An e621 user sent me this link: https://juliareda.eu/2017/05/alternative-compromise/
Two world views are about to clash in a crucial copyright vote next week, on June 8. The European Parliament is currently undergoing a process to find a common position on the copyright reform plans proposed by the European Commission, which would threaten core functions of the internet and which academics have unanimously slammed.
With the Parliament tending towards a reasonable position, some are resorting to dirty tactics to defend – or even extend – these disastrous plans by any means necessary.
On June 8, the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) Committee will decide its standpoint. This is a crucial step in the copyright reform process, because the IMCO committee is jointly responsible for the Parliament position on one of the most controversial parts of the reform: the introduction of mandatory censorship filters on online services such as social media.
Today it was revealed that MEP Pascal Arimont from the European People’s Party (EPP) is trying to sabotage the Parliamentary process, going behind the negotiators of the political groups and pushing a text that would make the Commission’s original bad proposal look tame in comparison. This is a tactic he recently already successfully applied to prevent the committee from adopting a progressive position on overcoming geoblocking. If he succeeds again, the result would once more do the opposite of what the Committee is tasked to do: Protecting European consumers.
He wants to double down on the obligation for content filtering, which he doesn’t want to just apply to services hosting “large amounts” of copyrighted content, as proposed by the Commission, but to any service facilitating the availability of such content, even if the service is not actually hosting anything at all. This could require content filters even for services that are linking to content on other websites, because hyperlinks, according to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), can be considered a copyright infringement under certain circumstances.
Could the EU copyright proposals affect e621? Possibly: https://rm.coe.int/168068511c
In many States, the takedown and blocking of material which infringes intellectual property and privacy or defamation rights is effected or authorised pursuant to court order only. Some countries have introduced alternative notice and takedown procedures designed to avoid the need for court action. In Finland, for example, there is evidence of a procedure for rights holders to obtain removal of allegedly unlawful material, subject to content providers being afforded a due process to challenge removal. Particularly in relation to defamatory material or content which otherwise infringes privacy rights enforcement will usually depend on the initiative being taken by the person or organisation harmed, and so many countries offer some form of 'notice and take-down' procedure. These may require the person or organisation affected to notify the relevant website operator directly before procedures for taking down the material can be initiated. Where the website operator refuses to remove material determined to be unlawful, the relevant domestic authority may provide a deadline to the host to remove the material, and/or may leave itself exposed to third party liability for the content. Internet access providers can even be ordered to block access to the URL, or even the entire website.
e621 and other sites that allow user uploads could end up blocked in EU countries if they don't comply with new copyright reforms.
Here are the "alternative compromises":
https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/arimont-alternative-compromise-1.pdf
https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/arimont-alternative-compromise-2.pdf
Updated by treos