EU will once again start voting on new copyright laws
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-09-2017, 11:20 AM
EU will once again start voting on new copyright laws
Well if these two links are to be believed
https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/bl...ight-vote/
https://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/...r-10-2017/

The EU is once again ready to vote on Copyright and just like with ACTA, it seems that normal user are the ones who will suffer under these rules.
So hands up how many of you are actually surprised by this?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2017, 11:49 AM
RE: EU will once again start voting on new copyright laws
I got 404 errors. Are there other links?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2017, 12:35 PM (This post was last modified: 17-09-2017 12:40 PM by Erikjust.)
RE: EU will once again start voting on new copyright laws
(17-09-2017 11:49 AM)Clockwork Wrote:  I got 404 errors. Are there other links?

Strange they seem to work fine with me

https://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/...r-10-2017/

https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/bl...ight-vote/

If not try searching for Rick Falkvinge on Facebook his newest story should give you both links.

But in short the EU is making new copyright laws and some amendments to existing ones the ones that are worrisome are these two:

Automatic upload filtering – ”Article 13”

According to this proposal all internet platforms, like for example YouTube and Facebook, would be required to install automatic filters to block uploads that infringe copyright.

Can a computer really decide accurately what is an infringement, when it normally takes courts and highly trained copyright lawyers to determine if a publication falls under various exceptions and limitations or not? No, of course an automatic upload filter cannot do that. A computer has no way of telling if a certain film clip is satire or parody, for example, or represents some other kind of use that is covered by an exception in the copyright legislation. The result will be that the internet platforms will rather block too much than to little, in order to be on the safe side and avoid having to pay damages. This reduces both freedom of speech and artistic creativity.

Formally speaking this is not censorship, since censorship is when the government bans the publication of something. But in practice, the effect will be the same – except that there is no due process, and no way of appealing if you think your material has been blocked unjustly. This is a really bad proposal.

And

Link tax (or ”snippet tax”) – ”Article 11”

Newspaper publishers want to ban everybody from linking to news articles, unless they pay the media companies for the right to link. This proposal would apply to everybody, from Google to ordinary internet users and bloggers.

If the proposal goes through, most of the internet as we know it will become illegal overnight. That you can link to whatever you want without having to ask for permission is the foundation of the internet, and what has made the net what it is today. What kind of internet would we get if you ran the risk of being sued for damages every time you post a link? Most of the time nobody would of course bother suing you, but the risk would be there every time you link.

The old media lobbyists in Brussels are pushing this proposal because the media companies hope to extort money from Google every time Google links to a news article. But when legislation like this has been introduced in some countries (like for example Spain), Google just stopped linking to news articles, which made old media lose even more readers. And even if this was not the case and everything worked just like the newspaper publishers are hoping, the potential payouts from Google would be peanuts when divided between all actors who publish things on the internet.

But despite this, the legacy newspaper publishers are continuing to demand that it should cost money to link, in some kind of desperate hope that if they can just rein in those pesky internets, everybody will go back to reading Properly Authorized News on paper, and the natural order of things will be restored.


There are a few good ones however
Allow remixes and user generated content

Remixes, mashups, fan fiction, and memes in the form of a picture with a text, are important and popular aspects of modern internet culture. Unfortunately, most of them are illegal according to today’s copyright legislation, since they rely on quoting pictures, film clips, and music.

To remedy this problem, the European Parliament’s Internal Market Committee IMCO has tabled a very good proposal (Amendment 55) to ”allow for the digital use of quotations […] within user-generated content for purposes such as criticism, review, entertainment, illustration, caricature, parody or pastiche”.

This is a very good proposal, that would help harmonize the single market if it becomes mandatory for all member states. If enough citizens show their support for it, it can become reality.


Freedom of panorama
In a recent verdict against Wikimedia, a Swedish court decided that it is illegal to photograph a public work of art and post it on the internet, unless the artist who created the work has been dead for at least 70 years. If you take a selfie in front of a public statue you may (at least in theory) be sentenced to pay damages to the organization that represents the dead artist.

The rules vary widely from country to country, but this is a problem in many European Union member states. According to French copyright law, it is illegal to post pictures of the Eiffel Tower taken at night, since the lighting arrangement on the tower is considered protected by copyright, and light technician who designed it has not yet been dead for 70 years. (You may, however, post pictures of the Eiffel Tower taken during daytime, since Gustave Eiffel died in 1923, which is more than 70 years ago.)

The proposal to introduce ”freedom of panorama” on the EU level would address this problem, and remove one of the more blatant absurdities from copyright legislation.

Allow data mining
Data mining is a technique where you let a computer sift through large data sets (like, for example, data bases containing millions of scientific articles), and look for patterns and correlations that no human would be able to find because there is such a vast amount of data. This technique has proved very useful for finding new knowledge in many areas.

Today, however, data mining is often in breach of copyright, since it is considered that the authors of the scientific articles and other data would have to give an explicit permission for their articles to be used in that way. From a practical point of view it would be impossible to get such permissions from the authors of millions of different articles, so in practice, data mining is illegal today in many cases.

The EU wants to introduce a mandatory exception to copyright to allow data mining, and this is a good thing. But unfortunately, the proposal as it stands is too narrowly drafted. Data mining would become legal for ”scientific institutions”, but not for other actors such as independent researchers, research companies, journalists, or ordinary citizens. The proposal for an exception for data mining is basically good, but it needs to be extended so that it applies to everybody.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: