Article 13 Was Purposefully Designed To Be Awful For The Internet; EU Moves Forward With It Anyway

from the just-admit-it dept

As was widely expected, even if it’s unfortunately, on Friday evening the EU Council voted to move forward with the latest draft of the EU Copyright Directive, including the truly awful “compromise” version of Article 13 hacked out by the Germans and the French. This happened despite the fact that there’s basically no one left who supports this version of Article 13. The public is widely against it. The internet companies are against it. And, perhaps surprisingly, even the legacy copyright companies — who pushed so hard for this — are still angry about the result, which they insist is too lenient on the internet.

I’ve been left scratching my head over why the copyright holders are still pushing for more here. To be clear, the version that the EU Council approved last week would fundamentally change the internet in a massive way. It would, effectively, make it nearly impossible for any website to ever host any user-generated content. In nearly all cases it would require expensive and problematic upload filters. In the few “exceptions” to that, it would still require a massive amount of concessions from internet platforms to avoid liability.

However, the reality here is simple: Article 13 (and, to a lesser extent, Article 11 with its snippet tax) is purposely designed to be awful. The supporters of these efforts keep insisting that it’s not going to harm the internet at all, and that it’s just about “closing the value gap” or “making the playing field even” or other nonsense along those lines. They insist that it won’t create any harm to user-generated content platforms, or to legitimate, non-infringing works. Given that we’ve already seen how these kinds of systems work in practice, everyone knows that’s a laughably false proposition.

However, a bit of truth came out a few weeks back, when Axel Voss, the MEP pushing this Directive forward, put out a “Q and A” page attempting to defend both Articles 11 and 13. We walked through that page sentence by sentence to debunk it, but I kept thinking about why the EU and Axel Voss would push such utter nonsense. Normally, politicians at least try to put forth a flimsy attempt at pretending they’re based in reality. But not here.

However, in rereading the “answers” to the questions in the document, the whole thing makes sense under one, and only one, condition: if Articles 11 and 13 are purposefully designed to be internet-destroyingly awful, then the belief is that it will force internet platforms to negotiate some sort of “global licensing” deal. Professor AnneMarie Bridy made this point last month, in noting the following:

But, as you read through Articles 11 and 13 and Voss’s “answers” and the comments from the legacy copyright players, it all “makes sense” if you believe the entire point of these bills is not to set up a system whereby the internet companies are installing actual filters and blocking infringing works. Rather, they only make sense if the goal is to make things so goddamn awful for the internet companies that they pay the legacy copyright holders not to sue them. Indeed, the Q&A comes the closest to saying exactly this:

Large online platforms and news aggregators will have more reason than currently is the case to strike fair remuneration (licensing) agreements with artists and media houses who would have identified themselves beforehand as the owners of a piece of work. A platform or news aggregator will be further incentivised to strike such agreements because, in the absence of them, it would be directly liable if it hosts a piece of work with an unpaid licence fee. The current legislation offers more wiggle room for platforms to absolve themselves from this liability.

As we pointed out last time, this is utter nonsense, as nothing in the draft actually sets this up. But it does make sense if the entire point of the bill is to be so onerous as to be impossible — creating a shotgun situation in which the platforms feel the need to pay off the copyright holders not to sue them (jokingly referred to here as “licensing agreements.”) This is why the copyright holders are so upset about any form of safe harbor or any way in which platforms might avoid massive, crippling liability. Because if there’s a path to abide by the law, then there will be less incentive to pay off Hollywood not to sue. It goes on:

The draft directive will not be the source of censorship. By increasing legal liability, the draft directive will increase pressure on internet platforms/news aggregators to conclude fair remuneration deals with the creators of work through which the platforms make money. This is not censorship.

Again, this makes no sense, as the entire point of the draft directive is increased censorship… unless every internet platform pays off Hollywood to leave them alone.

And, again, as Prof. Bridy rightly points out above, all of this only makes sense in the context where there is a fairly small number of rightsholders and an even smaller number of internet platforms, who can gather together and hash out “don’t sue us” deals (i.e., “licenses” < -- sarcastic quotes implied). And, again, that only works if the actual provisions of Articles 11 and 13 are so laughably stupid, so ridiculously onerous, so painfully destructive, that the internet platforms are left with no choice (well, that, or shut down, which many would likely have to do).

And thus, it would be better for all involved if Hollywood, the big news publishers, and the record labels just admit this upfront. The entire point of Articles 11 and 13 are that they are awful and destructive to the internet. It is a form of regulatory extortion. “Pay us, or we destroy your internet.” At least admitting that would be intellectually honest.

Still, given that, wouldn’t it be better for Axel Voss and others to just do what clearly is intended here and write a law that is a lot more honest and just says “Google and Facebook need to pay &euro:X amount to satisfy these flopping legacy industries that failed to innovate.” At least that would be much more direct and honest. But, alas, it appears that’s wishful thinking. Instead, the EU Parliament will now gather with the EU Council and EU Commission for a new round of “trilogue” negotiations, where everyone will pretend that there’s some good reason for this set of regulations, when even the key rationale in support of the effort is that following the law will be so painful and so destructive that the internet platforms will pay off copyright holders to avoid having to comply.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,
Companies: facebook, google

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 Was Purposefully Designed To Be Awful For The Internet; EU Moves Forward With It Anyway”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
282 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: they know what they are doing

Do not think of them as ignorant old farts who dont know anything about what they are doing. These criminal trash know EXACTLY what they are doing. They are trying to establish a fascist regime in Europe by destroying the last realm of free speech on this Earth, the internet. These filth of humanity, morally depraved to the same level as nazis, rapists and serial killers are simply evil incarnate. They are trying to destroy OUR internet simply to cause as much harm to millions of people as possible. This is yet another war between freedom and fascism, and fascism needs to be destroyed yet again.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

I think it’s the latter. There’s a lot of people out there (including myself at times) that think Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other social platforms are a net negative on society.

If articles 11 and 13 prove to be truly disastrous, then they can always be reverted or modified. Remember when the right to be forgotten was going to destroy the internet? Turns out it hasn’t really been a problem yet…

Articles 11 and 13 have flaws but it’s worth trying something because just about anything is better than the status quo.

TFG says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Articles 11 and 13 have flaws but it’s worth trying something because just about anything is better than the status quo.

I vehemently disagree with you, because I believe that the Status Quo is a hell of a lot better than the result Articles 11 and 13 will have, and also I call buuuuuullshiiiiiiit on the idea that these articles will be able to be rolled back.

Miss me with this nonsense.

Michael Riendeau says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Articles 11 and 13 have flaws but it’s worth trying something because just about anything is better than the status quo."

Then you are just as much a piece of trash as the rest of the human disease that is pushing for article 13. We should hold corrupt politicians like Trump, Ajit Pai, and Axel Voss to the same standards as rapists, serial killers and Pedophiles. They are trash and trash belongs in the incinerator.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: reaction.

The demand is that internet companies stop enabling criminal conduct, i.e., piracy.

For these laws you can blame sites like The Pirate Bay, for being so brazen, just like sports bettors can blame the "catch me if you can" poker players who ruined online betting by bragging about how nothing could be done to stop them until the recent Supreme Court decision legalized it.

Smaller companies will thrive in this new environment. Thieves will not.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: reaction.

Smaller companies will thrive in this new environment.

Not when the legacy industries demand that they buy an expensive annual blanket license or else. They will not care how careful a site is to avoid infringing content, but will make a license a necessryt condition of having a website.

Thad (profile) says:

Re: Re: reaction.

For these laws you can blame sites like The Pirate Bay, for being so brazen, just like sports bettors can blame the "catch me if you can" poker players who ruined online betting by bragging about how nothing could be done to stop them until the recent Supreme Court decision legalized it.

Or — or — we could blame badly-written laws on the people who actually write and pass them.

