I must be misunderstanding this. People are supposed to pay for the privilege of potentially driving traffic to a site that features ads? Is the reasoning that aggregators could just summarize the content and negate the need to go to the original provider?
Knowledge Graph is the target here, not sites which actually drive revenue to the actual site owners. The EU is looking to protect the Internet by ensuring independent websites have protection and legal recourse from abuse by big tech.
They're going after the companies that actually drive the traffic. If Google News, Hacker News, Reddit, etc isn't linking me to your site... I'm never ever ever going to see your site. You still get the page views, ad revenue, etc when someone else sends me to your site, so what's the beef?
I have a pet peeve about articles that post about a legislation, but don't bother posting or linking to the actual wording of the legislation and don't bother calling a lawyer or legal expert to ask what the legislation means.
Article 11:
>1. Member States shall provide publishers of press publications with the rights provided for in Article 2 and Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC so that they may obtain fair and proportionate remuneration for the digital use of their press publications by information society service providers.
>1a. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall not prevent legitimate private and non-commercial use of press publications by individual users.
>2. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall leave intact and shall in no way affect any rights provided for in Union law to authors and other rightholders, in respect of the works and other subject-matter incorporated in a press publication. Such rights may not be invoked against those authors and other rightholders and, in particular, may not deprive them of their right to exploit their works and other subject-matter independently from the press publication in which they are incorporated.
>2a. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall not extend to mere hyperlinks which are accompanied by individual words.
>3. Articles 5 to 8 of Directive 2001/29/EC and Directive 2012/28/EU shall apply mutatis mutandis in respect of the rights referred to in paragraph 1.
>4. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall expire 5 years after the publication of the press publication. This term shall be calculated from the first day of January of the year following the date of publication. The right referred to in paragraph 1 shall not apply with retroactive effect.
>4a. Member States shall ensure that authors receive an appropriate share of the additional revenues press publishers receive for the use of a press publication by information society service providers
Article 13
>1. Without prejudice to Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 2001/29/EC, online content sharing service providers perform an act of communication to the public. They shall therefore conclude fair and appropriate licensing agreements with right holders.
>2. Licensing agreements which are concluded by online content sharing service providers with right holders for the acts of communication referred to in paragraph 1, shall cover the liability for works uploaded by the users of such online content sharing services in line with the terms and conditions set out in the licensing agreement, provided that such users do not act for commercial purposes.
>2a. Member States shall provide that where right holders do not wish to conclude licensing agreements, online content sharing service providers and right holders shall cooperate in good faith in order to ensure that unauthorised protected works or other subject matter are not available on their services. Cooperation between online content service providers and right holders shall not lead to preventing the availability of non-infringing works or other protected subject matter, including those covered by an exception or limitation to copyright.
>2b. Members States shall ensure that online content sharing service providers referred to in paragraph 1 put in place effective and expeditious complaints and redress mechanisms that are available to users in case the cooperation referred to in paragraph 2a leads to unjustified removals of their content. Any complaint filed under such mechanisms shall be processed without undue delay and be subject to human review. Right holders shall reasonably justify their decisions to avoid arbitrary dismissal of complaints. Moreover, in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC, Directive 2002/58/EC and the General Data Protection Regulation, the cooperation shall not lead to any identification of individual users nor the processing of their personal data. Member States shall also ensure that users have access to an independent body for the resolution of disputes as well as to a court or another relevant judicial authority to assert the use of an exception or limitation to copyright rules.
>3. As of [date of entry into force of this directive], the Commission and the Member States shall organise dialogues between stakeholders to harmonise and to define best practices and issue guidance to ensure the functioning of licensing agreements and on cooperation between online content sharing service providers and right holders for the use of their works or other subject matter within the meaning of this Directive. When defining best practices, special account shall be taken of fundamental rights, the use of exceptions and limitations as well as ensuring that the burden on SMEs remains appropriate and that automated blocking of content is avoided
What the article gets wrong
So under Article 11 you can still link to news sites and provide a summary of them (see 2a) so services like google news are in no way affected despite what the article says.
Nothing in the wording of section 13 requires providers like youtube to filter every upload for copyright infringement. It merely says that content sharing providers like youtube have to work with copyright holders to prevent copyright infringement. Which they already do. Under 2b it actually increases people's protection by requiring fast and effective human review when your content is unjustifiably removed.
If people have problems with this legislation fine. That said, let's make sure that the criticism is based on the facts, and the wording of the legislation rather than hysteria and speculation.
The website you link to doesn't explain anything with evidence either. All I see are assertions. For example
> In addition, all but very few sites (those both tiny and very new) will need to do everything in their power to prevent anything from ever going online that may be an unauthorised copy of a work that a rightsholder has registered with the platform. They will have no choice but to deploy upload filters, which are by their nature both expensive and error-prone.
Why will they have no choice but to deploy upload filters? Why are new/tiny sites exempt?
You clearly don't see the implications of the laws at all. They demand prelicensing and that it includes terms of liability. Yeah it doesn't require an upload filter - if they don't mind paying blank checks! There is no way to tell automatically whose copyright everything belongs to! The law makes assumptions it will be easy. The law is an ass. There is no reasonable way to know ahead of time what will fit. So the way to go is guilty until proven innocent leonine contracts with /everyone/ and if not undefined penalties whee!
>So under Article 11 you can still link to news sites and provide a summary of them (see 2a)
2a says that the hyperlink can be accompanied by individual words. That's not a summary.
>Nothing in the wording of section 13 requires providers like youtube to filter every upload for copyright infringement.
It merely says that platforms have to enter into licensing agreements with rights holds organisations, meaning that those orgs can skin them as much as they want. Why? Because if an agreement isn't reached and a court finds that the steps taken by the platform are insufficient then the platform is held liable for the copyright infringement.
You can guess what the court will think are sufficient steps for a platform to take. (Hint: it's the upload filters.)
My rough eyeballing of this seems to hint more of an extension to dcma: but instead of a takedown, the owner/author can do a money grab instead?
Isn't this already the mess that YouTube has, with copyright claims taking a good chunk of a video's revenue?
I support these articles, not because they are a good idea, but because i hope the backlash against them will go to the root of the issue, the concept of intelectual property
I'm amazed that this is neither a "link tax" nor a "meme ban", but marketing in reframing regulating big tech abuses as some sort of attack on everyday users, so effectively that people refer to it as such.
The entire thing reads like its sole purpose is to protect the business model of organizations such as the MPAA and other similar middle-man organizations.
It pretty directly says that platforms must enter into agreements with rights holder organizations if they want to be absolved of liability.
As a user, the consequences are a big net negative.
Additionally it's not about regulating big tech but "protecting copyright" in a way that is completely misguided (as in, actually not likely to increase profits for shareholders) and frequently harmful to users.
