Jump to content

Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Josve05a (talk | contribs) at 14:50, 23 March 2019 (Alter: website, title, template type. Add: newspaper, date. Removed parameters. | You can use this tool yourself. Report bugs here.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article is about the current proposal. For the 2001 Directive, see Copyright Directive.
Directive 52016PC0593
European Union directive
Text with EEA relevance
TitleDirective on Copyright in the Digital Single Market
Made underArticles 53(1), 62 and 114
Preparative texts
Commission proposalCOM/2016/0593 final - 2016/0280 (COD)
EESC opinionOJ C 125, 21.4.2017, p. 27–33 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
EP opinion
List
Reports
List
Other legislation
AmendsDatabase Directive (Directive 96/9)
Copyright Directive (Directive 2001/29/EC)
Proposed

The Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market 2016/0280(COD), also known as the EU Copyright Directive, is a proposed European Union (EU) directive intended to ensure "a well-functioning marketplace for the exploitation of works and other subject-matter... taking into account in particular digital and cross-border uses of protected content".[1] It extends existing European Union copyright law and is a component of the EU's Digital Single Market project.[2] First introduced by the European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs on 20 June 2018, a revised proposal was approved by the European Parliament on 12 September 2018. A final version resulting from negotiations during Trilogue discussions was presented to the European Parliament on 13 February 2019.[3] If approved in Parliament between 25 and 28 March 2019, each of the EU's member countries would then be required to enact laws within 24 months to support the Directive.[4][5]

The European Council describe their key goals as protecting press publications, reducing the "value gap" between the profits made by Internet platforms and content creators, encouraging "collaboration" between these two groups, and creating copyright exceptions for text and data mining.[6] The directive's specific proposals include giving press publishers direct copyright over use of their publications by Internet platforms such as online news aggregators (Article 11 also called the "link tax") and requiring websites who primarily host content posted by users to take "effective and proportionate" measures to prevent unauthorised postings of copyrighted content or be liable for their users' actions (Article 13 also called the "upload filter").[7]

Articles 11 and 13 (respectively renumbered as 15 and 17 in the latest version) have attracted widespread criticism and controversy from European and American parties, with fears that the directives would inhibit online expression by requiring websites to obtain licenses in order to link to news articles, and Article 13 would require use of content-matching technologies that cannot identify fair dealing such as parody.[8][9] A Change.org petition has gathered more than 5 million signatures opposing the directive as of 21 March 2019, the most in history.[10][11][12] Initial supporters of the directive, largely media groups and large publishers, reject these arguments with claims that a disinformation and astroturfing campaign was carried out by big Internet platforms.[13][14][15][16] These large media groups and publishers, however, have had much greater contact between their lobbyists and MEPs than the technology industry.[17] A group of major international media and music rights-holders initially supported the proposal, but flipped to opposing as it was finalised in February 2019.[18] The International Federation of Journalists calls the current version "bad for journalism".[19] David Kaye, the United Nations special rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression warns that the directive might harm freedom of expression in Europe.[20] Public protests against the directive have seen thousands of people marching in the streets of cities in Germany.[21][22]

History

Background

The European Union's (EU) first attempt to unify copyrights in light of digital technologies was adopted in 2001 as the Copyright Directive 2001/29/EC.[23] The Directive's major objectives were to harmonise EU legislation with international law (as set by the 1996 World Intellectual Property Organization treaties), to strengthen intellectual property protection, to reduce conflicts in copyright laws between member states, and to assure adequate remuneration to content producers.[24] While some parts of the 2001 Directive were effective, other parts of the directive were not satisfactory for the current digital market long after its implementation. In 2012, the European Commission (EC) announced that they would be reviewing the 2001 Directive and having stakeholder discussions in light of several issues raised with failed copyright proposals from those in the European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services position.[25] The EC took public comments from December 2013 through March 2014, and published its first report on the state of the EU copyright law in July 2014.[26]

In 2014, Jean-Claude Juncker was elected to the presidency of the European Commission and took office in November 2014.[27] In his campaign position, Juncker saw the potential to improve the EU's financial status by harmonising the various digital marketplaces among member nations to create job opportunities and drive a knowledge-based society. Juncker appointed Estonian politician, Andrus Ansip, as Vice-President for the Digital Single Market within the EC that year, tasked with working with Günther Oettinger, European Commissioner for Digital Economy and Society, and other sections within the EC to come up with the necessary legislative steps that would be required to implement a Digital Single Market.[28] Initial plans for the legislative steps and their potential impact were announced by the EC in May 2015. Ansip stated that by the implementation of a Digital Single Market, they could increase the European gross domestic product by as much as €415 billion per year.[29][30] The European Parliament, following up on a report on the state of European Copyright from a member of the European Parliament (MEP), Julia Reda, that identified several inadequacies of the 2001 Copyright Directive, affirmed support for the EC's goal of a Digital Single Market as well as supporting an initiative with the EP for similar copyright reform.[31] The EC subsequently began working on establishing the legal framework by the end of 2015.[32]

Legislative process

The first draft of the proposed Directive from the EC was issued on 14 September 2016,[33] Following revisions, the Council of the European Union's Committee of Permanent Representatives (COREPER) approved of the EC's legislative directives on 25 May 2018 and prepared to bring the matter to vote in the EP,[34] to reach a final text, without the support of Germany, Finland, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Belgium, or Hungary.[35] The European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs finalised their amendments to the directive on 20 June 2018 and put them toward the parliament for negotiation.[36]

Members of the European Parliament voted on 5 July 2018 not to proceed to the negotiation stage, but instead to reopen the directive for debate in September 2018.[37][38] There were 318 votes to re-open the debate, 278 to proceed, and 31 abstentions.[39][40]

On 12 September 2018, an updated position of the parliament was approved with the final vote being 438 in favour and 226 against,[41] meaning that trilogue negotiations can start between the European Commission, the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament, with an expected conclusion in early 2019. Should the three groups agree to the final language, then the directive will be sent to governments of the twenty-eight member states to be passed as laws within those countries, with each country formalising certain processes as necessary to meet their existing laws.[42]

Initial trilogue meetings overseen by Romania were scheduled to start on 21 January 2019, however, on 19 January 2019, Romania cancelled these meetings following the rejection of Romania's proposed compromise text by eleven countries: Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Finland, Slovenia, Italy, Poland, Sweden, Croatia, Luxembourg and Portugal. With the exclusion of Portugal and Croatia, the other nine countries rejected the compromised text for Articles 11 and/or 13 stating that the measures did not do enough to do to protect their citizens' copyright protections. Romania had the opportunity to revise their text to gain a majority vote, delaying the vote.[43]

The trilogue negotiations were completed on 13 February 2019, the final text still retaining the controversial Articles 11 and 13. At this point, the text will be reviewed by the European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs, and then presented to the full European Parliament for a vote. The vote in Parliament is scheduled for the week beginning 25 March 2019.[44] Should the vote succeed, then each of the EU's member states have up to 24 months to introduce laws within their own countries to support the Directive.[45]

Content

Article numbers refer to the working version of the Copyright Directive up through around 20 March 2019; the Trilogue's final version, approved in February 2019 and published around 20 March 2019 reorders several of the articles, such as former Article 13 becoming the Trilogue's Article 17.

