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:
I am sure someone has pointed this out already, but that will mean no more user created content on any site ever. Because it's not possible to evaluate everything that millions of people upload every hour of the day to a site like YouTube.
YouTube already has a similar system called ContentID. This is why you sometimes see people being afraid to use clips where some music happens to play in the background. Sometimes videos of people in nature have been taking down because the birds chirping sound too similar to birds chirping in some song.
 
YouTube already has a similar system called ContentID. This is why you sometimes see people being afraid to use clips where some music happens to play in the background. Sometimes videos of people in nature have been taking down because the birds chirping sound too similar to birds chirping in some song.
Funny thing about the ContentID, is that a service provider is not legally obligated to use anything like that. Like I said, the US legal system really dislikes prior restraint.

Youtube settled unnecessarily with Hollywood and agreed to create that computationally expensive monstrosity. Some people think that it was because Youtube was harangued by lawsuits that they just gave up, but I'm not convinced. I think if you claim DMCA safe harbor status, and your execs don't go blabbing about all the copyrighted material you love to pirate on your service, you could probably get those lawsuits dismissed pretty cheaply.

Really, I think Youtube settled more because they want to squeeze in on the Netflix space by cozying up to Hollywood. Amazon wants to delivery you movies on demand, Netflix already does it, there's Hulu as well. I think Youtube settled primarily because they want to get in on that space.
 
YouTube already has a similar system called ContentID. This is why you sometimes see people being afraid to use clips where some music happens to play in the background. Sometimes videos of people in nature have been taking down because the birds chirping sound too similar to birds chirping in some song.

Yeah. And as you've indicated, it doesn't work very well. It's easy to alter a song's speed slightly or edit a video a bit so the system misses it.

But even if they get these systems working perfectly, there will always be clever ways around them. Laws like these are impossible to enforce... or at least enforce evenly. As others have said, we can assume they will be selectively enforced to punish small threats to government power/narratives. And probably to protect the big companies the government colludes with.
 
Funny thing about the ContentID, is that a service provider is not legally obligated to use anything like that. Like I said, the US legal system really dislikes prior restraint.

Youtube settled unnecessarily with Hollywood and agreed to create that computationally expensive monstrosity. Some people think that it was because Youtube was harangued by lawsuits that they just gave up, but I'm not convinced. I think if you claim DMCA safe harbor status, and your execs don't go blabbing about all the copyrighted material you love to pirate on your service, you could probably get those lawsuits dismissed pretty cheaply.

The Viacom lawsuit had gone on from 2007 to 2014.

Seven years is far from "easily dismissed." And it cost tens of millions of dollars to both sides.

Really, I think Youtube settled more because they want to squeeze in on the Netflix space by cozying up to Hollywood. Amazon wants to delivery you movies on demand, Netflix already does it, there's Hulu as well. I think Youtube settled primarily because they want to get in on that space.

I agree with that in general, but vastly wealthy corporations can drag out even absolute garbage lawsuits forever and completely bankrupt lesser opponents, and that includes pretty much any individual who isn't Warren Buffett level rich.
 
The Viacom lawsuit had gone on from 2007 to 2014.

Seven years is far from "easily dismissed." And it cost tens of millions of dollars to both sides.



I agree with that in general, but vastly wealthy corporations can drag out even absolute garbage lawsuits forever and completely bankrupt lesser opponents, and that includes pretty much any individual who isn't Warren Buffett level rich.
It would've been dismissed in 2010, but apparently youtube's employees keep blabbering about all the infringements going on on the site.

Edit: Basically, the point of my post also was predicated on the DMCA actually doing something. If you're saying that it's ineffective, then my post is no longer relevant.
 
I'd like to see them actually try to enforce it on Americans with any grain of success. If they did, it'd be a full on "FUCK YOU" rebellion.
The government has tanks and planes and the military though.
Funny thing about the ContentID, is that a service provider is not legally obligated to use anything like that. Like I said, the US legal system really dislikes prior restraint.

