6 ms·

> That's what is being proposed No it isn't. Just read the damn thing. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/35373/st09134-en18.pdf http://www.consilium.europa

• DanBC 8y ago
  How the fuck is providing someone a link to the actual law being downvoted? Here's the specific article: Article 11 Protection of press publications concerning online uses 1. Member States shall provide publishers of press publications established in a Member State with the rights provided for in Article 2 and Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC for the online use of their press publications by information society service providers. The rights referred to in the first subparagraph shall not apply in respect of uses of insubstantial parts of a press publication. Member States shall be free to determine the insubstantial nature of parts of press publications taking into account whether these parts are the expression of the intellectual creation of their authors, or whether these parts are individual words or very short excerpts, or both criteria. 2. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall leave intact and shall in no way affect any rights provided for in Union law to authors and other rightholders, in respect of the works and other subject-matter incorporated in a press publication. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 may not be invoked against those authors and other rightholders and, in particular, may not deprive them of their right to exploit their works and other subject-matter independently from the press publication in which they are incorporated. When a work or other subject-matter is incorporated in a press publication on the basis of a non- exclusive licence, the rights referred to in paragraph 1 may not be invoked to prohibit the use by other authorised users. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 may not be invoked to prohibit the use of works or other subject -matter whose protection has expired. 3. Articles 5 to 8 of Directive 2001/29/EC and Directive 2012/28/EU shall apply mutatis mutandis in respect of the rights referred to in paragraph 1. 4. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall expire 1 year after the publication of the press publication. This term shall be calculated from the first day of January of the year following the date of publication. 5. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to press publications first published before [entry into force of the Directive].
  • JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    I am having trouble identifying which part of this text is relevant to the original complaint about the bureaucratic burden imposed by this law on owners of websites with user-uploaded content, e.g. Hacker News. If it's regarding the "insubstantial parts" clause, that language is immediately neutered in the next sentence: "Member States shall be free to determine the insubstantial nature of parts of press publications." TL; DR Watch twenty-eight national regulators each interpret the law according to their own whims. In the meantime, pay your European lawyers every time a user quotes a BBC article in a comment.
    • DanBC 8y ago
      If you don't see how the text of the law is relevant to a discussion of the law there's not much I can do to help you. > "Member States shall be free to determine the insubstantial nature of parts of press publications." TL; DR Watch twenty-eight national regulators each interpret the law according to their own whims. They've managed to interpret fair dealing / fair use since the Berne Convention was introduced 1886. I think they'll manage.
    • teamhappy 8y ago
      Article 11 is the "link tax" one and article 13 is the upload filter one. You seem to think that both articles are somehow connected. Article 13 only applies to sites that are upload services like YouTube and SoundCloud for example. They now have to implement content filters in order to avoid liability. Hacker News doesn't have to do anything.
  • phicoh 8y ago
    Can you explain how you got the idea that this is what was voted on? Maybe you can link to the agenda where it shows that they voted on this specific text?