I still have mixed feeling about #Article13.
As with GDPR where the definition of "large scale processing" wasn't defined, here the "large amount of work" doesn't mean that much.

The principles of proportionality and regulatory fitness may protect SMEs and eg. #Mastodon instances but it's still not clear at what point I could be liable if users of my instances start uploading memes containing copyrighted material.

We'll have to see how member state implement the #copyrightdirective

@paolo "mixed feelings"? Really?..

We already have 28 largely incompatible copyright regimes across the EU (look at quoting rights, or parody). This will get worse, not better, with how unclear Art13 is.

We already also have Internet gatekeepers like Facebook or Google. They can afford deploying filtering technology; in fact Google stopped opposing the Directive at some point, as they recognized it will help them further stratify, making competition even harder.

@rysiek That's exactly my point.

Some definitions aren't clear at all but it in theory Facebook and Google will fall in the category of handling "large amount of work" which will require filtering technologies that anyway they already have and use also for other reasons.

As blogs, Mastodon, Friendica, etc... instances count a few thousands users would they be considered at the same level of Google or will they be exempt?

@paolo my point is Article 13 is a terrible idea and implementation, there is no ambivalence around that.

Basically it says "we want filtering, but we don't want filters; oh and we want these non-filters to filter content perfectly each time and know if a particular piece of content is legal, licensed, a parody, a quote, etc, in any of the 28 jurisdictions; and we hereby create this magical non-filter filtering technology by law".

@rysiek I'm reading the various proposed texts published by Julia Reda (not on Mastodon yet?) and the proposals are much more aligned to my view of leaving some slack to individual bloggers, non-for-profit and SMEs so if that's what is going to be voted it doesn't seem that bad.

True that this is a Directive and not a Regulation which leaves member states the freedom to implement it badly or ignore it depending on the effort lobbyists put into it.

@paolo Reda's Comptomise seems okay-ish. I mean, politics is the art of the possible. If we can't just outright kill Article 13, Julia Reda version is the next best thing:

@rysiek @paolo yeah, we could have lived with that, probably. Didn’t get through.

There’s *some* good language kicking around in the trilogues, but the SME exemptions aren’t sticking - there’s much vaguer language about proportionality instead. Which means that we’d have to fight this in 28/7 different implementations. Art13 lobbyists see video-sharing sites including YT as basically pirates and don’t see why small pirates shouldn’t be punished if the big pirates are guilty.


@mala @paolo I am tempted to tell them: you want to treat video sites as "pirates"? Fine, let's trade:

You get this, but in exchange every time you erroneously ask a video to be taken down, you pay a HUGE fine. And there are felony charges on top of that, since you have to sign a document stating that you certify that that particular piece of content is infringing.

Yes, this includes right to quote, parody, fair use in the US, and all of that. Dealing with this complexity is now on you. Enjoy.

@mala @paolo oh you think that's too complicated and too dangerous for you?

Well then, happy we agree copyright law is absurdly complicated and unusable. Shall we talk reform, then?

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!