Article 13 Is Back On: Germany Caves To France As EU Pushes Forward On Ruining The Internet

from the bad-news-for-memes dept

When last we checked in on the EU Copyright Directive it had been put on hold when the European Council (with representatives from all the member states) didn’t have enough votes to move forward on a so-called “compromise” draft. Most of the council rejected it for the right reasons — though a few (including France) were holding out to make the law worse. Since then there has been an ongoing back channel negotiation between France and Germany over whose vision would win out. Both of them support very problematic versions of the Directive, though France’s is worse. Specifically, France doesn’t want any exemptions for smaller internet websites in Article 13 (which will effectively make internet filters mandatory), while Germany wanted to include at least some safe harbors for smaller sites. After a bunch of back and forth, it’s now being reported that Germany has caved to France and will now support the Directive, with very little in the way of protections for smaller sites. This is on top of all the other awful stuff in the Directive, including mandatory filtering (that they pretend is not mandatory filtering), huge fines, and liability for any site allowing infringement. The draft apparently still includes a weird and mostly useless safe harbor for sites hosting user-generated content — which is what made the legacy entertainment industry bail out on its support of the Directive.

So, to be clear, there is now a draft that is worse than the draft that couldn’t get the Council’s approval a few weeks ago, and that will have an even bigger impact on the internet by sweeping up tons of smaller sites as well as the larger ones, which will do serious harm to any sites that host user-generated content. And you can’t find anyone — outside of the company selling internet filters — who supports this. The internet companies are all still against the bill. The legacy entertainment companies are whining that it doesn’t go far enough.

And, yet, this draft is likely to be added back on the schedule for a meeting this Friday.

There is nothing good about this. The EU bureaucrats negotiating this get really, really annoyed by anyone suggesting that this bill will kill off “memes,” but that’s not an exaggeration. The bill is literally designed to make it impossible for a site that has not purchased licenses from everyone to allow users to post new content. Meme culture was built almost entirely on free and open message boards and social media, without licenses. But hosting such a site in the EU will now be effectively impossible — or very, very expensive, with massive restrictions, filters and lockdowns. In such a world, it is difficult to see how new memes can take off, outside of a narrowly prescribed set of “officially sanctioned/licensed” memes — and we all know what kind of quality that will bring.

This whole thing is an exercise in stupidity, brought about by a cynical legacy entertainment industry that made up a fake concept called “the value gap” that they insisted needed to be closed. And the only way to “close” it, according to the very same lobbyists, was to effectively turn off what made the internet great: the fact that it is, and has always been, an open medium for communication and sharing.

This can still be stopped, but it’s going to rely on the EU Parliament actually having a backbone and saying that this is not acceptable. And that is going to require people in Europe to contact their MEPs and telling them not to wreck the internet.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Article 13 Is Back On: Germany Caves To France As EU Pushes Forward On Ruining The Internet”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
142 Comments
Gary (profile) says:

Gaps in logic

As the content monopolists push to close the “value gap” I’m reminded of the “Analog Hole” that absolutely had to be closed to stop piracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_hole

We still have piracy – but we also have mandated DRM on our computers – right down to the cables. Does this help creators or support the public commons?

Mason Wheeler (profile) says:

But hosting such a site in the EU will now be effectively impossible

"In the EU" being the applicable words. They can claim extraterritorial jurisdiction until they’re blue in the face, but if they don’t have servers or employees in the EU, and the US or other country where they actually are located doesn’t want to play along, what exactly are they going to do about it?

At this point the EU ought to just rename it "the footgun directive."

Nic (profile) says:

Re: Re:

But even if it’s just the EU, once it passes, lobbyist will use it as a precedent for every major trade deal being negotiated, that other countries need to conform to the new "standard". It’s what they did for copyright, patents and the DMCA. And so it always ends up being bundled into a larger agreement, often without public input.

So, the precedent is very disturbing. They need to kill this right now or 10 years from now, we’ll nearly all be stuck with versions of this directive.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

So your answer to criminal activity on the Internet is to destroy the very tools that make it such a powerful tool for human good. Do you really want a world in which individuals have to ask companies to publish their works, with all that goes with traditional publishing, such as most works never getting published?

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Have you wondered WHY there is no child porn on Google?

If you engaged your brain you would have realized that the very nature of peddling child porn means any sites doing it will not advertise that fact and are in most cases invite only so Google wont find anything when crawling the sites.

