EU citizens!

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

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:


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.


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.


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

-profit-making site over 3 years old


-profit-making site over €10m turnover


-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.


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 That's not how I'm reading that document. If you comply with article 13 you're fine. All it takes is to remove illegal content when it's reported. Only when you are above 5 million visitors, not a tiny site, you need to prevent re-upload of the content.

If the book you are selling has ©, she wants to remove your right as an author to report the site and take down the book. Without a13, a company can steal your book and earn ad money on it, giving you nothing?


I guess we have to agree to disagree on interpretation. I am sticking with Reda's expert interpretation on this matter.

But this is not a debate about copyright itself. This is a debate about how to enforce copyright.

Mandatory filters on all sites for all copyright content go way too far.

Also, filters don't work. YouTube's content ID is a haven for copyright trolls claiming on works they don't own:

Imagine this kind of problem but applied to text posts!

Yes, mandatory filters goes to far, but they are only for big sites with 5 million monthly visitors. Interpretation perhaps or she's spinning it?

If you have copyright on your book. She argue that anyone should copy it freely her goal is to remove your possibility to sell the book you just wrote.

You say that big companies shouldn't even be forced to try prevent people copying and distributing your work because the filters are ineffective. Interesting opinion.


No, I think *filters* are the wrong approach because they cause more harm than they prevent.

Also, once they are in place they can be used for purposes that they were never intended for.

I didn't say anything about preventing piracy in general (and nor does Reda in this issue), that's a separate topic.

A13 is about stopping companies from spreading stolen content, isn't it? She promotes piracy in general and blocking art13 is just allowing big companies to sell ads towards stolen content. Filters only apply to big companies(debatable), that was the initial confusion if she (or you) was spreading misinformation.

The issue of abuse and censorship is indeed very important and a very complicated issue. I think we don't have time to enter this topic via toots.

Article 13 politics Show more

image/svg+xml Follow

Article 13 politics Show more

Article 13 politics Show more

Sign in to participate in the conversation is open to everyone who follows our code of conduct.