Article 3

Article 3 proposes a copyright exception for text and data mining (TDM) for the purposes of scientific research.[46] The COREPER version has both a mandatory and an optional extension.[34]

Depending on whether it acknowledges the public domain status of facts and information, the TDM exception could increase or decrease restrictions compared to the status quo.[47]

Article 4

Article 4 proposes a mandatory exception for the use of copyrighted works as part of "digital and cross-border teaching activities". This article, when implemented, would clarify that educational establishments can make non-commercial use of copyrighted works for illustrative purposes.[citation needed]

There have been worries from the educational sector that the exception proposed in article 4 is too limiting. For example, the sector proposes to broaden the scope of "educational establishments" to include cultural heritage institutions. The most debated part of the article is 4(2), under which the exception would not be available if there are "adequate licenses" available in the market.[48]

The COREPER version has changes to reflect the arguments of the education sector, but still includes the debated article 4(2).[citation needed]

Article 11

Article 11 extends the 2001 Copyright Directive to grant publishers direct copyright over "online use of their press publications by information society service providers".[36] Under current EU law, publishers instead rely on authors assigning copyright to them and must prove rights ownership for each individual work.[49] The version of the directive voted on by European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs contained explicit exemptions for the act of hyperlinking and "legitimate private and non-commercial use of press publications by individual users".[50]

The proposal attaches several new conditions to the right, including expiry after one year and exemptions for either copying an "insubstantial" part of a work or for copying it in the course of academic or scientific research.[36] It is derived from the ancillary copyright for press publishers which was introduced in Germany in 2013.[49] Press publishing, "whose purpose is to inform the general public and which are periodically or regularly updated", is distinguished from academic and scientific publishing (Recital 33).[34]

Article 12a

Article 12a proposes granting sports event organisers copyright over recordings of their events.[51]

Article 13 / Article 17

Article 13 replaces the "mere conduit" exemption from copyright infringement from for-profit "online content sharing service providers" with a new, conditional exemption to liability. These conditions are a claimed implementation of "effective and proportionate measures" to "prevent the availability of specific [unlicensed] works identified by rightsholders", acting "expeditiously" to remove them, and demonstrating that "best efforts" have been made to prevent their future availability. The article also extends any licenses granted to content hosts to their users, as long as those users are not acting "on a commercial basis".[34]

The article directs member states to consider the size of the provider, the amount of content uploaded, and the effectiveness of the measures imposed "in light of technological developments". It also mandates an appeals process,[34] and requires content hosts to share "information on the use of content" with its owners, the lack of which has been a point of contention in the past.[52]

Article 13's provisions target commercial web hosts which "store and give the public access to a large amount of works or other subject-matter uploaded by its users which [they] organise and promote for profit-making purposes". The proposal makes explicit that this does not include private cloud storage services, non-profit encyclopaedias (such as Wikipedia), nor non-profit educational or scientific repositories.[34]

Article 13b requires websites which "automatically reproduce or refer to significant amounts of copyright-protected visual works" to "conclude fair and balanced licensing agreements with any requesting rightholders".[51]

Article 13 was renamed Article 17 in 2019.[53]

Article 15

Article 15 aims to allow authors to increase their remuneration in some cases where it is disproportionately low. The proposed articles 14–16, while weaker than systems existing in many member states, would improve the bargaining position of authors and performers.[49]

Associations of authors had proposed a "rights reversion mechanism" which would allow cancelling a copyright transfer agreement proven to be disadvantageous.[54][55]

Other passages of the proposal attempt to clarify the legal status of certain common activities by libraries and of orphan works.[56]

The amendments approved by some European Parliament committees would address issues with the public domain and freedom of panorama.[57]

Positions

Politicians

As of March 21st 2019, 100 MEPs have signed in support of the directive, while 126 have agreed to vote against it.[58][59] On March 20th 2019 74 MEPs asked for article 13 to be deleted from the directive.[60]

In 2018 support in the European Parliament was led by the European People's Party group and the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, the parliament's two largest groups. Major national parties in support include Germany's ruling Christian Democratic Union and their coalition partners the Social Democratic Party, the United Kingdom's ruling Conservative Party and opposition Labour Party, and Poland's main opposition party, Civic Platform.[61][62]

The directive's rapporteur, Axel Voss, is German MEP and a member of the EPP.[63] Voss rejects critics' arguments against the directive, and in particular describes talk of censorship as "unjustified, excessive, objectively wrong and dishonest". He points out that content filtering technology has been in use on YouTube for a decade without having ever sparked an "anti-censorship campaign",[64] and accuses "big [internet] platforms" of mounting a "fake news campaign".[65] Axel Voss's understanding of copyright was referred to as "absolutely lacking" in 2019 by Till Kreutzer, a copyright expert, after Voss stated that people are allowed to upload newspaper articles in full.[66] Tom Watson, a member of Parliament of the United Kingdom and the deputy leader of the Labour Party, said, "we have got to secure for the workers... the full fruits of their industry. Google are trying to prevent that from happening".[62]

Opposition in the European Parliament is led by populist parties including Poland's ruling Law and Justice party, Italy's ruling Five Star Movement/Lega Nord coalition, and the UK Independence Party. Other opponents include a large number of smaller parties at either end of the political spectrum.[61][67] Notable among these is the Pirate Party Germany, whose sole MEP Julia Reda has been an outspoken opponent of the proposal.[68] She describes the efforts behind the law as large media companies trying to force "platforms and search engines to use their snippets and to pay for them".[69] UKIP leader and MEP Gerard Batten said that the proposal may "destroy the capacity for free speech on the internet and social media".[70] Batten further noted that an international agreement, and not a EU directive, was needed to protect "the legitimate rights of creators, authors and innovators", whilst not stifling "free speech and information dissemination".[70]

It has been rumoured that during the European Council's private vote to approve its negotiating position in March 2018 the ambassadors of Germany, Finland, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Belgium and Hungary either abstained from voting or voted against the proposal.[71] However, MEPs of each of those countries' governing parties went on to largely or wholly support the directive in parliament.[61]

German politician Kevin Kühnert, Federal Chairman of the Social Democratic Party's youth organization, has voiced opposition to Article 13, claiming that it violates the coalition agreement between the SDP and the CDU/CSU.[72] Petra Sitte, vice-chair of the democratic socialist party The Left, also stated that the effective endorsement of upload filters violates the coalition agreement, calling the copyright directive a "compromise between the interests of different large corporations" ("Kompromiss zwischen den Interessen verschiedener Großkonzerne") and "a grave threat to freedom of expression" ("eine ernsthafte Gefahr für die Meinungsfreiheit").[73]