You’re not big on personal responsibility, are you, Johnny? It’s always somebody else’s fault. Legislation isn’t the fault of the lobbyists who write it or the legislators who pass it; it’s the fault of those filthy, filthy pirates. Your books don’t sell poorly because you’re a half-literate twit who spends all day writing stupid shit in Internet comments sections instead of writing more books; it’s the fault of those filthy, filthy pirates. Sensing a pattern here?

TFG says:

Re: Re: Re:2 reaction.

My writing has nothing to do with piracy being wrong

What writing? The writing that you would have earned millions on, but it got stolen by pirates? The writing that you have flat refused to prove exist? That writing?

Because that writing has been presented as an example of the effects of what you call piracy, and a reason why Article 13 should be passed, so, yeah, it’s got a lot to do with this discussion.

Except, you know, you refuse to prove it exists, so I must assume you’re just lying about it, Sanford.

Anonymous Coward says:

Copyright is not "legacy." New copyrights are registered every hour, if not more frequently. Copyright protects the creators of not just creative works, but corporate writing, advertising, textbooks, and a host of other creations.

The problem with piracy is that, even if not a single downloader were to purchase something, they carry value to advertisers in pop-up advertising, and especially in the mailing list, as well as in the pirated works themselves, into which ads are often inserted. This costs creators millions of dollars, while enriching criminals. The intransigence of the pirates and the illegal downloaders has been such that Article 11/13 became necessary.

If websites cannot host user-generated content that complies with the law, then they are the ones who need to change their business model.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

oh, and while I’m at it:

The problem with piracy is that, even if not a single downloader were to purchase something, they carry value to advertisers in pop-up advertising, and especially in the mailing list, as well as in the pirated works themselves, into which ads are often inserted. This costs creators millions of dollars, while enriching criminals. The intransigence of the pirates and the illegal downloaders has been such that Article 11/13 became necessary.

Back up your assertions.

TFG says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Yes. Also, your claims of the effect of piracy need proof. The cost you claim that piracy incurs needs proof. The claim that article 11/13 is necessary, or will even effect what you claim it will, needs proof. In fact, in order for that latter claim to be valid, you would need to actually address every single objection that is in the articles provided, and that everyone else has brought up to you in all the other comment threads.

Actually discuss, actually provide evidence instead of blindly asserting, and actually address the arguments of those discoursing with you, or you will be roundly ignored (and roundly mocked in the process).

James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Actually, yes. there are valid questions if a mailing list of people who aren’t paying for content is in fact valuable.

Also, I’m not aware of a major pirate site that requires emails to access torrent magnet links. I am also unaware of a pirate site that keeps logs of visitors. That tends to be against the whole point.

Also, There are also claims of ‘enriching’ criminals which are not backed up by data, given how most torrent sites are set up to avoid the site or its creators from actually performing any infringement, and that there is no evidence that pirate sites actually pull in any profit in the first place.

And in no case has any of that proved that Articles 11/13 are necessary, given that the entertainment industries seem to be making record profits overall.

There is a lot more than claims of the value of a mailing list that need to be addressed.

bob says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

It’s not free to send spam to people, electronic or physical. Sure email spam is cheaper but you still have to waste time writing the email, curating the content, and figuring out how to get around the spam filters. Or you waste resources printing out garbage for others to throw away.

All that effort just for someone to ignore your message. Judging from the amount of time you waste posting hidden comments I guess for you time doesnt equal money

James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Flag on the play!

AC associates Legacy with copyright when the intended association in the phrase "legacy copyright industry/industries" is between legacy and industry.

ALSO:

AC impunes some right to gather a mailing list as part of copyright. Access to a mailing list is not a right granted my copyright.

ALSO:

AC is expressing theoretical value pirate sites might get from piracy as an equivalent ‘stolen’ value from the copyright holder, without evidence. Studies have shown that modern common forms of infringement don’t generate any monetary income for the pirates.

Play is declared dead. AC is assessed a 15 yard penalty to their reputation for transparent attempts to willfully misunderstand the arguments in play. It is now second down.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Many pirates have gotten rich off piracy. I know of one such "bay" site that was designed for a single niche that generated about $10 million a year for its owner.

The loss of a mailing list is not speculative, even if one assumes that not a single pirate would have purchased (if so, then there’s no point designing a business model for non-customers).

Article 13 is the reality at the end of Piracy Road.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I know of one such "bay" site that was designed for a single niche that generated about $10 million a year for its owner.

Knowing that you will never provide proof for such statements, why do you keep coming back and spewing more bullshit, then cry when everybody calls you out on your bullshit sewing.

And if it was that easy to make $10 million dollars, then why didn’t the copyright cartels just design their own "bay" site such that they can earn that money themselves?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Added to this: the people who provide those electronic scooters aren’t stealing from shoe manufacturers, even though they provide ways for people to move their shoes around without the wear and tear that makes them go out and buy new ones regularly.

Finding a single niche and exploiting it is what entrepreneurship is built on top of. Of course, that should be both a legal and ethical niche, but some people choose to take the risk — like, for instance, UCE spammers.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Many pirates have gotten rich off piracy. I know of one such "bay" site that was designed for a single niche that generated about $10 million a year for its owner.

[citation really fucking needed]

The loss of a mailing list is not speculative, even if one assumes that not a single pirate would have purchased

…okay seriously, th’fuck is with you and mailing lists lately, Sanford? Pirates don’t tend to keep track of other pirates. It defeates the whole point of torrent trackers and illicit download sites.

Article 13 is the reality at the end of Piracy Road.

Napster. Limewire. TPB. All have fallen to the vengeful hand of the MPAA, RIAA, and other similar legacy copyright-holding industries¹. And yet, “piracy” remains. What makes you think Article 13 will do what the MPAA, the RIAA, and all their bought-off legislators have not been able to do with a full-on frontal assault that has lasted for 20 years?

¹ — Just want to make sure you can comprehend what we’re talking about here.

James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Investigations have ranged that site’s 2006 revenue between $169,000 and $1.4 Million (USD). You might be confused, because the estimates were issued in SEK, the local currancy, and the high end estimate was 10 Million SEK. But you used the $ symbol, and SEK does not use that currency symbol, and lacking clarity I assume you were suggesting the 10 million was in USD, so you definitely appear confused. Being off by an order of magnitude in your revenue claims really hurts your position.

Now, that is only revenue, and like a lot of people you fail to understand that there are expenses that need to be deducted to know if you make money. The defense lawyers for that site in the 2009 criminal case estimated an approx $8,000 USD loss in 2006. The revenue value used by the prosecution at trial (far less than the SEK 10 Million) does express a surplus in 2006 revenue (profit) over the defense’s expense estimates, but prosecution assumptions about what was revenue might have lead to higher expense calculations as well, (under the IGAP principles of expense/revenue matching). Accounting when dealing with an unincorporated entity like the pirate bay can be complex. The trial made no determinations of what the actual profit was, and not enough information is public to make this determination as a armchair lawyer.

This is the core issue you face Sanford – you have made claims, but don’t actually have any evidence, and show you only have the most cursory understanding of the information at your disposal. If you don’t understand the difference between revenue and profit, you shouldn’t try talking about someone being ‘enriched’ by a business which might not be making money.

Rico R. (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Never mind your lack of proof on people getting rich off of piracy. Never mind the fact that your mention of a mailing list makes absolutely no sense. (The only time I have to enter my email for a mailing list for free content is when the said free content is made available for free in exchange for my email by the copyright holder themselves. That is NOT “piracy” because it’s authorized by the copyright holder.) Let’s talk about “the end of Piracy Raod” because if you think that Article 13’s passage is going to result in a quick and painful death for TPB and Torrent sites, you’re sadly mistaken.

If, as you will put it, someone wants to go out of their way to create a site or app whose sole purpose is to help facilitate copyright infringement, they’re going to do so. Article 13 would only add the liability they already face when they do so, and I’m not even sure it’s going to do that. If you think that those that run sites like TPB are going to stop operating if Article 13 passes, then you’ve got another thing coming. The DMCA in the US didn’ stop piracy, and you think passing another law in another region is going to change that? Copyright infringement is already illegal, but the “pirates” behind the “piracy” don’t care, and they could care less about how copyright law is going to change.

