European Journalists Point Out That Article 11 Will Enrich Publishers At The Expense Of Journalists

from the this-is-not-helping dept

Promoters of the EU destructive copyright directive keep pushing the bogus line that it is necessary to give money to "artists and journalists." Take, for example, MEP Axel Voss (the EU Parliament member in charge of all of this nonsense) and his press release touting the final text:

Internet platforms face incentives to pay for artists and journalists’ work used

Except, actual journalists in the EU are realizing exactly what many of us have been talking about for months: nothing in the Directive will lead to more money for journalists. Instead, at best, it might lead to more money for publishers (though, even that is suspect, given the utter failure of similar plans already in place in Spain and Germany). While Voss's announcement claims that "Journalists must get a share of any copyright-related revenue obtained by their publishing house," journalists are pointing out that the opposite is actually true.

The International Federation of Journalists, along with the European Federations of Journalists put out a statement noting that Article 11 "makes a mockery" of their rights and will only serve to help publishers strip the journalists of their own rights:

While the directive acknowledges an obligation for journalists and all authors of the works incorporated in a press publication to receive an "appropriate share" of the revenues press publishers receive for the use of their publications online, it enables publishers to avoid such requirements by relying on existing "contractual arrangements" and "laws on ownership".

Such moves could deny journalists any revenue arising from the re-use of their work online.

These discriminatory provisions and proposals contained in Article 11 and Recital 35 of the text dash any hopes that the Directive would support authors in the press sector in obtaining fair and proportionate remuneration for their work under this law or in future national legislation. 

Instead they boost the system whereby powerful publishers force employed journalists and freelancers alike to sign contracts giving up all their rights – thereby offering them a proportionate or appropriate share of nothing

In short, the final text pays lip service to the idea that publishers should pass on money to journalists, but also provides a massive loophole in that all the publishers need to do is write this requirement out of any contract and not have to worry about it.

It appears that this kind of tactic is found throughout Articles 11 and 13. The text says you don't have to use filters, but provides no workable alternative. The text says that memes are allowed, but never explains how a site can comply with the law without blocking all memes. The text of the directive basically pays lip service to all the complaints and obvious consequences, but rather than deal with the consequences, it just says "and don't let those consequences happen." This is no way to make policy.

Filed Under: article 11, copyright, eu, eu copyright directive, journalism, journalists


Reader Comments

The First Word

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 4:28am

    The text says you don't have to use filters, but provides no workable alternative. The text says that memes are allowed, but never explains how a site can comply with the law without blocking all memes. The text of the directive basically pays lip service to all the complaints and obvious consequences, but rather than deal with the consequences, it just says "and don't let those consequences happen."

    This is what happens when you let people who have no fucking clue about how the Internet works in 2019 make laws that will govern how the Internet works in 2019.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 4:39am

      Re:

      This is what happens when pirates break the law so egregiously that measures like this are necessary.

      Journalists could work independently as well, or form a co-op, OR negotiate better terms with their publishers. If the "employment model" no longer works, because of the internet, it's obsolete and needs to be replaced.

      What needs to go is piracy. Perhaps honest people will finally get fed up with the thieves causing their precious internet to "break."

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 4:51am

        Re: Re:

        The funny thing is, you have exactly one good point in here:

        If the "employment model" no longer works, because of the internet, it's obsolete and needs to be replaced.

        Because yes, I happen to agree: If a business model can be destroyed by the Internet, it deserves to be destroyed by the Internet.

        But then you fuck it all up with this:

        What needs to go is piracy. Perhaps honest people will finally get fed up with the thieves causing their precious internet to "break."

        Because it isn’t “piracy” that breaks the Internet — it is lawmakers making laws that attempt to stop “piracy” that break the Internet. Articles 11 and 13 will do jack shit to stop large-scale filesharing, but they will place new restrictions on legal (and seemingly legal) activities for the sake of “doing something” to enforce copyright even harder. Like DRM, Articles 11 and 13 will affect otherwise law-abiding citizens more than it will ever affect any “pirates” — and the Articles will do that by design.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 4:55am

        Re: Re:

        If we go by neccessary why are you allowed limbs and genitalia when you can use them to rape and murder? Don't blame me for the mutilation it is the murderers' and rapists' fault!

