Originally posted by cdtm
YouTube video
Lolol what a shithole.
Re: That's it for the EU and the internet
Originally posted by cdtm
YouTube video
You need to understand that making and obeying law are two different things.
It'll work just as "well" as keeping Time Immemorial away from KMC.
Originally posted by shiv
Please quote the precise point or points of policy you disagree with.
Paragraphs 1-3, multiple parts. Let's start with just the first sentence of Paragraph 1:
Paragraph 1
Sentence 1, part 1:
"Information society service providers that store and provide to the public access to large amounts of works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users..."
The concept of “information society service provider” is too broad and would cover an almost unlimited number of online services. The Commission appears to have chosen this complicated wording as a way of not saying “hosting provider,” an activity protected by the E-Commerce Directive. “Hosting” covers any service (“cloud” storage, hosting a website, hosting a blog, etc).
The wording “store and provide to the public access” implies that the intermediary is a publisher (a very important label when it comes to litigation) and would therefore be liable for all infringements of all laws that may be committed by their users. This is confirmed by recital 38. This would overturn the approach taken in EU for the entire history of the internet and abandon international best practice. The impact of making internet hosting providers liable for activities about which they have no knowledge would be huge. It would, in application, require both extensive monitoring of everything uploaded to the internet and deletion of any communications that generated a legal risk for the provider (with copyright signatures used to identity intellectual property that is protected including a robust system of updating these signatures when items fall in and out of protection statues). This would result in a huge “chilling effect” on freedom of expression, and massive private censorship, undermining innovation, and competition. No one wants the fines and the end users/creators of such content do not want to be prosecuted.
Web hosting is the storage of content with the purpose of this being available to the public. It is clear from CJEU case law that this is the settled legal understanding of “hosting” in the e-Commerce Directive (C-360/10, for example). The attempted redefinition of this activity in this Directive (most notably in recital 38) seeks to overturn or ignore such case law.
Paragraph 1
Sentence 1, part 2:
...shall, in cooperation with rightholders, take measures to ensure the functioning of agreements concluded with rightholders for the use of their works or other subject-matter or to prevent the availability on their services of works or other subject-matter identified by rightholders through the cooperation with the service providers.
The Commission does not mention what types of agreements it is referring to, nor is it clear which type(s) of provider are covered by this notion The Commission proposal completely overturns the copyright enforcement system. Instead of respecting the clarifications and and requirements of Court rulings, the proposal rejects them completely. The requirements set by the CJEU are specifically designed to end and prevent infringements in a way which respects all rights – fundamental human rights, commercial rights and protection of intellectual property (IP) rights – to an appropriate degree. This proposal would turn the established approach on its head.
More problematic still, the wording appears to be little more than a description of Google’s ContentID filtering system, moving it from an expost to an exante approach and broadening its scope both in terms of type of breach being addressed and the nature of the files (photo, text, video). In this system, legality – in the context of legitimate parody, education or quotation – is irrelevant. Worse still, the measure could be understood as skirting around the edges of the CJEU ruling by legitimising and mandating the use of the AudibleMagic filtering software, which the Court of Justice explicitly said could not be mandated by law.
The problems with ContentID (although the same analysis would apply to similar use of
similar technologies) has been extensively researched by EDRi member Electronic Frontier Foundation:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/03/youtubes-content-id-c-ensorship-problem
https://edri.org/files/copyright/copyright_proposal_article13.pdf