Talk:EU policy/2018 European Parliament vote

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Talk page[edit]

This talk page formerly redirected with several others to Talk:EU policy. However, there is a plan to put a banner on several Wikipedias urging people here (directly or indirectly) to join the discussion, so I think it deserves a separate talk page. The original destination remains available at Talk:EU policy. I will reproduce the discussion from that page so far that appears relevant below. Wnt (talk) 00:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help requested - Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market initiative[edit]

Some Wikimedia community members are considering what response the English Wikipedia should have to the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market.

There is a flood of information coming in about this which is unclear. There is a rumor that some staff at the Wikimedia Foundation who have relevant expertise are saying that this EU initiative is an existential threat to Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects. If that is the case, and if the mission of Wikimedia projects is to deliver an encyclopedia in the way that it has since 2001, then that means that this law is in conflict with the nature of Wikimedia projects and that support of this law is contrary to Wikimedia community goals.

While Wikimedia community members sometimes debate when certain laws might support or impede Wikipedia projects, the community does not have experience discussing Wikipedia-ending threats to the entirety of Wikimedia projects. If the rumors are correct and that an end to Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects is a potential outcome to this then this EU policy team should plan whatever is necessary to advance this discussion, set goals, and most importantly communicate to the Wikimedia community about what is at stake.

Right now I am serving a neutral role in this and executing a migration of some discussion at English Wikipedia into a sub-page of this meta project. Please see what I moved at the behest of others at EU policy/2018 European Parliament vote. Anyone should feel free to rework the title, text, etc. Right now I am seeking a place here on Meta-Wiki to stage this conversation for all languages and I think this project is the correct place.

Thanks @Nemo bis: for being an organizer for the move from English Wikipedia to meta. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking sign off[edit]

I posted EU policy/2018 European Parliament vote as a subpage of this project.

Can any regulars at this project either sign off on my posting it here, or otherwise recommend that this page be split off as a stand-alone project page? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Have moved this older statement here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 25th 2018[edit]

Below is a copy of a post, made by a member of the Wikimedia Foundation legal team Jan Gerlach and Allison Davenport.


Time is running out to defend user rights online
Posted by Jan and Allison on June 25th, 2018

Now that it has passed a critical vote in the European Parliament, we have one last opportunity to make the EU revise its proposed copyright directive and ensure the internet stays open for everyone.

This week, a dangerous copyright proposal passed a critical committee vote in the European Parliament.

Article 13 of the proposed new copyright directive would require websites that host large amounts of user-generated content to apply mandatory filters to every user upload, searching for copyright infringements. This would institute new automatic gatekeepers between a user’s creation and their chosen platform, threatens internet users’ right to free expression and creates a system ripe for abuse and censorship.

For over a year, the Wikimedia Foundation and local Wikimedia groups in Brussels and elsewhere in the EU have been following the debate on Article 13 and the EU copyright directive with growing concern. Leading up to this week’s vote, we urged EU lawmakers to reconsider mandating upload filters when community mechanisms like the ones used on Wikipedia can be just as, if not more, effective because they ensure closer scrutiny and create a more transparent decision-making process about content removal. Unfortunately, this week the EU Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee did not listen to our warnings.

This means that there is just one more opportunity to defend internet freedom and prevent the harmful content filtering proposal of the copyright directive from becoming European law.

In the past few weeks, opposition of Article 13 has been growing, with human rights experts, industry pioneers, content creators, media, and internet usersspeaking out about how Article 13 will harm the internet and their rights. These perspectives are finally gaining the attention they deserve, and as constituents and stakeholders get louder, they will be harder for lawmakers to ignore. MEPs should reject the current copyright directive proposal in an upcoming plenary vote that is likely to take place in the first week of July. This is the only opportunity they have to stop the Legal Affairs Committee’s bad version of the draft from going forward, including Article 13.

The Wikimedia Foundation and our partners in Brussels and elsewhere in the EU envision an Internet that does not have filters and blocks. Wikipedia thrives on robust access to information, and provides a platform for free expression. The current EU copyright proposal contradicts this vision.

We believe that the proposal is deeply flawed and urge Parliament to reject and speak out against the Directive’s threat to internet freedom in the remaining weeks and months to come.

The Directive also has other flaws that affect the free flow of information online beyond just Article 13. Many have opposed Article 11 as well, which creates a tax for news aggregators using snippets of stories from news publications. Draft provisions which would give the public greater rights to share photographs of public artwork and to engage in day to day remixing online were both omitted from the final text. Even good, common sense provisions which ensure that public domain works do not regain a pseudo-copyright via loopholes in certain countries’ laws contain confusing and vague phrasing that will be hard to translate into the 24 languages of the EU, let alone allow for harmonization of the law. This is why it is so important for MEPs to reject the whole proposal and take it back to the drawing board.

You can add your voice to the chorus of opposition by sharing information about the copyright directive on social media, calling your MEPs, and telling your friends whose rights are affected by this as well. This is an important opportunity for us all to defend our rights online, and may be one of the last before they are eroded indefinitely.

Jan Gerlach, Public Policy Manager, Legal
Allison Davenport, Technology Law and Policy Fellow
Wikimedia Foundation

Sorry to say this, but...[edit]

As of now, I don't know if this law would be really bad.

I have to read it, but for sure there are already alot of informations available for us all to learn from, possibly even too much for our own sake.

Now, considering what I learnt recently, it's evident some people try to exploit other humans in a fake "altruist" process, and use a supercomputer (possibly even a grid, think blockchain) to control us. --2A01:CB11:13:D700:9842:BF2B:9D6D:A6AE 17:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC) (subject to caution...)[reply]

It seems great. "The directive's proposals include giving publishers the ability to request payment for the use of short excerpts of text." So if someone will publish new article on wiki, instead of being deleted for WP:OR or whatever, might even get paid.
You can only contribute edits to Wikipedia if you license them for everyone to use for free. Note that in March, Creative Commons was saying that the proposal might actually prohibit that: [1] However, their June letter doesn't mention this point; I assume it was altered? Wnt (talk) 01:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Press coverage of the blackout[edit]

The BBC covers the blackout here, though I think not very well. For example, they don't explain why the apparent for exemption for non-profit encyclopedias wouldn't allay fears. Well...

(a) the link I put above is not part of an encyclopedia, but WMF-instigated advocacy; it is not part of Wikipedia, but Meta, so I would assume it would be taxable for an EU resident/site. (b) Finding this link came from a search engine, which is for-profit commercial, which could not have delivered me the result for free if they had to pay money to be allowed to show the link. (c) After the link appears on a "non-profit encyclopedia", even if this were one, a subsequent copy of the article used by someone else presumably would not be.

So they would get people coming, going, and from alongside.

The one thing that should be hopeful is that if Poland can politically disqualify their Supreme Court at the ruler's whim and the EU can't do anything but mutter, then presumably any sane country can tell them to stuff this crummy idea and what are they going to do? Is there a reason why that wouldn't happen? Wnt (talk) 01:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Victory (for now...)[edit]

MEPs have voted to reject a controversial copyright law in its current form, deciding to return to the issue in September. The article cites a Julia Reda twitter posting that says the vote was 318-278-31, and that "All MEPs will get to vote on #uploadfilters and the #linktax September 10–13." Note that the proposal has not gone away for good -- but it may be further amended, and in any case did not progress today. Wnt (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]