EU’s controversial meme-banning copyright law passes first hurdle

[UglyCasanova]

Link

The European Union’s Legal Affairs Committee, known as JURI, voted on June 20 in favor of new controversial internet legislation that is designed to protect copyright holders but may have the adverse consequence of stifling an open internet and banning memes. The Copyright Directive includes two broad articles that require internet companies to install content filters to prevent the unauthorized upload of copyrighted content in the EU.

In order for the changes to pass, the legislation still needs approval from 28 EU governments in a plenary vote. If the European Parliament votes to pass this legislation in the future, these tougher copyright restrictions could, in theory, provide a model for U.S. legislators moving forward.

At the heart of the EU debate is Article 13, which is opposed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), as well as by academics, researchers, and even Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web. “By requiring Internet platforms to perform automatic filtering of all of the content that their users upload, Article 13 takes an unprecedented step toward the transformation of the internet from an open platform for sharing and innovation, into a tool for the automated surveillance and control of its users,” the EFF wrote in an open letter ahead of the JURI vote, noting that the burden of monitoring the internet to prevent the upload of copyrighted materials falls squarely on the shoulders of small European businesses and startups. The EFF argued that larger American companies could afford to bear the cost of compliance.


I swear the powers that be on both sides of the Atlantic are absolutely hell bent on destroying the internet. Because, you know, it was broke and needs fixing.

 

[JSt0rm]

good. The internet was a bad idea.

 

[yllus]

Well that's really really bad. I can only hope the EU sees reason (also ratification is so insanely long and difficult that we have hope here).

 

[Jaskalas]

automatic filtering of all of the content

Hello Russia / China?

 

[JSt0rm]

honestly the human mind isnt equipped to deal with all of this. Its too much and the wrong people are using it to control dumb people.

 

[Bitek]

Obligatory.

 

[vi edit]

This is why we can't have nice things.

What exactly are they going to filter for?

 

[Greenman]

This is why we can't have nice things.

What exactly are they going to filter for?

My guess would be anything that anyone finds offensive, which is pretty much everything.

 

[UglyCasanova]

My guess would be anything that anyone finds offensive, which is pretty much everything.

It’s about copyrights not political correctness.

 

[Greenman]

It’s about copyrights not political correctness.

I stand corrected, and retract my prior statement.

 

[Sonikku]

good. The internet was a bad idea.

Indeed. We curse Al Gore for inventing it daily.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Ah, I long for the good old days of bulletin boards and FidoNet.

 

[pmv]

Intellectual property laws in general seem to have gotten a bit out-of-hand. They need some serious pruning.

Seems as if they have a worrying self-perpetuating element - the more rent the rent-collectors collect, the more money they have to influence the political process so as to gather more rent.

 

[cytg111]

I will personally gurantee this will not come to fruition. I will talk to my people.

 

[Zorba]

Intellectual property laws in general seem to have gotten a bit out-of-hand. They need some serious pruning.

Seems as if they have a worrying self-perpetuating element - the more rent the rent-collectors collect, the more money they have to influence the political process so as to gather more rent.

Don't worry, the US on about to lengthen copyrights again. Mickey is only protected for 9.5 more years, we can't allow a hundred year old work fall into the public domain.

 

[realibrad]

Don't worry, the US on about to lengthen copyrights again. Mickey is only protected for 9.5 more years, we can't allow a hundred year old work fall into the public domain.

Actually, I think at some point, with an icon like Mickey, there could be lifetime copyrights. The vast majority of things I can understand, but Mickey and a few other things really are iconic. Maybe some of the restrictions could be lifted for a lifetime copyright, but I would not have a problem with it.

 

[Zorba]

Actually, I think at some point, with an icon like Mickey, there could be lifetime copyrights. The vast majority of things I can understand, but Mickey and a few other things really are iconic. Maybe some of the restrictions could be lifted for a lifetime copyright, but I would not have a problem with it.

Should GE get a lifetime patent on the light bulb? Far more impactful than Mickey. Plus all new versions of him would still maintain copyright. The original Creator and his kids are all dead and the family only has a tiny piece of the company, what justification is there for continued protections?

How about Shakespeare? Do you think that should still be copyrighted, owned by one company that could all of sudden decide not to allow people to buy it or act it out? Or they could only allow a few of the "best" plays out, and keep everything else in a "vault."

Mickey is an important part of American culture but we can't even view the majority of the original work that made him an icon. 100 years is already long enough, especially when any new content will still be protected.