NGOs

Blackout of German Wikipedia - March 21st, 2019
The banner block on Italian Wikipedia. Other blocked Wikipedias had similar messages.
The banner on the English Wikipedia seen from a German IP address

In 2017, Human Rights Watch and Reporters Without Borders were among signatories of an open letter opposing Article 13.[74] 145 organisations from the areas of human and digital rights, media freedom, publishing, libraries, educational institutions, software developers, and Internet service providers signed a letter opposing the proposed legislation on 26 April 2018.[75] Some of those opposed include the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Creative Commons, European Digital Rights,[76] the Max Planck Society,[77] GitHub,[78] various Wikimedia chapters,[76] and the Wikimedia Foundation (the parent organisation of Wikipedia).[79]

Four language versions of Wikipedia, German, Danish, Czech and Slovak, blacked out for 24 hours on March 21st 2019 in further protests against the directive.[80][81][82] The Italian Wikipedia,[83][84][85] later followed by others including the Spanish,[84][86] Estonian, Latvian, Polish,[84][85] French and Portuguese ones,[87] blacked its pages for readers on 3–5 July 2019, whereas, the English Wikipedia added a banner asking the readers in Europe to contact their representatives in the European Parliament.[83] The Wikimedia Foundation reiterated its concerns in February 2019.[88][89]

Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, raised concerns regarding the costs and effectiveness of upload filters and the negative effects on free speech online.[90][91]

Technology companies

Google has opposed the directive since its first inception in 2016, when they argued that the proposals would "turn the internet into a place where everything uploaded to the web must be cleared by lawyers".[92] In 2018 the company encouraged news publishers in its Digital News Initiative to lobby MEPs on the proposals, members of the initiative are eligible for grants to support digital journalism from a €150m fund.[93] YouTube's chief executive officer, Susan Wojcicki, urged content creators on the platform to take action to oppose the legislation, as it "poses a threat to both [their] livelihood and [their] ability to share [their] voice with the world", and stressing that their Content ID system was intended to help assure fair management and payments for copyright holders already without government intervention.[94] Wojcicki later wrote that any company implementing the necessary protocols to meet the directive would have a significant financial burden, and for a company the scale of YouTube, "the potential liabilities could be so large that no company could take on such a financial risk".[95] Facebook is also opposed, arguing that the proposal "could have serious, unintended consequences for an open and creative internet".[96]

The Computer and Communications Industry Association, a trade association that represents Google and other large technology companies, is a principal funder of the Copyright for Creativity organization, a coalition that led the "Save Your Internet" campaign opposing the directive.[17] Reddit in November 2018 referred their European users to a website called "Don't Wreck the Net".[97]

Academics

More than 200 academics have criticised the directive, emphasizing concerns about the effectiveness of Article 11's impact on the readership of online publication and of Article 13's obligations on service providers that will "benefit big players".[98][99][100] SPARC Europe called for the removal of Article 11, arguing that it would "make the last two decades of news less accessible to researchers and the public, leading to a distortion of the public's knowledge and memory of past events", and if extended to academic publishing, would "in effect ask readers to pay publishers for access to works for which authors, institutions or research funders had already paid publishers to make freely accessible to all under 'open access' terms".[98][101] Twenty-five research centres common on concerns that the financial benefits from the proposed directive will occur to large rightholders rather than creators, with creators simple being used as "frontmen/women".[98]

The proposal is generally supported by academic publishers including the International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers.[102] This group has nevertheless criticised the proposal for excluding scientific publishers from the provisions of Article 11, describing the exclusion as "unwarranted and potentially discriminatory".[103]

The European Council for Doctoral Candidates and Junior Researchers opposes the proposal on the grounds that Article 13's exemption for non-commercial groups does not cover all scientific repositories, and cites the Horizon 2020 project as an example of commercial work in the sector. They also generally agree with the claims of other opponents.[104] The Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition, an open access advocacy group, opposes the proposal in principle.[102]

Publishers

A campaign organised by the European Grouping of Societies of Authors and Composers collected over 32,000 signatures in 2018 from creators including David Guetta, Ennio Morricone, Jean-Michel Jarre, and the band Air.[105] Other supporters in 2018 include musicians Paul McCartney and James Blunt,[106] author Philip Pullman (as head of the Society of Authors),[107][108] the Independent Music Companies Association,[13] and German publisher Axel Springer.[109]

Publishing trade bodies similarly claim that a "bad-faith" "misleading campaign", is being carried out. They specifically name Wikipedia and Google as orchestrators,[13][14][15][110][111] claiming that Wikipedia and other platforms engaged in "inacceptable [sic] misleading campaigns [...] to influence MEPs" and pointing out that Google spent €4.5 million lobbying in Europe during 2016,[112] is among the sponsors of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, another leading opponent,[113] and was seen asking its partners to lobby against the reform.[93] These estimates have been called "flawed" and that how much Google has spent on lobbying on this issue is not possible to determined.[17] These estimates were also released by the music industry as a press release just before the JURI voted.[17]

The publishers argue that licensed content providers such as Spotify and Netflix are also negatively affected by the current copyright regime, which they say benefits user-driven platforms such as YouTube (owned by the parent company of Google) and Facebook.[111][114] They claim reports of spambots flooding MEPs with so many anti-copyright emails that they can no longer carry out their work.[13][15][111]

While some publishers support the proposal, European Innovative Media Publishers, a publishing industry lobbying organisation, was founded in 2015 specifically to oppose Article 11.[115]

Newspapers

Some newspapers in support of the directive pejoratively label some of those opposed as "the largest, richest corporate entities in the world". In an editorial, the Financial Times stated that "YouTube controls 60 per cent of all streaming audio business, but pays only 11 per cent of the revenues that artists receive".[116] Others newspapers focus on Article 11, arguing that the reform is a battle between European media pluralism and monopolistic foreign Internet giants.[117][118] A variety of mainstream newspapers have reported that some Internet platforms are lobbying against the bill to support their financial interests.[119]

A group of nine major European press publishers including Agence France-Presse, the Press Association, and the European Alliance of News Agencies issued a letter supporting the proposal, describing it as "key for the media industry, the consumer’s future access to news, and ultimately a healthy democracy". In the letter, they cite existing state support for struggling news media and argue that it should instead be provided by the "internet giants" which have been "siphoning off" advertising revenue.[120]

Critical accounts of the proposal were published in the summer of 2018 by major newspapers in Austria,[121] France,[122] Germany,[123][124] Ireland,[125] Italy,[126][127] Poland,[128] Spain,[129] and Slovakia.[130]

