Sites Warn EU Users Of Just How Bad Article 13 Will Be
from the speak-up dept
As we mentioned, a bunch of websites started protesting yesterday in the lead up to next week’s vote on Article 11 and Article 13 that will fundamentally change the nature of the internet. The main ones were various European Wikipedia editions, which completely blacked out and posted a warning message. Here’s the one in Germany (with automatic browser translation — the original, obviously, is in German):
Different sites are doing different things — and for some it depends on whether you’re visiting from the EU or not, but it’s good to see so many sites coming together on this. Reddit, as explained in a blog post on its site, are telling any EU Redditor who tries to post something new that it’s blocked:
Lots of others have stepped up as well. The ever popular online streaming site Twitch is warning people in a variety of ways, including creating a video about its concerns:
Everyday creators and viewers come together to do amazing things on Twitch. Article 13 is bad copyright reform that could limit the content you create and share. Together, we can stop this. Learn more and take action at https://t.co/KBnAWle9rc. pic.twitter.com/CZdcG7gmbp
— Twitch (@Twitch) March 21, 2019
And has also put the message all over its social media:
Patreon, the very popular website for helping creators get paid has warned its creators that under Article 13, it may need to block their content:
Today Patreon stands with European creators against Article 13 of the EU?s Copyright Directive. If Article 13 passes, all your content could be blocked before it's even posted.
Call your MEPs and ask them to vote against Article 13 at https://t.co/P7j02VJuyP #SaveYourInternet pic.twitter.com/vXEVBiW8o0
— Patreon (@Patreon) March 21, 2019
Others who have spoken up include Creative Commons and the Internet Archive:
Another site that joined in — which we’ll refrain from screenshotting — is the most popular porn site on the internet, Pornhub.
Between all of this, the question now remains: will the EU Parliament ignore all of these voices? Ignore all of the over 5 million people who signed a Petition against Article 13? Will it ignore all the companies who have said that Article 13 will put them at a disadvantage compared to Google? Will it ignore of the content creators who rely on platforms like Twitch and Patreon?
Filed Under: #saveyourinternet, article 11, article 13, censorship, copyright, eu, eu copyright directive, filters, intermediary liability
Companies: creative commons, internet archive, patreon, reddit, twitch, wikipedia
Comments on “Sites Warn EU Users Of Just How Bad Article 13 Will Be”
I don’t think you will convert anyone new to your way of thinking. Techdirt exists only so long time contributors, under a combination of fake names, AC names and “sleeper cells” can read their own bullshit. No actual thinking person takes this site seriously.
Except those that hate you,of course, they take you seriously because they hate censorship, they hate the use of feces to make arguments, and they hate promoting traitors like Chelsea Manning with awards, fame and fortune.
You have graduated into a new category – the “anti-journalism” media, where almost everything you say is supported only by your existing supporters. You have no new recruits, because you are so openly dishonest and disingenuous.
Re: Re:
The projection is strong with this one. Flagged
Re: Re: Re:
It’s almost funny how they can be so consistently dishonest in such a particular way, constantly accusing others of their own faults as though simple repetition will be enough to hide the fact that they’re nothing but a habitual liar and troll.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did you just also describe the President of the United States?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Not intentionally, but if the (golfing) shoe fits I guess…
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Gosh, it is amazing that so many commenters say the same things over and over. That the censorship policy here is a fake and a lie. That the commenters are fakers and liars. That the opinions are completely one sided and any dissent is attacked and banned.
Strange how all the commenters are so consistent, when they DON’T EVEN KNOW EACH OTHER. What they do KNOW is what EVERYBODY KNOWS – TECHDIRT is nothing more than PAID PROPOGANDA posted by FAKE PEOPLE in support of a HIDDEN and PAID Agenda.
Funny how so many people can reach the same conclusion. Is it possible that all these people are RIGHT? Dental is not a river in Africa.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Funny how so many people can reach the same conclusion.
The conclusion that your post is off topic, uses too many caps, and doesn’t have anything to say?
Funny how pro-copyright trolls descend on TD. And complain loudly when their posts get censored – but all have the same message – Corporate censorship is Wonderful if it’s called Copyright. Funny, ain’t it? Almost like paid astro turfers descend on TD to promote Copyright.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Your ramblings and paranoid delusions are up there with flat-Earthers and anti-vaxxers. Seek professional help. Seriously.
What do teeth have to do with anything?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
You have questions, I have answers: The first question relates to the compatibility of Article 13 with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (hereinafter “Charter”). First, legislators generally have quite some discretion in the way how they want to balance the different human rights of the Charter, and there is no indication that this discretion as chosen in Article 13 would be in conflict with the Charter. Article 13 as proposed by the Commission rather is envisaged as a tool to reestablish the fair balance, also aimed at by the CJEU, between authors’ human rights in their works and the other mentioned human rights; currently, the value of making available works to the public in the situation covered by Article 13 is not fairly shared (see the ALAI Resolution, in particular II). Also, the obligation to take measures “such as” content recognition technologies only result from dialogue with the right holders and must be appropriate and proportionate according to Article 13, so that there is no possible conflict with other human rights.
Re: Re: Re:4 The rationale is not the law
Mentioning these things and making a law that does honor them is not the same.
Rationale 70 states "Those exceptions and limitations should, therefore, be made mandatory in order to ensure that users receive uniform protection across the Union."
That’s nearly nice, except it says "should" in there.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
obligation to take measures “such as” content recognition technologies only result from dialogue with the right holders and must be appropriate and proportionate according to Article 13
Remember when you told us that Article 13 didn’t require automatic filters?
What a liar.
Re: Re: Re:2 3.4%
Re: Techdirt Farms remembers
Remember when you threatened to rape a mentally ill person?
Is opposing opinion allowed here, or not?
The online group Europe for Creators, argues platforms such as YouTube can at the moment "pretty much do whatever it wants" but if Article 13 became law, "a wider variety of artists will be able to monetise the use of their work" as platforms like YouTube will have to negotiate licensing deals with authors and creators.
Re: Is opposing opinion allowed here, or not?
The Copyright Directive is pro-innovation, is fair for Creators, enables the internet’s future and we support it.