All Article 13 will do is take sites that aren’t trying to help its users infringe copyright, follow the DMCA to the letter, and even has a plethora of user-generated content that is wholly original, and make them liable if even 1 second of an infringing upload is found. Sites like YouTube, Facebook, Tumblr, and many more have WAY more to worry about with Article 13 than TPB. YouTube’s copyright system is broken to the point where abusive Content ID claims are almost laughable at this point, and if Article 13 passes, not only will Content ID be here to stay, but it will likely be made a billion times worse. I wouldn’t even be surprised if all monetization claims are blocked in the EU because of this.

So no, Article 13 won’t be the end of Piracy Road. Piracy will continue unscathed, while the rest of the Internet gets screwed over.

Thad (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Copyright is not "legacy."

You’re either legitimately failing at reading comprehension, or you’re being intentionally disingenuous.

The phrase is "legacy copyright companies". Three words. Not two. The word "legacy" is clearly meant to describe copyright-owning companies whose business model relies on a pre-Internet conception of copyright law.

That is extremely clear from both the phrase and the context. So either you’re bad at understanding plain English — entirely possible; you’re certainly not very good at writing it — or you understand just fine and you’re merely pretending not to.

Which is it, John — are you stupid, or dishonest?

MathFox says:

Re: Re:

The problem with piracy is that, even if not a single downloader were to purchase something, they carry value to advertisers in pop-up advertising, and especially in the mailing list, as well as in the pirated works themselves, into which ads are often inserted. This costs creators millions of dollars, while enriching criminals. The intransigence of the pirates and the illegal downloaders has been such that Article 11/13 became necessary.

You are confusing me by conflating all those different subjects; piracy, downloading and advertising; in one paragraph. My answers are:

  • For piracy: call in the navy, coastguard and ground support to take the pirate’s harbours.
  • Illegal downloads are a part of the Internet as they are hard to distinguish from legal downloads. In the EU they talk about downloads from legal or illegal sources, but I find that as hard of a distinction to make.
  • Advertising should be made illegal, then only criminals would advertise.

If websites cannot host user-generated content that complies with the law, then they are the ones who need to change their business model.
As long as publishers complain about fair use, fair quoting, titles or filenames that match their titles… You must have heard about the "dancing baby" that outgrew the lawsuit over his video. And while you talk about content like it is cookies; other people talk about culture and see culture being suppressed because it is not monetized by some big publisher.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Copyright is not "legacy."

I’m pretty sure this has been explained to you before: The term "legacy copyright holder" is not referring to the idea that copyright is "legacy." It’s referring to the established corporations (the "legacy" corporations, that is) that are trying to abuse copyright law by legislating their way to profit instead of innovating.

If websites cannot host user-generated content that complies with the law, then they are the ones who need to change their business model.

Legitimate UGC websites do everything they can to comply with the law, including substantial efforts to remove infringing content. The problem is that it will never be enough to satisfy the legacy corporate interests. That’s why Article 13 is now requiring up-front licensing from platform providers, even if there’s no evidence that said content is even present on the site. "Pay us in advance to be covered just in case there’s a violation later." That’s not a license, it’s infringement insurance. Of course, for the legacy corporations, it’s also income assurance.

It’s also been pointed out several times that the idea of intermediary liability is utterly ridiculous when applied to real-world situations (e.g., holding a car manufacturer liable when the car is used in a crime) so, why does it suddenly make sense for platform providers?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

The platforms can directly eliminate the illegal activity while preserving the legal uses of their product, unless of course their business model relies on this criminal conduct.

Bookstores have been held to distributor liability for defamation for centuries, and vicarious and contributory copyright-infringement are well-established legal doctrines, even standalone torts.

Reality seems at odds with your assertion. Product-liability law also assigns liability to manufacturers whose products cause harm. Just ask the makers of the Pinto.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

The platforms can directly eliminate the illegal activity while preserving the legal uses of their product

Hypothetical: A person posts a video to YouTube that contains footage from a currently popular videogame. (Let’s go with Apex Legends for the hell of it.) Now, how do YouTube’s automatic filters differentiate between someone uploading only direct gameplay footage, someone uploading that footage with commentary attached, and someone uploading that footage as part of a longer video about multiple videogames that contains commentary and cultural critique about videogames in particular and pop culture in general?

THE ANSWER MAY SHOCK YOU!

the answer is that the filters can’t do that

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 breaking the filters

First, let’s change the game being depicted in the footage — instead of some random title grabbed from the shelves of the game store, lets use Battle for Wesnoth. In this case, instead of being under a typical shrinkwrap EULA with a single publisher holding the copyrights, we are talking about a game whose copyrights are distributed across a worldwide team of volunteers, and licensed under a mix of GPL-compatible licensing agreements. (The code’s GPLv2 or later, along with some older art, and newer art is CC BY-SA 4.0.)

Now, let us suppose that we have two videos, both based on custom campaigns (Wesnoth fully supports this). Video maker #1 supplies full source code for the campaign along with basic instructions for recreating the setup, while video maker #2, however, supplies none of that.

Is video maker #2 violating copyright? Possibly! That older art is GPLv2 (or later) and as a result, the video itself could be seen as a GPLed derivative work, and the video maker would be distributing it in a way that’s not GPL compliant if they don’t give someone a fighting chance at recreating it, leaving them with no copyright leg to stand on. (It’s greyer than most cases of "here’s the binaries but we won’t give you the sources" GPL violations, but it’s within reason, given the way copyrights on video games are being interpreted in this thread.)

Now, what are the filters supposed to do about this? How can they tell the two videos apart, given that video #1 is fine under just about any reasonable interpretation of copyright you can think of (it’s likely itself a GPLed work by way of being a derivative work of a partially GPLed work under the theory of video game copyrights espoused in this thread, which is odd, but not problematic as long as you stick to the GPL’s terms), while video #2 is quite possibly (albeit not definitively!) a copyright infringement due to being a potentially violating derivative work of a partially GPLed work? And that’s before you add whatever fair use/fair dealing arguments such a video creator may make to the picture!

Moral of the story: COPYRIGHT IS COMPLICATED. Unlike some other things that people wish to police on the net (such as CP, which is a simple strict-liability crime and thus easy to hunt with hashes), figuring out if something is copyright infringement requires knowing all the licensing details for the work in question (which can get into a spiderweb-like tangle quite fast), as well as knowing what falls under the scope of fair use/fair dealing (which requires quite a bit of context in and of itself!), waivability of rights, and more.

Or in short, show me the magic AI that can tell the two videos described in this hypothetical apart, then I will believe what you say. Until then, I’ll keep looking at you like you asked me to launch a manned mission to the surface of the Sun.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The platforms can directly eliminate the illegal activity while preserving the legal uses of their product

And they do so, as I mentioned above.

Bookstores have been held to distributor liability for defamation

True, to a point:

Under the common law, “distributors” like newspaper vendors and book sellers are liable only if they had notice of a defamatory statement in their merchandise. The publisher of the newspaper or book where the statement originally appeared, however, may be held liable even without notice. (Barrett v. Rosenthal)

CDA 230 covers this for the USA. Law has recognized the difference of scale between pulling a few books off of a shelf and reviewing millions of uploads. The law has updated, now rightsholders need to do so as well. They’re just trying to pull off in the EU what they couldn’t do here, although they continue to try.

Product-liability law also assigns liability to manufacturers whose products cause harm. Just ask the makers of the Pinto.

Not the same situation. To follow that line of reasoning, that would be similar to the provider themselves uploading infringing material. And they’re already liable for such conduct. CDA 230, the DMCA, and the E-Commerce Directive offer no protections in that case.

The provider’s product isn’t causing harm. The uploader’s improper use of the product is causing the harm (if any exists). YouTube isn’t responsible for people uploading infringing video, the uploader is. Chevy and Budweiser aren’t responsible for a drunk driver running over a child, the driver is. Barnes and Noble isn’t responsible for selling a defamatory book (unless they keep selling it after they know it’s defamatory, as per above), the writer is. Sony isn’t responsible for a VCR being used to copy a movie, the user is.