Content creators

The International Federation of Journalists, a union, complained about late amendments which made remuneration of journalists dependent on "contractual arrangements" and "laws on ownership". While describing the proposals as "an achievement for authors overall" and "good news for the industry and for authors in some sectors", they described the amendments as "bad for journalism and bad for Europe" and called on the EU to "decide wisely and reject any discriminatory provisions".[19]

A representative from a company that makes content filters states that their wide introduction as while result from article 13 will likely hurt new music artists by limiting their ability to share what they create.[82]

Prominent individuals

Individuals who have publicly opposed the law include comedian Stephen Fry; author Neil Gaiman;[131] Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the World Wide Web; and Vint Cerf, co-inventor of the Internet protocol suite.[90]

Case law

In 2012, the European Court of Justice ruled that existing EU law "must be interpreted as precluding a national court from issuing an injunction against a hosting service provider which requires it to install a system for filtering...with a view to preventing works from being made available to the public in breach of copyright", arguing that such an injunction "could potentially undermine freedom of information, since that system might not distinguish adequately between unlawful content and lawful content, with the result that its introduction could lead to the blocking of lawful communications".[132]

A similar view can be seen in Case C-160/15 GS Media BV v Sanoma Media Netherlands BV, Playboy & Britt Geertruida Dekker and in Case C-70/10 Scarlet Extended SA v SABAM, BEA Video, BEA Music & ISPA.[citation needed]

Human rights

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights raised concerns that the proposal was incompatible with the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In a public letter, special rapporteur, David Kaye, argued that the proposal's reluctance to pin down precise obligations on content hosts created "significant legal uncertainty" inconsistent with the covenant's requirement that any restrictions on freedom of expression be "provided by law". He concluded that this could lead to "pressure on content sharing providers to err on the side of caution". Kaye also criticised the lack of "prior judicial review" inherent in the system, and the similarly extrajudicial nature of its appeals process.[133] He acknowledges that well copyright law needs to be modernized in Europe it should not be done in a way that harms freedom of expression and that the current recommendations within article 13 are not needed.[82]

The letter also raised concerns regarding the lack of protection for non-profit groups, although such groups had been excluded from the proposal's provisions prior to its publication.[34] The EU was invited to respond within 60 days.[citation needed]

Controversy

Articles 11 and 13

Articles 11 and 13 of the Directive have drawn a great deal of attention and opposition.

Article 11, referred to as the "link tax", raised concerns that less information and resources would be available through search engines.[134] In their explanatory memorandum for Article 11, the Council describe existing rights enforcement for online use of press publications as "complex and inefficient" and draw particular attention toward the use of news articles by "news aggregators or media monitoring services" for commercial purposes, and the problems faced by press publishers in licensing their work for such services.[34] A study commissioned by the European Commission, which analysed the implementation of similar laws in Germany and Spain (with the latter having, notably, resulted in discontinuation of Google News in that country), found that newspapers actually benefited from the increased exposure (and in turn, ad revenue from traffic) that news aggregation platforms attracted to their online articles, noting that "the German and Spanish cases show that the law can create a right", but that "market forces have valued this right at a zero price".[135][49][136][137]

Article 13, colloquially called the "upload filter" provision, has faced widespread criticism over the possibility that it could create a chilling effect on online expression. Although the article requires only "best efforts" from providers, it is widely accepted by critics and proponents alike that in order to meet the requirement of preventing future availability, larger companies would need to implement content matching technology similar to YouTube's Content ID system.[8][64] Critics emphasise the issue of false positives within such systems, and their inability to account for copyright limitations such as fair dealing such as parody (leading, they state, to a "meme ban").[77]

Supporters and third parties pointed out that YouTube has used Content ID for a decade and yet remains a successful host for content of all kinds.[64][138] However, the system still suffers from false positives, copyright trolls, as well as scammers leveraging YouTube's handling of copyright claims under the U.S. Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA) as a form of extortion (placing false copyright claims on a user's content until they pay a ransom, aiming to have the account taken down unless they pay), or doxxing (due to the requirement to include personal information in counter-claims).[139] YouTube's CEO Susan Wojcicki warned that the legislation "poses a threat to both your livelihood and your ability to share your voice with the world", and that under Article 13, the site may — even on content it does have a license to host — be required to clear every possible copyright associated with a video or be prevented from streaming it within the EU, and do the same at scale for every piece of video uploaded by users.[140]

Other claims include concerns that all content providers will be forced to use expensive content filters, that only major U.S. technology firms have sufficient resources to develop,[141] and that outsourcing the task has privacy implications.[142]

Public protests

Public protests against article 11 and 13 in Lisbon in July 2018.
Protests in Hamburg on 6 March 2019 against the EU Copyright Directive

A Change.org petition has gathered more than 5 million signatures as of 21 March 2019 which oppose the directive, of which roughly 1.3 million are from Germany.[10][143][82] As of February 2019 it has gathered the most signatures in European history.[11]

A number of public protests have been held in opposition of the proposed directive, mainly concerning Article 13. A February 16th 2019 protest organised by German YouTube stars in Cologne attracted a significant crowd despite having only been announced two days earlier. German news media gave reports of attendance, with one report describing "several hundred participants", another "over 1000", and a third "1500" based on police reports.[144][145][21] A second protest in Cologne on February 23rd 2019 had a reported attendance of more than 3000.[22] Demonstrators attributed problems of the bill to Axel Voss and the CDU party.[22] A protest in Berlin on March 2nd attracted roughly 3,500.[146] Europe-wide protests are planned to occur on 23 March 2019 before the next vote on the directive.[22] The protests are being organised by a grass roots movement and are raising funds by Gofundme.[22]

After the European People's Party tried to move the vote on the directive ahead to circumvent the planed protests on 23rd March 2019,[147][148] demonstrations were organised at short notice in ten German cities, including Berlin, between the 5th March and 9th March 2019.[149] Following public protests the European People's Party claimed that they did not try to move the vote forwards despite evidence to the contrary.[150][151] Additionally the request to move the vote forwards may not have been withdrawn as of March 5th 2019.[151]

Smaller prior EU-wide events occurred in August 2018[152] and January 2019.[153] Organizers did not release their own figures, but supporters of the proposals based on photos from the August events estimated that there had been at most 800 participants across the continent, with an average of 30 per location.[154]

Several European websites, including the European versions of Wikipedia, Twitch.tv, and Reddit, disabled some or many of the features on their websites on 21 March 2019 as a means to protest and raise awareness of the pending vote and encourage users to contact their appropriate national body to affect the vote. This was similar to action taken on 18 January 2012 by numerous websites to protest similar laws proposed in the United States.[155]