We represent technology start-ups across Europe, and we support the Copyright Directive. The future of the digital landscape of our continent and our culture will be shaped. We’re pro-creativity, we’re-pro innovation and we are pro-culture.
No other proposed regulation has generated so much noise. We feel the voices of European technology start-ups have not been heard enough in this debate to date.
With any new regulation, compromise is required. Three years of negotiations between Member States, the Commission and the European Parliament have developed a text that we believe is good and so we urge our elected representatives to vote for it.
The Directive is a positive step forward in the interests of innovation and Europe’s start-ups.
The compromise text should be supported for the following reasons:
1 for creators and artists: The Directive gives them a say by strengthening their rights. It balances the relationship between creators and the businesses that rely on their content, be it producers, publishers, or online platforms. It fosters transparency by forcing big UGC platforms to be open about their rules and practices (Art. 13.8)
2 for citizens: The Directive secures these rights by explicitly banning any general monitoring or arbitrary takedowns of content. Online sharing services cannot use filters to randomly stop content. This is explicitly written in Article 13.7: “the provisions […] shall not lead to any general monitoring obligation”.
3 for uploaders and all users who want to share content online: In Article 13.2, there are provisions that protect uploaders. It provides them with new protection, forcing big UGC platforms to justify any decision to remove content. For those who want to mash-up and play around with content, it guarantees exceptions to copyright such as quotations, criticism, review, caricature, parody etc. Memes and Gifs are safe, and freedom of speech is specifically safeguarded in article 13.5
4 for a free and open internet: The new definition of article 13 specifically excludes non-profit platforms such as Wikipedia, market places, open source platforms and internet service providers, or cloud services.
5 for start-ups and innovation in Europe: we welcome the Smart Exception introduced in article 13 to protect start-ups. Today, the picture for start-ups and their use of copyright content is unclear. Article 13.4a gives start-ups a special exemption during their first three years, providing them with the legal certainty that is key for investment and growth.
The scope is very broad: any start-up below 10 M€ revenue, a threshold that covers more than 95% of European start-ups (e.g. in France, a BPI/E&Y study indicates that start up average revenue reaches 7M€ only after 9 years) and an average number of monthly unique visitors below 5 million.
The Directive will not bring “censorship” or “break the internet”. On the contrary, we fear that biased online campaigns, are in fact in danger of breaking free opinion and breaking European democracy. 74% of Europeans, in a recent Harris Interactive poll surveyed in 8 countries, think that when Tech Giants speak out, they do so to protect their own economic interest rather that the public interest. The views of Europeans cannot be ignored.
We say #Yes2copyright, we urge our Members of the European Parliament to vote yes to the current version of the Directive with no further delay.
SIGNATORIES
Jean-François Césarini; Duong Pham, fonder of PIMS; Grégoire Harel, fonder of ProArti;
Alexandre Leforestier, fonder of PanOdyssey; Olivier Laouchez, fonder of TraceTV; David Schmitz
Fonder of OpenJam; Clotilde Chalot, Fonder of NoMad Music; Nicolas Molander CEO of Session;
Rupert Hine and Alan Graham, Co-Founders of OCL; Bernt Bomer, CEO of Omnio Sound; Mike Waters, Chairman Anglo-Dutch Chamber of Commerce; Prof Dr Nigel Osborne MBE FRCM FEIS FRSE, CTO X-System; Herwig Lejsek, CEO of Videntifier Technologies ehf; Pierre Gambini, CEO of Polytopes; Gilles Moyse, Fonder of reciTAL; Marc Leprat, Fonder of Viewpay; Damien Callerot
CEO, co-fonder of Polkatulk/scenso.tv
Re: Re: Is opposing opinion allowed here, or not?
The privacy-focused European search engine Qwant has declared its support for the European Copyright Directive and will set aside money to pay creators and journalists for work that generates income for the platform.
"To prove to you how far I’m going to support this directive, I’m announcing that, before the vote even happens, Qwant will start paying content creators – news organizations for articles, photographers for photos – and the creators of music and video that our search engine indexes,”
Qwant’s chief executive, Eric Léandri, said in an interview with Les Echos.
Qwant, which describes itself as “the first search engine which protects its users freedoms and ensures that the digital ecosystem remains healthy,” is setting a powerful example in a debate where Google and its sister company YouTube have come out guns blazing against the Copyright Directive.
Mr. Léandri also called for the creation of a public, open-source platform to identify copyright protected material and determine who should be paid for it.
Regarding Article 13, which requires platforms like Facebook or YouTube to take responsibility for copyright-protected content posted by users of their services, Mr. Léandri told Les Echos:
“There is a risk that the filtering technologies would belong to Google, which just invested $100 million to improve its “Content ID” tool, or Facebook, which is doing the same thing. That would mean that the Tech Giants would become “gatekeepers” of the web and would be able to influence the destiny of messaging platforms, social networks, cloud storage specialists, etc. They would be able to gather users’ data and spy on the businesses of the smallest actors.”
He said the idea of the open source content-identification system would be that “companies that depend on the Web would be able to check with it to see whether the content they are using is copyright protected or not. For example, you send a photo you want to use and the system answers “yes” or “no” depending on a fingerprint associate with it. It’s a lot simpler technically than people thing. And fairer.”
In a post on Qwant’s Medium account, the company said it “will help bring these technologies to life as quickly as possible and will propose standards that will reconcile the respect for intellectual property rights, European sovereignty, and the defense of a free and open Internet.”
Re: Re: Re: Only when it's honest
And now someone’s sunk to merely copy/pasting PR fluff in favor of the trainwreck.
Getting a little desperate in the face of the protests are we?
Re: Re: Re:2 Only when it's honest
About Us
We are EUROPE FOR CREATORS. A gathering of professional organisations of writers, musicians, producers, comedians, films makers coming from all over Europe…. We represent some 12 million* jobs across the European cultural and creative sectors. We are people, not bots. And we are protesting against the false divide that has been put between citizens and us.
Join us in our fight to allow culture to flourish so that we can keep entertaining, enriching and inspiring you today… and in the future. Share this site to spread the word. Our moment is now. We will not get another.