        Neccessity is the excuse of tyrants and their minions to do what they want without reflection. Especially when it is never asked /how/ it is necessary or how the supposed measure will help.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 5:14am

        Re: Re:

        Pirates as you like to call them are actually consumers. Labeling them with a word that you hate does nothing to change reality. You are the one with the problem, you need to understand that your world view is wrong and detrimental to the world in general.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        TFG, 22 Feb 2019 @ 6:23am

        Re: Re:

        Dishonor on your, dishonor on your cow, dishonor on your whole family!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        madasahatter (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 6:46am

        Re: Re:

        The major issue publishers were complaining about was what is displayed in search results. The claim, mostly bullshit, was the display was keeping people from viewing the article. The reason it is mostly bullshit is the context of the search and interest of person. I might be only interested in the headlines about the story so a glance at the results is all I will do. Or I might want to read more about the story, then I will click on one of the links. Also with say 20 links available I will probably only click on 1 or 2 of them.

        The real problem for news organizations is they have depended on casual readers for decades as subscribers. Most subscribers usually skimmed the headlines, read a couple stories that interested them, maybe read the sports page, etc. With the Internet and bookmarks, one can effectively subscribe to those sites that consistently carry stories that interest them. General news, not so much. So the business model has collapsed for many newspapers and subscribers have fled.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Gary (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 6:51am

        Re: Re:

        If anyone wants a "Free Market" that is unburdened by government regulations, then obviously Piracy is the logical outcome. Free is a viable market alternative to paying exorbitant fees. Copyright is an artificial market limitation imposed by governments.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Dave P., 23 Feb 2019 @ 10:04am

        Re: Re:

        Oh, for crying out load! Put a sock in it, will you!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 7:34am

      Sometimes it IS malice

      I'm not so sure, nor willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. At this point they really have no excuse not to know how much their proposed laws will screw things up, so assuming malice seems only fair.

      It's not that they don't know the damage their vaguely worded garbage is going to cause, rather they know and the 'and don't let those bad things happen' bits are merely the CYOA part of the text, where they can claim after the fact that they didn't demand filters, so the fact that sites 'chose' to implement them is entirely on the sites.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2019 @ 10:32pm

        Re: Sometimes it IS malice

        Exactly! The people pushing this Directive are malicious, fascist fucks hoping to murder the internet to kill off dissent and creativity. Protecting Copyright and Journalists are just excuse used as a means to that end. They are a parasitic people who are lower than rat, and there is only one way to deal with Fascists rats. You EXTERMINAT them like the rats they are.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Rocky, 22 Feb 2019 @ 5:34am

    This just in (see https://www.permanentrepresentations.nl/permanent-representations/pr-eu-brussels/documents/policy-no tes/2019/02/20/joint-statement-regarding-the-copyright-directive ):

    Statement of the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Poland, Italy and Finland to point 39 of the CRP I agenda of 20 February 2019 regarding the DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on copyright in the Digital Single Market.

    The objectives of this Directive were to enhance the good functioning of the internal market and to stimulate innovation, creativity, investment and production of new content, also in the digital environment. The signatories support these objectives. Digital technologies have radically changed the way content is produced, distributed and accessed. The legislative framework needs to reflect and guide these changes.

    However, in our view, the final text of the Directive fails to deliver adequately on the abovementioned aims. We believe that the Directive in its current form is a step back for the Digital Single Market rather than a step forward.

    Most notably we regret that the Directive does not strike the right balance between the protection of right holders and the interests of EU citizens and companies. It therefore risks to hinder innovation rather than promote it and to have a negative impact the competitiveness of the European Digital Single Market.

