Empire's End
or
The Tale of a Tourist
This is just a quick note to ask you to vote against the UK government's proposed Brexit agreement tomorrow.
I think you already know its deep problems - not least the fact that it simply delays, but cannot prevent, a No Deal Brexit, which seems favoured by extreme Brexiters. But I would also like to urge you to talk to other Labour MPs who seem willing to vote for it in the mistaken belief that it is what their constituents want.
As you know, the present deal will result in a massive hit to the UK economy, which will affect the poorest and most vulnerable sectors of society. It will lead to workers' rights being eroded, along with crucial environmental protections being jettisoned. Throw in the fact that a US trade deal will see much of the NHS privatised, and the cost of drugs greatly increased, and it is hard to understand how any Labour MP could contemplate voting for this terrible deal. I hope you can help them to see this.
As you know, on Wednesday there is a plenary vote on the proposed reforms of the EU copyright system. I am asking you to ensure that today's vibrant Internet is not undermined by Article 13. Although this is presented as necessary in order to force Internet companies to license material on their sites, the framing is wrong on several counts.
Copyright already allows artists and companies to demand that infringing material is taken down from sites or licensed. There is no need to extend copyright by making licensing mandatory. The main consequence of compulsory licensing is that major sites will bring in upload filters – it is the only way they can track what is uploaded in order to pay licensing fees, and to block any material that is not licensed.
Such upload filters will easily morph into instruments of censorship. Moreover, upload filters are always imperfect, and will inevitably block legal material. As a journalist, I've written about recent cases of upload filter failures in the EU:
http://copybuzz.com/copyright/article-13-even-worse-than-the-us-dmca-takedown-system/
The net effect of upload filters will be to dissuade European citizens from using the Internet creatively, and turning them into passive consumers. This will represent an impoverishment of European culture both online and offline.
I would therefore urge you to support amendments to Article 13 that do not make licensing – and thus upload filters – mandatory.
It aims to make platforms accountable, but not all platforms. Article 13 needs to be seen in conjunction with article 2 of the draft directive.
Only those that are active, so that optimize the content posted online.
Any platform is covered by Article 13 if one of their main purposes is to give access to copyright protected content to the public.
It cannot make any difference if it is a “small thief” or a “big thief” as it should be illegal in the first place.
Small platforms, even a one-person business, can cause as much damage to right holders as big companies, if their content is spread (first on this platform and possibly within seconds throughout the whole internet) without their consent.
In view of such a small business potentially causing such a tremendous damage to right holders, the compromise text does not foresee any exemption for SMESs.
However, the text provides safeguards that will benefit SMEs. Measures must be appropriate and proportionate.
no general filtering measures are included in Article 13. The text even emphasizes that this practice is prohibited
does not threaten freedom of expression or fundamental rights.
The meme, mash-up, the gifs are already allowed and included in an existing exception and will still be after the adoption of this directive (article 5, directive 2001/29/EC
3. Member States may provide for exceptions or limitations to the rights provided for in Articles 2 and 3 in the following cases: (k) use for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche
As a journalist who has been covering the Internet for 24 years, I am deeply concerned about the proposed copyright directive that is currently working its way through the EU legislative process. I am writing to ask you to alert your colleagues on the JURI committee to the deep problems with two sections in particular: Article 13, and Article 11. Both need to be removed.
Article 13 will require sites with a large number of user uploads either to license everything they make publicly available, or proactively to stop copyright material being posted. The first option is not practical when dealing with a fragmented market where there is no central licensing agency. And even where such an agency exists, it will not cover every possible upload.
The second option requires sites to prevent unauthorised copyright material from being posted. The only way to achieve this is through a general filtering mechanism. Unless every file is checked when it is uploaded, and compared against a database of copyright material, there is simply no way to know whether it infringes. The fact that a recent JURI version of the directive's text says "The implementation of measures by service providers should not consist in a general monitoring obligation" is irrelevant, because there is literally no other way of achieving the stated aim.
The EU's e-commerce law specifically forbids EU countries from imposing "a general obligation on providers... to monitor the information which they transmit or store." But legal issues aside, there are technical problems too. The upload filters required to block copyright material will be, of necessity, automated – the volume of uploads makes this inevitable. But it is impossible to create a system that encapsulates the subtleties of EU copyright law: even courts have problems navigating their way through this extremely complex field.