You can find a version of article.13 org in
German: https://www.article13.de
Italian: https://www.article13.it
Croatian: https://www.clanak13.org
French: https://www.article13.info
Czech: https://www.clanek13.org
Spanish: https://www.article13.es
Romanian: https://www.articolul13.org/
Polish: https://razemdlakultury.eu/
Portuguese: https://www.article13.pt
Re: Re: Re:3 Only when it's honest
paid birch says what?
Re: Re: Re:3 Only when it's honest
I slowly get the impression all the Pro-Uploadfilter posts here are done by the same outfit, namely astroturfer "Europe for Creators".
Apparently launched around 2018-08-18:
https://societe.sacem.fr/en/press-resources/per-publication/press-releases/europe-creators-launches-campaign-support-eu-copyright-directive
There is this lobbying-agency involved: https://elanedelman.com/
And it’s probably run/commissioned by GESAC: http://authorsocieties.eu/
Re: Re: Re:4 Only when it's honest
If GESAC is anything like the Authors Guild in the US, then they’re also a publishers’ front group only paying lip service to the actual creators.
Re: Re: Re:2 Only when it's honest
And now someone’s sunk to merely copy/pasting PR fluff in favor of the trainwreck.
Amusingly, under Article 13, I’d probably need to delete these unlicensed works and not allow them to be reposted…
Re: Re: Re:3 Only when it's honest
Hadn’t even thought of that angle actually, but now that you point it out there is something delightfully funny about defending a bill using methods that would be prohibited as far too risky to allow, were said bill to actually pass.
As if the desperation-spamming wasn’t funny enough already…
Re: Re: Re:4 Only when it's honest
Amusingly, you are convincing when you try to look stupid. Why is that? Acting stupid and ignoring facts seems to come naturally to you.
Re: Re: Re:5 Only when it's honest
Hi Ivan. I fucked your girlfriend.
Re: Re: Re:6 Only when it's honest
“Hi Ivan I ###### your girlfriend”
-European creative society AstroTurfers ladies and gents lol
My god show these comments during the vote we will win a solid against lol
Re: Re: Re:5 Only when it's honest
Oh dearie, dearie me…..we ARE getting desperate, aren’t we? More and disjointed ramblings, sounding like a demented and rather sad mentally ill being. Suggest some psychiatric treatment would be the order of the day. Mind you, a mental breakdown wouldn’t be a bad idea. At least the comments section might actually be free of the total and utter drivel spouted by the regular troll.
Re: Re: Re:4 Only when it's honest
Yea, funny. Too bad he’s lying about it. Shocking, right?
But if you want to try and show me in Article 13 where it says quoting the text of a press release would be illegal, we’ll sit and wait. And laugh.
Re: Re: Re:5 Only when it's honest
Simple. Quoting press releases would require fair use. But fair use is a defense in your world which you’d rather believe doesn’t exist.
Re: Re: Re:6 Only when it's honest
So nothing in Article 13 says that. Gotcha. Thanks
Re: Re: Re:7 Only when it's honest
Yes, thanks for confirming once again you don’t believe fair use exists.
Re: Re: Re:8 Only when it's honest
Hmm. You sound confused. Of course I believe fair use exists. I’m a strong supporter of it.
Now then, do you want to try again and show us where in Article 13 it says that Masnick couldn’t quote from a press release?
Or are you just basically conceding that he is indeed a pathological liar?
Re: Re: Re:9 Only when it's honest
Hey Astro-Boy. Since you are being so dishonest, let me explain.
Nothing in Article 13 allows Fair Use. Filters can’t tell between fair use and infringement. Everything must be filtered. Fair use would be banned.
Linking to an article explaining it would violate Article 11, which is even more amusing.
Upload filters are censorship, plain and simple.
Re: Re: Re:10 Only when it's honest
Nothing in Article 13 allows Fair Use.
Lie.
Everything must be filtered. Fair use would be banned.
Lie
Linking to an article explaining it would violate Article 11, which is even more amusing.
Lie
As it’s perfectly legal to post text from a law or bill, I’d ask you to post where in Article 13 it says what you claim, but that would be a waste of time.
Because the reality is that we both know you’re lying. Don’t we?
Mike Masnick is perfectly aware he’s lying about Article 13 as well.
Re: Re: Re:10 Only when it's honest
Techdirt is really crowded today with Google-funded liars.
So since they refuse to tell you the truth, I will.
This is quoted directly from Article 13:
Member States shall ensure that users in all Member States* are able to rely on the following existing exceptions and limitations when uploading and making available content generated by users on online content sharing services:
(a) quotation, criticism, review;
(b) use for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche."
It’s really too bad that Techdirt actively attempts to misinform people. Shameful, really.
Re: Re: Re:11 Only when it's honest
Okay.. Unfounded accusations it is… How much does the legacy copyright industry paying you to shill for them? And, have you stopped beating your spouse yet?
Please provide a citation where Techdirt misinformed people with a cogent rebuttal why it was misinformation.
Re: Re: Re:12 Only when it's hones
Read the posts above yours, Einstein… wtf
Re: Re: Re:13 Only when it's h
Oh, I did. You claimed TD is misinforming people but you didn’t back up your assertion what the allegedly misinformation was. Copy and pasting parts of article 13 doesn’t tell anyone about what you are alleging.
Re: Re: Re:10 Only when it's honest
Fair use is not banned. Please don’t lie to the readers.
From Article 13:
“Member States shall ensure that users in all Member States are able to rely on the following existing exceptions and limitations when uploading and making available content generated by users on online content sharing services:
(a) quotation, criticism, review;
(b) use for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche."
Re: Re: Re:11 Only when it's honest
How do you write an algorithm that can identify fair use? Working code please, as nerd harder, or use AI. are not useful answers.
Re: Re: Re:12 Only when it's hones
Techdirt wouldn’t need filters. Masnick knows this. In fact, when Article 13 passes, he’s going to be eating crow for a very long time, as I plan on constantly reminding him how he lied to his readers that it would.
If something infringing is posted on a website, a website doesn’t automatically self destruct because it doesn’t have filters. In fact, nothing happens unless the the rightsholder informs the website. It would just stay there if no one complained. But if a rightsholder did complain, then the site owner would need to remove the infringement. "But what if it’s fair use?" Yes, what if. If the two parties want to escalate a situation to litigation, then that’s what happens. In other words, just like it currently is. And since fair use is protected in Article 13, the site owner would win.
