#article 11

[one-time-i-dreamt]

ARTICLE 11 AND 13 HAVE BEEN APPROVED

Things might be looking horrible right now, but the fight is far from over - the final vote will take place in 2019. There’s still things we can do!

[backtothebog]

so the european internet was just killed by some old men who probably don't even know how to switch off the youtube autoplay

[silvertonguedeity]

this is so sad, alexa play

[arlessiar]

It’s not over yet but an important step has been made. The EU parliament rejected the copyright mandate.

[lunawolflight]

Be prepared for September

So, Article 11 and 13 have been rejected, but the battle isn't over; in September, the case will be open up again, and for then we have to prepare ourselves better than this time. I'm European, but I helped Americans with Net Neutrality, if you don't care about our country then do this for yourself because if this law will be approved in a continent, then it will be in other countries. I'm really happy that today we won, but please help us again for September, I don't wanna give up, thank you for now

[hank-green-john-watson-emma]

Article 11 is even worse, maybe

EDIT: I like making predictions, but this post may be overly alarmist. Read this article for a more realistic take. The vote this was focused on is over anyway, so look for more recent news and come to your own conclusions.

Even the posts that are tagged with both almost exclusively talk about article 13.

Like guys. Guys guys guys. I love memes and fandom too.

But article 11 makes websites pay any website they link to.

Do you think they're just gonna... do that? Or will they stop making links, making it even harder to verify anything you read online?

Legitimate organizations like newspapers are already struggling to survive in the internet age. Let's punish them financially for adapting to the new platform, just to make sure they go under, shall we?

Links are more expensive = they're used less often = it's normal for something completely true to use no citations = more difficult to distinguish whether something's fake or just European

Platforms that don't want to spend more money could just... disable links. Tumblr already does in the ask box. Think about how difficult that is when you're trying to back up your point.

Ironically, paying for links makes people less likely to cite intellectual property they're using. Not that that will matter, because article 13 means the death of fair use.

This affects everyone. The internet has no borders, and this will affect much more of the content that you consume than you realize. That's before you think about the dangerous precedent this sets for other countries.

If the ignorance of people scares you now, just wait. Or better yet, make a fuss before July 4th/5th (2018).

Europeans: Contact you MEPs.

Everyone: This petition’s worth a try.

[plumbobhart]

I’ve seen a few ppl reblog panicked posts about Article 13. So.

Hey hey hey hey hey. Calm down! Yes, it was approved. No, I don’t think it’s a good thing. But there’s some misinformation spreading, so here are a few things, specifically about Article 13:

1) Fair Use is still a thing. None of the things ppl are saying will become illegal will become illegal.

2.) What the law would mean is that the RESPONSIBILITY for posting material that is in violation of copyright goes from the users to the platforms. That means that if someone reposted my drawing on let’s say Instagram, I could sue Instagram for letting that happen.

3.) This would mean that platforms will have to implement something similar to what Youtube and Twitch are already doing; an algorithm to block/catch copyrighted content.

4) BUT because Fair Use is still a thing, those algorithms will have to be paired with an appeal system, like the one on YT. Because the algorithms will probably be bad at catching content that isn’t in violation of copyright law, such as parodies etc.

5) Now, as we’ve seen on Youtube, the algorithms are not good at this fair use thing, and stuff like reviews become targeted by them all the time. This is why I think the law is ultimately going to be doing more harm than good.

6) NOTHING IS BECOMING ILLEGAL IN TERMS OF CONTENT. PLATFORMS IGNORING COPYRIGHT VIOLATION IS.

7) If companies give their consent to using, for example, their games in let’s plays etc., it’s still perfectly legal to post those (just like before). Most game companies, like EA has given blanket permission to post about their games online. This includes let’s plays. (Nintendo is like the only one that hasn’t, and only approved creators may post for example Zelda let’s plays, that’s been a thing on YT for ages)

8) Again, TRANSFORMATIVE WORKS ARE PROTECTED. You can still post those. There’s just probably going to be some extra steps in doing that, because algorithms suck. Like having to make an appeal if your content is transformative etc. this includes memes (if you aren’t just reposting), simblrs, fan art, fanfiction, parodies, reviews, etc.

9) How this will be handled will ultimately be up to the various platforms. They will choose the option that saves them most money. They don’t want to risk getting sued, so they’ll probably implement an algorithm to catch illegal content. WORST CASE scenario (which is unlikely) is that some platforms decide they don’t want to deal with this law and blocks their services from ppl in the EU. It’s possible, but probably won’t save them money in the long run. So. Algorithms.

THIS WILL NOT AFFECT NON PROFIT SITES (Wikipedia etc.), OPEN SOURCE SITES (Github etc.), NON PROFIT EDUCATIONAL REPOSITORIES, AND CLOUD SERVICES.

ALSO ARTICLE 11 DOES NOT CONCERN INDIVIDUALS. It would mean that news sources would be able to collect licensing fees from social media platforms that allow links from news sources, IF THE LINK INCLUDES A PREVIEW (like most sites include now) OR THE TITLE OF THE ARTICLE ETC. The law does not mean that individuals have to pay news sources to post links.

Again, it’s not a good idea in my opinion, but we’re not disappearing and Fair Use is still a thing. Simblr isn’t illegal. We’re okay.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

In two days, an EU committee will vote to crown Google and Facebook permanent lords of internet censorship [[SHARE THIS!!]]

On June 20, the EU's legislative committee will vote on the new Copyright directive, and decide whether it will include the controversial "Article 13" (automated censorship of anything an algorithm identifies as a copyright violation) and "Article 11" (no linking to news stories without paid permission from the site).

