Tank Net And The Eu's Article 13

[Mr King]

[Panzermann]

not yet Mr. King, not yet. Though the caricature would be more correct if he was squeezed for money by lawyers.

 

 

as a reminder to call your MEPs for our EU contingent:

 

https://changecopyright.org/

 

 

Also write emails! I guess letters will probably not come in time for the vote in parliament.

[BansheeOne]

Well, someone listened. The EU Parliament just voted 318:278 to not proceed to negotiations with the Council of Ministers based upon the current draft of the copyright reform, which means the latter gets to be made over again. Net activists elated, artists and publishers miffed.

[Panzermann]

 

https://twitter.com/Senficon/status/1014814460488413185

Julia Reda‏

@Senficon

 

Great success: Your protests have worked! The European Parliament has sent the copyright law back to the drawing board. All MEPs will get to vote on #uploadfilters and the #linktax September 10–13. Now let's keep up the pressure to make sure we #SaveYourInternet!

 

the only Pirate in the european parliament shows once again, that they are needed and should not have gotten entangled in all manner of bullshit like third wave feminism and LGBTQWERTZ toilets. But that ship has sailed andcrashed on a reef.

[Panzermann]

http://stop.zona-m.net/2018/07/the-eu-copyright-directive-may-likely-destroy-its-main-supporters/

 

http://stop.zona-m.net/2018/07/the-eu-copyright-directive-is-a-mess-that-may-do-a-lot-of-good/

 

this blog makes some good points how the regulations might backfire hard on the publishers, beacuse facebook will most probabaly not link to them anymore.

Edited July 5, 2018 by Panzermann

[Marek Tucan]

The publishers generally see the internet as the enemy that cannot be controlled, so not sure they fully realize it. At least the classic ones.

[Panzermann]

The publishers generally see the internet as the enemy that cannot be controlled, so not sure they fully realize it. At least the classic ones.

 

German publishers had tried to lawmake them back to old profits. Luckily it was stopped. Now they play the puck against the boards if you will. The other european publishers would like that too of course. And remember it comes again for another vote in Septembre.

 

 

 

here an example of flagging for copyright gone wrong:

 

 

 

YouTuber in row over copyright infringement of his own song

 

 

Paul Davids thought he had seen it all when it came to YouTube's copyright protection system.

 

The Dutch YouTuber's most popular videos include him playing famous guitar riffs, comparing different instruments and teaching various guitar skills and techniques.

"Just like probably all the music YouTubers out there," he explained in a video to his 625,000 subscribers, "once in a while I get an email stating I'm infringing on someone's copyrighted material."

Paul had been contacted by YouTube to advise him that one of his videos had been flagged for copyright infringement, but in his own words, "this was a little different".

 

The copyright he had apparently infringed upon was his own.

 

 

"It said what song I was infringing on, and what I found was quite shocking," said Paul.

 

"Someone took my track, added vocals and guitar to make their own track, and uploaded it to YouTube, but I got the copyright infringement notice!"

 

Paul had been accused of plagiarising his own music - and worse, all the money that video was earning would now be directed towards the person who copied his content.

(...)

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-44726296

 

 

 

 

I have come across something similarly gaga some time ago, when I wanted to watch a music bands official video to a song on the official channel of its label. All youtube showed me was a message, that it could not be shown to me, because EU copyright. It was the band's europeean label partner. Who else should have the copyright?

[Chris Werb]

bullshit like third wave feminism and LGBTQWERTZ toilets. But that ship has sailed andcrashed on a reef.

As opposed to the bullshit pretence that a single sex toilets means the guy standing next to you or your 12 year old son at the urinal can't possibly be a gay and/or a predatory paedophile. There's something a bit weird about a society that goes to great lengths to prevent even pictures of genitalia being displayed, but encourages men and boys to gather in close proximity with their dicks in their hands.

[BansheeOne]

EU approves copyright directive blasted by big tech

 

Latest update : 2018-09-12

The European Parliament on Wednesday approved a controversial EU copyright law that hands more power to news and record companies against internet giants like Google and Facebook.

