Happy birthday to Édouard Manet, born on this day in 1832. Manet was one of the first artists to paint modern life, and was a major figure in the transition from Realism to Impressionism.
The European Union’s Copyright Directive has led a
tortured life, even by the standards of EU law. This bundle of
legislation, intended to comprehensively update copyright for the
internet age, was hotly debated in Parliament and public all last year. But as of the beginning of this month, it seemed to be edging its way toward a final vote.
That is until last Friday, when six countries switched sides during negotiations, booting the proposed directive back into legislative limbo yet again.
Strangely, the points being debated haven’t changed
substantially since last year. While most of the Copyright Directive
contains commonsense updates to laws written in 2001, there are two
regulations that are causing trouble. These are Articles 11 and 13,
which critics have dubbed the “link tax” and “upload filter.”
Article 11 gives publishers the right to charge a fee
when platforms like Google or Facebook show snippets of their articles,
while Article 13 makes these platforms directly liable for user-uploaded
content that infringes copyright. The reason the latter is referred to
as the “upload filter” is that it would likely be enforced by scanning
content before it’s uploaded. Think of it like YouTube’s Content ID, but preemptively covering most of the internet.
Why did negotiations fail?
Articles 11 and 13 are currently locked into the
Copyright Directive itself. The way legislation like this is passed in
the EU is that different parts of the government come up with their own
versions and then negotiate with member states to create a compromise
text that satisfies all parties (theoretically, anyway). Last year, both
the European Council and the European Parliament approved versions of the text with Articles 11 and 13, which means these proposals aren’t going anywhere. What can change are the details of their implementation.
The current set of negotiations — a three-way discussion
between the Council, Parliament, and member states known as “trilogues” —
were meant to discuss exactly that. But talks were derailed last week
because of disagreements over the exact wording of these articles.
For Article 11, the key question was the definition of a
“snippet.” Should it constitute the first paragraph of an article? The
headline and opening sentence? Or just any text at all?
For Article 13, the issue was whether all user-generated
platforms should be liable for copyright infringement, or if special
dispensations should be made for smaller companies, those with revenues
of less than €20 million a year, for example.
There’s no qualified majority to reject changes or keep them in
“The council is in a deadlock because there is no
qualified majority for keeping [these changes] in or for taking them
out,” Julia Reda, an MEP for the Pirate Party and one of the Copyright
Directive’s leading critics, told The Verge. “The
result is that the trilogue that was planned for [Monday, January 23rd]
was cancelled and we now have to wait for the Council to come up with a
new position.”
Prior to Friday’s talks, a minority group of the EU’s 28
member states were fighting for more generous interpretations of these
articles. These were Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Finland, and
Slovenia. But on Friday, they were joined by representatives from
Sweden, Croatia, Portugal, Luxembourg, Poland, and Italy, creating a
sizable bloc.
What will happen next?
From this point on, the Copyright Directive is drifting into uncharted waters.
If the legislation is going to be accepted into law
across the EU (and then implemented by individual member states), it
needs to be approved in a plenary vote by the European Parliament. (Yes,
that’s right — there’s more voting to be done.)
But, as there is a limited number of plenary sessions
this year before EU elections take place in May, time is running out.
After the elections, any fragile consensus among MEPs that are
established in the next few months could be destroyed as new politicians
take office. This could “completely upend the process,” says Cory
Doctorow, blogger, activist, and special adviser to the Electronic
Frontier Foundation. “Especially given the other kinds of political
turmoil roiling EU member-states.”
Changes in EU governments have created problems for the copyright directive
The evidence that this could happen is clear just from
the breakdown of talks last week. Part of the reason the negotiations
failed on Friday is that Italy switched its position, which was caused
by a change in government last year from a more technocratically minded
center-left coalition to a populist, center-right coalition.
If the directive is to reach a plenary vote in whatever
form, trilogues need to be resumed and a compromise text agreed upon
quickly. According to Reda, the longer this takes, the less likely it is
that the legislation will pass this spring. “If by the beginning of
February they have found a new text they will have the final vote,” she
says. “But if nothing happens by the end of the month … the final vote
would take place under the next parliament.”
Whether this will happen is anyone’s guess. When The Verge
asked the European Council whether a new text would be proposed soon, a
spokesperson said only that “the Council needs more time to finalize
its position” and that there is “no other date for a trilogue yet.”
For those fighting what they say will be the worst
effects of the legislation — automated censorship and a stifling of free
expression online — recent events do offer some hope. Reda says that if
there hadn’t been public outcry, the proposal would already have been
adopted. “We still have a possibility to stop Article 11 or 13 or at
least remove the most problematic parts,” she says.
