I just hope if this is to be revisited the draft proposals are created by people who understand the fundamentals of copyright law and the online world. Some (many) of the proposals in article 12 and 13 did go way too far... There has to be a common sense approach that takes the various different factors into account, this did not.

Mack.

While I applaud the idea, I'm happy it did not succeed. It's a fairly simple matter to offer a Copyright Policy so that unauthorized use gets eliminated - after the fact. Of course, even that step would require the content creator to police their content. In a perfect world there would be a simple way to pre-determine that uploaded content is or is not copyright protected so that the creator isn't required to police their work. It isn't so simple yet. Imposing that task on webmasters makes as much sense as imposing it on hosting companies or browser developers. It is a problem that grew along with the web, well integrated in today's web.

It would be more helpful if they had been able to include a copyright signal standard so part of the problem could be an automated solution going forward at least. As it is, once someone scrapes content, it can be anonymous until tracked down. Just observations, I don't have the answer.

They could simply keep the Article 11 and 13, and define a fair use exception.

Everybody would be fine with this, platforms, users, artists and news sites.

there needs to be some kind of reform to bring copyright laws into the current era

Personally I prefer the previous era, which in my country went like this:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

See how that works? In 1789 there was no concept of “intellectual property”, i.e. “I had this idea first, so nobody else is allowed to think it until 120 years after my last grandchild dies”. What there was, instead, was the idea that inventions and creative works benefit everyone.

Edit: Uh-oh. I think the post I was quoting got edited while I was typing ;)

The concept of copyright protection for the creator has been turned on its head by corporations (think of a house that made its bucks with content based on a cute rodent wearing a pair of short red pants) and exceeding any commonsense use of creator protection (and immediate heirs, a time frame of like 27 years) to the detriment of all society thereafter.

Yes, something should be done, but what? And why is it imperative that everyone ELSE than the Creator be enjoined to do their work for them?

Here's hoping saner heads are involved in the re-examination and debate on this subject in the EU. Since politicians are involved I'm not holding my breath, or have elevated expectations. Nature of the beast, so to speak.

EU sends controversial internet copyright reforms back to the drawing board [theverge.com]

The European Union has rejected controversial legislation intended to reform online copyright. 318 MEPs voted against the draft law, compared to 278 in favor. The legislation now returns to the drawing board, before being sent for a second vote in September.

[edited by: not2easy at 1:47 pm (utc) on Jul 6, 2018]
[edit reason] splice cleanup [/edit]

This is only round one. Expect more to happen in September (just around the corner). Hopes should be held in check until then.

Voting is due around now. [bbc.co.uk...]

Let's see how this progresses with over 250 amendments made to the original proposal.

They just approved it, with only superficial changes. One more vote left. So frustrating how out of touch the EU is with tech.

[theverge.com...]

deja lu
[webmasterworld.com...]