The updates will become law once member states enshrine the rules in legislation in their own countries. In short, Article 13 would force sites and online platforms to use automatic tracking technology to detect when users uploaded content gmarkets to make sure they weren’t sharing copyrighted material. Don’t let Article 13 limit or kill your online expression as well as creative freedom. Join the groups and movements against this restrictive copyright directive, support and encourage companies protesting this directive. Spread the word and raise awareness, as some still don’t understand the possible ramifications of Article 13. If Article 13 passed, it’s only a matter of time until even more restrictive copyright laws take place.
Did the EU Ban Memes? Explanation of Article 13
Shortly after the vote was held, Twitter user @Senficon14 tweeted a screenshot of the results (shown below). Over the next several hours, the tweet garnered upwards of 9,400 likes and 6,800 retweets. The proposal has been criticized by some individuals, stating it will lead to censorship on the internet2. Main points of contentions within the proposal include articles 33, 114 and 135. The EU parliament voted 15 to 10 not to remove Article 13 from the proposal. Therefore, the next chance to stop the legislation from passing will be a plenary vote on 4-5 July.
Join CreateRefresh
The next day, Redditor13 Cosmin posted a Hackerman variant in /r/dankmemes. The post (shown below, center) received more than 6,900 points (98% upvoted) and 100 comments. These are humorous photos or video clips slightly-edited to reflect a variety of different meanings.
Communication services are also marked as being exempt, but while it’s one thing sending a copyrighted video to someone on WhatsApp, it’s another to send it to all your followers on Twitter. Memes have been a particular topic of debate but apparently, they will be allowed to survive (providing they’re funny). Essentially, it will make sites responsible for everything that gets uploaded. But that introduces several other challenges for sites that rely on user-generated content (UGC). The proposed law will face a final vote in the European Parliament in the next few weeks. If it passes, it will be implemented by national governments over the next two years.
Those measures, such as the use of effective content recognition technologies, shall be appropriate and proportionate. The service providers shall provide rightholders with adequate information on the functioning and the deployment of the measures, as well as, when relevant, adequate reporting on the recognition and use of the works and other subject-matter. The EU document refers to ‘online content sharing service providers’ but it makes clear that the target of the legislation is those who exploit this kind of material for profit. There are numerous exemptions such as cloud storage services while it’s also clear that the phrase « not-for-profit online encyclopedia » is designed to ensure that Wikipedia is exempt.
Because the lexatrade review onus will be on individual websites and internet service providers, they will also face the repercussions. As such, some fear that they will aggressively seek to delete content which is potentially troublesome. They could only do that by directly monitoring all content uploaded to their sites. Some view this as censorship and say it stifles internet freedom of speech.
- Rightsholders say that the rules will put an end to the days of pirating music and video online, and ensure artists receive a fair payment for their work.
- To help clear things up, here’s WIRED’s guide to the EU Directive on Copyright.
- However, unlike the contention surrounding Article 13, the GDPR was generally viewed as a positive step in an ongoing effort to protect the privacy of internet users.
Explore by subject
- Members of Barrio 18 entered the family’s home and threatened to kill Kilmar unless “rent” was paid or Kilmar was turned over to the gang.
- This is another way to show the Members of the European Parliament that you want to preserve Internet, information and creative freedom.
- Article 13 says content-sharing services must license copyright-protected material from the rights holders.
German MEP Julia Reda suggested services would have to « buy licences for anything that users may possibly upload » and called it an « impossible feat ». The International Confederation of Music Publishers (ICMP) has welcomed the legislation, claiming that it will help to narrow the financial « value gap » between what creators and platforms make online. A major concern is that the new laws could prevent freedom of speech and expression online, and lead to censorship on the internet.
