The EUs new internet copyright bill has been rejected

[Master Disaster]

So after a fierce debate over the bill today it has been rejected by the EU by a margin of 318 to 278.

Quote

A controversial overhaul of the EU's copyright law that sparked a fierce debate between internet giants and content creators has been rejected.

 

The proposed rules would have put more responsibility on websites to check for copyright infringements, and forced platforms to pay for linking to news.

 

A slew of high-profile music stars had backed the change, arguing that websites had exploited their content.

 

But opponents said the rules would stifle internet freedom and creativity.

 

The move was intended to bring the EU's copyright laws in line with the digital age, but led to protests from websites and much debate before it was rejected by a margin of 318-278 in the European Parliament on Thursday.

The copyright directive had 2 parts that caused the issues, Articles 11 & 13.

Quote

The proposed legislation - known as the Copyright Directive - was an attempt by the EU to modernise its copyright laws, but it contained two highly-contested parts.

 

The first of these, Article 11, was intended to protect newspapers and other outlets from internet giants like Google and Facebook using their material without payment.

 

But it was branded a "link tax" by opponents who feared it could lead to problems with sentence fragments being used to link to other news outlets (like this).

 

Article 13 was the other controversial part. It put a greater responsibility on websites to enforce copyright laws, and would have meant that any online platform that allowed users to post text, images, sounds or code would need a way to assess and filter content.

 

The most common way to do this is by using an automated copyright system, but they are expensive. The one YouTube uses cost $60m (£53m), so critics were worried that similar filters would need to be introduced to every website if Article 13 became law.

 

There were also concerns that these copyright filters could effectively ban things like memes and remixes which use some copyrighted material.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-44712475

 

Well this is very surprising tbh, the EU actually used common sense and voted the correct way. There's always a first time for everything I suppose.

 

[Crunchy Dragon]

Does this mean we can stop making EU-compliant memes, or is that still a thing?

 

If I recall correctly, memes got banned in the EU because they supposedly violated some copyright law.

[Master Disaster]

2 minutes ago, Crunchy Dragon said:

Does this mean we can stop making EU-compliant memes, or is that still a thing?

 

If I recall correctly, memes got banned in the EU because they supposedly violated some copyright law.

They had a first vote last week which did pass but it was subject to a second vote before becoming law, that vote was today and they rejected it.

[GOTSpectrum]

3 minutes ago, Crunchy Dragon said:

Does this mean we can stop making EU-compliant memes, or is that still a thing?

 

If I recall correctly, memes got banned in the EU because they supposedly violated some copyright law.

This was the law that was going to ban memes!!!! 

 

Also I rang MEPs and made my case following the instructions provided in a previous post on here.

[lewdicrous]

If only they banned dead memes...

[HarryNyquist]

40 votes is way, way too narrow. Don't take this off your radars just yet.

[orbitalbuzzsaw]

4 minutes ago, HarryNyquist said:

40 votes is way, way too narrow. Don't take this off your radars just yet.

How would it come back? It's already been defeated.

[Master Disaster]

6 minutes ago, orbitalbuzzsaw said:

How would it come back? It's already been defeated.

Cause the EU is a weird parliament where common sense doesn't exist.

[orbitalbuzzsaw]

1 minute ago, Master Disaster said:

Cause the EU is a weird parliament where common sense doesn't exist.

So are all parliaments to be fair

[HarryNyquist]

4 minutes ago, meme smurf said:

if the EU bans memes could it affect people in america?

Look at the GDPR stuff. That's had a global effect and I see no reason to believe this wouldn't have a global effect as well.

 

18 minutes ago, orbitalbuzzsaw said:

How would it come back? It's already been defeated.

Rename it, change a few words, get different sponsors and supporters with different (read: larger) amounts of money in their pockets, and try to ram it through as quickly as possible before people realize what's going on.

[EsaT]

47 minutes ago, HarryNyquist said:

Rename it, change a few words, get different sponsors and supporters with different (read: larger) amounts of money in their pockets, and try to ram it through as quickly as possible before people realize what's going on.