These proposals will make starting new internet companies effectively impossible -- Google, Facebook, Twitter, Apple, and the other US giants will be able to negotiate favourable rates and build out the infrastructure to comply with these proposals, but no one else will. The EU's regional tech success stories -- say Seznam.cz, a successful Czech search competitor to Google -- don't have $60-100,000,000 lying around to build out their filters, and lack the leverage to extract favorable linking licenses from news sites.

If Articles 11 and 13 pass, American companies will be in charge of Europe's conversations, deciding which photos and tweets and videos can be seen by the public, and who may speak.

The MEP Julia Reda has written up the state of play on the vote, and it's very bad. Both left- and right-wing parties have backed this proposal, including (incredibly) the French Front National, whose Youtube channel was just deleted by a copyright filter of the sort they're about to vote to universalise.

So far, the focus in the debate has been on the intended consequences of the proposals: the idea that a certain amount of free expression and competition must be sacrificed to enable rightsholders to force Google and Facebook to share their profits.

But the unintended -- and utterly foreseeable -- consequences are even more important. Article 11's link tax allows news sites to decide who gets to link to them, meaning that they can exclude their critics. With election cycles dominated by hoaxes and fake news, the right of a news publisher to decide who gets to criticise it is carte blanche to lie and spin.

Article 13's copyright filters are even more vulnerable to attack: the proposals contain no penalties for false claims of copyright ownership, but they do mandate that the filters must accept copyright claims in bulk, allowing rightsholders to upload millions of works at once in order to claim their copyright and prevent anyone from posting them.

That opens the doors to all kinds of attacks. The obvious one is that trolls might sow mischief by uploading millions of works they don't hold the copyright to, in order to prevent others from quoting them: the works of Shakespeare, say, or everything ever posted to Wikipedia, or my novels, or your family photos.

More insidious is the possibility of targeted strikes during crisis: stock-market manipulators could use bots to claim copyright over news about a company, suppressing its sharing on social media; political actors could suppress key articles during referendums or elections; corrupt governments could use arms-length trolls to falsely claim ownership of footage of human rights abuses.

It's asymmetric warfare: falsely claiming a copyright will be easy (because the rightsholders who want this system will not tolerate jumping through hoops to make their claims) and instant (because rightsholders won't tolerate delays when their new releases are being shared online at their moment of peak popularity). Removing a false claim of copyright will require that a human at an internet giant looks at it, sleuths out the truth of the ownership of the work, and adjusts the database -- for millions of works at once. Bots will be able to pollute the copyright databases much faster than humans could possibly clear it.

I spoke with Wired UK's KG Orphanides about this, and their excellent article on the proposal is the best explanation I've seen of the uses of these copyright filters to create unstoppable disinformation campaigns.

https://boingboing.net/2018/06/18/asymmetric-information-war.html

[dakottaj]

YO BOYSS SIGN THIS SHIT

please sign this, the EU really needs it. they helped the US, we should help them.

we have until tomorrow to get to 1,000,000 signatures.

[one-time-i-dreamt]

To every European and non-European person who signed the petition to save the internet as we know it and fight ridiculous copyright laws that the European Union wants to implement here - I thank you. To my friends from every other continent, I thank you from the bottom of my heart. Idk what’s going to happen from here on, but I really appreciate your efforts.

[sparots]

Article 13

In case you haven’t heard about it, Article 13 was passed in Europe yesterday. Simply put this means that copyright is going absolutely crazy in Europe now, and content creators are fucked. The internet as we know it will change horribly.

So if you haven’t done anything yet, help by at least signing the petition and spread the news about this, because I feel Article 13 (and 11) have been completely ignored. We helped you with your Net Neutrality, now help us.

[sagittariahx]

#SaveTheInternet

Article 13 is a provision in the proposed EU Copyright Directive mandating that all content uploaded to the internet be monitored and potentially deleted if a likeness to existing copyrighted content is detected. This provision will be voted on by the end of 2018. 

Whether a creator or a consumer, everyone who uses the internet will be affected by this law — which is why we all need to speak out against it, no matter if you live within the EU or not.

Sign the petition HERE, please reblog!

If you are a creator or independent business, the content that you upload to share with your audience might be deleted without your consent. Creators include but are not limited to artists –such as cartoonists, gamers, illustrators, photographers, documentary filmmakers, animators, musicians, DJs, and dancers,– bloggers, journalists, and technologists. Online platforms will be required to implement complex and expensive filtering systems and will be held liable for copyright infringement, potentially incurring fines that threaten their economic viability. Article 13 would restrict the ability of Internet users to consume content – meaning they won’t be able to find and enjoy diverse kinds of cultural expressions that they have grown accustomed to. The days of communicating through gifs and memes, listening to our favourite remixes online or sharing videos of our friends singing at karaoke might be coming to an end. Ultimately, the internet culture that has emerged in recent years – a culture that enables connections and democratises information – will become bureaucratic and restrictive.

Sign the petition HERE, please reblog!

[witchofthegermanforest]

Well. Article 13 went through. It's been an honor knowing you all

[leeminholinoing]

good news! See you in September 

[mayhapslov]

using memes, but instead of sending them to e/o we print them out and pass them on like drugs

[p-ssypink]

Europe helped us with our net neutrality issues, it’s time for us to help them. While Articles 11 and 13 passed, there’s going to be a second round of voting sometime in July. Sign this petition to help https://www.change.org/p/european-parliament-stop-the-censorship-machinery-save-the-internet?recruiter=467715818&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_initial.pacific_abi_share_button_ordering_1.abi_featured_fb&utm_term=psf_combo_share_initial