Lobbying

The European Parliament claimed that "MEPs have rarely or even never been subject to a similar degree of lobbying", and that there have been prior "lobbying campaigns predicting catastrophic outcomes, which have never come true".[156] The Times reported that "Google is helping to fund a website that encourages people to spam politicians and newspapers with automated messages backing its policy goals".[16] MEP Sven Schulze stated that he believed Google to be behind the email campaign because many of the emails came from Gmail addresses.[21]

Lobbying in favor of the proposed directive was directed toward the EU itself and was much less visible to the public. The large media groups and publishers have had much greater contact between their lobbyists and MEPs than the technology industry.[17] Stunts pulled by those lobbying in favour include sending MEPs pamphlets with condoms attached.[17]

The EU Commission, in a since withdrawn blog post, stated that those who opposed the directive were a "mob".[157][158] The Commissioners technically responsible for such posts, Mariya Gabriel and Andrus Ansip, both deny authorizing its publication.[159] The European Commission has also apologised for its publication.[157]

Some commentators stated years of intense lobbying served to "crowd out other voices and successfully distort the public debate", and that "toxic" discussions were harming "healthy dialogue".[17][160] Those in support of the directive, however, carried out negotiations without public oversight.[161] And when the general public became involved in discussing the directive online the EU commission referred to them as a "mob".[162]

