Talk for Article "EU rejects copyright reform in victory for internet activists"

Talk about this Article

  1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    “MEPs voted by a margin of 40 votes to stop progress in negotiations to the update that would give media and publishers better remuneration in the digital age.”

    I find this sentence very unclear. If I understand it, it is exactly backwards.

    The vote of “NO” put a stop to a fast-track process that would have led to a straight “up or down” vote on the entire package in September. The MEPs voted FOR a wider debate in parliament in the fall. So it wasn’t a vote to “stop progress in negotiations” – it was a vote to open those negotiations.

    And it’s very very questionable to say that the proposal would “give media and publishers better remuneration in the digital age.” It might help some in that way, but that’s not what the controversial articles which are likely to be amended in the fall were about.

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      I’ll add in “supporters argue” to clarify

  2. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    In the one line summary, the article currently says “Memes are safe, for now”. Given that the proposal specifically mentioned exemptions for parody, it is not 100% clear that memes were not safe. Most of them probably were always safe.

    One key is that not every piece of viral content which constitutes valid political speech is actually ‘parody’. I’ve seen many memes of politicians saying something outrageous, and then contrasting it with a photo of a victim of the outrageous attitude, which is not parody at all – and reusing copyright images. These memes were very likely not safe.

    Still, I think blanket language like “memes are safe for now” may not be most enlightening.

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      Ok, I’ll delete that section thanks.

  3. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    I tried correcting “United State’s” to “United States'”, but I get a blocking message from CloudFlare.

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)
      DU
      Deleted User

      Sorry to hear that William, we’re investigating that immediately.

      And thanks for spotting the typo – I’ll fix that in the meantime.

    2. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      Hi William – could you try again? If you’re still having issues please let me know!

  4. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    In the version of the proposal that was voted on, there was a specific assurance that any simple hyperlink would not be affected by the link tax. The surrounding snippets of text from the article are the targets of the link tax, as the EFF source cited states. That part of the article is therefore inaccurate.

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      Thank you Mike, I’ll make those changes now.

  5. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    The writer is too close to the story to be objective. The POV is biased against artists, consistent with Jimmy Wales’ position against copyright enforcement.

    This was a close vote, reflecting strong constituencies on both sides.

    What is an “Internet activist” supposed to be? I suspect many of the people wearing that label are simply lobbyists for large corporations.

    Delete this article and start over.

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      I agree that the article has a point of view, but that’s not the same thing as being inappropriately biased or failing to be neutral. It could probably use more statements from supporters of the legislation, but it is a fair enough description of the proposal’s controversial terms.

      Jimmy Wales is not an opponent of copyright as far as I’ve ever seen. All of the projects started by him are sticklers for copyright law.

      And, as for the lobbyist comment, I think you’ll find the lobbyists backing the proposal are much larger than the communities that opposed it in terms of money and manpower. As I see it, in representing copyright intermediaries first and foremost, proponents of the proposal represented the interests of fewer actual creatives than the opponents.

      1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

        Mike, you write “[…] that’s not the same thing as being inappropriately biased or failing to be neutral.” I’m puzzled by the notion that the article might be “appropriately biased”. Could you expand on the distinction between appropriate and inappropriate bias here?

    2. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)
      DU
      Deleted User

      Thanks both, we’ve added more voices from supporters of the proposed law. As always, if you want to add to, edit or collaborate on this article please go ahead and do so, simply by hitting “EDIT STORY” at the top of the page.

      Edited: 2018-07-09 15:01:40 By Deleted User + 10 Characters .. + 4% change.‎‎ (Note | Diff)

    3. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      To be clear, I’m very much not an opponent of copyright enforcement.

      But also to be clear, for WikiTribune, there is no desire to have any articles that push my personal views at all.

      I don’t think the article should be deleted and started over, though – please do make some edits, Richard, as it would be good to grapple with the issues here. If we have thoughtful and kind people of different viewpoints, working together in good faith to explain what happened, then readers will finish reading by being more informed. That’s what WikiTribune is all about.

  6. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    I observe that most of the text of the article consists of comments, both quotes and direct voice, critical of the proposed changes. The quotes and statements in favour are uniformly followed by a rebuttal, again either attributed or direct voice. The tone is clearly in favour of presenting the arguments against the proposal rather than addressing pro and con equally.

    The Wikipedia banners were imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation, a US-based non-profit, not by the Wikipedia community. Why is that worth mentioning? The Pirate Party, not a recognised party within the European Parliament, gained 800,000 out of 160,000,000 votes. Why not quote the leaders of the mainstream parties, who presumably also have some kind of influence on the vote?

    Sorry, this reads more like an opinion piece than a news article.