‘Link tax’, social media posts of sporting events and other issues
Article 13 was part of a draft of a European copyright directive and required platforms that host user-generated content to have measures in place to prevent their users from violating copyright laws, sparking controversy. The EU Copyright Directive refers to Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Copyright in the Digital Single Market,1 a proposed directive that is intended to change internet copyright law in the European Union. The policy would require anyone with ability to publish content to maintain a database of copyrighted works that were claimed by right’s holders. Three of the articles within the proposal, however, have been met with scrutiny in regards to how it would change online behaviors, specifically in terms of uploading and sharing media.
Ms Berry said Article 13 still contained some « broad and ambiguous terms », such as the requirement for services to demonstrate « high industry standards of professional diligence ». If the UK leaves the EU with a deal, and the directive becomes law, it would apply to the UK during any transition period. Although websites less than three years old, or with less than €10 million annual turnover are exempt, the websites will still need to plan for when those caveats no longer apply to them.
The Copyright Directive officially took effect on June 7, 2019, and the Member States had until June 7, 2021, to establish laws supporting the directive. Along with this petition, potentially impacted services like YouTube have adopted campaigns using the hashtag #SaveYourInternet. In 2019, nearly 5 million individuals signed a petition to stop draft Article 13, started by saveyourinternet.eu, and became one of the largest petitions in EU history. People worried that silly images with funny captions, like the one of the Nickelodeon cartoon character Spongebob Squarepants, pictured below, would be taken down by every platform. Not long ago, when the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) was still new, another controversial piece of European legislation caused an internet uproar. Abrego Garcia’s lawyers, meanwhile, have denied the Justice Department’s allegation that he is a member of the criminal gang MS-13.
The government has not introduced either the I-213 or GFIS form in its defense of Abrego Garcia’s recent legal proceedings. The descriptions of those documents provided here are based on characterizations of them provided by Kessler in her ruling and Abrego Garcia’s current attorney in his complaint. The family moved twice but could not shake the gang’s threats and demands. Even after Cecilia closed the business, Barrio 18 continued to threaten Kilmar, his sisters, and family. Finally, in around 2011, when he was about 16, Kilmar’s family sent him to the United States, too.
Passage by European Parliament
So I recently heard news about the European Union and new laws being passed. Many were freaking about Article 13 and I’m curious as to how bad it is? The screenshot below shows a tweet from the user-dependent media platform of a “mockup” of what might’ve happened to YouTube if draft Article 13 passed.
Six member states (Finland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland and Sweden) voted against adopting the directive while three (Belgium, Estonia and Slovenia) abstained from the vote. And while the destruction of meme culture might be of an annoyance than a disaster there are wider implications. For example, new music tracks remixing and sampling other artists could find themselves blocked. The EU has ratified a new law that is designed to protect copyright, but it has some serious potential consequences for online content, in particular, user-generated stuff uploaded to sites like YouTube and SoundCloud. Currently, most video game publishers let gamers share videos of their gameplay online. Nintendo had been more restrictive, but recently relaxed its rules.
The first, mentioned in the open letter from internet heavyweights say the move would put unfair costs on smaller internet platforms. Big American tech companies like YouTube, Facebook, Reddit, Tumblr, and Twitter will be able to afford automatic filtering technology. “This is likely to have some important knock-on costs for social media platforms, as they will need to invest in software that filters content as well as also potentially bringing in additional people to do the actual work of policing and enforcing. » It’s a section of the EU Copyright Directive that covers how online services should deal with high-value copyrighted content. It’s been 18 years since the EU last looked at copyright and, of course, things have changed remarkably in that time.
Parodies, reviews, overview videos and similar content that uses content created by someone else will most probably not pass the possible filters, therefore will not be reached. The Internet quickly gave Article 13 another name – “meme ban”, as most, jokingly at first, said that all memes will be banned due to this EU Article. This week, the European Parliament passed the controversial legislation, tightening copyright laws on the best cryptocurrency exchange internet. YouTube is by far the most vocal critic of Article 13, with the firm making a big effort to promote opposition to the directive among its creators and users.