|
|
|
|
|
|
by sarcasmic
2768 days ago
|
|
|
As usual with upcoming legislation, FUD predominates in the conversation. A reasonable person may be used to parties with vested interests to exaggerate or misrepresent facts, but it's unfortunate when parties from whom you may not expect a clear bias continue to perpetuate uncertainty and doubt. Article 13 states that the measures to seek rightholder approval for user-submitted content "shall be effective and proportionate, taking into account, among other factors" the nature and size of services, whether they're a small and medium business, the sheer volume of material uploaded, and the cost burden of such an effort. Furthermore, it refers to a precise definition of the sort of enterprise that is to be impacted by this regime -- those that provide "public access to a large amount of works or other subject-matter uploaded by its users which it organises and promotes for profit-making purposes", exempting a variety of others. This leaves ample leeway to require a more rigorous scheme from hosts as big as YouTube while being more lenient with a hobbyist forum. Article 11 states that the copyright protection of journalistic articles from aggregators will expire at the end of the following year from the article's publication. It reaffirms the right of publishers to decide how they wish to profit from their work -- if they choose to make it available for the aggregator at no cost, that is their right as well. |
|
|
That's exactly what the Spanish law has forbidden, with disastrous effects for local media when Google withdrew. I'm not familiar with the text of the Article 11 proposals, but I doubt it includes provisions excluding such a transposition into national law; it's obviously the only way for any implementation of the directive to have any teeth.
Of course, the immediate effect is that the aggregators would refuse to pick any local content and would display only 3rd party sites, from outside the countries afflicted with the toxic link syndrome.