EU wants to require platforms to filter uploaded content (including code)


K

Klumpen

Forum Addict!
Joined
Nov 19, 2011
Messages
8,577
Code: 
$ git push
...
remote: Resolving deltas: 100% (2/2), completed with 2 local objects.
remote: error: GH013: Your push could infringe someone's copyright.
remote: If you believe this is a false positive (e.g., it's yours, open
remote: source, not copyrightable, subject to exceptions) contact us:
remote: https://github.com/contact
remote: We're sorry for interrupting your work, but automated copyright
remote: filters are mandated by the EU's Article 13.
To github.com/vollmera/atom.git
! [remote rejected] patch-1 -> patch-1 (push declined due to article 13 filters)
The EU is considering a copyright proposal that would require code-sharing platforms to monitor all content that users upload for potential copyright infringement (see the EU Commission’s proposed Article 13 of the Copyright Directive). The proposal is aimed at music and videos on streaming platforms, based on a theory of a “value gap” between the profits those platforms make from uploaded works and what copyright holders of some uploaded works receive. However, the way it’s written captures many other types of content, including code.

We’d like to make sure developers in the EU who understand that automated filtering of code would make software less reliable and more expensive—and can explain this to EU policymakers—participate in the conversation.

Why you should care about upload filters
Upload filters (“censorship machines”) are one of the most controversial elements of the copyright proposal, raising a number of concerns, including:

  • Privacy: Upload filters are a form of surveillance, effectively a “general monitoring obligation” prohibited by EU law
  • Free speech: Requiring platforms to monitor content contradicts intermediary liability protections in EU law and creates incentives to remove content
  • Ineffectiveness: Content detection tools are flawed (generate false positives, don’t fit all kinds of content) and overly burdensome, especially for small and medium-sized businesses that might not be able to afford them or the resulting litigation
Upload filters are especially concerning for software developers given that:

  • Software developers create copyrightable works—their code—and those who choose an open source license want to allow that code to be shared
  • False positives (and negatives) are especially likely for software code because code often has many contributors and layers, often with different licensing for different components
  • Requiring code-hosting platforms to scan and automatically remove content could drastically impact software developers when their dependencies are removed due to false positives
The EU Parliament continues to introduce new proposals for Article 13 but these issues remain. MEP Julia Reda explains further in a recent proposal from Parliament.

EU policymakers want and need to hear from developers
As part of our ongoing collaboration with others affected, GitHub will help represent developers at an upcoming breakfast in Parliament on Tuesday, March 20, intended to show the human impact of this copyright proposal.

EU policymakers have told us it would be very useful to hear directly from more developers. In particular, developers at European companies can make a significant impact.

How to reach EU policymakers
  1. Write to EU policymakers (MEPs, Council Members, or Commissioners) and ask them to exclude “software repositories” from Article 13. Please explain how important the ability to freely share code is for software developers and how important open source software is to the software industry and the EU economy

  2. Explain this
    261d.png
    in person to EU policymakers
GitHub can help connect you with policymakers, provide additional background, or chat if you might be interested in representing software developers in defending your ability to share code and not have your builds break. Get in touch!
Click to expand...
Source: https://blog.github.com/2018-03-14-eu-proposal-upload-filters-code/
 
On the plus side though, the entertainment industry is jolly well profitable.

I don't know what I'd do if all those millionaires couldn't get new yachts for the summer. Sailing around on last year's yacht is quite unpleasant. >_>
 
The time where this was for freedom was when there where no average ppl on the internet.
Just saying, by letting everyone in they spoil everyones fun.
Ever been to the gopher network? There is a large book collection for download and no one gives a fuck cause barely anyone knows how to get there.
Same for normal http browsers: project Gutenberg, banned in germany.
 
Last edited:
Elw3 said:
Same for normal http browsers: project Gutenberg, banned in germany.
Click to expand...
That is not entirely true. There is a difference between US copyright and German copyright. Some works (three or four of them if I recall correctly) are not in the public domain yet in Germany but they are in the US.

