The European Parliament voted against a new copyright law which critics say would create a "censorship machine," controlling what users can say and share on the internet. (Photo: The Verge)
Jul 05, 2018
Digital rights activists on Thursday applauded the European Parliament's rejection of a broad new copyright law proposal which critics warned would threaten the open internet and result in widespread censorship and control of users.
\u201cBREAKING: In a huge victory, the European Parliament has voted 318-278 against #Article13 and #Article11\u2014the disastrous #CensorshipMachine and #LinkTax copyright proposals. \n\nThat means we\u2019re close to stopping these terrible proposals\u2014and we\u2019re gaining momentum.\u201d— EFF (@EFF) 1530785835
"Great success: Your protests have worked!" wrote German Member of European Parliament (MEP) Julia Reda, a member of the Pirate Party Germany, told supporters on Twitter. "The European Parliament has sent the copyright law back to the drawing board. All MEPs will get to vote on upload filters and the link tax September 10-13. Now let's keep up the pressure to make sure we Save Your Internet!"
The Copyright Directive was voted down by lawmakers, with 318 opposing the measure and 278 supporting it. The proposal contained two rules that were especially worrisome to internet companies and open internet defenders--Article 11 and Article 13.
The former sought to require websites like Facebook and Google--as well as smaller, far less wealthy and powerful websites--to pay news organizations in order to link to their content, a rule critics have derided as a "link tax."
Article 13 would implement a so-called "upload filter"--or what opponents have called a censorship machine--to screen all material uploaded to the internet for copyright infringement.
Article 13 would have dire implications for all internet users, argue critics--from people who create and share viral memes to start-ups which rely on user-generated content and aim to compete with large platforms like YouTube, to websites like Wikipedia which rely on community members uploading content.
"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," wrote 57 rights groups, including Human Rights Watch and Reporters Without Borders, last year in an open letter to EU legislators.
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Whales has called the Copyright Directive "disastrous," while the website's Italian platform shut down on Tuesday in protest of the proposal.
"Wikipedia itself would be at risk of closing," should the directive pass, wrote the site's editors. "If the proposal is approved, it may be impossible to share a newspaper article on social networks or find it on a search engine."
"The broad scope of Article 13 could have covered any copyrightable material, including images, audio, video, compiled software, code and the written word," wrote James Temperton at Wired after the measure was voted down.
The European Parliament will take up debate on the directive again in September.
"MEPs will now soon go on 'summer break' until the end of August. We will need to continue to encourage them do the right thing and to push back against an Article 13," wrote the #SaveYourInternet campaign.
Reda posted a video on social media urging supporters to continue pressuring their representatives to oppose the Articles 11 and 13.
"The fight is far from over," Reda said. "What we have achieved today as that the entire Parliament will have a debate in September and will vote on changes to this copyright reform. So we must be vigilant. We cannot stop the public pressure now."
\u201cWe did it! But now we must plan the next step: On August 26th, let's have a #SaveYourInternet action day to send the message: We will not accept a copyright reform that includes #uploadfilters or the #linktax. Are you in?\u201d— Felix Reda (@Felix Reda) 1530794118
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Digital rights activists on Thursday applauded the European Parliament's rejection of a broad new copyright law proposal which critics warned would threaten the open internet and result in widespread censorship and control of users.
\u201cBREAKING: In a huge victory, the European Parliament has voted 318-278 against #Article13 and #Article11\u2014the disastrous #CensorshipMachine and #LinkTax copyright proposals. \n\nThat means we\u2019re close to stopping these terrible proposals\u2014and we\u2019re gaining momentum.\u201d— EFF (@EFF) 1530785835
"Great success: Your protests have worked!" wrote German Member of European Parliament (MEP) Julia Reda, a member of the Pirate Party Germany, told supporters on Twitter. "The European Parliament has sent the copyright law back to the drawing board. All MEPs will get to vote on upload filters and the link tax September 10-13. Now let's keep up the pressure to make sure we Save Your Internet!"
The Copyright Directive was voted down by lawmakers, with 318 opposing the measure and 278 supporting it. The proposal contained two rules that were especially worrisome to internet companies and open internet defenders--Article 11 and Article 13.
The former sought to require websites like Facebook and Google--as well as smaller, far less wealthy and powerful websites--to pay news organizations in order to link to their content, a rule critics have derided as a "link tax."
Article 13 would implement a so-called "upload filter"--or what opponents have called a censorship machine--to screen all material uploaded to the internet for copyright infringement.
