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.

@alexbeck

The current situation is piracy is illegal, but the platform holder isn't liable as long as they take action to remove illegal uploads.

Article 13 would make platform holders liable for uploads even if they remove them immediately. The only way to avoid liability would be to prevent pirated material ever being uploaded, and the only way to do that would be filters.

(By the way, this doesn't just cover video or music, it would cover text too. Every post would have to be scanned.)

@switchingsocial @alexbeck piracy isn’t illegal, it just makes you liable to a lawsuit on the grounds of copyright infringement. The services providing them are also liable and have been historically found guilty of infringement just as the individuals who share or download theme

Does your account’s regular spread of misinformation come out of malice or incompetence?

@miya @alexbeck

"regular spread of misinformation"...? 😟

Would you care to give some examples?

image/svg+xml Follow

@switchingsocial You included me, but the quoted line is from miya. That person might be trolling. Of course piracy is illegal, and so on..

@alexbeck @switchingsocial Piracy is not technically illegal. It just makes you liable to lawsuit. It doesn’t really matter in common parlance but an account speaking from the position of an informed expert should be accurate when handing out information.

@miya I'm not affiliated with switching social at all and am no expert. We're discussion copyright law in EU, and to my knowledge piracy, as in spreading copyrighted material without permission on big Internet sites, is illegal in most EU countries, if not all. But of course I'm no lawyer.

@alexbeck I know, I was just correcting them. You insinuated I was trolling so I replied to you.

It’s a confusion over the legal category. There aren’t laws against piracy like there are for theft etc. There are laws that protect copyright, which piracy in whatever form can be argued in court to infringe on. This is why pirate sites are just as “illegal” as the act of pirating, the only question is what can be plausibly argued to cause damages through copyright infringement, or has set precedent of such (which is the case for both pirate sites and individual torrenters; I’m unaware of its been demonstrated for direct downloaders/non seeders, who are pirating, but not sharing, which is where they actually nail you for “lost sales”)

The industry is of course happy to continue calling piracy illegal because it furthers the popular misconception that it’s equivalent to theft, and thereby clouding and confusing the debate over the human right to information freedom vs. corporate desire to monetize software.

@miya All right, fair enough, I see so many trolls everywhere, also in the mirror sometimes, so I might have been too quick there. Sorry.

Interesting points you make here. I'm producing © sometimes, but I am also a fan of creative commons and open source. I think the mix of available license options is pretty good for art, text and software.

I like that the creator, not the pirate, decide over the license, but I respect the political discussion.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Albin.social

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