But I guess, using grey matter is hard these days because it means you may come to the realization that you don’t know jack shit so it’s more convenient just to be ignorant fool.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Also – CP is by its very nature illegal. There is no grey area – if your website displays CP, it is illegal. Therefore, those sites do not advertise themselves on the open web – which means that Google do not index them.

On the other hand, infringing material can very much be legal or illegal depending on where it originates. The same file can be infringing or not depending on context. Therefore Google cannot make the distinction.

Anyone who think that this is a good argument, does not understand the argument.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Yet one cannot find child porn in Google.

That is correct, you can’t find child porn in Google.

An automated site which enables criminal activity should not be allowed to exist.

You do realize that all websites are more or less automated and pretty much all websites can be used by criminals for criminal activity, right? But hold on! Let’s run with that! Hmm, the FCC public comment submission site is automated and someone used it commit identity fraud against thousands of people. Oh gee, the FCC website is enabling criminal activity, therefore it shouldn’t exist. Or wait! Here’s one better! The IRS site is automated and allows criminals to file false tax returns, thereby enabling their criminal activity, so the IRS website shouldn’t exist!

I could go on.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

…and removal of those links will not make any different as to whether the sites that break the law exist. In fact, the waste of time and resources going after Google, combined with the effect of pushing illegal activity further underground, actually makes the job of catching the . lawbreakers much easier and keeps the illegal sites online longer.

Why not go after the people actually breaking the law, rather than the people telling you where the criminals are?

Michael Riendeau says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Of course piracy is just an excuse. They want to kill thf internet because they are black hearted parasites who want to inflict as much human misery as possible. Passing this will so so twofold by not just killing the internet, but by telling the world that democracy doesn’t mean shit. They hate you, they hate me, and want to ruin our lives. This is a personal attack on our lives and there is only way to fight back. Go out and wear a yellow vest.

Wendy Cockcroft (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Given the number of right-wing weirdos who have co-opted the movement, I’ll pass. This is not about making us unhappy it’s about inserting themselves as gatekeepers. The orderly, logical, problem-solving way of dealing with this is to contact your MEP and ask him or her to vote against this.

Last time we did that over ACTA the House was full of flowers bought by the grateful public. Those MEPs who are still in office since 2012 will have remembered that. Remember also that copyright on the left is about rewarding creators’ efforts of hand and brain so that’s your angle of attack: the copyright holder isn’t always the creator and the public interest is being harmed. On the right it’s about property; your angle of attack is to advise your MEP that copyright is a temporary monopoly privilege and that the "own it now on DVD, etc." trope is a lie. We don’t own it, we only licence it, and even then it can be grabbed off us or rendered useless by the rightsholder at any time. What about our property rights?

The more thoughtful and considerate you are the more likely it is that your argument will be considered. They will reject out of hand any comments that seem threatening or boilerplate. Make them personal.

Michael Riendeau says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Yeah, no, I don’t think so. The more I look at this, the more this looks exactly like Net Neutrality mess back here in America. Ajit Pai deliberately lied to our faces about how repealing NN won’t allow ISPs ruin the internet. He had such a shit-eating grin while doing so, claiming that he had public support despite millions of fake comments and went as far as to preempt states. It became clear that Ajit Pai either wanted to destroy the internet, or cared more about that paycheck from Verizon to care about us.

The EU is being run by dozens of Ajit Pais. They are being malicious, not ignorant.

Michael Riendeau says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

This whole process is citation enough. No matter how much the people protest, no matter how much experts speak out, they continue to shove this through, and make it worse

"If someone carelessly waves a gun around, and upon calling them on it they quickly put it down and protest by claiming that they had no idea that guns were dangerous because they’d never encountered one before and had no idea how dangerous they were, ignorance might be enough to give them a pass that one time.

If however multiple people had been telling them how dangerous it was, it was not the first time they’d done so, and they continue to wave it around, ‘ignorance of the dangers’ ceases to be a believable excuse, and the assumption switches to at a minimum gross indifference to the possible harm their actions might cause, if not malicious intent."

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190128/17402141482/human-rights-groups-plead-with-eu-not-to-pass-awful-terrorist-content-regulation.shtml

Anonymous Coward says:

If what the EU does rains the attempted world dominance of all internet traffic and the possess of all user personal information by the Silicon Valley all hate companies like Face Book and Google dedicated to world dominance, world slavery, and world control it in can only be considered as good. As bad as the EU laws and actions are they are a tempest in a teapot compared to the political correct version of world control under these elitist people haters.