Masnick already polices his site so that pornography doesn’t appear in the user comments. He doesn’t have other infringing material posted either. He has nothing to worry about, and more importantly, he knows it. Yet he still lies to the people that read Techdirt.
This isn’t difficult to understand. If you want be dishonest and pretend it is, keep on keepin’ on.
Re: Re: Re:13 Only when it's h
He never had to censor… But this affects everyone in the uk who would be under the new rules and other countries at risk through attempts through international agreements yo spread the rules elsewhere.
Re: Re: Re:14 Only when it
It’s the WORLD WIDE Web. It affects everyone. And Techdirt has nothing to worry about, which is explained numerous times above. Or has that been CENSORED so you can’t read it? Oh the irony.
Re: Re: Re:13 Only when it's h
then explain Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. case which lasted for 11 years and cost millions of $
Re: Re: Re:13 Only when it's h
Actually no.
Paragraph 4(a) specifically spells out that a site needs to "make best efforts to obtain an authorization". There is no contingency wording there that allows a site just to ignore content from users until such a time a notification shows up informing that the content belongs to someone else. The site must verify all content from users all the time, otherwise they are in breach of 4(a) and will be liable.
Re: Re: Re:14 Only when it
Actually, yes. Because you’re dishonest and didn’t post the full paragraph. Why not?
The part after what you posted:
"(b) made, in accordance with high industry standards of professional diligence, best efforts to ensure the unavailability of specific works and other subject matter for which the rightholders have provided the service providers with the relevant and necessary information, and in any event
(c) acted expeditiously, upon receiving a sufficiently substantiated notice by the rightholders, to remove from their websites or to disable access to the notified works and subject matters, and made best efforts to prevent their future uploads in accordance with paragraph (b)."
Re: Re: Re:15 Care to try again?
Neither B or C replace A, and neither of those say a site can leave stuff up until they are notified that it’s a problem, they merely state that after they’ve been informed that something might be infringing, they need to take it down ‘expeditiously’ and keep it from being reposted, which could absolutely ding fair use if the first use was infringing and the second use isn’t, because, as people have pointed out many times now, filters can’t tell infringing from fair use.
Re: Re: Re:15 Only whe
Perhaps you need to understand what you read.
b) is totally contingent on that a) is satisfied.
Which means, if the site doesn’t try to find the rightsholder for any user content they fail both a) and b) directly – ie they will be breaking the law.
Which you said is just fine…
Re: Re: Re:14 Only when it
How do you get authorization from 7 billion people?
Re: Re: Re:13 Only when it's h
Masnick already polices his site so that pornography doesn’t appear in the user comments.
I wasn’t aware Techdirt was the sort of site that had pornography posted in user comments. This isn’t 4chan.
Why, have you been looking for it?
Re: Re: Re:14 Only when it
2-1 bet that the reason these guys have been whining about "revenge porn" is because the spam filter here blocked them from posting it.
Re: Re: Re:10 Only when it's honest
It’s a funny coincidence that it seems roughly as impossible to educate this pro-13 bot that it’s completely full of shit, as it would be to tell filtering software how to distinguish fair use from infringement.
Re: Re: Re:6 Only when it's honest
Fair Use is a concept from US Law which does not have a direct translation to EU copyright law. (And when I talk about EU copyright law I should look at copyright law of the member states individually.)
Most EU member states allow quoting from news reports and press releases, but I’m not sure whether all member states allow it. Another issue is that one might be required to pay a fee to some licensing organisation for the privilege of (what would be fair use) copying from news reports.
Can you imagine the fun for Mike when he has to deal with 27 national (EU) licencing organisations for his US website? And the effects for smaller websites?
Re: Re: Re:7 Only when it's honest
Can you see those same organizations dealing with the millions of requests from people with web sites?
Re: Re: Re:8 Only when it's honest
Would either of you two care to quote from Article 13 and tell us how such a laughably silly situation could actually arise?
I’ll wait…
Re: Re: Re:7 'Or I could NOT do that...'
Can you imagine the fun for Mike when he has to deal with 27 national (EU) licencing organisations for his US website? And the effects for smaller websites?
I can, and it can be summed up in one word:
‘Nope’
Re: Re: Re:5 Only when it's honest
The press release is copyrighted. Unless the press release is accompanied by an open license allowing it to be copied by anyone and to be re-distributed it would be an infringement according to article 17 (the articles has been revised, 13 -> 17).
Re: Re: Re:6 'Article 13? What's that? Nothing bad there...'
(the articles has been revised, 13 -> 17)
Wait, are they seriously trying to dodge protests by changing the number? Unless I’m misread your comment that is beyond pathetic and childish(and yet, would be completely within character for them…)
Re: Re: Re:7 'Article 13? What's that? Nothing bad there...'
Sorry, no, they always do that, to get rid of stuff like article-numbers like 9b and such they inserted before.
The should have used basic-convention:
Article 10
Article 20
Article 30
Goto Article 10
Re: Re: Re:8 'Article 13? What's that? Nothing bad there...'
Ah, so not a nefarious action, just a stupid system, gotcha.
Re: Re: Re:6 Only when it's honest
Are you dense? I just posted an actual excerpt from Article 13 showing why this was such a ridiculous lie.
Re: Re: Re:7 Only when it's honest
No, I’m not dense – but the language of the articles makes it open to interpretation.
If something is copied wholesale, doesn’t matter what it is, without an accompanying text declaring the context you are implicitly breaking the law according to the articles. Unless the thing you are copying has a license attached which allows the use without context.
Re: Re: Re:6 Only when it's honest
Rocky, remember that Article 11 prohibits open licenses just as the Spanish link-tax does. So that isn’t an out.
Re: Re: Re:5 Only when it's honest
Please specify exactly what he is lying about, because if you can’t you are the liar.
Re: Re: Re:6 Only when it's honest
I did. Read the the thread. Or do you just enjoy playing dumb?
Re: Re: Re:7 Only when it's honest
I’m not playing dumb, it’s just you making unspecified claims of lying because you don’t really understand the legal ramifications of the articles.
Re: Re: Re:5 Only when it's honest
Yea, funny. Too bad he’s lying about it. Shocking, right?