    Furthermore, we feel that the Directive lacks legal clarity, will lead to legal uncertainty for many stakeholders concerned and may encroach upon EU citizens’ rights.
    We therefore cannot express our consent with the proposed text of the Directive.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 5:38am

    The people who make this law dont know how the web works,
    they do,nt care about free speech ,
    or they are very stupid .
    They think sending someone an email is the cutting edge of technology .
    They are making a law out of a list of demands from old legacy companys ,stop anyone else from
    making money from any content made by newspapers ,
    record companys or or any big media companys .
    This law outlaws parody , fair use , memes ,remix culture .
    .
    Its like saying all traffic laws and the rules regarding self driving cars
    will be made by a 60 year old person who has never learned to drive and only travels by train and bus and lives in a rural village .
    Most of the websites i use would be illegal since they quote snippets of articles and link to any website they deem relevant without getting a license .
    The way memes work is by taking a photo and putting
    your own caption on it,
    the ones that are funny or relevant spread like a viral video .
    Even if i make a great meme it,ll be blocked by eu
    websites , as they have no way of knowing who owns the image and they i get a license for it .

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 7:17am

      Re:

      The EU does not want you to get a license, but require that all sites block infringing contents, and have suggested, but not built into the law any mandatory license. They are assuming that the entertainment industry will follow the newspapers lead and issue licenses, while ignoring that there are potentially more sites that would ask for a license than Google, Facebook and Twitter. They are not setting up any mandatory licensing, or any mechanism for dealing with license requests.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 7:22am

    so, as has been said multiple times, all that will happen is that those who think that the likes of Google is getting monies atm, that will migrate to the publishers. similarly, the entertainment industries that have been after total control of the Internet will get it, thanks to pricks like Voss, and the world will be all the more worse off for it! what is needed is for how much he is being paid and by which industries for him to bring this crock of crap law into being. even worse, once in place, it'll never be gotten rid of, regardless of the damage it does

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Mason Wheeler (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 7:33am

    Internet platforms face incentives to pay for artists and journalists’ work used

    Except, actual journalists in the EU are realizing exactly what many of us have been talking about for months: nothing in the Directive will lead to more money for journalists. Instead, at best, it might lead to more money for publishers

    So basically, the journalists are about to experience what "artists" (particularly musicians and actors) have been experiencing for decades now under the modern copyright regime: having all of the money that's supposed to be going to them diverted into publishers' coffers instead?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      TFG, 22 Feb 2019 @ 7:34am

      Re:

      Yep.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Poor Ken Beans, 22 Feb 2019 @ 8:04am

      Re: Another arrogant BLUE BOY paying for attention.

      For those new to the site, "blue" and "out_of_the_blue" refer to those arrogant commentors who pay for the privilege of putting their deathless wit in Techdirt's unique "First Word" and "Last Word", the highlighting done by hyper-links (hence the name "out of the blue"), usually large and always annoying. You see those only rarely because reviled.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 8:09am

        Oh blue/liar(but I repeat myself)...

        You know, no matter how many times you lie about that people aren't going to believe you, if for no other reason than numerous other people will happily pop in to point out that you're lying, again, and in a most hilariously obvious manner no less.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 9:14am

        LOL

        Haha. Nobody even referenced you blueboy, yet somehow you feel the need to do some damage control on your reputation by lying about what's going. Something so simple that most people can tell you're lying at first glance?

        You need help.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 25 Feb 2019 @ 7:31am

          Re: LOL

          "Nobody even referenced you blueboy, yet somehow you feel the need to do some damage control on your reputation by lying about what's going."

          It's not a sign of credibility when someone feels compelled to defend himself - in advance of anyone saying anything.

          And yet, that's where old bobmail is at these days, apparently out of sheer habit.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Mike Masnick (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 9:26am

        Re: Re: Another arrogant BLUE BOY paying for attention.

        This might be deserving of funniest of the week...

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Gary (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 12:09pm

        Re: Re: Another arrogant Troll

        Wait, what?

        I thought "Blue" was short for "Blue Balls", the commentator that always posts with a funny name, from TOR, and complains that Mike isn't free-speechy enough.

        Cause, he is posting from his parent's basement and never gets out. Thus "Blue Balls."

        Confused now. Can't tell these anonymous Cowards apart anymore.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 25 Feb 2019 @ 7:35am

          Re: Re: Re: Another arrogant Troll

          "Confused now. Can't tell these anonymous Cowards apart anymore."

          It's our good fortune that blue/bobmail's usual stripe of commentary is almost instantly recognizable.

