Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
EU The Internet Technology

European Parliament Votes in Favor of Controversial Copyright Laws (engadget.com) 491

Posted by msmash from the topsy-turvy-world dept.
The EU has voted on copyright reform, with members of European Parliament this time voting in favor of the extremely controversial Articles 11 and 13. The 438 to 226 vote, described as "the worst possible outcome" by some quarters, could have significant repercussions on the way we use the internet. From a report: The Copyright Directive, first proposed in 2016, is intended to bring the issue of copyright in line with the digital age. Articles 11 and 13 have caused particular controversy, with many heralding their adoption as the death of the internet. Article 11, also known as the "link tax", would require online platforms such as Google and Facebook to pay media companies to link to their content, while Article 13, the "upload filter", would force them to check all content uploaded to their sites and remove any copyrighted material. How this will affect regular internet users is still subject to debate, but it could seriously limit the variety of content available online -- and it could pretty much spell the end of memes.

Unsurprisingly, these parts of the bill have been met with opposition from digital rights groups, computer scientists, academics, platforms such as Wikipedia and even human rights groups. Supporters, however, say the consequences of the measures are being blown out of proportion, and that the provisions are merely intended to give creators and smaller outlets the opportunity to reclaim the value of their work. More details on Reuters.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

European Parliament Votes in Favor of Controversial Copyright Laws More

European Parliament Votes in Favor of Controversial Copyright Laws

Comments Filter:

  • Brexit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cirby ( 2599 ) on Wednesday September 12, 2018 @06:37AM (#57295814)

    ...suddenly doesn't look quite so bad, does it?

    • Re:Brexit (Score:4, Insightful)

      by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Wednesday September 12, 2018 @06:47AM (#57295848)

      >"...suddenly doesn't look quite so bad, does it?"

      That is exactly what I was thinking.

      >summary: "with many heralding their adoption as the death of the internet."

      Well, no, but it might be the death of the "internet" in the EU. At some point they are going to go too far (this might be it) and companies will just give up and start blocking the EU and it will be like the great firewall of China, except in reverse. Then the EU can live in their own "digital utopia world" with as much censorship, manipulation, taxes, and control over information that they want.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by rudy_wayne ( 414635 )

        Then the EU can live in their own "digital utopia world" with as much censorship, manipulation, taxes, and control over information that they want.

        It's almost as if "be careful what you wish for" is pretty good advice.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        As a citizen of a EU member country, i hope all rest of the world stop serving EU members with any internet related stuff to show the assholes of these giant turd rules, that they can shove it.

        I won't be joining any EU sites and i won't accept these new fasist and impossible EU BS rules. What a bunch of ignorant fools. The god damn filter will never work correctly, that's for damn sure. Who the fuck is going to be updating the copyright filter with up to date contracts between different parties?

        I don't fuck

        • Re:Brexit (Score:5, Insightful)

          by lucasnate1 ( 4682951 ) on Wednesday September 12, 2018 @08:14AM (#57296300) Homepage

          I don't fucking understand how copyrights now trump everything else

          Because the west bases more and more of its economy on intellectual property while the production of physical property is moved to the third world.

        • I haven't read any of the law/bill/proposal, but does it also include any services delivered to EU consumers? That would make sense for these socialists, to force this not only on EU publishers, etc, but on ISPs and consumers, so there is no way to permit content to be delivered no matter the source unless it's compliant, and thereby maximize the impact. After all, this is about making the world a better, more just place.

          All legislation is someone's morality.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by anegg ( 1390659 )

        Well, no, but it might be the death of the "internet" in the EU.

        Well, there were many in Europe who don't like the Internet, I guess. Those TCP/IP protocols with no proper respect for the ISO OSI network reference model. Now they can build an OSI protocol-based that fully realizes and respects the OSI model.

        They can build in all of the proper government controls and monitoring while they are at it. No more of this free-wheeling, practically anything goes communications. All hail the PTTs!

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by e3m4n ( 947977 )

        my prediction is google, facebook, twitter all get together and ban access for all members of eu parliament and their staff. So many people are so fucking addicted to social media at this point it wont be long till heads start exploding. Lets not forget how wording in legal documents have a way to get fucked up. By clicking 'like' on someone's post or picture, is that also considered 'linking'? Do they explicitly say it doesn't? because some lawyer probably can argue the sky is green and likely be convinci

      • and companies will just give up and start blocking the EU

        No reason to block the EU, if you don't have a physical presence there. It will, however, motivate internet companies to leave the EU. It will destroy a lot of internet businesses which are currently in the EU, too, and which can't survive a relocation.

