Site Boards > Site Discussion

EU Copyright Reform Article 11 and 13 and their effect on the Lemmings community

(1/3) > >>

Strato Incendus:
Anyone active on YouTube probably knows what I'm talking about: Since last year, the EU has been adamant to get a copyright reform passed. Despite a massive public outcry, demonstrations, politicians getting drowned in mails by citizens begging them to vote against the reform, and the largest online petition in European history with almost 5 million participants, all the objections are being ignored thus far. The load of mails is simply dismissed as supposedly generated by bots controlled by Google, who are major opponents of the reform.

So what is this copyright reform about, for those who might not know yet?

Specifically, article 11 entails a tax on hyperlinks, and article 13 makes platform owners liable for any copyright infringement committed by their users (instead of the users themselves). Additionally, the platform owners must prove they're doing anything in their power to prevent copyrighted material from being uploaded in the first place. Experts agree this is only possible via expensive automatic upload filtering software.

Smaller sites, like this one, are probably just going to run into the issue of not being able to afford this software, thereby being forced to shut down (for international sites this means "pull out of the EU"), otherwise they're risking a great deal of legal trouble.

On larger platforms, like YouTube, the filters are going to be established, however, people fear they won't be able to distinguish a genuine copyright infringement (like somebody uploading a whole movie) from fair-use applications like using snippets for reviews or creating cover versions of songs. (Note that the concept of fair-use doesn't exist in the EU, despite that being the actual copyright reform we would need!)

Moreover, in contrast to the current principle on YouTube where something is only removed if the rights owner flags it, these bots are going to work the other way around:
They're going to block everything from being uploaded in the first place unless there is explicit permission by the rights holder. Meaning, platforms have to spend additional money to acquire licenses from all possible stuff any person might possibly try to upload (images, videos, music, even text).

That's the situation in a nutshell to the best of my knowledge.

Of course I'm going to be personally affected due to my YouTube channel about metal cover versions, but I'm also wondering how this is going to affect Lemmings.

Is the game really completely public domain now, with no remaining copyright by Psygnosis / DMA? Or is Team 17 the current rights holder, meaning YouTube would have to get a license from them in order for Lemmings content to be uploaded?

Furthermore, the issue of what type of music we can put into our levels is going to reach wholly new... well... levels. Because it's not only about Let's Plays anymore, but also about what music people can upload just here on the forum.


A major part of the community is located inside the EU (predominantly Germany and Finland). I doubt the UK is still going to put these regulations into place before Brexit, especially considering that the member states have 2 years time to transform these EU rules into national law. But as far as I know, the final vote on the bill by the EU parliament is going to take place on 23rd March, i.e. before Brexit (29th March).

And given that the main initiator of this reform, Axel Voss, is from Germany (CDU, Merkel's party), I'm pretty sure at least my country is going to transform EU- into national law pretty quickly in this case.

For the American users and namida in New Zealand, obviously you're not going to be immediately affected; however, in case Lemmings Let's Plays should come into conflict with those upload filters for whatever reason - bet it the game itself, custom graphic sets like Sonic / Freedom Planet, or the music in the background - then I don't know whether viewers in the EU will be able to watch them. We may just see a return of the geo-blocking notice "This video cannot be viewed in your country".

Given the already small size of our community and the low view count Let's Plays of custom Lemmings packs are getting anyway, this would therefore also negatively impact you guys.

namida:

--- Quote ---Smaller sites, like this one, are probably just going to run into the issue of not being able to afford this software, thereby being forced to shut down (for international sites this means "pull out of the EU"), otherwise they're risking a great deal of legal trouble.
--- End quote ---

The EU has no legal authority over this site. The owner (myself) is in New Zealand, and the servers are in the US. The EU cannot force this site to do shit, and I fully look forward to telling them to go fuck themself if they try.

Strato Incendus:
I appreciate your forceful response to this, namida! :thumbsup:

That's what I meant with "you won't be affected immediately".

I'm not sure though if they could block access for users living in the EU to sites not fulfilling their requirements?
Along similar lines of geo-blocking on YouTube where you can't watch certain videos depending on where you live.

