EU citizens!

#Article13 has lurched back into life due to a last minute Franco-German deal:

juliareda.eu/2019/02/article-1

Any profit-making site over 3 years old will have to install YouTube-style automatic copyright filters on all uploads.

In practice, they would have to outsource it to Google etc. Big tech would choose what we see, even on tiny indie sites.

Please tell your MEPs today, in your own words, that this is not acceptable. They vote on this next Monday:

europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/hom

@switchingsocial

I normally like your posts but now you are spreading misinformation by omission.

"Annual turnover below €10 million" are excluded.
You call a site with 10 million euro turnover a tiny indie site?
"Fewer than 5 million unique monthly visitors" are excluded.

Small sites are not affected at all.

With 10 million/year there is no need to outsource to Google.

Otherwise I have no opinion pro or against article 13.

@alexbeck

No, you've misunderstood the proposal. Small sites are most definitely affected.

You have to be under three years AND under 10 million euros income AND fewer than 5 million unique visitors if you want to be exempted from the rules.

If ANY of those are untrue, then you have to have upload filters. So, if your site is over three years old, you have to have filters.

The link I gave gives examples of this.

@alexbeck

To put it another way, under Article 13 upload filters would be mandatory for all these sites:

-profit-making site over 3 years old

OR

-profit-making site over €10m turnover

OR

-profit-making site with over 5 million visitors/month

The last two options include only large sites, but the first option includes even the smallest sites if they have any kind of income.

@switchingsocial I went back to the site and, yes what you say appears correct. So please ignore my post and carry on.

I went in to the actual pdf in her article and it's not super clear that it's about technical filters.

By the first look it seems like they want to stop sites breaking copyright law. TOS forbidding posting of stolen content and then taking down such content when reported, that seems to be enough?
I'm no expert. First time I look at that article.

@switchingsocial Yeah, it's actually the milder version, it's in page three of the pdf. When a copyright infringement is reported you must take the content down. Makes sense. If someone steels your new book, you report it and the site must take it down.

Only if you also have 5 million unique visitors is there a need to prevent further upload of the illegal content you already removed. (filters)

Small sites are not affected by filters. So you may be spreading misinformation.

@alexbeck

I would appreciate you not using the word "misinformation".

It implies deliberately trying to mislead people, and I'm certainly not doing that.

I'm not a legal expert, but I do trust Julia Reda to interpret the document correctly as she is an MEP who specialises in copyright matters.

According to her, the lighter regime you mention only applies to smaller companies *that are less than three years old*.

image/svg+xml Follow

@switchingsocial Yeah, sorry about that, it's a loaded term.

She has a political agenda though which I'm not too familiar with.

Contrasting approaches to politics by MEPs Show more

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Albin.social

Albin.social is open to everyone who follows our code of conduct.