 

Backing the draft were traditional media, in urgent search of revenue at a time when web users shun newspapers and TV and advertising revenue is siphoned away by online platforms.

 

MEPs meeting in the French city of Strasbourg voted 438 in favour of the measure, 226 against, with 39 abstentions.

 

European lawmakers were sharply divided on the issue, with both sides engaging in one of the biggest rounds of lobbying that the EU has ever seen.

 

MEPs settled on a text that compromised on some of the ways news organisation will be able to charge web companies for links to content.

 

It also slightly watered down a proposal for so-called upload filters that will force platforms -- such as YouTube or Facebook -- to automatically delete content that violates copyright.

 

[...]

 

The draft had been fiercely resisted by US tech giants as well as online freedom activists, with some campaigners warning it could spell the end of viral "memes" or jokes.

 

They also fear that automatic filters to prevent users sharing content subject to copyright could be misused to censor political messages or other forms of free expression.

 

With the vote, MEPs can now start negotiations with the European Council representing the 28 member states which already reached a compromise on the issue in May.

 

These closed-door discussions, which also include the European Commission, are known in EU jargon as "trilogues" and can take several months before any compromise is put to a fresh vote.

 

https://www.france24.com/en/20180912-eu-parliament-approves-copyright-directive-internet-facebook-google

[rmgill]

 

As opposed to the bullshit pretence that a single sex toilets means the guy standing next to you or your 12 year old son at the urinal can't possibly be a gay and/or a predatory paedophile. There's something a bit weird about a society that goes to great lengths to prevent even pictures of genitalia being displayed, but encourages men and boys to gather in close proximity with their dicks in their hands.

 

Tim pool reports that attacks against women in single sex bathrooms has gone up.

 

You haven't eliminated the first problem. But you've added to it with a second problem set.

 

Edited September 12, 2018 by rmgill

[Mr King]

 

You haven't eliminated the first problem. But you've added to it with a second problem set.

 

 

 

Progressive politics in action summed up

[rmgill]

And I hadn't twigged that article 13 had actually passed. I thought they were in more discussions. Apparently there was a vote.

Edited September 12, 2018 by rmgill

[BansheeOne]

The EU parliament agreed to a modified form, as per my last post; however, that's not the last word, as per the pecularities of the EU as a non-state there will now be negotiations in the so-called "trilogue" between Parliament, the Commission and the Council of the responsible national ministers on a common result that will be put to a final vote early next year or so. Think of it as the House of Representatives agreeing on a measure, then negotiating with the administration and Senate for a joint position. Changes might go either way; the draft originated with the Commission, which has the right of legislative initiative among the three, and will supposedly insist that as much of its ideas as possible will be retained. Among the member states represented in the Council, Germany, Finland, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Belgium and Hungary didn't support the original text and might be open to further softening.

[Panzermann]

The so called "trilogue" have started and another round of voting is to commence on the uploadfilters.

 

https://juliareda.eu/en/

 

https://juliareda.eu/eu-copyright-reform/

 

 

 

 

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181025/07224440911/eu-copyright-directive-update-fresh-slim-hope-stopping-link-taxes-upload-filters.shtml

 

 

EU Copyright Directive Update: Fresh (But Slim) Hope Of Stopping Link Taxes And Upload Filters

 

from the and-ways-to-make-them-less-awful-if-we-can't dept

The awful EU Copyright Directive is not done and dusted. As Techdirt reported last month, the European Parliament may have failed to do its duty and protect the EU Internet for the region's citizens, but the proposed law has not yet passed. Instead, it has entered the so-called "trilogue" discussions. Pirate Party MEP Julia Reda explains:

 

In this series of closed-door meetings, the European Parliament and the Council (representing the member state governments) hammer out a final text acceptable to both institutions. It's the last chance to make changes before the Directive gets adopted. Meetings are currently scheduled until Christmas, although whether the process will be concluded by then is up in the air.