Of course they can't force you to shut down the site, but they might deny us access to it. Alternatively, they might make you liable if a user from the EU uploads something they consider a copyright infringement (that is how they put pressure on even Google and YouTube). Meaning if you offer the services of this site to people living in the EU and they violate anyone's copyright (e.g. by creating a Sonic tileset, uploading music or similar), the EU law would make you responsible for it, not the user. Of course you can ban the user, but at that point the "damage" is already done.

If what you are saying were entirely true, we wouldn't have to worry about YouTube either, or Google, or any major internet platform for that matter, because they are all US-based as well. But it does indeed look like Google and YouTube are among the primary targets of this legislation.

Spain already introduced something similar to the "link tax" of article 11, resulting in Google News (not Google as a whole, just the news service) pulling out of the country. Google has already declared they'd be willing to do the same for the entire EU.

Currently, I just hope the EU caves in to the demands of the titans Google and YouTube, just like they cave in to the industry on other matters. :evil: Feels weird to be on the side of the big international corporations for once, rather than on the side of an institution that claims to be "democratic".

namida:

--- Quote ---I'm not sure though if they could block access for users living in the EU to sites not fulfilling their requirements?
Along similar lines of geo-blocking on YouTube where you can't watch certain videos depending on where you live.
--- End quote ---

The main difference would be that Google (which owns Youtube) has an EU presence as well. Given how much they're worth, they're also a lucrative target even if there isn't really a leg to stand on, because often they'll just pay out a settlement rather than bothering to drag the matter out - and the fact that US law doesn't generally provide for the losing side to reimburse the winning side's legal costs helps make that feasible.

They could theoretically block access to the site within the EU. I'm not sure if the site's IP is unique, it may very well be (well, it's shared with neolemmix.com, but beyond that I mean). It would take on the order of minutes of work, and maybe a few hours of waiting at most, to change to a new one, if the need arose. I somewhat doubt they'd bother with a small fan community anyway; generally, the target of such enforcement is large sites such as Youtube that can pay large fines (and thus make money for the EU government).


--- Quote ---Alternatively, they might make you liable if a user from the EU uploads something they consider a copyright infringement (that is how they put pressure on even Google and YouTube). Meaning if you offer the services of this site to people living in the EU and they violate anyone's copyright (e.g. by creating a Sonic tileset, uploading music or similar), the EU law would make you responsible for it, not the user. Of course you can ban the user, but at that point the "damage" is already done.
--- End quote ---

Again, they could say "you've broken EU law, namida!"... so what? I don't live in the EU, I don't hold any EU citizenship, I've literally never even been to an EU country. They have zero means of enforcing their laws against me. Big whoop. Unless NZ passes a law saying "EU laws in relation to sites available to EU visitors can be enforced against NZ citizens", I'm out of their reach - and I suspect NZ won't; IIRC NZ has explicitly declared they will not assist with enforcement of GDPR regulations against NZ entities, so I suspect the same will hold true here too.

Nepster:
As far as the current proposal goes, it does not have any impact on this site (even if it were registered within the EU):
1) Article 11: Apart from the completely misleading word "tax", which does nowhere appear in that article (and rightly so)... The article only applies under some circumstances:
- If you verbally cite or otherwise display the main content of the site you link to, thereby leaving no incentive to go through the link, and...
- If the majority of readers of your content don't click through the link.
This mainly targets big social networks citing the headline and the first half of the articles from actual news sites. On this forum, I can't remember someone citing enough of some extrenal site (apart from neolemmix.com :)), that the link was just there to avoid copyright-infringements. On the contrary: Most of the external links here are of the form "You should have a look here! It's great content!". And anyway, who cares about the 100 views or so, that a usual post here gets? Remember that owners of the linked site still have to sue namida for stealing their viewers and prove that this forum is responsible for them receiving less income due to the links!
2) Article 13: On this site every post gets read by some admin or moderator within a few hours. This is better by far than anything article 13 demands, which in particular does not force websites to check every upload for copyright infringements. The "expensive automatic upload filtering software" is only needed for the huge platforms, which due to their huge data volume cannot apply any other means.


