Europe just passed sweeping new copyright rules that Big Tech hates

[Carjosse]

CNN article here.

Article 13 has passed:

London (CNN Business)Europe is changing the internet again.

Lawmakers have approved a sweeping overhaul of copyright rules, dealing a blow to major tech companies that argued the changes will be costly and limit free expression.
The European Parliament voted Tuesday to approve fiercely contested changes that make platforms such as YouTube responsible for copyright infringements committed by their users.
Sites like Google News could also be required to pay publishers for using snippets of their content.
The proposal was opposed by tech companies, which warned they would need to build expensive content filters and stop linking to publications. Internet activists argued that the changes would lead to censorship.

Technically what I just did with that quote from the article will now be illegal in the EU. This is the death of the free internet in the EU, hopefully member states are liberal in their interpretations or it gets struck down in the courts but I am sure the forces of the media industry will do everything they can to prevent that. 348 MEPs voted for this, that is 348 people who need to be thrown out of office, preferably through a window. They should also be investigated for corruption, because the only reason I can think anyone would support this law is they are mindbogglingly stupid or they are being bribed. This is what happens when you allow people who know nothing about the internet to legislate on it.

Just give it time and it will come to America, they are already working on it.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

CNN article here.

Article 13 has passed:


Technically would I just did with that quote form the article will now be illegal in the EU. This is the death of the free internet in the EU, hopefully member states are liberal in their interpretations or it gets struck down in the courts but I am sure the forces of the media industry will do everything they can to prevent that. 348 MEPs voted for this, that is 348 people who need to be thrown out of office, preferably through a window. They should also be investigated for corruption, because the only reason I can think anyone would support this law is they are mindbogglingly stupid or they are being bribed. This is what happens when you allow people who know nothing about the internet to legislate on it.

Just give it time and it will come to America, they are already working on it.

A central government passing laws for all the member states to follow, what can go wrong? It should be the reason why everyone should be concerned when the central government passes laws that need to be applied to member countries, provinces and states.

 

[Harshaw]

Just give it time and it will come to America, they are already working on it.

As described, not likely. There are too many First Amendment issues. That's the cool thing about having a robust constitutional Bill of Rights.

 

[Carjosse]

As described, not likely. There are too many First Amendment issues. That's the cool thing about having a robust constitutional Bill of Rights.

They got away with the rollback of net neutrality perfectly fine. What exactly would stop them from passing something similar? All they would have to do is petition the government to make content distributors liable for copyright violations.

The EU also has a constitution and courts, on top of its own member nations, the law will still have to survive that.

 

[Harshaw]

They got away with the rollback of net neutrality perfectly fine.

Net neutrality doesn't have anything to do with copyright, nothing whatsoever. And if there are any First Amendment issues with net neutrality, they run against net neutrality.

Nobody "got away" with anything. Net neutrality was an FCC rule; it wasn't even a law. It was rescinded in exactly the same way it was implemented.

What exactly would stop them from passing something similar? All they would have to do is petition the government to remove the fair use portion of copyright law and make content distributors liable for copyright violations.

OK, that's not how it works. Fair use isn't a regulation. It's codified law. It can't just be "petitioned" away.

But even if it were, Fair Use is in part a First Amendment doctrine.

 

[Carjosse]

Net neutrality doesn't have anything to do with copyright, nothing whatsoever. And if there are any First Amendment issues with net neutrality, they run against net neutrality.

Nobody "got away" with anything. Net neutrality was an FCC rule; it wasn't even a law. It was rescinded in exactly the same way it was implemented.




OK, that's not how it works. Fair use isn't a regulation. It's codified law. It can't just be "petitioned" away.

But even if it were, Fair Use is in part a First Amendment doctrine.

Without net neutrality ISPs can block or paywall any content they want, including copyrighted content they see an infringing without having to go through any kind of legal process.

You can always change the law. All it will take is some donations from big media companies.

 

[Harshaw]

Without net neutrality ISPs can block or paywall any content they want, including copyrighted content they see an infringing without having to go through any kind of legal process.

And being private entities, it would be their First Amendment right to do so.

But net neutrality still doesn't have anything to do with copyright.

You can always change the law. All it will take is some donations from big media companies.

As I said, Fair Use is in part a First Amendment doctrine. Changing the law doesn't change that. The First Amendment supersedes legislation.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

Something is going to give on this because it will be logistically impossible.

 

[Carjosse]

And being private entities, it would be their First Amendment right to do so.

But net neutrality still doesn't have anything to do with copyright.




As I said, Fair Use is in part a First Amendment doctrine. Changing the law doesn't change that. The First Amendment supersedes legislation.

What would the first amendment have to do it? Copyright is between private entities. It violates the spirit of it, but doesn't violate the word of it. After all it is the media organization going after Google or similar.

 

[Carjosse]

Something is going to give on this because it will be logistically impossible.

From Google's announcement it seems like it will be up to the courts and individual states to determine those provisions. It could turn out perfectly fine, but who knows with politicians love of money.

 

[Harshaw]

What would the first amendment have to do it? Copyright is between private entities. It violates the spirit of it, but doesn't violate the word of it.

No, it's not. Copyright is legal protection provided by the government.

Fair use is a doctrine which was first articulated by the Supreme Court for, in part, free speech reasons.

 

[Carjosse]

No, it's not. Copyright is legal protection provided by the government.

Fair use is a doctrine which was first articulated by the Supreme Court for, in part, free speech reasons.

But it is owned by a private entity so certainly they should control what they do with it no? Just like how you say an ISP can control what you do with its service. Why could they not expand that legal protection by making content hosts and distributors liable for content?

 

[Harshaw]

But it is owned by a private entity so certainly they should control what they do with it no? Just like how you say an ISP can control what you do with its service. Why could they not expand that legal protection by making content hosts and distributors liable for content?

Because the host isn't the infringer. Whoever created the video which violates copyright is.

A movie theater is not liable for copyright infringements in the films they show. A radio station is not liable for copyright infringements in songs they play. The creators are.

 

[Carjosse]

Because the host isn't the infringer. Whoever created the video which violates copyright is.

A movie theater is not liable for copyright infringements in the films they show. A radio station is not liable for copyright infringements in songs they play. The creators are.

All they would have to do is change the law like the EU did. Essentially make them an accomplice in the infringement.

 

[Roadvirus]

The Euro freaks are not afraid to dole out overreaching laws.

 

[Harshaw]

All they would have to do is change the law like the EU did. Essentially make them an accomplice in the infringement.

First Amendment law is trending toward hosts and social media being public fora. As public fora can't refuse hosting based on content, they can't be held liable for copyright infringement.

 

[ElChupacabra]

What will be more interesting is how much they will be actually able to enforce this on this large of a scale. One can argue YouTube's example is a potential starting point, but this would be much larger since we're talking about content in different formats (print, images).

 

[Erod]

CNN article here.

Article 13 has passed:


Technically what I just did with that quote from the article will now be illegal in the EU. This is the death of the free internet in the EU, hopefully member states are liberal in their interpretations or it gets struck down in the courts but I am sure the forces of the media industry will do everything they can to prevent that. 348 MEPs voted for this, that is 348 people who need to be thrown out of office, preferably through a window. They should also be investigated for corruption, because the only reason I can think anyone would support this law is they are mindbogglingly stupid or they are being bribed. This is what happens when you allow people who know nothing about the internet to legislate on it.

Just give it time and it will come to America, they are already working on it.

This is less about property rights and more about figuring out some damn way to get control of information once again.

Government and media no longer control the message, and it's driving them insane.

Fortunately, this will not work.