See also

References

  1. ^ European Commission (14 September 2016). "Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the Digital Single Market".
  2. ^ European Commission (28 August 2015). "The EU copyright legislation". Retrieved 4 July 2018.
  3. ^ "EU reaches provisional deal on online copyright reform". afp.omni.se (in Swedish). 13 February 2019. Retrieved 14 February 2019.
  4. ^ Volpicelli, Gian. "The EU has passed Article 13, but Europe's meme war is far from over". Retrieved 12 September 2018.
  5. ^ "Copyright: MEPs back provisional agreement | News | European Parliament". www.europarl.europa.eu. 26 February 2019. Retrieved 27 February 2019.
  6. ^ "Copyright rules for the digital environment: Council agrees its position – Consilium". Europa (web portal). Retrieved 1 July 2018.
  7. ^ Vincent, James (13 February 2019). "After a brief rebellion, the EU link tax and upload filter will move to a final vote". The Verge. Retrieved 27 February 2019.
  8. ^ a b "'Disastrous' copyright bill vote approved". BBC News. 20 June 2018. Retrieved 1 July 2018.
  9. ^ a b "Le choc des titans". Paperjam News (in French). 31 January 2019.
  10. ^ a b Doctorow, Cory (18 February 2019). "The Worst Possible Version of the EU Copyright Directive Has Sparked a German Uprising". Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved 24 February 2019.
  11. ^ Doctorow, Cory (11 March 2019). "House Republicans propose poisoning Net Neutrality bill with Article-13-like liability". Boing Boing. Retrieved 12 March 2019.
  12. ^ a b c d "Copyright: say NO to scaremongering and YES to creators getting paid". Independent Music Companies Association. Retrieved 3 July 2018. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  13. ^ a b "MYTHBUSTER". publishersright.eu. European Magazine Media Association and others. Retrieved 4 July 2018. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  14. ^ a b c "UK Music chief slams Google as "corporate vultures" as figures show Google's €31m EU lobbying bid". UK Music. Retrieved 4 July 2018. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  15. ^ a b Media Correspondent, Matthew Moore (6 August 2018). "Google funds website that spams for its causes". The Times. ISSN 0140-0460. Retrieved 10 August 2018. {{cite news}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  16. ^ a b c d e f g "Copyright Directive: how competing big business lobbies drowned out critical voices". Corporate Europe Observatory. Retrieved 16 February 2019.
  17. ^ "Article 13 disaster for music biz, joy for YouTube, as labels call for EU copyright bill to be cancelled". Music Business Worldwide. 7 February 2019. Retrieved 15 February 2019.
  18. ^ a b "New copyright directive makes a mockery of journalists' authors' rights". International Federation of Journalists. 14 February 2019. Retrieved 14 February 2019.
  19. ^ Woollacott, Emma. "Copyright Directive Threatens Freedom Of Expression, UN Official Warns". Forbes. Retrieved 21 March 2019.
  20. ^ a b c Blazekovic, Jessica von (17 February 2019). "„Ich bin kein Bot": Tausende Menschen protestieren gegen Urheberrechtsreform". Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (in German). Retrieved 20 February 2019.
  21. ^ a b c d e Kleinz, Torsten (23 February 2019). ""Dieser Bot geht wählen" – 3000 demonstrieren in Köln gegen Urheberrechtsreform". Heise Online (in German). Retrieved 23 February 2019.
  22. ^ European Commission (4 July 2018). "Commission welcomes adoption of the Directive on copyright in the information society by the Council".
  23. ^ The Implementation, Application and Effects of the EU Directive on Copyright in the Information Society (PDF) (Report). Centre for European Policy Studies. November 2015. Retrieved 13 September 2018. {{cite report}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
  24. ^ "Battle on EU copyright law re-opened by Commission". POLITICO. 5 December 2012. Retrieved 22 June 2018.
  25. ^ Directorate General Internal Market and Services Directorate D – Intellectual property D1 (July 2014). "Report on the responses to the Public Consultation on the Review of the EU Copyright Rules" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  26. ^ "Profile: EU's Jean-Claude Juncker". BBC. 15 July 2014. Retrieved 13 September 2018.
  27. ^ "Questions and Answers: The Juncker Commission" (Press release). European Commission. 10 September 2014. Retrieved 13 September 2018.
  28. ^ Traynor, Ian (6 May 2015). "EU unveils plans to set up digital single market for online firms". The Guardian. Retrieved 13 September 2018.
  29. ^ "Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe". eur-lex.europa.eu. COM/2015/0192. 6 May 2015. Retrieved 22 June 2018. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  30. ^ "European Parliament resolution of 9 July 2015 on the implementation of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (2014/2256(INI))". 9 July 2015.
  31. ^ "Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – Towards a modern, more European copyright framework". eur-lex.europa.eu. COM/2015/0626. Retrieved 22 June 2018. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  32. ^ Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (PDF) (Report). European Commission. 14 September 2016. Retrieved 13 September 2018.
  33. ^ a b c d e f g h "Proposal for a directive on copyright in the Digital Single Market" (PDF). 25 May 2018. p. 26. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  34. ^ "EU Council agrees Copyright Directive position". CREATe. 29 May 2018. Retrieved 22 June 2018.
  35. ^ a b c "Copyright rules for the digital environment: Council agrees its position". European Council. 25 May 2018. Retrieved 1 July 2018. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  36. ^ Sweney, Mark; Rankin, Jennifer (5 July 2018). "YouTube and Facebook escape billions in copyright payouts after EU vote". The Guardian. Retrieved 5 July 2018.
  37. ^ Khan, Mehreen (5 July 2018). "MEPs reject EU copyright reforms in victory for internet giants". Financial Times. Retrieved 5 July 2018. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  38. ^ "EU's controversial copyright plan rejected". BBC News. 5 July 2018. Retrieved 5 July 2018.
  39. ^ Böhm, Markus (5 July 2018). "EU-Parlament bremst Urheberrechtsreform aus". Der Spiegel (in German). Retrieved 6 July 2018.
  40. ^ Vincent, James (12 September 2018). "EU approves controversial Copyright Directive, including internet 'link tax' and 'upload filter'". The Verge. Retrieved 12 September 2018.
  41. ^ Lee, Timothy (12 September 2018). "What's in the sweeping copyright bill just passed by the European Parliament". Ars Technica. Retrieved 12 September 2018.
  42. ^ Fingas, Jon (19 January 2019). "EU copyright laws face uncertain fate after 11 countries reject proposal". Engadget. Retrieved 19 January 2019.
  43. ^ "Copyright: MEPs back provisional agreement". europarl.europa.eu. 26 February 2019. Retrieved 26 February 2019.
  44. ^ Smirke, Richard (13 February 2019). "European Union Agrees on Copyright Directive Text, Pushing Legislation Towards Final Vote". Billboard. Retrieved 15 February 2019.
  45. ^ "Copyright Reform: Help Us Ensure an Effective TDM Exception! – LIBER". LIBER. 25 September 2017. Retrieved 9 June 2018.
  46. ^ "24 organisations urge Rapporteur Axel Voss MEP to strike a more ambitious deal on TDM – European Alliance for Research Excellence". European Alliance for Research Excellence. 8 June 2018. Retrieved 12 June 2018.
  47. ^ "Educators ask for a better copyright". Open Education Working Group. 16 January 2018. Retrieved 5 July 2018.
  48. ^ a b c d "Strengthening the Position of Press Publishers and Authors and Performers in the Copyright Directive – Think Tank". European Parliament. Retrieved 9 June 2018.
  49. ^ Reda, Julia. "What's at stake in the July 5 #SaveYourInternet vote: The text, explained". Julia Reda. Retrieved 5 July 2018.
  50. ^ a b "Amendments adopted by the European Parliament on 12 September 2018 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the Digital Single Market". European Parliament. 12 September 2018. Retrieved 21 November 2018. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  51. ^ O’Brien, Kevin J. "Royalty Dispute Stops Music Videos in Germany". New York Times. Retrieved 10 August 2018.
  52. ^ "Twitter". mobile.twitter.com. Retrieved 21 March 2019.
  53. ^ "Music creators call for EU-wide rights reversion mechanism". BASCA. Retrieved 5 June 2018.
  54. ^ "Our Views on the European Commission's Draft Legislation to Modernise the European Copyright Framework and Proposed Amendments" (PDF). August 2017.
  55. ^ "European Parliament votes to improve access to digitised cultural heritage". Europeana. Retrieved 22 June 2018.
