Follow

Dear citizens of the . I found this a shocking list of services that will be affected by of the European Copyright Directive. Remember filtering will be the only practical solution to be compliant with this article. When looking at the list of affected services please note that email and messaging are on it. So is it safe to assume that all email and messaging will be filtered?

edima-eu.org/wp-content/upload

@ericbuijs small companies and services are not affected by article 13 as far as I understand it, but I'm no expert on the the topic.

Mastodon and pixelfed are for example not required to implement filters by the looks of it

So it's not really safe to assume that "all" emails and messages will be filtered.
Perhaps this is lobbying from big tech to protect their interests?

Will every mastodon instance admin be required to install a filter on their instance? Not as far I can see

@ericbuijs it probably comes with a risk of abuse, but it's also not censorship per se.

It's about big companies being forced to respect copyright owners license. Cc-By is okay, but spreading © without permission is illegal. Isn't that the main topic of the actual article 13? If someone reports copyright infringement it must be taken down.

Only big companies must then add that content to a filter to prevent re-upload.

Or am I missing something here?

@alexbeck Unfortunately a new deal between France and Germany has been struck that's frankly a nightmare and it also includes services like Mastodon. What is relevant for Mastodon that with this new proposal every service older than three years has to be in compliance. The vote in EU parliament will be in March or April.

torrentfreak.com/article-13-mo

@ericbuijs when I read the actual text it looks like no software filter is needed, if you have less than five million monthly visitors. No mastodon instance have more than that.

You must hower manually remove material that infringes of copyright, which makes sense for everyone except pirates and big tech, who earns advertising money even on pirated content.

Are you sure this would effect a small instance at all?

@alexbeck Diaspora HQ already started sending letters to MEP's in the hope to influence the vote.

schub.io/txt/europarl-article1

@ericbuijs yeah I don't know, it's 12 pages that includes crossed out text and it's from a questionable source, but dated 4 February 2019.

Hard to find the correct up to date text on the EU sites.

@alexbeck With Torrentfreak and Techdirt (see link) writing about it chances are the source is reliable. Although one can never rule out that it's a hoax. Time will tell.

BTW: crossed out text is a standard procedure in a legislative drafting process. The changes regarding Article13 are spelled out pretty clear though.

techdirt.com/articles/20190204

@ericbuijs not a hoax, but potential misinformation.

The document you link to makes weird interpretations of the actual text, and the actual text in itself looks a bit fishy and is leaked, not an official document. It has strange randomized formatting, at least it looks like that when I highlight text using my Web browser.

Every text I see about this on Mastodon is asking people to influence politics based on nothing tangible. It looks incorrect, but I can't tell for sure.

@alexbeck Well I can only hope that you're right. I'll post here on Mastodon if further updates arrive.

@ericbuijs The FOSS community respects software licenses and that is good, at the same time people who are against A13 seem to disrespect content licenses. It doesn't make sense as they are essentially the same. They both stem from copyright being licensed in a variety of ways.
Content can also come legally at no cost.

This seems to be, I might be wrong, a sensible regulation to protect everyone who create stuff. Including artists and private persons. Only big tech lose from it

@alexbeck I don't know why you say that people who are against A13 seem to disrespect content licenses. Without mentioning any source that's too bold a statement to make. I know I respect content licenses being a creator myself. The reason that I want A13 amended is because I think filtering is a crude and dangerous method. Crude because of false positives and false negatives, and dangerous because it can easily become an attractive platform for politically motivated actions.

@ericbuijs because article 13 is about protecting content licenses. Without article 13 companies can legally steal content and monetize it.

The issue we have is to understand what is meant by filtering. Blog articles say it applies to everyone, source text say it only applies to big tech. Social media say something that is not matched by the source and makes a political campaign from it. I might be understanding it wrong.

It's a problem of interpreting the real text.

@alexbeck So to summarize, it's not about the licenses but about the way it is going to be enforced.

@ericbuijs and the source text says it is not going to be enforced using software filters unless you are a big company with more than 10 million revenue or 5 million monthly visitors.

If you are small and older than three years you do not need software filters.

Eceryone must take down illegal content manually if requested, and that is exactly the current situation.

I must be understanding this fundamentally wrong or all the articles I see spin it for political gains.

@alexbeck Alex, nice conversation man thanks. I need to take care of some other things now.

@ericbuijs Where is the final text they are talking about? The official EU text?

This is just more of the same talk, based on some vague articles. Impossible to tell if it has any bearing, but it doesn't look very serious in my humble opinion.

They ask you to influence the politicians based on blog posts and articles from the American owned, isn't it? , Politico. All based on a leaked questionable document.

@ericbuijs Wikipedia claims about Politico " Cambridge Analytica micro-targeted pro-Trump and anti-Clinton with native advertising and sponsored or branded content on Politico."

It could be another, but smaller campaign, to promote the interests of big tech companies. Based on what I have seen (in the questionable leaked document) they have the most to lose from this.
Julia Reda just happens to align with it, generally being a pirate. So she like it, and give it legitimacy.

@ericbuijs of course Cambridge Analytica had to close down after being exposed with US influence and more importantly Brexit. Brexit was generally anti EU and this campaign is anti EU copyright law.

It doesn't have to be the same people, but there are potentially other companies doing exactly the same type of work.

@ericbuijs I found what Julia claim is the "final wording" juliareda.eu/wp-content/upload

juliareda.eu/2019/02/eu-copyri

No filters needed for small businesses. No forced costs, terms of service to set the rules will probably be enough. Delete illegal content when asked for it. No censorship implemented. Not affecting the Fediverse.

She interprets it in a totally different way in the blog post.

It won't kill the Internet, but it does make it difficult to pirate other people's content.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Fosstodon

Fosstodon is a Mastodon instance that is open to anyone who is interested in technology; particularly free & open source software.