hello something for the european

[hulla]

hello
i just learn this

https://saveyourinternet.eu

https://blog.archive.org/2018/06/12/proposed-eu-copyright-measure-threatens-the-internet/

and i think i can share this because i like to write on forum or on the internet and i dont like to see somebody tell me i can lose this right

[netforce10]

So, I decided to read the Directive and well, it seems to be not too bad in itself. To Paraphrase (ommiting not directly relevant things) Article 13(the one most are talking about):

"Information society service shall take measures to ensure the functioning of agreements 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."

So, it seems to be that subject matter needs to be identified by the Rightholder to the Information Society Service and the measures need to be proportionate meaning that forums can likely avoid too much consequences from the law beyond laws already in place. More affected are software/data hosting sites without curation since it can easily be claimed that due to the nature of such forces it is far more likely that they'll be used to distribute copyrighted material(to clarify, without approval). It would be harder to claim the necessity, and thus proportionality of things like content recognition, for forums on the other hand as they are a place for discourse.

That said, because this only(or mostly) provides things the Member states must accommodate/implement into their laws it remains for a considerable part up to the member states of exactly how stringent it will be.

All that said, I don't really know much about laws, let alone those of the European Union.

[Migg]

So, I decided to read the Directive and well, it seems to be not too bad in itself.

I am impressed you could dissect the legal text so effectively, especially given your statement that:

All that said, I don't really know much about laws, let alone those of the European Union.

I am not a lawyer so I must say I cannot so easily decipher the exact consequences of the directive, I had to read around to get a broader idea on the objections before attempting to read the relevant parts in the document itself. One of the things mentioned is indeed some parts of the directive will require years of litigation to clarify. This is probably a lawyer plot to drive more business their way 

On a more serious note, objections on the most controversial article, 13, hinge on a requirement that sites provide mechanisms to prevent copyrighted works from appearing in their content, and such measures would have to be automated in a way that could proactively censor their users.  Another contentious point is the so-called "link tax", article 11.

For anyone interested, the full text of the original directive can be downloaded from EUR-Lex, and the European Council proposal can be found here. Wikipedia contains a list of references on the subject here. You can find Ars Technica's take on the matter here.

[netforce10]

"I am impressed you could dissect the legal text so effectively,"

I am impressed you could dissect the legal text so effectively, especially given your statement that:

The largest two barriers are firstly thinking you cannot understand it and secondly falsely thinking you do. If you think you absolutely cannot then you cannot in more cases than not even if you are able to. The second part is more difficult because of its nature and I may well fall under that.

Perhaps something to note as I've glanced over the newer version(as I should have done to start with..) It provided more clarity on some points of contention, namely in Art. 11 Par. 1 in the second Subparagraph it states(paraphrased for brevity) that:

• it does not apply to insubstantial parts.
• Member States shall be free to determine the insubstantial nature, taking into account if it is the expression of intellectual creation, or whetever they are individual words or very short excerpts.

I think it should be easy to argue links aren't a expression of intellectual creation.(in this sense at least) To me that seems to provide enough room for small excerpts(as it's mentioned) and links but aims to prevent using large sections of articles from being shared which to me sounds reasonable although how it will be defined will be up to each individual country.

Art. 13 changed significantly as well and my previous post about that should be mostly discarded, now in essence even though "content recognition technologies" has been removed from the directive it seems to have cemented it needs to be used, at least that's what I would assume reading it. It also cemented the need for preventive measures instead of removing content at the request of a rightholder which is something I'm very much against especially as it doesn't make sense everywere to implement such a preventive measure. For small companies/organizations they likely and luckily won't have to do much more than removing copyrighted content at request and probably removing copyrighted content which they know is not allowed to be freely spread.

This is probably a lawyer plot to drive more business their way 

You may well be onto something! Having (sometimes ofttimes stupidly) vague laws may not be cause by incompetence of politicians but instead be a plot to provide lawyers with work.

For everyone interested in reading the directive you should probably start at about page 54 since that's where the articles start although you may want to skip the definitions as you'll probably have forgotten them by the time you encounter them.

p.s. Migg thanks for mentioning those links as I wouldn't have caught my mistake otherwise.

[Migg]

I think it should be easy to argue links aren't a expression of intellectual creation.(in this sense at least) To me that seems to provide enough room for small excerpts(as it's mentioned) and links but aims to prevent using large sections of articles from being shared which to me sounds reasonable although how it will be defined will be up to each individual country.

Quite the contrary, nothing is easy to argue in court. If you are served with a request to pay fees for linking to an article but think your reference quotes an insubstantial portion of that article, you will have to incur a significant cost in lawyer fees to litigate the matter. The fact this legislation will not be uniform across member states will only help to complicate matters even more.

p.s. Migg thanks for mentioning those links as I wouldn't have caught my mistake otherwise.

I am glad you found them useful. The EU Parliament's Committee on Legal Affairs has approved the directive, so this seems on track to become EU law soon. ArsTechnica has an article on the matter here, providing some further links for anyone interested.

[Mairon]

Big Government will always decide what's best for you. Just stay in line.