Viewing profile — c3o

I work at the European Parliament, and in 3 years of debate about the law not a single person or organisation has brought up people putting content from other platforms on FB as so…

There's another independent criterion that will cause lots of trouble/legal uncertainty: 1b. Regardless of (1), can you prove you made "best efforts" to acquire licenses for the co…

> I don't think any content-sharing platform should profit from copyright infringement That is not a requirement to fall under Article 13! Are you maybe mistaking "copyright-protec…

For those who do redeem the coupon, it's often an incentive to spend money they normally wouldn't have (in high-margin stores).

The link tax was not rejected in Germany, in fact it's the law of the land there. When it failed to lead to the expected riches, the lobbyists behind it switched their attention to…

If you're unhappier with the national decisions (e.g. Trump) than regional ones, regionalism starts looking better and better... I'd bet that's almost all the reason behind it, not…

In fact, they already did: The ACTA protests.

Every EU law needs the approval of a majority of directly elected MEPs. They are up for reelection in May. Of course one can influence their behavior.

Nationalism is the problem behind that, not the solution for it: Legislative processes in the EU are woefully under-covered by the press. That's because newspapers have offices ful…

Another provision of the article limits its scope to services that "organise and promote" user-posted/uploaded content "for profit-making purposes". The 3 criteria you quoted then …

On the face of it, the fix is rather simple: Vote for politicians who listen at least as much to civil society as they do to corporate lobbyists. Unfortunately, the political syste…

You could be taken to court and ordered to pay damages if someone reports you – but not the owner of the garden you're projecting it in. And you definitely don't have copyright cop…

The 30 million figure was a downright lie by UK music publishers – it includes the entire lobbying budget (for the year 2016, bizarrely) of any industry association Google is liste…

In one vote in the EP, something similar was proposed as an alternative: * Make (big) platforms provide APIs with which rightholders can check new posts for their copyrighted conte…

It doesn't, though. They are obligated to immediately remove this as soon as they attain knowledge of the infringement. You, however, are cheerleading an obligation to somehow prev…

This doesn't seem to be a for-profit service, so it's outside of the scope of the latest drafts of Article 13 thankfully. As long as you never put ads on it, you're good.

The law's not limited to "European websites": If you're making your service available to Europeans, you fall under it. Of course, the EU can't enforce its laws on you in practice u…

That's true in the US. EU law actually knows no such thing as vague, court-interpreted fair use. The EU instead has a list of very specific exceptions and limitations to copyright …

True, I guess you could see "the comment thread" as the larger (collaborative) intellectual work within which the movie was quoted for illustrative purposes.

You are absolutely right: The mere fact that these publishers don't block Google using robots.txt and that they in fact spend a lot of effort optimizing their metadata so that link…

Isn't that what the linked-to article is?

This would indeed seem to be a copyright infringement in many EU member states. For example, in Germany it wouldn't fall under the quotation exception (no such thing as vague "fair…

Another article of the same law (Article 11) would apply copyright also to shortest excerpts of news articles, anything longer than "individual words". (Colloquially known as the "…

YouTube has stated that if this passes, "EU residents are at risk of being cut off from videos that, in just the last month, they viewed more than 90bn times" – i.e. despite all th…