UK won't implement Article 13 law

[fjtorres]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/techn...law/ar-BBZlBxp

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.

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

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

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.

[pwalker8]

Gee, I hope you don't cause the site owners to get fined millions of Euros, but probably not. These sort of rulings are designed to extract money out of US tech companies, mobileread is hosted in one of the EU countries isn't it.

[murraypaul]

I don't think that is entirely fair.
Google is probably the single biggest copyright violation facilitator on the internet, and they certainly don't seem that inclined to take action to prevent the use of their platforms for that.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Gee, I hope you don't cause the site owners to get fined millions of Euros, but probably not. These sort of rulings are designed to extract money out of US tech companies, mobileread is hosted in one of the EU countries isn't it.

Thought it was hosted in Canada?

[DiapDealer]

Mobileread is actually hosted in a vault in a volcano on another planet (in the past). So we're good.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Thought it was hosted in Canada?

It used to be. It's now hosted in Switzerland, which is where Alex is from.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

I don't think that is entirely fair.
Google is probably the single biggest copyright violation facilitator on the internet, and they certainly don't seem that inclined to take action to prevent the use of their platforms for that.

Note only that, they / Alphabet lobbied so their OWN activities in illegally copying books are permitted.
They also encourage PDF as default upload for Google Books (which makes book piracy easier).
The big US Tech companies are in three camps:
1) Overly strict and extending Copyright unfairly: Disney and other traditional publishers.
2) Wanting to have no responsibility: Facebook and similar because it costs too much. Yet YouTube and Facebook are Publishers in every sense.
3) Wanting their own stuff copyright, but no limits on copying other publishers or private data from any agency for their own use. Or even to republish it.

Google/Alphabet is 2 (YouTube) & 3 (Google Books, Google Art). Amazon is in 3. (Goodreads, IMDB) Also Amazon wants a more encompassing monopoly of content.

Don't believe anything from any Google/Alphabet funded lobby about the EU law. EFF gets funding from Google. Google spends almost a Billion worldwide each year on various lobby groups and lobbying.

DMCA, DRM, extensions of Copyright, having to register Copyright in USA, authorised violation of book copyright for scanning and "capture" of alleged orphan works are the most unfair things and ALL are due to lobbying of big USA Corporations. Yet USA still doesn't pay copyright properly on music played on radio (there is lyric, music and performance rights). USA Companies, not anonymous pirates or China have been the biggest copyright, trademark & patent thieves of the 19th, 20th and 21st C. Conan Doyle, Dickens and Tolkien being famous victims. Aided by USPTO, though eventually the US Government had to step in an invalidate Edison's dishonest Cinema patents. An Englishman in New York "patented" Hellesen's Dry Battery (already in production in Denmark). That patent was bought by the company later called Eveready (NCC / UC).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Hellesen
There are 1000s of examples.
Certainly Chinese companies and their Government have reused Patented ideas (But many are invalid patents) and copyright material, but not more than most average countries.
Apple stole iPod, iPad and iPhone names and had to buy off Cisco, Fujitsu and someone else later. They got sued by Swiss rail successfully. The Lisa/Mac was based on Xerox work. All the parts including GUI, except iOS, of iPhone were bought in. Apple beat Samsung in court due to a "Design Patent" (UK = Registered Design, for stuff like distinctive shape of Coke bottle). The USPTO should never have accepted it. But hardly any USPTO decision is over-ruled in court by a Foreign company, only USA ones.

[DiapDealer]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Google/Amazon/Facebook bad. We get it.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Google/Amazon/Facebook bad. We get it.

This is more than that.
Go to YouTube and search for "Full album".
Some of them are genuine authorised uploads, but the vast majority aren't, and many have been there for years with hundreds of thousands of views.
Google is intentionally taking no positive action to prevent copyright violations, of even the simplest type. They are closing their eyes and putting their fingers in their ears.
To add insult to injury, if you search for an album on Google Play Music, they will include links to the pirated YouTube uploads at the bottom of the page.

Amazon is similar with Twitch. If a Twitch streamer streams copyright music (which most do) all that happens is that a portion of their recorded VOD will be muted for later watchers. There is no penalty or warning to the streamer, even though Amazon have already determined that they are repeatedly violating copyright.

