German Government Confirms That Article 13 Does Mean Upload Filters, Destroying Claims To The Contrary Once And For All

from the now-delete-it-from-the-text dept

Techdirt has just written about an important intervention by the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression in the debate about Article 13 of the proposed EU Copyright Directive. David Kaye said that most Internet sites “would face legal pressure to install and maintain expensive content filtering infrastructure to comply with the proposed Directive.” Despite the evident expertise of Kaye in this area, some may try to dismiss this clear condemnation of Article 13 as the UN interfering in a legislative process that really only concerns the Member States of the EU, and no one else. That makes the following official reply by Christian Lange, Parliamentary State Secretary to the German Federal Minister of Justice and Consumer Protection, to a question submitted by a member of Germany’s national parliament, rather significant:

In the [German] federal government’s view it appears likely that algorithmic measures will have to be taken in connection with large volumes of data for practical reasons alone.

That translation of the original German comes from Florian Mueller, who has written a blog post (in English) about the political background and significance of this statement. He notes that it appears in the well-respected German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, “that used to spread the no-upload-filter propaganda [but] now considers it ridiculous to deny that Article 13 involves upload filters.” So the appearance of this confirmation that Article 13 will indeed require “algorithmic measures” — AKA upload filters — in a serious German newspaper represents an important moment in the continuing battle to get MEPs to understand the damage this measure will cause, and to prevent it.

It is now inarguable that Article 13 will require the deployment of upload filters across many sites in the EU. The UN Special Rapporteur David Kaye has warned that upload filters put freedom of expression under threat, and harm creators and artists the most. Putting those two together means that any European politician supporting Article 13 is inevitably attacking a fundamental human right in the EU, and making life worse for artists. With just two weeks before the final vote in the European Parliament, now would be a really good time for EU citizens to ask their MEPs whether they are happy to be remembered for that, or would rather help to remove Article 13 completely.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

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 “German Government Confirms That Article 13 Does Mean Upload Filters, Destroying Claims To The Contrary Once And For All”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
42 Comments
Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Alternate

"It’s Henry Ford’s choice: you can have your Model T painted any color you like, as long as it’s black."

If only. Article 13 as described is "any color you like as long as the wheels are square".

The german government appear to be honest there, unlike that certain Mr. Voss.
They still don’t seem to see the issue with what they’ve revealed, namely that the mandated upload filters with a 100% accuracy demand means youtube will have to pull out of europe except for the part where they can earn ridiculous revenue by leasing their contentid system.

Dale P Minor -- now there's a palindrome for ya says:

Zounds! You've found them out! -- Meanwhile:

100s of Rightsholder Groups Urge EU Parliament to Adopt the Copyright Directive Quickly

https://torrentfreak.com/100s-of-rightsholder-groups-urge-eu-parliament-to-adopt-the-copyright-directive-190312/

And by the way, Techdirt and all opponents have been totally distracted and diverted by TACTICS, such as putting up video to draw ire, then taking it down, saying this or that not-very-true assertion same way, and then those are withdrawn as if hadn’t worked to make opponents feel they’ve won a victory. Here you rush in to shriek: "Got ’em! Look! Look! See? See? Dead to rights!" — Techdirt / Masnick falls for these tactics EVERY time.

Guys, you need to argue substance. — BUT you CAN’T because YOUR real position is the same old: "I WANT FREE COPYRIGHTED CONTENT! NOW!" — And politicians CAN’T say that truth flat out, not even the pirate Reda, so they’re forced to deal with mere tactics.

Rocky says:

Re: Zounds! You've found them out! -- Meanwhile:

Guys, you need to argue substance

Says the deeply dishonest person who never provide substance, use misdirection and straw-man attacks, knowingly conflates different things and thinks anyone not having the exact same worldview is a pirate. When someone proves you wrong you conveniently ignore it and slink away like the little coward you are.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Zounds! You've found them out! -- Meanwhile:

"…and thinks anyone not having the exact same worldview is a pirate."

To be fair, Blue/Baghdad Bob/Bobmail’s spleen-venting rhetoric does drive a fair share of fence-sitters straight into the pirate camp because no one really wants to be on the same side as him.

I mean, he pisses on any neutral party daring to question his blatantly obvious falsehoods until they end up listening to what we have to say instead.

"Says the deeply dishonest person who never provide substance…"

I’ve started doubting that he’s actually being dishonest – he seems to be living in his own personal little dreamworld where what he says actually makes sense, and every law on copyright enforcement ever suggested or made ended up having pirates hauled off by the tens of thousands…

That One Guy (profile) says:

'Nonsense, it's spelled nothing like 'filter'!'

In the [German] federal government’s view it appears likely that algorithmic measures will have to be taken in connection with large volumes of data for practical reasons alone.

