[ad_1]
The controversy over the new European copyright rules on the Internet – discussed for years and about to be approved – has sparked new momentum among young people in Portugal after a popular Youtuber how they can cause "the end of the Internet". This was not the first.
In recent months, several creators of the platform online have made similar videos after receiving email Google, owner of YouTube, warned of the consequences of the new digital rules being discussed in the European Union.
"My channel will be deleted and probably will not be the only one," Paulo Borges (better known as "Wuant") said in an 11-minute video in which the artist, famous for publishing humorous videos on the Internet and has more than three million followers, tries to explain what is at stake. Since then, the video has been widely shared on social networks, becoming even a topic of debate in some classes.
An official YouTube source confirms the release of information: "We are spreading these messages so that creators and consumers are aware of the next copyright reform." PÚBLICO tried to contact Paulo Borges, but received no reply before the publication. of this article.
The video however contains inaccuracies.
Will Article 13 Cause the "End of the Internet"?
Article 13 is the most controversial of the proposal. It became known as a "censorship machine" because the original version of the European Commission provided that the services online adopt "effective content recognition technologies" (called "filters" by critics) to monitor all content. The goal was to prohibit content based on mechanisms for detecting parts of copyright files (audio, text or video).
The current wording is different and states that "automatic blocking of content" should be avoided. Previously, there was reference to filters. It is now said that platforms "should enter into fair and adequate licensing agreements with rightholders". The idea is not that YouTube will prevent the presence of content on your platform, but will create agreements to pay its authors. However, this involves monitoring the content and, if necessary, also blocking those for which there is no certainty on the issue of copyright.
The proposal also requires Member States to "put in place effective complaint mechanisms" for deception. "In case of removal of parodic or humorous content, creators can challenge the withdrawal and request that the content be replaced online", We read on a site of the European Parliament on the doubts concerning the new directive.
Part of YouTube's problem with the new directive is that it is "unrealistic". In a recent opinion piece, Susan Wojcicki, CEO of YouTube, explains that "content creators often disagree about who owns the rights to the content," especially in videos that include music, videos, images and texts from different sources. authors.
The company stresses that content ID, a content-identifying feature that scans all YouTube videos, only works when owners of copyright-protected content inform YouTube of content they are entitled. The list is composed of works sent to YouTube by movie studios, music publishers, television producers and other entities, which are notified when an offense is detected.
Will Internet users be sued for an image of Shrek on Twitter?
No. Many critics of the proposal have warned about the possibility that the use of same be banned by the new laws. It is a humorous phenomenon of the Internet, in which an idea is expressed succinctly by the manipulation of an expression, an image or a video.
Earlier in the video, Wuant had suggested that in the future, internet users could be "hacked" by putting an image (such as Disney's Shrek) – that they did not bought, drawn or photographed – on Twitter.
It is something that the European Parliament has already clarified by identifying "cartoons, parodies or pastiche" as an exception, guaranteeing "the reproduction and communication of such content to the public" in the context of freedom of expression.
Has the law already been passed?
The directive is still in the legislative process. In September, the European Parliament adopted a proposal for 17 articles that is currently being negotiated in a closed-door trial called "trilogue". It involves the European Commission, the European Council and the European Parliament. The outcome of these debates will be the subject of new votes in January.
Who approved the law?
Wuant said that "one of the last people to have approved this law" was Portuguese. At a plenary vote, and at the same time as the other deputies, most Portuguese MPs said yes to the latest proposal of the new directive on copyright. Of the 19 Portuguese deputies participating in the September vote, 14 gave a positive vote.
In favor of MEPs elected by the PSD, the PS (with the exception of Francisco Assis) and the CDS, as well as the MP from the Earth Party. The PCP MPs and the Bloc MP were against it.
Only Socialist MPs Ana Gomes and Manuel dos Santos, both from the PS, changed their minds during the previous vote. At the time, Gomes had rejected the proposal and Manuel dos Santos had abstained. This time, they voted for.
S addressing PÚBLICO, Ana Gomes said at the time that she had reservations about the directive, but did not want to ban the document. "What is at stake is very important to stay still, the problem is that the theme is so contradictory, moving and that all points of view are valid," said the MEP. "I am very worried about article 13. It does not talk about filters, but mechanisms that can lead to censorship."
"Important Person" for the law does not know it?
According to Wuant, Axel Voss, rapporteur of the voted text, "had no idea what the law was". Although Voss is not mentioned by name, a photo of the German MEP is shown and Wuant describes him as one of the "most important" people for the new law. The Wuant information comes from an article from site Quartz, for which the Youtuber refers to the description of the video.
What Voss admits in the article, is that he was unaware of rectification number 76 (referring to the retransmission of sports events on the Internet), stating that she was not "adequately supervised" because of a focus elsewhere in the legislation. Correction Number 76 is intended to prevent betting companies from attracting users to their website. the sites with videos of sporting events that are not allowed to film.
Who can share connections?
Wuant warns that Article 11, which provides that the sites journalism can charge for sharing excerpts accompanying the connections for your pages, you can force people to pay to use connections.
The article was born to meet the demand of the press online billing platforms that aggregate journalistic content (for example, Google's).
In the most recent text, the European Parliament specifies that the rights of the press "do not prevent the legitimate, private and non-commercial use of press releases by individual users" and should not be extended to include simple hyperlinks of isolated words. Many critics continue to call the wave article.
Who is against the proposal?
As Wuant points out in his video, Tim Berners-Lee, the British engineer who invented the World Wide Web, also opposes the proposal for the directive, believing that the changes made strengthen content monitoring. . online.
There are also several politicians against, one of the most visible faces being that of Julia Reda, MEP from the German pirate party. For Reda, the current wording is very narrow and could undermine the competitiveness of the private sector of the European Union. Left Bloc MEP Marisa Matias compares the result to "the opening of the Pandora's box" to the "free path to prior censorship".
The Portuguese association D3, which fights for the defense of digital rights and which also opposes the current text, remember on Twitter that the process is far from over and is not just about the youtubers, but also "digital rights organizations, free software, open data ".
Musicians such as Paul McCartney and Ennio Morricone, who wrote letters supporting the proposal, accuse "technopoles" of promoting misinformation campaigns to avoid paying for their works. In August, several artists and associations linked to the creative sector in Portugal also appealed to Portuguese MEPs to defend the proposal. "The campaign of its opponents was deliberately to decentralize the discussion on the essential, seeking to arouse public opinion with ghosts of censorship," reads in the appeal to the European Parliament .
The new proposal, subject to change, will be voted on in January 2019.
[ad_2]
Source link
