Execute the copyright got the green light. The EU will vote on internet censorship

The first committee of the European Parliament approved a directive on Wednesday, which could completely change the exchange of copyright on the Internet. In July, he will vote in the European Parliament. Article 13 is particularly controversial, against which the founder of the Internet is also protesting. The threat, according to them, internet censorship.

The European Parliament’s Committee on First Affairs (JURI) on Wednesday approved a proposal to reform the current European rules governing copyright. The Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the first author in the digital single market (Czech version of the proposal here) was first proposed in 2016 and has since received comments before the first committee. trnct only voted for the proposal, nine were against, two abstained.

The day of voting is the first step towards the adoption of copyright protection, the answer from the Internet environment, said German MEP Axel Voss, the rapporteur of this proposal.


European Parliament (Twitter)@Europarl_EN
20.ervna 2018 v 16:04, pspvek archivovn: 20.ervna 2018 v 19:43

The last laws to address copyright in the information society date back 17 years. Parliament’s legal committee adopted today its position on bringing EU-wide copyright rules in line with the digital age.

Find out more → https://t.co/NtnXEFtjY6 https://t.co/j76PYdsrbt

20 lid to sdlreply to tweetblbit

Of course, we have to go through the vote of the whole parliament and find an agreement with the European Council on the detail, Voss added. But this is the first positive sign that the (European) Parliament has two content to cope with Internet platforms.

Votes

Vote on the proposal to the European Parliament (20 June 2018)

Pavel Svoboda, the Czech MEP for the Kesan Democrats and chairman of the JURI committee, was among those who voted for the proposal.

Votes

Vote on the whole proposal – JURI Committee for the First Affairs (June 20, 2018)

Controversial Articles 11 and 13: Data from the reference and preliminary censorship

Voss’s naden bag is unheard of critics of the directive, who call for a stupid idea and a vote for the cry of Internet censorship. At the same time, the eleven and tinct lines of the proposal are considered to be controversial.

lnek 11 (Protection of press publications in connection with digital usage) is referred to by critics as link tax. I can replace the profit with publishers, their links and their networks are paid over the Internet without any compensation (including Google and Facebook, according to the media advertising revenue, large MEPs). This article, if it came into force, would in particular fundamentally change the way in which people can search not only for news and journalistic articles on the Internet. In particular, searchers would not be able to offer users a link, nor would they pay a fee to the copyright holder.

The Union of Publishers R and the European Publishing Association appreciate the first article of the Directive: According to EMMA and ENPA, the resulting wording is not entirely optimal from the publisher’s point of view, but it is an acceptable compromise between two primary groups. As an example, mention the reward that a publisher could demand on platforms. (Note: MAFRA Mediln Group is a member of Union Publisher R.)

The article, on the other hand, is criticized by European academics (PDF) from the Institute for the First Information, who say there will be a limited citation: The proposal would probably restrict the free flow of information, which is a key to a functioning democracy. This would probably damage the newspaper and the content creators themselves. According to them, on the contrary, it would strengthen the establishment of institutions and publishers, which could strengthen the worrying trend of concentration of media ownership in member countries.

lnek 13 (The use of sensitive content by company information service providers, who store and access large amounts of long and other protection items loaded by their users) in turn regulates the way in which Internet platforms have to combat copyright infringement. Thus, for example, social networking, online sharing of tools or platforms for publishing files and videos.

The wording of the directive is quite general. The proposal speaks of a measure that will ensure the functioning of the agreements concluded with the bearers first regarding their length. An example is the nominal name of all content recognition technologies. In other words, I mean a version of automatic content filtering.


Creative Commons (Twitter)@creativecommons
20.ervna 2018 v 11:12, pspvek archivovn: 20.ervna 2018 v 20:17

[email protected]_Legal has adopted both Article 11 (#linktax) and Article 13 (#CensorshipMachines). Its a dark day for the open web, but the fight will continue in the upcoming plenary vote in the European Parliament. #SaveYourInternet #SaveTheLink #FixCopyright

373 lid to sdlreply to tweetblbit

For example, if a user wants to upload an image to a social network, the company operating the company should be required to check that the image does not infringe copyright. For example, if the automatic algorithm on the image recognized a scene from a movie or a photo from a photobank, it would refuse to publish such content socially.

Internet founder warn against censorship

In the open letter (PDF), a group of experts objected to Article 13 of the draft directive. It was signed by, for example, Vint Cerf, co-author of TCP / IP, or Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the WWW and author of the first website in history, or Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia.