Youtube settled unnecessarily with Hollywood and agreed to create that computationally expensive monstrosity. Some people think that it was because Youtube was harangued by lawsuits that they just gave up, but I'm not convinced. I think if you claim DMCA safe harbor status, and your execs don't go blabbing about all the copyrighted material you love to pirate on your service, you could probably get those lawsuits dismissed pretty cheaply.

Really, I think Youtube settled more because they want to squeeze in on the Netflix space by cozying up to Hollywood. Amazon wants to delivery you movies on demand, Netflix already does it, there's Hulu as well. I think Youtube settled primarily because they want to get in on that space.
All of the ContentID shit actually began with Viacom, over "brazen copyright infringement". I remember reading that Viacom planted those infringing videos, but not where.
 
A Final Update on Our Priorities for 2018

Monday, October 22, 2018

Dear Creators, Since 2005, YouTube has transformed from a single video at the zoo to a global video library where billions of people turn to each day for knowledge, creativity and connection. Today, YouTube is a diverse community of creators who are building the next generation of media companies and drawing fans from every corner of the world. You are making history and changing the way people watch video, engage with each other and share their voice

Each month, more than one billion fans come to YouTube to be part of music culture and discover new songs and artists.

All of this is possible because of the creative economy powered by you. However, this growing creative economy is at risk, as the EU Parliament voted on Article 13, copyright legislation that could drastically change the internet that you see today. Article 13 as written threatens to shut down the ability of millions of people – from creators like you to everyday users – to upload content to platforms like YouTube. And it threatens to block users in the EU from viewing content that is already live on the channels of creators everywhere. This includes YouTube’s incredible video library of educational content, such as language classes, physics tutorials and other how-to’s. This legislation poses a threat to both your livelihood and your ability to share your voice with the world.

And, if implemented as proposed, Article 13 threatens hundreds of thousands of jobs, European creators, businesses, artists and everyone they employ. The proposal could force platforms, like YouTube, to allow only content from a small number of large companies. It would be too risky for platforms to host content from smaller original content creators, because the platforms would now be directly liable for that content.

https://youtube-creators.googleblog.com/2018/10/a-final-update-on-our-priorities-for.html?m=1

YouTube’s head of music warns that EU’s Article 13 is detrimental to remixes, fan videos

Lyor Cohen is the most recent YouTube executive to speak out

Lyor Cohen, YouTube’s global head of music, is the latest YouTube executive to publish an ominous forewarning about the European Union’s controversial Copyright Directive and the effect it will have on the music community.

“Let me be clear: we understand and support the intent of Article 13. We need effective ways for copyright holders to protect their content,” Cohen wrote. “But we believe that the current proposal will create severe unintended consequences for the whole industry

That’s why Cohen, alongside CEO Susan Wojcicki and head of business Robert Kyncl, have published blog posts asking creators to band together and pressure the EU into not passing the directive. Cohen’s blog post addresses musicians and fan video creators specifically, digging into the importance of remix culture to YouTube’s global audience. Cohen added that while he supports the overall message of Article 13, ignoring music’s changing landscape on a platform like YouTube is detrimental to the industry.

The relationship between creators who remix copyrighted songs and studios is tense, but YouTube does evaluate the new piece based on how transformative it seems.

The music industry in Europe is one of the more outspoken supporters of the EU’s Copyright Directive. Paul McCartney and more than 1,300 other members of the recording arts community published an open letter earlier this year asking the EU to back proposed changes to the directive.

"“Some user upload content platforms refuse to compensate artists.”"

“We need an internet that is fair and sustainable for all,” McCartney wrote. “But today some user upload content platforms refuse to compensate artists and all music creators fairly for their work, while they exploit it for their own profit.”

