I don't consider Julia Reda to be an impartial voice in all of this, due to her political stance, so I would recommend everyone to take a read into the details themselves. Having read through...
Exemplary
I don't consider Julia Reda to be an impartial voice in all of this, due to her political stance, so I would recommend everyone to take a read into the details themselves. Having read through article 13, I don't actually think its that bad. My main issue comes from a lot of the specifics being up to the individual member states, without properly stipulating any minimums. Though anyone who touts this is the end of the internet is overblowing it in my opinion.
‘online content sharing service provider’ means a provider of an information society service whose main or one of the main purposes is to store and give the public access to a large amount of copyright protected works or other protected subject-matter uploaded by its users which it organises and promotes for profit-making purposes. Providers of services such as not-for profit online encyclopedias, not-for profit educational and scientific repositories, open source software developing and sharing platforms, electronic communication service providers as defined in Directive 2018/1972 establishing the European Communications Code, online marketplaces and business-to business cloud services and cloud services which allow users to upload content for their own use shall not be considered online content sharing service providers within the meaning of this Directive.
So basically, for-profit content sharing services like YouTube and Facebook are covered by this rule. Whereas not-for-profit resources like Wikipedia are excluded.
If no authorisation is granted, online content sharing service providers shall be liable for unauthorised acts of communication to the public of copyright protected works and other subject matter, unless the service providers demonstrate that they have: (a) made best efforts to obtain an authorisation, and
If the content distributor does not have the right to share the content, they need to show they have "made best efforts" to avoid trouble.
(b) made, in accordance with high industry standards of professional diligence, best efforts to ensure the unavailability of specific works and other subject matter for which the rightholders have provided the service providers with the relevant and necessary information, and in any event
(c) acted expeditiously, upon receiving a sufficiently substantiated notice by the rightholders, to remove from their websites or to disable access to the notified works and subject matters, and made best efforts to prevent their future uploads in accordance with paragraph (b).
I read that as that the specifics of how efficient a content distributor has to be in removing content, is up to each member state. And that once a process of removal has begun, you need to keep doing it. You can't just do it once and call it a day.
4a. In determining whether the service has complied with its obligations under paragraph 4,and in the light of the principle of proportionality the following should, among others be taken into account: (a) the type, the audience and the size of the service and type of works or other subject matter uploaded by the users; (b) the availability of suitable and effective means and their cost for service providers
This basically boils down to that you cannot just create one rule that applies to all. It needs to be fair based on the circumstances of the content distributor.
4aa. Member States shall provide that when new online content sharing service providers whose services have been available to the public in the Union for less than three years and which have an annual turnover below EUR 10 million within the meaning of the Commission recommendation 2003/361/EC, the conditions applicable to them under the liability regime set out in paragraph 4 are limited to the compliance with the point (a)of paragraph 4 and to acting expeditiously, upon receiving a sufficiently substantiated notice, to remove the notified works and subject matters from its website or to disable access to them. Where the average number of monthly unique visitors of these service providers exceeds 5 million, calculated on the basis of the last calendar year, they shall also demonstrate that they have made best efforts to prevent further uploads of the notified works and other subject matter for which the rightholders have provided relevant and necessary information
This is an addition to a). Basically, pages with a turnover of less than 10 million euros and that are younger than 3 years get a bit of leniency. I don't get the specifics, but it seems to me they are not required to pro-active.
The cooperation between online content service providers and rightholders shall not result in the prevention of the availability of works or other subject matter uploaded by users which do not infringe copyright and related rights, including where such works or subject matter are covered by an exception or limitation.
Member States shall ensure that users in all Member States are able to rely on the following existing exceptions and limitations when uploading and making available content generated by users on online content sharing services: a)quotation, criticism, review, b)use for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche.
Don't remove content that is not in infringement. Things like criticism, parodies and reviews are considered fair usage.
The application of the provisions in this article shall not lead to any general monitoring obligation as defined in Article 15 of Directive 2000/31/EC.
So this one is a bit weird as it sounds like it would be in contradiction to 4? I think the general idea here is that you cannot add a filter on everything in hopes of catching things that are in violation. There needs to be a process, so we don't get automatic filtering on content that is fair usage but may contain some elements that are copyrighted. So that would sort of imply that you cannot have an upload filter, unless it filters for something specific that has already been reported.