    • It will still apply to UK (Score:5, Insightful)

      by aepervius ( 535155 ) on Wednesday September 12, 2018 @06:57AM (#57295896)
      Until Brexit all laws voted apply to UK. And if you think for a SECOND that the UK government will remove that particular one post-brexit, when they will be lobbied left and right to keep it by content holder, I have a bridge to sell you in London. Cheap.

      • Re:It will still apply to UK (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 12, 2018 @07:13AM (#57295998)

        This isn't a law yet. It is a Directive. Each member state must implement it via their own laws into their legal system. Most member states take their time in doing so with directives. I doubt the UK will be in a hurry passing such a law before BREXIT.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by elrous0 ( 869638 )

        When it comes to Brexit, the UK government is like the car I had back in university: forever stalling.

      • Oh I do so hope it's the one that's falling down!

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mjwx ( 966435 )

        Until Brexit all laws voted apply to UK. And if you think for a SECOND that the UK government will remove that particular one post-brexit, when they will be lobbied left and right to keep it by content holder, I have a bridge to sell you in London. Cheap.

        This.

        If you want to see madness coming out of a parliament in Europe, look no further than Whitehall.

        My take on this is that it will become yet another EC regulation that isn't at all enforceable because the internet does not operate solely within the EEC. Just a bit of legislation that has been passed at the behest of some special interest group or another that no-one will bother enforcing.

        Meanwhile the coming economic disaster that is Brexit will mean that Britons wont have enough money to have t

    • Re:Brexit (Score:5, Funny)

      by stealth_finger ( 1809752 ) on Wednesday September 12, 2018 @07:00AM (#57295916)

      ...suddenly doesn't look quite so bad, does it?

      We get blue passports and memes, fucking hell yeah! Brexit is paying out big time :|

    • Re:Brexit (Score:5, Insightful)

      by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Wednesday September 12, 2018 @07:05AM (#57295950)
      You might have more of a point if the UK weren't actively trying to clamp down on the internet in their own various ways.
    • Only if you are assuming the British Govt won't do an equivalent thing too.

  • Everything created (at least in the US) unless released under something like creative commons is copyrighted automatically. Everything.

    Books, stories, articles, video, music...

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by dwywit ( 1109409 )

      The general approach is that once you have put your idea in material form, you automatically have copyright over "that particular expression" of that idea. No problem there. Creators deserve a chance to exploit their creations.

      The stupidity of current practice as lobbied for by large conglomerates however.........

      • The general approach is that once you have put your idea in material form, you automatically have copyright over "that particular expression" of that idea. No problem there.

        That is actually a huge problem. In the US, it used to be the case that you only got a copyright if you registered it with the government. That created legal clarity. The crappy system we have now is the result of bad European copyright legislation.

        Creators deserve a chance to exploit their creations.

        The justification for copyright in th

  • could have significant repercussions on the way we use the internet

    I'm not sure what "repercussions" restrictions on European content is supposed to have for "us" in the US; it's not like there is a lot of interesting content coming out of Europe.

    Unsurprisingly, these parts of the bill have been met with opposition from digital rights groups, computer scientists, academics, platforms such as Wikipedia and even human rights groups.

    A bunch of hypocrites.

  • Pay to link? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stealth_finger ( 1809752 ) on Wednesday September 12, 2018 @06:58AM (#57295906)
    News sites will be rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of being paid to be linked to, in reality what's going to happen is those links will stop when news aggregators etc decide fuck this. Then we'll be in for the crying that their business is going even further down the pan.

    • Re:Pay to link? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by dwywit ( 1109409 ) on Wednesday September 12, 2018 @07:02AM (#57295928)

      Exactly. Google et al response will be "we'll pay you for links to your content, here's an invoice for putting your website on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or nth page of search results"

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Mashiki ( 184564 )

        Nope. Because this has already had a "test phase" in Spain. Google news doesn't exist there because of it and has no plans coming back, don't be surprised if they simply fold up shop and don't service EU users on it.