 

A recent decision by the General Court of the European Union has ruled that the European Parliament can no longer deny the public access to trilogue documents (pdf). As a result, Reda has promised to provide updates on what is happening in those hitherto secretive meetings. She just published her report on the second trilogue negotiation, and there's good and bad news. The good news is that a change of government in Italy has led to that country shifting its stance: it is now against the worst parts of the EU Copyright Directive. An EFF post explains the implications of that important development:

 

There may now be sufficiently large opposition to the articles [11 and 13] to create a blocking minority if they all vote together, but the new bloc has not settled on a united answer. Other countries are suspicious of Italy's no-compromise approach. They want to add extra safeguards to the two articles, not kill them entirely. That includes some of the countries that were originally opposed in May, including Germany.

 

In other words, there is now at least a slim chance that Article 11 and Article 13 could be dropped entirely, or at least improved in terms of the safeguards they contain. Against that, there is some unexpected bad news, explained here by Reda:

 

Council, on the other hand, has now completely out of the blue proposed a new Article 17a that says that existing exceptions for education, text and data mining or preservation can only be maintained if they don't contradict the rules of the newly introduced mandatory exceptions. In the case of teaching, this would mean that national teaching exceptions that don't require limiting access to the educational material by using a "secure electronic environment" would no longer apply!

This is outrageous given that the whole stated purpose of the new mandatory exceptions was to make research and education easier, not to erect new barriers. If as a consequence of the new mandatory teaching exception, teaching activities in some countries that have been legal all along would no longer be legal, then the reform would have spectacularly failed at even its most modest goal of facilitating research and education.

 

Since this is a completely new proposal, it's not clear how the European Parliament will respond. As Reda writes, the European Parliament ought to insist that any copyright exception that is legal under existing EU copyright law remains legal under the new Directive, once passed. Otherwise the exercise of "making copyright fit for the digital age" -- the supposed justification for the new law -- will have been even more of a fiasco than it currently it is.

There are two other pieces of good news. Yet another proposed extension of EU copyright, this time to create a special new form of copyright for sporting events, seems to have zero support among the EU's Member States, and thus is likely to be dropped. Reda also notes that Belgium, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, Estonia and the Czech Republic are in favor of expanding the scope of the proposed copyright exception for text and data mining to include businesses. That's something that the AI industry in Europe desperately needs if it is to keep up with the US and China in using massive text and data stores to train AI systems.

The important message to take away here is that the EU Copyright Directive is certainly a potential disaster for the Internet in Europe, but it's not over yet. It's still worth trying to make the politicians understand how harmful it would be in its present form, and to improve the law before it's too late. That's precisely what the EFF is attempting to do with a note that it has sent to every member of the EU bodies negotiating the final text in the trilogue meetings. It has two suggestions, both addressing serious flaws in the current versions. One concerns the fact that there are zero penalties for making false copyright claims that could result in material being filtered by Article 13:

 

Based on EFF's decades-long experience with notice-and-takedown regimes in the United States, and private copyright filters such as YouTube's ContentID, we know that the low evidentiary standards required for copyright complaints, coupled with the lack of consequences for false copyright claims, are a form of moral hazard that results in illegitimate acts of censorship from both knowing and inadvertent false copyright claims.

 

The EFF goes on to make several sensible proposals for ways to minimize this problem. The other suggestion concerns Article 11, the so-called "link tax". Here the issue is that the proposed measure is very poorly worded:

 

 

EU Copyright Directive Update: Fresh (But Slim) Hope Of Stopping Link Taxes And Upload Filters

 

from the and-ways-to-make-them-less-awful-if-we-can't dept

The awful EU Copyright Directive is not done and dusted. As Techdirt reported last month, the European Parliament may have failed to do its duty and protect the EU Internet for the region's citizens, but the proposed law has not yet passed. Instead, it has entered the so-called "trilogue" discussions. Pirate Party MEP Julia Reda explains:

 

In this series of closed-door meetings, the European Parliament and the Council (representing the member state governments) hammer out a final text acceptable to both institutions. It's the last chance to make changes before the Directive gets adopted. Meetings are currently scheduled until Christmas, although whether the process will be concluded by then is up in the air.