--- Quote from: Strato Incendus on February 24, 2019, 01:40:38 PM ---Anyone active on YouTube probably knows what I'm talking about: Since last year, the EU has been adamant to get a copyright reform passed. Despite a massive public outcry, demonstrations, politicians getting drowned in mails by citizens begging them to vote against the reform, and the largest online petition in European history with almost 5 million participants, all the objections are being ignored thus far. The load of mails is simply dismissed as supposedly generated by bots controlled by Google, who are major opponents of the reform.

--- End quote ---
I am not really surprised that mails are getting ignored, if they are based on misleading information, similar to the one you share here (although I believe you are doing that not on purpose).


--- Quote from: Strato Incendus on February 24, 2019, 01:40:38 PM ---Additionally, the platform owners must prove they're doing anything in their power to prevent copyrighted material from being uploaded in the first place. Experts agree this is only possible via expensive automatic upload filtering software.

--- End quote ---
"Anything in their power" is a drastic overstatement: They will indeed have to do more than react to reported copyright infringements and be more proactive about checking their content, but checking every post before it will be published (or something like that) would still be overkill. And the experts are mainly talking about the huge social networks and sharing sites, which then gets taken out of context and applied to small sites to make everyone afraid.


--- Quote from: Strato Incendus on February 24, 2019, 01:40:38 PM ---On larger platforms, like YouTube, the filters are going to be established, however, people fear they won't be able to distinguish a genuine copyright infringement (like somebody uploading a whole movie) from fair-use applications like using snippets for reviews or creating cover versions of songs. (Note that the concept of fair-use doesn't exist in the EU, despite that being the actual copyright reform we would need!)

--- End quote ---
First of all: The concept of "fair use" does exist at least in German law (which is most likely based on EU law in that case). However it is far more restricted (e.g. for educational purposes) and doesn't apply to the use-cases you describe here.
For such use-cases as reviews you can still use trailer material or other officially published and openly available material. And sorry, but I really don't see why anyone should be allowed to cover copyrighted songs and openly publish their cover!


--- Quote from: Strato Incendus on February 24, 2019, 01:40:38 PM ---Moreover, in contrast to the current principle on YouTube where something is only removed if the rights owner flags it, these bots are going to work the other way around:
They're going to block everything from being uploaded in the first place unless there is explicit permission by the rights holder. Meaning, platforms have to spend additional money to acquire licenses from all possible stuff any person might possibly try to upload (images, videos, music, even text).

--- End quote ---
So what? That's how copyright works! You yourself have to make sure you have the all the necessary rights (now or tomorrow, in the EU or elsewhere). But because noone cares at the moment, some pressure has to be applied. Do you have a better suggestion than forcing Youtube and other companies to care a little more?


--- Quote from: Strato Incendus on February 24, 2019, 01:40:38 PM ---... but I'm also wondering how this is going to affect Lemmings.
Is the game really completely public domain now, with no remaining copyright by Psygnosis / DMA? Or is Team 17 the current rights holder, meaning YouTube would have to get a license from them in order for Lemmings content to be uploaded?

--- End quote ---
Lemmings is still copyrighted. However being a legitimate owner of Lemmings (which I believe we all are) gives the right to play the game and publish recordings of your gameplay, so Youtube won't need a license.


--- Quote from: Strato Incendus on February 24, 2019, 01:40:38 PM ---Furthermore, the issue of what type of music we can put into our levels is going to reach wholly new... well... levels. Because it's not only about Let's Plays anymore, but also about what music people can upload just here on the forum.

--- End quote ---
Yes, we will have to be more careful about choosing only freely available music. But that's not really any different than the current situation.

Upshot is: I still see a lot more positive consequences (less copyright infringements and more revenue for actual content creators) than problems with this proposal. And of course Facebook, Youtube and co will paint a rather dark future, because they currently earn a lot of money on advertisement around copyright-infringing material...

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page