 

[realibrad]

Should GE get a lifetime patent on the light bulb? For more impactful than Mickey. Plus all new versions of him would still maintain copyright. The original Creator and his kids are all dead and the family had a tiny piece of the company, what justification is there for continued protections?

How about Shakespeare? Do you think that should still be copyrighted, owned by one company that could all of sudden decide not to show people to buy it or act it out? Or they could only allow a few of the "best" plays out, and keep everything else in a "vault."

Mickey is an important part of American culture but we can't even view the majority of the original work that made him an icon. 100 years is already long enough, especially when any new content will still be protected.

Lightbulb no.
Shakespeare, only if he had copyrighted it first.

Mickey is still usable in the public domain. Right now it just cant be used commercially, well, even then it can.

Let me turn it around and ask you, what is society missing out on because of the Mickey patent?

 

[Zorba]

Lightbulb no.
Shakespeare, only if he had copyrighted it first.

Mickey is still usable in the public domain. Right now it just cant be used commercially, well, even then it can.

Let me turn it around and ask you, what is society missing out on because of the Mickey patent?

So you think that it would be fine if Shakespeare was still copyrighted and controlled by one company?

I already said how society is hurt by the copyright, we can't view the original content. That effectively eliminates that culture from our society. Imagine if someone owned Mark Twain's work and decided that it needed to be updated for the times and rewrote it and refused to publish the originals, society would lose something.

But if you're arguing that art isn't important to society or culture, what's the justification for copyright to begin with?

I personally think any work that isn't published for a certain period of time should lose its copyright and that time should be relatively short ~20-25 years.

 

[realibrad]

So you think that it would be fine if Shakespeare was still copyrighted and controlled by one company?

I already said how society is hurt by the copyright, we can't view the original content. That effectively eliminates that culture from our society. Imagine if someone owned Mark Twain's work and decided that it needed to be updated for the times and rewrote it and refused to publish the originals, society would lose something.

Society cant view my home videos either. I get that there is a cultural difference, but your argument as you presented it is one where anything held back from society is a loss and that is used to justify holding nothing back. You did a poor job at fleshing this out.

Yes, Disney would be able to restrict people watching its content. I presume that even though you gave a poor argument, you believe that Disney should be able to restrict what it currently creates, its just that you believe after enough time they lose ownership. I think the real question is how much time and why?

Also realize that there is plenty that Disney used when it created and creates that they source from the Public Domain. Many of the iconic movies are actually old stories. People can create stories about the Little Mermaid, just not the Disney version.

I see very little argument for something like Mickey needing to be in the Public Domain for the good of society from what you have said.

But if you're arguing that art isn't important to society or culture, what's the justification for copyright to begin with?

I'm not so this part is pointless.

I personally think any work that isn't published for a certain period of time should lose its copyright and that time should be relatively short ~20-25 years.

Great, why though?

 

[Zorba]

Society cant view my home videos either. I get that there is a cultural difference, but your argument as you presented it is one where anything held back from society is a loss and that is used to justify holding nothing back. You did a poor job at fleshing this out.

Your home movies are not culturally significantly and have never been released for public consumption so they will never have any impact on society or culture. But yeah, if somehow someone finds one in 100 years that they find interesting, they should be able to share it (for home videos it would actually be your life + 70 years).

I gave examples, Shakespeare and Mark Twain, that would have an obvious cultural impact if they were withheld from society and can't be because they are in the public domain.

As you pointed out, Disney themselves (and society) has benefited from many of their source stories being in the public domain. With forever copyrights, there would have been no Disney's Snow White, Little Mermaid, Cinderella, etc. The source stories would likely be mostly unknown. If Mickey or Donald entered the public domain, new creators could produce new stories with them just like Disney did with all their fairy tale movies.

Another example. WWII Loony Tunes and WWII Disney Shorts. WB has released the WWII Loony Tunes into the public domain, unaltered, Disney will not release theirs because they don't like the imagine it portrays. I think these are important from a historical point of view and are part of the American culture, but Disney would rather hide them.

Yes, Disney would be able to restrict people watching its content. I presume that even though you gave a poor argument, you believe that Disney should be able to restrict what it currently creates, its just that you believe after enough time they lose ownership. I think the real question is how much time and why?

The point of copyright is so that the original creator can profit from their work not to control an image, etc. Allowing the creator to profit off their work gives them the resources to create new work. Do you really think forever copyrights would inspire more art than 100 year copyrights? The reason why copyrights and patents expire is so society can make full use of those works and expand on them. If the creator no longer has an interest in profiting from it, the copyright should expire.