 

A recent decision by the General Court of the European Union has ruled that the European Parliament can no longer deny the public access to trilogue documents (pdf). As a result, Reda has promised to provide updates on what is happening in those hitherto secretive meetings. She just published her report on the second trilogue negotiation, and there's good and bad news. The good news is that a change of government in Italy has led to that country shifting its stance: it is now against the worst parts of the EU Copyright Directive. An EFF post explains the implications of that important development:

 

There may now be sufficiently large opposition to the articles [11 and 13] to create a blocking minority if they all vote together, but the new bloc has not settled on a united answer. Other countries are suspicious of Italy's no-compromise approach. They want to add extra safeguards to the two articles, not kill them entirely. That includes some of the countries that were originally opposed in May, including Germany.

 

In other words, there is now at least a slim chance that Article 11 and Article 13 could be dropped entirely, or at least improved in terms of the safeguards they contain. Against that, there is some unexpected bad news, explained here by Reda:

 

Council, on the other hand, has now completely out of the blue proposed a new Article 17a that says that existing exceptions for education, text and data mining or preservation can only be maintained if they don't contradict the rules of the newly introduced mandatory exceptions. In the case of teaching, this would mean that national teaching exceptions that don't require limiting access to the educational material by using a "secure electronic environment" would no longer apply!

This is outrageous given that the whole stated purpose of the new mandatory exceptions was to make research and education easier, not to erect new barriers. If as a consequence of the new mandatory teaching exception, teaching activities in some countries that have been legal all along would no longer be legal, then the reform would have spectacularly failed at even its most modest goal of facilitating research and education.

 

Since this is a completely new proposal, it's not clear how the European Parliament will respond. As Reda writes, the European Parliament ought to insist that any copyright exception that is legal under existing EU copyright law remains legal under the new Directive, once passed. Otherwise the exercise of "making copyright fit for the digital age" -- the supposed justification for the new law -- will have been even more of a fiasco than it currently it is.

There are two other pieces of good news. Yet another proposed extension of EU copyright, this time to create a special new form of copyright for sporting events, seems to have zero support among the EU's Member States, and thus is likely to be dropped. Reda also notes that Belgium, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, Estonia and the Czech Republic are in favor of expanding the scope of the proposed copyright exception for text and data mining to include businesses. That's something that the AI industry in Europe desperately needs if it is to keep up with the US and China in using massive text and data stores to train AI systems.

The important message to take away here is that the EU Copyright Directive is certainly a potential disaster for the Internet in Europe, but it's not over yet. It's still worth trying to make the politicians understand how harmful it would be in its present form, and to improve the law before it's too late. That's precisely what the EFF is attempting to do with a note that it has sent to every member of the EU bodies negotiating the final text in the trilogue meetings. It has two suggestions, both addressing serious flaws in the current versions. One concerns the fact that there are zero penalties for making false copyright claims that could result in material being filtered by Article 13:

 

Based on EFF's decades-long experience with notice-and-takedown regimes in the United States, and private copyright filters such as YouTube's ContentID, we know that the low evidentiary standards required for copyright complaints, coupled with the lack of consequences for false copyright claims, are a form of moral hazard that results in illegitimate acts of censorship from both knowing and inadvertent false copyright claims.

 

The EFF goes on to make several sensible proposals for ways to minimize this problem. The other suggestion concerns Article 11, the so-called "link tax". Here the issue is that the proposed measure is very poorly worded:

 

 

 

EU Copyright Directive Update: Fresh (But Slim) Hope Of Stopping Link Taxes And Upload Filters

 

from the and-ways-to-make-them-less-awful-if-we-can't dept

The awful EU Copyright Directive is not done and dusted. As Techdirt reported last month, the European Parliament may have failed to do its duty and protect the EU Internet for the region's citizens, but the proposed law has not yet passed. Instead, it has entered the so-called "trilogue" discussions. Pirate Party MEP Julia Reda explains:

 

In this series of closed-door meetings, the European Parliament and the Council (representing the member state governments) hammer out a final text acceptable to both institutions. It's the last chance to make changes before the Directive gets adopted. Meetings are currently scheduled until Christmas, although whether the process will be concluded by then is up in the air.

