How EU's copyright reform (Article 13 and link-tax) will ruin gaming for Europe

[Animusisters]

This is obviously a primarely political issue, since not only games are affected.

[Aidy]

If you're not mature enough to admit you're wrong, and not even smart enough to just stop posting when you find out you're wrong, then maybe starting threads isn't for you.

[Aidy]

Simply because it's not defined it's free to be exploited.

No. Look at YouTube, Face Book and Twitter. How much data do you think is posted to those platforms every second, never mind every day. I would say that is "large amounts". Can we agree that a large amount of data is posted to twitter every day? I just googled it and it is 6,000 tweets a second, that's a large amount, isn't it? There are 300 hours of video uploaded to YouTube every minute. Can we agree that is a large amount of data?

Now look at Exclusively Games. Would you say that accepts a large amount of data?

Recital 32 suggests that (1) anyone who wants to link to the news has to have a separate, commercial license;

No. Don't tell me what it suggests, that's just you posting misrepresentation as fact. It says that if you use copyrighted material from another site you need to pay for it. That does not cover linking. If you include the first paragraph of the article and then the link to the full article then you could fall foul to this law. This is about copyright. The whole law is about copyright.

"Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on copyright in the Digital Single Market"

Why would a law about copyright care that you are linking to another site? What does that have to do with copyright? Including a snippet of that site though....that's a different matter.

Article 11 is basically the "link-tax" meaning as an author before you link to another author's website you will need to have valid license to do the linking.

It doesn't matter how many times you say this.....IT ISN'T TRUE

Google has been in precisely this situation before

For sure. This law was created to specifically tackle google (Google News specifically, not google search) and other news aggregation services. Those services take content from other sites that they didn't write, and show that information to the user in an aggregated manner giving people the gist of the story without them having to view the actual article, robbing the author of the article the opportunity to use that traffic as a revenue source. That's what this law is for. Why would anyone care that anyone is linking to other sites? Don't you see how utterly ridiculous that sounds? That you have to pay someone to link to their site? The internet would simply stop working. The very backbone of the internet is hyperlinking. It's just a series of documents all linked to each other like a....like a.....like a web! That's how the internet works and it's got nothing to do with copyright.

[k4far]

@Aidy

It says internet platforms hosting "large amounts" of content. They don't define what "large amounts" means, that will be for courts to decide on an individual basis, however you unequivocally stated;

Simply because it's not defined it's free to be exploited. Content filtering will become it's own business that's the intent to make extra money from air. Those laws will apply to every size of business it matters if your content will be visible in Europe.

How does that equate to having to pay people to link to their site? It discusses using snippets of the article (ie copyrighted content) to decorate or elaborate on the link. So the claim that you have to pay people to link to them is false, can we agree on that?

One of the Directive's "recitals" is Recital 32:

"(32) The organisational and financial contribution of publishers in producing press publications needs to be recognised and further encouraged to ensure the sustainability of the publishing industry and thereby to guarantee the availability of reliable information. It is therefore necessary for Member States to provide at Union level legal protection for press publications in the Union for digital uses. Such protection should be effectively guaranteed through the introduction, in Union law, of rights related to copyright for the reproduction and making available to the public of press publications in respect of digital uses in order to obtain fair and proportionate remuneration for such uses. Private uses should be excluded from this reference. In addition, the listing in a search engine should not be considered as fair and proportionate remuneration."

Recital 32 suggests that (1) anyone who wants to link to the news has to have a separate, commercial license; and (2) news companies can't waive this right, even through Creative Commons licenses and other tools for granting blanket permission.

“fair and proportionate remuneration for the digital use of their press publications by information society service providers.”
Article 11 is basically the "link-tax" meaning as an author before you link to another author's website you will need to have valid license to do the linking. Jeremy's "I'll leave link in the description comes to my mind" JEREMY WHERE IS THE MONEY xD

Google has been in precisely this situation before, albeit it on a much smaller scale. In October 2014 the Spanish government passed its own “link tax,” requiring services that post links and excerpt of news articles to pay a fee to the Spanish Newspaper Publishers’ Association. In response, Google closed Google News in the country and removed Spanish newspapers from the service internationally.




Article 13 (“Use of protected content by information society service providers storing and giving access to large amounts of works and other subject-matter uploaded by their users”).

The Commission’s proposal to introduce a filtering requirement for ISSPs that can potentially serve as a censorship machine will violate users’ fundamental rights and distort the existing legal framework.

[Irritablesquid]

I don't think it'll do much at first, it's when other places start doing it.
there will always be a way around it until other countries see it and think its a great idea and start copying the EU.
I'm in the UK so I don't think it'll affect me, but I'm still against it and have contacted my MP and MEP and told everyone I know to do the same.