I don’t think it’s me that reality (or the law, for that matter) that is at odds with.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

SONY can’t de-index or remove content from VCRs the way platforms can regulat their content.

Distributor liability for defamation, and vicarious/contributory infringement, are well-established law.

Note in your B&N example that Section 230 prevents on the internet (allowing defamation to continue after being put on notice). Section 230 needs a notice-and-takedown equivalent to protect the reputations of individuals.

My guess is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, after what happened to her this weekend, will be taking a long look at Section 230. Some of the people who have been targeting her do not live in glass houses, that’s for sure.

TFG says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

SONY can’t de-index or remove content from VCRs the way platforms can regulat their content.

And the platforms can’t possibly automate the process of distinguishing non-infringing UGC from infringing UGC.

Distributor liability for defamation, and vicarious/contributory infringement, are well-established law.

Proof of assertions, please. Which cases, also please ensure you have a viable logical link between those cases and their applicability to Youtube or the internet in general.

Note in your B&N example that Section 230 prevents on the internet (allowing defamation to continue after being put on notice). Section 230 needs a notice-and-takedown equivalent to protect the reputations of individuals.

No it doesn’t. Prove me wrong.

My guess is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, after what happened to her this weekend, will be taking a long look at Section 230. Some of the people who have been targeting her do not live in glass houses, that’s for sure.

I hope she doesn’t, because I actually like her, and I’d hate to think she’s an enemy of open communication and freedom of expression.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

the DMCA hasn’t broken the internet. Section 230 has broken it, as with women and revenge porn (the conviction was for a site which was involved in the uploading, most of the others got off scot-free).

Revenge-porn victims should be able to sue the websites that enable it. Section 230 made that impossible.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

Not an answer. How could a notice-and-takedown system in re: personal reputation and Section 230 ever be implemented without encouraging and facilitating the same litany of abuses that plague the DMCA’s notice-and-takedown system?

Revenge-porn victims should be able to sue the websites that enable it. Section 230 made that impossible.

No, what 230 did is put the liability where it belongs: On the people who committed the misdeed. If the people behind sites known for revenge porn openly solicited/personally published/directly helped facilitate the publication of revenge porn, they can (and should) be held accountable. But the primary issue you have with this setup is you think a platform should be held accountable for any and every misdeed performed by third-parties — i.e., if someone uploaded a defamatory video to YouTube, both the uploader and the platform should be sued even if no one at YouTube solicited, personally published, or directly facilitated the publication of that video.

The whole reason you hate 230, Sanford, is that it doesn’t allow you to automatically extort money via legal threats from the biggest bank account involved in an illicit act. If 230 did allow for that, you would have absolutely no complaints.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Note in your B&N example that Section 230 prevents on the internet (allowing defamation to continue after being put on notice). Section 230 needs a notice-and-takedown equivalent to protect the reputations of individuals.

Not a good idea. If a statement isn’t defamatory but the target of the speech doesn’t like it, all they have to do is send a defamation claim to the provider, who (in most cases) will take it down rather than risk liability. It’s far too easy to suppress legitimate speech in that manner.

Now, if a court has already found the speech to be defamatory, I don’t have a problem with there being a requirement for some form of action – if not removal, then maybe at least a notice that the material was found false/defamatory/whatever.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Yet you’re the one who made the inappropriate, sexualized remark.

Come to think of it, she should probably be made aware of this site and its stand on Section 230, plus the ties of certain people who frequent it with certain other people who have done some REALLY nasty things to her. Maybe she’d care, maybe not, but it’s just an e-mail. All provable.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

It’s not "removing millions of uploads," but removing defamatory content from a website, which can be done very easily.

Distributor liability is still the law of the land. The Supreme Court has never affirmed Section 230 immunity. Why not? Wouldn’t it be simpler for them to have done this by now since everyone seems to think they already have?

I was told years ago, by lawyers, that the Supremes were deliberately leaving 230 in place until such time as the internet was fully built out, at which point they’d toss it. Maybe they were right, maybe not.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Considering the sheer amount of hours of video uploaded to YouTube every second, and the fact that not every claim is valid, it’s statistically plausible that YouTube might have to deal with millions of videos that would be claimed for copyright infringement, trademark infringement, defamation, fraud, false advertising, false light, etc. if CDA §230 was modified as you suggest. That’s a lot of claims to go through, and it can’t exactly be automated. So no, it’s not that simple.

If the Supreme Court hasn’t affirmed §230 immunity, that’s only because there hasn’t been a case on the issue of its constitutionality that has been appealed all the way to the Supreme Court that they decided was worth ruling on. If anything, the fact that every Circuit’s Appeals Court, for the most part, agrees that §230 immunity is the law of the land, and the Supreme Court hasn’t decided to overturn that, suggests that the Supreme Court has no problem with that particular statute. I’ve never heard of a case where the Supreme Court bided its time as you suggest.

Regardless, the Supreme Court can’t decide cases that are never appealed that far. They don’t go through each law and decide whether it’s constitutional or not; it first has to be called into question in a case that makes its way through the courts, and then one side or the other has to ask the Supreme Court to overturn or modify a ruling or order by the highest of the lower courts. Even then, unless the lower court made a huge mistake or there is a genuine confusion over what the law says among the different Circuits, the Supreme Court will generally decide not to review the case as not being needed to resolve any uncertainties or massive wrongs. For them, not reviewing a case is the easiest way to deal with things, and they need a reason to actually do so.

Anonymous Coward says:

"Pre-internet" copyright law still applies, which is why Article 13 needs to be passed. There is no "legacy copyright company," but many copyrightholders who need the laws properly enforced on the internet, as they generate billions in revenue, many jobs, and enabling criminal enterprises is never a good thing.

There’s a reason your side continues to lose this fight. Only a few echo chambers on the internet, some with hidden agendas and puppeteers, make any noise against Article 13.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

You mean the guy who, upon losing, had all his assets transferred away in an attempt to file for bankruptcy and avoid paying his court-ordered fines? Yes, truly, an epitome of respect for the law.

What a shame for you that the lines between copyright supporter and scam artist are so often blurred. You really only have yourselves to blame.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

If the courts would enforce it as pre-internet law, we wouldn’t need Article 13.

You just said "Pre-internet copyright law still applies". Now you’re saying it doesn’t because the courts don’t enforce it. Well, I have news for you, that’s a courts problem, not a law problem. It’s like saying "well the law says it’s illegal to murder someone no matter the circumstances or methods used but we still need a law that says it’s illegal to murder someone with a knife specifically".

If there is already a law on the books that makes something illegal, then you don’t need another law reiterating that fact. If the courts refuse to enforce the prior law, what makes you think they will enforce the new law since it’s just redundant?

And if the courts won’t enforce the law (or were wrong), then you need new courts. Not new laws.

Your logical reasoning is seriously broken. I suggest immediate remediation.

Anonymous Coward says:

More than any payments, the most important things are to ensure that us ordinary folks dont find out what two faced, lying, cheating, self serving assholes the rich, the famous and the powerful are and what they’re up to and to ensure tgat tge legacy entertainment industries are paid, continuously, for doing fuck all! What gives yhe EU or these industries the right charge anyone for using a free service, a free information service, yhat also has the ability to distribute any type of media, when it had no input in its development, is totally beyond me! As is yge usual case, the road to follow is yo find out who is being paid to get these disastrous desires into law that will do the World so much damage rather than a couple of bone idle industries any good!

Anonymous Coward says:

Even if article 13 go,es into law ,piracy will continue,
Creators who want to upload, art,video,s ,music will use youtube ,or facebook,
most of the small websites will simply block user uploads .
Artist,s and creators will use patreon ,but they will only have a very limited no of websites to show their work on,
to attract fans .
If you look at the web in europe now most small artists /creators can make a living without dealing with old legacy companys ,
they can live on subs and donations or sell their work directly
to the public.
Pirates will ignore the law or simply use servers outside the eu .
I regard it as censorship since article 13 means only a website that
can afford millions to spend on filters can still operate
and even then it will still be open to being sued .
eg many small websites that support user uploaded content or small artists will
simply close down at least in the eu.
So it sounds like the big media companys just want google to take out a license to all ip ,music,video, etc or else face being sued
by 100,s of companys .

