News Publishers Without Guidance on Payment for the Use of Content on the Internet – Copyright

The European Parliament decided on Thursday to reject the draft negotiating mandate on the Copyright Directive and to send it back to plenary. This means that the bill will be discussed again and improved, but this time among all MPs in September. This procedure is rare, because the draft EP position is prepared by its specialized committees (in this case the Legal Committee), it is then adopted in plenary and becomes the basis for negotiations with the Council of the European Parliament. EU (Ministers of the Member States). In the end, the joint decision and the final form of the law are played out in the so-called trilogues, or negotiations between the representatives of the three institutions: the EP and the Council – as decision makers, with the participation of the Commission European Parliament, which prepared the initial draft law. Now, however, it happened differently and the process was more transparent. But also much more political, since the amendments will be reported not only by specialized deputies

Read also: European Parliament against Internet piracy

Below, the following article

Intimidation of deputies [19659006-IregretthatthemajorityofMEPsintheEPdidnotsupportourpositionHoweverthisispartofthedemocraticprocessWewillcomebacktothisissueinSeptembertoreflectmorecloselyandtrytoallaypeople'sconcernsandsimultaneouslyupdatethecopyrightrulesinthemoderndigitalenvironment-saidtherapporteurAxelVossGermanChristianDemocrats

. the debate is not over yet. And his supporters hope that they lost the battle, but not the war. And they call for tonic tones. – Prior to this vote, a lot of misleading information was broadcast. We do not accept the extent of abuse and intimidation we have faced in recent days. We will defend the autonomy of the European Parliament and the right of Members to work without being intimidated – said Udo Bullman, leader of the European Social Democrats, defender of the directive

The directive did not deal with the conflict between the freedom of the users and the rights of the big companies. On the contrary. In this conflict on one side of the barricade, there were freedom advocates and companies such as Google or Facebook. And after the second artists and publishers

Controversial Articles 11 and 13

The directive must be a fundamental change in law after 16 years, in fact, by adapting copyright solutions to the reality of the digital world. The project presented by the European Commission had an important record for newspaper publishers. Article 11 of the Directive provides for the grant of neighboring rights to publishers, that is to say, de facto, the same rights as authors in the field of multiplication and advertising. their work. This would give them an effective tool for demanding compensation from Google News web portals or search engines, providing the reader with free newspaper content for which he would otherwise have to pay. This does not appeal to portals that live from the aggregation published by other works. The recipe also raised concerns that ordinary users would have to pay to quote or link the content to others. There was even talk of a tax on links. However, this is not true, because only a portal that profits from such publications should pay. There is also no restriction to the flow of information: the publication would be allowed as much as possible, provided that this broker pays the publisher providing the original content.

Article 13 is even more controversial: we must filter the content provided by users. to the violation of the right of author. YouTube-like websites should check if the videos uploaded to the site contain copyrighted material. Opponents of this solution call it preventive censorship. Internet companies are also opposed to this, as it would require them to develop appropriate technology solutions, and then assume responsibility for a possible violation of these rights.

Another situation, an inaccurate comparison