A German court has ordered that those works need to be removed (lawfully so, if you cater to a market then you need to follow their rules). Project Gutenberg is (in my opinion wrongfully) of the conviction that they do not need to adhere to German law as they are a US hosted company. Their way of respecting the German court order (and making a political statement on the side) was by banning all of Germany from the entire site.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ___
You keep saying that whatever i say is not entirely true and then state the very same thing is true.
You need a therapy dude.
 
Elw3 said:
You keep saying that whatever i say is not entirely true and then state the very same thing is true.
You need a therapy dude.
Click to expand...
Gutenberg banned Germany, not the other way round. They only had to take care of a few items but decided that they rather block off the whole site than just those few files. Banning the whole website has never been part of the court order.
 
Elw3 said:
You keep saying that whatever i say is not entirely true and then state the very same thing is true.
Click to expand...
No I don't. You just don't seem to read very thoroughly. As Letalis Sonus said, Gutenberg banned Germany out of protest, not the other way around.
You need a therapy dude.
Click to expand...
A therapy? I am already having therapy. Perhaps I should take another :p Oh, and I am not into that whole brevity thing. It is el Duderino for you.
 
So my sentence should have have been: Germany is banned in Gutenberg.
This sounds so much better, thanks.
 
i find that satisfyingly ironic, that Project Gutenberg geht nicht in Deutschland
 
Regarding the Gutenberg case:
The lawyer in that lawsuit sounded familiar: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldorf_Frommer
They were also involved with some of the wi-fi lawsuits which complicated the matters for free wi-fi in Germany.
No wonder they have such notable clients.
Die Kanzlei vertritt unter anderem die Mandanten Constantin Film, Corbis, Getty Images, Der Hörverlag, Verlagsgruppe Random House, Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music, Bastei Lübbe, Weltbild Verlag, Tele München Fernseh GmbH + Co Produktionsgesellschaft, Verlag Kiepenheuer & Witsch, Rowohlt Verlag, Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck, Verlagsgruppe Droemer Knaur, Argon Verlag, Carlsen Verlag, Universum Film, Twentieth Century Fox of Germany und Warner Bros. Entertainment wegen urheberrechtlicher Verstöße. Die Tätigkeit der Kanzlei richtet sich dabei vor allem gegen Nutzer von Tauschbörsen und Anbieter bei Auktionen auf der Handelsplattform eBay sowie gegen die Betreiber privater Homepages, gegen die mit Abmahnungen vorgegangen wird. Typisch für die Kanzlei Waldorf Frommer ist der Versand identisch formulierter Abmahnschreiben in einer Vielzahl von Fällen.
Click to expand...
We're very deep in ultra conservative corporate shitlord territory here.

S. Fischer is owned by Holtzbrinck, one of the biggest publishers in the world and afaik second biggest in Germany after Bertelsmann
Also after reading the text I linked and judging by the history of that law firm it's reasonable to assume that their main interest was this:
Provide a listing of all the downloads that have occurred for the 18 items, so that licensing fees or other fines may be assessed.
Click to expand...
So their goal is to get money for every download that happened.

From their standpoint Gutenberg is a piracy site because it distributes copyrighted material. Don't forget that the big media houses fought for the extension of the copyright protection time (the 70+ years after death in Germany didn't come out of nowhere).
 
this is horrible. The copyright should be adpated to the needs of the web not way around!

The law makers have no clue what they are doing & destroying... I miss the pirate Party :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Faust
The Steam 'Big Picture' Daisywheel ported to JS and CSS. Supports Gamepad API. Github Source code
Replies
3
Views
6K
Faust
Faust
S
Sony to enter hand-held gmes arena
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
9K
GPJosh
GPJosh
skeezix
Minimenu Tab Plugin Spec .. Discuss Before I Code :)
Replies
9
Views
4K
skeezix
skeezix
mjohansson
Can anyone try to compile this GLES 1 code?
Replies
9
Views
6K
mjohansson
mjohansson
T
Can't Decide Between Psp And Gp2x?
2
Replies
20
Views
6K
g4m3r
G
Back
Top