Jump to content

EU's "Article 13"


Soleater
 Share

Recommended Posts


So,

this was the video that started this topic in the first place.

This video is full of hyperbole and biased opinions, and his main sources are news articles with the same opinions as him, so take his view on it with a mountain of salt.

Article 13 is a proposal in the EU to enhance copyright protection for the modern era; you can find the rest of the proposal here.  To me, the vague language sounds like this could out of hand very quickly and turn into a worse version of SOPA and PIPA.

Personally, I think this doesn't just affect the EU, since if this gets through, other places could pick up on it and create similar laws (they could fix the loose language, though) that could just inflate the issue.  Not to mention the general effect an increased copyright protection would have on the internet as a whole (not just in the EU, as it would impact everyone).  But this is only if it turns out to be as bad as I think it would.

But what do you guys think?  Again, I'm not a fan, but it might not be that bad.

(Note: I'll admit I had a very knee-jerk reaction to this because of the likes of SOPA and PIPA, so this topic is heavily edited compared to what it initially was)

Verbatim, this is the proposal:
 

“Article 13

Use of protected content by information society service providers storing and giving access to large amounts of works and other subject-matter uploaded by their users.

1. Information society service providers that store and provide to the public access to large amounts of works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users shall, in cooperation with rightholders, take measures to ensure the functioning of agreements concluded with rightholders for the use of their works  or other subject-matter or to prevent the availability on their services of works or other subject-matter identified by rightholders through the cooperation with the service providers. Those measures, such as the use of effective content recognition technologies, shall be appropriate and proportionate.  The service providers shall provide rightholders with adequate information on the functioning and the deployment of the measures, as well as, when relevant, adequate reporting on the recognition and use of the works and  other subject-matter. 

2. Member States shall ensure that the service providers referred to in paragraph 1 put in place complaints and redress mechanisms that are available  to users in case of disputes over the application of the measures referred to in paragraph 1. 

3. Member States shall facilitate, where appropriate, the cooperation between  the information society service providers and rightholders through stakeholder dialogues to define best practices, such as appropriate and proportionate content recognition technologies, taking into account, among others, the nature of the services, the availability of the technologies and their effectiveness in light of technological developments.”
Edited by Soleater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, what's up with Europe. The only thing I can guess as to what's causing this is the slow downfall of power from more liberal governments and I'm guessing that more conservative policies are ticking up in favor of the general population.

 

Edited by Captain Karnage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was something in the US that caused a big scare, a bill that would make fanart illegal, called SOPA, awhile back...thankfully it never went through! Is this anything like it? I don't feel like watching the video.

EDIT

I looked at the site and it appears to be like the thing on Net Neutrality, only instead of ISPs, it's the government.

Edited by Dragoncat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

whatever does happen, this guy I've seen before, and I can't understand why he's popular at all

from what I saw and have said elsewhere:

i hate to say it but i've seen this guy before and he's usually wrong, misinformed and hysterical
i don't think he has this right
but we'll see
because one of the first related videos i see is him against ireland repealing their abortion ban because of muh fertility rates, muh genocide of babies and throwing "european culture" in there a lot for good measure, and he believes there is a vast cultural marxist conspiracy to eliminate the idea of gender
(and then lmao actually mentioning george soros in that same video without any joking attached)

It very well not be a good thing, but I have a hard time believing that someone who has been extremely hyperbolic and biased against the EU in the past (as you'd expect), is really the best one to trust on this for giving you a completely nuanced perspective

Edited by Tryhard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Captain Karnage said:

Seriously, what's up with Europe. The only thing I can guess as to what's causing this is the slow downfall of power from more liberal governments and I'm guessing that more conservative policies are ticking up in favor of the general population.

 

No idea honestly - a thought is that it's really just trying to counter piracy.  But for my money, I'd say it's just greedy people finding a new thing to slap taxes on, or it's to be able to control more favorable news outlets while keeping quiet independent ones (also while being able to silence bad opinions)

EDIT: It's not "link tax" bad yet, but the vague language still leads me to think this could be abused pretty easily.

17 hours ago, Dragoncat said:

There was something in the US that caused a big scare, a bill that would make fanart illegal, called SOPA, awhile back...thankfully it never went through! Is this anything like it? I don't feel like watching the video.

