EU Copyright Directive -- A Threat to the Internet?

[HereIStand]

I've been reading a bit about EU's proposed copyright directive. As I understand it, any shared link, image, video, portion of an online article, and even open source software sharing would be required to go through copyright validation software. All possible violations of copyright infringement would need to be accounted for by this software. Any violations found by the software would result in a tax. Any violations on a website unaccounted for would result in a fine. The upshot is that only a handful of companies with deep pockets would be able to afford the fines or the software. More information below in the links. Has anyone read anything about this?

Time to ACT(A) on Article 13 – Copybuzz
European Copyright Law Isn't Great. It Could Soon Get a Lot Worse.
EU copyright reform/expansion

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I've been reading about, and the whole proposal too. And it's just ridiculous. I don't understand how any political body can possibly justify that sort of idea. Although when the political body in question started as a body to sort out coal and steel, that kind of says something.

 

[RDKirk]

I don't believe there are any nations in the EU that require registration of copyright to enable enforcement (as the US does). Up until now, that meant a creator suing for copyright infringement had to rely on his own means of proving ownership in court--and good luck in many cases. Europeans have generally preferred that because it meant that they didn't have to do something up front because copyright is supposed to occur automatically when the work is created.

In the US, although copyright is acknowledged to exist automatically upon creation of a work (as it must, considering that copyright is a Constitutional mandate and also an obligation of the Berne Convention), US courts will only award actual damages rather than statutory penalties if the copyright had not been registered, which means lawyers are much more reluctant to take the cases and a court fight is likely to be unprofitable. It is a bit more hassle for the creator, but then again, when a creator has a registered copyright in hand, infringers know they'd better settle out-of-court quickly because it's going to be a slam-dunk in court with huge statutory penalties.

So this is the EU's way of being able to enforce copyright using technology without either requiring official registration or onerous court hearings.

A big issue for American creators right now is that the Copyright Office is proposing to raise the fee for normal registration to $100 per application. It was only $35 a year ago, then raised to $55 only six months ago. At $100, it becomes a burden for a creator to gain what is legally a Constitutional mandate upon the Federal government to provide. A navy, a postal system, a currency, and copyright...those are the mandates.

 

[nhaas11]

Liberal (political) minds really don't understand the Internet. It's Funny how people cried when the FCC killed the net neutrality, people didn't understand that running the internet as a utility meant that taxes would go UP, it had NOTHING to do with neutrality.

 

[RDKirk]

Liberal (political) minds really don't understand the Internet. It's Funny how people cried when the FCC killed the net neutrality, people didn't understand that running the internet as a utility meant that taxes would go UP, it had NOTHING to do with neutrality.

I don't think you understand what "net neutrality" means.

 

[nhaas11]

I don't think you understand what "net neutrality" means.

I absolutely know what it means, I have read nearly all the net neutrality law that was poorly written. I loved the lines. "to treat ... as a Utility" then "You will not be governed as a Utility" and "Not Regulated by the Utility body". See this law was only written to raise taxes on Internet providers. I understand net neutrality, I am glad the FCC dropped this poor scheme to raise taxes.

BTW: True Net Neutrality is: if you don't like your provider simply fire them and move to the next provider.

 

[RDKirk]

I absolutely know what it means, I have read nearly all the net neutrality law that was poorly written. I loved the lines. "to treat ... as a Utility" then "You will not be governed as a Utility" and "Not Regulated by the Utility body". See this law was only written to raise taxes on Internet providers. I understand net neutrality, I am glad the FCC dropped this poor scheme to raise taxes.

BTW: True Net Neutrality is: if you don't like your provider simply fire them and move to the next provider.

Nope, saying that, you don't actually know what net neutrality means.

 

[DR_JB]

If I recall correctly, the EU's stance on this has caused the issue with YouTube's ability to display videos to citizens within the EU; I also believe this is the reason why Microsoft and Google are moving their services for EU users to their Ireland offices.

I know that ensuring users of websites and services have their personal data protected, however, they need to consider not allowing the new rules to limit the content to EU users. I enjoy many US-based websites, however, due to legislation, I now have to use a VPN to view them.