Article 13, link tax and the end of fair use

[Saru]

I'm reading a lot of conflicting information about this, the general consensus still seems to be that there would be a 'link tax' for the use of links to news articles. The law would also require sites to implement an upload filter i.e. every bit of user-submitted content would need to be vetted before it appears to ensure that no copyrighted material (as defined by this new law) actually makes it on to the site.

The link tax implemented in Spain and Germany seemingly did require Google to pay for links to news articles, which they ultimately refused to do and closed down their Spanish and German news sections. 

According to this article, the vote is on a knife-edge and could go either way:

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/eu-censorship-machines-link-tax,37286.html

This link also includes more details about what the new laws will mean for sites. (at least based on this particular site's interpretation)

Quote

One of the biggest issues with the new EU copyright reform proposal is the Article 13, which mandates that websites that accept user content (anything from videos to online comments) must have an “upload filter” that would block all copyrighted content that's uploaded by users. Critics, such as Member of the European Parliament (MEP) Julia Reda, have also called upload filters “censorship machines.”

Under the censorship machine proposal, companies would be required to get a license for any copyrighted content that is uploaded to their site by its users. In other words, websites would be liable for any content their users upload to the site. It goes without saying that this could significantly hamper innovation on the internet.

And on link tax:

Quote

The “link tax” proposal in Article 11 of the copyright reform directive is another idea that’s not just seemingly bad, but it has also failed in countries such as Spain and Germany, where it has already been attempted. Instead of getting companies such as Google or other publishers to pay for the links, or article excerpts and previews, those companies simply stopped linking to content coming from Germany and Spain.

There's more in the article about this too, it's worth a read.

It has been suggested that many sites may simply refuse access to all EU visitors because the new legislation is too difficult to adhere to.

[Kismit]

42 minutes ago, Saru said:

I'm reading a lot of conflicting information about this, the general consensus still seems to be that there would be a 'link tax' for the use of links to news articles. The law would also require sites to implement an upload filter i.e. every bit of user-submitted content would need to be vetted before it appears to ensure that no copyrighted material (as defined by this new law) actually makes it on to the site.

The link tax implemented in Spain and Germany seemingly did require Google to pay for links to news articles, which they ultimately refused to do and closed down their Spanish and German news section. 

According to this article, the vote is on a knife-edge and could go either way:

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/eu-censorship-machines-link-tax,37286.html

This link also includes more details about what the new laws will mean for sites. (at least based on this particular site's interpretation)

And on link tax:

There's more in the article about this too, it's worth a read.

It has been suggested that many sites may simply refuse access to all EU visitors because the new legislation is too difficult to adhere to.

This is such a bizarre and restrictive thing to do. What on earth are they thinking. 

[danydandan]

Would everyone signing a petition online stating we as a company, individual or group will allow our content to be liked regardless of format, context or content be away around this stupid restrictive law?

[Saru]

1 hour ago, danydandan said:

Would everyone signing a petition online stating we as a company, individual or group will allow our content to be liked regardless of format, context or content be away around this stupid restrictive law?

I imagine some sites would come out and explicitly state that they will never prosecute anyone for linking to their articles.

[danydandan]

19 minutes ago, Saru said:

I imagine many sites would come out and explicitly state that they will never prosecute anyone for linking to their articles.

I assume that would mean, a website like this would have to possibly display a list of sites or sources from one can link to in their posts. And probably change it's terms of use details to be able to reprimand users who don't adhere to said list??

Seems very anti free speech.

[Saru]

18 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I assume that would mean, a website like this would have to possibly display a list of sites or sources from one can link to in their posts. And probably change it's terms of use details to be able to reprimand users who don't adhere to said list??

Seems very anti free speech.

Something like that, though it all depends on whether the law passes, what form it takes and how it will be enforced.

[Still Waters]

15 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Hmm... I havn't read the details of the proposed European Law, so I can't really be sure. 

But... a ban on links ? Is that feasible ? 

We shall see  

actually.. we won't. It's inherently unenforceable. It won't happen, and I doubt the EU even intended it that way.

I didn't say the new law would ban links.

21 hours ago, Still Waters said:

I don't think it works that way. It's my understanding that if you post a link to an offsite article you're still classed as using that article. It doesn't matter how much of the text is in your own words, it'll be the content of the posted link that's the problem because once you post the link you're still sharing that article.

I was referring to what I had said in a previous post. Meaning by posting a link to an (EU) article it still makes UM liable to pay "link tax" for the privilege. 

On 6/7/2018 at 3:16 PM, Still Waters said:

For example: Posting a news story now involves quoting part of the article text and adding a source link. Under the new law this won't be possible unless UM pays for every (EU) source used.

That is if all this transpires, it's not at all clear at the moment what will happen regarding the proposed new law. 