SOPA and it's cousin, PIPA, from what I understand, were meant to stop piracy by having the ability to shut down sites and certain content that "infringed on copyright" - I could be wrong on that, I don't know a lot about SOPA or PIPA (I saw one video on them after the fact), but this is doing something completely different.

Basically, this policy will force you to pay a tax if you link to something that doesn't belong to you.

Link taxes.

This means only big news outlets will be able to report or even source anything because they're the only ones who will be able to pay the bill.  You'll need to get a "Link Permit" from whatever company or entity that holds the information you're looking to link to.

This also means you won't be able to even use seconds of a copyrighted property in say, a Youtube video, or even a screen shot for things like discussion, news, parody, nothing.  You have to get permits for every bit of copyrighted material if you want to be able to even just link to it.

It's censorship at it's textbook definition.

EDIT: I messed up here ignore me.

17 hours ago, Tryhard said:

whatever does happen, this guy I've seen before, and I can't understand why he's popular at all

from what I saw:

i hate to say it but i've seen this guy before and he's usually wrong, misinformed and hysterical
i don't think he has this right(edited)
but we'll see
because one of the first related videos i see is him against ireland repealing their abortion ban because of muh fertility rates, muh genocide of babies and throwing "european culture" in there a lot for good measure, and believes there is a vast cultural marxist conspiracy to eliminate the idea of gender
(and then lmao actually mentioning george soros in that same video without any joking attached)

It very well not be a good thing, but I have a hard time believing that someone who has been extremely hyperbolic and biased against the EU in the past (as you'd expect), is really the best one to trust on this 

I've never watched any of this guy's other videos, but the sources seem to check out from what I'm looking at.

But that's completely fair - I'd like to believe it's not true, but I can't be sure, seeing as we've seen stuff like this before in other places (Dragoncat brought up SOPA, Net Neutrality repeal, etc...), I'd put my money on it being legitimate.

17 hours ago, Hekselka said:

Since I live in Europe I went to the site and sent a message to every MEP from my country. It's the least I can do. 

 

Thank you so much.  I live in America, so I wish I could help more, but I suppose the best I can do is give attention and discuss the ramifications.

Edited by Soleater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Soleater said:

I've never watched any of this guy's other videos, but the sources seem to check out from what I'm looking at.

But that's completely fair - I'd like to believe it's not true, but I can't be sure, seeing as we've seen stuff like this before in other places (Dragoncat brought up SOPA, Net Neutrality repeal, etc...), I'd put my money on it being legitimate.

Let's just say there's a lot of easy scapegoating of the EU and has been for a while. It makes it somewhat murky waters.

Regardless of that though, this particular guy is a dumbass. I'd be more inclined to read the activist websites at least. But even then:

LetMeMeme.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

Let's just say there's a lot of easy scapegoating of the EU and has been for a while. It makes it somewhat murky waters.

Regardless of that though, this particular guy is a dumbass. I'd be more inclined to read the activist websites at least. But even then:

LetMeMeme.png

That's why I wanted to discuss this: news isn't ever really certain, so I just wanted to know that people think; even if I can't help but believe it, since again, this stuff has happened before.  The potential consequences worry me too much to ignore it.

Even if a few sites are a bit...let's go with misguided, with how they try to reach out to people (as trivial as "threatening the sharing of memes" sounds, it's no less true that if this is serious, it will affect the Internet in nasty ways), that doesn't mean they aren't supporting a good cause.  I still think you should check it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Soleater I highly suggest you change the title to something less alarmist. The guy in the video an idiot and doesn't seem to really understand what this article is about, and judging from your main post, I don't think you understand it either. Article 13 is written to make platforms such as Google, Youtube, Facebook, etc liable for hosting copyrighted material. This doesn't prevent you from using cool Fire Emblem art in your signature,  sharing memes, or linking stuff.

This is a copyright directive. Not a law. It's rather broad because it's up to the individual states to implement it as they see fit.

 

edit: @Tryhard yeah, the guy's youtube page is enough to show that he's pretty shitty and misogynistic, while defending shitheads like Trump and Weinstein . Your memes are safe though.