  56. ^ "Synopsis report on the 'panorama exception'" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  57. ^ "MEPs pro Manifesto for an open and fair internet". www.manifesto4copyright.eu. Retrieved 21 March 2019.
  58. ^ "Pledge 2019: Against Article 13". pledge2019.eu. Retrieved 21 March 2019.
  59. ^ "Amendment 269" (PDF). Retrieved 21 March 2019.
  60. ^ a b c "Results of the 12th of September vote on Copyright in the Digital Single Market". VoteWatch. Retrieved 7 December 2018. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  61. ^ a b "'The industry is totally united on this issue': UK Music leads copyright delegation to Brussels". Retrieved 23 July 2018.
  62. ^ "Axel Voss appointed new Rapporteur for Copyright Directive". eppgroup.eu. 15 June 2017. Retrieved 5 July 2018.
  63. ^ a b c Voss, Axel (18 June 2018). "Europäisches Urheberrecht". www.axel-voss-europa.de (in German). Retrieved 5 July 2018. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  64. ^ "Copyright directive: statement by Axel VOSS (EPP,DE), rapporteur". European Parliament. 2 July 2018. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  65. ^ "EU-Urheberrechtsreform: Das "absolute Unverständnis" des Axel Voss - Golem.de". www.golem.de (in German). Retrieved 24 February 2019.
  66. ^ O'Brein, Danny (23 October 2018). "Italy Steps Up To Defend EU Internet Users Against Copyright Filters – Who Will Be Next?". Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved 23 October 2018.
  67. ^ "MEPs rally against planned EU copyright reform". theparliamentmagazine.eu. Retrieved 1 July 2018.
  68. ^ "Julia Reda discusses the current Proposal for a Directive on copyright in the Digital Single Market – Kluwer Copyright Blog". Kluwer Copyright Blog. 18 June 2018. Retrieved 1 July 2018.
  69. ^ a b "UKIP opposes the EU's Copyright Directive in the Single Digital Market". UK Independence Party. 3 July 2018. Retrieved 29 November 2018.
  70. ^ Kayali, Laura (25 May 2018). "The #copyright directive was approved today..." Retrieved 7 December 2018. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  71. ^ Hickmann, Christoph; Medick, Veit (22 February 2019). "Kevin Kühnert fordert Abstimmung auf SPD-Parteikonvent". Spiegel Online (in German). Retrieved 22 February 2019.
  72. ^ Sitte, Petra (15 February 2019). "Uploadfilter und Leistungsschutzrecht: Ewiges Déjà-Vu". Die Linke. im Bundestag (in German). Retrieved 22 February 2019.
  73. ^ Locklear, Mallory (17 October 2017). "Digital rights groups speak out against EU plan to scan online content". Engadget. Retrieved 19 February 2019.
  74. ^ "Letter by 145 civil society organisations" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  75. ^ a b "Directive on copyright in the Digital Single Market 'destined to become a nightmare'". Index on Censorship. 26 April 2018. Retrieved 1 July 2018.
  76. ^ a b "Everything you need to know about Europe's new meme-ending war". CNET. 22 June 2018. Retrieved 1 July 2018.
  77. ^ Doctorow, Cory (11 September 2018). "What developers need to do to save the internet from the EU's looming copyright disaster". Boing Boing. Retrieved 11 September 2018. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  78. ^ Hershenov, Eileen (29 June 2018). "How the EU copyright proposal will hurt the web and Wikipedia". wikimedia.org. Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved 1 July 2018.
  79. ^ "Why Wikipedia will go offline for 24 hours in Germany". Washington Post. 14 March 2019. Retrieved 21 March 2019.
  80. ^ "Prepare for the shutdown of Slovak Wikipedia". spectator.sme.sk. 20 March 2019. Retrieved 21 March 2019.
  81. ^ a b c d "Why Four Versions of Wikipedia Have Deliberately Gone Dark". Fortune. Retrieved 22 March 2019.
  82. ^ a b "Italy Wikipedia shuts down in protest at EU copyright law". World News (Europe). BBC News. BBC. 3 July 2018. Archived from the original on 29 July 2018. Retrieved 29 July 2018. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  83. ^ a b c Farrell, James (4 July 2018). "Italian, Spanish and Polish Wikipedia pages shut down ahead of controversial copyright law". Blog. Silicon Angle. Silicon Angle Media. Archived from the original on 29 July 2018. Retrieved 29 July 2018. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  84. ^ a b pg/st (4 July 2018). "Polish Wikipedia shuts down in protest at EU copyright law". Poland in English. Telewizja Polska. Archived from the original on 29 July 2018. Retrieved 29 July 2018. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  85. ^ "Wikipedia en español cierra de forma temporal en protesta por la propuesta de copyright de la UE". abc (in European Spanish). Retrieved 4 July 2018.
  86. ^ "Eesti Vikipeedia pani protesti märgiks oma lehekülje kinni". Tehnika (in Estonian). Retrieved 4 July 2018.
  87. ^ Dimitrov, Dimitar; Davenport, Allison (7 February 2019). "Problems remain with the EU's copyright reform". Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved 21 February 2019.
  88. ^ Davenport, Allison (28 February 2019). "We do not support the EU Copyright Directive in its current form. Here's why you shouldn't either". Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved 2 March 2019.
  89. ^ a b "Protests over Brussels copyright reform". BBC News. 15 June 2018. Retrieved 19 February 2019. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)
  90. ^ "Over 50 Human Rights & Media Freedom NGOs ask EU to Delete Censorship Filter & to Stop © Madness – Copybuzz". copybuzz.com. 16 October 2017. Retrieved 8 July 2018.
  91. ^ "European copyright: there's a better way". Google. 14 September 2016. Retrieved 10 July 2018.
  92. ^ a b "Google criticised for push against EU copyright reform". Financial Times. 26 June 2018. Retrieved 4 July 2018. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  93. ^ D'onfo, Julianne (22 October 2018). "YouTube CEO urges YouTube creators to protest European copyright law". CNBC. Retrieved 23 October 2018.
  94. ^ Alexander, Julie (12 November 2018). "YouTube CEO calls EU's proposed copyright regulation financially impossible". The Verge. Retrieved 12 November 2018.
  95. ^ "European Parliament votes against 'publisher's right' copyright law changes as Facebook warns of 'unintended consequences'". Press Gazette. 5 July 2018. Retrieved 10 July 2018. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  96. ^ "The EU Copyright Directive: What Redditors in Europe need to know". Reddit. Retrieved 7 December 2018. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  97. ^ a b c "Copyright Reform: Open Letter from European Research Centres" (PDF). CREATe. 29 June 2018. Retrieved 4 July 2018. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  98. ^ "Letter by 169 academics". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  99. ^ "Open letter by 40 scholars to the European Commission" (PDF). 30 October 2016. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  100. ^ ""Copyright in the Digital Single Market" briefing" (PDF). SPARC Europe. Retrieved 22 June 2018. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  101. ^ a b Schiermeier, Quirin (5 April 2018). "EU copyright reforms draw fire from scientists". Nature. 556 (7699): 14–15. doi:10.1038/d41586-018-03837-7. PMID 29620761.
  102. ^ "STM response to Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market" (PDF). STM. 14 September 2016. Retrieved 11 August 2018. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  103. ^ "Eurodoc Open Letter to European Parliament on Copyright Directive" (PDF). Eurodoc. 2 July 2018. Retrieved 2 July 2018.
  104. ^ "David Guetta and all three major labels are among industry giants pushing for copyright reform | TIO". theindustryobserver.com.au. Retrieved 1 July 2018. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)
  105. ^ "Paul McCartney, James Blunt Back New European Copyright Law". The Hollywood Reporter. 4 July 2018. Retrieved 4 July 2018.
  106. ^ "The Society of Authors' Response to the Intellectual Property Office's Calls for Views on the European Commission's Draft Legislation to Modernise the European Copyright Framework" (PDF). Society of Authors. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  107. ^ Vincent, James (11 September 2018). "This is what at stake with the EU's latest copyright reform". The Verge. Archived from the original on 11 September 2018. Retrieved 12 September 2018. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  108. ^ "Tensions heighten ahead of crunch EU copyright reform vote". www.theparliamentmagazine.eu. Retrieved 3 July 2018.
  109. ^ "ENPA reacts to Wikipedia hostile campaign against Copyright". European Newspaper Publishers' Association. 3 July 2018. Retrieved 5 July 2018.
