This thread is permanently archived
The European Parliament has voted in favour of Article 13
| Wait, even if the site is hosted on US or anywhere not on Europe they still have to comply?
| "The only way a site that hosts user-generated content can avoid putting in place a upload filter is if it fulfils all three of the following criteria: it has been available for fewer than three years; it has an annual turnover below €10 million; it had fewer than five million unique monthly visitors."
Actually, maybe danger/u/ would be ignored in its entirety. Not only is the site fewer than three years old (but barely), it doesn't make any money (unless you count patreon) and I doubt it has even had a million unique monthly visitors, much less five.
Meanwhile, all the major social networks are thoroughly fucked.
| >>542960
They'd need to comply if they service any EU locations, otherwise they'd have to block those countries entirely. It's unfeasible to just create a separate standard for each individual state, so most sites change things in its entirety, screwing over not just the EU visitors, but everyone else too.
| >>542962 so this could mean that sites like Facebook, Twitter and other alternative social media sites would have to cease operations if the costs towards the EU is too much?
| Well Im calling it now
The social networks of the future will only allow text posts and only unprintable characters(like line break and tab) but no whitespace because whitespace is racist
| >>542971 in other news danger/u/ will ban white text because it represents Hitler's thoughts on a clean race.
| >>542965
Possibly, but history has shown that they'd rather try and do surgery on themselves rather than lose access to all those current and future users (ad viewers). Or perhaps back legislation/user furor to get everything reversed in a few years, when new politicians are in power.
Reading more into it, they might not even need to go that far depending on how each individual EU state enforces the new policy. The EU states can choose to be as lax or as strict as they like as long as they "follow" the directives.
But I'm just paraphrasing. The second article I linked explains it pretty thoroughly.
"It will now be up to the EU's member states to enact Article 13 and the Copyright Directive. Each country within the EU will be able to interpret the law and how it should be implemented in its own ways. Therefore one country may decide that "upload filters" should be implemented using one tool, while another may understand the law in a different."
| >>542978 I'm assuming that Swedish internet then would be unchanged then since many claimed to vote against it. But I guess you never know? UK already enforce their Communications Act, not surprising that they let this pass too.
| I hope this will push the usage of decentral internet infrastructure, like TOR.
| I should probably look into that, even if just for knowledge sake.
| danger/u/, the last bastion of free speech on the internet
| Nah, theyd just have to send a few trolls our way and we would drown in captcha hell.
| Shit
| https://edri.org/gdpr-incompatibility-blind-spot-of-copyright-debate/
| Does this law/article conflict copyleft?
| >>543795 I don't think it does, as far as I know copyleft licenses have their own clauses explaining when/how you can use the content legally
This thread is permanently archived
| >Critics argued that Article 13, and related legislation passed today by MEPs, risked infringing on freedom of speech
European politicians have voted to pass Article 13 and Article 11 as part of sweeping changes to regulation around online copyright. The European Parliament passed the legislation by 348 votes to 274.
Opponents had hoped for last-minute amendments to be made to the legislation, but failed to garner enough votes. Julia Reda, a German MEP representing the Pirate Party who opposes the copyright directive, said it was a “dark day for internet freedom”. Margrethe Vestager, European Commissioner for Competition, said the result was “great news”.
A vote on debating amendments – including an amendment to remove Article 13 and the Article 11 ‘link tax’ from the broader copyright legislation – was rejected by just five votes. EU member states now have two years to pass their own laws that put the Copyright Directive into effect.
Rapporteur Axel Voss, a member of the Christian Democratic Union of Germany, said the directive was “an important step towards correcting a situation which has allowed a few companies to earn huge sums of money without properly remunerating the thousands of creatives and journalists whose work they depend on”.
In a statement, YouTube said the final version of the directive was “an improvement” but that it remained “concerned” that Article 13 could have “unintended consequences that may harm Europe’s creative and digital economy”.
The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, which represents the global record industry, welcomed the outcome of the vote. “This world-first legislation confirms that user-upload content platforms perform an act of communication to the public,” said CEO Frances Moore.
Robert Ashcroft, chief executive of PRS for Music, which collects royalties for artists, said the new rules are "about creating a fair and functioning market for creative works of all kinds on the internet".
The days before the vote were dominated by protests across Germany, with tens of thousands of people taking to the streets to protest against what is perceived by many as online censorship.
At its core, the overarching Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market is an attempt by the European Union to rein in the power of big technology companies.
It puts copyright holders up against major technology firms and protesters who are concerned that the legislation will limit freedom of speech. The onus to stop copyrighted content from being uploaded to sites such as YouTube is a sharp departure from existing legislation governing how online platforms operate.
While ostensibly aimed at fixing copyright, many are worried that Article 13 will completely change how we share information online and make it much harder for small sites to compete with tech giants.
The whole point of the directive, according to the EU, is to spread money more evenly between the people that create content – like musicians and journalists – and the online platforms that host that content.
The EU argues that up until now, online platforms such as YouTube and Google News have been making huge sums of money by hosting or directing people to creative content – but haven’t been funnelling much of that cash back to the people who the content in the first place.
That’s where Article 13 comes in. It remains to be seen how the legislation will be implemented in practice, but Article 13 will probably be introduced in two ways. First, platforms will likely negotiate licenses with copyright holders. Second, they will implement content filters to stop copyrighted material they don’t have a license for from being uploaded in the first place.
Lobbying and campaigning around Article 13 and the broader Directive on Copyright has been fierce. It’s been pitched as David versus Goliath, but in reality it’s more of a Goliath versus Goliath.
Arguing in favour of Article 13 were the big record labels and organisations that manage copyright payments on their behalf. On the other side of the debate, you’ve got big tech firms – chief among them YouTube – that will have to work much harder to take down copyrighted content now Article 13 has been passed.
Critics of Article 13 are worried we will see a lot more cases of legitimate creative content being blocked once websites like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter are forced to stop copyrighted content from being uploaded to their platforms. Concerns have also been raised about the impact the legislation will have on smaller platforms caught in the crossfire.
Ultimately, despite all its protestations, YouTube could end up doing rather well out of Article 13. If all platforms need upload filters, Google is ideally placed to sell them. Its parent company, Alphabet, has spent more than $100 million building a copyright-detection system that’s used by more than 9,000 broadcasters, movie studios and record labels worldwide.
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/eu-article-13-vote-article-17
OP's Note:
Technically, this means they could sue danger/u/ for posting all these links to news sites, if I'm understanding this correctly. Though if the site is small enough to somehow pass through the Chinese Great Firewall, its unlikely that any but the most aggressive of censors would muster the effort to care.
For further reading:
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/what-is-article-13-article-11-european-directive-on-copyright-explained-meme-ban