Image caption David Guetta was among the artists who supported the proposed rules

A controversial overhaul of the EU's copyright law that sparked a fierce debate between internet giants and content creators has been rejected.

The proposed rules would have put more responsibility on websites to check for copyright infringements, and forced platforms to pay for linking to news.

A slew of high-profile music stars had backed the change, arguing that websites had exploited their content.

But opponents said the rules would stifle internet freedom and creativity.

The move was intended to bring the EU's copyright laws in line with the digital age, but led to protests from websites and much debate before it was rejected by a margin of 318-278 in the European Parliament on Thursday.

What were they voting for?

The proposed legislation - known as the Copyright Directive - was an attempt by the EU to modernise its copyright laws, but it contained two highly-contested parts.

The first of these, Article 11, was intended to protect newspapers and other outlets from internet giants like Google and Facebook using their material without payment.

But it was branded a "link tax" by opponents who feared it could lead to problems with sentence fragments being used to link to other news outlets (like this).

Article 13 was the other controversial part. It put a greater responsibility on websites to enforce copyright laws, and would have meant that any online platform that allowed users to post text, images, sounds or code would need a way to assess and filter content.

The most common way to do this is by using an automated copyright system, but they are expensive. The one YouTube uses cost $60m (£53m), so critics were worried that similar filters would need to be introduced to every website if Article 13 became law.

There were also concerns that these copyright filters could effectively ban things like memes and remixes which use some copyrighted material.

Stars fail to convince politicians

By Mark Savage, music reporter, BBC News

Image copyright PA/BBC Image caption The vocal support of Paul McCartney and Annie Lennox was not enough to pass the legislation

The combined clout of Paul McCartney, Annie Lennox, Placido Domingo and David Guetta wasn't enough to persuade MEPs to make sweeping changes to copyright law.

They were among 1,300 musicians who urged politicians to enact a law forcing sites like YouTube and Facebook to use filters that would stop users illegally uploading their music.

Musicians were being cheated out of money, they argued, even though websites were making huge profits off their work.

Critics said the laws would stifle creativity - with Creative Commons chief Ryan Merkley observing that The Beatles would have been prevented from performing cover versions under the proposed rules.

For you and me, it could have resulted in text, music and videos posted to blogs, social networks and comment sections being yanked from the net at point of upload - somewhat like YouTube's controversial Content ID system on steroids.

In the end, MEPs decided the changes needed more debate; and sent the proposals back to the Commission. The two sides will undoubtedly step up their campaigns in the meantime.

What has the reaction been?

Opponents of the Copyright Directive celebrated the news that MEPs had rejected it.

Julia Reda, a Pirate Party MEP who had campaigned against the changes, tweeted: "Great success: Your protests have worked! The European Parliament has sent the copyright law back to the drawing board."

Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales told the BBC he hoped that the music industry could find a way to compromise before the September debate.

"Don't think about filtering everything everyone uploads to the internet. That's a pipe dream but you are never going to get that," he said.

Instead, he added, they should look to renegotiating deals with platforms such as YouTube to get "fairer remuneration".

BPI Music, which represents UK record labels, had supported the bill and said it would "work with MEPs over the next weeks to explain how the proposed directive will benefit not just European creativity, but also internet users".</s>The European Parliament has voted down the controversial copyright law amendments Articles 11 and 13, 318-278 - but the matter is returning for another vote in September, and activists claim the fight is far from over.

Approved by the European Parliament's Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) late last month, Articles 11 and 13 of the proposed Digital Single Market copyright reform have been the focus on fierce lobbying from digital rights activists and large technology companies. Article 11 would implement a 'link tax' requiring any website citing third-party materials, including for the purposes of discussion or public-interest reporting, to ensure they adhere to exemptions and restrictions present in 28 separate copyright laws or pay a licensing fee for their use; Article 13 introduces the requirement that all media uploaded to a service by the public be run against an automated copyright-flagging database of works for which said sites are expected to be charged to access.

Campaigners have argued that both Articles put onerous conditions on public discourse, and would have an outsize effect on sites like Wikipedia and citizen journalism projects. Arguably worse, opponents claim that the technology to support something as proposed in Article 13 simply isn't there: 'Algorithms that do content-matching are frankly terrible at it,' the Electronic Frontier Foundation's (EFF's) Cory Doctorow claimed in a blog post arguing against the Articles. 'The Made-in-the-USA version of this is YouTube's Content ID system, which improperly flags legitimate works all the time, but still gets flack from entertainment companies for not doing more.'