Member States shall provide that an online sharing service provider puts in place an effective and expeditious complaint and redress mechanism that is available to users of the service in case of disputes over the removal of or blocking access to works or other subject matter uploaded by them.
The individual countries shall make sure services have proper mechanism to dispute removal of content. This seems to combat fake takedowns.
When rightholders request to remove or disable access to their specific works or other subject matter, they shall duly justify the reasons for their requests. Complaints submitted under this mechanism shall be processed without undue delay and decisions to remove or disable access to uploaded content shall be subject to human review.
Oh boy! This one is going to annoy Google. You need to properly justify removals of contents, and a human has to review and settle any disputes in a timely manner.
What follows is a long text about how we need to be reasonable and encourage a good relationship between content distributors and member states. Im skipping the unimportant bits.
Finally, in order to ensure a high level of copyright protection, the liability exemption mechanism provided for in Article 13 should not apply to service providers the main purpose of which is to engage in or to facilitate copyright piracy.
Piracy oriented pages do not get a loophole by being small/new.
If unauthorised works and other subject matter become available despite the best efforts made in cooperation with rightholders as required by this Directive, the online content sharing service providers should be liable in relation to the specific works and other subject matter for which they have received the relevant and necessary information from rightholders,unless they demonstrate that they have made their best efforts pursuant to high industry standards of professional diligence.
Basically, content distributors when failing to properly remove content need to prove they have acted within regulations and done their best efforts possible. So you can't just fail by technicality.
When rightholders do not provide the service providers, with the necessary and relevant information on their specific works and other subject matter or when no notification concerning the removal or disabling access to specific unauthorised works or other subject matter has been provided by rightholders and, as a result, online content sharing service providers cannot make their best efforts to avoid on their services the availability of unauthorised content in accordance with the high standard of professional diligence, the service providers should not be liable for unauthorised acts of communication to the public or of making available to the public of these unidentified works and other subject matter.
When rights holders need to report properly to the content distributor. If they do not, they cannot be expected to succeed in following any rules set out. This would negate the liability of the content distributor.
So I finally got around to reading article 11. There are some bits I don't like, but my main issue is it's too vague. But here is my reading of it. So basically, for home usage or non-commercial...
Exemplary
So I finally got around to reading article 11. There are some bits I don't like, but my main issue is it's too vague. But here is my reading of it.
Member States shall provide publishers of press publications established in a Member State with the rights provided for in Article 2 and Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC for the online use of their press publications by information society service providers. These rights shall not apply to private or non-commercial uses of press publications carried out by individual users.
So basically, for home usage or non-commercial usage, article 11 will not apply. For instance Tildes might be excempt due to being non-profit. This makes sense, you need to have some sort of cash flow to "tax" for a "link tax" to function.
The protection granted under the first subparagraph shall not apply to acts of hyperlinking.
The rights referred to in the first subparagraph shall not apply in respect of uses of individual words or very short extracts of a press publication.
I read this to mean that just providing a link and/or excerpt/quote/title is not enough usage of someone elses material to trigger article 11. This to me also makes sense, else services like google would have to pay for any results they show. This would most likely make most of the usage of pages like reddit excempt too, as a link and title would not trigger article 11. This is most likely more so in case large parts of an article is reproduced.
But this is too vague for my liking.
The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall leave intact and shall in no way affect any rights provided for in Union law to authors and other rightholders, in respect of the works and other subject-matter incorporated in a press publication. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 may not be invoked against those authors and other rightholders and, in particular, may not deprive them of their right to exploit their works and other subject-matter independently from the press publication in which they are incorporated
A bit weirdly phrased. But I basically read this so that if the author quotes or reproduces parts of his article elsewhere, he will not have to pay for his own article.
The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall expire 2 years after the publication of the press publication. This term shall be calculated from the first day of January of the year following the date of publication. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to press publications first published before [entry into force of the Directive].
So basically, you can only seek compensation for up to two years after publication, and article 11 does not apply to anything published before article 11 enters into force.
4a. Member States shall provide that the authors of the works incorporated in a press publication receive an appropriate share of the revenues that press publishers receive for the use of their press publications by information society service providers
This is the more iffy one. It states that member states need to provide a mean (mechanism? licensing system?) to allow authors to receive an appropiate share of revenue. Question here is how this is supposed to work, and if this is something needs to be seeked specifically (like in article 13) by author or something that needs to be done by the republisher (for instance a blogger reproducing parts of an article).