Gary (profile) says:

Re: Slavery

Citation needed on this.

Article 13 will abolish competition to Google and Facebook, not rein it in. Only the largest players can deal with these regulations.

Smaller sites in the EU will be forced to shut down. Upload filters are mass government mandated censorship.

Please explain how this relates to “political correctness?” (Did you read the article?)

Anonymous Coward says:

Notice how Masnick never addresses what YouTube pays per stream versus what Apple Music, etc pay? Yeah. He really doesn’t want to discuss what Article 13 is actually about. He just wants to yell about “breaking the internet” for the millionth time.

Sorry Mike, but breaking Google’s grifter business model isn’t “breaking the internet”.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

And looks how this commenter glosses over the fact that youtube is host to a lot of content and not all of it is music. Then there is the legal issue with youtube regarding background noise and other noise that isn’t the main content.

It’s almost like this commenter can’t consider that internet culture cannot be one size fits all.

Anonymous Coward says:

The pirates are the ones who caused this by stealing everything they could get their hands on.

There needs to be a way to stop mass infringement of copyrighted works. Is this the only way? If not, provide an alternative that doesn’t require people to surrender their protection (practically or legally).

Harsh prison sentences for uploaders and probation for downloaders would be a good start.

We have "copyright maximalists" against "internet maximalists" here. Each thinks the other should pay the freight. The government is siding with revenuge-generating copyright holders rather than revenue-taking UGC and pirate sites. Can’t imagine why…

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

The pirates are the ones who caused this by stealing everything they could get their hands on.

Really? This is the legacy industries trying to close the value gap, that is the value they do not get from self published content. Publishing without assigning them the copyright so they can keep most of the profit is what they object to. They will only be happy when everybody has to submit content to them for publication, so that then select the fraction of a percent of submitted content that they can maximize their income from.

There needs to be a way to stop mass infringement of copyrighted works.

Have you not seen the size of modern micro sd cards, a matchbox full in the post will have a terrific bandwidth. The only way to stop people sharing content is for the industry to ensure that people cannot own any means of copying content, and remember a pen allow copying of a book.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

There has to be a way to stop piracy without burdening internet companies. If not, the internet is fatally flawed.

College textbooks are part of this market that has been harmed, making it more difficult to produce quality education materials as well. I saw books I paid a lot for on sale illicitly for $3 a copy nothing justifies that.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Nothing is stopping "good" publishers from producing low-cost textbooks.

Fact is, the best teaching materials come at a price. Piracy destroys that.

Then there’s trade writing, marketing materials, and many other works which would also lose protection. Stuff that never becomes mainstream but which is very high value to its owners.

Should we eliminate the protection for proprietary software? The only reason software companies don’t care is that they obliterated DOS (which still works just fine btw for many applications) because DOS programs can be pirated by copying a single directory. Ever wonder why Windows 10 does not have a 16-bit emulator? I still use DOS for a proprietary database program I wrote that uses all of 4mb of RAM and was written a very long time ago. By far the most memory-efficient program and that saves real time when a database gets large enough.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Ever wonder why Windows 10 does not have a 16-bit emulator?

Because it’s technically infeasible to do so on a 64-bit Windows version in the same way that they did on a 32-bit windows. On 32-bit, Windows handles did not contain more than 16 bits of significant information, but on 64-bit, they do, so trying to emulate it would have been a huge undertaking that would have basically involved rewriting Windows 3.11 from scratch and then testing everything to make sure they didn’t break any of it.

That, and why would they even want to? Microsoft’s messaging on the subject has literally been "DOS is dead" since the days of Windows 95, and there’s already DOSBox for ultra-legacy stuff like your 4 MB database. The rest of the world has moved on, and piracy has nothing to do with the reasons why.

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Ever wonder why Windows 10 does not have a 16-bit emulator?

No, because the answer is self evident – there is no point in supporting a legacy architecture that’s over 30 years old out of the box since the amount of users needing it is less than microscopic..

Those that has the need can install emulation and/or virtualization software where they can play with archaic systems.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

I still use DOS for a proprietary database program I wrote that uses all of 4mb of RAM and was written a very long time ago.

Why not port it to Windows? If it is written in a high level language, and is reasonably well structured, that should not be too hard. (I speak from experience having ported K&R C under CPM, via ANSI C under DOS, to c++ under Win 32; which runs under Win 10.)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Nothing is stopping "good" publishers from producing low-cost textbooks.

