Advertisements

What to do against Article 13?

16 posts / 0 new
Super Member
<a href="/en/translator/achampnator" class="userpopupinfo username" rel="user1317347">Achampnator</a>
Joined: 30.11.2016
Pending moderation
Member
<a href="/en/translator/zarya-moonwolf" class="userpopupinfo username" rel="user1399875">Zarya Moonwolf</a>
Joined: 22.10.2018

I'm not from the EU and also it's a petition it won't do jack shit sorry

Super Member
<a href="/en/translator/%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80-%D0%BC%D1%83%D1%85%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2" class="userpopupinfo username" rel="user1365992">Alexander Frei</a>
Joined: 23.12.2017

I am from Russia and we have laws against our civil rights. Of course I will sign this petition. I understand u. That's okay?

Editor Slim Shady
<a href="/en/translator/jethro-paris" class="userpopupinfo username" rel="user1225135">Jethro Paris</a>
Joined: 05.11.2014

The repercussions will not only affect Europe. And it shows that you have just discovered article 13, even the boss of Youtube and Google encourages people to sign.

In any case, in my opinion, this article will do nothing at all. For the simple reason that the Internet is far too large. Good luck setting up this copyright system on the trillions of pages on the Internet. Just for Youtube that would be impossible.

I still signed it.

Guest
Guest

This bloody directive is one damn piece of waffle-flavoured stodge. I could barely skim through it. The waft of corporate bullshit made my eyes water, despite more than a decade of practice poring over abstruse computer manuals, electronic components datasheets and social work related bits of the bloody convoluted French law.

Since I've got practically unlimited free time, I decided to read it aloud and share my impressions. I might also pulverize the record of the longest wall of text ever published here, and make my incompetence in law matters and some limits of my intellect plain for everyone to see.
But what the heck, let's have some fun.

A first glance at these 32 pages tells me they consist in 3 main sections.

The first 11 pages are a rationale of the decisions leading to the formulation of the directive. That's the part supposed to convince dummies like you and me this new law was elaborated with great care and is in our best interest.

Second part is a preamble that is supposed to justify the legality of the new directive. It's perfectly abstruse, given the level of detail, number of subjects addressed, technical legal jargon and numerous references to other pieces of legal waffle. It has no normative value anyway. If I'm not mistaken, the bits concerning sites like LT are on page 20 in points (38) to (40) (mostly).

Third part is the actual normative text, starting on page 23.
Again, most of it has nothing to do with LT.
Title IV (MEASURES TO ACHIEVE A WELL-FUNCTIONING MARKETPLACE FOR COPYRIGHT) gets to the crux of the matter, on page 29. That's where we meet our beloved article 13.

Now for what I made of it:

Amusingly enough, the first three pages are all about allowing access to a broader range of works (the ones that are not submitted to copyrights, as it turns out). And the charity of free access to copyrighted works for the blind and other disabled persons too. And students and other nice people. And promotion of culture, diversity, blah blah blah. They could have added international friendship and global world peace, but that would have sounded a bit like Commie propaganda, I guess.

Now we're down to page 4. There you find a nice list of references to other bits of European law, such as "Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market (OJ L 84, 20.3.2014, p. 72–98)".
My little birds tell me this must have something to do with the matter at hand, yet for some reason I don't feel like gobbling another few dozen pages of bumf.

A bit more about that on page 5:
Online distribution of copyright-protected content is by essence cross-border. Only mechanisms decided at European level could ensure a well-functioning marketplace for the distribution of works and other subject-matter.
Ah, a well functioning marketplace. Practically synonymous with global happiness, right?

Now we're down to page 7 and we seem to get at last the three major objectives of this new law:
(i) ensuring wider access to content, -> yeah, I think I got it. As long as there is no money to be made, right ?
(ii) adapting exceptions to digital and cross-border environment -> yeah, the usual subsidiarity chitchat
(iii) achieving a well-functioning marketplace for copyright. -> Only logical in this "social market economy" of ours Teeth smile

Then on page 8 we learn about possible options likely to impact our merry community:
Use of copyright-protected content by information society services storing and giving access to large amounts of works and other subject-matter uploaded by their users: -> yep, that's LT for you, as EU waffle defines it. An ISSSAGATLAOWAOSMUBTU, or perhaps ISSSGALAWaOSMUTU for brevity.
Option 1 consisted in the organisation of a stakeholder dialogue. This approach was rejected as it would have a limited impact on the possibility for rightholders to determine the conditions of use of their works and other subject-matter. -> Mmm... apparently the right of the rightholders is of the essence...
The chosen option (Option 2) goes further and provides for an obligation for certain service providers to put in place appropriate technologies and fosters the conclusion of agreements with right holders. -> so LT will have the obligation to negotiate the right to host copyrighted contents with whomever owns the rights, *and* to put "certain technologies" in place. Or, alternatively, to prevent access to copyrighted material. Oh well, in case LT refuses to cough up, I suppose we will still be able to enjoy the work of LT-based poets, provided they don't sue LT for copyright infringement.