Edited by Johann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Johann said:

@Soleater I highly suggest you change the title to something less alarmist. The guy in the video an idiot and doesn't seem to really understand what this article is about, and judging from your main post, I don't think you understand it either. Article 13 is written to make platforms such as Google, Youtube, Facebook, etc liable for hosting copyrighted material. This doesn't prevent you from using cool Fire Emblem art in your signature,  sharing memes, or linking stuff.

This is a copyright directive. Not a law. It's rather broad because it's up to the individual states to implement it as they see fit.

Could you link me to the article or source you have that's saying otherwise?  I'm not finding anything along those lines where I'm looking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Johann said:

@Soleater I highly suggest you change the title to something less alarmist. The guy in the video an idiot and doesn't seem to really understand what this article is about, and judging from your main post, I don't think you understand it either. Article 13 is written to make platforms such as Google, Youtube, Facebook, etc liable for hosting copyrighted material. This doesn't prevent you from using cool Fire Emblem art in your signature,  sharing memes, or linking stuff.

This is a copyright directive. Not a law. It's rather broad because it's up to the individual states to implement it as they see fit.

I'm actually interested if knowing if that's the case. There's so much misinformation or exaggeration it's hard to know sometimes for your average person, especially with how EU legislation is innately bureaucratic and complex. But if it was something along the lines of SOPA or such, I would want to write to my MEP to show my disdain on my own accord and outside of any hysterics. Otherwise I wouldn't want to waste their time or potentially stop a vote on such legislation if it was something that was actually beneficial.

GDPR did just go into effect and for a set of regulations that is actually very beneficial.

Edited by Tryhard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Soleater said:

Could you link me to the article or source you have that's saying otherwise?  I'm not finding anything along those lines where I'm looking.

Here's the proposal itself. Nothing beats the source material. Article 13 starts at the bottom of page 29. I can just quote the article itself too, if that's easier:

Spoiler

Article 13
Use of protected content by information society service providers storing and giving access to large amounts of works and other subject-matter uploaded by their users

1. Information society service providers that store and provide to the public access to large amounts of works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users shall, in cooperation with rightholders, take measures to ensure the functioning of agreements concluded with rightholders for the use of their works or other subject-matter or to prevent the availability on their services of works or other subject-matter identified by rightholders through the cooperation with the service providers. Those measures, such as the use of effective content recognition technologies, shall be appropriate and proportionate. The service providers shall provide rightholders with adequate information on the functioning and the deployment of the measures, as well as, when relevant, adequate reporting on the recognition and use of the works and other subject-matter.

2. Member States shall ensure that the service providers referred to in paragraph 1 put in place complaints and redress mechanisms that are available to users in case of disputes over the application of the measures referred to in paragraph 1.

3. Member States shall facilitate, where appropriate, the cooperation between the information society service providers and rightholders through stakeholder dialogues to define best practices, such as appropriate and proportionate content recognition technologies, taking into account, among others, the nature of the services, the availability of the technologies and their effectiveness in light of technological developments.

For some context, "information society service providers" would be referring to sites like Facebook or Youtube. "Rightholders" refer to creators of copyrighted content. "Member states" refer to the EU nations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tryhard said:

I'm actually interested if knowing if that's the case. There's so much misinformation or exaggeration it's hard to know sometimes for your average person, especially with how EU legislation is innately bureaucratic and complex. But if it was something along the lines of SOPA or such, I would want to write to my MEP to show my disdain on my own accord and outside of any hysterics.

GDPR did just go into effect and for a set of regulations that is actually very beneficial.

If it's any help, the only people I've seen complaining about it are either misinformed people who've heard it's bad from someone else, or people in the same league as the douchebag in the video. There's definitely a lot of hyperbole being used to talk about the negative impacts it might have (if any) on the average person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

La Quadrature du Net, a French public organization defending net neutrality, privacy and all that jazz, have been slamming that directive for the past two years whenever a new development hit. Not because of memes/links/fanart or whatnot, but because a number of articles (it's not just Art.13) have a concerning impact on individual freedoms, or throw a wrench in other, actually-good copyright laws, or you know, leave megacorporations to deal with copyright infringement instead of legal entities because that's always a great idea.

