Bad news about #Article13, the copyright directive (which includes Art 13) has passed the council of ministers.
Interesting footnote: if the UK gov had simply abstained (or voted against), the directive would not have passed. Britain represents enough population to form a blocking minority.
However, the British government voted in favour.
The law can still be stopped in the European courts (which is what happened to the data retention directive), but this is much messier and more difficult.
Why do we consider article 13 (that's actually article 17 in the newest version of the directive) so evil again?
A lot of misinformation surrounds this topic, and I feel like people generelly have a misconception about what it's actually all about.
Because it imposes legal liability for piracy on any internet platform that is over 3 years old OR earns a lot of money OR has a lot of followers.
At the moment, the platform has to remove material when asked and the uploader is legally responsible for it.
Under Art 13, the platform itself would be legally responsible, even if they removed the material when asked.
The law doesn't call specifically for filters, but filters are the only way to obey what the law calls for.
If we can't predict how filters will work, then we should not pass laws that depend on them.
One of many problems with Art 13 is it requires zero piracy but also zero censorship of fair use.
No filter will ever be able to deliver on this, and inevitably one part of the law will not be enforced properly.
I'm betting fair use will be dropped because the fair use lobby is less powerful than the publishing lobby.
mastodon.at is a microblogging site that federates with most instances on the Fediverse.