MAFIAA has plenty of money, guess they just didn't dig their pockets deep enough this time.

[ScratchCat]

58 minutes ago, meme smurf said:

if the EU bans memes could it affect people in america?

Memes would be use the correct spelling of colour, metre etc.

[Bananasplit_00]

I liked some of the stuff in there, they could cut article 11 & 13 and run the rest through perhaps

[Jtalk4456]

2 hours ago, orbitalbuzzsaw said:

How would it come back? It's already been defeated.

The travel ban was ruled unconstitutional twice, yet it passed on the third attempt...

[Mihle]

This law would not have banned memes.

This law was only about enforment of the already existing copyright law.

 

In the already existing copyright law, taking for example one frame from a movie and posting it online, wouldn't not break copyright and therefore be legal.

[asus killer]

1 hour ago, Mihle said:

This law would not have banned memes.

This law was only about enforment of the already existing copyright law.

 

In the already existing copyright law, taking for example one frame from a movie and posting it online, wouldn't not break copyright and therefore be legal.

you actually had to pay for the copyright in the meme. Well not actually you, what was intended was for the platform you were using to post it to pay for you.

 

Still like mentioned above, it's not dead, now they are going to make alterations and then presented back to the parlament.

[Arika]

Good

[Mihle]

5 minutes ago, asus killer said:

you actually had to pay for the copyright in the meme. Well not actually you, what was intended was for the platform you were using to post it to pay for you.

 

Still like mentioned above, it's not dead, now they are going to make alterations and then presented back to the parlament.

No you don't if it's just a single frame from a movie. A single frame isn't enough for it to be copyright.

 

But if it was a single image from a photographer it's another matter, because that image is a hole work in itself. 

[mark_cameron]

It was rejected because it was unworkable.

 

News can't be copyrighted.

[Sfekke]

6 minutes ago, mark_cameron said:

It was rejected because it was unworkable.

 

News can't be copyrighted.

Exactly.

They can control major EU based websites & try to ban others if they do not comply but .. they started banning "The Bay" years ago and .. you can still easily access it.

Banning something online isn't easy, but these people voting for it do not understand the internet, they are out of touch. All they want is votes & slews of cash.

Should  we do something against that? Obviously yes, but how on earth would we do that.

[asus killer]

21 minutes ago, Mihle said:

No you don't if it's just a single frame from a movie. A single frame isn't enough for it to be copyright.

 

But if it was a single image from a photographer it's another matter, because that image is a hole work in itself. 

if you're talking about the law that was just rejected, what was proposed was that a single frame, an image, was copyrighted and someone had to pay for it. Just look it up. Article 13 if i'm not mistaken.

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, Jtalk4456 said:

The travel ban was ruled unconstitutional twice, yet it passed on the third attempt...

Different court levels. The travel ban was deemed unconstitutional at the lower courts. The Supreme Court heard the case and deemed it was indeed constitutional.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Crunchy Dragon said:

Does this mean we can stop making EU-compliant memes, or is that still a thing?

 

If I recall correctly, memes got banned in the EU because they supposedly violated some copyright law.

Thats like 90% of LTT videos. 

[mark_cameron]

20 minutes ago, Sfekke said:

Exactly.

They can control major EU based websites & try to ban others if they do not comply but .. they started banning "The Bay" years ago and .. you can still easily access it.

Banning something online isn't easy, but these people voting for it do not understand the internet, they are out of touch. All they want is votes & slews of cash.

Should  we do something against that? Obviously yes, but how on earth would we do that.

Even if the law passed.

 

It could have been deemed incompatible with other laws by the ECJ

 

Or the treaties of the European Union.

 

That guarantee rights of individuals such as freedom of expression 

 

 

[Jtalk4456]

14 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Different court levels. The travel ban was deemed unconstitutional at the lower courts. The Supreme Court heard the case and deemed it was indeed constitutional.

my point still remaining, and as best as I can tell the supreme court has been smoking too much legal marijuana