Cohen ends his newsletter with a call to creators to research Article 13 and use their voices to speak out against it. YouTube recently launched a standalone website dedicated to informing people about Article 13, and it’s hosting videos from popular creators who have talked about the issue on their channel. The company’s Twitter account has also become more aggressive about the directive, tweeting about its possible effect on the creator community.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/1/18051916/article-13-copyright-youtube-music-lyor-cohen

RIP Youtube
 
A Final Update on Our Priorities for 2018

Monday, October 22, 2018

Dear Creators, Since 2005, YouTube has transformed from a single video at the zoo to a global video library where billions of people turn to each day for knowledge, creativity and connection. Today, YouTube is a diverse community of creators who are building the next generation of media companies and drawing fans from every corner of the world. You are making history and changing the way people watch video, engage with each other and share their voice

Each month, more than one billion fans come to YouTube to be part of music culture and discover new songs and artists.

All of this is possible because of the creative economy powered by you. However, this growing creative economy is at risk, as the EU Parliament voted on Article 13, copyright legislation that could drastically change the internet that you see today. Article 13 as written threatens to shut down the ability of millions of people – from creators like you to everyday users – to upload content to platforms like YouTube. And it threatens to block users in the EU from viewing content that is already live on the channels of creators everywhere. This includes YouTube’s incredible video library of educational content, such as language classes, physics tutorials and other how-to’s. This legislation poses a threat to both your livelihood and your ability to share your voice with the world.

And, if implemented as proposed, Article 13 threatens hundreds of thousands of jobs, European creators, businesses, artists and everyone they employ. The proposal could force platforms, like YouTube, to allow only content from a small number of large companies. It would be too risky for platforms to host content from smaller original content creators, because the platforms would now be directly liable for that content.

https://youtube-creators.googleblog.com/2018/10/a-final-update-on-our-priorities-for.html?m=1

YouTube’s head of music warns that EU’s Article 13 is detrimental to remixes, fan videos

Lyor Cohen is the most recent YouTube executive to speak out

Lyor Cohen, YouTube’s global head of music, is the latest YouTube executive to publish an ominous forewarning about the European Union’s controversial Copyright Directive and the effect it will have on the music community.

“Let me be clear: we understand and support the intent of Article 13. We need effective ways for copyright holders to protect their content,” Cohen wrote. “But we believe that the current proposal will create severe unintended consequences for the whole industry

That’s why Cohen, alongside CEO Susan Wojcicki and head of business Robert Kyncl, have published blog posts asking creators to band together and pressure the EU into not passing the directive. Cohen’s blog post addresses musicians and fan video creators specifically, digging into the importance of remix culture to YouTube’s global audience. Cohen added that while he supports the overall message of Article 13, ignoring music’s changing landscape on a platform like YouTube is detrimental to the industry.

The relationship between creators who remix copyrighted songs and studios is tense, but YouTube does evaluate the new piece based on how transformative it seems.

The music industry in Europe is one of the more outspoken supporters of the EU’s Copyright Directive. Paul McCartney and more than 1,300 other members of the recording arts community published an open letter earlier this year asking the EU to back proposed changes to the directive.

"“Some user upload content platforms refuse to compensate artists.”"

“We need an internet that is fair and sustainable for all,” McCartney wrote. “But today some user upload content platforms refuse to compensate artists and all music creators fairly for their work, while they exploit it for their own profit.”

Cohen ends his newsletter with a call to creators to research Article 13 and use their voices to speak out against it. YouTube recently launched a standalone website dedicated to informing people about Article 13, and it’s hosting videos from popular creators who have talked about the issue on their channel. The company’s Twitter account has also become more aggressive about the directive, tweeting about its possible effect on the creator community.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/1/18051916/article-13-copyright-youtube-music-lyor-cohen

RIP Youtube
To be fair? They did refund the killstream's cancer money. Which makes this blog thread even more fun from there. For once. I am glad the EU is fucking over their own country. Now YouTube has to admit that yes piracy has won. :D

What a wonderful timeline we are living in. :)
 
EU is gay, plastics are awesome and I don't want Article 13. I Hope the EU dies sooner or later as I don't want this type of NWO

I want the EU deported from Europe. They can go improve Africa or something.

