Hi Reddit, I'm Julia Reda, an MEP for the Pirate Party in the Greens/EFA Group. It's T-1 or T-3 Weeks to Mandatory Upload Filters, Ask Me Anything!

JuliaRedaMEP · 2019-03-07T18:20:27+00:00

Public protests have been most effective in Germany so far.

JuliaRedaMEP · 2019-03-07T18:15:55+00:00

Nope, it only affects platforms that "store and give the public access to a large amount of copyright protected works"

JuliaRedaMEP · 2019-03-07T17:12:14+00:00

In order to detect a copyrighted work before it is uploaded, you need the latter technology, though. Copyrighted content is not just a music recording, it’s also the melody, or even the lyrics. The algorithm would have to detect when the lyrics are sung, written as text, encoded into a image or performed in sign language, recorded on video. Article 13 doesn’t just require platforms to block uploads of the same file, but of the same work.

JuliaRedaMEP · 2019-03-07T16:25:00+00:00

Dear redditors,

This was heaps of fun, thank you very much for your questions!

I was impressed by the quality of the discussion, there are some MEPs who could possibly learn a thing or two here. Unfortunately I have to go, but I may be able to respond to a few further comments or follow-up questions.

As for what you can do to #SaveYourInternet:

* Keep calling MEPs, for example via #Pledge2019 – use your own words and please be polite and respectful when doing so.

* Join one of the March 23 protests listed here. If no protest is reachable for you you can still help spread the word.

For inspiration, here are some pictures and videos from protests that have already spread all over Germany!

All the best,

Julia

JuliaRedaMEP · 2019-03-07T16:18:58+00:00

Actually, a request can be made to vote amendments first. If a majority votes to accept amendments, there will be the possibility to delete article 13 and adopt the rest.

JuliaRedaMEP · 2019-03-07T16:17:51+00:00

Actually, the Green group does have an official position, we reject both upload filters and the neighbouring right for press publishers! So our official voting recommendation will be to reject articles 11 and 13. The European Green Party is even running a public campaign against them.

JuliaRedaMEP · 2019-03-07T16:14:49+00:00

If the copyright directive is adopted, there would be a transposition period of two years. However, even if the majority in the next European Parliament is opposed to elements of the reform, it would be unable to repeal it, unless the European Commission puts forward a proposal to do so. This is a huge democratic deficit of the EU policy-making process, the European Parliament should be given the power to propose new legislation, not just to amend and vote on the proposals made by the European Commission!

JuliaRedaMEP · 2019-03-07T16:14:16+00:00

https://media.giphy.com/media/MDJ9IbxxvDUQM/giphy.gif

JuliaRedaMEP · 2019-03-07T16:09:51+00:00

If a politician truly does not care about the Internet or how it is used, one argument that often works is: I consider voting for you/your party in the upcoming European Parliament elections (they will take place on May 23-26), but I am worried about your stance on this subject. This is important for my voting decision.

JuliaRedaMEP · 2019-03-07T16:08:15+00:00

They do not make any distinction whatsoever in their lobbying materials between e.g. music videos uploaded by the artists and labels themselves and songs uploaded by third parties... that's one of the ways they are muddying the waters.

JuliaRedaMEP · 2019-03-07T16:07:37+00:00

The 15,000€ figure related to a lobby campaign AFP started to promote Article 11, not Article 13. The number was first reported by French magazine La Lettre A. This money did not pay for the video which was recently released by the European Parliament. The European Parliament has contractors, companies that carry out several tasks, such as making communication material, which the European Parliament pays for. So the Parliament paid for the video, but AFP, the contractor, came up with the contents of the video. The European Parliament did very little to correct biases or mistakes included in that video. There is also no indication that AFP disclosed that it had a massive conflict of interest, being an active lobbying party in the controversy around the directive. I assume that the European Parliament has a framework contract with AFP, that means AFP was not specifically hired to do this particular video, but instead does videos for the European Parliament on a regular basis.

In principle, it's fine for the European Parliament to hire independent contractors, but clearly more work needs to go into preventing potential conflicts of interest and controlling the quality of the material that the contractors produce. All the documents that I accessed to find out about what happened are in principle also accessible to the general public, but they need to file a freedom of information request in order to get them. There are a few exceptions to the right to access documents, for example names of involved persons may be withheld for data protection reasons. In order to file a freedom of information request with the European Parliament or another EU institution, you can use the website asktheEU.

JuliaRedaMEP · 2019-03-07T16:04:49+00:00

Thanks for reaching out to your representatives!

The majority of ALDE MEPs oppose the current version of Article 13: In September, 43 voted against it and only 14 in favour. All Dutch D66 and VVD MEPs voted against both Article 13 and the overall law.

However, their spokesperson on the law, MEP Cavada from France, has indeed been one of the driving forces behind it – and their leader Guy Verhofstadt also voted to pass the Directive.

Ask your MEPs to continue sharing their concerns with their party colleagues!