Sure, contact your EU rep if you want (probably should have done it earlier, or saved it til we get to the actual final vote), but don't do it for the memes and saving gaming from mainstream media and whatever garbage 4chan cooked up. Do it because it's kinda of a poor directive that took two years to get to a point where it either gives up on its intended purpose, or does it in the most questionnably-legal way.

Edited by Miacis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Johann said:

Here's the proposal itself. Nothing beats the source material. Article 13 starts at the bottom of page 29. I can just quote the article itself too, if that's easier:

  Hide contents

Article 13
Use of protected content by information society service providers storing and giving access to large amounts of works and other subject-matter uploaded by their users

1. Information society service providers that store and provide to the public access to large amounts of works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users shall, in cooperation with rightholders, take measures to ensure the functioning of agreements concluded with rightholders for the use of their works or other subject-matter or to prevent the availability on their services of works or other subject-matter identified by rightholders through the cooperation with the service providers. Those measures, such as the use of effective content recognition technologies, shall be appropriate and proportionate. The service providers shall provide rightholders with adequate information on the functioning and the deployment of the measures, as well as, when relevant, adequate reporting on the recognition and use of the works and other subject-matter.

2. Member States shall ensure that the service providers referred to in paragraph 1 put in place complaints and redress mechanisms that are available to users in case of disputes over the application of the measures referred to in paragraph 1.

3. Member States shall facilitate, where appropriate, the cooperation between the information society service providers and rightholders through stakeholder dialogues to define best practices, such as appropriate and proportionate content recognition technologies, taking into account, among others, the nature of the services, the availability of the technologies and their effectiveness in light of technological developments.

For some context, "information society service providers" would be referring to sites like Facebook or Youtube. "Rightholders" refer to creators of copyrighted content. "Member states" refer to the EU nations.

Thank you for the link.  While I'll admit that it possible might not be as bad as I thought (probably no link tax [yet] like I first thought; I may reword my first post to give a better idea of what's going on), the lines "rightholders through stakeholder dialogues to define best practices, such as appropriate and proportionate content recognition technologies" and "The service providers shall provide rightholders with adequate information on the functioning and the deployment of the measures, as well as, when relevant, adequate reporting on the recognition and use of the works and other subject-matter."  Worries me with how vague and open with what "appropriate" and "proportionate" is to any given right holder.  I wasn't worried about "the memes", what I was worried about is censor ship of news, especially independent news outlets.  Though, if a company like Nintendo heard about this, they could easily kick their copyright take down craze into hyper gear.

It may have been made with the best of intentions, but I think the possibilities rightholders have with these are...a little to lenient.  But thank you for making me aware of that.  I'm still not a fan of this law as a whole, even if I can't do anything to immediately change it, it's nice to get second opinions on it.

2 hours ago, Tryhard said:

I'm actually interested if knowing if that's the case. There's so much misinformation or exaggeration it's hard to know sometimes for your average person, especially with how EU legislation is innately bureaucratic and complex. But if it was something along the lines of SOPA or such, I would want to write to my MEP to show my disdain on my own accord and outside of any hysterics. Otherwise I wouldn't want to waste their time or potentially stop a vote on such legislation if it was something that was actually beneficial.

GDPR did just go into effect and for a set of regulations that is actually very beneficial.

It sounded a lot like SOPA to me, with all the vague language on how much a rightholder could do to the person who wanted to use the rights; this is part of the reason I started this topic in the first place.  I think if they were to tweak the law a bit and give a limit on what the rightholder could do, and describe what's "appropriate and proportional" then I wouldn't have as much issue.

@Dragoncat Apologies for my initial description of Article 13, it was a bit exaggerated, but it is an example of what could happen if this went out of hand.

25 minutes ago, Miacis said:

La Quadrature du Net, a French public organization defending net neutrality, privacy and all that jazz, have been slamming that directive for the past two years whenever a new development hit. Not because of memes/links/fanart or whatnot, but because a number of articles have a concerning impact on individual freedoms, or throw a wrench in other, actually-good copyright laws, or you know, leave megacorporations to deal with copyright infringement instead of legal entities because that's always a great idea.

