the details, we can look them up within seconds.

The Web certainly won't forget about ACTA, and neither will the Web kids.

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

Filed Under: copyright, generation, internet, manifesto, the web kids

Copyright Is An Exception To The Public Domain

from the a-manifesto dept

A bunch of folks have been sending in this wonderful Public Domain Manifesto, put together by Communia. It's a wonderful read, highlighting the importance and value of the public domain, and putting forth a series of general principles which appear to make a lot of sense. It also discusses other aspects of related issues, such as the importance of individuals choosing to not use copyright, as well as the value of fair use and fair dealing. The point is both to highlight how important the public domain is to a vital thriving culture, and also to point out how the public domain has been steadily eroded over the last few decades. A key point is found in the first principle, and it's to remind everyone that copyright is an exception to the public domain, not the other way around:

The Public Domain is the rule, copyright protection is the exception. Since copyright protection is granted only with respect to original forms of expression, the vast majority of data, information and ideas produced worldwide at any given time belongs to the Public Domain. In addition to information that is not eligible for protection, the Public Domain is enlarged every year by works whose term of protection expires. The combined application of the requirements for protection and the limited duration of the copyright protection contribute to the wealth of the Public Domain so as to ensure access to our shared culture and knowledge.

Unfortunately, it's rarely thought about like this. Instead, most people consider copyright to be the rule, and things like the public domain and fair use to be exceptions. This is a problem, and it impacts how people view, understand and respond to things like copyright and the public domain itself.

To be honest, I have no idea how useful something like this manifesto really will be. Very few politicians seem to understand or care about the public domain and its importance. The manifesto might not have much of an impact on its own, but as a general set of principles for people to understand and gather behind it does seem like a good thing.

Filed Under: copyright, fair use, manifesto, public domain