      • Re:Pay to link? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by eth1 ( 94901 ) on Wednesday September 12, 2018 @10:57AM (#57297814)

        Exactly. Google et al response will be "we'll pay you for links to your content, here's an invoice for putting your website on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or nth page of search results"

        Actually, Google's (and other search engines, at least) response to this should be, "we're never paying for links. If you ever bother us about paying for links, we'll handle it by removing your base domain from our database completely, and you can languish in obscurity until you die because no one can find you."

        • I think Google could do a test run of this by only providing news links to RussiaToday and similar sites. That should be fun in the EU.

    • Will this open a market for 'black market' indexers/search engines? Instead of file sharing, it'll be links to sites that otherwise would require compensation to link to. Although, I suppose depending on how it is implemented, clearing referral tags and a browser plug in might do well enough. I fail to see how it results in anything aside from a technical end run, as described.

    • I don't know why these internet companies still do business in the EU.

      If Facebook alone pulled out of the EU (let alone Google or Wikipedia) because they didn't want to deal with this BS, these laws would be rescinded in days.

      Of course it would never happen because investors.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Dont link to the EU.

  • Back to AOL and strictly walled gardens, I guess.

  • This is what happens when young people don't vote (Score:3)

    by Kiuas ( 1084567 ) on Wednesday September 12, 2018 @07:03AM (#57295930)

    I've been saying this for a long time: this is the kind of result one expects to see when most of the people who vote in EU elections are over 50. I mean, voter turnout has been low in EU elections consistently (43 % in the last elections, pathetic really) because people would rather nitpick about the Union than do anything to affect it, but it's especially low among the younger generations. (source. [europa.eu] "Turnout was again highest among the oldest respondents. Some 51% of the 55+ group voted in the European elections, while only 28% did in the 18-24 age group.") Is it any wonder that when most of the people sitting in the parliament have little to no understanding of what the internet actually is, the lobbyists are able to spoonfeed them all kinds of bullshit and we end up with sub-par legislation like this?

    Obviously we're still a long way from implementation, from the article:

    Clearly, this confusing back-and-forth hasn't instilled much hope in those the directive affects. Speaking to The Verge, executive director of digital rights association EDRi Joe McNamee said, "The system is so complicated that last Friday the [European Parliament] legal affairs committee tweeted an incorrect assessment of what's happening. If they don't understand the rules, what hope the rest of us?"

    Despite today's outcome, though, we're still a long way from actual legislation. Today's decision will be subject to even more negotiations between politicians and member states, with a final vote by the EU Parliament in January. Individual member states can then interpret the directive as they see fit before turning it into law. If these provisions make it through the next round of debates, though, the internet could soon look like a very different place."

    So whatever impact this will or will not have is still to be seen, and I personally hope the coming debates and negotiations will make it clear just how absurd the law in its current shape is and how hard (if not impossible) actual implementation and enforcement would be and reason will win, but we'll see.

    We've got slightly over half a year to next EU elections people. To paraphrase Obama's recent speech to anyone else here in Europe who doesn't like it: 'If this pisses you off, don't hashtag, vote!"

    • think this is really about censorship, which the young people all support

      • Another thing that young people support is the idea of "all or nothing", things like "either we can't censor anything at all or "we must censor both pedophiles and copyright violators and close the internet down". In real life, most people believe that there's a place for in-betweens and this is how laws are enacted.

    • Why should anybody waste a lot of time trying to oppose this at the level of the EP? People understand full well that their vote is pretty much worthless. As I understand it, the EU can adopt these rules without the EP.

      Furthermore, what makes you think that European youth would vote to oppose this?

    • Re:This is what happens when young people don't vo (Score:5, Interesting)

      by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Wednesday September 12, 2018 @07:19AM (#57296054)
      You assume that young people will do any better or that they have a "real" understanding of the internet. If you look at some of the groups of young people that are screaming the loudest, they'd seem to be the biggest censors of the internet with their demand for safe spaces and a ban on any expression that hurts their feelings. There are also a lot of young people that are going to throw in with the right-wing anti-immigration parties that are starting to spring up because they see that as more important than something going on with the internet. I don't know if those groups even have any opinion on this particular topic, but I don't think getting the younger voters involved will do anything.

      In the U.S. the joke (from about two decades ago) about younger people voting was that it was the younger college voters in Minnesota that got Jesse Ventura elected. If you're not familiar with him, he's a bit of a conspiracy nut among other things. Probably an okay guy to be friends with, just not what I would consider governor material. I think the youth vote was also up in the 2016 election and we ended up with Trump, so I don't see it making a difference in this case either.