[danydandan]

There doesn't seem to be any main stream media content regarding this. I have searched alot and the only people covering the topic is this thread, afew other watchdog sites and some tech related sites.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/06/illegal-memes-weak-safe-harbor-unpacking-the-proposed-eu-copyright-overhaul/

https://juliareda.eu/2018/06/saveyourinternet/

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/european-copyright-law-isnt-great-it-could-soon-get-lot-worse

At least a Google search seems to prioritise why it's a bad ide.

[RoofGardener]

2 hours ago, Still Waters said:

I didn't say the new law would ban links.

I was referring to what I had said in a previous post. Meaning by posting a link to an (EU) article it still makes UM liable to pay "link tax" for the privilege. 

That is if all this transpires, it's not at all clear at the moment what will happen regarding the proposed new law. 

No, it really really won't. A link tax is unenforceable. Apart from anything else, it would invalidate search engines. Would Google really be expected to pay link license fees to.. gosh.. EVERYBODY  

[ellapenella]

7 hours ago, Saru said:

I'm reading a lot of conflicting information about this, the general consensus still seems to be that there would be a 'link tax' for the use of links to news articles. The law would also require sites to implement an upload filter i.e. every bit of user-submitted content would need to be vetted before it appears to ensure that no copyrighted material (as defined by this new law) actually makes it on to the site.

The link tax implemented in Spain and Germany seemingly did require Google to pay for links to news articles, which they ultimately refused to do and closed down their Spanish and German news sections. 

According to this article, the vote is on a knife-edge and could go either way:

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/eu-censorship-machines-link-tax,37286.html

This link also includes more details about what the new laws will mean for sites. (at least based on this particular site's interpretation)

And on link tax:

There's more in the article about this too, it's worth a read.

It has been suggested that many sites may simply refuse access to all EU visitors because the new legislation is too difficult to adhere to.

The upload filter that's able to vet  information shared    is that already happening in the UK ?  From what I recently gathered it seemed that information was being vetted out so that communication was controlled by restricting it. 

[Saru]

2 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

No, it really really won't. A link tax is unenforceable. Apart from anything else, it would invalidate search engines. Would Google really be expected to pay link license fees to.. gosh.. EVERYBODY  

I believe it would only apply when linking to certain types of content such as news articles. 

When Spain introduced a link tax recently, Google simply de-listed all news articles from Spanish sites.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/enrique-dans/google-news-leaving-spain_b_6325244.html

Quote

I met with Richard Gingras, the Senior Director of News and Social Products at Google, who told us that faced with a situation where it would have to pay for providing links to news stories, the company would have little option but to close the service in that country.

Google could not consider paying for providing links. This would go against one of the principles of the Internet. Links are a fundamental part of the architecture of the web 

So this has already happened in at least one European country, the new law will simply be bringing it in across the whole EU.

[Saru]

22 minutes ago, Ellapennella said:

The upload filter that's able to vet  information shared  is that already happening in the UK ?  From what I recently gathered it seemed that information was being vetted out so that communication was controlled by restricting it. 

They are talking about individual sites vetting user-submitted content, not an ISP-level filter.

[ellapenella]

1 minute ago, Saru said:

They are talking about individual sites vetting user-submitted content, not an ISP-level filter.

Oh okay. I guess the technology has always been there but they're now  seeking to be invasive with it .

[Saru]

Just now, Ellapennella said:

Oh okay. I guess the technology has always been there but they're now  seeking to be invasive with it .

I'm not sure what you are referring to.

[Helen of Annoy]

3 hours ago, danydandan said:

There doesn't seem to be any main stream media content regarding this. I have searched alot and the only people covering the topic is this thread, afew other watchdog sites and some tech related sites.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/06/illegal-memes-weak-safe-harbor-unpacking-the-proposed-eu-copyright-overhaul/

https://juliareda.eu/2018/06/saveyourinternet/

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/european-copyright-law-isnt-great-it-could-soon-get-lot-worse

At least a Google search seems to prioritise why it's a bad ide.

Google doesn't want to have expenses, but wants to profit on the material they use. Only authors should decide if their work is for free, I think. 

So it's prioritising an extreme interpretation of proposed regulation that is not in the main stream media because it's extreme, not realistic.   

[ellapenella]

6 hours ago, Saru said:

I'm not sure what you are referring to.

They're wanting to tax information shared   if news sites or whoever want to charge , is that it?  I was just saying that vetting  information online has been occurring  but could  possibly become even more  invasive if it goes through.  Am I not understanding it? 

[Kismit]

39 minutes ago, Ellapennella said:

They're wanting to tax information shared   if news sites or whoever want to charge , is that it?  I was just saying that vetting  information online has been occurring  but could  possibly become even more  invasive if it goes through.  Am I not understanding it? 

I'm  not sure the issue is about vetting information,  as much as it is accessing it.  All the information would still potentially be available but at a cost which would severely hamper sites like this one. 

[Saru]

The issue seems to be gaining more traction in the press this week.