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

New, LEGAL business models will spring up. A big competitor to the big companies will offer competition to the artists who use those big companies as an umbrella, which saves on compliance for the average artist due to the economy of scale.

The only people who can’t stand Article 13 are pirates.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

And what of the people who use the content of others as part of new works — e.g., a video essay about videogame culture that uses footage from various games — and give away those works to build up an audience who might then monetarily support such creators through, say, Patreon? What will happen to creators such as them, who rely on Fair Use principles but still technically infringe upon the copyrights of others? How badly should they be punished for their “piracy”, hmm?

Mason Wheeler (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

That’s still completely backwards. The standard of in dubio pro reo (aka the presumption of innocence) has been around since Aristotle. If someone wants something taken down, they need to prove that it shouldn’t be up before it gets taken down; putting the burden on the contributor to prove that it actually is valid after it’s been taken down is a legal absurdity that we need to do away with, not reinforce!

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

Article 13 should work much like the DMCA but with ContentID added.

Should? SHOULD? Are you so incredible stupid that you use the word "SHOULD"? I’ll bet you haven’t read the proposal for article 13 because your choice of words tell me you haven’t one shred of clue what’s going on, you just believe.

You also have NO CLUE on how ContentID works, and WHO can use it. Also, ContentID is not a generic product that anyone can use – it’s specific to youtube and SELECT COMPANIES. Unless you are one of the big media companies you don’t have access to ContentID.

In other words, you are a clueless wonder that can’t tell facts from fiction.

And I know for a fact that article 13 will cause financial harm to the company I work for because we have products that we have to change to the tune of a several thousands of man-hours to avoid liabilities due to article 13 plus our customers are going to get an inferior product compared to what they originally bought – which they will complain about.

You don’t burn down houses to get at the cockroaches (well, you do if you are a stupid ass).

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

The DMCA’s counter-notification provision puts someone a single step away from an actual lawsuit from the copyright holder. What should become of someone who could justify their upload under Fair Use principles, but would lack the money and time to fight a lawsuit carried out by a company with far more resources at its disposal? How badly should that person be punished for what is technically copyright infringement?

TFG says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

Guess what: using other people’s registered works does put one at risk of a lawsuit. Copyright infringement is already illegal.

Article 13 just proproses to break the internet to the point that only a few people can do anything on it. The crowd that’s pissed isn’t pro-piracy – it’s pro-freedom of expression.

But really, at this point, talking to you is worse than talking to a brick wall. A brick wall doesn’t spout absurdities.

Madd the Sane (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re:

There is no evidence that Article 13 will "break the internet" any more than the DMCA or ContentID have.

That’s partly because Article 13 hasn’t been enacted and enforced.

And yes, DMCA has broken things. Maybe not the internet, but companies have become devious and are saying any tampering with their product is an automatic DMCA violation and is punishable. Even if such "tampering" is repairing. Just look at John Deere and their new tractors, which requires an EULA that forbids unlicensed repair and modification.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

Using other people’s registered works should put one at risk of a lawsuit. One can always ask for permission and the submit the permitted work as licensed.

And what of the people whose work would be protected under the principles of Fair Use, but who cannot afford to go through a lengthy “licensing” process or do not want to lose control of their derivative work — what should happen to them if they produce a work that is technically infringing upon someone else’s copyrights?

No, seriously, what should happen to individual YouTube creators such as Lindsay Ellis, Jim Sterling, and Maximilian Dood, or YouTube channels such as Wisecrack, Death Battle (formerly Screw Attack), and Pop Culture Detective? They upload compelling and entertaining videos that often use footage from existing copyrighted works as part of a broader whole. But even if their work could fall under Fair Use protections, their videos are still technically infringing. What fate, then, should they all suffer for daring to be “pirates” — for daring to upload their videos without first working out a licensing deal with every possible copyright holder?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Since when did licensing demands depend on the actual material involved, rather than just the activity. You publish on the web, you need to buy our license will be the model. Just like, a band cannot perform in public without the venue buying a public performance license, covering label own music, even if the band only play their own original material and are not sighed to a label.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

That’s ASCAP, not Article 13, and smart shop owners will ignore the invoices. Perhaps one of these activist lawyers can get a ruling that puts a stop to it.

Blame the abuser of process, not the process.

Piracy is intolerable no matter what. It can be eradicated or pushed way underground like child porn.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

New, LEGAL business models will spring up. A big competitor to the big companies will offer competition to the artists who use those big companies as an umbrella, which saves on compliance for the average artist due to the economy of scale.

It already did. It’s called the internet. You may have heard of it. Free or dirt cheap marketing and self-publishing for the masses.

The only people who can’t stand Article 13 are pirates.

So what you are saying then is that the world’s population at large is just a bunch of filthy pirates, since those are the people who are against A13. The only ones for A13 are legacy entertainment industries.

Given that (according to you) pirates never pay for anything and all the world’s population are pirates, please explain how these legacy companies manage to make ANY money at all.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Entertainment is not a legacy industry. New works are released constantly.

They had an offline rally against Article 13. Seventeen people showed up. Internet astroturfing at its worst.

Independent creators will still be able to self-publish (though without a "book deal" many in the audience view the work as worthless and therefore okay to pirate), and they might even get PAID more money now that mass-piracy sites won’t be around.

Let’s see what happens with Article 13 before passing judgement on it. It does have an appeals process, and lots of enforcement discretion which even takes into account the size of the website. If only Google and big tech can afford to comply, they will become the umbrella under which indies can thrive, especially on a piracy-free internet.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

So apparently Google is big, nasty and evil but will suddenly start accommodating indies because they have to pay your copyright industries?

You think Article 13, specifically aimed at taking money from everyone to fuel Hollywood, is suddenly going to start make Google willing to spend more money on smaller individuals, when their finances are already taking a blank-check hit from Hollywood.

Yeah, let’s include that with the other things you don’t understand, such as the "discretion" employed by copyright enforcement. The guys who have so much "discretion" they sue dead people without batting an eyelid…

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Entertainment is not a legacy industry.

The companies/corporations that were a thing before the Internet changed distribution methods forever and arguably destroyed the very concept of copyright, however, are “legacy industries”. Disney, Fox (before Disney’s buyout), Marvel (before Disney’s buyout), Warner Bros., Nintendo, Sony, the big book publishers, the major record labels — all “legacy” by virtue of being around before the Internet as we know it today existed.

They had an offline rally against Article 13. Seventeen people showed up.

So what? At least those 17 people had the courage to stand for something they believe in. When’s the last time you got off your ass for that, you big dummy?

Independent creators will still be able to self-publish (though without a "book deal" many in the audience view the work as worthless and therefore okay to pirate)

Two things.

  1. Being able to self-publish is not the same as being able to self-publish through major vendors such as Amazon.
  2. Several indie authors make good money without a large audience or a “book deal”. Same goes for artists of other kinds. (For example: Furry artists.)

they might even get PAID more money now that mass-piracy sites won’t be around

Or the people who would have pirated that author’s work anyway will simply…not buy it. You believe so hard that the only options are “buy their shit” or “pirate their shit” that you fail to see the third option: “ignore their shit”.

Let’s see what happens with Article 13 before passing judgement on it.

Let’s not and say we didn’t.

It does have an appeals process

I’m sure it does. Now, how many regular jackoffs do you think would be able to take advantage of what would likely be a costly, time-consuming process, and how many successful Internet services and corporations would be able to do so?

lots of enforcement discretion which even takes into account the size of the website

The RIAA sued children, grandmothers, dead people, and a woman who had a thirty-second bit of a Prince song playing in the background of a video of her baby dancing. “Discretion” does not exist when it comes to the legacy copyright-holder industries.

