You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
A huge scandal is brewing in the European Parliament on the #CensorshipMachines. Last week, rapporteur @AxelVossMdEP had shown signs to drop the harmful filtering obligation. Now it’s back, and it’s worse than ever. Read it here: https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/20180314-Draft-CA-Article-13_v3.docx … #FixCopyright
This new draft was sent at the last minute before tomorrow’s negotiation, ignoring all progress that had already been made on the previous text. Now ALL platforms with very few exceptions are liable for users’ copyright infringements. #CensorshipMachines #FixCopyrightpic.twitter.com/mx6DlXCvNS
Where the previous draft would have opened the possibility for platforms to cooperate with rightsholders in other ways than #CensorshipMachines, this version says they HAVE to use “technical measures”, in other words filters. #FixCopyrightpic.twitter.com/s8gNJo1Rs5
To add insult to injury, the author listed in the metadata of the draft isn’t @AxelVossMdEP or his assistant, it’s an official of the @EU_Commission! The same official, btw, who wrote the Council draft on #CensorshipMachines for the Estonian presidency! A veritable tri-monologue!pic.twitter.com/VgfwC63kZw
The next shadow meeting will be tomorrow at 9 am. Then we’ll see if your representatives will simply accept their hard work being ignored like that, and whether @AxelVossMdEP will return to the negotiating table. #CensorshipMachines #FixCopyright
Hi Julia , what would be the right way, in your view, to make sure people get paid for their work being uploaded to the various platforms? This is something that needs sorting and I’m genuinely interested in the options.
I agree to a licensing obligation for platforms that gain knowledge of infringing user uploads, and then obtain profit from those uploads. I just don’t agree that anything will be solved if platforms are forced to filter. Filters don’t bring a cent to creators.
After all, the conflict that started this debate is one between the music industry and YouTube, which was caused by the use of filters (contentID). How exactly do we expect the situation to improve by forcing all platforms to become like YouTube?
Instead, we as lawmakers should focus on which platforms should have to get a license for which types of infringing content. This could include a statutory license that legalizes users’ uploads in return.
A statutory license (similar to our private copy system) would solve the problem that there is no way a platform today can get a license for all works their users can upload, unless the platform is very limited technologically to a certain narrowly defined type of file.
For example, should Tinder be legally required to get a license for the entire Getty catalogue, because users can technologically upload Getty images (although they rarely do)? I don’t think so. Whatever rules we find need to work for very different situations.
No they shouldn’t because it’s not what it’s for. I see your point that you could up load those images but it’s not what tinder is for.
That’s the difficulty: We can’t pass a law that applies only to YouTube. We must describe in a legally sound way what the difference between YouTube and Tinder is. I think the purpose of a platform is very difficult to prove in court.
the required exceptions for „online content sharing service provider“ will never end: what about open-source git repos? they dont fit in any existing exception and are completly unable to statisfy the given transpanency and cooperation requirements.
I agree. If what @AxelVossMdEP wants to say is that platforms that communicate to the public have to get a license or they infringe copyright, he should just write that and not try to redefine communication to the public in a way that would cover github. Then I would even agree!
github is clearly covered by the definition. It’s a company and its main purpose is to host and provide access to copyrighted works (software). No exception applies. They would be driven out of business if they’re deemed to communicate to the public. They can’t get a license.
The only real censorship is that of the copyleft denying professional creators the right to earn a living from copyright..you want to protect free speech then protect artists, musicians , poets, journalists, authors, playwrights, who speak a truth algorithms will never conquer.
You do realize that copyright filters are literally algorithms, right? #CensorshipMachines
Julia. You know exactly what I meant. Pirates trying to be pedantic about semantics as a distraction tactic illustrates exactly why we need a successful future for creators better than anything.
No, it is not a censure ship machine. It is an obligation to license when there is communication to the public
Trüpel is an MEP that understands that online platforms need to fairly remunerate artists too!
And for that goal we sacrifice @Wikipedia , @github, the upload function of forums, and embedded links. Great! #safethelink #censurshipmachines
Have you even read the proposal? Non-for profit online encyclopaedia and educational or scientific repositories are exempt
Indeed, they are exempted
Everybody agrees that authors have to see the fruits of their efforts (except, maybe, publishers...); the question is to find a balance between this and the burden we impose on websites. Tailoring exemptions for Wikipedia only further suggests that this burden is excessive.
Publishers are part of the value chain. There must be fair distribution between authors and publishers
As an author I have been waiting 35 working years for the latter to happen. You do not have a single mandatory provision for that in the directive. Stop spreading such disinformation.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