Sure, contact your EU rep if you want (probably should have done it earlier, or saved it til we get to the actual final vote), but don't do it for the memes and saving gaming from mainstream media and whatever garbage 4chan cooked up. Do it because it's kinda of a poor directive that took two years to get to a point where it either gives up on its intended purpose, or does it in the most questionnably-legal way.

That's the whole reason I'm worried in the first place, independent news and opinions get shut out.  If something with this level of interpretation got out, it could get as bad as the guy in the video described it (though, I'm not vouching for his character, just the actual, relevant content).  Even if I can't do anything major to change it, I wouldn't want the idea of it spreading to other places, especially if what little protection to the people who want to use the rights have erodes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get ready gang, it's one of my big ass essays.

2 hours ago, Soleater said:

Thank you for the link.  While I'll admit that it possible might not be as bad as I thought (probably no link tax [yet] like I first thought; I may reword my first post to give a better idea of what's going on), the lines "rightholders through stakeholder dialogues to define best practices, such as appropriate and proportionate content recognition technologies" and "The service providers shall provide rightholders with adequate information on the functioning and the deployment of the measures, as well as, when relevant, adequate reporting on the recognition and use of the works and other subject-matter."  Worries me with how vague and open with what "appropriate" and "proportionate" is to any given right holder.  I wasn't worried about "the memes", what I was worried about is censor ship of news, especially independent news outlets.  Though, if a company like Nintendo heard about this, they could easily kick their copyright take down craze into hyper gear.

It may have been made with the best of intentions, but I think the possibilities rightholders have with these are...a little to lenient.  But thank you for making me aware of that.  I'm still not a fan of this law as a whole, even if I can't do anything to immediately change it, it's nice to get second opinions on it.

It's true that it's very open ended, but that's the point-- each EU country has to figure this out themselves, with the inclusion of everyone involved. Let's break those two quotes you mentioned down. I'm gonna bold the part you quoted, but I'll include the rest of the sentences for extra context, because you're missing some important pieces here:

Quote

3. Member States shall facilitate, where appropriate, the cooperation between the information society service providers and rightholders through stakeholder dialogues to define best practices, such as appropriate and proportionate content recognition technologies, taking into account, among others, the nature of the services, the availability of the technologies and their effectiveness in light of technological developments.

  • "Stakeholder dialogue" means that all groups involved or affected (EU nations/citizens, platforms like Youtube, rightholders such as artists/songwriters/Nintendo, etc) have a right to be at the table for the discussion on what the platforms (Youtube, etc) have to do.
  • "Member States shall facilitate [...] stakeholder dialogue" means the EU nations are responsible for heading these discussions, to which everyone affected or involved has a right to be part of.
  • "Best practices" is a common term implying using the best available technology, methodology, etc that optimize effectiveness while minimizing negative impacts. Combined with the above, "defining" them means they have to work together to determine what those "best practices" are. In this context, they are looking at how the platforms (Youtube, etc) can most effectively protect those copyrights while minimizing negative impacts to everyone else. Something like "link taxes" would NOT be a best practice, because it doesn't solve the problem of plagiarism, and hurts people who need to link things.
  • "Appropriate and proportionate" is really in the context of that whole phrase "such as appropriate and proportionate content recognition technologies". Here, the "such as" implies "content recognition technologies" (ie: Youtube has a thing that checks to see if your video already exists on their site, primarily to prevent you from plagiarizing someone) is just an example of one possible "best practice". Put together, "appropriate and proportionate" is applying to that specific example, which is implying that such technology must have limitations and cannot do exploitative things like use malware or unnecessary data collection.
  • "Taking into account [...] the nature of the services"..."  is saying that the "best practices" will vary by platform, since they're all designed differently. Facebook and Youtube have different structures, naturally.
  • "...the availability of the technologies..." generally referring to what technology exists and how readily available it is, including whether it's reasonable to expect a company to implement it (ie: even if something is possible, it's unreasonable to demand a company to invest 99% of its funding into copyright protection technology)
  • "...and their effectiveness in light of technological developments." says that the technology should be updated if it's obsolete.
Quote

"The service providers shall provide rightholders with adequate information on the functioning and the deployment of the measures, as well as, when relevant, adequate reporting on the recognition and use of the works and other subject-matter."