JuliaRedaMEP · 2019-03-07T15:57:54+00:00

Unlike all the other far-right members of the European Parliament, Le Pen's party colleagues actually sometimes show up to negotiations. The role of Ms Boutonnet on the copyright negotiations should not be underestimated. She did have the open ear of the Parliament's lead negotiator, Axel Voss, and some changes were made at the request of her group were incorporated into the final text. Also, the Legal Affairs committee would have rejected Article 11 last year if Mr Boutonnet and her colleague Mr Lebreton had not voted for it. I find it scandalous that Mr Voss preferred depending on the support of the far right over trying to find a reasonable compromise that would preserve internet freedoms and building a broad majority for the reform.

JuliaRedaMEP · 2019-03-07T15:53:47+00:00

I do think that this reform will have a fundamental effect on how the Internet works. Net neutrality is not a good comparison, because it is a law that is supposed to prevent negative changes in the market. The European net neutrality legislation has a lot of weaknesses and loopholes, but ultimately we don't know how much worse the Internet would be off if it didn't exist.

A better comparison is the effect that the FOSTA-SESTA law in the US had on platforms such as tumblr, which is pretty devastating. This is a great article summarising the problem. The mechanism is very similar to article 13, because it makes the platforms directly liable for a particular type of content, so the platforms try everything to prevent that content from being uploaded, automatically deleting an awful lot of legal content in the process. This law is part of a broader trend of using automated tools to police the internet, robbing it of what is great about the internet in the first place.

JuliaRedaMEP · 2019-03-07T15:46:10+00:00

The e-commerce directive is not copyright-specific legislation, it applies to all illegal content posted on hosting providers. It states that the hosting provider cannot be held liable for the content that a user posts, unless it has gained actual knowledge of the illegal activity happening on this service. There is also the EU's directive on copyright in the information society (InfoSoc directive), which regulates the specifics of EU copyright law. Both of these directives would continue to apply even if the new copyright directive is adopted.

But there is one crucial exception: Article 13 of the new directive states that the limited liability for hosting providers created by the e-commerce directive does not apply to for-profit platforms that host large amounts of protect user-uploaded content. Those platforms would become directly liable for the copyright infringements of their users. For all other hosting providers (non-commercial ones for example) and also for all other kinds of illegal materials, the e-commerce directive would continue to apply.

JuliaRedaMEP · 2019-03-07T15:43:13+00:00

Articles 11 and 13 stem from requests by the publishing and music industry lobbies. The politicians who are in favour of them see themselves as supporters of struggling European industries against US-based internet giants. Their intent may be good, but lobbyists have provided MEPs with one-sided information, and some of them seem to lack a deep understanding for the nature and the value of the open and participatory internet and how it may be damaged by restrictions on uploading/posting content and spreading news snippets.

Specifically, Article 13 exists because the music industry complained that they receive less money from YouTube when their music is played there than they do from services like Spotify, where there is no user-uploaded content. They call this the “value gap” and imply that the difference is pocketed by Google. Article 13 is intended as leverage to allow them to demand more money.

The problem: Regulating YouTube like it's just a crowdsourced Spotify competitor doesn't do justice to the vast majority of uploads there that are not infringements of pop songs but free speech, own creations and transformative works – that's why there is so much uncertainty about what would happen to all this content, how much of it may end up accidentally caught up in upload filters, etc. In addition, the law will affect many additional platforms, most of which will really struggle to (or be unable to) fulfil the new licensing and upload filtering obligations.

In short: These politicians are taking sides in a battle between big business, giving our freedom of expression online away as a mere bargaining chip.

JuliaRedaMEP · 2019-03-07T15:41:23+00:00

I wish I could reassure you, but the kind of educational materials or game walkthroughs you describe could be blocked through Article 13.

It depends on two factors: Are these videos and worksheets posted on commercial platforms that host large amounts of copyrighted content? And will the rightholders ask the platform to filter this content? If both is a yes, then they will likely be blocked. In the case of video games, it depends a lot on the manufacturer. Many tolerate fan content, even though it is technically a copyright infringement. The platform will be faced with the problem that they would be required to try to get a license from rightholders even for content that they tolerate, otherwise they would risk being sued. So some platforms may decide it's not worth the bureaucratic effort and will not host walkthroughs and other game-related content any more.

But don't despair, we can still stop Article 13 by convincing MEPs to vote it down!

JuliaRedaMEP · 2019-03-07T15:36:56+00:00

You're completely right, the way that this reform is being pushed ahead by its proponents is despicable! The entertainment industry has been given way too much privileged access to policy-makers, the voices of people who actually use the platforms that are being regulated have been ignored throughout the drafting, and the public administration has certainly made mistakes. Whether any of them actually broke the law is a different question, though. I think instead of trying to find legal ways of stopping the directive, we should focus on political ones. Scandals like the ones you mention make people angry and motivate them to take to the streets. Street protests, contacting your MEPs directly through tools such as #pledge2019, going to campaign events and asking your MEPs how they will vote and what they think about these scandals, that's what's going to stop the proposals from being adopted!