Given the gross dishonesty that is basically all the defenders of this trainwreck have displayed to date, it wouldn’t surprise me if they tried to argue that ‘algorithmic measures’ aren’t filters because that could totally mean something else.

That they won’t define.

And anyway, it’s not like they would be mandatory, sites would be free to not use them, just so long as they put in place systems to screen and vet content against the global copyright database(which of course is a real thing) to make sure that no infringement takes place on their sites.

Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Do as we say, not as we do!

It astounds me that not just the existence of, but the level of government hypocrisy, continues to astound many others. At this point we should be certain that many, if not all, government action is in the interest of power, not the people.

The primary fuel for that power is money, in the form of ‘campaign contributions’ and/or job placement after office. The intent of that power is control, and the exuberance that power and control provide to those that hold it. AKA, ego.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Measures

"Filters can’t spot fair use, commentary, critique, parody, memes, or even legitimately created content."

And they may and will flag any work which triggers the algorithm used, whether that’s a hash sum or pixel color ratio count. A classic example is where the filter tags an electronic paint splash as a renaissance painting because the color ratio is identical.

Anonymous Coward says:

‘Putting those two together means that any European politician supporting Article 13 is inevitably attacking a fundamental human right in the EU, and making life worse for artists’
and for any EU MP who wants to keep his/her job, unless they have been paid a substantial amount by the industries that want to push this crock of crap through! i can see a lot of names changing during the up coming EU elections! MPs cant keep voting for industries and corporations while totally ignoring the public! sooner or later there will be severe repercussions!! the USA found that out over SESTA!

Hugo S Cunningham (profile) says:

Re: Re:

AC wrote:

MPs cant keep voting for industries and corporations while totally ignoring the >public! sooner or later there will be severe repercussions!! the USA found that >out over SESTA!

I wish that were so, but SESTA/FOSTA advocates are still riding high, playing off deliberate confusion of what is meant by "sex trafficking"– exploitation of minors, debt slaves, and other vulnerable people? or all sex trade, even between competent and consenting adults?

As any grifting prohibitionist might put it: “Hain’t we got all the fools in town on our side— And hain’t that a big enough majority in any town?”

Anonymous Coward says:

Where are these magic filters?

I’m still waiting for someone to come up with practical upload filters.
Because Blacklisting stuff does not work. At all.

Hashing fails:
Hash(Content + PaddingA) =/= Hash(Content + PaddingB)

Even more advanced content detection algorithms can be beaten.
For example, with pictures, use psychovisual padding. (Basically, fudge the image so it’s indistinguishable to human eye, yet completely different to a machine.)

(Also still waiting for that secure crypto backdoor. Smart people aren’t still working hard enough, I take it.)

Darkness Of Course (profile) says:

I smell something rotten

I think it might well be Florian Mueller.

Using FM in reference to anything besides an ongoing internet joke, or abomination is simply not proper use of FM. The rent a hack, pay for shill that was such a force of honesty, from a particular (paid for) viewpoint, during certain trials in the USA.

To quote or refer to anything FM must acknowledge his past and the damage he has consistently tried to inflict. Most commonly on anything American, and/or relating to American Corps.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: I smell something rotten

„Aus Sicht der Bundesregierung werden bei großen Datenmengen bereits aus Praktikabilitätsgründen wohl algorithmenbasierte Maßnahmen anzuwenden sein.”

"in the view of the government, there will be the need of using algorithm-based means for practical reasons, when it comes to large amounts of data."

Thad (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: I smell something rotten

And Google Translate gives us:

From the point of view of the Federal Government, algorithm-based measures will probably already have to be used for large data volumes for reasons of practicability.

That "already" doesn’t make a lot of grammatical sense (it is a machine translation), but aside from that, it’s consistent with the translation you just gave and the one Mueller did as well.

Regardless of anyone’s feelings on FM — and, again, I’m not a fan — his translation appears to be accurate. Saying "it must be wrong because it’s Florian Mueller" is an ad hominem — not in the sense trolls use it to mean "insult" because they think it makes them sound smart, but an actual example of the ad hominem fallacy, the suggestion that a statement must be wrong just because of who’s saying it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Yes ,filters can be beaten, see some videos on youtube, inside a fake backround frame, i presume put there to get through the filter.
But if i put up a video of the Voice tv show,
the website could still be sued by the ip holder .
I don,t think anyone has a filter that has a list of all photos, created, who owns them, who took the photo.
Say 2 people take a photo of the same building at 8am and 8.30 am to tommorow from the same place
it will look very similar.
The result of this law most user up loads will be blocked ,
RIP fair use ,meme,s and parody in the eu ,
so maybe Some corporations can make more money from facebook and google.
see the new digital music streaming licensing law in america passed in 2018,
It was only passed after long discussions with companys, stakeholders ,
singers,artists, composers , record companys , songwriters ,
so it does not discriminate against small creators or singers , composers .