For now, at least, it would appear that the European Parliament agrees: In voting late yesterday the Parliament voted, 318 to 278, against passing the measures, with 31 abstentions.

'Round one of the Robo-Copyright wars is over,' says campaign organisation Open Rights Group's Jim Killock of the vote. 'The EU Parliament has recognised that machine censorship of copyright material is not an easy and simple fix. They’ve heard the massive opposition, including Internet blackouts and 750,000 people petitioning them against these proposals. Everyone across Europe who wants this fixed will have to work hard to make sure that Parliament comes up with a sensible way forward by September. We congratulate our members for their hard work, and Julia Reda, Catherine Stihler, EDRi and others who have led the fight in Europe to stop these dreadful proposals.'

The proposal will be voted upon again in September, following any modifications which may make it more likely to be passed.</s>Last month, the EU Legislative Affairs Committee (which somehow works out to the initialism JURI) voted in favor of a new copyright reform plan called the EU Copyright Directive, sending it to a parliamentary vote. On its face, the idea of copyright reform is a good idea considering how old many governments' legislation on the subject is, but two parts of the plan—Article 11 and Article 13—were a bit draconian in their perspective. Thankfully, the European Parliament has sent the whole idea back to be reworked.

Article 11 in the EU Copyright Directive would have required that links to news stories (like the one you're reading right now) be subject to a licensing/tax fee when companies like Google or Facebook point people at them. So merely searching via Google for some of Android Police's hotter scoops would have forced big G to cough up the cash to help you. By a more cynical perspective, this "Link Tax" is really nothing more than a lobbying effort by maladapted media companies to try to pump more money in the midst of declining viewership and an era of unnecessary and pointless paywalls. (/rant)

Article 13 would have required that all content posted to the internet be fed through copyright "filters" that magically pull every piece of copyright-infringing material out, presumably scanning a nonexistent library of all copyrighted works for comparison. In essence, Article 13 asks every site to install a magic box of bullshit, precisely the sort of plan we've come to expect from technically ignorant politicians with lobby-lined pockets.

If you'd like a bit more discussion on both Articles and their impact on the internet, BoingBoing's Cory Doctorow presents a detailed and accurate (if politically slanted) perspective on the implications of each for tech companies.

In a surprisingly pleasant twist for European-residing citizens of the internet, the bundle of copyright laws has voted down by parliament, sending the whole plan back for re-examination. It's possible (and likely) that the lobbyists and regulators that brought the bill initially could attempt another vote in the future, but it appears that most parliamentary representatives actually seem to understand how harmful these particular regulations would have been.</s>The European parliament rejected on Thursday a draft of reforms which aimed at modernizing and strengthening copyright rules in the digital age. The reforms were pushed by European film and TV guilds, as well as artists such as Paul McCartney and press publishers.

The Parliament’s decision to reject reforms proposed by the Legal Affairs Committee marks a victory for global giants such as Netflix, Google, Facebook and Amazon which would have faced several changes and restrictions if the draft had been approved.

EDiMA, the European trade association representing online platforms, reacted to the decision saying that “democracy has succeeded.” The org previously argued the reforms would have resulted “in the censorship of free speech online and a disintegration of the Internet as we know it.”

Out of the 627 deputies who participated in the vote, 318 of them voted against and 278 were in favor of the reforms. There were 31 abstentions.

The last E.U. copyright reform dates back to 2001, before the start of the digital revolution, and those who are lobbying for the reform are arguing that web giants must be held accountable for the content they feature in order to create a fairer marketplace and fight against piracy.

Instagram Now Lets Content Owners Scan for and Block Copyright-Infringing Video Taylor Swift Seeks to Toss 'Shake It Off' Copyright Suit

Earlier this year, more than 1,300 recording artists including Paul McCartney, James Blunt and opera star Placido Domingo signed an open letter to the European Parliament to support the reform.

But two articles (the 11th and 13th) in the draft sparked criticism among many deputies. The 11th article called for content aggregators such as Google News to pay a fee to press publishers, while the 13th article required web platforms such as Facebook to flag copyright-protected content from being illegally posted online.

The Legal Affairs Committee will have to come up with a new draft to be examined by the European Parliament during the next plenary session in September.

Reacting to today’s vote, Axel Voss, the rapporteur for the copyright directive, said he regretted that “a majority of MEPs (members of the European Parliament) did not support the position which (he) and the Legal Affairs Committee have been advocating.”

“But this is part of the democratic process. We will now return to the matter in September for further consideration and attempt to address peoples’ concerns whilst bringing our copyright rules up to date with the modern digital environment,” added Voss.</s>The European Parliament voted Thursday against a the current form of a copyright reform proposal which has come under fire in recent weeks for sections which critics say would unfairly stifle the sharing of content on the internet.

The stated goals of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market 2016/0280(COD), as it is officially known, are to harmonize copyright protection across the EU and give additional protections to content creators and rightsholders.

However, opponents of the directive – which include the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Wikimedia Foundation, Google, World Wide Web founder Tim Berners-Lee, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and hundreds of academics, scientists, and journalists – have warned that it would have disastrous effects for culture and information sharing in Europe and beyond.

The most controversial aspects of the proposal are:

Article 11: This would force, for example, anyone wishing to even share this article’s headline “EU Parliament votes against controversial copyright reform” on social media to obtain permission from The Krakow Post first.

Article 13: This would hold most content sharing platforms responsible for licensing (or, failing that, blocking) any copyright-protected material. While nominally designed to prevent piracy, critics fear that, by virtue of the facts that this would apply to all automatically copyrighted (like any photo, video, or text created by anyone) and that it would hold platforms like social media companies (rather than individuals) responsible for violations, it would effectively force most sites that allow users to share content to implement automatic stringent content filters on everything that is uploaded there. This is often described by opponents as a death sentence for internet memes, which by their nature are usually derived from images created by others, but it would affect many other types of content as well.

Supporters of the directive – mostly music publishers along with other creative rightsholders and their representatives – accuse the opposition of exaggerating and fear-mongering. They argue that the rules would be reasonably applied in the limited interests of maintaining legitimate and willful copyright violations, and that sufficient exceptions have been added to prevent the contingencies opponents warn of.

In the end, the vote failed 278-318, with 31 abstentions. Poland MEPs were remarkable in having zero “yes” votes, a distinction they shared only with Sweden.

It should be noted, however, that this is not the end of the matter. This simply opens the proposal to further changes and negotiations before a (probably revised) version is voted on in mid-September.

If you would like to learn more, German Pirate Party member Julia Reda has a good summary of the opposition views (along with arguments for why the exceptions which purport to relax the law would be ineffective). For an argument from the other side, you can read the open letter signed by Paul McCartney, James Blunt, and more than 1,300 other recording artists who support the directive. Finally, if you want to contact your MEP, you can find more information here.</s>The European Parliament has voted against a controversial set of copyright rules known as the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market.

The vote follows weeks of intensifying protests, with internet companies such as Mozilla and pioneers like Vint Cerf and Sir Tim Berners-Lee speaking out against the EU’s copyright proposals and Wikipedia taking its websites offline in some European countries. Today was D-Day for the web as we know it.

By way of a quick recap, the crux of the directive’s perceived flaws lay in Article 13 and Article 11. Article 13 would effectively make digital platforms legally liable for any copyright infringements on their platform, stoking fears that it would stop people from sharing content — such as hilarious GIF-infused memes — on social networks. Related to this, Article 11 would potentially stipulate that websites pay publishers a fee if they display excerpts of copyrighted content or link to it.

In short, the entire internet has been in major freak-out mode for a while, but in what could prove to be a historic decision the European Parliament today voted 318-278 against the copyright law — though only in its current form.

The saga isn’t over yet, but today’s vote does mean that the directive will be sent back to the drawing board, and members of the European Parliament (MEPs) will vote again in September.

In the aftermath of the vote, Raegan MacDonald, head of EU public policy at Mozilla, which was among the most vocal opponents, had this to say:

The European Parliament has today heard the voice of European citizens and voted against proposals that would have dealt a hammer blow to the open internet in Europe. By a clear majority, MEPs have rejected rubber stamping proposals that would have forced internet companies to filter the web, and would have introduced an unprecedented tax on linking online. This is great news for Europe’s citizens, its SMEs and startups, especially those in the creative sectors as, while the proposed rules were supposed to protect and support them, they would have been the ones to suffer most under the new regime. The last few weeks have seen a massive mobilisation of public opinion in Europe – as the impact of this regressive law upon everything from memes to news articles online became clear. The momentum is growing and Mozilla will go on fighting to make sure this proposal serves its purpose of modernising copyright in Europe.

We can expect many more debates and discussion in the months ahead, and proponents of copyright reform will have to fine-tune the directive’s mission to appease all sides before they can progress to concrete discussions about how constituent EU countries would enforce new copyright legislation if it were to pass.</s>File photo of plenary session in European Parliament in Strasbourg in France. | Photo Credit: REUTERS

European Parliament lawmakers on Thursday rejected a highly controversial European Union copyright law proposal that has pitted Beatles legend Paul McCartney against the creators of Wikipedia.

Members of the European Parliament, meeting in the eastern French city of Strasbourg, voted 318 against the measure, 278 in favour, with 31 abstentions. The draft law was firmly resisted by major U.S. tech giants as well as advocates of Internet freedom.

Resistance has been especially heated to Article 13: the proposal to make online platforms legally liable for copyrighted material put on the web by users.

Music legend McCartney as well as major music labels and film studios have lobbied politicians urging them to back the changes.

But critics warn the reform will lead to blanket censorship by tech platforms that have become an online hub for creativity, especially Youtube. It would also restrict the usage of memes and remixes by everyday Internet surfers, they say.

Wikipedia went down in at least three countries on Wednesday in protest aagainst the European Parliament vote.

"The directive will threaten online freedom and would impose new filters, barriers and restrictions to access the web," Wikipedia Spain said in a statement.

The second disputed aspects to the proposed reform are an effort to boost revenue for hard-up news publishers and a crackdown on non-copyrighted material on tech platforms such as Google-owned Youtube or Facebook.

Major publishers, including AFP, have pushed for the news media reform — known as article 11 — seeing it as an urgently needed solution against a backdrop of free online news that has decimated the earnings of traditional media companies.

But U.S. tech giants and Internet freedom activists are against the idea, calling it a "link tax" that will stifle discourse on the Internet.

They also argue it will only benefit well-known news providers to the detriment of independent and start-up news companies.

Thursday's parliament vote is not final, but only sets out the negotiating position of the Members of the European Parliament.

There then follow negotiations with member-states for a finalised law, which Austria, holder of the EU's six-month rotating presidency, would like finished by the end of the year.</s>The European Parliament has voted against an incredibly controversial new set of copyright rules that campaigners claim could "ban memes" The law will now beinside the parliament, during which activists will try and remove the controversial Article 11 and 13.Article 11 has been referred to by campaigners as instituting a "link tax", by forcing tech companies like Google and Facebook to pay to use snippets of content on their own sites. Article 13 adds rules that make tech companies responsible for ensuring any copyrighted material is not spread over their platforms.Those rules could. If it is found, the post will be forced to be removed, which campaigners claim could destroy the kind of memes and remixes that spread across the internet.The revamp has triggered strong criticism from Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee, net neutrality expert Tim Wu, internet pioneer Vint Cerf and others.Copyright campaigners claim that the rules are necessary to ensure that material isn't illegally spread across the internet. Europe's broadcasters, publishers and artists including Paul McCartney backed the rules, arguing the controversial Article 13 would protect the music industry.A total of 318 law makers voted against opening talks with EU countries based on the committee's proposal while 278 voted in favour, and 31 abstained.Internet activists nonetheless hailed the decision as a victory and said that the work of campaigners had helped turn them against automatic scanning of posts to ensure they abide by copyright."Round one of the Robo-Copyright wars is over," said Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group. "The EU Parliament has recognised that machine censorship of copyright material is not an easy and simple fix. They've heard the massive opposition, including Internet blackouts and 750,000 people petitioning them against these proposals."Everyone across Europe who wants this fixed will have to work hard to make sure that Parliament comes up with a sensible way forward by September."We congratulate our members for their hard work, and Julia Reda, Catherine Stihler, EDRi and others who have led the fight in Europe to stop these dreadful proposals."Copyright campaigners said they would continue to fight for the protections in the legislation."This vote is a set-back but it is not the end," said David El Sayegh, secretary general of the Society of Authors, Composers and Publishers of Music. "SACEM remains dedicated to ensuring that creators are recognised and remunerated for the value of their work."We will not be discouraged by today's decision and will continue to mobilise the support of musicians and music lovers across the world, in the hopes of reaching a fair agreement with these platforms that will safeguard the future of the music industry."We are confident that the European Parliament will eventually support a framework that fully acknowledges the rights of creators in the digital landscape of the 21st century."</s>MEPs have voted to reject a proposed overhaul of EU copyright law which had received the support of high-profile musicians and the creative industries, and condemnation from large online technology companies.

