The horror that is Article 13... Will we let this happen?!

Let's have a discussion...

The horror that is called Article 13. If it is up to the EU, we will soon be allowed to upload anything that contains a tiny bit of copyright (such as a photo of yourself taken with a poster of Iron Maiden, for example, I will mention) thanks to a filter that from now on small particle copytright. Also valid for THIS forum, but also for every other site where you upload something. So also via DeviantArt, Facebook, YouTube. You name it. Hop on, filter over it and it will never be on the almighty internet, purely because the clowns in the EU Parlament have chosen to implement filters on every site that mow away every bit of copyright (such as video / film / sound). Every bit of freedom on the internet is thus lost. Next Tuesday they will vote for or against this terrible bill. How do you view this compared to the free internet? Because to say now it's such a nice thought .... no .. didn't think so.

Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market - Wikipedia


Article 13 / Article 17

Article 13 replaces the "mere conduit" exemption from copyright infringement from for-profit "online content sharing service providers" with a new, conditional exemption to liability. These conditions are a claimed implementation of "effective and proportionate measures" to "prevent the availability of specific [unlicensed] works identified by rightsholders", acting "expeditiously" to remove them, and demonstrating that "best efforts" have been made to prevent their future availability. The article also extends any licenses granted to content hosts to their users, as long as those users are not acting "on a commercial basis"

The article directs member states to consider the size of the provider, the amount of content uploaded, and the effectiveness of the measures imposed "in light of technological developments". It also mandates an appeals process, and requires content hosts to share "information on the use of content" with its owners, the lack of which has been a point of contention in the past.

Article 13's provisions target commercial web hosts which "store and give the public access to a large amount of works or other subject-matter uploaded by its users which [they] organise and promote for profit-making purposes". The proposal makes explicit that this does not include private cloud storage services, non-profit encyclopaedias (such as Wikipedia), nor non-profit educational or scientific repositories.

Article 13b requires websites which "automatically reproduce or refer to significant amounts of copyright-protected visual works" to "conclude fair and balanced licensing agreements with any requesting rightholders".

Article 13 was renamed article 17 in 2019.

EU Directives are almost never changed at this late stage of development-approval.

There are lots of discussions of the topic ["Article 13", "GPDR"] in the forum - https://www.tenforums.com/search.php?searchid=11836359

Other than discussing it, all we can do is await its introduction so we can see how it is going to work in practice.
- Read optimistically, everything will stay as it is except for those deliberately trying to make money out of somebody else's efforts.
- I wanted to say "realistically" rather than "optimistically" but I might be kidding myself.
- I contributed to one of the discussions after having spent a lot of time studying the documentation Article 11 +13

Denis

RingTailCoon said:

Every bit of freedom on the internet is thus lost.

I would be interested in your definition of what is considered freedom on the internet. Ever since the transition between owning an OS and it becoming a service; the rules have changed as to what exactly an individual actually owns.

That is the one main reason I would never consider starting a business with the Windows Platform. If you really think about it; because it is a service now, they own your information and can hold it hostage anytime they so desire because of your digital agreement with Microsoft.

Perhaps maybe there is a fine line between copyright and intellectual property rights.

Your example of the Iron Maiden poster may only carry a copyright protection for twenty years from release whereas intellectual property rights may extend beyond the twenty year limit.

I remember Pearl Jam started this thing quite some time ago and Eddie Vedder was concerned that his band was not making the deserved earnings on albums because of music file sharing.

He was right in one aspect, while on the other hand, the sharing of his music was not earning profits to those sharing his albums music.

So there has to be some compromise between what is earning profits and what has been around for twenty or more years to determine eligibility earnings on something that has fizzled out.

You didn't hear of bands like AC/DC whining about it because they knew that the way to continue to make money on some of their stuff that was over twenty years old was to put on another live show that included their songs from over twenty years ago.