You’re absolutely right. As evidenced by lots of quality low-cost, self published, textbooks. It’s only the textbooks published by major publishers that are "high-cost". Gee, wonder why.

Fact is, the best teaching materials come at a price.

[Citation needed]

Piracy destroys that.

[Citation needed]

Stuff that never becomes mainstream but which is very high value to its owners.

Yeah, see, that’s the problem, the value to the owner means jack shit if no one is willing to buy it. It’s the other way around, stuff becomes mainstream because of the high value to the customer, regardless of what the owner values it at.

The only reason software companies don’t care is that they obliterated DOS

Hahahahahaha!!!!

(which still works just fine btw for many applications)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh my gosh I’m dying! Name one modern application that would run under DOS. I don’t care if it’s open source or proprietary, just name one. I’ll wait.

because DOS programs can be pirated by copying a single directory

Some could, some couldn’t. Misleading.

Ever wonder why Windows 10 does not have a 16-bit emulator?

Because it’s a nightmare to support such obsolete computing methods. 64-bit is far more useful and robust than 16-bit.

I still use DOS for a proprietary database program I wrote that uses all of 4mb of RAM and was written a very long time ago.

This actually does not surprise me since you don’t understand even the basics of how the world works. No modern software would EVER be able to use your database, it’s too old, too small, too incompatible, and likely too broken to be of any actual use to anyone other than someone who lives in the past and refuses to accept reality.

By far the most memory-efficient program

[Citation needed]

saves real time when a database gets large enough.

You mean by crashing if the database goes over 10 MB? I guess that’s one way to save time. If you can’t work, time saved.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

If not, the internet is fatally flawed.

Then it’s fatally flawed. Though I disagree that it is fatally so. It is impossible to EVER stop piracy. Piracy has been around for hundreds of years in one form or another and so far no one has been able to stop it. Don’t be Captain Ahab.

College textbooks are part of this market that has been harmed, making it more difficult to produce quality education materials as well.

[Citation needed]

I saw books I paid a lot for on sale illicitly for $3 a copy nothing justifies that.

You mean people reselling their old useless textbooks because since they bought them for classes a year ago the new edition has come out and switched up all the pages so you can’t use the old editions for classes anymore so they are, in essence, worthless? Or do you mean the legitimately licensed international versions that you can buy for a fraction of the cost of the US versions that have identical content but because they can get away with it in the US they overprice them like crazy to shaft college students?

I laugh in your general direction.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Because everyone has a commercial grade printing press to exactly copy textbooks. Right.

Again, most textbooks are absolutely worthless after one year. The more time passes, the more worthless they become, especially as the information becomes outdated. So no, $3 textbooks are not pirated, they are accurately reflecting their worth as a doorstop or booster seat for a small child.

You’re delusional.

bob says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

And the outrageous price charged for textbooks in the US is what is also prompting many professors to either write their own, not require a textbook, or supplement the lack of a textbook with other legal, cheaper/free sources.

The greed of the old business model creating artificial demand by the publishers is causing them to lose business. Slowly at first but the trend is rapidly spreading.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

I could live with this IF the penalties in the other direction were at least as onerous.
False claim of ownership of copyright = life in prison for the person claiming ownership, if a bot… then all executives of the company are guilty.
Third offence by a company all of their works become public domain internationally no matter how recent.

Anonymous Coward says:

Google has made many people very wealthy by spreading the revenue around through AdSense and AdWords. I’d hardly call that evil.

A company might have to be huge to pay all the license fees, but their users can offset or absorb that cost by generating revenue which is beyond the infrastructure of the platform.

I doubt memes are going anywhere.

Anonymous Coward says:

The "pirates don’t buy" stuff is also nebulous. Piracy is a cancer on copyright, and the right to protect new works is not "legacy."

The internet isn’t some magic genie who made copyright irrelevant. Real money has been lost, and those who pay are unfairly taxed by those who take. There’s NO reason to pirate any work one does not like, nor to worry about a business not having its "new model" imposed on them by threat of theft.

The entire construct of articles like this is bogus. Copyright deserves the most vigorous protections.

Rocky says:

Re: Re:

The "pirates don’t buy" stuff is also nebulous.

Yeah, because apparently they do according to several research papers.

Piracy is a cancer on copyright, and the right to protect new works is not "legacy."