Not lying. Accurately explaining what the law says.
But if you want to try and show me in Article 13 where it says quoting the text of a press release would be illegal, we’ll sit and wait. And laugh.
Easy. Quoting from the final text. First it says that the traditional intermediary liability protections no longer apply to copyright:
Then, it says I will face liability if I have not made "best efforts" to obtain authorization:
So, unless I have made an effort to license all such content — and, yes, content of a press release is covered by copyright — I face liability. Thus, I would need to delete it. Even worse, I face liability if I somehow fail to prevent it from being reuploaded:
So I would need to invest in a filter which I will not do. Thus, to avoid such crippling costs and liability, I am likely to block all EU commenters from commenting on the site, and certainly remove any such obviously copied content as soon as it appears, since leaving it up would put me at significant risk of being shut down.
So, yes, I would need to take that content down to avoid the crippling costs of this liability. Or, more likely, block anyone from the EU from commenting.
So stop lying and insisting this the law does not say this. It absolutely does.
Re: Re: Re:6 Only when it's honest
Don’t see the astro-boys replying. Thanks for the coherent reply, Mike. (I know I am one of the more acerbic regulars here.) The level of lies from the pro-13 folks is absurd. Who other than corporate spokedrones could really be so in favor of upload filters?
Re: Re: Re:7 Only when it's honest
" Who other than corporate spokedrones could really be so in favor of upload filters?"
Oh. LOADS of people. The overly religious, the overly prudish, the "I’m right and you’re an idiot" groups, etc.
That such would "filter" things other than what they’re up in arms about doesn’t matter to them.
"Terrorists!" "The CHILDREN!" "Criminals!"
Re: Re: Re:8 Only when it's honest
That such would "filter" things other than what they’re up in arms about doesn’t matter to them.
And never once is the thought ‘What could happen if I support this tool to remove what I consider ‘objectionable content’, and then someone with enough power finds what I say ‘objectionable’?’ raised, because of course they are Right, and that would never happen…
Re: Re: Re:6 Only when it's honest
Or, more likely, block anyone from the EU from commenting.
But please refrain from doing stupid shit like lumping all of Europe (or even RIPE addresses) into the "EU", like some US newspapers do. Not everyone in Europe is in the EU http://mapsof.net/uploads/static-maps/eu_member_states_map.jpg
Of course its safe to assume that Switzerland and the UK will follow up with the same kind of monopoly-granting-laws as the EU, they’ve always done so before. Iceland however might not.
Re: Re: Re:3 Only when it's honest
More "malicious compliance" Mike? That would never do.
Re: Re: Re:3 Only when it's honest
Who, exactly, would tell you to do that?
Btw, your protests today? Uh, whoops. You would have been better off just sticking to lying to everyone on the front page of websites.
Re: Re: Is opposing opinion allowed here, or not?
I’m sorry bro Your tldr and sponsored bullshit put me to sleep.
Re: Is opposing opinion allowed here, or not?
I’m negotiating with them now.
I want no less than $100/play for my 5 minute, 4 song, 3 chord multi-billion dollar movie that they can pay me to host or everyone will have to pirate it.
If they don’t pay me, they are facilitating piracy
An Open Letter to Techdirt
15 March 2019
After almost three years’ worth of in-depth examinations and negotiations involving the three EU Institutions, 28 Member States, 751 MEPs, and thousands of experts and stakeholders, the European Parliament is about to take a formal decision on the directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market.
The aim of one of the main provisions of this directive – Article 13 – is to ensure that platforms such as Techdirt fairly compensate the creators whose works are made available through their services. In other words, to play fair and respect the creators who made Techdirt what it is today.
We believe that the Copyright Directive will create a level playing field for the European Digital Single Market, with fair and equal rules for all.
Techdirt has been actively using its own services to influence public opinion, often with misleading or false information
There is ample public debate around this directive and your right to defend your position, as a concerned party, is not in question. Indeed, the positions you have taken in the media or through your own videos against Article 13 are well known and nourish the public debate.
However, since the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly on Sept. 12 to approve its version of the Copyright Directive, YouTube has been actively using its own services to influence public opinion, often with misleading or false information.
You have taken advantage of your considerable influence over 1.8 billion monthly users as the biggest media entity in the world to:
Circulate your own message to video makers and YouTubers
Create a uniquely formatted page, similar to SaveYourInternet, on Youtube.com
Create a portal comprising all videos defending your position on Article 13
Run banners, pop-ups and push notifications on YouTube defending your point of view and directing traffic to your unique YouTube.com webpage
This is unprecedented and raises ethical questions.
Moreover, YouTube enabled the propagation of misinformation – such as the claims that Article 13 would lead to the shutting down of YouTube channels, kill European startups, put an end to memes and gifs and harm freedom of speech. In other words: change the Internet as we know it. Such scaremongering deliberately ignores the special protections provided in the text and misleads public opinion.
We believe our views also need to be voiced to your audience. That is what freedom of speech is all about.
It interferes with the democratic and balanced debate that all European citizens are entitled to. We believe it is totally unfair and unacceptable that your service, which dominates the online market, is exclusively used as a media company to promote your own commercial interests in a debate over European legislation.
You advocate freedom of expression but what we have seen is a media service dedicated to the promotion of its own views, based on false information and scare tactics. We believe in pluralism and open, democratic debate. We believe our views also need to be voiced to your audience. That is what freedom of speech is all about.
This is why we are asking you to let us, over the week of March 18-24:
send a message to the same YouTubers so we can share with them our vision of article 13 – the one we promote on our website, http://www.article 13.org.
publish banner ads on YouTube as you did for the “saveyourinternet” campaign
Acting as a media company requires responsibility and accountability to ensure democratic debate.
Best regards,
EUROPE FOR CREATORS
DOWNLOAD THE LETTER
We have gathered information on how YouTube used its dominant network to influence users and Members of European Parliament. Please read it – our Democracy is under attack.
ACCESS THE YOUTUBE CASE
They speak about this initiative:
https://theindustryobserver.thebrag.com/european-creators-slam-youtube-for-pushing-false-information-and-scare-tactics-over-copyright-directive/
https://musically.com/2019/03/18/pro-article-13-bodies-ask-for-access-to-youtube-promo-tools/
Re: An Open Letter to [Insert company here]
Okay, that got a laugh, couldn’t even be bothered to write a custom message, just swapped Youtube our for Techdirt in random places even when it was completely nonsensical.