And that's it for the commoners. The rationale leaves us stuck on that "appropriate technologies" cliffhanger.

No problem, let's pretend we're all law experts and jump to page 20 to dig into section 2, points (38) to (40).

(38)
society service providers [...] performing an act of communication to the public [...] are obliged to conclude licensing agreements with rightholder -> Ok, ok, got it. You'd better cough up, you LT guys, or else...

information society service providers storing and providing access to the public to large amounts of copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users should take appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure protection of works or other subject-matter, such as implementing effective technologies. -> Aha... Basically LT should make sure every man an his dog can't copy-paste lyrics for free. Good luck with that, guys. Last time I checked, any nerd and his lama could grab any piece of text off an Internet page, with very modest knowledge of HTML and JavaScript.
I might have missed some obvious point, but for me this part of the law is just a pipe dream.

As a side note, siphoning a video or an audio file is not really a problem either, but that's no concern for LT, which has no direct video / audio storage (only links to vids stored on Youtube and suchlike).
No wonder Google and friends are yelling blue murder. Imagine if they had to pay for the petabytes of illegal contents on Youtube. Not to mention the intolerable attack against free speech, odious censorship and menace to civilization as we know it the passing of this law would represent, of course.

(39) is a huge abstruse circumlocution about automatic contents recognition. This obviously doesn't apply to text (you don't need artificial intelligence to recognize a piece of text, a plain comparison is quite enough), but rather to music or video. What Google does, identifying a song automatically in a Youtube homemade vid, for instance.
This doesn't concern LT directly, again LT doesn't store any video, just links to Youtube and such.
However, I suppose this law would force Youtube to prevent the use of copyrighted materials from other web sites, basically blocking all access to embedded videos. The feature already exists, that law would make it mandatory. You could still have links on LT but couldn't watch the vids from within an LT page.

(40) says, assuming I got it right, that LT-like sites should also make the lists of copyrighted material available to the authors (so that they can beg the alms major distributors owe them). Again, no big deal.

That makes article 13 pretty straightforward, as far as LT is concerned. Cough up or close shop. And get cracking on some automated system allowing to list every piece of copyrighted material you host.

Actually, I don't see any "censorship" in this. Just a piece of successful lobbying from the majors. They want their dough back, and by dint of pestering and brown-nosing European representatives, they are likely to get it eventually.

The stroke of genius is to make the hosting sites like LT responsible for handling all the costly and tedious work of telling on the naughty copyright infringers (i.e. you and me, each time we steal some lyrics off the Internet. Booh!).

For now a major has to whine about each individual piece of copyrighted material stolen from them.
If this law is passed, they will be able to threaten to shutdown any site that does not provide them with a detailed report of all the thefts committed by their users.
Doubleplusgood for them, I'd say.

Is LT rich enough to pay the toll? Probably not as a standalone entity, but I guess MusixMatch might.
Can LT tell on naughty copyright infringers? Yes of course, that's another of the many benefits of the discreet MusixMatch buyout.

Will MusixMatch decide LT is worth keeping alive if all these new regulation incur a significant cost? No idea.
I suppose it will all boil down to some very subtle cost-benefit computations I have no clue about.
If not, well, one of these days this merry community might simply vanish in a puff of many-coloured smoke.
Serves 'em right, after all. Filthy thieves, the lot of 'em.

At any rate, I don't think there is a damn thing we can do about it. Capitalism has long stolen my virginity.
Let's hope the monsters that roam the Internet won't inadvertently step on us, and enjoy LT while it lasts, shall we?

Super Member
<a href="/en/translator/achampnator" class="userpopupinfo username" rel="user1317347">Achampnator</a>
Joined: 30.11.2016

Thanks for this Summary hope that these monsters won't do this it would be a shame if that happens cause I love this page too much that I now want to scratch it from my possibilities to spend my time

<a href="/en/translator/swedens0ur" class="userpopupinfo username" rel="user1334503">swedensour</a>
Joined: 09.04.2017

I'm in Australia, but I signed it

Super Member
<a href="/en/translator/achampnator" class="userpopupinfo username" rel="user1317347">Achampnator</a>
Joined: 30.11.2016

Australia is also Europe so it's also your business

<a href="/en/translator/swedens0ur" class="userpopupinfo username" rel="user1334503">swedensour</a>
Joined: 09.04.2017
Achampnator a écrit :

Australia is also Europe so it's also your business

Australia isn't in Europe, and we generally aren't affected by things the EU does. Our government looks up to America quite a bit, though. If anything, I'm more concerned about America's influence on Australia.