Article 13 would have dire implications for all internet users, argue critics--from people who create and share viral memes to start-ups which rely on user-generated content and aim to compete with large platforms like YouTube, to websites like Wikipedia which rely on community members uploading content.
"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," wrote 57 rights groups, including Human Rights Watch and Reporters Without Borders, last year in an open letter to EU legislators.
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Whales has called the Copyright Directive "disastrous," while the website's Italian platform shut down on Tuesday in protest of the proposal.
"Wikipedia itself would be at risk of closing," should the directive pass, wrote the site's editors. "If the proposal is approved, it may be impossible to share a newspaper article on social networks or find it on a search engine."
"The broad scope of Article 13 could have covered any copyrightable material, including images, audio, video, compiled software, code and the written word," wrote James Temperton at Wired after the measure was voted down.
The European Parliament will take up debate on the directive again in September.
"MEPs will now soon go on 'summer break' until the end of August. We will need to continue to encourage them do the right thing and to push back against an Article 13," wrote the #SaveYourInternet campaign.
Reda posted a video on social media urging supporters to continue pressuring their representatives to oppose the Articles 11 and 13.
"The fight is far from over," Reda said. "What we have achieved today as that the entire Parliament will have a debate in September and will vote on changes to this copyright reform. So we must be vigilant. We cannot stop the public pressure now."
\u201cWe did it! But now we must plan the next step: On August 26th, let's have a #SaveYourInternet action day to send the message: We will not accept a copyright reform that includes #uploadfilters or the #linktax. Are you in?\u201d— Felix Reda (@Felix Reda) 1530794118
Digital rights activists on Thursday applauded the European Parliament's rejection of a broad new copyright law proposal which critics warned would threaten the open internet and result in widespread censorship and control of users.
\u201cBREAKING: In a huge victory, the European Parliament has voted 318-278 against #Article13 and #Article11\u2014the disastrous #CensorshipMachine and #LinkTax copyright proposals. \n\nThat means we\u2019re close to stopping these terrible proposals\u2014and we\u2019re gaining momentum.\u201d— EFF (@EFF) 1530785835
"Great success: Your protests have worked!" wrote German Member of European Parliament (MEP) Julia Reda, a member of the Pirate Party Germany, told supporters on Twitter. "The European Parliament has sent the copyright law back to the drawing board. All MEPs will get to vote on upload filters and the link tax September 10-13. Now let's keep up the pressure to make sure we Save Your Internet!"
The Copyright Directive was voted down by lawmakers, with 318 opposing the measure and 278 supporting it. The proposal contained two rules that were especially worrisome to internet companies and open internet defenders--Article 11 and Article 13.
The former sought to require websites like Facebook and Google--as well as smaller, far less wealthy and powerful websites--to pay news organizations in order to link to their content, a rule critics have derided as a "link tax."
Article 13 would implement a so-called "upload filter"--or what opponents have called a censorship machine--to screen all material uploaded to the internet for copyright infringement.
Article 13 would have dire implications for all internet users, argue critics--from people who create and share viral memes to start-ups which rely on user-generated content and aim to compete with large platforms like YouTube, to websites like Wikipedia which rely on community members uploading content.
"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," wrote 57 rights groups, including Human Rights Watch and Reporters Without Borders, last year in an open letter to EU legislators.
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Whales has called the Copyright Directive "disastrous," while the website's Italian platform shut down on Tuesday in protest of the proposal.
"Wikipedia itself would be at risk of closing," should the directive pass, wrote the site's editors. "If the proposal is approved, it may be impossible to share a newspaper article on social networks or find it on a search engine."
"The broad scope of Article 13 could have covered any copyrightable material, including images, audio, video, compiled software, code and the written word," wrote James Temperton at Wired after the measure was voted down.
The European Parliament will take up debate on the directive again in September.
"MEPs will now soon go on 'summer break' until the end of August. We will need to continue to encourage them do the right thing and to push back against an Article 13," wrote the #SaveYourInternet campaign.
Reda posted a video on social media urging supporters to continue pressuring their representatives to oppose the Articles 11 and 13.
"The fight is far from over," Reda said. "What we have achieved today as that the entire Parliament will have a debate in September and will vote on changes to this copyright reform. So we must be vigilant. We cannot stop the public pressure now."
\u201cWe did it! But now we must plan the next step: On August 26th, let's have a #SaveYourInternet action day to send the message: We will not accept a copyright reform that includes #uploadfilters or the #linktax. Are you in?\u201d— Felix Reda (@Felix Reda) 1530794118
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.