So, how are you going to be able to post new works if article 13 comes into effect? Google doesn’t know what copyrights you own, Facebook doesn’t either. For that matter, not one site on the internet generally knows who holds what copyright.

Did you know that it’s not uncommon for some types of posted content to be claimed to be owned by several entities. Even original works where the author has to fight tooth and nail to gain control of his own works.

The internet isn’t some magic genie who made copyright irrelevant. Real money has been lost, and those who pay are unfairly taxed by those who take. There’s NO reason to pirate any work one does not like, nor to worry about a business not having its "new model" imposed on them by threat of theft.

Nobody said internet made copyright irrelevant, what people are saying is that to accommodate some content creators zeal for total control it’s going to break the internet for everyone else. In essence article 13 will stop all smaller content creators ability to post and promote their own material. Since the latest proposal want to do away with safe harbor for smaller sites it also means very few would dare to run their own site posting their own creations because just one instance where their creation is too like someone else could mean they are sued for copyright infringement – or it can be arbitrarily claimed by some nebulous entities.

The entire construct of articles like this is bogus. Copyright deserves the most vigorous protections.

Does it? At the expense of every user of the internet? Boil article 13 down to its core and it basically means that anyone using the internet is an infringer that has not been catched yet and woe to the site that misses someone posting infringing content – even if it is fair use.

Because that is what it means. Anyone not understanding this is either a blithering idiot, a shill for the legacy media or someone with an ax to grind – and I wouldn’t be surprised that some people matches all those "qualifications".

Also, those who pirate will just shrug and go dark while the rest of us gets a functionally broken internet.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Copyright vs. internet (round 110)

I don’t need a gatekeeper to post my own work to my own website, to which I can drive traffic on my own.

UGC may be the problem here. Aggregation another problem. Every techdirt article is read as a headline even by those who do not click through for the articles and the comments. It winds up on the landscape as a compete, unrebutted thought for many.

How does one "fix copyright?" I’m for lower penalties and treating anything but plagiarism as an ASCAP-style violation. I wouldn’t even care if the life of a copyright were shortened to twenty years.

Rebuilding the internet is not impossible, and on a historical time frame, what we’ve had now is a blip.

If we keep the status quo than those who break the law should be locked up. Your post also shows just how much damage pirates are causing because they are prompting governments to impose ridiculous burdens on internet companies. That should be sufficient to trigger the CFAA and let pirates be prosecuted there.

The Article 11/13 directives won’t change much. YouTube will pay the royalties and licenses and their users will make money without having to worry about losing their right to do memes or whatever.

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

He doesn’t get it.

Enforcing copyright on the level he wants means that copyright law itself becomes the gatekeeper for hosting your own content.

He doesn’t understand that if he manages to host his own content someone with deeper pockets can just hit him with a copyright infringement claim on his works if it just bear a likeness. Either he gets fined or he has to pour huge amounts of money into litigation defending his copyright at which point that claiming entity just says ‘ Ops! My bad!’ and concedes they where wrong and scamper off. If he is extremely lucky he may get some money back, otherwise he has had to finance the litigation all the while he can’t earn a dime on his content.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

They can do that now, but don’t.

The endgame for Article 11/13 is that Google et al. become the umbrella that protects creators, in exchange for a relatively small cut. Given that YouTube pays 68 percent of its revenue to creators, for something requiring so much bandwidth, it is not clear this power would be abused.

In your scenario, a motion to dismiss is pretty cheap to file. Lawyers of course would step in to hep would they not?

If you REALLY want to stop Article 11/13, change the law so that nonattorney "advocates" can represent people accused of copyright infringement.

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

They can do that now, but don’t.

Because currently it’s free to dirt cheap to have a hosted site or blog where you self publish. How much do you think it will cost when the liabilities due to article 13 increases?

The endgame for Article 11/13 is that Google et al. become the umbrella that protects creators, in exchange for a relatively small cut. Given that YouTube pays 68 percent of its revenue to creators, for something requiring so much bandwidth, it is not clear this power would be abused.

They don’t really protect creators today unless you have some clout, why do you believe they will do it if article 13 comes into effect. Also, there are people who have lost their Youtube channels due to bogus copyright strikes. If you get 3 strikes your account AND content is just deleted. There are examples of people getting copyright claims from a multitude of entities on completely original content. Example: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-42580523

In your scenario, a motion to dismiss is pretty cheap to file. Lawyers of course would step in to hep would they not?