Another question is what an "appropriate share" is.
The next two sections of the article mostly goes into the reasoning of why such an article is required.
(33) For the purposes of this Directive, it is necessary to define the concept of press publications so that it only covers journalistic publications, published in any media, including on paper, in the context of an economic activity which constitutes a provision of services under Union law. The press publications to be covered would include, for instance, daily newspapers, weekly or monthly magazines of general or special interest, including subscription based magazines, and news websites. Press publications contain mostly literary works but increasingly include other types of works and subject-matter, notably photographs and videos.
This basically covers what actually a piece of media is that is covered by article 11. So it seems to specifically aimed at news as we understand them today, and not so much on for instance entertainment, forums or public information.
Periodical publications published for scientific or academic purposes, such as scientific journals, should not be covered by the protection granted to press publications under this Directive.
Scientific papers and academic journals are not protected by article 11.
Neither should this protection apply to websites, such as blogs, that provide information as part of an activity which is not carried out under the initiative, editorial responsibility and control of service provider, such as a news publisher.
If you're not under an editorial responsibility, you will also not be covered by article 11. So a random blog or youtube channel will most likely not be covered.
The rest of the article just kinda repeats things already covered. All in all, its not that bad, but it is too vague on the actual mechanics for my writing. I would also have liked to see some sort of "minimum" profit, so that you don't hurt bloggers but go after places like Facebook. We will just have to see how it develops.
An important point is that according to the definition of an online content sharing service provider non-profit entities are exempt from Article 13. Thus, Tildes would be exempt from Article 13...
An important point is that according to the definition of an online content sharing service provider non-profit entities are exempt from Article 13.
Thus, Tildes would be exempt from Article 13 while staying non-profit.
This is confirmed in the comments to the article linked, https://juliareda.eu/2019/02/eu-copyright-final-text/#comment-35937
However, it looks like Article 11 will apply, i.e., it may happen that if someone posts a link to an EU-based news site with the URL containing the article title (as a topic or within a comment), then Tildes might have a problem unless the wording of Article 11 is clarified.
This is from the very first paragraph. Emphasis is mine. Assuming Tildes falls under "non-commercial" usage, then this would not apply. I would recommend reading the text before making statements....
Member States shall provide publishers of press publications established in a Member State with the rights provided for in Article 2 and Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC for the online use of their press publications by information society service providers. These rights shall not apply to private or non-commercial uses of press publications carried out by individual users.
This is from the very first paragraph. Emphasis is mine. Assuming Tildes falls under "non-commercial" usage, then this would not apply. I would recommend reading the text before making statements.
Oh man what a shithow this is... I'll try to get as many of my friends as possible to send an email each to our MEPs since they'll have another vote on either the 25th of March or 15th of April; i...
Oh man what a shithow this is... I'll try to get as many of my friends as possible to send an email each to our MEPs since they'll have another vote on either the 25th of March or 15th of April; i sure as hell hope this insanity's gonna be put into a halt.
I'm really dubious everything will turn out to be fine because last time everyone i know either was shrugging this off or was ignorant article 13 was even a thing - i really hope this time around news will circulate more and the whole deal won't be swept under the rug.
I wonder if EFF and I have read the same article, because at least on Article 13 we see completely different realities. This is so blatantly warped based on the actual text, it borders on...
I wonder if EFF and I have read the same article, because at least on Article 13 we see completely different realities.
is responsible for ensuring that no user ever posts anything that infringes copyright, even momentarily.
Those filters will subject all communications of every European to interception and arbitrary censorship if a black-box algorithm decides their text, pictures, sounds or videos are a match for a known copyrighted work
"best efforts" to license anything their users might conceivably upload, meaning that they have to buy virtually anything any copyright holder offers to sell them, at any price, on pain of being liable for infringement if a user later uploads that work.
This is so blatantly warped based on the actual text, it borders on fearmongering and propaganda.
If what is really said in that article is true then and it eventually passes into EU law then it's some dark days ahead. One thing I didn't see is how it effects websites hosted outside of the EU....
Commercial sites and apps where users can post material must make “best efforts” to preemptively buy licences for anything that users may possibly upload
If what is really said in that article is true then and it eventually passes into EU law then it's some dark days ahead.