A fair result: everyone’s unhappy
For those on the sidelines, removing Article 11 and 13
and coming back to them later does seem like the easy option. Exactly
why this hasn’t happened isn’t clear, although most blame the entrenched
positions of the entertainment industry, which is refusing to
compromise on these articles, despite widespread criticism from
academics and activists.
“Why can’t the Directive be adopted without these
controversial provisions? The answer is likely that copyright policy is
not based on evidence but on horse trading,” Martin Kretschmer, a
professor of intellectual property law at the University of Glasgow,
tells The Verge. “Provisions favoring one sector, or political
interests in one member state, are traded against interests in another
country or sector.”
Even some industry lobbyists are backing away from the directive
Another reason is that there has been little stable
ground on which a compromise could be built. As well as changes in
member states’ positions and in the composition of the European
Parliament, industry lobbyists have also flip-flopped.
Big publishers and news outlets are fighting Google for the link tax, but many small publishers have sided
with the tech giants. (To them, traffic from news snippets is more
important than license fees.) Music and film companies were originally
responsible for the inclusion of upload filter, battling platforms like
YouTube for it, but many of these rights-holders are now backing away from the filter,
worried about the difficulty of enforcing such a measure now that
there’s a chance they’ll be partly responsible for its upkeep.
It is, in short, an almighty mess. It’s perhaps exactly
what you’d expect when a political organization like the EU that’s built
on the principle of compromise attempts to exert control over an entity
like the internet, an ecosystem with as many stakeholders as users. But
one thing is clear: the Copyright Directive is still coming, whether
it’s welcome or not.
With the World Economic Forum kicking off in Davos, Switzerland – where the super-rich are already decrying Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s massively popular 70% tax-rate on earning over $10,000,000 – it’s a great time to revisit Anand Giridharadas’s must-read 2018 book Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World,
in which the former McKinsey consultant and Aspen Institute fellow
catalogs the way that the super-rich have starved their host-nations of
the funds needed to operate a functional civilization, and then
laundered their reputations by dribbling back some of that looted booty
in the form of “philanthropic donations” that always seem to redound to
their personal benefit.
In a long essay adapted from Winners Take All, published in The
Guardian, Giridharadas uses Davos as a jumping off point to explain his
thesis and update it for 2019’s facts-on-the-ground. While this essay is
no substitute for reading Giridharadas’s book, it’s an excellent introduction to his ideas.
Though firms may worry about profits now that Trump’s decision to let
the world boil in its own juices rather than offend the hydrocarbon
lobby (Coke may run out of water, Disney may run out of
themepark-goers), the latest report from UK nonprofit Carbon Disclosure Project
shows that companies are also privately exulting in the new
possibilities opened up by climate catastrophes and the ensuing hidden
misery.
For example, Apple speculates that people caught in disasters or forced
to live in refugee camps will love their Iphones: “As people begin to
experience severe weather events with greater frequency, we expect an
increasing need for confidence and preparedness in the arena of personal
safety and the well-being of loved ones. [Iphones] can serve as a
flashlight or a siren; they can provide first aid instructions; they can
act as a radio; and they can be charged for many days via car batteries
or even hand cranks.”
Wells Fargo looks forward to continuing its criminal and predatory financial practices
by extending credit to people whose homes are damaged or demolished by
floods, fires, etc: “Preparation for and response to climate-change
induced natural disasters result in greater construction, conservation
and other business activities. [Our company]has the opportunity to
provide financing to support these efforts.”
Home Depot predicts soaring demand for construction supplies in the wake
of disasters and more air conditioners and fans as temperatures rise:
“[We will see] higher demand should temperatures increase over time.”
Google thinks that Google Earth will grow along with curiosity about
disasters around the world: “If customers value Google Earth Engine as a
tool to examine the physical changes to the Earth’s natural resources
and climate, this could result in increased customer loyalty or brand
value. This opportunity driver could have a positive impact on our
brands.”
On a day not like today. Here in Waterloo Region, last night’s snow and freezing rain last night gave way to just rain today. We missed having another ice storm. Yay.
Anyone who tells you there’s no such thing as #ClimateChange hasn’t been paying attention.
Climate Change is an enormous problem. Even if we manage zero emissions, the problem is we have already exceeded our carbon budget, we’re living on borrowed time. We don’t just need to stop emissions, we need to start putting carbon back where it belongs. But there is no single magic solution. The reality is that there are many ways the Climate Crisis can be addressed. The book “Drawdown” looks at 100 of the solutions.
“We would want to implement these solutions whether or not Global Warming was even a problem because they have cascading benefits to human and planetary well being.
• Renewable electricity results in access to abundant clean energy for all
• Plant rich diet, reduced food waste, results in a healthy global population with enough food and sustenance.