How you an inkling how much it costs to hire a lawyer?

If you REALLY want to stop Article 11/13, change the law so that nonattorney "advocates" can represent people accused of copyright infringement.

And they promptly get steamrolled in court by a real lawyer.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

There will still be search engines, link farms, link exchanges, or — gasp! — advertising in print media and on television! Wouldn’t mind seeing those industries take money from Google, that’s for sure.

Not everyone is going to fold just because of Article 11/13. "New business models" will emerge!

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

There will still be search engines, link farms, link exchanges, or — gasp! — advertising in print media and on television! Wouldn’t mind seeing those industries take money from Google, that’s for sure.

So you are advocating stealing from successful companies so you can prop up failing companies?

Also, who in their right mind would want to PAY to provide a service. Why don’t you come over and wash my car to prove your point, I’ll charge you $5 for the privilege – it’s just a pittance really.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

If we keep the status quo than those who break the law should be locked up.

Alice More: Arrest him!
Sir Thomas More: Why, what has he done?
Margaret More: He’s bad!
Thomas More: There is no law against that.
Will Roper: There is! God’s law!
Thomas More: Then God can arrest him.
Alice: While you talk, he’s gone!
Thomas More: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!
Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law!
Thomas More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man’s laws, not God’s — and if you cut them down — and you’re just the man to do it — do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety’s sake.

~ from A Man for All Seasons (1966 film)

Gary (profile) says:

Re: Cancer

Copyright monopolies are a cancer on the commons. Copyright only exists to promote the public good. Copyright isn’t a license to inspect all data passing across the interwebs just in case a much faster now. Textbooks are out of date in 5 years. Hollywood blockbusters should have made a fine return in five years.
Lowering the monopoly protection would surely incentivize more creations, not less.
It would demonstrably put more works in the public domain for the common good.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

You browse the Internet. Your browser has a cache. Your cache has a copy of content from sites you visited. Now I have probable cause to inspect your computer for possible infringement of other people’s copyrights. And under your plan to jail infringers, if I can prove my case, you go to jail because your infringement — no matter how “incidental” — is still infringement.

Beware the Devil, you anonymous coward; one day, you may find him at your doorstep waiting to deliver the punishment you would have visited upon those you deem wicked and evil. Woe be unto you on that day.

…as for me, I’ll be enjoying the schadenfreude. ????

Anonymous Coward says:

This isn't about Google

Google will survive and thrive, with or without Yerrup. This law is simply a prop for the European corporatist monopolies, to enable them to crush any new competition and maintain complete control over the creative workers.

The natural result would be for the creative types to emigrate, impoverishing European culture. But that doesn’t matter, so long as the Big European Media Corporations continue to get the kind of income they’ve come to expect.

Michael Riendeau says:

The EU is simply being run by evil people who hate us

Once again, the EU wants to do this because they’re sociopathic freaks with black hearts, black souls and black minds. Germany was always going to support Article 13 without the SMEs. They have simply been playing mind games with us to trick us into thinking the Democratic System still works, only to stab us in the back in the end. The only thing the media companies have done was give the EU an excuse hide behind so they can carry out their depraved desires. If that fails, they would simply find another excuse to ruin the internet, like terrorism.

Prinny says:

Re: The EU is simply being run by evil people who hate us

Didn’t Margaret Thatcher oppose the reunification of Germany because (paraphrased) "every time Germany is unified it immediately starts to conquer the rest of Europe"? Looks like she was right, dood! Only this time it’s an economic conquest rather than a military one!

Michael Riendeau says:

Re: Re: The EU is simply being run by evil people who hate us

This is not just about Germany. The entire EU has turned fascistic and it is worse than just authoritarianism. These people basically have the exact same motivation as Captain Planet villains who like to pollute the world, not simply for profit or any gain, but simply for shits and giggles. They are bad people.

Anonymous Coward says:

Theres articles that say some pirates buy more content than the average consumer.
Some creators upload say book 1 of a series to pirate sites ,
read my book,if you like it buy book,2 ,3 etc
AS Mike says they could tax google or facebook,
this law will break the internet,
,one example ,facebook might block all eu users from watching all video,s from us users or creators ,as it might otherwise risk being sued by some one in the eu.
This basically wipes out meme,s remix culture , in the eu.
Small eu websites will simply have to block all user uploads ,
if you want to upload videos in the eu you might have only facebook
or youtube as a outlet .
The people that made this law are either stupid or just want to help
legacy corporations, It,S a big F U to small websites who do not
have millions to build filters .

