[ad_1]
- MEPs reject copyright reform by 318 votes to 278
- Two articles in the draft are particularly controversial. Opponents of the reform fear censorship and restrictions on freedom of expression.
- Parliament must now review the plan in September.
For the moment, the European Parliament has decided the controversial reform of copyright. 318 Members voted against, 278 for, there were 31 abstentions. Last week, Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee approved the project. Opponents of the reform then asked for a vote in plenary. The Directive should create a uniform copyright throughout Europe
Which points are particularly controversial?
The criticism is directed against two articles of the directive. Article 11 provides for an so-called incidental copyright for news publishers. Search engines like Google should pay for media houses if they use their titles or puzzles. Article 13 directly criticizes online platforms for infringing copyright. Until now, YouTube should not be deleted before labels or artists report a video that violates their rights. The directive states that platforms will be responsible as soon as users post content
Why is Article 13 problematic?
Axel Voss, one of the leading advocates of reform as a commission negotiator: The term "download filter" is not included in the strategy. De facto, the companies involved have no choice but to filter all the content before it is put online. Some platforms, such as Wikipedia, should be exempted, but the settlement will still affect large parts of the network, such as Youtube or Facebook [19659909] Network Policy "Diese Upload-Filter wären refelrechte Zensurmaschinen" ” clbad=”lazyload teaserable-layout__image”/>
"These download filters would be real machines to censor "
free network, said European politician Julia Reda. On Wednesday, the Legal Affairs Committee will still vote in favor of controversial Article 13.
Interview by Simon Hurtz
more …
It is impossible to manually check the millions of images and videos uploaded daily. As a result, a filtering software would be needed, which automatically scans everything. Existing systems, such as YouTube's Content-ID, which aims to detect videos with copyrighted music, routinely make mistakes and also remove legal content. Facebook's advertising filters also block more than they should. The new systems should be much more comprehensive and therefore much more complex. Hard to imagine that they would then work more reliably than software with a narrowly defined range of functions
This would result in huge databases with text, audio and video clips for which rights of exploitation would be claimed. Smaller platforms would not be able to develop technical solutions to match all content. You should buy the software from companies like Google. From the point of view of the opponents of the reform, this would support the status of the most powerful platforms and create dependencies in their favor.
Why is Article 11 controversial?
Most hyperlinks contain the title of the URL to which they refer. Already these small text extracts must be protected, so platforms should pay for it. It could also make it difficult for platform users to share links to online media.
In addition, the economic advantage is questionable: in Germany, there is a similar right since 2013. It is considered a failure. When it came into effect in 2013, Google decided not to display the online media teasers on Google News in order to pay any compensation. But that did not suit publishers either. They tried to force Google to see their content and pay for it at the same time. The lawsuits failed, but the publishers did not want to give up the additional drives that find content via Google. So they gave the company a free license: Google can use content for free, other search engines have to pay. This did not count for publishers. Last year, publishers took € 30,000 – and spent more than 2 million euros for legal costs
How Supporters Dispute
Publishers , music and cinema have the arguments of critics called a tactic of fear. They see reform as the only way to reward rightholders effectively and equitably for their achievements. Copyright laws would be violated on a large scale. As Google earns billions, the media should be worried about their existence. The incidental copyright was needed to protect independent journalism and to involve publishers in search engine earnings
What Happens Now?
In case of approval, the so-called trilogue negotiations with the commission would have taken place and the Council, which has already approved the reform. But now Parliament has to re-examine the directive. In Strasbourg, this is being negotiated in September. Members may decide to change or reject the project altogether. Then, the copyright reform would have failed.
Download Filters Are A Crazy Idea
Copyright reform wants the right thing, but does the wrong thing. It may be necessary for judges to protect the basic rights of citizens against politicians again.
Comment by Simon Hurtz
more …
