Disaster Article 13 has passed : EU - Eurocucks - your memes have no home here. All amendments rejected.

Article 13 approved by European Parliament by 438 votes to 226
September 12, 2018







Tags: Article 13 europe safe harbour
european-commission-1500x500.jpg



MEPs have voted to pass the much-discussed Article 13 of the European Copyright Directive. Of the 751 politicians voting on the directive today in Strasbourg, 438 voted in favour, 226 against and 39 abstained.


View image on Twitter




Sylvie Guillaume

✔@sylvieguillaume




Soulagement après le vote sur la directive #droitdauteur. L'Europe de la diversité culturelle renforcée, une presse indépendante et la liberté d'expression préservées après le vote du rapport @AxelVossMdEP. Les négociations vont pouvoir enfin débuter avec le Conseil.

9:02 PM - Sep 12, 2018


Twitter Ads info and privacy






This section of the proposed legislation would make internet platforms liable for copyrighted content uploaded by their users:

“Article 13 creates an obligation on information society service providers storing and giving access to large amounts of works and other subject-matter uploaded by their users to take appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure the functioning of agreements concluded with rightholders and to prevent the availability on their services of content identified by rightholders in cooperation with the service providers”

This would remove the ‘safe harbours’ that have been a long-term bugbear for music rightsholders, who see them as responsible for the ‘value gap’ between the music royalties paid by platforms like YouTube, and those that do not benefit from safe harbours, like Spotify and Apple Music.

Critics of Article 13 argue that it would damage key principles of free expression online by forcing platforms to filter anything that might be copyrighted content, while also damaging the chances of small internet startups to compete with giants like Google/YouTube, who can afford to spend tens of millions of dollars building tools like the latter’s ContentID to comply with the legislation.

The news is already being celebrated by music rightsholders and their representative bodies, but will come as a blow to the technology companies and activists who had been campaigning against the proposal.

Independent body Impala was one of the first to hail the news, describing it as a “great result for creators”. Boss Helen Smith had published an opinion piece earlier this week defending the proposed legislation. “Nobody in our community is suggesting ‘tearing down the internet.’ What we are asking lawmakers to do is to make sure that it works for everyone,” she wrote.




IMPALA@IMPALAMusic




1f44f.png
1f44f.png
1f44f.png
MEP @AxelVossMdEP Proposal wins the vote, great result for creators #EuropeforCreators

8:59 PM - Sep 12, 2018


Twitter Ads info and privacy






Paul Pacifico, boss of UK independent body AIM, hailed the vote as “a great day for music and culture in Europe” in a tweet shortly after the vote. He also published an opinion piece this week, criticising the lobbying tactics of companies and organisations who had opposed Article 13.




Paul Pacifico

✔@allstarspaul




A great day for culture and music in #europe as the #copyrightdirective is adopted by @Europarl_EN including #article13 - thank you #MEPs from all parties for your energetic and highly engaged approach to this very sensitive and important legislation.

9:06 PM - Sep 12, 2018


Twitter Ads info and privacy






Google provided this statement to Music Ally following the vote. “People want access to quality news and creative content online,” said a spokesperson. “We’ve always said that more innovation and collaboration are the best way to achieve a sustainable future for the European news and creative sectors, and we’re committed to continued close partnership with these industries.”

[Also passed today was Article 11, which focuses more on the news side of things.)

MEP Julia Reda, who had been one of the prominent critics of the proposals, summarised the fears in a tweet posted after the vote was carried.


View image on Twitter




Julia Reda

✔@Senficon




Article 13 vote: The European Parliament endorses #uploadfilters for all but the smallest sites and apps. Anything you want to publish will need to first be approved by these filters, perfectly legal content like parodies & memes will be caught in the crosshairs #SaveYourInternet

8:57 PM - Sep 12, 2018


Twitter Ads info and privacy






We’ll be covering reactions to the news in the coming hours here, so check back on this story regularly for updates.
https://musically.com/2018/09/12/article-13-approved-by-european-parliament-by-438-votes-to-226/

EU approves controversial internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’
3
Key provisions were amended to reduce potential harm, but critics say vote is ‘catastrophic’
By James Vincent@jjvincent Sep 12, 2018, 7:12am EDTSHARE
wjoel_180317_2415_002_social.0.0.jpg

The European Parliament has voted on changes to the Copyright Directive, a piece of legislation intended to update copyright for the internet age. In a session this morning, MEPs approved amended versions of the directive’s most controversial provisions: Articles 11 and 13, dubbed by critics as the “link tax” and “upload filter.”