The new law is a big FU to small artists ,creators and a direct attack on
freedom of expression and free speech on the internet.
We have seen before who over broad laws regarding internet content can limit freedom of speech and shut down websites due to the law of unintended consquences .

Anonymous Coward says:

Queen Anne’s original 1709 copyright law (cited in other posts) noted the need to protect "artists and their families" from "financial ruin" from piracy. This "spirit" of the law says that it’s not tolerable to destroy their income as the internet has done for a quarter-century. Article 13 is consistent with the need to protect that income. Even the American version cites the need to incentivize creators.

The supposed distress that the loss of "memes" will cause doesn’t ring true the way the loss of "FREE ILLEGAL DOWNLOADS" does. The intensity of the opposition to Article 13 is rooted in the protection of piracy, which is not "free speech." If anything, Article 13 will help the smaller sites, since they can use human moderators. The big sites could as well, except they wouldn’t be able to siphon money from content creators so easily and might have to spread the wealth.

All that money made by the internet companies comes at the expense of creators. People do not go to the internet to find a search engine, but content. The search engines should not be getting rich while the content they use the search engine to find goes uncompensated. The example of the restaurant guide overlooks that restaurants remain profitable even with this guides and simply waive any objection to the use of their mark, something they would not do if the guides were making all the money off the food prepared by the restaurants.

Gary (profile) says:

Re: Re:

You have laughably conflated "Piracy" or people sharing works, and Google indexing everything on the web.
Google makes money by cataloging and indexing everything out there.
Copyright Monopolies lose money when individuals copy and distribute.
And are the people losing money the creators? No – it’s large corporations who are the rightsholders.

Strong copyright only supports large corporations. Unless you can cite a works creator capable of collecting royalties after they have been dead 70 years. 🙂

Chip says:

Re: Re:

You can "tell" that I am SMART because I "use" a lot of Capital "letters" and quotation MARKS. And "also" because I write Long "posts" where I make Historical REFERENCES to things like George "Washington’s" farewell Address, and Queen Anne’s copyright "law", and out of "econtext’ Quotes by people like Joseph de Maistre. Even though I do not actually "understand" any of those Things, or their "historical Significance". That is not Important, because they Make me sound "smart".

And then I Keep making those sam "arguments", over and Over "again", even after "people" repeatedly Explain to me why I am "wrong" or "ill-Informed" or "did not Read past the First wo "sentences" of the Wikipedia Entry.

I don’t Have to do "research", because I am Smart. As Evidence of how Smart I am, look how many Paragraphs my Posts "have". Would a Person who was not Smart spend this much "time" stating and Repating the same "things" over and "over" again, every Single "day", in the Comments of a Website he does not actually "like"?

I don’t "think" so!

Every Nation eats the Paint chips it "deserves!"

Rocky says:

Re: Re:

All that money made by the internet companies comes at the expense of creators. People do not go to the internet to find a search engine, but content. The search engines should not be getting rich while the content they use the search engine to find goes uncompensated.

Are you incredibly stupid or incredibly disingenuous? Take a pick, because the statement above is so blindingly stupid it must be either or.

Before search engines, before internet, as a content produces your where SOL if you didn’t sign with a big company, because if you wanted exposure any other way you had to PAY for it to get customers. They now get it for free – do you want it to go back to how it was? Do you know how much it costs to put an ad on the YP for example? It starts at $250/month for the smallest one.

Also, do you even know how the economic model of the search engines work? Because your statements has the reek of a clueless person.

Ninja (profile) says:

Now seriously, nobody intellectually honest would think of any other solution when implementing Article 13 as it is for high user-generated traffic sites. The thing is, trolls and shills can’t use this argument anymore. Which is kind of an evolution.

I’m sure somebody commenting before me noticed it but the use of "algorithmic measures" seem to be one final attempt not to call the monster by its real name: "filters".

Anonymous Coward says:

Piracy will continue ,theres plenty of websites outside the eu,
not every european country is a member of the eu.
THIS law is all about control and power,
All content will have to be filtered to show its not infringing ,
this means that large corporations will have a degree of control ,
of any website that shows video or audio clips .
It breaks the way the web works, say you want to post a random short clip
of a tv show ,or trailer to review a film or tv show .
It,ll probably be blocked in the eu,
or some websites might have to get a general license from,
abc,fox,nbc,disney etc to show video clips .
this will be expensive and theres only a few large companys that make
filters .
Piracy is already illegal , this law gets rid of safe harbours ,
right now rights holders have to issue takedown notices or sue the uploader ,
which may not be cost effective for a short video or audio clip .
this law means any ip holder can sue any website for video, audio, images
any content that might be deemed infringing.
This law is designed to turn the eu internet into some version
of cable tv where only content and video that is licensed and filtered can be shown.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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...