[ad_1]
Strasbourg (dpa) – MEPs are voting today on a draft EU copyright law reform. They can slow down the controversial project or send it to other negotiations with European Commission and the member states.
Even though it's an intermediate step, the emotions come down. Internet activists and net politicians from various parties see a threat to the Internet. The new rules, however, include newspaper publishers, the Federal Association of the Music Industry and prominent artists such as Paul McCartney or Udo Lindenberg.
What are the stakes of the planned reform?
At the center of the debate are two planned innovations. There are the so-called download filters. This is Software which allows internet platforms to check in advance if images uploaded by users, videos or music are protected by copyright . 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 have had to delete content only when a violation has been detected and reported to them.
Secondly, it is the accessory copyright (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. Instead, they should ask permission from the publishers and pay if necessary.
What should the new rules bring?
Lawyers want to ensure that newspaper publishers, writers, record companies and other rights holders get more from the big Internet companies. The copyright on the network would be violated on a large scale, from the song to the entire film, argues the CDU MEP Axel Voss, who advocates reform and who drafted the text. "The damage is immense." This is the fundamental question: "Do we always want to know the badogue copyright applied in digital?"
And what arguments conflict?
Opponents, for example, see disadvantages for publishers in the Auxiliary Copyright Act. Publishers BDZV and VDZ, however, say on the ground that "the protection of free and independent journalism in the digital world" is an ancillary law on copyright – Given the market power of the giants of the world. Internet, it needed reliable rules.
Critics also claim that the text of the law provides for a LINK TAX 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. It states that the law should not discourage individual users from "the legitimate legitimate use and non-commercial 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 contradicts the European Commission: affected by the proposed rules are only platforms that "large quantities" of protected works are spreading.
In the end, there is a danger of censorship, worries opponents. 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 a change in the rule of law tasks in the private sector, which I find extremely questionable." According to him, the download filters also carry risks of misuse: "Once the technology is there, it can be" powered "with each parameter. On the other hand, MP 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 copyright recognition software. .
What does Parliament have to say now?
Opponents under the deputies prevailed a vote 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 comes back in September Strasbourg on the table. Members could then apply all sorts of changes – or completely reject the text. Then the reform would have failed for the moment.
Source link
