EU Parliament Sends ‘Upload Filters’ Back to the Drawing Board

[steven36]

In a plenary vote, the European Parliament said no to the Copyright Directive mandate. This means that the controversial copyright reform proposal will be opened for debate and possible amendments. Pirate Party MEP Julia Reda describes the outcome as a "great success," noting that the protests have worked.

 

 

When the European Commission announced its plans to modernize EU copyright law two years ago, the public barely paid attention. This changed significantly in recent months.

 

Hundreds of thousands of people spoke out against Article 13, which imposes new restrictions on online service providers. At the same time, many people in creative industries stressed the importance of the plans.

 

After the Legal Affairs Committee of the Parliament (JURI) adopted the proposals last month the campaigns continued, targeting today’s plenary vote in the European Parliament.

 

Opponents pressed their representatives to open up the proposal for debate, so significant changes can be made. Supporters, for their part, urged Members of Parliament to keep things the way they are now.

 

This afternoon the plenary voted in opposition of the mandate, with 278 votes in favor and 318 against.

 

The result

 

This means that the proposals, which were agreed on in the JURI committee, will be debated and voted on in Parliament next September where changes can be made to the current text.

 

“Great success: Your protests have worked! The European Parliament has sent the copyright law back to the drawing board,” Pirate Party MEP Julia Reda commented on the outcome.

 

“Rather than proceeding directly to negotiations with the Council, the law will be re-opened for amendments and scheduled for a vote in the September plenary session,” she added.

 

It is worth noting that, while Article 13 is widely referred to as the “upload filter” plan, the word filter doesn’t appear anywhere in the full text of the proposal.

 

In short, the relevant text states that online services are liable for any uploaded content unless they take “effective and proportionate” action to prevent copyright infringements, identified by copyright holders. That also includes preventing these files from being reuploaded.

 

The latter implies some form of hash filtering and continuous monitoring of all user uploads. Several companies, including Google Drive, Dropbox, and YouTube already have these types of filters, but many others don’t.

 

Now that the plenary has voted against the mandate, the proposal and possible alternatives will be discussed in the European Parliament this coming September.

 

In addition to Article 13, there was also considerable pushback against Article 11, which is regularly referred to as the “link tax.” This article will be debated in Parliament.

 

Today’s vote follows aggressive lobbying efforts from both sides. While the door to changes has been opened, copyright reform plans to bridge the ‘value gap’ are still on the table, so we can expect more campaigning during the weeks to come.

 

Source

[Archanus]

2 hours ago, steven36 said:

In addition to Article 13, there was also considerable pushback against Article 11, which is regularly referred to as the “link tax.” This article will be debated in Parliament.

 

These people wants to control Internet, for that reason Wikipedia closed yesterday :S I really hope the votes for the freedom wins  

[steven36]

 

Quote

 

Tech Giants Win a Battle Over Copyright Rules in Europe

 

 

It’s a fight nearly as old as the internet.

On one side are news organizations, broadcasters and music companies that want to control how their content spreads across the web, and to be paid more for it. On the other are tech companies such as Facebook and Google, which argue that they funnel viewers and advertising revenue to media outlets, and free-speech advocates, who say that regulating the internet would set a dangerous precedent and limit access to information.

That battle flared up in Europe on Thursday. Two powerful industries faced off — technology against media, platforms against publishers — in an unusually aggressive lobbying campaign in the European Parliament over a bill that would impose some of the world’s strictest copyright laws, which would have required tech companies to filter out unlicensed content and pay for its use.

On this occasion, tech prevailed; the proposal was voted down.

The decision came amid broader efforts in Brussels to rein in tech giants. European regulators have already brought in tough new privacy rules, and are considering enhancing them. They have hit Silicon Valley companies with hefty antitrust fines, and are investigating them over their tax practices and handling of data. And like elsewhere in the world, they are increasingly skeptical of the argument made by internet companies that they are simply impartial platforms that cannot be held responsible for what is posted on their pages.

“Making content available on the internet does not come without responsibility,” said Eleonora Rosati, an associate professor on intellectual property law at the University of Southampton’s law school in England, who has been tracking the bill. “Rights holders want to control how their content is made available, shared and indexed.”

 

But after a well-coordinated effort by companies including Facebook, Google, Reddit and Wikipedia, as well as a grassroots campaign by backers of an open internet, the European Parliament on Thursday rejected the proposed copyright law. Though lawmakers can still revise the bill and call another vote, the result is a blow to media companies that had believed that, if ever there was a good time to impose tougher rules on tech giants, this was it.

Media businesses like Axel Springer of Germany have become frustrated because even as their content has spread online, it is platforms like YouTube, owned by Google, and Facebook that have grown into advertising powerhouses on the back of the material.

Source

 

 

[DKT27]

Out of all the things that might have been banned due to this, some people were only worried about funny images posted online I think.