If you were running a car boot sale and knew that the same person had been selling copied CDs week after week, you would be considered complicit if you carried on allowing them to do it.

[DiapDealer]

I'm bored with this. It has always been, since time began, the copyright holder's job to police their own copyright (in the US anyway). The fact that the internet makes that harder to do doesn't change that. "Copyright Police" of any kind (be it government, private, or robo-algorithms) will be far more dangerous/damaging/intrusive than any harm that piracy does. "The bark is worse than the bite." "The cure is worse than the disease." You get the idea.

(Rhetorical yous from here on out)

You hold copyrights? Do your DD. You issue the take-down requests. You take them to court if they refuse. Protecting your copyright is your job, and not society's.

[Quoth]

Because it's making them money (Adverts in the case of Google or Facebook) or would cost too much. Amazon.
There is piracy via sales (books and other products) on Amazon, but Amazon only acts if another seller complains and generally supports big companies vs little with no arbitration or appeal.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

This is more than that.
Go to YouTube and search for "Full album".
Some of them are genuine authorised uploads, but the vast majority aren't, and many have been there for years with hundreds of thousands of views.
Google is intentionally taking no positive action to prevent copyright violations, of even the simplest type. They are closing their eyes and putting their fingers in their ears.
To add insult to injury, if you search for an album on Google Play Music, they will include links to the pirated YouTube uploads at the bottom of the page.

Amazon is similar with Twitch. If a Twitch streamer streams copyright music (which most do) all that happens is that a portion of their recorded VOD will be muted for later watchers. There is no penalty or warning to the streamer, even though Amazon have already determined that they are repeatedly violating copyright.

If you were running a car boot sale and knew that the same person had been selling copied CDs week after week, you would be considered complicit if you carried on allowing them to do it.

What do CD's and boots have cars?

It comes down to something very simple. In the US, you have what is known as a safe harbor if you provide a platform and remove content when you get a take down notice. It's the only way the internet can actually work. A lot of governments would love to have everyone say "Mother may I" whenever they uploaded a picture or made a post, but then we wouldn't have the internet as we know it.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

It used to be. It's now hosted in Switzerland, which is where Alex is from.

I like the vault in a volcano in an alternate universe better.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

You hold copyrights? Do your DD. You issue the take-down requests. You take them to court if they refuse. Protecting your copyright is your job, and not society's.

A newspaper or Broadcaster is a single entity to sue. It's simple, so newspapers, magazines, TV, and radio only break copyright by accident (apart from the part violation allowed by US Government one on USA Radio and streaming*).
These Internet publishers simply pretend regular laws don't apply and that the users are the publishers. This is a lie enabled by the USA "common carrier" doctrine.

This forum polices copyright infringement of uploads. Why should Facebook and YouTube be allowed to ignore it?

Any ordinary business or individual doing what Google and Facebook does would be shut down.

Absolutely the Copyright Holders should pursue the violators. That's why I think DMCA and DRM are evil. These big companies are too big for most copyright holders to sue because copyright violation is most countries is a Civil Law matter, not Criminal Law.

[* Before 1996, the owners of copyright in sound recordings in the United States did not enjoy any rights of public performance but after the amendment a limited right of public performance by means of a digital audio transmission was granted to sound recordings. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performing_rights and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._ASCAP It's not as bad as before 1996]

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

It comes down to something very simple. In the US, you have what is known as a safe harbor if you provide a platform and remove content when you get a take down notice. It's the only way the internet can actually work. A lot of governments would love to have everyone say "Mother may I" whenever they uploaded a picture or made a post, but then we wouldn't have the internet as we know it.

This is nonsense. Almost EVERY forum has rules on uploading. Why should the most profitable & biggest companies on the Internet have an exemption?
Most of safe harbor is just to suit big US Companies and it's flawed, broken law dishonestly being used by some big companies.
Also like slurping private data for targeted ads, the "It's the only way the internet can actually work." is a lie promoted by Facebook and Google.
You Tube would make a LOT less money. Maybe longer video would need a subscription.
Ending data slurp and targeted adverts would only reduce Facebook and Google income a little. It's fake snake-oil to get advertisers to switch from TV and paper, but that incentive is no longer needed.