Article 11 is intended to give publishers and newspapers a way to make money when companies like Google link to their stories, while Article 13 requires platforms like YouTube and Facebook to scan uploaded content to stop the unlicensed sharing of copyrighted material. Critics say these two provisions pose a dire threat to the free flow of information online, and will be open to abuse by copyright trolls and censors.

READ MORE: EU COPYRIGHT DIRECTIVE: WHAT’S AT STAKE
Defenders of the Copyright Directive and its controversial clauses say this is an unfair characterization. They point to existing laws and newly-introduced amendments that will block the worst excesses of this legislation (like, for example, a law that excuses parodies and memes from copyright claims). They say that the campaign against the directive has been funded by US tech giants eager to retain their control over the web’s platforms.

In remarks following the vote in Parliament this morning, MEP Axel Voss, who has led the charge on introducing Articles 11 and 13 thanked his fellow politicians “for the job we have done together.” “This is a good sign for the creative industries in Europe,” said Voss.

Opposing MEPs like Julia Reda of the Pirate Party described the outcome as “catastrophic.”

It’s important to note that this is far from the end of the story for the Copyright Directive and its impact on the web. The legislation approved today still faces a final vote in the European Parliament in January (where it’s possible, though very unlikely, it will be rejected). After that, individual EU member states will still get to choose how to put the directive in law. In other words, each country will be able to interpret the directive as they see fit.

Developing...
https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/12/17849868/eu-internet-copyright-reform-article-11-13-approved

 
Last edited:
Maybe I'm being too :optimistic:, but after reading and re-reading the text of articles, I'm of the opinion that they'll be a bit difficult to enforce, especially because every EU country will maintain it's own Internet legislature and has it's own web providers.
The copyright filter may be automatic, but artists and companies will have a very hard time forwarding complaints and denounces.
The changes will not be as apocalyptic as feared.

At least this is not over yet, it'll first go to the Council which then has to negotiate with the Parliament again. It COULD ultimately fail because there is no feasible way to actually implement this Orwellian bullshit. But yeah, we're probably fucked anyway.
 
"Intellectual Dark Web" -> Meme Dark Web
Better get your meme obfuscation techniques ready, eurogents. Here's a sample:
qs1Jmmx.png

edit: google's standard imagematching algo didn't catch it but the heuristic one did. Hmm...
edit2: there we go, did a bit more scrambling and tossed it to a new file as a precaution and google completely lost track.
really though this is probably fucking nothing since the standards are so ambitious they're unenforceable, as @Jaimas has pointed out.
 
Last edited:
At least this is not over yet, it'll first go to the Council which then has to negotiate with the Parliament again. It COULD ultimately fail because there is no feasible way to actually implement this Orwellian bullshit. But yeah, we're probably fucked anyway.
Call me blackpilled, but I think that's the point. I think this vague and generally unenforceable law will be used selectively to target dissident nationalists.

It would be pretty funny if we got a bunch of vaporwave filtered memes from it though.

Edit: If I was a nationalist in the EU, I would definitely be using a VPN or Tor already though
 
Last edited:
No one does, but the good news about incompetent legislation that's completely nonviable is that it's not exactly going to cause much damage.
You say that, but it can be used to shut down sites or providers for arbitrary reasons if it's worded vaguely and poorly enough (which this version is).

not european, but i know Nintendo of Europe is gonna Abuse the Hell out of this
Did you even read what the articles that were passed are about?
 
This is a fucking nightmare. Amerifats might want to stop laughing so hard at this - US creators who want to preserve their Euro audiences are going to have to drastically adjust their content. This could also see the end of alt-tech sites like Bitchute, Minds, etc who aren't going to be able to afford filtering software.

This is a loss for us all.
The EU is also aiming towards American sites like YouTube and Google, which in and of itself bullshit since they're American and by default, shouldn't have to listen to the EU.

So unless they bow down like cucks or the EU forces their law onto other countries, It's going to be hard to enforce. Either way, I send my regards to any and all Europe Kiwis out there.
 