This is a little more straightforward. It's basically saying the platforms (Youtube, etc) have to provide rightholders (artists, etc) with the necessary information about how they are fulfilling their responsibility to protect copyrighted content. This includes reporting to the rightholders when they catch someone plagiarizing their content, and their methods for how they enforce this stuff. The platforms don't have to share unnecessary info like the complex algorithms that make it all possible, however.

Note that there's nothing in any section of the article that defines penalties, and the only groups that it puts pressure on are companies like Google, Facebook, etc, who currently have little to no liability for copyright breaches. If you were an artist or musician who posts your work online, Article 13 is very much in your favor because it helps protect your work from being used without your consent. I wouldn't worry about Nintendo, they're very clear about their copyright policies.

There's absolutely ZERO reason to assume this will lead to things like censorship or "link taxes", those notions are ridiculous and based on nothing. The doomsday reaction is common whenever there's any kind of talk about regulating the internet, so it's important to not panic and instead break down what's actually being said, or discuss the contents with other people to figure it out. Not to rag on you, but considering how a few people have already read your main post/watched the video and taken your/that guy's word for it without question, you really ought to change the thread title to something less exaggerated, and include the counterpoints in the main post.

edit: I admittedly haven't read the rest of the directive, only because everyone has been freaking out about Article 13, and I only just learned about this after getting home from work. No idea how the rest of it fares, nor am I up to date on the finer points of EU regulation.

Edited by Johann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks overhyped to me. Copyright for news websites is not something that's bad, and neither is corporations dealing with copyright infringements anything new. YouTube has been dealing with them for years now, a few years back twitch removed the sound from a ton of VODs because they featured copyrighted songs, etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll leave this up to the EU guys to judge, since I have no context.  But if it is that overhyped, please change the title to reflect what Article 13 is about.  Also, don't post shortened URLs (those ow.ly things) - I want to see the actual destination URL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if this is technically necroposting since it hasn't been commented on in awhile but it's also not on the second page so...?  But I got busy, and I still wanted to respond to this; I wasn't trying to drop it.  But I'm sorry in advance if this counts as necroposting - I'll drop this topic immediately if it does.

So with that out of the way:

On 5/31/2018 at 11:23 PM, Johann said:

Get ready gang, it's one of my big ass essays.

It's true that it's very open ended, but that's the point-- each EU country has to figure this out themselves, with the inclusion of everyone involved. Let's break those two quotes you mentioned down. I'm gonna bold the part you quoted, but I'll include the rest of the sentences for extra context, because you're missing some important pieces here:

  • "Stakeholder dialogue" means that all groups involved or affected (EU nations/citizens, platforms like Youtube, rightholders such as artists/songwriters/Nintendo, etc) have a right to be at the table for the discussion on what the platforms (Youtube, etc) have to do.
  • "Member States shall facilitate [...] stakeholder dialogue" means the EU nations are responsible for heading these discussions, to which everyone affected or involved has a right to be part of.
  • "Best practices" is a common term implying using the best available technology, methodology, etc that optimize effectiveness while minimizing negative impacts. Combined with the above, "defining" them means they have to work together to determine what those "best practices" are. In this context, they are looking at how the platforms (Youtube, etc) can most effectively protect those copyrights while minimizing negative impacts to everyone else. Something like "link taxes" would NOT be a best practice, because it doesn't solve the problem of plagiarism, and hurts people who need to link things.
  • "Appropriate and proportionate" is really in the context of that whole phrase "such as appropriate and proportionate content recognition technologies". Here, the "such as" implies "content recognition technologies" (ie: Youtube has a thing that checks to see if your video already exists on their site, primarily to prevent you from plagiarizing someone) is just an example of one possible "best practice". Put together, "appropriate and proportionate" is applying to that specific example, which is implying that such technology must have limitations and cannot do exploitative things like use malware or unnecessary data collection.
  • "Taking into account [...] the nature of the services"..."  is saying that the "best practices" will vary by platform, since they're all designed differently. Facebook and Youtube have different structures, naturally.
  • "...the availability of the technologies..." generally referring to what technology exists and how readily available it is, including whether it's reasonable to expect a company to implement it (ie: even if something is possible, it's unreasonable to demand a company to invest 99% of its funding into copyright protection technology)
  • "...and their effectiveness in light of technological developments." says that the technology should be updated if it's obsolete.