If only Google and big tech can afford to comply, they will become the umbrella under which indies can thrive, especially on a piracy-free internet.

And that just turns the Internet (which will never be piracy-free, no matter how much you want to believe it will) into another gatekeeping bullshit menagerie like the film, music, art, and literature worlds pre-Internet. Some artists may like that idea; I can assume that many, many more would disagree with Google becoming another RIAA/MPAA.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Entertainment is not a legacy industry.

Yes, it is, but that’s not the point. We’re talking about movie theaters, the selling of albums on vinyl or CD, physical copies of books, and physical copies of games.

What you’re saying is similar to someone saying that the horse-and-buggy industry complaining about these newfangled cars is a legacy industry, with you responding, “Transportation is not a legacy industry.” Yes it is, and you’re missing the point.

TDR says:

As this is an extortion racket, Google et al. should directly call it out as such. As a law codifying illegal behavior, it should be deemed invalid and nonbinding and utterly ignored by the individual governments of the EU. If enough of them do this, the law will fail because hardly anyone will be left to enforce it. If all the rest of the EU turns against France and Germany in this regard, it can happen. Those two can’t enforce it all on their own, not across the whole EU.

Bruce C. says:

Re: Re: Fight fire with fire

How, pray tell? I can see a refund situation coming up if there are insufficient ad impressions to cover a pre-paid contract, but because the ad algorithms are so automated, I don’t see how they would leave out a refund clause if the algorithms can’t find enough appropriate ad impressions to cover the billing rate.

Plus, it’s just one day. They can make it up with volume the other days of the week/month.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Pfff thinking.

Pretty sure the logic content in that (sparse though it maybe) restricts it to children of 7-8 years old.

Although to be honest, I haven’t interacted with children under say 15 years old in quantities greater than 2 for 10 years or so. So my opinions are not backed by anything like riggorous studies.

bob says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Pfff thinking.

An AI will detect a brand name in the video and then block it automatically because why would the site want to be sued by Kraft.

I’m sure no person will care, but the bot will just block it anyway because it doesn’t know the difference between fair use and copyright/trademark infringement.

Exactly why we don’t support article 11 and 13.

Madd the Sane (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Flip it around

[…]as if someone should care about some brat using a brand name in his video.

Let’s flip this around: it’s now your brat that does this. His video is taken down and he gets arrested. But since he’s underage, you are now in jail and are found guilty of violating copyright. What do you do?

Rog S. says:

Google : organized gang stalking 13

I have covered this extensively, but not exhaustively .

There are documented links between CIA seed capital /NGOs /Narrative control /banksters and the number 13.

Google: mass shooters, and 13

Or: transatlantic crime initiative and 13

But these people (whoever “they ” are ) use that number to signify many things…

Rog S. says:

Re: Re: Google : organized gang stalking 13

Google it, asshole.

I have covered this extensively, but not exhaustively .

There are documented links between CIA seed capital /NGOs /Narrative control /banksters and the number 13.

Google: mass shooters, and 13

Or: transatlantic crime initiative and 13

But these people (whoever “they ” are ) use that number to signify many things…

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

By all means, Mr. “I have covered this extensively”, give me a few details about the logistics of this conspiracy — specifically…

  1. How large is the supposed conspiracy?
  2. How many people are part of this conspiracy?
  3. Are there enough of them to carry out the plan?
  4. What infrastructure and resources does it need?
  5. How much time and money did it take and where did this money come from?
  6. If there are many thousands of conspirators, how are they organized?
  7. Where are the secret conferences held?
  8. How do they keep track of membership?
  9. If they are organised through known channels or entities, how do they keep non-members who work there from uncovering the conspiracy?
That One Guy (profile) says:

'Copyright extortionists? Pff, amateurs...'

Sounds like the idiots in the EU are taking copyright trolling/extortion and cranking it up to 11 in their attempt to kill an open internet and/or put the parasitic gatekeepers back in control.

Now it’s not simply a matter of ‘we’ve accused you of infringement, pay up or we’ll drag you to court’ it’s straight up mafia extortion on a mass scale. ‘Nice site you got there, be a shame if something were to happen to it. ‘course, you could avoid all that if you just paid your dues, that’s sure to keep you safe.

I think at this point mass protests like what killed off SOPA are not a ‘good idea’, but will end up necessary to put the fear of the voters into the various politicians involved, as they seem hellbent on doing everything they can to utterly destroy an open internet in the EU, and I’ve no doubt that if they manage it over there parasites in other countries like the US will try to implement it elsewhere.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I watch Jim Sterling videos regularly; he posted an exceptionally good one today. The video contains footage of numerous videogames in addition to screencaptures of text from news sites and screenshots from a few cartoons, often used to bolster Jim’s points. And rather than accept ad revenue from YouTube, he keeps his videos ad-free and accepts money via merchandise sales and his Patreon account.

But he is still a “pirate” because he infringes upon the copyright of others. What should be done with that criminal, then?

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Article 13 won’t stop that.

How do you know, with the certainty of God, that YouTube won’t ax Jim Sterling’s channel in its entirety after Article 13 becomes a thing, seeing as how Jim has infringed on dozens — maybe even hundreds — of copyrights across all of his video essays? You believe Article 13 exists to stamp out “mass piracy”, so please explain how Jim’s mass infringements do not count as mass infringements — and how YouTube’s automated tools could ever tell the difference.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

Not every enforcement.

I found my work was pirated (three separate times in a bundle of almost a thousand works that were being sold for about $40 each, to get a mailing list worth millions), when I was investigating something else. The copies of my work had the title, author’s name, and cover art changed. They had been downloaded tens of thousands of times from this one site alone. Each of those downloaders was then used in a mailing list, and hit with pop-ups, AND a good hundred or so of the "pirated" works were actually disguised advertising copy for the people who were running the site. That’s about as criminal as it gets, and it cost lots of people money. The celebrities whose books were in there were already rich and had sold many copies through "legacy" channels so they weren’t impacted. The indies who otherwise could have made a nice living, were.

Article 13 will eliminate sites like the one mentioned above, and that’s a good thing. Criminals should not be enriched by a faulty internet that doesn’t protect creators from being the ones to earn from their creations. Funding criminals leads to more crime and more harm to the public.

If the internet is such a great thing as it stands now, one would think the world wouldn’t have become so messed up during the early internet era, and this is very early. Twenty years is nothing against a future which will run for many, many centuries if not longer. The internet can and will be rebuilt. Google will either survive or it won’t, or maybe it will lose influence. Same for any other company.

Stealing is wrong, and there are no other ways to stop it. Aggregating has also enriched tech companies at the expense of those who produce the aggregated content. Users give away their content because they have jobs that are basically sponsoring or are a patron for that content. This is what has reduced much in entertainment to a hobby, OR a marketing device for something with an inflated price tag due to it.

Governments obviously side with me.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

This might shock you, but the entire aim of piracy is to not pay a dime. If someone else is flogging your shit for an actual, monetary price, that’s not piracy in the context of the Internet.

Never mind that you have yet to provide a single citation for how and why mailing lists are worth that much money.

If spamming random emails was worth that much dough why not just write mailing lists?

bob says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

If article 11 and 13 actually did what you want it to do like you describe above (only pirates are affected, content owners receive payment for their creations, everyone thinks all artist’s creations are important and valuable) most people would be in support of the two articles.

The reality is that neither measures will stop piracy. Instead they will cause mass collateral damage to websites and artists and to works that are legally posted to sites all over the Internet. Also the valuation of any goods on the Internet won’t suddenly increase or be paid for just because more laws are written.

The way the Internet functions is to spread data far and wide as reliably and quickly as possible. This can be leveraged by companies and individuals equally and easily for both good and bad purposes.

What we keep saying and you keep ignoring is that most of the people on this planet enjoy what the Internet does and how it does it. They don’t want a few gatekeepers determining what, where, when, and how they use the Internet. This model of the Internet has problems like illegal activity but the benefits of this model far outweigh the bad (in the majority of people’s opinions). So this is why article 11 and 13 are bad, as far as they are written today.