• Family planning and educating girls? This is about human rights, about gender equality. This is about economic improvements and the freedom of choice. It’s about justice.
• Regenerative agriculture, managed grazing, agriforestry, silvopasture — restores soil health, benefits farmers and brings carbon back to the land.
• Protecting our ecosystems also protects biodiversity and safeguards planetary health and the oxygen that we breathe. It’s tangible benefits to all species is incalculable.”
COST
“We estimate that to implement all 80 solutions would cost about $29 trillion US$ over 30 years. That’s just about a trillion a year. Now I know that sounds like a lot, but we have to remember that global GDP is over $80 trillion every year.”
SAVINGS
“And the estimated savings from implementing these solutions is $74 trillion US$ dollars– over double the cost. That’s a net savings of 44 trillion dollars.
“So Drawdown is possible. We can do it if we want to. Its not going to cost that much and the return on the investment is huge.
“Here’s the welcome surprise: when we implement these solutions, we shift the way we do business from a system that is inherently exploitative and extractive to a new normal that is by nature restorative and regenerative. We need to rethinhk our global goals to move beyond sustainability towards regeneration. And along the way, reverse global warming.”
I recommend getting a copy of the book Drawdown for yourself. The book isn’t mired in jargon, it’s written to be understandable to ordinary people. And not only will it make a great gift for those interested, and it would perhaps make a good educational tool to share with our public libraries and schools, but elected representatives as well.
Note:
If you missed the sold out event featuring Dianne Saxe, the Environment Commissioner of Ontario last night (January 11th, 2019),
or if you were there and want to see it again, you can watch it on the Facebook Livestream capture here: https://www.facebook.com/divestwr/videos/356227264929627/
I’ve just posted my comment. If you live in Ontario you should too. There’s more information after the comment.
I am writing to tell you to withdraw “Bill 66, Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act, 2018”
I grew up Woolwich Township, and went to high school in Elmira, and I moved back to the area to raise my child. As a child I spent time visiting family…
I’ve just posted my comment. If you live in Ontario you should too. There’s more information after the comment.
I am writing to tell you to withdraw “Bill 66, Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act, 2018”
I grew up Woolwich Township, and went to high school in Elmira, and I moved back to the area to raise my child. As a child I spent time visiting family from the Walkerton area. Both these towns have a lot going for them, but the terrible water issues they’ve suffered have left deep scars.
Human beings will not be able to drink the water in our town in my lifetime, and likely not even in my grandchildren’s lifetime. The laws protecting the health of our people and out environment are better than they were, but I expect they could be improved. Going the other way is simply not an option. I invite anyone who thinks otherwise to drop by my town and drink the water under our feet rather than the tap water we pipe in from Waterloo.
I agree with our town councillor who expressed anger at the provincial government’s implication that Woolwich Township isn’t “open for business.” And another who said we don’t need or want businesses that can’t operate within existing laws that protect our water, natural heritage, farmland and human health and well-being.
Urban sprawl is expensive, and I’m lucky to live in a place that has worked hard to responsibly manage growth through regional and municipal planning based on evidence and citizen consultation.
Parcels of land, factories, farms, cities, towns and hamlets aren’t islands; they share the environment that supports us all. Our current regional planning procedures ensure that the use we make of our lands don’t harm our neighbours. We all need a healthy environment.
Kitchener-Conestoga is a predominantly rural riding. Pesticides are killing off our bee population: we need stronger environmental law. The farms that surround the settlement areas and knit Waterloo Region together are important if we want to eat.
But the safety of our water and our land is only part of the problem with Bill 66. Omnibus Bills are never a good thing. Democracy doesn’t serve the public if laws are rushed through willy nilly without making use of the democratic procedures that subject them to scrutiny, so they are properly formed.
I have not had the time to read through the 22 other laws Bill 66 will change, but it is inconceivable that your government would strip away what feeble protections we have in the Wireless Services Agreements Act 2013. If there are any good parts in Bill 66, they can be pulled out and introduced as standalone laws.
As bad as everything I do know about Bill 66 is, the worst to me is your government’s attempt to strip public consultation out of the process. That was one of the things your predecessors got very wrong. My friend has been trying to set up an appointment with our MPP without success. This is still a democracy, isn’t it?
In case there is any doubt, I am writing this to tell you to withdraw Bill 66.
During the election, Mr Ford categorically promised not to touch the Greenbelt.
Not only is the Greenbelt home to 5,500 farms, 78 species at risk and 102 million tonnes of carbon storage, the reason it was protected in the first place was to protect a great deal of Ontario’s water.
But now Mr Ford’s majority government has introduced Bill 66, The Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act, 2018, legislation. This will indeed open Ontario’s Greenbelt up to development.