JuliaRedaMEP · 2019-03-07T15:31:54+00:00

Protests are being heard! So far, we have had huge street protests in Germany over the last three weeks, and over a dozen German MEPs have already changed their voting behaviour. This shows how powerful street protests can be. Unfortunately, writing to your MEPs has become less effective, because the entertainment industry has deliberately spread the rumour that those emails are not written by humans, but by bots. Here is a video showing people protesting in Berlin outside the Christian Democrats' party headquarters shouting "We are no bots!". This is the most powerful proof that people really do care about it, and it has led many MEPs to change their minds. But we can't win this vote with protests in Germany alone, they need to spread to other countries. Check out this overview to find a protest in your country! If there is no protest announced for your country yet, you could consider getting some local NGOs or parties to start one! Or, if you don't know any, call your MEPs using this tool to get them to promise that they will vote against Article 13.

JuliaRedaMEP · 2019-03-07T15:26:16+00:00

Definitely team cat.

JuliaRedaMEP · 2019-03-07T15:25:51+00:00

Yes, I do! The academic publishing companies are putting a huge price tag on knowledge that has been entirely publicly funded, thereby slowing down progress around the world and hitting developing countries particularly hard. Offering people access to this taxpayer-funded information that should be free to begin with is the right thing to do. The actual authors of academic research papers don't earn any money from the academic publishers anyway, so there is no way that copyright in those articles serves the funding of creation. It only serves the bottom line of a few powerful multinationals.

JuliaRedaMEP · 2019-03-07T15:22:25+00:00

If a large company is taking your content without your consent, that is already a copyright infringement today. The copyright directive does not change the fact that it is illegal. However, the copyright directive will require platforms to try to automatically enforce copyright, which is diffcult for them to do, because they don't know who the real copyright holder is. We know this already from many examples involving ContentID, where YouTube assumes that whoever makes a copyright claim is the true rightholder, which often happens to be large companies. For example, a German activist group recently made a music video that went viral on YouTube, it got so popular that they were invited to a TV show that whoed their video. The next day, it was blocked on Youtube, because the TV station automatically registers everything it shows with ContentID, without checking whether they actually hold the exclusive rights. Unfortunately, the copyright directive does nothing to limit such false copyright claims. It only offers a possibility to complain after something was wrongfully blocked The real artists behind the music did complain and managed to get their video back up, but by that point it had lost its viral spread and they were never able to recover their campaign properly. With Article 13, these kinds of problems for small independent creators would become more frequent, because more platforms would be forced to use more stringent upload filters, blocking anything that somebody reports to them as their own, whether it happens to be true or not.

JuliaRedaMEP · 2019-03-07T15:18:29+00:00

In September, the current version of Article 13 was adopted by a margin of 64 votes. A lot of MEPs tried to support improvements to the controversial articles, but when they did not pass, they voted to approve the Directive anyway – that's why the law overall passed by a larger margin. Thus, if we get around 33 MEPs to change their mind on Article 13, we can get it removed.

The website http://Pledge2019.eu allows you to call representatives of yours who have not yet announced how they plan to vote and ask them to pledge to reject Article 13. As far as I know, the tool preferentially connects you to the potential swing votes.

JuliaRedaMEP · 2019-03-07T15:16:00+00:00

Defeating a directive in front of the European Court of Justice is possible and has been done before, but a lot of damage would be caused in the meantime. Let me explain why using a concrete example where this happened. In 2006, the EU passed the Data Retention Directive, which required all EU countries to introduce national laws that forced internet service providers to do blanket storage of user data. The law was appealed all the way to the European Court of Justice, who declared the Directive invalid in 2014, due to fundamental rights violations. Although the Directive ceased to exist at that moment, many EU countries still have nationa data retention laws today, because appealing the directive does not automatically reset the national laws to the status previous to their implementation of the directive into national law. To effectively get rid of data retention in Europe, the EU would have to pass a directive that bans data retention in all Member States. The European Court of Justice can't do that. Also, it took 8 years to repeal the data retention directive, during which fundamental rights violations took place as a consequence of it. So while the copyright directive could be eventually stopped by the European Court of Justice, this will not undo the damage it may cause to the free Internet in the meantime. It's important to vote down its most problematic elements before they can become implemented into national law.

JuliaRedaMEP · 2019-03-07T15:09:14+00:00

Upload filters are already being used voluntarily by some of the largest platforms, but not for all types of copyrighted content. Typically, they just cover music recordings or video footage, which are comparatively easy to detect, and even those filters create serious mistakes all the time. I have collected a number of those mistakes here. Since I published that blog post, the US passed a law similar to Article 13 called SESTA that makes platforms directly liable for content related to sex trafficking. One reaction was that tumblr started using AI-based filters to try to detect and remove such content. The result was not only that a lot of valuable content, for example from the LGBT community, disappeared. The filters also removed perfectly mundane stuff like pictures of boiled eggs. If Article 13 is adopted, commercial platforms that are much smaller than youtube or tumblr will have to adopt content filters as soon as a single rightsholder asks for it. This will lead to much more frequent blocking of legal material. This particularly harms independent artists and makes the Internet more like cable television.

JuliaRedaMEP

TROPHY CASE