Nobody complaining about the law has actually read the law. Julia Reda doesn't want you to read the law she's opposed to, she wants you to be opposed to it based on the "link tax" and "upload filter" nicknames that have been coined for it.
> Julia Reda doesn't want you to read the law she's opposed to, she wants you to be opposed to it
I've skimmed the relevant passages and it didn't seem to me like she's claiming anything that's not true. You can play the word game of if that particular phrase was there or not, but the intent is clear for anyone, except perhaps those with vested interest in having this passed.
>I've skimmed the relevant passages and it didn't seem to me like she's claiming anything that's not true.
The "link tax" is certainly a false claim. Paragraph 1 of Article 11[0] clearly states:
>The protection granted under the first subparagraph shall not apply to acts of hyperlinking.
Also:
>The rights referred to in the first subparagraph shall not apply in respect of uses of individual words or very short extracts of a press publication.
The narrative of focusing on "those with vested interest in having this passed" is ignoring those with a vested interest in it not being passed. Julia's meeting list on her website is a Who's Who is Google and organizations Google is a part of or funding.
I would argue I have a vested interest in having this passed: I want an Internet which isn't predominantly controlled by one corporation which steals content from everyone else and passes it off as their own. I have no employer or funding source based on this, I don't work for anyone in the movie, music, news, or tech industry, I just want a better Internet, and the EU both in antitrust and copyright reform, seems to be delivering it.
> Who's Who is Google and organizations Google is a part of or funding. I would argue I have a vested interest in having this passed: I want an Internet which isn't predominantly controlled by one corporation which steals content from everyone else and passes it off as their own. I have no employer or funding source based on this, I don't work for anyone in the movie, music, news, or tech industry, I just want a better Internet, and the EU both in antitrust and copyright reform, seems to be delivering it.
I am sorry, but this seem misguided. Corporations like Google may very well be the only ones capable of handling this and even offer a service to scan everyone's files, meaning smaller businesses will let Google know about every single upload they receive, making Google even stronger and effectively banning zero-knowledge, privacy focused providers.
This is like internet 'fast lanes'. It isn't Google who would not be able to pay.
Certainly makes me re-think my Mastodon instance strategy and future plans to set up business in the EU.
I am someone who is on what many would call the 'far-left' and not at all against good regulation, but this simply isn't one of them.
This is a common refrain of big tech: That regulation and consumer protection designed to reign in their abuses won't be a problem for them, and will hurt the little guy. It's interesting how loud they plead that they won't be hurt by regulation aimed at them. (Or that they're still opposed to it, if it will actually eliminate the competition.)
The answer is that that line of argument is bull---- and always has been. Small outfits using reasonable moderation practices will never have a problem with any sort of copyright regulation. The issue crops up when massive companies have made copyright abuse a major component of their largely automated platform, and done everything possible to avoid moderating content because legitimate, quality moderation does not scale. And as tech giants, they want to avoid things that don't scale.
The interesting thing is that the so-called "upload filter" law, that everyone says YouTube will already be fine with because of Content ID, will not be satisfied with Content ID. Because a real, human person must be handling appeals, rather than the little automatic deny that Google currently does. It will cost YouTube a massive amount of money to adopt this on it's scale, but will cost small websites or platforms nothing: They already have humans that read their email.
> That regulation and consumer protection designed to reign in their abuses won't be a problem for them, and will hurt the little guy. It's interesting how loud they plead that they won't be hurt by regulation aimed at them.
If this is really aimed so squarely at them, it could be worded more precisely to just target say "multinational corporations with monopolies in on-demand media distribution", but it's not. This is because the aim is to yes, extract as much money from Google etc. as possible, but also to make sure there's nothing that could ever replace YT because it would be handicapped from the get go.
> The answer is that that line of argument is bull---- and always has been. Small outfits using reasonable moderation practices will never have a problem with any sort of copyright regulation.
Again, it could have been made very explicit that that's the case, in fact amendments in that direction have been proposed and rejected.
> Because a real, human person must be handling appeals, rather than the little automatic deny that Google currently does. It will cost YouTube a massive amount of money to adopt this on it's scale
As problematic as YT is, I highly doubt this is an attempt to promote the adoption of PeerTube etc. Rather, it is likely to be an attempt to crush an outlet where almost anyone can become big without a publisher.
> but will cost small websites or platforms nothing: They already have humans that read their email.
Email? Huh? I don't think "John's Portfolio Website" is the concern here. The concern is a small business that is a platform, say a new Reddit, or even a YouTube alternative. Say this does displace YouTube. How is an alternative with 5 employees going to deal with this?
Also, you didn't address the privacy question. What about platforms that perhaps want to offer zero-knowledge file storage/upload? Are we fine with this being just dead now, or what?
P.S. Also, it's not always the case that because something may inconvenience a monopoly, (Google), that it is automatically beneficial to everyone else. Article 13 is specifically NOT worded to target JUST Google-size businesses.
