1. 3

    How many members need to vote against for it to not pass?

    1. 2

      tl;dr: Math.round(751 / 2)

      There’s 751 members of the European Parliament from 28 member states. The UK is currently in the process of leaving, but it seems like the final vote on copyright will happen just days ahead of Brexit, so all British MEPs will still be allowed to vote. We need a majority against the Trilogue agreement, so if everyone shows up, we need 376 votes.

    1. 3

      (Where) can I submit some fixes & improvements to the translation into my language?

      1. 2

        I’ve sent you a private message (if anybody else wants to help with translations, please get in touch with me)

      1. 32

        Disclaimer: I’m one of the organizers of Copyfighters.eu, a campaign to involve young people in Europe in the ongoing copyright debate.

        It’s not exactly back at the drawing board, but at least the mandate has been repealed to allow negotiations with the other co-legislators (Remember: EU laws need approval by both the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union – meaning the member states’ responsible ministers) based on the previous committee vote, which included the contentious Article 11 (a new additional right for press publishers) and Article 13 (a content-filtering obligation for online platforms).

        In practice that means at the next plenary session after summer (September 11 to 13), there will be a vote on the proposal as it came from the committee (bad!) as well as the option to change it via amendments, which can be tabled by individual Members of Parliament. It will be very difficult to find majorities for any of these amendments and we will need all of your support to keep up the pressure that made it possible to repeal the negotiation mandate now. Our opponents won’t sleep: not only have they been lobbying for these proposals from the very beginning, they also started digging out popular artists now – heck, even Paul McCartney – to guilt parliamentarians into line.

        Nonetheless, this is doable and it’s important! I guess, you’ve heard about the negative consequences of these proposals a thousand times already (if not, here), so I won’t bother you with them – but also remember there are some positive points in there as well for example on text and data mining, use of out-of-commerce works and preservation of public domain works.

        Edit: There will be a Europe-wide copyright action day on August 26. More information to come – if you’re inclined to do so, mark this date in your calendar and join the demonstration in your city.

        If you want to stay up-to-date, follow Julia Reda on Twitter or this person from OCCRP on Mastodon.

        1. 3

          Was there any debate?

          1. 21

            There has been a debate on this reform for quite some time now. Check out the European Parliament’s Legislative Observatory page on this matter: The original proposal by the European Commission was published on 14/09/2016, it was then referred to the EP’s Legal Affairs (JURI) committee on 06/10/2016 and was since then debated in JURI as well as IMCO, ITRE, CULT and LIBE – so a number of different committees. (And at the same time also in the Council, so by the member states.)

            Unfortunately, there is a clear imbalance in the way (especially Conservative) parliamentarians listen to different groups – rightsholders and their lobbyists are often equated with artists or European art and culture in general, whereas activists, academics and other stakeholders who are against Article 11 and 13 are automatically seen as in the pocket of evil tech giants. This has been especially bad since the former lead negotiator (or rapporteur) in JURI on copyright (Therese Comodini Cachia, a Maltese Conservative, who actually did listen to arguments) left EU politics for a position in Malta and was replaced by MEP Axel Voss, a German Conservative who swiftly moved to cement the JURI position and push it through.

            What the last couple of days have again shown is, that you can have all the arguments in your favour – what really counts is making it clear to every single MEP that their ass is on the line, if they do something stupid. This was achieved by an immense amount of people who called, tweeted at, or emailed their representatives, who signed petitions, organized protests,…

            We’ll still need the good arguments (and we do have them on our side – copyright scholars around Europe almost unanimously agree that these two Articles really are bad), but what’s even more needed is action! :)

            1. 3

              Wow, sure you are well informed! Thank you!

              1. 2

                You’re welcome :)

        1. 9

          What Article 13 seemingly overlooks is the place of fair use/fair dealing. How does one critique a work when one can’t display it without a license? Yes, there’s an appeal process … but who’s the arbiter? How long does it take to get approval?

          What about transformative fair use? Is there a place in Article 13 to build upon the work of others?

          Yes, I understand we Americans have an expansive view of fair use, but Article 13 is too restrictive. It’s especially so when you consider how long and broad copyrights are. There is a very real need for balance between the rights of authors and those of the public on whose behalf governments extend copyright.

          And yes, again, I understand Americans view copyright as a mere grant of monopoly by government where in other domains it’s a recognition of droit moral. It’s complicated. But it’s not as simple as the music industry would see it.

          “This is a strong and unambiguous message sent by the European Parliament,” said executive chair Helen Smith.

          “It clarifies what the music sector has been saying for years: if you are in the business of distributing music or other creative works, you need a licence, clear and simple. It’s time for the digital market to catch up with progress.”

          1. 4

            The thing is also that the content-filtering obligation kicks in in the absence of a license. This is why the supposed target of this legislation (YouTube/Google) has lobbied for it, because that’s exactly what they want – not having to change anything. They already have Content ID, which means they won’t need a licensing deal with the rightholders, while everyone around them will have to either make a deal or develop/license their own Content ID.