One thing I didn't see is how it effects websites hosted outside of the EU. Will it be a GDPR style thing where everyone has to abide by it or just if you're hosting within the EU?
I believe companies do not have to abide by the GDPR for non-EU residents, since that would not make sense. However, it is just easier to have the same procedures apply to everybody. I certainly...
I believe companies do not have to abide by the GDPR for non-EU residents, since that would not make sense. However, it is just easier to have the same procedures apply to everybody. I certainly hope that hosting sites will not block content outside of the EU because of this.
From what I understand American companies still had to have things in place for EU residents, I know there was some smaller American news sites that I wouldn't have access to due to GDPR. If it is...
From what I understand American companies still had to have things in place for EU residents, I know there was some smaller American news sites that I wouldn't have access to due to GDPR. If it is the case and applies to article 11 and 13 then I can see a lot of small to mid companies just blocking access for ease instead of trying to work around it.
Under Article 3 of the GDPR, your company is subject to the new law if it processes personal data of an individual residing in the EU when the data is accessed.
I know this relates to personal data but I can see them using the same type of wording for copyright material.
Depends on their supported content types (images, videos, audio, etc), content rules, and content filters. And who they allow to upload content. And also on the exact wording of the law, which I'm...
Depends on their supported content types (images, videos, audio, etc), content rules, and content filters. And who they allow to upload content. And also on the exact wording of the law, which I'm too lazy to look up. But yes, if a service allows users to upload and share any content type with no filter or moderation; basically everything.
I don't consider Julia Reda to be an impartial voice in all of this, due to her political stance, so I would recommend everyone to take a read into the details themselves. Having read through article 13, I don't actually think its that bad. My main issue comes from a lot of the specifics being up to the individual member states, without properly stipulating any minimums. Though anyone who touts this is the end of the internet is overblowing it in my opinion.
Regarding article 13.
So basically, for-profit content sharing services like YouTube and Facebook are covered by this rule. Whereas not-for-profit resources like Wikipedia are excluded.
If the content distributor does not have the right to share the content, they need to show they have "made best efforts" to avoid trouble.
I read that as that the specifics of how efficient a content distributor has to be in removing content, is up to each member state. And that once a process of removal has begun, you need to keep doing it. You can't just do it once and call it a day.
This basically boils down to that you cannot just create one rule that applies to all. It needs to be fair based on the circumstances of the content distributor.
This is an addition to a). Basically, pages with a turnover of less than 10 million euros and that are younger than 3 years get a bit of leniency. I don't get the specifics, but it seems to me they are not required to pro-active.
Don't remove content that is not in infringement. Things like criticism, parodies and reviews are considered fair usage.
So this one is a bit weird as it sounds like it would be in contradiction to 4? I think the general idea here is that you cannot add a filter on everything in hopes of catching things that are in violation. There needs to be a process, so we don't get automatic filtering on content that is fair usage but may contain some elements that are copyrighted. So that would sort of imply that you cannot have an upload filter, unless it filters for something specific that has already been reported.
The individual countries shall make sure services have proper mechanism to dispute removal of content. This seems to combat fake takedowns.
Oh boy! This one is going to annoy Google. You need to properly justify removals of contents, and a human has to review and settle any disputes in a timely manner.
What follows is a long text about how we need to be reasonable and encourage a good relationship between content distributors and member states. Im skipping the unimportant bits.
Piracy oriented pages do not get a loophole by being small/new.
Basically, content distributors when failing to properly remove content need to prove they have acted within regulations and done their best efforts possible. So you can't just fail by technicality.
When rights holders need to report properly to the content distributor. If they do not, they cannot be expected to succeed in following any rules set out. This would negate the liability of the content distributor.
I will read article 11 when I have time again.
So I finally got around to reading article 11. There are some bits I don't like, but my main issue is it's too vague. But here is my reading of it.
So basically, for home usage or non-commercial usage, article 11 will not apply. For instance Tildes might be excempt due to being non-profit. This makes sense, you need to have some sort of cash flow to "tax" for a "link tax" to function.
I read this to mean that just providing a link and/or excerpt/quote/title is not enough usage of someone elses material to trigger article 11. This to me also makes sense, else services like google would have to pay for any results they show. This would most likely make most of the usage of pages like reddit excempt too, as a link and title would not trigger article 11. This is most likely more so in case large parts of an article is reproduced.