          Generally speaking if what has been posted consists of a demented hate-boner referencing a nonexistent phenomena as a cure for a completely unrelated topic while commenting on every possible detractor being paid by Mike to be mean to him you can usually assume the poster is dear old blue..or "bobmail" as i like to refer to him.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      stderric (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 5:30pm

      Re:

      the journalists are about to experience what "artists" (particularly musicians and actors) have been experiencing ... having all of the money that's supposed to be going to them diverted into publishers' coffers instead?

      The journalists might want to watch what they say, lest Voss alter the deal to reflect a model based on the academic publishing industry.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Poor Ken Beans, 22 Feb 2019 @ 8:01am

    SO NEXT, obviously: regulate publishers to prevent harm.

    will only serve to help publishers strip the journalists of their own rights

    This is broader problem intrinsic to "capitalism": allowing The Rich too much power. -- I'd fix 'em by taking away their notional wealth by which rule over us, but Masnick is for existing conditions because born into comfortable niche where HE lives well without having to compete.

    relying on existing "contractual arrangements" and "laws on ownership".

    Existing terms already exist so irrelevant.

    force employed journalists and freelancers alike to sign contracts giving up all their rights

    **That TOO is an existing power. All that's claimed is FUD-ish: "will be worse".

    ALL you're doing here is whining. And the changes will soon be in place...

    So what's your "Step 2" for fixing this, college boy? This is a socio-economic problem and you claim a PhD. -- Trick question. You CAN'T make any suggestions for fix because your hidden positions are such that you don't support AOC (and me) in taxing the hell out of The Rich, which is the simple effective way to reduce most societal problems, and the only non-lethal offset to money power. -- And you support GOOGLE which you say will benefit from this: your motives are tangled at best.

    And fact is that you don't suggest anything, never do.

    Mere clickbait, then.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mason Wheeler (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 8:46am

      Re: SO NEXT, obviously: regulate publishers to prevent harm.

      regulate publishers to prevent harm

      This is literally the entire point of copyright, as originally conceived.

      It was a good idea then and it's a good idea now. It's a shame that we've gotten so far away from it in the intervening years.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 25 Feb 2019 @ 7:38am

        Re: Re: SO NEXT, obviously: regulate publishers to prevent harm.

        "This is literally the entire point of copyright, as originally conceived."

        "It was a good idea then and it's a good idea now. It's a shame that we've gotten so far away from it in the intervening years."

        That's just it - that was NEVER the point of copyright. Copyright was always intended to be a protectionist measure covering publishers first and foremost. Everything tacked on later on as window dressing is just a desperate attempt at trying to establish validity for a repurposed old political-religious censorship tool.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 9:20am

      Re: SO NEXT, obviously: regulate publishers to prevent harm.

      comfortable niche where HE lives well without having to compete

      Well, you know, except for the massive amount of other tech blogs out there that he competes with. But you know, don't let facts get in the way of you spouting off a bunch of lies and nonsense.

      in taxing the hell out of The Rich

      Ah your one of those socialists who believes that anything you earn isn't yours and should be given equally to those around you. Because that has worked out so well in history.

      you support GOOGLE which you say will benefit from this: your motives are tangled at best.

      What does support for a company on one particular topic have to do with anything? By that logic, I would say your motives are much more than tangled since you blatantly and openly support entertainment industries who regularly fleece the pants off the artists they sign.

      And fact is that you don't suggest anything, never do.

      Except for all those times he has. You are obviously a compulsive liar, there are people who can help with that. I suggest contacting them. If you can stop lying for enough time to admit you have a problem.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 8:04am

    'You shut up when we're talking for you!'

    Why, you'd almost think that the people who are actually going to be impacted by this have seen what it's done in the past, aren't idiots and have actually read the text, and know that far from helping them it's merely handing them to the very groups they've been bypassing on a silver platter...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 2:13pm

    Here's an example of two guys who have made $4 million off their free podcast, which provides useful information to their audience:

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/smallbusiness/how-to-lose-tens-of-thousands-of-dollars-on- amazon/ar-BBRHEqI?ocid=spartandhp

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 8:23pm

    Journalists? Where?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.