tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post8081862499111322891..comments2024-03-28T09:05:22.006+00:00Comments on The IPKat: The value gap proposal in the JURI Committee Report as a consolidation of the existing framework (not the end of the internet)Verónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-37220864457059070282018-07-11T09:47:15.661+01:002018-07-11T09:47:15.661+01:00Someone above argued "But what if the 'op...Someone above argued "But what if the 'optimization' is without knowledge of infringement?" --<br /><br />This is not very important on a practical level when you consider the realities of the situation. What content provider is likely to 'optimise' some random cat video upload or something with similarly minute commercial value? <br /><br />It's far more likely that what ends up being optimised is something of commercial value, like a pop song. That's not to say that cat videos don't go viral, but there rather that there are no copyright issues there because what is being exploited is an original work owned by the uploader, and not an unauthorised one. <br /><br />With that in mind a content provider will almost always have at least constructive knowledge of what they're 'optimising' or 'promoting' or 'communicating' etc via their network. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-76463525814628496412018-07-06T19:19:39.185+01:002018-07-06T19:19:39.185+01:00#anonymous 11.14: it is possible the E-Commerce Di...#anonymous 11.14: it is possible the E-Commerce Directive could be re-opened. That could result in better rules... But tbh aren't the major sites taking voluntary steps to address illegal UGC, so perhaps new rules are unnecessary.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-15607041160008644162018-07-06T12:49:43.239+01:002018-07-06T12:49:43.239+01:00Having just listened to Axel Voss (the rapporteur)...Having just listened to Axel Voss (the rapporteur) on Euractiv and his histrionic, ultra rightwing, divisive speech -Europe First it could have been -had I been an MEP thinking of voting for the law, this would have swayed me to vote against! Who wrote that for him!!! I think they are misreading the mood badly here. However, in case you all forget -the EPP did exactly the same thing to the other proposal on introducing country of origin for online transmissions. Big rightsholders opposed it. So the JURI report proposal was also voted down and yet it had the support of those who voted down this particular file.<br /><br />So let the horse trading begin.Let's face the musicnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-24200840577353544102018-07-06T11:24:21.841+01:002018-07-06T11:24:21.841+01:00If the proposal is ever adopted-either in the form...If the proposal is ever adopted-either in the form as proposed by the Commission or the even worse mess made of that proposal by the Council and by large supported by JURI, it will not survive a challenge before the CJEU.<br /><br />The challenge may come from one of the MS that did not support it in the Council e.g. Germany and Benelux. Or it may take the favoured route of a challenge via judicial review in the Irish courts and there is no time limit for that. Remember that Digital Rights Ireland was based on a person who bought a phone and then challenged the state for retaining his data.So if one meme gets blocked, it is reviewable potentially. On what grounds -fundamental rights.<br /><br />This is what happens when rightsholders push it too far.Here we go againnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-33194613158041031782018-07-06T11:14:29.568+01:002018-07-06T11:14:29.568+01:00Excellent news that this the draft directive has b...Excellent news that this the draft directive has been rejected. Now, rather than attempting to consolidate or clarify the existing bad law, they should attempt to draft new law that is good. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-52321915980930664582018-07-05T23:19:21.918+01:002018-07-05T23:19:21.918+01:00The Voss proposal took a bad idea in EU law and re...The Voss proposal took a bad idea in EU law and reinforces it: where a website optimizes or promotes infringing content, it becomes liable. But what if the 'optimization' is without knowledge of infringement? Then, a fledgling site with 'optimizing' functionality, say displaying or sequencing, could be obliged to pay a huge licence fee for content a user has uploaded and which it has no knowledge of and no desire to host.<br /><br />On the other hand, an obligation to adopt content-recognition technology makes practical sense so long as it is clear which sites should comply. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-80763864768585317082018-07-02T14:48:42.228+01:002018-07-02T14:48:42.228+01:00This is all very interesting; the message I take a...This is all very interesting; the message I take away from it is that determinations on which services need to implement what types of copyright filtering mechanisms will take many years, and millions of Euros in legal fees, to figure out, if they ever get figured out at all, and if it even matters anymore by the time they are figured out. The vagueness and ambiguity here help no one.Bill Rosenblatthttp://copyrightandtechnology.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-78330219543217582112018-07-02T13:54:50.661+01:002018-07-02T13:54:50.661+01:00Very well written. I could not disagree more, unfo...Very well written. I could not disagree more, unfortunately. While you are completely correct on a number of points you discuss (in particular in claiming that some of the elements in the proposal have already been tried and tested in CJEU case law), the most important point lies elsewhere. You suggest that the proposal is not a major departure but a consolidation or clarification. Not so. While post-2001 EU law regulating the Internet in the content layer is liberalizing and permissive, the post-2015 package, this directive included, is built on fear, lobbying and defence from real and imagined dangers. It is as far from the 1997 EU Communication on E-Commerce or Clinton/Magaziner vision of the Internet as enabler as is possible. This proposal is in open conflict with the main beliefs of the 2001 E-Commerce Directive (and I would not even begin discussing the issue of “platforms” being the subject of regulation rather than ISSs). No amount of subtle manoeuvring around SABAM would ever remove the taste of fear that Juncker/Ansip digital agenda brings. If I have learned anything in my now 17-year-long career as Internet lawyer, it is that problems such as these (the scope of copyright law) are always a manifestation of a larger lack of vision and fear of the new. This proposal – and in particular Arts. 11 and 13 - needs to be killed, and killed swiftly and permanently, if we are to regain trust in the EU as digital regulator. Andrej Savinhttps://euinternetpolicy.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com