If we don't unite against this then when it happens to other places there will be fewer voices to come to your defence. This isn't the first time they've tried something like this and its not going to be the last.

[Aidy]

k4far first off all that stuff you posted is longer than the actual legislation. If what you are saying is true....just post the legislation. Show me the actual, easily found legislation that says these things are true?

I'm not going to go into too much detail, I'll address your post until you get the gist.

savethelink.org - this is clearly an activist organisation with a vested interest in scaremongering, I'm looking for facts, not opinions.

openmedia.org - same as above

Julia Reda...ok a little biased but she's a euro MP so should understand the law, let's see what she says. You claim that you need to pay people to link to them however the link you've given doesn't relate to that, it relates to auto filtering. The page on her site that relates to links is here

https://juliareda.eu/eu-copyright-re...or-news-sites/

So to quote your own source;

The Commission wants to generate income for European publishers by allowing them to charge internet platforms for displaying snippets of their content to users.

How does that equate to having to pay people to link to their site? It discusses using snippets of the article (ie copyrighted content) to decorate or elaborate on the link. So the claim that you have to pay people to link to them is false, can we agree on that?

Let's go back to the link you did post about auto filtering. Your claim is that everything we post here will need to be verified first. Let's see what your source has to say about that;

Internet platforms hosting "large amounts" of user-uploaded content must monitor user behavior and filter their contributions to identify and prevent copyright infringement.

It says internet platforms hosting "large amounts" of content. They don't define what "large amounts" means, that will be for courts to decide on an individual basis, however you unequivocally stated;

You HAVE TO build a mechanism that will detect and filter out contents that are a potential "piracy" or "controversy".

Every single of your comments will have to get verified before it gets published. Contents that are potentially "controversial" or "dangerous" will be blocked.

Yet your source says that platforms hosting a large amount of content must monitor and filter. That law won't apply to a site like this, and even if it did it doesn't state that every bit of content needs to be pre-validated, only that sites need to monitor and filter. You also claim that "controversy" must be filtered out, yet nowhere on the site you posted does it say that. It says content has to be monitored for copyright issues, not controversy.

So can we agree that bit of your post was also incorrect?

I could go on in this manner but there really is little point. I stand by my original post, everything in your OP is wrong, it is all scaremongering. If you want to continue to ascertain that what you're saying is correctly then please simply post the relevant parts of the legislation, don't give me paraphrased activist sites. Tell you what, I'll even help you, here is a link to the legislation;

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-cont...%3A52016PC0593

The bits you are referring to are Article 11 and Article 13.

[k4far]

[F] for gamers in Europe Aidy

Sure, I'll quote the bits that aren't true below;

The proposed law includes powers for media giants to charge licensing fees for posting links, through a new type of copyright, aka the link tax. It would also demand websites install bots to monitor your posts, and censor them, if copyrighted content is detected. We know these rules impact how many of us work on a day to day basis: from journalists looking up sources, to professional reviewers discussing the latest films.

https://savethelink.org/me
Source to back this up by openmedia.org/en/eu-passes-link-tax-and-censorship-machines-meme-war-not-over

"powers for media giants to charge licensing fees..." it means that the VOX Media your "giant" will be getting money each time you decide to link to their pseudo article.


Diversity of people who rely on links, and on creatively using content. Exclusively Games relies on using links The Quartering relies on using links and "creatively using content" you can borrow graphics, fragments of video game gameplay with fair-use to make a review. Are you telling me when that is gone you will not be affected as game reviewing website?

Non-biased source to back this up: https://juliareda.eu/eu-copyright-re...ship-machines/

"Startup killer: This requirement places a huge burden on internet companies and discourages investment in user-generated content".
Both Google and You as creator will be at constant risk of being fined for not being able to effectively monitor activity on your platform unless you introduce harsh automated moderation.

"Unintended targets harmed: Community projects like Wikipedia would likely need to implement such filters, even though they only accept freely-licensed uploads. Code hosting platforms would also be affected, "

This [law] will lead to excessive filtering and deletion of content and limit the freedom to impart information on the one hand, and the freedom to receive information on the other.
– 57 signatories representing fundamental rights organisations, including Human Rights Watch and Reporters without Borders

Your real objective video game journalism Jeremy Hambly is doing will also be at risk of being randomly bombarded by false copyright claims and being shutdown if shareholders of some Kotaku find it a nuisance.



"FULL FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONTENTS OF USERS"


Websites that allow users to upload files and that store a lot of them would be forced to install censorship machines that surveil every upload, in an effort to pre-empt copyright infringement.

Sauce: "All users are potential criminals: A costly obligation to censor"

"reviews/satire/parodies will not be allowed"

"This is not just prohibitively costly for many startups, it also will lead to legal content like parodies and quotations being taken down – just to be on the safe side."