Lol, yeah the UK is a shining beacon of respecting the privacy of it's citizens, especially relating to the internet.
Sadly you’re right in your sarcasm:
Paywalled Telegraph Article said:
Imagine being unable to hold a conversation in your own house without the world knowing the topic of conservation and where you live. Imagine your landlord is held legally responsible for the content of your private conversations in the flat you rent from them. This dystopian vision is exactly how some Tory and Labour politicians want to treat the online world.

A cross-party group of MPs, led by Labour’s Lucy Powell, are today leading the latest in a long line of attempts to clamp down on internet freedom. Their calls to outlaw secret forums on social media and make large social media companies legally liable for content published on their services are as nonsensical as they are authoritarian.

It may surprise Ms Powell to learn that secret Facebook groups are not the sole preserve of racists and terrorists. Her proposal would have a knock-on effect of closing down important private spaces where people discuss difficult topics such as mental health and workplace discrimination, as well as revealing the members of these groups.

Online forums have become vital to many in solving everyday issues and providing support to vulnerable groups who may otherwise struggle to find people they can discuss sensitive issues with.

Questions also remain about the scope of the bill; defining a secret online forum is difficult. Would group WhatsApp discussions—famously used by MPs across all parties to communicate and coordinate—also be caught by the ban? How about Twitter direct messaging groups or SnapChat group chats? Why not all emails? The dividing line between these groups and secret Facebook groups is hazy at best – MPs risk making an ass of the law as they try to tackle people making asses of themselves online.

I’m sceptical, but it’s possible our Westminster overlords are aware of such issues and simply think that taking a sledgehammer to internet privacy is a price worth paying to undermine racist online echo chambers.

Even then cracking down on secret racist Facebook groups would not achieve this. Individuals who aren’t engaging in criminal behaviour would simply move to closed groups that have no more moderation than secret groups. Those who do engage in criminal behaviour would switch to more underground, unmoderated discussion platforms that are less cooperative with (or accessible to) police and intelligence services.

Forcing large social media companies to become legally liable for the content of their forums would also be catastrophic for internet freedom and opens the door to other harmful forms of censorship. Germany passed a similar law (NetzDG) last year, which threatened social media companies with fines of up to €50 million if they failed to remove offensive illegal content within 24 hours: allowing a week’s grace period for more legally ambiguous content.

Developing sophisticated content filtering algorithms and hiring large moderation teams is scarcely affordable for startup companies who want to challenge the dominance of the social media giants, but locking in established players is just the start. The German experience of such hamfisted internet regulation vindicates those who opposed it on the grounds that it would lead to overly aggressive content moderation and a chilling effect on free speech. There have been many cases of perfectly legal speech being censored by social media companies who are anxious to avoid fines. And of course it hasn’t stopped the far-right marching openly on the streets of Chemnitz and Köthen in recent weeks.

It won’t stop at social media, either. The Government are gradually laying the groundwork for ever-more intrusive measures with age verification for pornography, mooted bans on end-to-end encryption, and growing pressure to mimic the US SESTA/FOSTA law that is putting sex workers at greater risk of violence by shutting down their online platforms.

These measures might be the brainchild of a Labour MP but enjoy support from members across the House, motivated in part by a concern for curbing online abuse having experienced it themselves. But free association and the ability to have private discussions are core principles of our offline lives and the same should hold true on the internet.

It should be staggering that this attack on free association comes from a Labour MP. Does she not know the history of her own party, the history of workers’ rights? That combination and private association were prohibited and criminal? Do Tories not remember that companies could be seen as conspiracies just a century and a half ago?

Politicians who don’t understand the internet shouldn’t try to regulate the future. They should look again at the past, a history filled with failure to control. They may learn something from it.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...eatening-right-have-private-discussions-must/
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/pol...acebook-groups-that-spread-hate-a3932716.html
 
Last edited:
The EU is also aiming towards American sites like YouTube and Google, which in and of itself bullshit since they're American and by default, shouldn't have to listen to the EU.

So unless they bow down like cucks or the EU forces their law onto other countries, It's going to be hard to enforce. Either way, I send my regards to any and all Europe Kiwis out there.

They're slowly bending over to China. They'll definitely abandon freedom to get European bucks.
 
The former home secretary wanted backdoor access to whatsapp and the Online Forums bill has cross party support now. Seems we can fuck it up without the EU's help.

One of the things to get cross party support and it's because MPs get called faggots on twitter.
 
Back