The <5M visitor clause - does that protect website operators from both Articles 13 and 11?
It protects against at least Article 13 (the filter), not sure how it relates to Article 11 (Link tax). But I doubt that the link tax is a big concern for Discourse in general - it works the other way around.
Update: The small sites-clause only applies to Article 13, not Article 11.
Oneboxes and quotes??
That’s unclear right now. The proposed text says that small snippets are exempt, but it’s unclear what ‘small’ means in this respect.
I don’t think this statement is correct? From my reading any service older than 3 years OR has an annual turnover of more than €10M OR has more than 5m monthly users is in scope of the proposed law. This suggests that a small site older than 3 years gets caught in the net because it breaches at least one of those.
If all one-box is doing is pulling data from the meta-tags then you could argue the source site is providing an implicit licence to use that data as its purpose is surely for presentation on social media. Sites know that when they include data here it is presented by third parties. Heck populating og: is voluntary and was designed and promoted, I understand, by Facebook for exactly this purpose. Sites have pro-actively implemented support for these of their own volition, so arguing that you can’t use this data for the purpose it was intended is a bit odd?
I’m more concerned with Article 13 personally.
6 Likes
Oh dear, I’m afraid you’re right. I think I misread the statement.
This is the actual text (the bit that was added as part of the discussions between .fr and .de):
The modified regime applicable to new service providers with a small turnover and audience should benefit genuine new enterprises and should therefore cease to apply three years after they became first available online in the Union. It should not be abused by arrangements aiming at extending the benefit of this modified regime beyond the first three years. In particular, it should not apply to services newly created or to services provided under a new name but which are pursuing the activity of an already existing online content sharing service provider which could not or does not longer benefit from this regime.
(emphasis mine)
Bugger 
7 Likes
Germany and France must think:
“If we screw things up, we want to ensure things are really screwed up then”.
2 Likes
What do you guys think, are the filtering technologies that might come true?
The content ID system needs to be centralized, to be most effective. If this service provider will be offline or corrupted by additional selctor lists, we‘ve got a lot more trouble. Sure, hashing / finger-printing of citations might be an privacy benefit. But who defines how many words / characters defines a copyright protected snippet?
At which point the filter system will take place? While typing to inform the user about potential copyright infragments? At the draft state with potentially dangerous thoughts? Or right after submitting? This means, that each post needs to be validated by the 3rd party instance.
Another way is deep package injection (DPI). This requires man in the middle attacs by governmental approval. Maybe through bypassing the SSL/TLS cert authorities.
The internet we know will be dead, at least for the most important communities.
I‘ve got nightmares by these options. Especially due to this EU blog post (recently deleted)
Update: The Copyright Directive: how the mob was told to save the dragon and slay the knight
.
2 Likes
Agreed! As a photojournalist, I embed a lot of detailed information about what’s in a photo, as well as my name, and contact and copyright details.
These standard fields (IPTC , XMP) are all stripped out by Facebook (on which I have found and acted on numerous copyright infringements) and by Google.
Brett
Rest In Peace 
Freedom of Speech
(Today, EU member states approve contentious copyright reform)
We definitely need some solution for this nightmare of legalized racketeering.
2 Likes
17.4M of my fellow Brits have identified the solution. I hope other EU member states follow suit.
The Copyright Directive is an incredibly harmful piece of legislation.
3 Likes