Vint Cerf, Tim Berners-Lee a dal

Vint Cerf, Tim Berners-Lee and other dignitaries signed a letter criticizing the proposed EP, in particular Article 13

The authors of the letter acknowledge that the reform of the author’s first works is necessary: ​​As creators, we will be convinced that the distribution of the author’s hand should take place in such a way that it benefits the creator, publisher and platform.

But Article 13 is not a way to accomplish this, warn in the letter. By requiring platforms to automatically check and filter all content that a user uploads to the platform, Article 13 provides an unprecedented approach to the Internet, which has so far opened a platform for communication and innovation, to become a tool for automatic supervision and control of users.

The machine accidentally censored me, it does not know parody and context

Critics thus point out that there is a danger of a requirement for an automated tool that would be revealed by copyrighted copyrighted content before publication. These systems now work, and they are less reliable. Nap. ContentID on YouTube may reveal that the uploaded video does not use music that belongs to the copyright holders. However, it often happens that so-called false positives occur.

A famous example is when a video with blum – literally with completely random sounds – was marked as a video in violation of three copyrights (more in our article on the automatic system YouTube). And this is the ContentID system of a large company with peak expertise. You can’t imagine that smaller companies should have a similar recognition problem.

In addition, the author’s rule allows for a number of exceptions. Typical examples of when you can upload a copyright page to the Internet are:

  • parody – for example photomonte, videomonte, various satirical lines, etc. may fall into this exception
  • remix – a foreign work can be cut into the wall and the combination can create a new work
  • internet memes – memes (we tried to explain the phenomenon of memes in 2012) often use the picture, which is the author’s first, but the text and the combination with another picture give him two new meanings
  • news, comment, reviews – to some extent it is possible in the comments or news to take out the worksheet without infringing the copyright
  • first on the panorama – when shooting a video on a street strip, you can capture a video of a building, which is the author’s first, but your first shooting on the street is not limited
  • study ely – for example, in the case of scientific analysis, it is often necessary to use the copyright guard for illustration or illustration
  • osobn off – the author’s right is not affected by the person who makes a copy for personal use
  • citation – and the horse can of course be quoted by the author with the source, in the drainage range

It is conceivable that some algorithm, operating for example on the principle of machine learning, would be able to correctly identify these diverse exceptions and contexts, which could record the path for protection by the author’s first. It is likely that platforms would set the filter more strictly to protect themselves from possible fines.

Article 13 is essentially due to copyright and other Internet companies being copyrighted and forced to be applied in writing, promising Bruce Schneier, an Internet security expert. In addition to the current code, Article 13 could, according to him, contribute to the creation of an infrastructure that could later be misled by governments or corporations to oversee the Internet.

The reform, and in particular its tinct link, has long been criticized by Julia Reda, a German MEP for the German Pirt side. According to them, this is the creation of censoring machines, which would have to filter the content before its publication, and this would, among other things, restrict freedom of speech.

It didn’t work out today, but we can still save the internet (video: Julia Reda)

So the Esk Pirtsk party strongly protests against the new directive. This can have a very significant impact and lead to the censorship of the Internet in European countries and in the Czech Republic, said the party’s chairman Ivan Barto. This thing attacks the very essence of the Internet, which is based on the fact that links are referenced.

Video from the press conferences (June 21, 2018)

What will dl? The member state and the whole parliament must come out

The draft directive now travels before the European Parliament. He will probably vote on the proposal on July 4. Until then, the representatives of the individual EU countries must agree on the proposal in advance.

Joe McNamee, Director of the European Association for the Digital First (EDRi), thinks that the proposal will continue to be a change in the direction of copyright protection without potentially infringing freedom of expression: I have heard a number of e-mails about this issue Get the people in the European Parliament to attract the attention of people who are not part of the committee for the first time. This pressure reduces the vine support that the proposal could get in parliament every day.


EDRi (Twitter)@edri
20.ervna 2018 v 11:30, pspvek archivovn: 21.ervna 2018 v 09:31

We can still win! Next steps for the #CopyrightDirective https://t.co/UcYZWbEdWw #SaveYourInternet #FixCopyright #CensorshipMachine https://t.co/UpH0Ib8Hy4

233 lid to sdlreply to tweetblbit

In the past, it was possible to stop bad laws before they were approved, with McNamee denying you the rejection of the ACTA counter-agreement in 2012. People may be concerned that the bill has passed under (…), but the JURI committee has not read Parliament.

Update: we spilled the link and added details and comments. We have added a description of the further procedure of the directive proposal. We added who voted. We added a weekly eskch pirt. We supplemented the publication of the Union Publisher and the Institute for Information First.