With the voting figures of 16 for and 9 against giving the european Parliament’s justice committee on Tuesday afternoon following a thumbs-up to the proposal on the new EU copyright. It is a law that has received massive criticism from the largest techbolagen from internetaktivister – but to be defended, not least by the media.
Thus eliminated yet another obstacle for the proposal to become a reality. In march or april and is expected to a final vote. If today’s result is any indication, so I’m leaning heavily to the victory of the law’s advocates.
die out. That the tone is high should not actually surprise anyone, no matter what you think about the proposals in the thing. What is at stake are fundamental principles for the internet. Without restriction to be able to refer to information – yes, link – and nättjänsters the opportunity to allow their users to upload material freely.
the Two elements have stirred up the most dust: the Article 11 and 13.
the Number 11 is sometimes called the ”länkskatt”. It really is about how the linking together of excerpts from the linked article or web page. You have probably seen how headlines and other be previewed when you post a link on social media, one of those conventions that has emerged on the web without nitpicking.
In the proposed law is true specifically to the linking in itself is not covered (” shall not apply to acts of hyperlinking”) and that ”individual words or short excerpts” does not require payment to the copyright owner. But those who are opposed to the law have not allowed themselves to be calmed, but sees it as insufficient.
on a sensitive question: do you offer a service where people can upload material without the preview? Think of Youtube or Wikipedia, without such a possibility. To manually verify each and every within put up, to ensure that it does not violate any law, would be unworkable. (In retrospect, at the request delete, for example, pirated copies are a different matter.)
Why have some, such as Youtube, gained automatic features scanning uploaded videos for copyrighted material. Article 13 is sometimes described as to make it obligatory for all sites to introduce such a filter. It is not really true, but the law will do to those who do not, are forced to bear the responsibility for their users ‘ possible pirated copies.
the Result? Potentially huge compensation for the covered by the act but not the filters. Filters are difficult and expensive to develop. Therefore, it becomes more difficult to start and run network services if you do not have enormous resources, like Youtube. And the filters are at risk to the benefit of the doubt, to be on the safe side. So reads the criticism of article 13.
is the central. Here are exceptions to exempt non-profit pages like Wikipedia from the requirements and give looser rein for the startup company.
nor does it have quieted criticism from the opponents. And it’s really not so strange if the debate rumbles on into the last, for it is extremely important questions about the future of the internet that are being addressed.
Read more: Criticism of the Swedish ‘ yes ‘ to the EU network rules
Jack Werner: the Internet is already so bad that it is difficult to become upset