  • The FPV industry was destroyed in EU already (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Max_W ( 812974 ) on Wednesday September 12, 2018 @07:09AM (#57295978)
    The EU accepted the rule that the FPV, first-person-view, transmitter of an RC aircraft, or a drone, cannot have the power more than 25 mW, while a smartphone can have the transmitting power of 1000, or even 3000 mW.

    It basically destroyed the emerging UAV & FPV market and the industry in the EU countries. It made existing FPV drones unreliable and dangerous, while the FPV videolink starts to break at about 100 meters.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by havana9 ( 101033 )
      What stops you to get an amateur radio license and modify a TV sender to operate in HAM bands an daad an amplifier, or Buy an already-made module?
      Are these modules cosidered line LPD systems os similar unlicensed systems? I remember that to control model aircaft one needed to pay a CB tax because was actually used the CB band to transmit.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by swilver ( 617741 )

      Good. Fuck off with those drones.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • It will come down to who has more influence, (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dwywit ( 1109409 ) on Wednesday September 12, 2018 @07:16AM (#57296024)

    The content owners, or the content indexers?

    Content owners like large media companies are still desperately clinging to the past.

    Google and other online gatekeepers hold sway over large percentages of the audience.

    I eagerly await a final smackdown for Murdoch & friends, when the reality of distributed information finally hits home. Hits home to them of course, the rest of us already know.

    Google and others have no obligation to list anything. If they decide that it costs too much to link items to media websites, well... tough. The other media companies will gladly waive costs if it means their content gets listed at the top of page 1 while Murdoch & co are relegated to page 2 or 3.

    • Google is about as evil as murdoch, it is just in its infancy and still mostly goes the way the user so they ignore the shadows looming. But there has been enough stories in the last years even on slashdot to show google is not better, it is just new. As long as the page are indexed I am OK with it personally. I always found "news scrapping" as google news seem to do to be borderline or even fully copyright infringement.
  • Cut off the EU from Google. As though anybody wants to see French cinema anyway!

  • Now EVERYBODY can be a pirate!

  • Article 13, the "upload filter", would force them to check all content uploaded to their sites and remove any copyrighted material

    And how are these companies supposed to 1) know that a piece of material is copyrighted and 2) know that the uploader doesn't have the right to upload it?

    For example, I wrote and published a novel. The novel is protected by copyright. When writing the novel, I used Google Docs. (It's handy for writing initial drafts wherever I am. I later exported that into a more full fledged wo

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by swilver ( 617741 )

      Easy, they check the special copyright bit that is magically set on every byte you transmit.

      • Just reuse the evil bit [wikipedia.org], it's actually reserved for malware but since copyrighted material should also not be routed, I guess it's ok to reuse it. Anyone not having permission to use content has to set it and that should take care of the whole mess.

        I would actually suggest it to the EU, but I secretly fear they'd seriously implement it, considering they just showed how much they really understand about the internet...

    • And how are these companies supposed to 1) know that a piece of material is copyrighted and 2) know that the uploader doesn't have the right to upload it?

      1) is easy. All material that's not ancient is copyrighted, by default. Everything. Blogs, books, news articles, song recordings - all of it.

      2) is the hard part. The US DMCA got that one correct, though: if uploader says they have the right to upload and publish material for distribution, the host is in the clear, and other people that claim copyright over the same material will have to battle it out with the (by then known!) uploader.

  • So in other words, uploads are effectively like copying to /dev/null?

    Because even if it doesn't infringe on copyright, it's all copyrighted... or at least probably mostly copyrighted. Hell, the uploader might even own the copyright on it. After all, it's copyrighted, isn't it?

    The question to be asking is if the uploaded copyrighted content infringes on copyright law, or if the copyright holder might want to claim copyright infringement (whether or not they actually did do so).

    Computers cannot curr

  • Create a search add on for a browser that does not find any results in the EU.
    -site: and list the EU nations.
    Move around the censorship and link to nations that support freedom of speech. Support the ability to link and talk about a link.
  • Sounds like a perfect environment for a patent troll explosion.
  • I've mentioned this before; but seems only times I hear about 'Europe' and 'tech' is in context of EU bureaucrats peeing in some cheerios somewhere. Never hear about the proverbial Next Big Thing coming from Europe, always another dumb law or lawsuit or fine.

Slashdot Top Deals

Decaffeinated coffee? Just Say No.

Close