To be fair, Africa could use some help... REAL HELP. I'm not counting on some thing like the EU to do that, however. Definitely NOT like this.
 
Wow, sudden about-face by tech companies there, huh?

"Get on the globalism train! It's important to be inclusive and diverse and respect other people's right not to allow you to speak your bad opinions"

*EU Passes law that would affect them completely in line with globalist trends*

"Whoa whoa whoa there EU, what the hell man, we meant bad opinions we disagree with!"
 
EU Approves Revamped Copyright Rules, Which Would Force Internet Companies to Proactively Block Protected Content
https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/eu-copyright-rules-article-13-youtube-1203138887/
socialist muslims said:
European Union negotiators agreed Wednesday on codified language in a new set of sweeping copyright-reform rules — including a provision that would mandate YouTube and other internet platforms block copyrighted material when it’s uploaded. YouTube in particular has been particularly vigorous in opposing the proposed changes to the laws.

The finalized text of the rules must next be formally confirmed by the European Parliament, which holds elections this May, as well as the Council of the EU. After that, the EU’s member states will have 24 months to adopt the new rules into their national legislation.

“To finally have modern copyright rules for the whole of EU is a major achievement that was long overdue,” European Commission VP for the digital single market Andrus Ansip said in a statement released Wednesday. “The negotiations were difficult, but what counts in the end is that we have a fair and balanced result that is fit for a digital Europe: the freedoms and rights enjoyed by internet users today will be enhanced, our creators will be better remunerated for their work, and the internet economy will have clearer rules for operating and thriving.”

The final wording of the EU’s overhauled copyright rules includes the controversial Article 13, which would require internet platforms like YouTube and Facebook to proactively block uploads of copyrighted material. The provision has been supported by European producers and the music industry.

Article 13 would require internet services with at least 5 million average monthly users to “demonstrate that they have made best efforts” to prevent the upload of content flagged as copyright-protected by rights holders, per the final text of the rules. When there are no licensing agreements between an internet platform and right holders, the platforms will need to make best efforts to obtain an authorization. The “best efforts” verbiage had been criticized by European film and TV groups as too lax.

The intent of Article 13 is to let creators and actors in entertainment space “have more control over the use of their content uploaded by users on these platforms and be remunerated for it,” according to the EU. The proposed rules protect individual users’ fair use of copyrighted material, for example, in memes or parodies; also, students and teachers will be able to use copyrighted materials in online courses.

In addition, under Article 11 of the new copyright code, European news outlets will receive a new right to “facilitate the way they negotiate how their content is reused on online platforms.”

Google and YouTube have been staunchly opposed to the new EU regs, arguing that they will lead to unintended consequences that stifle expression.

In an initial statement, YouTube said: “Copyright reform needs to benefit everyone — including European creators and consumers, small publishers and platforms. We’ll be studying the final text of the EU copyright directive and it will take some time to determine next steps. The details will matter, so we welcome the chance to continue conversations across Europe.”

Article 13 “threatens the livelihoods of so many creators in Europe and around the world,” YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki wrote in a blog post last week. Presumably, Google and YouTube’s lobbying efforts will now shift to focus on members of the European Parliament to vote down the rules.

In September 2016, the European Commission proposed to modernize the two-decades-old EU copyright rules in order “for European culture to flourish and circulate.” In December 2018, EU co-legislators agreed on new rules to make it easier for European broadcasters to make certain programming available on their live TV or catch-up services online.
 
I'm so conflicted.
On the one hand, I want to see Youtube Google and Facebook suffer.
On the other, free speech.
:/

You know what they say; things will get worse before they get better. I'm fairly sure nothing will get better until a full-blown consumer revolt occurs. But on the other hand, I'm not hugely concerned. If people in China can still get access to the Western internet after the Golden Shield Project, an entire continent of disparate, bickering nations only united by a rapidly collapsing organisation isn't going to perform much better.
 
Back