What you desire is a new Internet that more tightly controls where information goes and who has control of it. While this model will undoubtedly be desired by some, the majority will not like it, nor switch to it willingly. This model is similar to tv broadcasting. And even under that paradigm people still pirated content and will always do so no matter what you do to stop it.


For citations of all statements above read: technical specs, networking RFCs, consumer reports, properly conducted studies, past actions by people on other Internet altering law attempts like SOPA, the informed writings of others on this blog, actual artists and writers, and real PhD recipients in the fields of engineering, math, law, technology, and science.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

If the internet is such a great thing as it stands now, one would think the world wouldn’t have become so messed up during the early internet era

You are conflating the problems of the world with the rise of the internet. This is laughably absurd to say the least. Though mildly flattering that you think the internet is such a powerful tool.

Never underestimate the human capacity to screw over the world on their own merits. No help from the internet needed.

Each of those downloaders was then used in a mailing list, and hit with pop-ups

LOL! So you intimately know the details of how this pirate site works, along with whether or not the downloaders used their actual email address (or any email address at all since pirate sites generally don’t require ANY form of identification because that would defeat the entire purpose) and also whether or not these downloaders do or do not use pop up blockers, like those built into modern browsers by default or additional extensions to block said content. Hmm, kind of sounds like you have insider information, maybe you are actually running the pirate site and are distributing RAT malware along with your downloads?

Stealing is wrong, and there are no other ways to stop it.

Well, you’re half right. It is wrong but there are other ways to stop it. If there weren’t then bank robbers would never have been put in jail until now. But regardless, you will never stop theft completely. Also, copyright infringement is not theft.

Governments obviously side with me.

The US government didn’t. And the China government pirates and steals everything. So there.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Then companies which rely on automated tools instead of humans will find their business model is obsolete.

How much money do you think YouTube would have to sink into hiring enough people to pre-filter uploaded content, train them to filter with anything coming close to pure 100% objectivity in re: “community standards”, and keep them on the job full-time? Because lemme tell ya, none of those things are happening, if onlybecause Google would literally have to hire several million people to act as “filters” for YouTube.

And then there are sites like Tumblr, Twitter, Facebook, and Imgur — they rely on UGC just like YouTube does (for now). How much of a possibility is their matching YouTube in terms of setting up a “human filter”?

And that still avoids the big question: How are smaller companies meant to build their own “human filters” without breaking their own banks?

Automated tools get results for cheap, even if some of those results are false positives. Why the hell else would YouTube use ContentID?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

UGC is parasitic even without piracy.

How do these sites stop child porn? They most definitely do.

That’s the idea behind leveling the playing field. If I write a book that a million people want to read, I should be paid more than Google gets for putting bots up on the internet. People don’t surf the internet to find search engines. Human-edited links can be used, and contrary to what we see here, there is a hyperlinking exemption in Article 13.

UGC is fine as long as it doesn’t enable piracy. Perhaps sites can sue users who infringe for exposing it to liability.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

How do these sites stop child porn? They most definitely do.

Child porn is child porn in any and every context. Infringement, on the other hand, can be illicit or legally protected, depending on factors such as the Fair Use principles. How can a site know whether a specific act of infringement is legal or illegal just from the same glance that would tell them a specific image of child porn is gotdamn child porn?

If I write a book that a million people want to read, I should be paid more than Google gets for putting bots up on the internet.

…the fuck

People don’t surf the internet to find search engines. Human-edited links can be used

Human-edited links on search engines would be UGC and thus make your idea untenable.

UGC is fine as long as it doesn’t enable [infringement].

And what about UGC that is infringing in and of itself, such as memes or video essays about specific works or written-out quotes from movies/TV? It is infringement. You keep saying infringement must be stamped out. For what reason should any site accept UGC if even one bit of UGC would be enough to trigger Article 13 and send the entire site into the digital void?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

"Doesn’t work"?

Then what was all the cheering by the RIAA and MPAA for when the Pirate Bay trial, IsoHunt trial, etc. happened? Did those not work?

Never mind that despite your claims that bay sites make "millions", the MPAA admitted in their pursuit of Gary Fung that they knew even one million was enough to bankrupt the fucker and make sure he’d never pay back that fine in his lifetime.

Even your own fucking data shows that these are not moneymaking operations! Gads, you’re insufferable.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

This wasn’t the Pirate Bay. The site that pirated my work made about $10 million a year off its marketing list alone. The courts made it almost impossible to stop that site. A lot of its money was eventually cut off but it survived, sort of. Had to take bitcoin and drop a lot of its titles.

Article 13 is necessary, as is SOPA.

DudeWasHere (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

Is it? From your very statement, sounds like existing legislation worked. Perhaps if more copyright holders used existing laws to protect them as all citizens need to and do on a daily basis, then perhaps millions of dollars would not be wasted on grandiose extortion schemes. It seems you have been hoodwinked into believing this has anything to to with piracy.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

He can appeal if they try, assuming what he does is legal.

And what if he cannot afford to appeal the “guilty until proven innocent” decision to remove his content?

I don’t really care as much as you, because my side won this one.

You don’t care if someone’s (very) arguably protected expression of ideas gets yanked down, without due process, because it happens to use snippets of someone else’s copyrighted materials?

Any injustice can and should be addressed, of course.

Says the guy who just said he doesn’t care about a potential injustice because “his side won this one”.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

Didn’t you just complain that Article 13 was needed because suing "the original publisher" didn’t work? Or the reason why your mailing list initiative failed was because the name behind it was too big to sue? Now actual infringers "can be sued anyway"?

Consistency – who needs it, right?

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

All Article 13 does is hold platforms liable.

We do not hold car manufacturers liable for deaths caused by drunk drivers. We do not hold gun manufacturers liable for deaths caused by assholes who shoot up schools, churches, and workplaces. We do not hold media outlets liable for suicides caused by so-called “suicide contagion” (i.e., media outlets reporting on suicides).

For what reason should a platform for speech and expression be held liable for a user infringing upon someone else’s copyright? And how would sites like DeviantArt, Newgrounds, YouTube, Tumblr, and even FurAffinity survive if they had to face legal liability for even the smallest of infringements?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re:

There is no "legal infringement."

There is fair use and licensing.

If something is flagged, there is a review process. Protocols can be set up to account for derivative works, etc., while any rightsholder would have the responsibility to list its licensees, etc. A license # would do that.

The rabid pro-piracy voices on this site will just have to deal with Article 13. Their epic temper tantrum is falling on some very deaf government ears.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10

There is fair use and licensing.

Jim Sterling posts a lot of videos about the gaming industry and gaming culture. His videos just so happen to use copyrighted material in addition to his own original writing/footage. What should happen to him and his works if they get dinged by filters and he cannot afford the costs necessary to secure either the numerous licenses necessary to make his works legally “all clear” or a legal appeal against the copyright holder(s) in question, even though he would have a clear-cut Fair Use defense?

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Re:

The difference between illegal infringement vs. fair use and licensed use is not something that can be distinguished using automated tools. That requires more context than a mere automated tool like that can detect. Incidentally, the same goes for things like defamation; it’s a context-sensitive inquiry.

That’s setting aside the fact that not everything gets the same amount of copyright protection, or even any copyright protection at all. Some things are in the public domain, some follow a “copyleft” scheme, others aren’t covered by copyright law anyway (such as facts and statistics, as well as ideas, scenes a faire, and generic stuff), and still others aren’t original works but are themselves copied or derivative. These things too cannot be distinguished by automated filters.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

With Jim Fucking Sterling Son(gotta use the full name) it’s even better, because he’s admitted in the past to deliberately use clips that he knows will get flagged as infringing specifically to screw over those trying to screw him over.

