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:
Nice dream, but as far as I can tell, non-EU content that breaks these new EU rules will be blocked from being accessible to EU consumers.

Do you all see how fucked this is yet?
If google, facebook, et al pull their content from the EU in response, europe will buckle within days on that rule. These companies are richer and more powerful then many countries, and Brussels hasnt figured that out yet.
 
Nice dream, but as far as I can tell, non-EU content that breaks these new EU rules will be blocked from being accessible to EU consumers.

Do you all see how fucked this is yet?
Now :

>All posts on Kiwifarms are the responsibility of the individual poster and not the administration of Kiwifarms

After art 13 :

>All posts on Kiwifarms (regarding to copyrights) are the responsibility of the administration of Kiwifarms

Keywords "and allows it".

Under current legislation it's illegal to not take it down after takedown is requested. With this legislation it would be illegal to not filter it at the point of upload.

@Null clean this place up
 
Kiwi farms administrators are not responsible for shit. This website is hosted in America, and is subject to it's laws and regulations. Any action the EU wishes to apply to Kiwi farms needs to be relayed via the appropriate jurisdictional court within the United States. Barring that Null can literally send a fuck you letter to them.
 
Exactly, US courts aren't going to give a shit. All you've got to do is go in there and ask why they think a European court is the proper jurisdiction to sue him in (protip: "his website, which he does not advertise, etc. in Europe, is accessible there" is not a a valid answer.)
After they lose that, they could try to sue him in the US, but their best case scenario is that they lose before it even gets to trial, and my guess is that it's like 50/50 that they get sanctioned instead.
@AnOminous, any comments?
 
Exactly, US courts aren't going to give a shit. All you've got to do is go in there and ask why they think a European court is the proper jurisdiction to sue him in (protip: "his website, which he does not advertise, etc. in Europe, is accessible there" is not a a valid answer.)
After they lose that, they could try to sue him in the US, but their best case scenario is that they lose before it even gets to trial, and my guess is that it's like 50/50 that they get sanctioned instead.
@AnOminous, any comments?

It doesn't mean shit to nool unless he's in Europe. Maybe people can kill Google results (in Europe), but they could already do that.
 
It doesn't mean shit to nool unless he's in Europe. Maybe people can kill Google results (in Europe), but they could already do that.
I meant in broader terms, I know that Null doesn't give a shit.
 
Under current legislation it's illegal to not take it down after takedown is requested.

Not true. It's just that if you do take it down, you're immune from suit whether the claim is legitimate or not if you put it back when the poster counter notifies.

There's no law against blowing off a bogus DMCA request. It just means you can be sued and that will be expensive even if you win.

I meant in broader terms, I know that Null doesn't give a shit.

In broader terms? Get a VPN, yurocucks.
 
Nice dream, but as far as I can tell, non-EU content that breaks these new EU rules will be blocked from being accessible to EU consumers.

Do you all see how fucked this is yet?
Europe doesn't have the Great Firewall of China and it would be a leaking sieve if they tried to implement it. It'd be an expensive, ineffective boondoggle if they tried.

It's fucked in theory. But in practice, it's hilarious. At least for all of us in the US.

In fact, if I had a US based company, I'd pay for free VPN service for my European customers, just to give the EU the finger.
 
With this legislation it would be illegal to not filter it at the point of upload.

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.
 
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.
They probably would have some sort of liability cutoff where, if your company at least tried to implement some sort of filtering software, the filtering failing once in awhile wouldn't be held against you.

It really depends on how hard they're willing to push this issue. I don't think they want to push it very far (especially not when they see how it affects business), but who knows.

There's good reasons why the US frowns on prior restraint. It's why the DMCA has safe harbor provisions. It's why the CSA section 230 immunizes web hosts.

Because requiring web hosts to check over shit ahead of time is retarded.
 
There's good reasons why the US frowns on prior restraint. It's why the DMCA has safe harbor provisions. It's why the CSA section 230 immunizes web hosts.

That pretty much hits the nail on the head. I mean it's easy to boil this issue down to "Lol, Eurocucks got fucked, no more memes", because it's a simplified way to put it, but in reality, this whole idea - even if it hasn't passed yet - is to do with pre-emptive censorship at both a social level and a psychological level.

If you think of it in simplified terms, people were displeased with something like Pepe being such a disturbance to political discourse. It spilled over from the internet to real life at rallies. It made a mockery of something serious to them. It made people who should typically be disinterested in politics, interested in politics, because it spoke to the common people ; that rustled the jimmies of people in the political strategy sphere.

It took the idea of political leaflets and exploded it to have unfathomable reach. It got to the idiot who doesn't care usually, maybe won't vote, maybe would throw away his vote and not vote against the grain and gave rise to a community of people voting against the grain, joined together by amusing frog memes.

So, in relation to how people socialise online and how it relates to political discourse : they want it kept tightly controlled, no more rare Pepes putting President Trumps into power.

Even if this isn't easily policed - it will create a new psychology of socialising online. Some people will avoid it at all costs, on their own, just because they are scared of the idea of getting into trouble. That lessens reach. Then you will have for sure, big companies unfairly policing this policy to go after content creators that disagree with the approved narrative. That will take care of your pesky average joe who memes against you, on your turf.
People will be able to get around it, if they so want to, but that dopey halfwit your pepe meme influenced before, that otherwise has no idea or desire to use a VPN or is scared of the gov? He's cut off. He's back to the good sheep routine of voting how he's told, doing what he's told.

There's obviously way more to this like the money factor, but being able to control the means of production and distribution is super important to them.
It's a neo-socialist idea twisted on it's head, used for purely authoritarian means.
 
It took hours, but Tumblrites have finally responded.
And unfortunately for them, they actually they believe that they can change the laws back. Yeah, the lawmakers do that, not some random people around the world.
(this is literally net neutrality all over again except there's no one like Ajit Pai to constantly make memes about)
Capture.PNG
 
So, as a proud American, all this will do for me is make YouTube even more intolerable. I wanna say that's good, because I've been looking for excuses to just ditch the platform entirely. I'm just glad that if push came to shove Null would just block KF in all EU countries (which other companies and websites like Wikipedia may end up having to do at this rate).

Besides that,
america2.gif
 
Maybe some people here remember that I was worried what kind of legal framework this puts in place in my earlier posts. It did not even take a day. The EU-Comission demands now that "terrorist content" will be removed from social media inside of an hour after reporting. That's plain impossible. They're probably jonesing for direct access to remove content they don't like themselves.
 
Back