[ad_1]
S traßburg (dpa) – The dispute over EU copyright reform has been bitter in recent weeks – European Parliament delegates Thursday in Strasbourg froze plans very controversial.
Internet Activists and digital politicians applaud because they see the proposals as a threat to the free Internet. On the other hand, media professionals are disappointed. They hope that the reform will help them to participate more in the gains of the online platform.
Is the reform now over once and for all?
The deputies did not definitively overthrow the reform. On the contrary, they called with their vote the right to treat plans in detail again. It is expected that there will be a debate and a new vote in Strasbourg in September. All possible modifications are possible – until the complete rejection of the project. Then the responsible committee should start from scratch.
At the center of the debate, there are two planned innovations. There are the so-called download filters. It is a software that allows Internet platforms to check in advance if images, videos or music downloaded by users are protected by copyright law. author. The new EU rules would require certain websites, such as YouTube, to seek the consent of potential rights holders, even in the case of content downloaded by users. Technically, this is possible with the download filters. Until now, platforms should only delete content after a rights violation has been detected and reported to them.
Secondly, it is the incidental copyright law (LSR). From this, portals such as Google News should no longer be able to display headlines or short excerpts of press releases in their results without further ado. They should instead ask permission from publishers and pay if necessary
What should the new rules be?
Supporters want newspaper publishers, authors, record companies and other rights holders to get more, The copyright of the network would be violated on a large scale, from the song to the entire movie, argues the CDU MEP Axel Voss, who advocates reform and who drafted the text. "The damage is immense." It deals with the fundamental question: "Do we even want to know the badogical copyright applied in digital?"
And what arguments conflict?
Opponents see, for example, in copyright for publishers. The editors BDZV and VDZ, however, claim that "to ensure free and independent journalism in the digital world", incidental copyright is necessary – reliable rules are needed given the market power of the giants of the world. ;Internet.
Critics also claim that the legal text provides for a tax on liens for private users. They claim that private users of Facebook or Twitter will have to pay in the future if they publish a link to a newspaper article including a title in their profile. However, the Voss project does not cover that. He states that the law should not discourage individual users from "the legitimate legitimate and non-commercial use of press releases".
Download filters are subject to errors, critics say. "It is extremely difficult to determine, in individual cases, whether a copyright infringement exists or not," said Oliver Süme, CEO of the Association of Internet Economy eco. This could block content likely to be posted online, such as satirical works. MEP Voss disagrees: users' own creations – such as self-published videos or insider jokes on the Internet, the so-called memes – would only be not captured by the software. "The individual is not affected at all."
In addition, critics fear the death of online platforms. Online entrepreneur Stephan Wolligandt, who has collected over 700,000 votes against reform plans in an online petition, said Wednesday that small site operators could not afford expensive download filters. "We believe that platforms will not expose themselves to new liability risks." The result: they are disconnected. This is contradicted by the European Commission: only platforms that "broadcast large quantities" of protected works are affected by the rules.
In the end, the risks of censorship exist, opponents are worried. In the future, vendors and platforms would decide what people would see on the Internet and what was right or wrong, says Suetter of the eco-friendly Verband. "It's about a change in the duties of law in the private sector, which I find extremely questionable." According to him, the misuse of the download filter risk: "Once the technology is there, it can be powered with any setting." On the other hand, MEP Voss argues that, for example, if a government wants to restrict freedom of expression on the Internet, it certainly does not need to resort to a software package. recognition of copyright
. a vote applied for Thursday. Parliamentarians can either give the green light to reform to enter the next phase of negotiations between the Parliament and the EU member states. Or they reject the legal framework recently adopted by the Committee on Legal Affairs. Then the subject will be back in Strasbourg in September. Members could then apply all sorts of changes – or completely reject the text. Then the reform would have failed for the moment.
Source link
