Edit to add further reading on the topic: EU Parliament's Legislative Affairs Committee Is Now Misleading Members Of Parliament In Effort To Fundamentally Alter The Internet...
Wikipedia's Spanish, Italian, and Polish language versions blacked out in protest against new EU copyright reforms being voted upon on Thursday.
The new laws could force websites like Reddit to filter user content for copyright breaches and impose a "link tax" on companies including Google for linking to publishers.
Wikipedia Jimmy Wales urged people to oppose the reforms. He believes they will benefit tech giants like Facebook and Google that can afford to implement the filtering software.
Edit to add further reading on the topic:
EU Parliament's Legislative Affairs Committee Is Now Misleading Members Of Parliament In Effort To Fundamentally Alter The Internet
EDIT #2: It appears the vote has been delayed and the law maybe dead for the foreseeable future. It is a controversial issue with positives and negatives on both sides and complexities not fully explored.
Small and medium-sized enterprises
Any platform is covered by Article 13 if one of their main purposes is to give access to copyright protected content to the public.
It cannot make any difference if it is a “small thief” or a “big thief” as it should be illegal in the first place.
Small platforms, even a one-person business, can cause as much damage to right holders as big companies, if their content is spread (first on this platform and possibly within seconds throughout the whole internet) without their consent.
And they use "one-person business" ignoring the fact that tons of individuals will, say, post ads or donation links on their personal websites, just to pay for the hosting. But that will suddenly turn them into being "commercial" businesses under the umbrella of the censorship requirements of Article 13.
So, which is it JURI? Does Article 13 apply to these platforms or not? Ah, it totally does:
In view of such a small business potentially causing such a tremendous damage to right holders, the compromise text does not foresee any exemption for SMESs.
So, which is it JURI? Does Article 13 apply to these platforms or not? Ah, it totally does:
In view of such a small business potentially causing such a tremendous damage to right holders, the compromise text does not foresee any exemption for SMESs.
In view of such a small business potentially causing such a tremendous damage to right holders, the compromise text does not foresee any exemption for SMESs.
Also from that article - a quote from another section of the proposed law: It's written there in the law itself - online encyclopaedias are not considered "online content sharing service...
Also from that article - a quote from another section of the proposed law:
Article 2 (4a) ‘online content sharing service provider’ means a provider of an information society service one of the main purposes of which is to store and give access to the public to copyright protected works or other protected subject-matter uploaded by its users, which the service optimises.“
“Services acting in a non-commercial purpose capacity such as online encyclopaedia, and providers of online services where the content is uploaded with the authorisation of all concerned rightholders, such as educational or scientific repositories, should not be considered online content sharing service providers within the meaning of this directive.“ [emphasis mine]
It's written there in the law itself - online encyclopaedias are not considered "online content sharing service providers", and therefore do not fall within the scope of this proposed law.
I don't know how this will affect other websites, but Wikipedia is exempt.
It is but I think the crux of the argument is stated by Jimmy Wales from the BI article:
It is but I think the crux of the argument is stated by Jimmy Wales from the BI article:
"One of my biggest concerns with the mandated upload filters is it would just be entrenching the power of Google and Facebook who already have the technical capacity to do this sort of thing, and smaller players, start-ups, all the other platforms people are using, are gonna be a bit shut out," he said.
I can't be sure of course without digging deeper but Wikipedia itself was innovative with humble roots. The shotgun approach in the legislation would chill innovation by those without large sums...
I can't be sure of course without digging deeper but Wikipedia itself was innovative with humble roots. The shotgun approach in the legislation would chill innovation by those without large sums of money from VC, sponsorships by large businesses, etc. putting them at a distinct disadvantage. The protest by Wiki is altruistic/sympathetic in giving a voice for the those most affected by this legislation, those who do not have the resources of lobbyists or lawyers to plead their case or shape the policy.
Hopefully if I don't understand this properly, someone will correct me.
Edit to add further reading on the topic:
EU Parliament's Legislative Affairs Committee Is Now Misleading Members Of Parliament In Effort To Fundamentally Alter The Internet
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180703/16343340172/eu-parliaments-legislative-affairs-committee-is-now-misleading-members-parliament-effort-to-fundamentally-alter-internet.shtml
EDIT #2: It appears the vote has been delayed and the law maybe dead for the foreseeable future. It is a controversial issue with positives and negatives on both sides and complexities not fully explored.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-copyright/eu-lawmakers-against-opening-talks-with-eu-countries-on-copyright-reform-idUSKBN1JV16A
Don't forget this bit:
from the TechDirt article:
Also from that article - a quote from another section of the proposed law:
It's written there in the law itself - online encyclopaedias are not considered "online content sharing service providers", and therefore do not fall within the scope of this proposed law.
I don't know how this will affect other websites, but Wikipedia is exempt.
It is but I think the crux of the argument is stated by Jimmy Wales from the BI article:
So why does Wikipedia have its knickers in a knot if it's not even going to be affected by this law?
I can't be sure of course without digging deeper but Wikipedia itself was innovative with humble roots. The shotgun approach in the legislation would chill innovation by those without large sums of money from VC, sponsorships by large businesses, etc. putting them at a distinct disadvantage. The protest by Wiki is altruistic/sympathetic in giving a voice for the those most affected by this legislation, those who do not have the resources of lobbyists or lawyers to plead their case or shape the policy.
Hopefully if I don't understand this properly, someone will correct me.
I think it's because they think it'd ruin the internet, and that's against the principles of openness and information access Wikipedia stands for.
Well, guess it's time to download Wikipedia and hurry up with building my own server.