Sharing is Caring
As we catch up on some news, the EU Parliament has since passed yet another New World Order Censorship Directive.
On 12 September 2018 the EU Parliament meeting in Strasbourg plenary voted in favor of European copyright reform. Since content curation can be embedded, quote and display portions of texts and photographs taken from the newspapers portals, gaining money from the user traffic, all you fake Anonymous accounts will finally be gone!!! The real problem will be for the audience (you) of content curators, YouTubers, independent bloggers (us) who can no longer cite three lines from an article on their blog. LIKE THIS. Revenues from works uploaded by users represent on average 80% of revenue for some user-uploaded platforms. That will go bye bye and instead there will be added expenses to put in filters to censor content uploaded and shared, and fines and other legal consequences if filters are not in place, and let’s not forget the Link Tax (paying for using content snippets). So, as we tell you on every site…Save it if you want to see it again, or if you want to share it. Copy/paste is such a simple concept…
Thanks to Article 13, every post, every link you share, every meme, and every YouTube video will put you at risk of legal repercussions from EU now…not just USA like it has always been.
Before Article 13, the Copyright Directive gave artists and scientists much-needed protections: artists were to be protected from the worst ripoffs by entertainment companies, and scientists could use copyrighted works (otherwise known as PROOFS) as raw material for various kinds of data analysis and scholarship. Now the giant entertainment companies have unchecked power to exploit creators and arbitrarily hold back research. Then the European Commission launched its Digital Single Market (DSM) strategy in May 2015. The DSM strategy consists of three “pillars” and sixteen “Key Actions” which are all basically an outline of the road to total Internet Government. Key Action 6 focuses on EU copyright control.
Google has thrown its usual tantrum and has spent over €31 million ($36 million) on lobbying European Union members against Article 13. Google paid eight consultancy firms, including McLarty Associates, MUST & Partners, and MKC Communications. 14 Google staff members have also worked on EU policies. Internet tech giants, including Facebook, Google, Microsoft, have to install “effective technologies” to ensure content creators, artists, and authors receive fair pay for their work online. This is all well and good as people who wish to get paid for their work should be able to, but that, as usual, is not the true agenda for this Directive.
GitHub has warned that the way it is worded means it extends well beyond music and video content to any content uploaded to remote servers, including source code. ‘Upload filters (“censorship machines”) are one of the most controversial elements of the copyright proposal, raising a number of concerns, including: Privacy; free speech; [and] ineffectiveness,‘ writes GitHub’s Abby Vollmer.
Although it’s primarily intended to prevent the online streaming of pirated music and video, the scope of Article 13 covers all and any copyrightable material, including images, audio, video, compiled software, code and the written word. That means almost any activity which makes reference or use of third-party content on the internet, including on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, video-hosting companies like YouTube or Vimeo, blogging platforms like WordPress or Medium, or on media sites like An Sionnach Fionn, The Irish Times or Le Monde, would be bound by the new rules. These would legally require individuals and companies to have automated programs in place to scan all published items or articles for copyrighted material, ignoring fair use clauses, and possibly restricting the incorporation of in-text hyperlinks with pop-up previews and so on.
Another example of how this will change the internet completely: In search engine results, snippets often include headlines, cover images, and usually the first line of an article. As Google News is largely comprised of these snippets, the company in December discussed shutting down the service in Europe. This could limit traffic to European news sites, while Search results for news terms would be devoid of context. Google, and search engines like it, would presumably pick the most popular services to show in News and Search, thus depriving smaller sites of exposure. This is what it already does, however it does not completely hide smaller sites, just buries them under duplicates in the results shown…unless they pay for placement in search results of course.
Thanks to the German and French deal, Article 13 requires copyright filters for any online service that allows the public to communicate. Axel Voss is the German politician who reintroduced copyright filters to the Directive. Every EU-based forum for online communications would have to find millions and millions to pay for filters and subject their users to arbitrary algorithmic censorship as well as censorship through deliberate abuse of the system, or go out of business.
Article 13 “takes an unprecedented step towards 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,” and will effectively ban linking to news articles without prior permission.
This law was rejected by the CJEU in its case law as incompatible with NOT ONLY existing EU law but the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Article 13 illegally breaks Article 15, which states: ‘Member States shall not impose a general obligation on providers to monitor the information which they transmit or store, nor a general obligation actively to seek facts or circumstances indicating illegal activity.’
You see, in the EU “authorities” must have a specific reason to monitor or siphon data, and then, they are only allowed to access information specific to that reason-not all data like the USA is continuously seeking, logging and using to judge.
The Court concluded that such an injunction would oblige the intermediaries to actively monitor almost all the data relating to all of their users in order to prevent any future infringement of intellectual-property rights. It would therefore involve general monitoring, bringing it into conflict with Article 15 ECD. The monitoring required cannot be truly ‘general’, as it is not targeted at preventing any future infringement in an abstract sense.
The filtering demanded by Article 13 also violates Article 8 of the Charter on the protection of personal data. Furthermore, the 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.’ Article 13 is therefore incompatible with Article 11 of the Charter on end-users’ freedom of expression and information as the filters cannot filter with a fair balance.
German Data Privacy Commissioner Ulrich Kelber warns that Article 13 will inevitably lead to the use of automated filters, because there is no imaginable way for the organizations that run online services to examine everything their users post and determine whether each message, photo, video, or audio clip is a copyright violation. The Directive allows a three years’ grace period before it acquires this obligation and enforces it. But if a company is too small to afford licenses, it’s also too small to build filters. The closest any service can come to it is spending hundreds of millions of euros to develop automated copyright filters.
Google’s Content ID for YouTube cost a reported €100 million to build and run, and it only does a fraction of the blocking required under Article 13. Those filters will subject all communications of every European to interception and arbitrary censorship if a black-box algorithm decides their text, pictures, sounds or videos are a match for a known copyrighted work.
So guess what…you will be buying your filters from US Government owned and operated Google or Facebook. So Europeans who use European services in the EU will nevertheless likely have every public communication they make channeled into offshore tech companies’ servers for analysis. The final text of Article 11 clarifies that any link that contains more than “single words or very short extracts” from a news story must be licensed, with no exceptions for noncommercial users, nonprofit projects, or even personal websites with ads or other income sources, no matter how small.
Article 13 guarantees America’s giant companies a permanent share of all small EU companies’ revenues and access to an incredibly valuable data-stream generated by all European discourse, conversation, and expression. These companies have a long track record of capitalizing on users’ personal data to their advantage, and between that advantage and the revenues they siphon off of their small European competitors, they will gain permanent and total dominance over Europe’s Internet.
You think reddit and social media has gotten insane with censorship now? Just wait until this kicks in. We’re all living in America since the internet began, but now International American Dictatorship is Law.
This will lead to TOTAL online surveillance and manipulation.
All info you see today is already censored (thanks to “personalization” aka controlling your knowledge bubble, controlling your mind), but you are able to find what you seek, if you LOOK. Once this is in effect…your ability to gain knowledge, see new things, find what you seek, will be controlled on all platforms. Your bubble will get even smaller than it already is.