[ad_1]
MPs broke plans for a new digital copyright. Activists and companies like Google applaud
Detlef Drewes
With a clear majority (318-278), MEPs arrested Thursday in Strasbourg the plans for a new digital law on copyright, officially known as copyright accessory. . For now, Google and others can continue to use text, images and videos without having to pay for them. Here are the most important questions and answers.
Why did copyright reform fail in the beginning?
The criticism is mainly directed against the download filter. It is a software that badyzes the content downloaded by the user, such as text, images or videos for productions protected by copyright. The bill, initially rejected, should ensure that major online platforms such as YouTube acquire licenses in this case. Rights belong to authors, journalists, artists and publishers.
What's wrong?
On the one hand, critics see the danger of censorship in the network because filters could also stop illegal content. Second, it is argued that small start-ups may not be able to afford expensive software and therefore prefer to shut down rather than risk a fine. In addition, they fear that even a simple link may be protected by copyright because it contains, for example, the title of a text that an author has written [19659005]Is it true?
Supporters clearly say: There will be no tax link because license fees are called on referrals. Even more: private users should continue to build links and share texts and images without having to pay for it. The crucial difference with major platforms such as Google, Amazon or Facebook is that they exploit the beginnings of text, images and snippets of photos and thus create a lucrative environment for their advertising revenue. This is hardly a private user who does this.
Publishers have done a lot for this reform. Why?
Google and other platforms are looking for the intellectual property of journalists, writers and artists that publishers have acquired to sell themselves. Companies are making significant sales because they use this content in an attractive environment for their advertising, but without contributing to the costs themselves. In the long run, this will lead to the demise of quality journalism, as its creators and publishers can no longer live there.
How do businesses like Google and others react?
unprecedented lobbying wave and successfully fanned fears of the end of the free Internet. According to the rapporteur of the House of Representatives, Axel Voss (CDU), even children of parliamentarians were questioned in order to influence them.
What danger is there for the free Internet?
The Greens Politician Helga Trüpel, who has been working on the subject for many years, has made it clear. She badyzed the fact that the Internet advocates a concept of freedom that gives large corporations unlimited freedom, while diminishing their accountability to journalists, artists, writers and publishers. She talks about fairness in compensation, no censorship, she says. Incidentally, if the content was properly authorized, the filters would be superfluous.
How to proceed now?
After the rejection of the plenary, the Committee on Legal Affairs of the Parliament must resubmit. What comes out is open. However, one can think that the download filter must be inclined. In September, Parliament could then decide on an amended proposal. If a majority is in agreement, the last talks with the representatives of the Member States can begin and be completed by the end of the year.
Topics Subscribe
[ad_2]
Source link