    Edited: 2018-07-05 21:43:08 By Jennifer Pryor-Summers (talk | contribs) + 2 Characters .. + 0% change.‎‎ (Note | Diff)

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      Hi Jennifer,

      Addressing pros and cons equally is something we should always strive for, but it’s equally important not to present false balance. In the piece, the evidence show that, if implemented, the proposal would most likely hurt those it’s meant to support: users and publications/media companies that aren’t mainstream.

      In regards to your comment about Wikimedia, here are two sources to show that the banners were not enforced by the Wikimedia Foundation, but the Wikipedia community.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#I_would_like_everyone_to_read_this

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Banner_in_EU_countries_explaining_dangerous_European_Parliament_copyright_proposal_and_linking_to_SaveYourInternet.eu

      The Pirate Party was quoted because Julia Reda has arguably been the most critical about the directive than other mainstream parties, mainly against Axel Voss, the man in charge of the reforms.

      It also mentions that internet activists don’t disagree with the copyright reforms in principles, but argued that it’s vague and could have negative consequences in practise.

      Thanks.

      1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

        Linh, Thanks for that. Firstly, let’s look at the Wikipedia discussion that you link to. It was closed with the summary “there is at best no consensus to put up a banner as proposed” which does not support your contention. On the other hand, take a look at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CentralNotice/Request#Directive_on_Copyright_in_the_Digital_Single_Market_initiative where you will see that the banner was requested by a member of Wikimedia Foundation staff. I think that supports my contention.

        Your use of the phrase “false balance” gives the game away. The “evidence” you put forward are the opinions of the people whose opinions you have selected. Why, for example, should Sir Paul McCartney’s opinion be less weighty than Jimmy Wales? Why no details of the support of the measure but plenty of detail of the protests?

        Finally, you write “internet activists don’t disagree with the copyright reforms in principle” but present no evidence for who the activists are who take that view, and you don’t mention that the Pirate Party, which you do mention, has copyright reform policies which are completely at odds with the proposals.

        So, in summary, you have not persuaded me that this is article reflects anything other than your personal views on the subject — which you are of course fully entitled to express. Just not in the guise of a news article

        1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

          Linh, A furter comment if I may. You describer yourself on this site as a strong advocate for human digital rights, and recently tweeted https://twitter.com/N_Linhhh/status/1014821704886046720 on the subject of this story “EU JUST REJECTED THE COPYRIGHT DIRECTIVE. GOOD DAY FOR THE INTERNET.” Are you sure you should be lecturing me about “false balance”?

        2. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

          Just to be clear – the link you made to meta is irrelevant to the community vote which was closed with consensus for a banner in the English Wikipedia. Other autonomous and independent discussions led to complete blackout in several other languages.

          1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

            Mr Wales, what part of “there is at best no consensus to put up a banner as proposed” do you interpret as “closed with consensus for a banner”? That quote is the exact comment of the closing administrator in the discussion cited.

            1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

              You linked to the wrong discussion.

              1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

                The link came from the original author not from me, so if anyone linked to the wrong discussion it was not me.

                Bur …

                The wrong discussion? What does that even mean? The discussion that came to a conclusion you didn’t like? I linked to a discussion on this very subject, that was supplied by the original writer, that came to a conclusion. That is a iece of evidence, and however inconvenient it may be for your position, you do not simply abolish it by calling it the wrong discussion. if you can explai why it is “wrong”, and why it somehow means the opposite of what it says on the face of it, by all means explain yourself. But an airy “the wrong discussion” doesn’t cut it. Treat your *volunteer* contributors in a grown-up way if you want them to stick around.

                Unless of course, you want to take the line, well, this site belongs to me so I get to say what I want here and the rest of you just have to swallow it. Is that really the way you want this site to go? If so, just say so now and the rest of us can decide how to act accordingly. If not, get down from your high horse and start actually engaging with the evidence.

                  1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

                    Yes, that’s the right link – and the right discussion.

    2. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      The Wikipedia banners were not imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation, they were imposed by the community as the result of an open dialogue and discussion.

  7. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    I think the opening sentence might be worded better:
    MEPs voted by a margin of 40 votes to stop progress in negotiations to the update, which gives media and publishers better remuneration in the digital age.
    The phrase “which gives…” seems unclear to me. I think what it’s saying is that the vote gives better remuneration than the new law would have given. Is that right? But the vote doesn’t actually change the existing law, right? So, it would be more accurate to say that the update would have reduced remuneration?

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      Hi David. The vote is to reform the existing law to give media and publishers better remuneration. The original directive was enacted in 2001, and the internet has changed significantly since then, hence the update. But I’ll tweak it since I see where you’re coming from.

  8. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    It’s “remuneration”, not “renumeration”

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      Good spot. I’ve submitted a change for approval.

      1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

        Thank you!

Subscribe to our newsletter

Be the first to collaborate on our developing articles

WikiTribune Open menu Close Search Like Back Next Open menu Close menu Play video RSS Feed Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Follow us on Instagram Follow us on Youtube Connect with us on Linkedin Connect with us on Discord Email us