This is a little more straightforward. It's basically saying the platforms (Youtube, etc) have to provide rightholders (artists, etc) with the necessary information about how they are fulfilling their responsibility to protect copyrighted content. This includes reporting to the rightholders when they catch someone plagiarizing their content, and their methods for how they enforce this stuff. The platforms don't have to share unnecessary info like the complex algorithms that make it all possible, however.

Note that there's nothing in any section of the article that defines penalties, and the only groups that it puts pressure on are companies like Google, Facebook, etc, who currently have little to no liability for copyright breaches. If you were an artist or musician who posts your work online, Article 13 is very much in your favor because it helps protect your work from being used without your consent. I wouldn't worry about Nintendo, they're very clear about their copyright policies.

There's absolutely ZERO reason to assume this will lead to things like censorship or "link taxes", those notions are ridiculous and based on nothing. The doomsday reaction is common whenever there's any kind of talk about regulating the internet, so it's important to not panic and instead break down what's actually being said, or discuss the contents with other people to figure it out. Not to rag on you, but considering how a few people have already read your main post/watched the video and taken your/that guy's word for it without question, you really ought to change the thread title to something less exaggerated, and include the counterpoints in the main post.

edit: I admittedly haven't read the rest of the directive, only because everyone has been freaking out about Article 13, and I only just learned about this after getting home from work. No idea how the rest of it fares, nor am I up to date on the finer points of EU regulation.

I changed a lot of my original title/post since I did admittedly have a kneejerk reaction to the proposal.  I made a huge mistake, but I still want to talk about this for the fact that I still don't believe that this policy is in the best interests of content creators...or at least, it can be interpreted to rightholders' advantage.

"'Stakeholder dialogue' means that all groups involved or affected (EU nations/citizens, platforms like Youtube, rightholders such as artists/songwriters/Nintendo, etc) have a right to be at the table for the discussion on what the platforms (Youtube, etc) have to do.
'Member States shall facilitate [...] stakeholder dialogue' means the EU nations are responsible for heading these discussions, to which everyone affected or involved has a right to be part of."

While the "taking into account the nature of the services" thing is reassuring, I feel if, both whatever representative for that particular EU nation, the platform holder, and the copyright holder wanted to, they could put the content creator at their mercy.  Unlikely, probably, but it kind of ties into my biggest concern with this whole thing: not that the EU is implementing something like this, more that other nations (such as the US) could very easily implement a similar, but worse system.  If something that, as I see it, puts a lot of power into the hands of these three people (the EU rep, the internet platform rep, and the copyright holder), gets put into place without more protections put in place to protect the rights of the person wanting to use the copyright, even if it works out perfectly fine for the EU and nothing bad happens, other governments will put in a more abusive system.  Because if one government could get away with it (not saying that the EU is getting away with anything in particular, just that they are putting a lot of trust into these people), why can't they?  And then that other government (*cough cough* US *cough cough*) implements that aforementioned similar but worse system, and then someone else does it, until mistranslations and interpretations morphs this into something else entirely; something awful.  You could argue that this could happen for any law, I'm just voicing my concerns; one copyright holder could easily pay off the platform holder/EU rep (or vice versa) to do something that isn't in the best interests of the content creator.  Idk, it's not my country, so I can't possibly know everything that's going on, but that's just my view on things.

On 6/1/2018 at 2:03 AM, Excellen Browning said:

Looks overhyped to me. Copyright for news websites is not something that's bad, and neither is corporations dealing with copyright infringements anything new. YouTube has been dealing with them for years now, a few years back twitch removed the sound from a ton of VODs because they featured copyrighted songs, etc. 

It probably is, but I just can't help but be concerned with the likes of SOPA and PIPA having at one point existed and were almost implemented.

On 6/1/2018 at 3:55 AM, eclipse said:

I'll leave this up to the EU guys to judge, since I have no context.  But if it is that overhyped, please change the title to reflect what Article 13 is about.  Also, don't post shortened URLs (those ow.ly things) - I want to see the actual destination URL.