 

A recent decision by the General Court of the European Union has ruled that the European Parliament can no longer deny the public access to trilogue documents (pdf). As a result, Reda has promised to provide updates on what is happening in those hitherto secretive meetings. She just published her report on the second trilogue negotiation, and there's good and bad news. The good news is that a change of government in Italy has led to that country shifting its stance: it is now against the worst parts of the EU Copyright Directive. An EFF post explains the implications of that important development:

 

There may now be sufficiently large opposition to the articles [11 and 13] to create a blocking minority if they all vote together, but the new bloc has not settled on a united answer. Other countries are suspicious of Italy's no-compromise approach. They want to add extra safeguards to the two articles, not kill them entirely. That includes some of the countries that were originally opposed in May, including Germany.

 

In other words, there is now at least a slim chance that Article 11 and Article 13 could be dropped entirely, or at least improved in terms of the safeguards they contain. Against that, there is some unexpected bad news, explained here by Reda:

 

Council, on the other hand, has now completely out of the blue proposed a new Article 17a that says that existing exceptions for education, text and data mining or preservation can only be maintained if they don't contradict the rules of the newly introduced mandatory exceptions. In the case of teaching, this would mean that national teaching exceptions that don't require limiting access to the educational material by using a "secure electronic environment" would no longer apply!

This is outrageous given that the whole stated purpose of the new mandatory exceptions was to make research and education easier, not to erect new barriers. If as a consequence of the new mandatory teaching exception, teaching activities in some countries that have been legal all along would no longer be legal, then the reform would have spectacularly failed at even its most modest goal of facilitating research and education.

 

Since this is a completely new proposal, it's not clear how the European Parliament will respond. As Reda writes, the European Parliament ought to insist that any copyright exception that is legal under existing EU copyright law remains legal under the new Directive, once passed. Otherwise the exercise of "making copyright fit for the digital age" -- the supposed justification for the new law -- will have been even more of a fiasco than it currently it is.

There are two other pieces of good news. Yet another proposed extension of EU copyright, this time to create a special new form of copyright for sporting events, seems to have zero support among the EU's Member States, and thus is likely to be dropped. Reda also notes that Belgium, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, Estonia and the Czech Republic are in favor of expanding the scope of the proposed copyright exception for text and data mining to include businesses. That's something that the AI industry in Europe desperately needs if it is to keep up with the US and China in using massive text and data stores to train AI systems.

The important message to take away here is that the EU Copyright Directive is certainly a potential disaster for the Internet in Europe, but it's not over yet. It's still worth trying to make the politicians understand how harmful it would be in its present form, and to improve the law before it's too late. That's precisely what the EFF is attempting to do with a note that it has sent to every member of the EU bodies negotiating the final text in the trilogue meetings. It has two suggestions, both addressing serious flaws in the current versions. One concerns the fact that there are zero penalties for making false copyright claims that could result in material being filtered by Article 13:

 

Based on EFF's decades-long experience with notice-and-takedown regimes in the United States, and private copyright filters such as YouTube's ContentID, we know that the low evidentiary standards required for copyright complaints, coupled with the lack of consequences for false copyright claims, are a form of moral hazard that results in illegitimate acts of censorship from both knowing and inadvertent false copyright claims.

 

The EFF goes on to make several sensible proposals for ways to minimize this problem. The other suggestion concerns Article 11, the so-called "link tax". Here the issue is that the proposed measure is very poorly worded:

 

 

 

Phone your MEP. Write a letter. Write an email.

 

There is also a petition on change.org. But change.org is like pissing in the wind.

Edited November 6, 2018 by Panzermann

[Panzermann]

German language interview with MEP Julia Reda: https://netzpolitik.org/2018/ich-gebe-die-hoffnung-nicht-auf-julia-reda-im-netzpolitik-org-podcast-ueber-den-kampf-fuer-ein-neues-urheberrecht/


she hits on many important points and difficulties in european copyright regulations.

