c3o

8 ms·

1.
by c3o 7y ago
I work at the European Parliament, and in 3 years of debate about the law not a single person or organisation has brought up people putting content from other platforms on FB as something that this supposedly addresses. In fact, it's a
2.
by c3o 7y ago
There's another independent criterion that will cause lots of trouble/legal uncertainty: 1b. Regardless of (1), can you prove you made "best efforts" to acquire licenses for the content that was later found on your platf
3.
by c3o 7y ago
> I don't think any content-sharing platform should profit from copyright infringement That is not a requirement to fall under Article 13! Are you maybe mistaking "copyright-protected material" for "copyright-INFRINGI
4.
by c3o 8y ago
For those who do redeem the coupon, it's often an incentive to spend money they normally wouldn't have (in high-margin stores).
5.
by c3o 8y ago
The link tax was not rejected in Germany, in fact it's the law of the land there. When it failed to lead to the expected riches, the lobbyists behind it switched their attention to the EU level. It could well be argued that all Interne
6.
by c3o 8y ago
If you're unhappier with the national decisions (e.g. Trump) than regional ones, regionalism starts looking better and better... I'd bet that's almost all the reason behind it, not some kind of deep ideological stance on gove
7.
by c3o 8y ago
In fact, they already did: The ACTA protests.
8.
by c3o 8y ago
Every EU law needs the approval of a majority of directly elected MEPs. They are up for reelection in May. Of course one can influence their behavior.
9.
by c3o 8y ago
Nationalism is the problem behind that, not the solution for it: Legislative processes in the EU are woefully under-covered by the press. That's because newspapers have offices full of reporters to work on national political stories, y
10.
by c3o 8y ago
Another provision of the article limits its scope to services that "organise and promote" user-posted/uploaded content "for profit-making purposes". The 3 criteria you quoted then further narrow which of the service
11.
by c3o 8y ago
On the face of it, the fix is rather simple: Vote for politicians who listen at least as much to civil society as they do to corporate lobbyists. Unfortunately, the political system currently structurally incentivizes the opposite, especial
12.
by c3o 8y ago
You could be taken to court and ordered to pay damages if someone reports you – but not the owner of the garden you're projecting it in. And you definitely don't have copyright cops show up at your door pre-emptively everytime you
13.
by c3o 8y ago
The 30 million figure was a downright lie by UK music publishers – it includes the entire lobbying budget (for the year 2016, bizarrely) of any industry association Google is listed as being a member of, which for some reason even includes
14.
by c3o 8y ago
In one vote in the EP, something similar was proposed as an alternative: * Make (big) platforms provide APIs with which rightholders can check new posts for their copyrighted content and request either removal or monetisation * Give uploade
15.
by c3o 8y ago
It doesn't, though. They are obligated to immediately remove this as soon as they attain knowledge of the infringement. You, however, are cheerleading an obligation to somehow prevent anything infringing on anyone's rights from ap
16.
by c3o 8y ago
This doesn't seem to be a for-profit service, so it's outside of the scope of the latest drafts of Article 13 thankfully. As long as you never put ads on it, you're good.
17.
by c3o 8y ago
The law's not limited to "European websites": If you're making your service available to Europeans, you fall under it. Of course, the EU can't enforce its laws on you in practice unless you have a local subsidiary (
18.
by c3o 8y ago
That's true in the US. EU law actually knows no such thing as vague, court-interpreted fair use. The EU instead has a list of very specific exceptions and limitations to copyright – which member states don't even have to implement
19.
by c3o 8y ago
True, I guess you could see "the comment thread" as the larger (collaborative) intellectual work within which the movie was quoted for illustrative purposes.
20.
by c3o 8y ago
You are absolutely right: The mere fact that these publishers don't block Google using robots.txt and that they in fact spend a lot of effort optimizing their metadata so that link previews show up just the way they want them to proves
21.
by c3o 8y ago
Isn't that what the linked-to article is?
22.
by c3o 8y ago
This would indeed seem to be a copyright infringement in many EU member states. For example, in Germany it wouldn't fall under the quotation exception (no such thing as vague "fair use" here), since you aren't critically
23.
by c3o 8y ago
Another article of the same law (Article 11) would apply copyright also to shortest excerpts of news articles, anything longer than "individual words". (Colloquially known as the "link tax" provision.) So even reproducin
24.
by c3o 8y ago
YouTube has stated that if this passes, "EU residents are at risk of being cut off from videos that, in just the last month, they viewed more than 90bn times" – i.e. despite all the overblocking and mistakes, still too much slips
25.
by c3o 8y ago
Just to be clear, what you linked to is the European Parliament's proposal for the law. Compromise negotiations are currently ongoing with the Council (representing the member state governments), which in its own proposal does not ask
26.
by c3o 8y ago
She does refer to this here: > Each individual author must actively put up a fight to restore the findability of their free speech. That's still an unacceptable system. Apart from shifting the burden of proof, you're not even n
27.
by c3o 8y ago
Not a whistleblower, a member of the European Parliament with FOIA requests: https://juliareda.eu/2017/09/secret-copyright-infringement-s...
28.
by c3o 8y ago
Council (assembling the member state governments) is opaque, but the directly elected European Parliament is quite transparent – more so than most national ones. Both have to agree to any Commission proposal, so theoretically being able to
29.
by c3o 8y ago
There is no such thing as "fair use" (or the "three-step-test" which you refer to) in EU copyright law. There is a defined list of exceptions (almost all of which are optional for member states to implement), and "l
30.
by c3o 8y ago
Big business massively lobbied against the GDPR. One big reason it ended up so strict is because the final negotiations happened to coincide with the Snowden revelations, giving cover for politicians to resist the lobbying.

More ›