EU censoring the internet banning memes and freedom of speech

(21b) Despite some overlap with existing exceptions or limitations, such as the ones for quotation and parody, not all content that is uploaded or made available by a user that reasonably includes extracts of protected works or other subject-matter is covered by Article 5 of Directive 2001/29/EC. A situation of this type creates legal uncertainty for both users and rightholders. It is therefore necessary to provide a new specific exception to permit the legitimate uses of extracts of pre-existing protected works or other subject-matter in content that is uploaded or made available by users. Where content generated or made available by a user involves the short and proportionate use of a quotation or of an extract of a protected work or other subject-matter for a legitimate purpose, such use should be protected by the exception provided for in this Directive. This exception should only be applied in certain special cases which do not conflict with normal exploitation of the work or other subject-matter concerned and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder. For the purpose of assessing such prejudice, it is essential that the degree of originality of the content concerned, the length/extent of the quotation or extract used, the professional nature of the content concerned or the degree of economic harm be examined, where relevant, while not precluding the legitimate enjoyment of the exception. This exception should be without prejudice to the moral rights of the authors of the work or other subject-matter.

(37a) Certain information society services, as part of their normal use, are designed to give access to the public to copyright protected content or other subject-matter uploaded by their users. The definition of an online content sharing service provider under this Directive shall cover information society service providers one of the main purposes of which is to store and give access to the public or to stream copyright protected content uploaded / made available by its users and that optimise content, including amongst others promoting displaying, tagging, curating, sequencing the uploaded works or other subject-matter, irrespective of the means used therefor, and therefore act in an active way. The definition of online content sharing service providers under this Directive does not cover service providers that act in a non-commercial purpose capacity such as online encyclopaedia, and providers of online services where the content is uploaded with the authorisation of all rightholders concerned, such as educational or scientific repositories. Providers of cloud services for individual use which do not provide direct access to the public, open source software developing platforms, and online market places whose main activity is online retail of physical goods, should not be considered online content sharing service providers within the meaning of this Directive.

39) Cooperation between online content sharing service providers and rightholders is essential for the functioning of the measures. In particular, rightholders should provide the relevant information to online content sharing service providers to allow them to identify their content when applying the measures. The service providers should be transparent towards rightholders with regard to the deployed measures, to allow the assessment of their appropriateness. When assessing the proportionality and effectiveness of the measures implemented, due consideration should be given to technological constraints and limitations as well as to the amount or the type of works or other subject matter uploaded by the users of the services. In accordance with Article 15 of Directive 2000/31/EC, where applicable, the implementation of measures by service providers should not consist in a general monitoring obligation and should be limited to ensuring the non-availability of unauthorised uses on their services of specific and duly notified copyright protected works or other subject-matter. When implementing such measures, the service providers should also strike a balance between the rights of users and those of the rightholders under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The measures applied should not require the identification of individual users that upload content and should not involve the processing of data relating to individual users, in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/6791a and Directive 2002/58/EC1b. Since the measures deployed by online content sharing service providers in application of this Directive could have a negative or disproportionate effect on legitimate content that is uploaded or displayed by users, in particular where the content concerned is covered by an exception or limitation, online content sharing service providers should be required to offer a complaints mechanism for the benefit of users whose content has been affected by the measures. Such a mechanism should enable the user to ascertain why the content concerned has been subject to measures and include basic information on the relevant exceptions and limitations applicable. It should prescribe minimum standards for complaints to ensure that rightholders are given sufficient information to assess and respond to complaints. Rightholders or a representative should reply to any complaints received within a reasonable amount of time. The platforms or a trusted third party responsible for the redress mechanism should take corrective action without undue delay where measures prove to be unjustified.

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

This one is interesting

1) The EU says the service provider cannot hand your personal details over to someone claiming copyright against you

2) The EU is setting standards that need to be revealed to the end user if they complain about their content being taken down, requiring the rights holder to actually provide what exactly they are claiming ownership of and to show how much of the material can be used in the case of parody and other such uses.

That's actually somewhat a reversal on how this law was percieved.

breatheme wrote: »

This is depressing, but a reason to put pressure on MEPs seeking reelection next year.