Super Member
<a href="/en/translator/dora-mateescu" class="userpopupinfo username" rel="user1372867">Dora Ivanova</a>
Joined: 19.02.2018

I'm from Belarus and we have laws against our civil rights. We are the only European country that has the death penalty and most of the of the trials are fake, like the trial of the two boys convicted by the terrorism attack in the metro of Minsk. I knew onw of them and he wasn't but Lukashenko wanted guilty so the condemned these too poor boys, no one in Belarus believed that they were the authors. Lukashenko ordered their execution. The executed executions are not notified until a week later and the family can not bury the dead, it is the State that buries it, they do not give the body to the family. Of course I will sign this petition!

Guest
Guest
swedensour schrieb:
Achampnator schrieb:

Australia is also Europe so it's also your business

Australia isn't in Europe, and we generally aren't affected by things the EU does. Our government looks up to America quite a bit, though. If anything, I'm more concerned about America's influence on Australia.

In 1999, Australia confirmed by referendum its commitment to a monarchical political system.

The Australian Monarchist League ensures the preservation of the constitutional monarchy in Australia. The movement recognizes the ruler of Australia, currently Elizabeth II, as the permanent protection of the Constitution. The movement also defines Australian citizenship in allegiance to the Crown
#wikipedia

<a href="/en/translator/swedens0ur" class="userpopupinfo username" rel="user1334503">swedensour</a>
Joined: 09.04.2017

That's great but that doesn't mean Australia is in Europe. Canada is in the commonwealth too, and they're not in Europe either. Also the british government doesn't control Australia. But I'm out of this thread because I'm not about to fight with people on the internet. I just tried to support your cause./

Guest
Guest

i dont have say this ^^ i just say whats i have read ^^ , and thank you to support us ^^ sorry if yu have take this in bad way , but that was not my meaning

<a href="/en/translator/swedens0ur" class="userpopupinfo username" rel="user1334503">swedensour</a>
Joined: 09.04.2017
Romaric Delecourt a écrit :

i dont have say this ^^ i just say whats i have read ^^ , and thank you to support us ^^ sorry if yu have take this in bad way , but that was not my meaning

Hey it's alright, no worries. We are under the commonwealth but on a day to day basis they don't affect us at all. Many Australians are campaigning for full democracy, though. No hard feelings, sorry if I seemed harsh. Regular smile

Super Member
<a href="/en/translator/natur-provence" class="userpopupinfo username" rel="user1289099">Natur Provence</a>
Joined: 24.04.2016

This draft of a EU-Directive (law) is made under the influence of copy-owners who do not want that things under their copyright are uploaded into the internet. This seems understandable, especially if one considers that others as YouTube, some YT-channels, Google or even Lyrics Translate earn money with such copyrighted contents and the copyright owners do not participate.
The idea is that such Internet profit oriented websites shall prevent the upload of contents which violate the copyrights of others. This is pure commerce and capitalism.
The question is if such a severe regulation as drafted is really necessary. I have also my doubts.
YouTube and all others do not stimulate copyright violations. They take some profit of violations by others. A copyright owner should seek to get idemnified by the person who has infringed the copyright.

Super Member
<a href="/en/translator/natur-provence" class="userpopupinfo username" rel="user1289099">Natur Provence</a>
Joined: 24.04.2016

Congratulations, my dear. I know also what means to read und try to understand the EU-Directives- it is nearly impossible and thank you for having done this great work!

You cite: A bit more about that on page 5:
"Online distribution of copyright-protected content is by essence cross-border. Only mechanisms decided at European level could ensure a well-functioning marketplace for the distribution of works and other subject-matter."
This is ridicoulous since the directive can only have effect in the European Union. Only if an entity has its seat in the EU one can make it responsible to filter.
..
"Mmm... apparently the right of the rightholders is of the essence..." --> you hittet the mark. It is the result of a very hard working lobby of copyrightowners, better: their representatives like Sacem.

"As a side note, siphoning a video or an audio file is not really a problem either, but that's no concern for LT, which has no direct video / audio storage (only links to vids stored on Youtube and suchlike)" --> I am not sure about that: I one goes to LT you do not see a link but a video and it is not necessary to go to YT to see it, you can see it in LT.

You: "However, I suppose this law would force Youtube to prevent the use of copyrighted materials from other web sites, basically blocking all access to embedded videos. The feature already exists, that law would make it mandatory. You could still have links on LT but couldn't watch the vids from within an LT page." --> IMO correct, but.... (see before)
An other problem for LT I see are the copy-pasted translations with giving the source.

You: "Capitalism has long stolen my virginity." --> very good

Add new comment