Because it was introduced quietly going into Christmas, and the Ford Government has made no secret of its intention to push Bill 66 through quickly, I don’t know if anyone has yet managed a thorough examination of all the ramifications of Bill 66.
It may only be 35 pages long, but it’s an omnibus bill, which means everything you need to know isn’t contained in this draft legislation. You’d have to read through every one of the 22 laws it will change:
Some of the changes it makes may be good things, but the bad things thoroughly outweigh any good that may be there. That’s the thing about Omnibus Bills: many different things are bundled together in a package too big to be adequately considered in a democracy.
There is no reason Bill 66 couldn’t be stopped, and the good parts could be reintroduced as ordinary laws that can be properly understood and debated in the Legislature.
Our unrepresentative voting system has gifted Mr Ford’s government with 100% power to pass any law it wants, even though it was elected by only 40% of the votes cast. (A mere twentysomething percent of eligible votes).
So what’s the rush?
There is nothing stopping them from allowing citizens and the MPPs in the legislature to know what it is they are passing, and allow adequate parliamentary debate of all aspects. That’s how our system is supposed to work. In a majority government, even though the party with all the power can pass any law it wants, the reason we have an opposition parties is to ensure that our legislators make sure the laws they pass stand up to scrutiny. If there are bad unintended consequences, or even if the legislation is too broad or unclear, these things can be dealt with before they become law.
The only reason for pushing something like this through fast is to keep us from knowing what they’re doing until it’s too late. Keeping the people in the dark is not how a Government for the people would operate.
In the Region of Waterloo discussion of Bill 66, Waterloo Mayor Jaworsky said, “No one asked for this.”
Mr Ford keeps saying he needs to do this to show Ontario is “Open For Business.” But what does that mean? This law is supposed to “cut red tape” that prevents development.
But the fact is that development isn’t being prevented. There is plenty of room in Ontario, plenty of land available and open for development without going anywhere near the protected lands of the Green Belt. There is no need to endanger our water or anything else. That’s why municipalities across Ontario are passing resolutions saying they don’t want or need this.
Why is this happening?
Because when the laws protecting Ontario’s water and the Greenbelt were put in place, land prices in the Greenbelt stayed low. When a farmland can’t be turned into a factory or subdivision, it stays viable as farmland. But because of the low prices, some developers bought land in the Greenbelt, speculating that in time they would elect a government willing to undo Greenbelt protections.
Although all-party approved changes to Ontario’s election financing law prevented political parties from accepting corporate donations directly, the changes didn’t go far enough, because developers like Mattamy Homes were allowed to contribute ridiculous sums of money to Partisan third party advertiser Ontario Proud which specialized in attack ads against Mr Ford’s opponents. (And Mr Ford is undoing that election financing law because the people he is for have lots of money to spend to ensure the governments they want get elected. But that’s another story.)
The only reason the Ford Government is trying so hard to carve up the green spaces of our province with factories and subdivisions is because their rich supporters want to make a profit.
Ontario has been doing a pretty good job of long term planning, protecting sensitive environments, our water and our food supplies. Once farmland is paved, its gone.
Once farmland is developed, it’s not farm land anymore.
The best we can hope for from Bill 66 is that decades of careful land management will be messed up. The worst is another Walkerton. Or another Elmira.
And if that’s not bad enough, Bill 66 does away with any requirement for public notice or consultation or meetings, and no matter what problems are caused, we won’t even be able to appeal to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal. So called “Open For Business” by-laws passed behind closed doors will trump laws, policies and municipal official plans developed through extensive and open public consultation. Communities would have no recourse to influence or challenge them.
And even if your Council doesn’t do any of these things, the Council next door might, and endanger the environment we all share.
January 20th is the deadline for comments to Bill 66 on the Environmental Registry of Ontario (EBR).
Be sure that you and others that you know speak up and let your concerns be known. It would be fantastic if your group or organization can make an official response or submission. There is plenty of information in the Bill 66 Recent Articles
linked below. There are a myriad of issues and concerns, but you can say as little or as much as you like in your comment. Don’t be shy about making comments personally – even if it is just a short sentence or two. I would suggest making it clear right at the top that you don’t want Bill 66. I am afraid to say that at this point they are not likely to listen to what we say, but they will certainly tally up how many comments support or oppose the bill.
Please take two minutes to send a message to the Ontario Government to stop Bill 66:
You can also visit the Green Party of Ontario’s Defend The Greenbelt website. If you feel you need assistance in using the comment process, the GPO advises you to Click here for step-by-step instructions to participate in the government consultation.
Note:
Not only is the Greenbelt home to 5,500 farms, 78 species at risk and 102 million tonnes of carbon storage, the reason it was protected in the first place was to protect a great deal of Ontario’s water.
Bill 66 Recent Articles and Background:
