This legally binding act of the European Union establishes a set of objectives which all member states of the European Union must fulfil. The member states are required to implement directives. The member states are free to choose the manner they see fit to fulfil the required objectives.
Directives are not directly applicable due to the fact that they have to be transposed into national legislation. Each individual member states chooses the 'form and method' to achieve the objectives set out in a directive.
The directive is meant to bridge the divide between the required uniformity of legislation at the EU level whilst at the same time paying heed to the diversity of national systems.
Directives are not meant to create single, uniform rules at the EU-level but rather to have the member states strive for common results. Directives are generally used to set up general policies. They are used in nearly every policy area of the EU.
To ensure the objectives set out in a directive are fulfilled member states are required to transpose directives into national legislation before a specified date. Unless the Polish court case changes anything — and that's a big if — individual member states will have two years to turn the new rules into their own national law.
View Iframe URL. The European Union Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market is a European Union directive that is designed to limit how copyrighted content is shared on online platforms. EU directives are a form of legislation that set an objective for member states to achieve. The Directive on Copyright and its most controversial component, Article 13, requires online platforms to filter or remove copyrighted material from their websites.
The Directive on Copyright would make online platforms and aggregator sites liable for copyright infringements, and supposedly direct more revenue from tech giants towards artists and journalists. Proponents of the Directive on Copyright argue that this means that people are listening to, watching and reading copyrighted material without the creators being properly paid for it.
This is the part of the Directive on Copyright that has most people worried. So what does it mean? Boiled down, all this article is saying is that any websites that host large amounts of user-generated content think YouTube, Twitter and Facebook are responsible for taking down that content if it infringes on copyright. No one can quite agree how these platforms are expected to identify and remove this content.
The system then allows them to either block the video or monetise it by running advertising against it. It's an already unpopular system due to its propensity for false positives and abuse, and this would be heightened if potentially infringing videos could not be uploaded at all.
The final wording of Article 13 sets out exactly which platforms will need upload filters and which ones won't. As you can probably guess, this means a huge number of sites — from fishing forums to niche social networks — that will need to install upload filters. The article intends to get news aggregator sites, such as Google News, to pay publishers for using snippets of their articles on their platforms. No one is really sure how this one would work either.
How much of an article has to be shared before a platform has to pay the publisher? But even this is open to interpretation. This could put a stop to viral sports GIFs and might even stop people who attended matches from posting photos to social media. But as with the articles above, all of this depends on how the directive is interpreted by member states when they make it into national law. The Directive on Copyright has gained vocal critics on both sides of the debate, but you can broadly chunk up defenders and detractors into two categories.
In favour of the Directive are industry bodies representing content producers. However, Article 13 makes no such requirement and in fact states that automated blocking should be avoided," Honeyball says in a statement. On June 12 a large group of internet grandees including Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales and Tim Berners-Lee signed an open letter arguing against the Directive. YouTube is by far the most vocal critic of Article 13, with the firm making a big effort to promote opposition to the directive among its creators and users.
A popup on the YouTube website and app directs users to a page with the title " saveyourinternet " which includes a video from YouTube explaining the firm's objections to the directive. In the video, Matt Koval, a content strategist at YouTube argues that — in its current form — Article 13 "threatens hundreds of thousands of creators, artists and others employed in the creative economy.
0コメント