Michael Riendeau says:

Re: Re:

[I]The people that made this law are either stupid or just want to help legacy corporations[/i]

Those people just wanted an excuse to obliterate the internet in Europe. They are evil and depraved on the same level as Ajit Pai here in America. They are actively trying to undermine democracy by shoving this law in as a means to tell people that their voices do not matter. This is an act of malicious moral depravity than any kind of ignorance. They deserve to be tarred and feathered for crimes against humanity.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

If that is true then let the creators decide when to release free copies of their work. Many authors do this when they go on talk shows and announce that their new release will be free for X period of time.

If you want to abolish copyright enforcement, fine. Let me aggregate the content of the media companies with playlists etc. (links to hosted copies not owned by the creators). Of course, they don’t want that, but rather want a scenario where the big rip off the small but the small cannot fight back.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

If that is true then let the creators decide when to release free copies of their work.

Umm, they already do (except when they are signed by legacy industry publishing/recording companies and have no rights over their works anymore). I’m confused.

Many authors do this when they go on talk shows and announce that their new release will be free for X period of time.

But you just said they couldn’t do that! Make up your mind, which is it?

but rather want a scenario where the big rip off the small but the small cannot fight back.

And legacy entertainment industries trying to destroy the means for people to self publish is different how, exactly?

Anonymous Coward says:

How to block or overcome horrid legislation

When I read about such legislation, I have to ask myself how one might block or protest its passage. Some options that come to mind include:

1) Pick a day and encourage the temporary mass shutdown of as many sites and services as possible in order to raise awareness of the rules’ impact. Make people truly realize the impact such rules would have on the internet they use today. Google gave the legislators a taste earlier when they showed a sample news page without content snippets. I think that idea needs to be expanded. How long could the EU hold out with a true internet shutdown? When the EU was looking to pass ACTA, internet sites flagged their home pages with banners warning users of the treaty’s potential harm. This resulted in many people marching or contacting their political representatives in protest. This, in turn, caused the EU to reject the treaty. Awareness of the issue among the masses is needed to fight it.

2) If banners and sample pages don’t work, pick a point in time and alert your uses that you will block or withdraw your site/service from all EU countries if the rules pass. Then do it. If enough companies do this, even for a day, you might have enough pressure for a repeal.

3) Take to the streets in protest. You already have the Yellow Vests in France marching to remind those in office that they have an obligation to listen to the people they (supposedly) represent. I imagine more people would turn out for such marches if these rules were passed.

4) Push for your country to quit the EU. The new rules can be used as examples for why staying in the union is not in your country’s best interest. If your country is not in the EU,ltheir rules don’t apply to you. There is already a burning movement among the citizens of certain countries (like Britain, France, Italy, Hungary, Austria, etc.) to exit the union. Rules like these would certainly add to that fire.

In the end, it is the people most effected by these rules who must make their voices heard as to what they want. The people making these rules think they have the power to put their own interests ahead of anyone else’s. Actually, they only have that power IF the masses GIVE it to them. If the masses don’t want these rules, they must make that fact known by joining together and speaking up as they did with ACTA.

PNRCinema (profile) says:

I know this is showing my naivete on this..

But isn’t there some sort of provision in the trade area of the United Nations charter that can be used to stop this shit dead in it’s tracks? I seem to remember reading a few months ago that the UN had issued some sort of edict or proclamation that they were wholly against the EU enacting either Article – so can’t this mostly completely toothless organization find some balls, find a provision that they can make stick, then actually step up and block this crap?

Like I said, i’m showing my naivete here, but there has to be some LEGAL means for stopping a small group of less than 500 people, all arrogant know it all bastards, from enacting something that will affect the entire planet and the way the internet is comprised therein…especially since it will affect the livelihood of literally MILLIONS of people…

OK, have at it…heh heh

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: I know this is showing my naivete on this..

The biggest damage will be to "culture", which is a very touchy-feely thing that is very hard to legislate around.

But, in the end, if this goes ahead, we’ll all be able to say "I told you so" as the big players dominate and independent artists get screwed even harder.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: I know this is showing my naivete on this..

"The biggest damage will be to "culture", which is a very touchy-feely thing that is very hard to legislate around."

then… it should not be legislated around and you instead legislate around hard facts like PROVEN infringers and PROVEN losses rather than the random crap you spew around to make you feel better?