The European Parliament voted 318 to 278 against a committee proposal known as the EU Copyright Directive, in its current form, with 31 MEPs abstaining.

The draft law is intended as a simple update to copyright for the internet age but came in for substantial criticism for the inclusion of two key provisions: Articles 11 and 13.

The draft law, known as the Copyright Directive, was intended as a simple update to copyright for the internet age. But it attracted substantial criticism for the inclusion of two key provisions: Articles 11 and 13.

The first, Article 11, was a âlink taxâ that would force online platforms like Facebook and Google to pay news organizations before linking to their stories.

The second, Article 13, proposed an âupload filterâ that would have required all content uploaded online to be checked for copyright infringement.

The proposed law has divided the European parliament with Irish MEPs holding differing views.

A tweet that was retweeted by FG MEP, Mairead McGuinness, prior to the vote

Article 13 was probably the most high profile element of the new law and proposed a new legal framework to govern how large online services pay songwriters and performers for the use of their work.

It suggested websites could continue to house music videos but must use technology to ensure copyrighted works are not available where a licence has not been agreed for its use.

Artists including Paul McCartney and opera signer Placido Domingo signing an open letter calling for politicians to back the change ahead of the vote.

McCartney wrote in his own letter he believed the changes would have assured a sustainable future for the music industry by encouraging online upload platforms to pay songwriters and performers fairly for use of their work.

Geoff Taylor, chief executive of the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) and Brit Awards, said: “We respect the decision by MEPs to have a plenary discussion on the draft Copyright Directive.

“We will work with MEPs over the next weeks to explain how the proposed directive will benefit not just European creativity, but also internet users and the technology sector.”

The European Parliament will return to the issue in September, where its position will be up for debate, amendment and another vote in the next plenary session.

Reacting to the result of Thursday’s vote Robert Ashcroft, chief executive of recording artists’ royalties collector PRS for Music, said: “It is perhaps unsurprising considering the unprecedented level of lobbying and the comprehensive campaign of misinformation which has accompanied this vote that MEPs want more time to consider the proposals.

“The vote showed that many MEPs across the various European political parties understand the importance of fixing the transfer of value and of a well-functioning market for copyright.

“We appreciate their support and hope that as we move forward to the Plenary debate in September, more MEPs will recognise the unique opportunity to secure the EU’s creative industries.”

Sir Paul McCartney had signed an open letter that called on MEPs to give the music industry a ‘sustainable’ future (Steve Parsons/PA)

Technology leaders including Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales and free speech campaigners had been opposed to the changes, saying they risked creative sharing of content online including remixes and memes.

The executive director of the Open Rights Group Jim Killock welcomed the decision. He said: “Round one of the Robo-Copyright wars is over.

“The EU Parliament has recognised that machine censorship of copyright material is not an easy and simple fix.

“They’ve heard the massive opposition, including Internet blackouts and 750,000 people petitioning them against these proposals.

“Everyone across Europe who wants this fixed will have to work hard to make sure that Parliament comes up with a sensible way forward by September.”

The Press Association has contacted Google, the owner of video sharing site YouTube, for comment.</s>Memes are safe; snippets won't land you in court. At least for the time being.

The European Parliament has rejected the highly-controversial Copyright Directive in its present form, deciding to reconsider it in September.

At issue were Articles 11 and 13 of the directive. The first of these would have required any website linking to a third-party site and using a snippet to pay for a license to provide the link.

Article 13, meanwhile, would have forced any site which allows users to post material to check it all against a database of copyrighted works, and even to pay for the privilege of accessing the database. It was widely touted as heralding the death of memes.

But in a remarkable display of common sense, MEPs today rejected a move to take the law on to the next stage. Instead, a plenary session of the full parliament voted by 318 votes to 278, with 31 abstentions, to debate the issue further this autumn and consider making amendments.

This has of course caused great relief amongst those who were campaigning against the reform.

"Round one of the Robo-Copyright wars is over. The EU Parliament has recognised that machine censorship of copyright material is not an easy and simple fix. They’ve heard the massive opposition, including internet blackouts and 750,000 people petitioning them against these proposals," says Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group.

"Everyone across Europe who wants this fixed will have to work hard to make sure that Parliament comes up with a sensible way forward by September."
The European Parliament votes against the proposed copyright reform.