An example from Disney is the Song of the South. They won't publish it, will fight to have it removed from anywhere online, yet I think it is important to show just how backwards the country was in its thinking just 60 years ago. Instead, Disney has buried it and most people have no idea it even existed.

Another example is old reference books and materials, I work on old aircraft, old reference materials/books are called out all the time. Much of these are no longer published, but the publisher has not released them into the public domain, so effectively they no longer exist and whatever information the contained is lost.

It is pretty easy to see the negative impacts that forever copyright would have vs works entering the public domain in a reasonable time. People seem to have a better understanding of that with patents, because I never see anyone wanting longer and longer patents even though generally far more money and resources have been sunk into a patent.

 

[pmv]

Actually, I think at some point, with an icon like Mickey, there could be lifetime copyrights. The vast majority of things I can understand, but Mickey and a few other things really are iconic. Maybe some of the restrictions could be lifted for a lifetime copyright, but I would not have a problem with it.

How do you justify something like that in a libertarian world-view? In what possible sense is 'the right to forcibly prevent anyone doing something resembling something you (or some entity that has a biological relation to or the same name as you now have) once did' a natural right? I thought libertarians were opposed to state intervention or 'the initiation of force'?

It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me morally. Also it is going to reduce wealth-generation if you remove all incentive on people to create anything new, allowing them to coast on old work indefinitely.

 

[pmv]

Great, why though?

Why not?

 

[hal2kilo]

Ah, I long for the good old days of bulletin boards and FidoNet.

So you close to retiring also?

 

[realibrad]

Your home movies are not culturally significantly have never been released for public consumption so they will never have any impact on society or culture.

You might hold that, but, what about things from famous people that were not always famous? Should Obama give up anything when he dies? Surely you believe he was an important figure in history and as such many thing she currently owns will be culturally significant. At what point do you draw the line?

I gave examples, Shakespeare and Mark Twain, that would have an obvious cultural impact if they were withheld from society and can't be because they are in the public domain.

I think there is confusion on my position. I'm not saying everything should be granted lifetime patents. I thought we cleared that up, but, not everything should have the option for lifetime.

As you pointed out, Disney themselves (and society) has benefited from many of their source stories being in the public domain. With forever copyrights, there would have been no Disney's Snow White, Little Mermaid, Cinderella, etc. The source stories would likely be mostly unknown. If Mickey or Donald entered the public domain, new creators could produce new stories with them just like Disney did with all their fairy tale movies.

Another example. WWII Loony Tunes and WWII Disney Shorts. WB has released the WWII Loony Tunes into the public domain, unaltered, Disney will not release theirs because they don't like the imagine it portrays. I think these are important from a historical point of view and are part of the American culture, but Disney would rather hide them.



The point of copyright is so that the original creator can profit from their work not to control an image, etc. Allowing the creator to profit off their work gives them the resources to create new work. Do you really think forever copyrights would inspire more art than 100 year copyrights? The reason why copyrights and patents expire is so society can make full use of those works and expand on them. If the creator no longer has an interest in profiting from it, the copyright should expire.

Let me ask you this. If you invent something, and you get it to the level where you know you can make money, but, you also know that a patent will expire say after 5 years, are you willing to keep improving it when you know that it will bring you nothing more?

Say I invent a new car engine that increases fuel efficiency by 20% and patents are capped at 5 years. I could spend another year or two trying to refine that to get it to 30%, but, why do that when my ownership expires?

Disney is in the same position. They are investing and growing their copyrights. They would stop investing in something if they knew they would lose ownership.

Now, there has to be reason to all of this. You could have rules like needing to show that its iconic, intrinsic to your identity, ect.

Another example is old reference books and materials, I work on old aircraft, old reference materials/books are called out all the time. Much of these are no longer published, but the publisher has not released them into the public domain, so effectively they no longer exist and whatever information the contained is lost.

Another specific example from Disney is the Song of the South. They won't publish it, will fight to have it removed from anywhere online, yet I think it is important to show just how backwards the country was in its thinking just 60 years ago. Instead, Disney has buried it and most people have no idea it even existed.

It is pretty easy to see the negative impacts that forever copyright would have vs works entering the public domain in a reasonable time. People seem to have a better understanding of that with patents, because I never see anyone wanting longer and longer patents even though generally far more money and resources have been sunk into a patent.

This last part is just more examples.

Not everything should be treated the same, which is why its not.