https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/techn...law/ar-BBZlBxp
Quote:
The UK may borrow some aspects of European Union law after Brexit, but the approach to digital copyright won't one of them. Universities and Science Minister Chris Skidmore has indicated that the UK won't implement the EU's Copyright Directive once it's out of the Union on January 31st. This will let British internet companies and users avoid contentious aspects like Article 13 (renamed Article 17), which requires that sites check all uploaded content for copyrighted material.
|
Quote:
Companies like Google also campaigned against Article 11, a segment that required news aggregators to pay for any quotes that went beyond very short excerpts. The decision against implementing the Copyright Directive will let internet giants carry on quoting larger sections of articles in news search results, much to the chagrin of some publishers.
|
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51240785
Quote:
Prime Minister Boris Johnson criticised the law in March, claiming that it was "terrible for the internet".
Google had campaigned fiercely against the changes, arguing they would "harm Europe's creative and digital industries" and "change the web as we know it".
YouTube boss Susan Wojcicki had also warned that users in the EU could be cut off from the video platform.
Kathy Berry, a professional support lawyer at Linklaters, welcomed the government's stance on the law, claiming it will "allow the UK to agree to more tech-friendly copyright provisions in free trade deals with other countries".
|
Background:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44722406
Quote:
On YouTube, for example, 400 hours of video are uploaded every single minute - a volume that can't be managed by real people.
The proposed law allowed for exemptions for small businesses, but everyone else would almost certainly have needed to use an automatic system.
And that is potentially fraught with problems.
YouTube already has a system to scan for copyright infringement in uploaded videos automatically. But there are innumerable examples of the system getting it wrong, including:
- One musician recorded 10 hours of "white noise" - like television static - and got five copyright claims
- In 2012, Daniel Unedo made a video about salad in a field, and had a copyright claim made for the sound of birds chirping
- Popular Irish YouTuber Clisare allowed RTE to use one of her videos - and last week had the original version blocked automatically
This automated copyright system has cost YouTube at least $60m.
Critics of the proposed EU copyright rules predicted that similar expensive, imperfect systems would need to be rolled out by every website if Article 13 became law.
And that could have affected more than just video. There were fears Article 13 could place a ban on memes: those popular, recognisable images (usually from films or TV) with text emblazoned across it to express ideas.
Julia Reda, an MEP from the German Pirate Party, wrote a widely shared blog post attacking the proposal, which she described as "upload filters, shoddily hidden".
"Article 13 applies to every platform with an upload form and every app with a 'post' button," she argued. "These filters are bound to block legitimate acts of expression... because they can't tell apart valid uses like quotation from infringement."
And getting a licence for every type of content that exists from every publisher would be "plainly impossible", she said.
She's not alone. Dozens of influential technology leaders, including inventors of key internet technologies Vint Cerf and Tim-Berners Lee, rallied against Article 13.
|
Posts like this will be ilegal under article 11, to say nothing of 13. (Now renamed 17, to try to rinse off the stink it gathered.)
More at the sources.