Internet pioneers sign open letter denouncing EU copyright proposal

https://www.siliconrepublic.com/enterprise/eu-copyright-proposal-letter

Quote

More than 70 internet pioneers have signed a letter speaking out against Article 13 of the EU’s latest copyright proposal. The group includes Vint Cerf, Tim Berners-Lee, Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales and Internet Archive founder Brewster Kahle.

The letter released on 12 June stated: “By requiring internet platforms to perform automatic filtering [on] all of the content that their users upload, Article 13 takes an unprecedented step towards the transformation of the internet, from an open platform for sharing and innovation, into a tool for the automated surveillance and control of its users.”

More coverage here:

https://news.google.com/search?q=EU copyright&hl=en-GB&gl=GB&ceid=GB%3Aen

[bmk1245]

8 hours ago, Saru said:

The issue seems to be gaining more traction in the press this week.

Internet pioneers sign open letter denouncing EU copyright proposal

https://www.siliconrepublic.com/enterprise/eu-copyright-proposal-letter

More coverage here:

https://news.google.com/search?q=EU copyright&hl=en-GB&gl=GB&ceid=GB%3Aen

OK, Saru, lets see whats in article 13

Quote

Article 13
Use of protected content by information society service providers storing and giving access to
large amounts of works and other subject-matter uploaded by their users
1. Information society service providers that store and provide to the public access to
large amounts of works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users shall, in
cooperation with rightholders, take measures to ensure the functioning of agreements
concluded with rightholders for the use of their works or other subject-matter or to
prevent the availability on their services of works or other subject-matter identified
by rightholders through the cooperation with the service providers. Those measures,
such as the use of effective content recognition technologies, shall be appropriate and
proportionate. The service providers shall provide rightholders with adequate
information on the functioning and the deployment of the measures, as well as, when
relevant, adequate reporting on the recognition and use of the works and other
subject-matter.
2. Member States shall ensure that the service providers referred to in paragraph 1 put
in place complaints and redress mechanisms that are available to users in case of
disputes over the application of the measures referred to in paragraph 1.
3. Member States shall facilitate, where appropriate, the cooperation between the
information society service providers and rightholders through stakeholder dialogues
to define best practices, such as appropriate and proportionate content recognition
technologies, taking into account, among others, the nature of the services, the
availability of the technologies and their effectiveness in light of technological
developments.
 

Can you bold particular part of what we are talking about? (Mind you, provisions 33 and 34).

BTW, "Internet pioneers sign open letter denouncing EU copyright proposal" ain't working on me, cause I've seen already GMO denouncing group of scientists. By their scaremongering whole US should be dead land by now. Is it?

[Saru]

1 hour ago, bmk1245 said:

Can you bold particular part of what we are talking about? (Mind you, provisions 33 and 34).

You've only quoted a tiny portion of the legislation, the whole thing is here:

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52016PC0593&from=EN

I'm not even going to attempt to interpret this directly, I'm no lawyer.

1 hour ago, bmk1245 said:

BTW, "Internet pioneers sign open letter denouncing EU copyright proposal" ain't working on me, cause I've seen already GMO denouncing group of scientists. By their scaremongering whole US should be dead land by now. Is it?

I don't follow this argument.

Because a group of scientists once denounced genetic modification, all open letters denouncing law proposals are now meaningless ?

[bmk1245]

20 hours ago, Saru said:

You've only quoted a tiny portion of the legislation, the whole thing is here:

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52016PC0593&from=EN

I'm not even going to attempt to interpret this directly, I'm no lawyer.

[...]

Me neither, but I'm trying to get to the bottom of the issue.

BTW, I've read through the whole document, several times, and (having in mind provisions 33 and 34) I can't find definite sign of the stuff depicted in media.

 

20 hours ago, Saru said:

[...]

I don't follow this argument.

Because a group of scientists once denounced genetic modification, all open letters denouncing law proposals are now meaningless ?

It smells of appeal to authority. Who of those "Internet pioneers" are lawyers?

I know, I'm schmuck, but, once again, I like to get to the bottom of the issue.

[AnchorSteam]

Well, it all comes down tomorrow.

 

Have you been melting their switchboards, or just sitting around and letting it happen?

[Saru]

2 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

Well, it all comes down tomorrow.

Yes I believe the voting starts on this today.

For those still not convinced that this is even a thing, there's a lot more in the news about this now then there has been.

One of the more interesting new stories:

Quote

The UN's top free speech expert just denounced the new EU copyright plan as a "potential violation of international human rights law"

https://boingboing.net/2018/06/15/contact-your-mep-3.html

[stevewinn]

56 minutes ago, Saru said:

Yes I believe the voting starts on this today.

For those still not convinced that this is even a thing, there's a lot more in the news about this now then there has been.

One of the more interesting new stories:

What are the consequences for forums like ours if this gets past by the EU?

[Saru]

37 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

What are the consequences for forums like ours if this gets past by the EU?

Depends when it comes in to force, exactly what version of the legislation passes and what the conformity guidelines will be, so it's difficult to say right now.

We can probably expect to have to severely limit (or even block) linking and quoting from European news sites at the very least.