I'd love to get more EU people in on it, since I definitely don't have the whole story on it.  Also apologies for that - those were the original links in the Youtube Video's description, and I was just posting those for convince if people didn't want to go to the original page to look at them (and so the original video didn't look unsourced - but that really isn't an issue anymore).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Soleater said:

While the "taking into account the nature of the services" thing is reassuring, I feel if, both whatever representative for that particular EU nation, the platform holder, and the copyright holder wanted to, they could put the content creator at their mercy.

The copyright holder and content creator are the same person; they've created content, and then acquired a copyright on it. The argument critics are making is the reverse, that copyright holders/content creators would have too much power over the platforms (and by extension the users), but a lot of those fears completely disregard things like fair use laws.

While it's reasonable to think that the US might adopt similar, stricter policies, it's not really necessary, given how many people are in the EU. It's like how the GDPR effectively applies to the whole world even though it's just an EU law; websites were better off covering their bases by applying it globally than making separate versions of their websites for EU nations. Don't get me wrong, I sure as hell don't trust Ajit Pai to do things in our best interest, but this doesn't seem to be on the radar of US lawmakers/regulators, possibly because most of them don't really give a shit about copyright laws on the internet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 6/8/2018 at 10:00 PM, Johann said:

The copyright holder and content creator are the same person; they've created content, and then acquired a copyright on it. The argument critics are making is the reverse, that copyright holders/content creators would have too much power over the platforms (and by extension the users), but a lot of those fears completely disregard things like fair use laws.

While it's reasonable to think that the US might adopt similar, stricter policies, it's not really necessary, given how many people are in the EU. It's like how the GDPR effectively applies to the whole world even though it's just an EU law; websites were better off covering their bases by applying it globally than making separate versions of their websites for EU nations. Don't get me wrong, I sure as hell don't trust Ajit Pai to do things in our best interest, but this doesn't seem to be on the radar of US lawmakers/regulators, possibly because most of them don't really give a shit about copyright laws on the internet.

By content creator, I meant the person creating content with a copyright (so like a youtuber than a fanartist), and copyright holder as the person/people/company holding the original IP.  Sorry if that got confusing; my point is that the person/people holding the original IP would have too much power over the person wanting to remix/change it in someway; particularly if the platform could get some benefit from it, but

this thing has kind of blown over without the world exploding, so I will admit that I probably (but very accidentally) initially blew this topic out of proportion.  But I think you have a good point - the copyright laws of the US are so warped, that even if they were to adopt a stricter policy, it would be a drop in the bucket really :/ 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

WHY WOULD YOU KILL MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEMMMMES

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Soleater said:

By content creator, I meant the person creating content with a copyright (so like a youtuber than a fanartist), and copyright holder as the person/people/company holding the original IP.  Sorry if that got confusing; my point is that the person/people holding the original IP would have too much power over the person wanting to remix/change it in someway; particularly if the platform could get some benefit from it, but

this thing has kind of blown over without the world exploding, so I will admit that I probably (but very accidentally) initially blew this topic out of proportion.  But I think you have a good point - the copyright laws of the US are so warped, that even if they were to adopt a stricter policy, it would be a drop in the bucket really :/ 

That's a fair point, though I think it applies much more to Youtubers and Twitch streamers than fan artists. In fact, it should barely impact fan artists unless you're mass producing and selling rip-off licensed character stuff on a million dollar level-- a few pieces of art, even if commissioned, aren't worth the time for copyright holders to come down on anyone.

Meanwhile, on something like Twitch, users are being banned for repeatedly violating DMCA, a US law from 1998 that operates a little differently from Article 13's proposed policies, in that it puts the liability on the uploader/streamer, not the service provider (Twitch). This is due to people using copyrighted music in their streams without consent. There are ways to acquire consent, and other workarounds, such as creating your own music, or finding music that has a blanket "anyone can use this" policy. Here's some more information on that whole situation if you're interested. It's interesting to note that DMCA functions rather similarly to Article 13, while being around for 20 years already. The article I just linked points out that the reason it's been used a lot recently is because copyright holders are only now becoming aware of their stuff being used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

The biggest issue is that even with War Plan Purple, it took a lot of energy to even get MEPs to say "you know, maybe this shouldn't actually be negotiated behind closed doors".

I've come to accept this from the EU. Nothing really new, just another attempt to take control of something else.

Edited by Life
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...