1. 34
  1.  

  2. 10

    The whole “value gap” theory, on which this proposal is based, is flawed.

    The European Commission spent €360.000 to prove that copyright infringement negatively affects sales. The study they (we) have paid for concluded that, with the exception of recently released blockbusters, there is no evidence to support the idea that online copyright infringement displaces sales. So they’ve tried to keep it secret, till Julia Reda published it: https://juliareda.eu/2017/09/secret-copyright-infringement-study/

    Julia’s post on the proposed upload filters is also an interesting read: https://juliareda.eu/2018/02/voss-upload-filters/

    There must be a lack of better things to spend EU money on, I guess.

    1. 1

      The whole “value gap” theory, on which this proposal is based, is flawed.

      But oh so profitable!

    2. 13

      GitHub are, of course, a company that thrives from content creators acting as sharecroppers on their centralised hosting platform. The dichotomy of “freedom to post whatever you want to GitHub” vs “OMG the Fahrenheit 451 future of Europe” is a false one, because you can post your open source project’s code to your open source project’s GitLab, Kallithea, or other instance. GitHub are downplaying that alternative so that “freedom” is recast as “the freedom for GitHub to have all your codes”.

      1. 4

        Wouldn’t this legislation apply to Gitlab or any other alternative as well?

        1. 2

          Wait, my hard drive can store stuff too, now we need to add copyright detection to virus scanner a too!

          1. 0

            I can run my own gitlab, I cannot run my own github. If I run my own gitlab then I can know that only my own project code is hosted on the gitlab.

            1. 4

              And what, you don’t plan to ever collaborate with anyone? You don’t plan to ever use any open-source libraries written by others? You’re sure you aren’t going to hit any false positives? How do you think Gitlab is being built for your use? Pointing out OP’s self-interest doesn’t actually replace addressing its criticisms.

              If this goes through, copyright trolls will become a thing. Get a lawyer, squat on some maximally general pattern of bits, and now projects can’t upload stuff matching it without paying you.

              1. 1

                If he sets up public repositories people can contribute code to his repository on his own Gitlab instance.

                1. 1

                  i run my own gitlab for my software projects, people join there to collaborate or send me patches via email / pastebin.

            2. 6

              You got the point here. GitHub is trying to stay in a grey area instead so people won’t move away from their services, “supporting” both freedom and law by passing the ball to us with their Call to Action.

              1. 2

                They explicitly mention that for smaller players introduction of content upload filters would be even more burdensome. And also they don’t mention it, it’s obvious that GitHub of all companies would have the resources to implement such a thing. So I don’t see why you try to cast it as GitHub caring only for themselves.

                Besides, “listen to what’s being said, not who’s saying”. The concern is valid and well articulated. Any attempt from copyright mongers to tax another human activity is counterproductive to progress and should be stopped.

                1. [Comment removed by author]

                  1. 2

                    Sorry, where did you get that? :-) It’s neither in the text, nor in my comment.

                    1. [Comment removed by author]

                      1. 3

                        Let’s assume you’re not trolling me on purpose here…

                        They is GitHub. I did say GitHub would be the least affected themselves by such a law:

                        GitHub of all companies would have the resources to implement such a thing

                        I did not say they “are the best people to solve this problem”. It’s just a completely different thing.

              2. [Comment removed by author]

                1. 11

                  The Internet is just as unregulatable as “real life”, in the end. When you or me surf the web, we always do this figuratively, and can never escape “real life”. Tor, IPFS and other crypto tools might make it more difficult for law enforcement, but not impossible – despite all hopes of the utopian crypto activists.

                  Sure, some technology specialists could evade the rules, and play games with the government, but none of this would be significant, and none of this would change anything, if states were to actually (hypothetically!) want to shut down on truly free usage of the web. Personally I don’t see this happening in the near future, since the web is currently rather profitable breeding ground for new companies, and makes communication easier, which also helps smoothen the market process.

                  1. 2

                    of course it can. the internet detects decentralisation as damage and sells it to facebook.

                  2. 3

                    Screw just writing to your MEP to exclude software repositories, write to them to scrap the bill entirely. Mandatory auto copyright enforcement benefits no one except except large studios and labels.

                    1. 3

                      IIRC the proposal isn’t very popular in the EU parliament/commission at all and it only got proposed by Axel Voss after it failed in front of the german government because his own party doesn’t support it (to my knowledge).

                      I’m fairly certain this won’t go through…

                      1. 1

                        I hope you’re right! 🤞

                      2. 3

                        Is it me, or they are finger pointing exactly what the US is doing silently since quite a while?

                        1. 3

                          Corporate before humankind..

                          1. 5

                            I think this is a very naive view. Corporations are major buyers of software and if this is implemented it may raise the costs and risks associated with operating it. Only a tiny minority of corporations are expecting to benefit from it.

                            All government policies are a result of different lobbying groups. I bet this legislation is being pushed by the movie and music industry. They’re trying to shift the cost of copyright enforcement onto content distributors.

                            The IT industry (including GitHub) is lobbying the other way via the Save Code Share! campaign. GitHub lists several reasons against upload filters (privacy, free speech, ineffectiveness) and try to sound like defenders of civilization but when you go to the call to action at the end of the post it’s a bit disappointing (same for the Save Code Share):

                            Write to EU policymakers (MEPs, Council Members, or Commissioners) and ask them to exclude “software repositories” from Article 13. Please explain how important the ability to freely share code is for software developers and how important open source software is to the software industry and the EU economy

                            Is GitHub okay with content filtering (which they said violate privacy, free speech and are ineffective) as long as it applies to things other than software? I think the answer is “no” - they’re simply lobbying the other way to avoid increasing their expenses and exposure to legal risk.

                            1. 6

                              This isn’t pro-corporate, it’s pro-copyright. That’s arguably much more destructive.

                              1. 2

                                Which again gains corporate, or might I be mistaken?

                                1. 8

                                  You aren’t mistaken. This is corporate before humankind.

                                  The proposal is aimed at music and videos on streaming platforms, based on a theory of a “value gap” between the profits those platforms make from uploaded works and what copyright holders of some uploaded works receive. However, the way it’s written captures many other types of content, including code.

                                  Wyager might be referring to the fact that it is good for some corporations and bad for others, but that’s often the point for corporations manipulating our governments to gain a market edge. It’s still corporate manipulation of our legislative process.

                                  1. 5

                                    Most companies don’t benefit from insanely aggressive copyright enforcement, only a few large IP holders.

                                    1. 1

                                      Most corporations are large IP holders though. I can’t even think of one off hand that isn’t, especially in tech.

                                      1. 2

                                        99% of IP-holding tech companies hold IP specifically for defensive litigation. They don’t benefit from the law in the OP.

                                        1. 1

                                          If I can defend against something and the little guys can’t I would be ahead even if I didn’t use it offensively, and therefore I benefit passively from its existence without ever having to actually be the “bad guy”. I’m not saying that’s their intention, but I think it is incorrect to say they don’t benefit from the law in OP at least passively.

                                          I think though when people are talking about pro-corporate they don’t mean as a unified perfect body. They are talking about pro-(some specific corporation) at some cost to society and at little or no cost to other corporations. As long as no corporation is hitting other corporations and everyone is hitting the public then corporate interests move forward on average together.