Re: Article 13 of the EU copyright review
On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 10:28:56PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Chris Lamb:
> > Would there any strong objections to the Project aligning itself
> > against the new EU copyright review? For more background, here's a
> > recent Linux Journal article about this reform attempt:
> > https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/how-eus-copyright-reform-threatens-open-source-and-how-fight-it
> Which part?
> I think the upload filters are fairly sensible, and Debian would
> implement them if required in practice. For us, infringing content is
> low-quality content, and we train our users to avoid uploading it.
> This is different for the likes of Youtube and Github.
We can't reasonably filter places that anyone can post to. Packages
themselves are closely reviewed by humans (NEW), but Salsa, the BTS, wiki,
and probably plenty of other services we run rely on removal after the fact.
It's not about filtering spam, it's about a piece of software some vile
litigious company places an (often false) claim to. We'd have to implement
a before-the-fact filter that censors every such service run by the Project.
That'd be a serious burden that would limit what we can do.
> I find it also problematic to suggest that copyright infringement is
> somehow necessary for a thriving free software ecosystem.
There's a difference between "copyright infrigement" and "alleged copyright
infrigement". Accuracy of this kind of filters, as required by
"rightholders" and written into the law, is pretty egregious. They have no
incentive to reduce the amount of false positives.
> I find Title IV, Chapter 3 (“Fair remuneration in contracts of authors
> and performers”) far more problematic because as written, in seems to
> effectively ban irrevocable free software licenses
Sounds nasty, too.
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ I've read an article about how lively happy music boosts
⣾⠁⢰⠒⠀⣿⡁ productivity. You can read it, too, you just need the
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ right music while doing so. I recommend Skepticism
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ (funeral doom metal).