You ain’t fooling anyone with that spam, but you sure as hell are entertaining.
Re: Re: An Open Letter to [Insert company here]
You know the really interesting thing about Article 13? Is nearly IMPOSSIBLE to find Pro-13 sites using Google, but REALLY EASY using other search engines. Sure, they’re not as polished as Google, but they actually are FAIR in their searching, with a combination of positive and negative references.
That’s so refreshing!
Re: Re: Re: An Open Letter to [Insert company here]
That’s nice. Irrelevant even assuming it was actually true, but hey, knock yourself out spinning conspiracy theories I guess.
Re: Re: Re:2 An Open Letter to [Insert company here]
Trump colluded with Russia to Win the American Election!
Oh wait, that’s your conspiracy theory, right?
Try Googling Article 13 and see what you find, genius.
Re: Re: Re:3 An Open Letter to [Insert company here]
Sorry reality hurts bro.
Re: Re: Re:3 An Open Letter to [Insert company here]
No one cares.
You yourself most likely searched lots of anti 13 searchers on Google training it to show you anti 13 results. It’s the same reason I can search for chief and get AWS and my mom gets cooking results.
But seriously, no one cares that you can’t use a search engine correctly.
Re: Re: Re: An Open Letter to [Insert company here]
Prove it cuntsicke.
Re: Re: Re: An Open Letter to [Insert company here]
Google tends to change results based on user feedback and selection. If you can’t find anti Article 13 sites from it, you suck at using google. It is also fairly easy to publish google results for others to verify your claims. Just like this site, your comments and viewpoints are filtered out so the rest of us don’t have to see them after the first dozen or so people have flagged you. Same thing for Anti article 13 sites. They are badly written, have almost no actual message or valid arguments, but sure, you can’t find them so it must be a conspiracy. I bet you hate how far down flat earth sites are as well.
If you are mentally unwell, you will tend to find most of the world doesn’t share your views or opinions. That doesn’t mean we are all conspiring against you, it just means you don’t understand how the real world works and blaming everyone else is always a losing proposition.
Re: Re: Re:2 An Open Letter to [Insert company here]
I find it humorous that some people think everyone gets the same results from a Google search.
Re: Re: Re:3 An Open Letter to [Insert company here]
Well, it does explain the mindset of some of these people. Since they don’t know what Google actually is or how it actually works, it’s not surprising they support things that are utterly idiotic or insane in reality. It’s just a shame that there’s enough of those ignorant people in power…
Re: Re: An Open Letter to [Insert company here]
Also forgot to replace it everywhere:
That would be some very impressive feats from TechDirt.
Re: An Open Letter to Techdirt
An open letter to your mom. Does she get paid in euros or rubles?
Re: An Open Letter to your mom
“You have taken advantage of your considerable influence over 1.8 billion monthly users as the biggest media entity in the world to”
Mike why are you more popular than The king of pop ever was?
Re: Re: An Open Letter to your mom
Yeah, I thought blue said that less than 27 Bangladeshis read this site. No one reasonable is supposed to come here. And now there’s 1.8 billion of them?
Re: Re: An Open Letter to your mom
Masnick doesn’t fuck children?
Re: Re: Re: An Open Letter to your mom
Copyrights best and brightest right here boys and girls.
Re: Re: An Open Letter to your mom
"Mike why are you more popular than The king of pop ever was?"
In the eyes of Baghdad Bob/Blue/Jhon "Mike" is the shadowy leader of a global conspiracy capable of commanding a multiple-million army of demonstrators and coordinate several multinational IT companies, all in order to ensure that artists starve in the streets because their owners aren’t getting paid enough.
And if Baghdad Bob only manages to convince enough people of this Saddam will keep reigning over Iraq.
Re: An Open Letter to Techdirt
Cobblers.
What really amuses me is the people pushing this agenda telling everyone with a vested interest in the matter that they are just misunderstanding the matter. Well it’s the job of people with a vested interest to understand the matter, so the people pushing this agenda are either A) outright lying, B) the ones who really don’t understand what they are talking about, or C) suck so bad at their jobs nobody knows what the hell they are talking about. None of these options motivate me to support this agenda.
It would be wise of them not to ignore us
Between all of this, the question now remains: will the EU Parliament ignore all of these voices? Ignore all of the over 5 million people who signed a Petition against Article 13? Will it ignore all the companies who have said that Article 13 will put them at a disadvantage compared to Google? Will it ignore of the content creators who rely on platforms like Twitch and Patreon?
If they do ignore us, it would be the biggest gift to right wing nationalist and populist Euroskeptics. They often speak of how much of a den of corruption the Union is, and with campaign season coming up, it would proving the Euroskeptics right to ignore the will of millions of people and embolden the likes of Italy and Poland to lead their little "European Spring" against the likes of France and Gernany…
Re: It would be wise of them not to ignore us
"If they do ignore us, it would be the biggest gift to right wing nationalist and populist Euroskeptics."
That’s probably the saddest outcome here. With every established and traditional political falling all over themselves to exculpate every excess of corruption coming from Brussels the only ones to pick up a healthy dose of EU-skepticism is…the brownshirts and ultranationalists.
We only have to look at the UK – Farage may be a bigot in charge of a party of bigots, but all he had to do was be the only one revealing that the emperor in brussels was naked and he suddenly established more credibility than the rest of the UK’s political parties could muster.
The same holds true in the rest of europe as well. The EU is already eating itself. Looking at every time through history that European Unification has been the agenda, this should come as no great surprise.
How about something like the 2257 custodian that is used by porn sites to verify performer age?
The adult tube sites already have to comply with something even more draconian than Article 13, yet they thrive. How is that possible?
Re: Re:
You must be getting desperate in looking for an example equivalent to article 13, as that law applies to producers of porn, and not the distributors. So unless a porn site is hiring its own performers, that law does not apply to them.
Re: Re:
2257… you mean the thing that Malibu Media thinks is stupid to follow?