Quotations being taken down, holy shit!



"traffic will plummet"

What I am saying is not far-fetched jizz. When those filters kick in all of your links visible in Europe will be hidden from people with european IPs or Google will drop the service for Europe if they disagree with what EU is doing but I am not sure how that will play out... This is a tragedy for honest video game journalism. We are going to be in cage (unless we will be using VPNs) with websites like Euro Gamer to do honest reviewing for us.

What percentage of Jeremy's traffic is coming from Europe? Imagine it disappears and you will be only getting paid for views from America. This includes visibility on search engines if Google agrees with EU ExclusivelyGames.com might not appear in search results for Europe. Jeremy is not living in Europe but it does not mean those laws will not affect him/his channel/his website. He will appear nonexistent to us unless we change our IPs to somewhere outside the EU.

While on the other hand Australia passed anti-encryption bill which bans the encryption rendering VPNs illegal this is a real cage. This all are just conclusions if you read the contents of two previous links please bug me no more <3

While I'm am of course against Article 11 and 13, "Ruin gaming for europe" is pure fearmongering clickbait tbh, even if all non european gaming sites would be blocked it would not ruin gaming as a whole, you make it sound like gaming can not exist without non EU games websites.

We have only well-established outlets who get paid for writing reviews here in Europe to keep writing like "best of the genre" before they even play the freaking game. Minor reviewers, Youtube channels dedicated to reviewing video games will not be allowed to share their videos of games if developers will be not in favor of their commentary this is going to go like this why are you still doubting how far shameless video game developers are willing to go... Have you ever seen region-locked video? Everybody else can see it except for you because some "copyright owner" has blocked it in your country. This is going to happen for ENTIRE Europe. Escape from Tarkov victim neatly illustrates to you how you can abuse false copyright claims and get away with it.

We do not have the slightest clue back here in Europe how to find some game reviews except for going to YouTubers who have little bias and it's going to be taken from us. Video game journalism going to be monopolized by well-established video game reviewing sites who are full of bias - this is already a freaking monopoly, we are fighting to have Exclusively Games and the Quartering not behind a region wall.

[Musou Tensei]

While I'm am of course against Article 11 and 13, "Ruin gaming for europe" is pure fearmongering clickbait tbh, even if all non european gaming sites would be blocked it would not ruin gaming as a whole, you make it sound like gaming can not exist without non EU games websites.

[Aidy]

Mind quoting parts you believe to be false I can provide direct sources to my claims if you care instead of accusing me of something.

Sure, I'll quote the bits that aren't true below;

What will be the result of EU's Copyright Reform for gaming community in Europe?



What if you are a website where people can post comments ex. ExclusivelyGames.com:

• You HAVE TO build a mechanism that will detect and filter out contents that are a potential "piracy" or "controversy".
• You are taking FULL FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONTENTS OF USERS visible on your website.
• You will be forced to pay the LINK TAX to websites for linking to their articles (no exceptions) - if you wish to criticize Kotaku or Polygon they will be making a ton of money in the process!

What does it all mean for internet users:

• Every single of your comments will have to get verified before it gets published. Contents that are potentially "controversial" or "dangerous" will be blocked.
• Sharing content, posting links, making and uploading memes might be considered a violation of copyright.
• It will be really difficult for you to find things that you are interested in. Because of the LINK TAX search engines will be blocking access to smaller websites.

What is going to happen to content creators Youtubers:

• Traffic to you will plummet.
• If in your review you decide to include a quote out of a book cover/movie/game cutscene on your channel, website, anywhere. It will be considered a copyright violation and automatically removed and you will fine fined.
• Any reviews/satire/parodies you are making will not be allowed. Fair use will completely stop working you will be a subject to AUTOMATED MODERATION.

[Snakeysnakey]

Sounds like the EU is becoming China 2.0 God speed euros

[k4far]

Not saying this topic is not worthy of debate, but sadly there is barely a word of truth in the OP, it's all scaremongering.

I hope you can debate on how SEO is working and well as how filtering from the point of ISP will affect everybody in Europe.

[k4far]

Not saying this topic is not worthy of debate, but sadly there is barely a word of truth in the OP, it's all scaremongering.

Mind quoting parts you believe to be false I can provide direct sources to my claims if you care instead of accusing me of something.

[Aidy]

Not saying this topic is not worthy of debate, but sadly there is barely a word of truth in the OP, it's all scaremongering.

[PriestTroit]

Is this really strictly gaming related?

[Omegapyrate]

Hm. Well seeing as we here in the UK are due to leave the EU pretty soon, this shouldn't affect me...... I hope?
Still, that's some fucking draconian-sounding shit right there... "controversial" or "dangerous" comments?? Posting links??? No reviews/parody/satires?!?! Jesus fuck.