I learned from the interview, that this here great site (or other non-profit communites) are exempted in the current form of the proposal. But the exact wording is being haggled at the moment in the trilogue and it can still change and then later MEPs may be voting not on the wording they think they voted on las time.

Edited November 6, 2018 by Panzermann

[Panzermann]

It was so clear that the german government would flip on this issue despite what they wrote into their coalition agreement. Why did they take so long haggling it, when they ignore it anyway? And of course these things are pushed through late at night so nobody notices.

Council ready to continue negotiations on the worst version of Article 13 yet




Tonight, the EU’s national governments adopted as their common position the deal struck by France and Germany on the controversial EU Copyright Directive that was leaked earlier this week.

While Italy, Poland, the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland and Luxembourg maintained their opposition to the text and were newly joined by Malta and Slovakia, Germany’s support of the “compromise” secretly negotiated with France over the last weeks has broken the previous deadlock.

This new Council position is actually more extreme than previous versions, requiring all platforms older than 3 years to automatically censor all their users’ uploads, and putting unreasonable burdens even on the newest companies (see my previous blog post analysing the deal).

The German Conservative–Social Democrat government is now in blatant violation of its own coalition agreement, which rejects upload filters against copyright infringement as disproportionate. This breach of coalition promises will not go down well with many young voters just ahead of the European elections in May. Meanwhile, prominent members of both German government parties have joined the protests against upload filters.

The deal in Council paves the way for a final round of negotiations with the Parliament over the course of next week, before the entire European Parliament and the Council vote on the final agreement. It is now up to you to contact your MEPs, call their offices in their constituencies and visit as many of their election campaign events as you can! Ask them to reject a copyright deal that will violate your rights to share legal creations like parodies and reviews online, and includes measures like the link tax that will limit your access to the news and drive small online newspapers out of business.

Right before the European elections, your voices cannot be ignored! Join the over 4.6 million signatories to the largest European petition ever and tell your representatives: If you break the Internet and accept Article 13, we won’t reelect you!

 

 

https://juliareda.eu/2019/02/council-worst-article-13/

 

 

Write, phone or visit your MEP!

[Jeff]

Why did they take so long haggling it, when they ignore it anyway? And of course these things are pushed through late at night so nobody notices.

Because that's what Mandarins do.

[Stuart Galbraith]

I thank God we are leaving now.

[DB]

I am shocked, shocked I tell you, that France and Germany are conspiring to impose their wills on the big happy Euro family.

[Stuart Galbraith]

I was assured that this never, ever happens.

[Panzermann]

I thank God we are leaving now.

 

As a good bye present your UK MEPs have mostly voted for this too. Thank you very much. And you are left with the very same politicians after Brexit. So you gain nothing. Same shit politics as before.

Edited February 11, 2019 by Panzermann

[Stuart Galbraith]

I seem to recall we enacted some web based legislation here in the UK, and found that after they passed it the tech companies actually pointed out they couldnt figure out how to do it. Which suggests that there is a disparity between what politicians understand and what tech companies believe is viable, a generation gap in other words.

 

Have you have numbers on that? Because I keep hearing how disruptive the British are to European politics, but I rarely see any solid evidence of it. I usuall put it down to a love of blaming all Europes problems on outsiders.

Edited February 12, 2019 by Stuart Galbraith

[Panzermann]

I seem to recall we enacted some web based legislation here in the UK, and found that after they passed it the tech companies actually pointed out they couldnt figure out how to do it. Which suggests that there is a disparity between what politicians understand and what tech companies believe is viable, a generation gap in other words.

 

Have you have numbers on that? Because I keep hearing how disruptive the British are to European politics, but I rarely see any solid evidence of it. I usuall put it down to a love of blaming all Europes problems on outsiders.

 

lists of the last vote: (also can look up other countries)

https://saveyourinternet.eu/uk/

 

 

Okay, I misremembered that one, is nearly half and half with 41 nay and 34 yea (if i did not miscount).