It’s interesting to note the similarity between articles 11&13, Pai’s NN repeal, amd Trump’s border wall – That to date there is as yet zero truthful claims made to support either of them.
Re: Re:
Interesting, and telling. The only reason I can think of to lie that much is if the truth would shoot their arguments in the back, so the fact that they do nothing but lie to defend their respective positions would seem to be a pretty clear indicator that they can’t defend them honestly.
Re: Re: Re:
Pretty clear the comments are being flooded with astro-turfers to obfuscate the problems with 11 and 13.
Rather amusing that they are shouting "Liar!" at regulars, while spouting outrageous falsehoods about 13 and fair use.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Preemptive projection in a failed attempt at defending their dishonesty perhaps?
If people point out that they are lying, then they are on the defensive and have to prove that what they are saying is honest and true. Since, as is very clear by this point they can’t, it’s much easier to accuse others of lying and try to shift the burden of proof away from themselves.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
And considering that idiot has called debunkers "google shills" in much the same way as, as Techdirt has covered, other Article 13 supporters have flagrantly lied in claiming that Google was the biggest copyright directive lobbyist….
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I saw a chart on that today. Out of the top nine lobbyists for/against Article 13, 8/9 were SUPPORTERS of the law, and Google only placed at 6th. (not that I need to tell you specifically that, just thought it needed to be said here)
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
That is a classic KGB and probably larger authoritarian manipulation technique – if you can’t get trust because you are untrustworthy bastards try to get everyone else distrusted to get at the same level and excuse your own lies.
Sighs Probably.
Tell me again your criterion for censoring (hiding) comments. Many of the hidden comments above simply present a different point of view about Article 13. They are not defamatory, they are not stupid, the are reasonably well written and interesting.
Why are they hidden again?
Oh yeah – I get it. We all get it.
There is no opinion but your own that is allowed to be viewed on this site.
Fascist site that this is, not surprising.
You are fascists and cower, tremble and hide like cowards in the face of any view but your own.
Re: Re:
Have a flag and a nice day!
Re: Re: A mystery, truly
You almost have to wonder sometimes, are they just spamming/whining for the hell of it, or do they somehow think that if they whine just one more time about comments being flagged magically people will decide to stop flagging their stuff for reasons clear to everyone but them?
Re: Re: Re: A mystery, truly
Have you ever considered we want to be censored so we can take measurements?
Re: Re: Re:2 A mystery, truly
There there was no censoring, just user moderation which it seems you don’t understand.
If you find your post being flagged repeatedly it only means you can’t discourse with people in a civil manner. That’s on you, not everyone else.
Re: Re: Re:2 Bluff check: Failed
Well at least that’s a new way to try to get people to stop flagging your comments, even if it’s not going to be any more successful than previous attempts…
Re: Re: Re:2 A mystery, truly
"Have you ever considered we want to be censored so we can take measurements?"
When everyone forced to listen to you ends up booing and hissing at you that doesn’t make it censorship.
It means everyone is, apparently, thinking that you are a lying douchebag and decides to tune you out.
But I guess for a copyright cultist such as yourself Vox Populi is high heresy, right?
Re: Re:
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
Re: Re: Re:
I think you are mistaking evident with “in evidence”. The totalitarian nature of this fascist site is evident.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Indeed, the totalitarian nature of this fascist site is evident even to The Casual Observer.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
So you guys finally learned how to mask your IP address. What an achievement!
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
So are you paid in euros or rubles bro?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
The Russian Collusion story is over, bro.
Trump is turning the big ship.
And even better times are ahead.
The whole country is tired of the Russian Collusion hoax.
But you’re not from this country, are you?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
By taking money away from military schools for his wall? Sure, if that’s supposed to be "better times".
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Donny still not gonna touch it. Even if you wear the ivanka mask.
Re: Re: Re:4 you sound worried bro
Muller report just got served up hot and fresh.
Blondie Supports Article 13
Some people don’t think Article 13 is good. But artists have voiced their support for the online overhaul.
Film director Pedro Almodovar and Abba’s Benny Andersson are among some of those who favour Article 13.
Writing in The Guardian, Debbie Harry, the lead singer of Blondie said the law would "significantly improve the ability of the creative community to secure fair deals for the use of their work by user-uploaded content services such as YouTube."
Re: Blondie Supports Article 13
That is disappointing, but it’s also worth noting that those people had their heydays pre-internet. People who grew up with and understand the internet seem to have far less of an issue with it. Which, in itself, is a good argument against article 13 – if the only people who support it are those who don’t understand what it actually does, then why listen to those people?
Re: Blondie Supports Article 13
I’d also add that my exposure to the works of those people happened because of either piracy of sharing. The first album of Abba’s I listened to was borrowed (though, my musical tastes changed rather severely since then!). I watched Videodrome for the first time on a pirated VHS as it was heavily cut in the legal UK version, while Almodovar’s Talk To Her I watched in Spain at a language class but the teacher had copied it for use in the classroom rather than having to keep bringing a copy in class.
I’ve since bought Videodrome at least 3 times since then, while I also have a fairly comprehensive Almodovar DVD collection. Even if article 13 was effective at what it’s claiming to do (and it absolutely won’t be), these people are literally asking people not to become fans of their work.
Re: Re: Blondie Supports Article 13
Would it be fair to say that they see the advantages of Article 13 that you don’t see? Or perhaps they don’t look at the situation in the same way you look at the situation? Maybe they have a legitimate reason for their view that you have not thought of? Is it possible that both their view and your view are both legitimate but very different?
Re: Re: Re:
By all means, point out the legitimate positive advantages of Article 13.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Wait! It is possible that the AC is right. There might be some way for Blondie and other over-the-hill artist’s where they might be able to leverage their legacy gatekeepers into increasing the cash flow to the artist through Articles 11 and 13 or 17 (as some are now calling it for some reason I cannot fathom as the explanation came without proof). Like maybe agreeing to not sue the shit out of them for withholding royalties due.