But this is too vague for my liking.
A bit weirdly phrased. But I basically read this so that if the author quotes or reproduces parts of his article elsewhere, he will not have to pay for his own article.
So basically, you can only seek compensation for up to two years after publication, and article 11 does not apply to anything published before article 11 enters into force.
This is the more iffy one. It states that member states need to provide a mean (mechanism? licensing system?) to allow authors to receive an appropiate share of revenue. Question here is how this is supposed to work, and if this is something needs to be seeked specifically (like in article 13) by author or something that needs to be done by the republisher (for instance a blogger reproducing parts of an article).
Another question is what an "appropriate share" is.
The next two sections of the article mostly goes into the reasoning of why such an article is required.
This basically covers what actually a piece of media is that is covered by article 11. So it seems to specifically aimed at news as we understand them today, and not so much on for instance entertainment, forums or public information.
Scientific papers and academic journals are not protected by article 11.
If you're not under an editorial responsibility, you will also not be covered by article 11. So a random blog or youtube channel will most likely not be covered.
The rest of the article just kinda repeats things already covered. All in all, its not that bad, but it is too vague on the actual mechanics for my writing. I would also have liked to see some sort of "minimum" profit, so that you don't hurt bloggers but go after places like Facebook. We will just have to see how it develops.
An important point is that according to the definition of an online content sharing service provider non-profit entities are exempt from Article 13.
Thus, Tildes would be exempt from Article 13 while staying non-profit.
This is confirmed in the comments to the article linked,
https://juliareda.eu/2019/02/eu-copyright-final-text/#comment-35937
However, it looks like Article 11 will apply, i.e., it may happen that if someone posts a link to an EU-based news site with the URL containing the article title (as a topic or within a comment), then Tildes might have a problem unless the wording of Article 11 is clarified.
This is from the very first paragraph. Emphasis is mine. Assuming Tildes falls under "non-commercial" usage, then this would not apply. I would recommend reading the text before making statements.
EDIT: Also look to my other comment (https://tildes.net/~tech/adk/the_text_of_article_13_and_the_eu_copyright_directive_has_just_been_finalised#comment-2lsb) for other reasons why Tildes most likely is not covered. Primarily by the amount that is needed for article 11 to be triggered, which is also written about in the first paragraph.
Also, am not a lawyer or policy maker, just a humble engineer. Take everything I say as a laymans reading.
Article about this from the EFF / Cory Doctorow: The Final Version of the EU's Copyright Directive Is the Worst One Yet
Oh man what a shithow this is... I'll try to get as many of my friends as possible to send an email each to our MEPs since they'll have another vote on either the 25th of March or 15th of April; i sure as hell hope this insanity's gonna be put into a halt.
I'm really dubious everything will turn out to be fine because last time everyone i know either was shrugging this off or was ignorant article 13 was even a thing - i really hope this time around news will circulate more and the whole deal won't be swept under the rug.
I wonder if EFF and I have read the same article, because at least on Article 13 we see completely different realities.
This is so blatantly warped based on the actual text, it borders on fearmongering and propaganda.
If what is really said in that article is true then and it eventually passes into EU law then it's some dark days ahead.
One thing I didn't see is how it effects websites hosted outside of the EU. Will it be a GDPR style thing where everyone has to abide by it or just if you're hosting within the EU?
I believe companies do not have to abide by the GDPR for non-EU residents, since that would not make sense. However, it is just easier to have the same procedures apply to everybody. I certainly hope that hosting sites will not block content outside of the EU because of this.
From what I understand American companies still had to have things in place for EU residents, I know there was some smaller American news sites that I wouldn't have access to due to GDPR. If it is the case and applies to article 11 and 13 then I can see a lot of small to mid companies just blocking access for ease instead of trying to work around it.
Edit - Did a quick look and found this:
I know this relates to personal data but I can see them using the same type of wording for copyright material.
That just sounds completely insane...
I mean, isn't that technically everything?
Depends on their supported content types (images, videos, audio, etc), content rules, and content filters. And who they allow to upload content. And also on the exact wording of the law, which I'm too lazy to look up. But yes, if a service allows users to upload and share any content type with no filter or moderation; basically everything.