Despite the fact that fair use allows him to use clips of things freely, he knows(as anyone paying attention would) that there are numerous parties that will look at it and decide, ‘Doesn’t matter, my stuff, pay me money’ and try to monetize his videos. In response, he posts clips that will get multiple parties claiming the video, and since none of them are going to let the other get that sweet unearned money when they can’t, it results in the ‘copyright deadlock’, where attempts to abuse the system by parasites instead result in none of them getting anything, and the videos remaining ad-free.

With such blatant ‘copyright infringement’ Jim Fucking Sterling Son’s videos would absolutely be on the chopping block, and if, as I’m fairly sure is the case, that’s his gorram job, that means the law designed to ‘protect creators’ will have instead driven one out of business, along with countless others that would be impacted.

Rocky says:

Re: Re: 'Copyright extortionists? Pff, amateurs...'

Nice fantasy. The day of freeloading content from the internet is fast ending, and the public doesn’t care enough about the criminals to make an issue of it.

No, but they will raise holy hell when they discover that they can’t upload their pictures to facebook and the vacation videos to youtube. The level of public backlash is going to be epic when you break something that a majority of them use daily.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 'Copyright extortionists? Pff, amateurs...'

"Now, the video is still available despite the copyright claims because the four different entities filing these five complaints against it — one, incredibly, filed twice for two different "compositions"– chose to simply monetize Tomczak’s video instead of having it taken down."

Anyone who monetizes a video for which they don’t own the copyright would be committing a felony. Perhaps the claim wasn’t so bogus.

Much as you might like to think all existing creative works don’t sell (they do), and wouldn’t sell more after Article 13 (they will), "your work sucks" isn’t justification for enabling internet piracy.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 'Copyright extortionists? Pff, amateurs.

Much as you might like to think all existing creative works don’t sell (they do), and wouldn’t sell more after Article 13 (they will),

Dream on, as 90 plus percent of creative works never find a large enough audience to recoup the time spent in their creation.

YouTube has about 600 hours of video uploaded a minute, almost all of it non-infringing, and almost all of it a labour of love by the creator.

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:4 'Copyright extortionists? Pff, amateurs.

Re Tomczak’s video

Anyone who monetizes a video for which they don’t own the copyright would be committing a felony. Perhaps the claim wasn’t so bogus.

Uhm, it’s was a 10 hour video with white noise. The claims where bogus, but it’s telling that you dismiss it with ‘Perhaps the claim wasn’t so bogus.’

It’s like claiming an empty canvas for copyright infringement..

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 'Copyright extortionists? Pff, amateurs...'

"Sue the original publisher" doesn’t do anything to stop defamation, but those who support Section 230 don’t even recognize the practical difficulty of suing someone who is judgment-proof, though oddly the "IP doesn’t prove authorship" argument is never raised as a catch-all defense against libel as it does to some against copyright.

It did not say the appeal is to a court, could even be to the intermediary or a regulatory body.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 'Copyright extortionists? Pff, amateurs.

IP address evidence against copyright enforcement has a significantly better challenge, especially since it was proven that given the opportunity, copyright enforcers will sue the Vatican and a laser printer.

If IP address evidence was so watertight the RIAA should have sued themselves based on their own IP addresses triggering their own flags.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 'Copyright extortionists? Pff, a

If IP is so unreliable, why is it never challenged in traffic accidents?

Have you a single example of defamation cases where prosecution solely relied on IP address evidence to make their call, without looking at other factors such as writing analysis?

I’ll file your response under the evidence you’ve yet to present…

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:8 'Copyright extortionists

Tying an email address to someone is not quite the same as tying an IP address to someone.

Most people don’t use separate emails for social media, and email addresses are often publicly available information that makes it easier to put 2 and 2 together.

IP addresses are a different story, as in every single copyright trolling case such as Prenda Law.

Trying to equate standards of evidence used in defamation versus your average copyright trolling attempt is an apples to shotguns comparison because the latter has absolutely terrible standards.

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:2 'Copyright extortionists? Pff, amateurs...'

First you say this about me suggesting people will raise holy hell:

Except there’s no indication that any of that will happen.

Then you suddenly say:

It’s designed to stop mass-piracy, and apparently will do so, given the opposition I’ve seen to it.

First, it’s not designed to stop copyright infringement, it’s designed to leach money from everyone except the legacy copyright industry.

Second, if no people would care if implemented there would be even less opposition to it – wouldn’t it?

The law allows for appeals, and for discretion in enforcement.

There is no appeals – just that there as to be some "complaints and redress mechanisms", and discretion of enforcement? I’ll just mention Lenz v. Universal Music Corp here for anyone thinking the legacy copyright industries is discreet in their enforcement.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 'Copyright extortionists? Pff, amateurs...'

Copyright isn’t a legacy, and Article 13 definitely has an appeals mechanism.

It will stop mass infringement AND ensure that creative works are not exploited as they have been for a generation. Those who actually create content are pleased; those who take and usurp it are not. Too bad for them.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 'Copyright extortionists? Pff, amateurs.

The bubonic plague has a cure, so I’m pretty sure you won’t mind having a sample of the germs injected into your bloodstream.

What’s that? The cure is a bitch to get, is inaccessible, and you can’t afford the treatment process? Sucks to be you then, don’t it?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Re:Al always a direct light into your brain.

The fact that you’re here, an apparently Hollywood award-winning writer, pissing and moaning about losses he refuses to prove exists despite constantly boasting about how easy it would be to do so, on a site he openly detests with the intensity of a thousand Suns – now that isn’t just fixation, it’s obsession.

Shiva Ayyadurai losing his case really curdled your milk, didn’t it?

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:4 'Copyright extortionists? Pff, amateurs.

Copyright isn’t a legacy

Let me translate:

I’m an asshole who misconstrue everything because it doesn’t fit my narrative

And this:

Article 13 definitely has an appeals mechanism.

Can you explain how the mechanism is supposed to work? I’ll even supply the relevant link to the document in question: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52016PC0593

Those who actually create content are pleased

Are they? UGC far outstrips ANY other type of copyrighted content, and UGC is on the chopping block here. OR are you perhaps saying that some works are more important to protect than others?

PNRCinema (profile) says:

SO in other words

So, Mike, you’re saying that the EU is taking the Poison Pill "USFL Sure Deal Approach", and hoping it doesn’t blow up in their face? Like this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Football_League#USFL_v._NFL_lawsuit

Good Luck with that…I wonder if a court would be as kind to them in the EU as they were to the USFL here after that disastrous suit? IN any case I guess we’ll have to hope the EU gets as badly f**ked as the USFL did..and by their own hand too…

Jesse says:

Re: Free market capitalism and how it works.

(Apparently, hitting enter posts the post…)

This is a bad deal for everyone involved. So why would these large behemoths of old want it?
Easy, because in free market capitalism it is a competition. And it’s not a competition against yourself or your own past actions, but it is a competition against others.
And there are two ways to win such a competition. One is to improve yourself and get ahead of your opponent that way. The other is to hurt your opponent, so they get slowed down which means you will get further ahead by comparison.

And it’s getting harder and harder to keep up on the internet as it grows quickly and it’s very cheap and easy for new actors to get in on it compared to how it was before the internet existed. And the giants of old don’t like all this new competition.
For customers however, it’s great, because that’s how free market capitalism works. Companies compete with each other to provide the best products with the best services and at the best price and customers gets to choose that which they like best.

But the giants of old don’t like all this new competition since this means they now have a lot of young, energetic opponents with new ideas.
So this entire deal is about hurting everyone. Because hurting everyone is a good business deal as long as it hurts your opponents more than it hurts you. Yes, you get hurt yourself but this is a competition and hurting yourself is perfectly fine as long as you hurt your opponent more than yourself because it means you will get ahead of the competition.

Remember the old joke about two lawyers in Africa who suddenly got chased by a bunch of lions. One of them picked a pair of sneakers out of his briefcase and begins putting them on. The other one just looks on and shakes his head and says "you’ll never outrun a lion", and the first lawyer calmly replies "I don’t have to run faster than the lions, I just have to run faster than you".

That’s what this is about. Get ahead by throwing your competition to the lions.If you are the only one left, you win by default.

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...