 

 

 

Note the shining beacon of british independence and freedom farage voted for it. Well he has opened his own party recently, didn't he?

[Panzermann]

I am shocked, shocked I tell you, that France and Germany are conspiring to impose their wills on the big happy Euro family.

 

 

I was assured that this never, ever happens.

 

Anything to please the lobby. If they have to use brute force so be it.

 

 

---

 

 

Article 13: Upload filters

Parliament negotiator Axel Voss accepted the deal between France and Germany I laid out in a recent blog post:

• Commercial sites and apps where users can post material must make “best efforts” to preemptively buy licences for anything that users may possibly upload – that is: all copyrighted content in the world. An impossible feat.
• In addition, all but very few sites (those both tiny and very new) will need to do everything in their power to prevent anything from ever going online that may be an unauthorised copy of a work that a rightsholder has registered with the platform. They will have no choice but to deploy upload filters, which are by their nature both expensive and error-prone.
• Should a court ever find their licensing or filtering efforts not fierce enough, sites are directly liable for infringements as if they had committed them themselves. This massive threat will lead platforms to over-comply with these rules to stay on the safe side, further worsening the impact on our freedom of speech.

Article 11: The “link tax”

The final version of this extra copyright for news sites closely resembles the version that already failed in Germany – only this time not limited to search engines and news aggregators, meaning it will do damage to a lot more websites.

• Reproducing more than “single words or very short extracts” of news stories will require a licence. That will likely cover many of the snippets commonly shown alongside links today in order to give you an idea of what they lead to. We will have to wait and see how courts interpret what “very short” means in practice – until then, hyperlinking (with snippets) will be mired in legal uncertainty.
• No exceptions are made even for services run by individuals, small companies or non-profits, which probably includes any monetised blogs or websites.

(...)

 

Next, at a date to be announced, the EU member state governments will vote in the Council. The law can be stopped here either by 13 member state governments or by any number of governments who together represent 35% of the EU population (calculator). Last time, 8 countries representing 27% of the population were opposed. Either a large country like Germany or several small ones would need to change their minds: This is the less likely way to stop it.

 

Our best bet: The final vote in the plenary of the European Parliament, when all 751 MEPs, directly elected to represent the people, have a vote. This will take place either between March 25 and 28, on April 4 or between April 15 and 18. We’ve already demonstrated last July that a majority against a bad copyright proposal is achievable.

 

The plenary can vote to kill the bill – or to make changes, like removing Articles 11 and 13. In the latter case, it’s up to the Council to decide whether to accept these changes (the Directive then becomes law without these articles) or to shelve the project until after the EU elections in May, which will reshuffle all the cards.

 

 

more info, links, how this came to be etc pp: https://juliareda.eu/2019/02/eu-copyright-final-text/

 

 

 

 

€dith wants to add that now since this morning constantly these annoying alzheimer prevention memory games are presented to me!

Edited February 14, 2019 by Panzermann

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

I seem to recall we enacted some web based legislation here in the UK, and found that after they passed it the tech companies actually pointed out they couldnt figure out how to do it. Which suggests that there is a disparity between what politicians understand and what tech companies believe is viable, a generation gap in other words.

 

Have you have numbers on that? Because I keep hearing how disruptive the British are to European politics, but I rarely see any solid evidence of it. I usuall put it down to a love of blaming all Europes problems on outsiders.

 

lists of the last vote: (also can look up other countries)

https://saveyourinternet.eu/uk/

 

 

Okay, I misremembered that one, is nearly half and half with 41 nay and 34 yea (if i did not miscount).

 

 

 

Note the shining beacon of british independence and freedom farage voted for it. Well he has opened his own party recently, didn't he?

 

 

Well I misremember stuff all the time. Its what happens when you get past 40 I gather. Personally i put it down to having only limited space for all the really interesting trivia I pick up.

 

Yes, well Farage will throw his own mum under the bus if it suits him. It wouldnt surprise me if he voted for it just to illustrate how undemocratic the EU was becoming.