As a result, upload filters will be imperfect. The future financial risks of allowing copyright material to be posted means that upload filters will always err on the side of caution, and over-block. This will lead to legitimate material being blocked by mistake. It will have a chilling effect on public domain materials, criticism, parody, and popular Internet memes that frequently draw on copyright material. In short, it will greatly impoverish the EU's Internet, and lead to a massive assault on citizens' freedom of expression. Since licensing is impractical, and upload filters cannot work, Article 13 must be dropped completely.
Despite claims to the contrary, this will not harm the copyright industry. Research carried out on behalf of the European Commission at a cost of €370,000 suggests that unauthorized uploads are not a pressing problem: "In general, the results do not show robust statistical evidence of displacement of sales by online copyright infringements."
The other problematic part of the proposed directive is Article 11, which would introduce an ancillary copyright for news publications. As you doubtless know, this has been tried twice, in Germany and Spain, and failed both times to achieve its aim of revivifying newspapers. It's not hard to see why. The snippets that appear in search engines direct more readers to news sites: they are beneficial for publishers. Trying to force Internet companies to pay for the privilege of sending more traffic to news sites makes no sense. It is no wonder that Google refused to do so in Spain, with serious negative consequences for publishers there.
Some publishers argue that sites are using material from their news publications without payment. There are two situations here. If large amounts of text is being taken, those sites can be sued for copyright infringement under existing laws. If only snippets are taken, as is the case for Google, then this is not infringement, since it is simply using those snippets to direct interested readers to the original article. The snippets are not substitutes for the full text, but tasters encouraging further exploration. In neither case is there any need for additional copyright.
However, if Article 11's "snippet tax" is brought in, it will inevitably lead to fewer links being made to news sites. The public will be less well-informed at a time when misinformation is a growing problem, while publishers will lose visitors. The actual monies from the tax are likely to be small. The German experience shows that very little money is collected in practice. To summarise, then, an ancillary copyright is not necessary, and if brought in will be harmful to the public, with only a tiny benefit for publishers. As with Article 13, Article 11, too, needs to be removed.
Finally, a quick word about Article 3. The idea behind this – to allow text and data mining (TDM) of resources – is excellent. This is a crucial area for things like artificial intelligence, and the EU desperately needs legal certainty here. However, as it currently stands, TDM would not be available to most companies unless they pay additional fees. This makes no sense at a time when the EU is rightly trying to encourage digital startups in the region. TDM will be vital for many services and products, and if companies cannot be assured that they will be able to use this approach when they grow, but will be penalised for being successful, then they will simply set up elsewhere. That is hardly a win for the EU.
The basic rule for TDM is simple: the right to read a text is also the right to mine a text. This means Article 3 needs to be amended to allow any companies, of any size or age, to carry out TDM on texts to which they have legal access.
I apologise for the length of this email, but the topics are complex and important. However, the actions required are very simple: Articles 13 and 11 must be dropped, and Article 3 must be changed. If these amendments are not passed, the effect on the Internet in the EU will be very serious, both in terms of harming the rights of EU citizens, and of discouraging innovation by startups in this region. I therefore ask you to urge your colleagues to make the changes I have suggested.
Thank you for your help in this vital matter.
I am writing to you in connection with the votes on the EU Withdrawal Bill. I am very concerned about the destructive effect that a hard Brexit will have on this country, its economy and particularly those who are already struggling to make ends meet.
As every credible analysis shows, a hard Brexit will cause huge damage to the UK economy, and inevitably lead to an impoverishment of the vast majority of people in this country. For those who have little, that will be a serious blow.
To avoid that, I would urge you to vote for Amendments 1 & 2 (to continue in a customs union), Amendment 51 (to participate in Europe’s economic area) and Amendment 19 (to allow for a proper and meaningful vote in Parliament on any Brexit deal).
The votes on these amendments represent a unique opportunity to minimise the damage caused by Brexit and the UK government's incompetent handling of the negotiations. Please take full advantage of it for the sake of those most vulnerable in our society.
Posts
All Comments
To the extent possible under law,
glyn moody
has waived all copyright and related or neighbouring rights to
this work.
This work is published from:
United Kingdom.