Without knowing the details of their contracts or of ongoing negotiations, we might not know about such ‘opportunities’. There may be other opportunities as well, but none of them would benefit anyone other than the over-the-hill artist’s and/or the legacy gatekeepers, in their struggle to claw back the money wasted when they were rich and foresaw unending income possibilities that…ended. That goes for both the gatekeepers and the over-the-hill artists who no longer do live shows.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Isn’t it odd that a website that isn’t frequented by reasonable readers suddenly enjoys the influence of 1.8 billion people and necessitates objective reporters to swoop in and offer alternative perspectives? Strange indeed…
Re: Re: Re:2 'You know, those advantages... those vague, unnamed ones...'
Strangely enough that’s a question that never seems to be answered, or if it is the answers are quickly exposed to be fatally flawed in any number of ways.
They are of course more than welcome to put forth what they think those ‘advantages’ are for people to examine and dissect them to see how they hold up under scrutiny, but honestly I don’t expect much, if anything, at this point.
Re: Re: Re: Blondie Supports Article 17
There is no advantages to be found in Article 17, unless you are a licensee-broker or have some filter-technology you want to sell.
Also, artists aren’t generally remembered for their brilliant thinking – so I wouldn’t bet any money on them being right.
Re: Re: Re: Blondie Supports Article 13
"Would it be fair to say that they see the advantages of Article 13 that you don’t see? "
That’s possible. But, if they have, they need to tell us what those are. All I’ve read so far is delusional nonsense that requires complete ignorance of how the internet actually works to agree with.
"Is it possible that both their view and your view are both legitimate but very different?"
No, they’re pretty much mutually exclusive, again unless there’s something that not been mentioned yet that I’m missing.
Re: Blondie Supports Article 17
The ones supporting article 17 has managed to bamboozle a lot of people that it’s just about youtube paying it’s fair share.
And for some reasons the ones lobbying the articles has tried their damned best to make it all about Google and Youtube, which is extremely disingenuous since it affects every site with UGC.
Re: Re: 'You owe me more for the free platform you gave me!'
The ones supporting article 17 has managed to bamboozle a lot of people that it’s just about youtube paying it’s fair share.
I’d put ‘fair share’ in quotes personally, because as far as I can tell they already go above and beyond that point. People choose to post their stuff on YT, at no cost to them, if they get a cut of the money YT makes from the content that should be seen as a bonus, not their ‘dues’ or something they are owed.
If they think they can get more elsewhere, or think that YT’s not sharing the money as much as it should they are welcome to remove their content from YT and try it themselves(perhaps try the traditional labels, see how well that works out for them), see how much they make then, but demanding that the platform they are granted at no cost to them pay them what they think they should get demonstrates an entitled mindset, as though being allowed to use the platform gives them the right to decide what their cut should be.
Re: Re: Re: 'You owe me more for the free platform you gave me!'
YouTube does an excellent job as an ad broker for its content partners.
Re: Re: Re:2 'You owe me more for the free platform you gave me!'
I… honestly have no idea what point you’re trying to make there. Could you try again please?
Re: Blondie Supports Article 13
In other words: Some established (retired) artists support the directive because they think it will increase their income.
If new and innovative artists are restricted from building an audience, that means that the old artists (and their heirs) can rest on their old glory, while still receiving money.
Re: Blondie Supports Article 13
ABBA was the band that also supported the Pirate Bay trial, so… not sure what kind of Pulitzer-winning prose you were expecting with that reveal.
Plenty of porn outfits used to stand on the side of John Steele, too.
Re: Blondie Supports Article 13
This one has gone over to the dark side, I fear: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/22/musician-shocked-opposition-eu-copyright-law-youtube-debbie-harry-blondie
Re: Re: Blondie Supports Article 13
Well that was certainly worth a chuckle.
‘Value gap’, no mention of anything but Google and Youtube, making the downright laughable claim that Youtube is taking the livelihoods of musicians away…
I swear, it’s like a mixture of fractal wrongness and the repeatedly debunked talking points that have been kicked around for the trainwreck all rolled into one.
Re: Re: Blondie Supports Article 13
We will all “go over to the dark side” when we get old. We’ll all expect things to continue to be the same way they were when we were young, and fall into backwards thinking as a result. That’s why I hope I decide to take up completely new interests when I get old.
Re: Re: Re: Blondie Supports Article 13
Speak for yourself Biff.
We are not all the same and we all will not be doing the same things when we get old as that is just silly … no – it is ignorant.
Re: Hamilton Supports ????
Hey hamilton I don’t have a reporter outfit with a private eye detective one work instead?
Re: Blondie Supports Article 13
Dear TechDirt community: the flag button is not for comments you disagree with. Please stop flagging comments that are not abusive, trolling, or spam. You are just playing into the actual trolls’ hands.
Yes I know this is pointless I just wanted to say it anyway.
Unless someone else wants to correct me, there are no positive advantages of article 13. Every argument I’ve seen in favour of it is utterly delusional. Even in terms of just protecting the legacy industries, they’re missing a bunch of unintended consequences
Re: Re:
Well, I might hazard a reply. Perhaps Blondie thinks that when she considers her own situation, and her own collection of property that she has accumulated over the years, and how to market that properly to her best advantage, she sees a better opportunity to meet her goals with Article 13. Maybe she is right, maybe she is wrong, maybe you are right, maybe you are wrong. The future is a very unpredictable place, we all have trouble predicting it accurately, if at all. She has her view, you have yours. She is a notable artist, you are a fuckwad nothing nobody embarrassing yourself in public.
Re: Re: Re:
An accurate answer…until it’s gratuitous final sentence.
Re: Re: The projection is strong in this one
“You are a fuckwad nothing nobody embarrassing yourself in public.”
Re: Re: Re:
"Perhaps Blondie thinks"
…perhaps what Debbie Harry thinks is wrong. The success you salivate over was achieved before the web existed, so why her success has any bearing on knowledge of how the internet works is left to the imagination of childish idiots. I assume there’s a reason why we only see people who had their heyday in the 70s and 80s supporting this.
If you wish to provide an actual argument, preferably backed with evidence and not just you parroting who major corporations tell you to listen to, I’ll be happy to discuss it. But, if all you have is lies, name calling and blind celebrity worship, I can happily ignore you.
Re: Re:
Unless you’re in the business of making upload filters, all benefits of article 13/17 are exclusively hallucinatory.
Article 11 supporters think it will let them steal from Google, although that scheme hasn’t really worked out all worked when tried before.