From Edri.org:
Meanwhile, from Techdirt:
https://openmedia.org/sites/default/files/stl-article13-faq.pdf
http://copybuzz.com/copyright/5-fundamental-flaws-censorship-filter/
http://copyright4creativity.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/DCDSM-Article13-C4CFactsheet.pdf
Some eurosperg explains it in video format.
Interestingly, a lot of the EU's membership is understandably not on board with this insanity, which leads us to this particularly juicy tidbit (emphasis mine):
On 25 May, the European Council agreed to a negotiating position on the draft copyright directive. This will allow the presidency of the Council to start negotiations with the European Parliament on mass monitoring and filtering of internet uploads and a chaotic new “ancillary copyright” measure that will make it harder to link to and quote news sources.
Despite a large number of demands from a wide range of different stakeholders (including EDRi and Copyright for Creativity) to keep working on the text in order to create some semblance of balance, the Council decided to finalise its position with a flawed text. This position, as well as the mandate to the Council to negotiate, was voted against by Germany, Finland, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Belgium and Hungary. [Update on 30 May]
Now it is the turn of the European Parliament to adopt its negotiating position. The Legal Affairs committee of the European Parliament (JURI) is voting on 20 and 21 June to agree on their standpoint. There is still time to act to prevent the most dangerous parts of the proposal. In the table below and here, you can find the mapping prepared by the MEP Julia Reda on where political parties in the EP stand regarding both the snippet tax and the censorship machine proposals. Due to the relative size of the groups and the splits in some of them, the balance is in favour of these measures, so there is a realistic danger that these policies can become law.
Meanwhile, from Techdirt:
The EU's new copyright reform proposal is set to be voted on next month and it will truly be disastrous to the internet. As it currently stands, it will require widespread censorship in the form of mandatory filtering and also link taxes that have already been shown to be harmful to news.
Make platforms directly liable for all copyright infringements by their users, and then offer that they can avoid that unreasonable liability if they can show they’ve done everything in their power to prevent copyrighted content from appearing online – namely, by deploying upload filters (Article 13, paragraph 4). Which remain totally optional, of course! Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
Mr Voss’ latest draft expands the scope of the censorship machines proposal to all web platforms (a) whose purpose is to “give access to copyrighted content uploaded by users” and which (b) “optimise” that content. What counts as optimising? Among a long list of actions, we find that “displaying” the uploads already makes platforms legally liable for any copyright infringement they may include (Recital 37a). And in his version, web services can’t even avoid liability by implementing upload filters.
To protect themselves from being sued, they would need to get licenses from all rightsholders that exist on the planet before allowing user uploads to go online, just in case the upload may contain (parts of) any of their works.He also claims that checking every new user upload for whether it includes one of hundreds or thousands of specific copyrighted works somehow does not constitute “general monitoring” (Recital 39), which would be forbidden – now that’s some wishful lawmaking.
https://openmedia.org/sites/default/files/stl-article13-faq.pdf
http://copybuzz.com/copyright/5-fundamental-flaws-censorship-filter/
http://copyright4creativity.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/DCDSM-Article13-C4CFactsheet.pdf
Interestingly, a lot of the EU's membership is understandably not on board with this insanity, which leads us to this particularly juicy tidbit (emphasis mine):
A member of the JURI committee, who said he did not wish to be named, said, “I know that several members of our committee have come under huge pressure to vote in favour of this particular proposal. The German CDU, via its EPP affiliate, has been reportedly pressuring them to vote what you might call the ‘right’ way. As part of their efforts to convince them to do this there have been reports of threats of members not being allocated reports and parliamentary positions if, basically, they don’t do as they are told. The alleged involvement of the German publishers gives cause for some concern.”
He added, “I understand how things work in this parliament and lobbying is part and parcel of the EU decision making process but when it comes to 'threats and warnings' that is crossing a line.”
