2018/09/25: A major issue with upload filters was always their clash with another crucial piece of EU law, the eCommerce Directive of 2000, Article 15 of which explicitly forbids member states from imposing "a general obligation on providers … to monitor the information which they transmit or store, nor a general obligation actively to seek facts or circumstances indicating illegal activity."
This creates a safe harbor for platforms, but it also aids freedom of speech and stops EU countries from forcing privately held platforms to entrench surveillance mechanisms. And Article 13's advocates claim the latest text of the new Copyright Directive leaves people's rights under the eCommerce Directive unharmed.
the content industry may be happy with Article 13, but there is "almost universal dislike" among the tech and internet communities. "This is a disaster waiting to happen, from a practical perspective," he said. "Though the words ‘upload filter’ do not now appear in the directive, I haven’t yet seen any credible alternative way to do what is being asked. The proponents of the article certainly haven’t offered one."
Bernal said there was a risk of over-blocking that could end up hurting "smaller creators," particularly as the appeals process is as yet unclear, and the system could potentially be open to gaming by a new generation of copyright trolls.
And yes, this looks almost inevitably to come into tension or conflict with the eCommerce Directive protections. At the very least I expect some legal fights.
a classic example of ill-conceived law which will be counterproductive at best.
2018/09/12: il linguaggio umano è molto complesso, anche quando semina odio. Per i sistemi automatizzati è praticamente impossibile rilevarlo senza errori, in frasi apparentemente innocue. O capire quando certe parole non esprimono odio, ma sono utilizzate in maniera amichevole. E ora c'è anche una prova empirica che confondere quei sistemi è un gioco da ragazzi
The new rules will create many losers but few winners; there will be very little real benefit to most people working in creative industries. The drive to introduce them has come primarily from EU publishers - most notably Axel Springer - which have long been determined to get more money out of Google and other tech giants.
Publishers need to get over this fixation. Newspapers and news publishers have lost huge amounts of their revenue - but they need to accept that they’ve lost a lot of this fairly. Once, a newspaper was the best place to look for a new job, new properties in the area, or even a date. That’s no longer the case: bespoke job search, property search and online dating sites are quite simply better than what came before. It’s not unfair that people don’t place those adverts in papers any more.
«Oggi la cultura ha vinto sui soldi. I grandi colossi del web ora dovranno pagare cifre che possono assolutamente permettersi, a fronte dei milioni che incassano. È giusto che ci sia rispetto per la creatività e che si difendano i giovani», ha dichiarato il neo presidente della Siae Mogol. «Una volta che le acque si saranno calmate, Internet sarà libera come lo è oggi, i creatori e i giornalisti guadagneranno una parte più equa degli introiti generati dalle loro opere, e ci chiederemo per quale motivo tutto questo clamore», ha affermato il relatore Axel Voss, del Partito popolare europeo.
The very design of these laws is to limit competition. What is often ignored in these discussions is that the record labels, movie studios and publishers pushing for these laws have always viewed the world in a particular way: where they "negotiate" against other big companies for how to best split up the pie. They don't want to negotiate with smaller companies. They want just a few companies they can negotiate with -- but hopefully they want the law in their favor so they can pressure that small list of companies to do their bidding. They certainly don't care what's in the best interests for actual creators, because their entire reason for being has been to take as much money out of actual creators' pockets and keep it for themselves.
The idea that Article 11 and Article 13 will, in any way, help creators, rather than legacy gatekeepers is laughable. The idea that it will somehow harm the internet giants is equally laughable. They can deal with it. What it will do is take upstart competitors out of the equation entirely and will significantly remove negotiating leverage for creators.
A pianist performed a Bach composition for his Youtube channel, but Youtube's Content ID system pulled it down and accused him of copyright infringement because Sony Music Global had claimed that they owned 47 seconds' worth of his personal performance of a song whose composer has been dead for 300 years.
Just last week, German music professor Ulrich Kaiser posted his research on automated censorship of classical music, in which he found that it was nearly impossible to post anything by composers like Bartok, Schubert, Puccini and Wagner, because companies large and small have fraudulently laid claim to their whole catalogs.
This is a glimpse of the near future. In one week, the European Parliament will vote on a proposal to force all online services to implement Content ID-style censorship, but not just for videos -- for audio, text, stills, code, everything.
In the same way that California is a global net exporter of lifesaving emissions controls for vehicles, the EU has been a global net exporter of privacy rules, anti-monopoly penalties, and other desperately needed corrections for an Internet that grows more monopolistic, surveillant, and abusive by the day.
Many of the cheerleaders for Articles 11 and 13 talk like these are a black eye for Google and Facebook and other US giants, and it's true that these would result in hundreds of millions in compliance expenditures by Big Tech, but it's money that Big Tech (and only Big Tech) can afford to part with. Europe's much smaller Internet companies need not apply.
It's not just Europeans who lose when the EU sells America's tech giants the right to permanently rule the Internet: it's everyone, because Europe's tech companies, co-operatives, charities, and individual technologists have the potential to make everyone's Internet experience better. The US may have a monopoly on today's Internet, but it doesn't have a monopoly on good ideas about how to improve tomorrow's net.
L’indagine Copyright & US Tech Giants ha raccolto l’opinione dei cittadini dell’Unione europea in vista del voto del 12 settembre alla plenaria di Strasburgo, quando il Parlamento europeo torna a votare la cosiddetta riforma del copyright per far pagare ai colossi del Web un compenso ad artisti e autori di contenuti distribuiti sui social network e piattaforme digitali. Condotta da Harris Interactive su 6600 persone in Europa rappresentative della sua popolazione, ha dato un risultato molto netto: a favore della riforma l’89% degli italiani, dato maggiore rispetto alla media europea che arrivata comunque all’87%
Tomorrow the European Parliament will vote on whether to send its version of the Copyright Directive text to "trilogues" for final negotiat...