"we’ll all be able to say "I told you so" a"

No, you won’t because your random nonsense would be blocked from the open web lest you infringe on some other idiot.

ECA (profile) says:

Re: I hope they understand

I hope they get the idea..
You cant aim a law/regulation towards 1 company..
ANd how in hell are you going to charge GOOGLE for a link on an amazon server, thats inside a forum that was never created by any of the above.
Big/excite/ducky/google/yahoo/MSN/…/…/… to name a few…all do the same..
AND STILL, it is not going to be the little syndicates that get ANY MONEY….they are only aggregates, they Copy the OTHER major corps data….SO THEY ARE LINKING ALSO..

Rocky says:

Re: The Common Good

Wow, you guys really sound like communists, with your focus on the “common good”. Are you Russian, or do you work for the Russians?

Are any of you actual Americans, or are you traitors to your own heritage and your own history?

It seems you have no clue what "common good" means even though you benefit from it every day. And I bet that you can’t tell me what communism means without looking it up even if your life depended on it (remember, using Wikipedia is using the fruits of the common good).

You pay taxes for the common good of the society.
You go to school for the common good of the society.
You can use public transportation because of the common good of your city.
You have the right to legal representation because of the common good of the society.
I can go on with more example, but I expect even you could get the gist by now.

Are any of you actual Americans, or are you traitors to your own heritage and your own history?

You mean those who fled their countries to avoid persecution, poverty, hunger or just to make buck? The same who stole land from the natives already living there at gun point? You means those "actual Americans"?

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re: The Common Good

And you are another communist fucking foreigner, right?

Fess up.

I can honestly say that I’m not like a knuckle dragging internet troll of dubious parentage that don’t have the wherewithal to post a snappy riposte with a modicum of intelligence interjected.

An accidental reply by a cat walking over a keyboard would have possessed more originality than your attempt at baiting.

Wendy Cockcroft (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: The Common Good

Eh? PaulT and I are different people. I’m a woman living in the UK, and I’m fairly certain he resides in Spain. We sometimes disagree but I respect him because he’s often right.

If you want to spend your life being all paranoid and stuff knock yourself out. I’ve got better things to do. Oh, if it helps any, I used to do web design for a living, then got out due to the market being saturated for the small and medium-sized businesses I was aiming at. I got into TD and politics over SOPA when I realised that any random sod could accuse me of copyright infringement and get my site blocked on that alone. I still keep my hand in by helping out my friends as and when required. I joined the Pirate Party about that time and have been a supporter ever since, but since I tend towards traditional conservatism I disagree with some of my party’s stances on things like UBI. I’m most active on Twitter these days, banging on about how stupid Brexit is.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: The Common Good

That’s actually too dumb to dignify with a real answer, but when you insist on posting anonymously and then complain about other people hiding their identity, you’ve pretty much lost any argument you could have had. Even if you were remotely correct about what you just stated, you’d still be in the wrong.

Wendy Cockcroft (profile) says:

This is why it's being called "ACTA 2"

This can still be stopped, but it’s going to rely on the EU Parliament actually having a backbone and saying that this is not acceptable. And that is going to require people in Europe to contact their MEPs and telling them not to wreck the internet.

On July 04 2012 we the people defeated ACTA by contacting our MEPs and asking them to vote against it. The result was spectacular, to say the least.

The people: 478
Pro-ACTA: 39

I remind people of this glorious fact every once in a while because, as I’ve often said, pressure works. So pile on the damn pressure and give me another democratic win to gloat about!

Here you go: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/en/your-meps/uk_meps.html

Those are the UK ones. If every citizen of every member state emails and calls their MEPs to ask them to vote against Articles 11 and 13 we will defeat the maximalists again. What are you waiting for?

Oh, and it might be worth asking if they’re allergic to flowers. Wink

Wendy Cockcroft (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 This is why it's being called "ACTA 2"

Yep. As I’ve already said it’s best to personalise your comments to match their biases. I asked the UKIP MEP’s not to sell us out to the Yanks during the ACTA campaign because they’re xenophobic little sods.

These days you’d be asking them not to let the EU dictate what we can or can’t do online as this would affect British people even when we’re out of the EU.

Pro-EU MEPs would be asked to vote against it in the name of encouraging faith in the EU as an organisation that works for the public good. Be creatively manipulative — the lobbyists are.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...