  110. ^ a b c "European Parliament balks at copyright law reform vote". The Register. 5 July 2018. Retrieved 4 September 2018.
  111. ^ "Transparency Register: Google". EU Transparency Register. Retrieved 4 July 2017.
  112. ^ "JURI's out, Euro copyright votes in: Whoa, did the EU just 'break the internet'?". The Register. 20 June 2018. Retrieved 4 July 2018.[better source needed]
  113. ^ "About the transfer of value / value gap". makeinternetfair.eu. European Grouping of Societies of Authors and Composers. 31 January 2018. Retrieved 3 July 2018. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  114. ^ "Our Op-ed as published in EurActiv: Small publishers: Take 'neighbouring right' out of EU copyright reform". mediapublishers.eu. Retrieved 14 June 2018.
  115. ^ "The case for reforming the rules of copyright". Financial Times. 6 July 2018. Retrieved 8 July 2018. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  116. ^ "Médias. Défendre le pluralisme en Europe contre les géants du Net !". L'Humanité (in French). 20 June 2018. Retrieved 6 July 2018.
  117. ^ "L'Europe doit défendre les médias contre la loi des Gafa". Libération.fr (in French). Retrieved 6 July 2018.
  118. ^ Sweney, Mark; Rankin, Jennifer (5 July 2018). "YouTube and Facebook escape billions in copyright payouts after EU vote". the Guardian. Retrieved 5 July 2018.
    Khan, Mehreen (5 July 2018). "MEPs reject EU copyright reforms in victory for internet giants". Financial Times. Retrieved 5 July 2018. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
    Duke, Simon (1 July 2018). "Google searches for way round EU copyright". The Sunday Times. ISSN 0956-1382. Retrieved 6 July 2018.
    Schechner, Sam (5 July 2018). "Tech Companies Win Reprieve as EU Parliament Delays Copyright Law". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 6 July 2018.
    "Tech Giants Are Stronger Than Paul McCartney". Bloomberg.com. Retrieved 6 July 2018.
  119. ^ "Letter by 9 news agencies" (PDF). 14 December 2017. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  120. ^ "EU-Pläne für Uploadfilter könnten Todesstoß für Memes bedeuten – derStandard.at". DER STANDARD. Retrieved 22 June 2018.
  121. ^ "Un projet de loi européen pourrait menacer les mèmes sur Internet". FIGARO. 8 June 2018. Retrieved 22 June 2018.
  122. ^ Beuth, Patrick (18 June 2018). "Upload-Filter: Liebe Leserin, lieber Leser,". Der Spiegel. Retrieved 22 June 2018.
  123. ^ WELT (20 June 2018). "EU-Ausschuss stimmt für Leistungsschutz und Uploadfilter". DIE WELT. Retrieved 22 June 2018.
  124. ^ "EU's attempt at internet copyright reform is a ridiculous own goal". The Irish Times. Retrieved 22 June 2018.
  125. ^ "Ombre (più che luci) della riforma europea del copyright". La Stampa (in Italian). Retrieved 22 June 2018.
  126. ^ "Europa, stretta sul copyright: arriva la tassa sui link (e meme a rischio)". Il Sole 24 ORE (in Italian). Retrieved 22 June 2018.
  127. ^ "Będzie cenzura internetu? Ekspertka: To może uderzyć nawet w przeglądy prasy i portale typu Wykop". tokfm (in Polish). Retrieved 22 June 2018.
  128. ^ País, El (24 March 2017). "Editorial | A digital agreement". El País. ISSN 1134-6582. Retrieved 22 June 2018.
  129. ^ a.s., Petit Press. "Bruselská smernica môže uškodiť otvorenému a slobodnému internetu". tech.sme.sk (in Slovak). Retrieved 22 June 2018.
  130. ^ "Paul McCartney joins crowded fight over online rules". Politico. 4 July 2018. Retrieved 5 July 2018. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  131. ^ "Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) v Netlog NV". CURIA. 16 February 2012. Retrieved 21 November 2018. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  132. ^ Kaye, David (13 June 2018). "European Union draft directive on copyright in the digital single market" (PDF). UNHCHR. OL OTH 41/2018. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  133. ^ Satariano, Adam (5 July 2018). "Tech Giants Win a Battle Over Copyright Rules in Europe". The New York Times. Retrieved 15 February 2019.
  134. ^ European Commission contractor (2017). "Online News Aggregation and Neighbouring Rights for News Publishers" (PDF). Ref. Ares(2017)6256585.
  135. ^ Rushe, Dominic (11 December 2014). "Google News Spain to close in response to story links 'tax'". the Guardian. Retrieved 5 July 2018.
  136. ^ "European MEPs vote to reopen copyright debate over 'censorship' controversy". TechCrunch. Retrieved 5 July 2018.
  137. ^ "Censorship Machines are 'Destroying The Internet' As We Speak?". TorrentFreak. 24 June 2018. Retrieved 23 July 2018.
  138. ^ Wodinsky, Shoshana (11 February 2019). "YouTube's copyright strikes have become a tool for extortion". The Verge. Retrieved 20 February 2019.
  139. ^ Chmielewski, Dawn C.; Chmielewski, Dawn C. (12 November 2018). "YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki Warns Against "Unintended Consequences" Of EU's Article 13". Deadline. Retrieved 4 March 2019.
  140. ^ Maack, Már Másson (19 June 2018). "The EU's disastrous Copyright Reform, explained by its lovers and haters". The Next Web. Retrieved 21 June 2018.
  141. ^ Romero-Moreno, Felipe (29 May 2018). "'Notice and staydown' and social media: amending Article 13 of the Proposed Directive on Copyright". International Review of Law, Computers & Technology: 1–24. doi:10.1080/13600869.2018.1475906. hdl:2299/20431.
  142. ^ "4,7 Millionen Unterschriften gegen Upload-Filter". Tagesschau (in German). 18 February 2019. Retrieved 18 February 2019.
  143. ^ "Was ist Artikel 13? Warum deutsche YouTube-Stars heute in Köln auf die Barrikaden gehen" (in German). TAG24 NEWS. Retrieved 19 February 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  144. ^ ""Wir sind die Bots" – über 1000 demonstrieren gegen Artikel 13". Heise Online (in German). 16 February 2019. Retrieved 17 February 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  145. ^ "Demo gegen Urheberrechtsreform - Tausende wehren sich gegen Artikel 13". ZDF (in German). 2 March 2019. Retrieved 2 March 2019.
  146. ^ "Julia Reda on Twitter: "Here is written proof that @EPPGroup [...]"". Twitter. Retrieved 7 March 2019.
  147. ^ Beuth, Ein Kommentar Patrick (5 March 2019). "EU-Urheberrechtsreform: Der Zorn der Übergangenen". Spiegel Online. Retrieved 8 March 2019.
  148. ^ "Demos". Savetheinternet.info. Retrieved 7 March 2019.
  149. ^ "UPDATED! How do you pass the most unpopular measure in European history? With the most undemocratic dirty trick in EU history: stop the #Article13 vote from being moved ahead of day of protest!". Boing Boing. Retrieved 8 March 2019.
  150. ^ a b "Supporters Of Article 13 Briefly Tried To Move Parliament Vote Up Before Scheduled Protests; Now Deny Plan That They Clearly Had". Techdirt. 5 March 2019. Retrieved 8 March 2019.
  151. ^ Reda, Julia. "People are taking to the streets on August 26th to #SaveYourInternet – join in!". Retrieved 17 February 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  152. ^ "#stopACTA2 events". stop ACTA2 - Save Your Internet. 24 August 2018. Retrieved 15 January 2019.
  153. ^ "Astroturf instead of grass roots: When clicktivism meets hard reality". WebSchauder (in German). Retrieved 17 February 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  154. ^ Vincent, James (21 March 2019). "European Wikipedias have been turned off for the day to protest dangerous copyright laws". The Verge. Retrieved 21 March 2019.
  155. ^ "Questions and Answers on issues about the digital copyright directive". European Parliament. 1 November 2019. Retrieved 17 February 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  156. ^ a b "EU takes down strange, 'offensive' blog post attacking internet campaigners". The Independent. 19 February 2019. Retrieved 24 February 2019.
  157. ^ Beuth, Patrick (28 February 2019). "Streit über Artikel 13: Wer braucht schon Argumente?". Spiegel Online. Retrieved 28 February 2019.
  158. ^ Schmihing, Carina. "Youtuber: Wie sich PietSmiet, RobBubble und Co. gegen Artikel 13 wehren". Games & Netzwelt (in German). Retrieved 24 February 2019.
  159. ^ Kayali, Laura (14 February 2019). "Winners and losers of Europe's copyright reform". POLITICO. Retrieved 17 February 2019.
  160. ^ Doctorow, Cory (7 February 2019). "That German-French Deal to "Rescue" the EU Copyright Directive? Everyone Hates It. EVERYONE". Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved 21 March 2019.
  161. ^ "EU takes down strange, 'offensive' blog post attacking internet campaigners". The Independent. 19 February 2019. Retrieved 21 March 2019.

Further reading

Template:Copyright-EU

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Directive_on_Copyright_in_the_Digital_Single_Market&oldid=889107651"