Executive summary

On 17th September 2015 the European platform, with 3737 responses coming Commission released a questionnaire from within the European Union. on the regulation of online platforms asking how such platforms should This volume contains all of the operate in the European market. comments from within the EU that the Save the Link network received in Entitled Regulatory environment response to this consultation. for platforms, online intermediaries, data and cloud computing and Overall the responses show that the collaborative economy, the Internet users regularly find themselves questionnaire had a broad scope, unable to access content, losing access seeking input on everything from to legal content and inconsistencies in geo-blocking and data privacy to takedowns without clear answers as contractual relationships and licensing to why. Additionally, most respondents agreements. raised concerns about any system that would require websites or individuals to However, this questionnaire was widely pay fees to link to content online. criticised for its questions directed explicitly at rights holders, overly long As Internet users, we must play a role and with a low standard for usability in shaping the way the Web is changing. and user experience. This is why we did everything we could to get this survey in front of as many As the Save the Link network, we Internet users as possible. The more worked to bridge these gaps by isolating people who participate, the more questions that could have the greatest representative the outcomes will be. It impact on our right to link, and then is vital that these views are taken into asked them in a way that an everyday account and properly heard as the EU Internet users could understand and moves forward with the Digital Single answer. We narrowed it down to five Market Strategy, and with the new key questions on intermediary liability, copyright directive. transparency on website takedowns and lost content, and ancillary copyright. We hope their voices and perspectives will serve as a compass to guide your In total, 10,903 people responded to determinations going forward. the consultation on the Save the Link Save the Link question 1: When using platforms like SoundCloud or Facebook, have you ever seen legal content unfairly removed, or been unable to access it in your region?

European Commission consultation question: Have you encountered, or are you aware of problems faced by consumers or suppliers when dealing with online platforms?

1476 428 8 Yes No I don’t know. 4 EU Responses to Question 1

Total number of responses: 1495 Unique responses: 661

“So, so, so often. Invariably in the form of a company claiming rights to content they do not have, be it squashing critiques of their work by claiming ownership of the fairly used reference material for instance, or even simply claiming ownership of the content based solely on the title. This seems to be a particularly significant issue in Germany, as I regularly find I am unable to show friends works by artists who have created original works inspired by owned franchises, only to find that ownership of the work has been claimed based on its tangential relationship to the franchise in question and thusly blocked.”

yes, a lot, particularly on YouTube. Yes

I am getting notices that certain TV Yes, unfortunately. It’s outdated. We are contents if videos are not available in living in a global economy and world now. my region because of legal issues When individuals are responsible for No monitoring content, they apply their unique quirks and morality, often inconsistently Yes. Frequently I have seen content unfairly removed on Facebook. While automated processes may result in unfairly removing/blocking legal content, No, because I don´t use this service. if it is monitored by humans, those who monitor tend to exercise their “value Yes, and I’ve also had issues linking things judgements”, so that there will always to people outside of my region on occasion be a risk that their decisions will be biased, prejudiced and inconsistent. Geoblocking, where content is available in some countries and not others can Yes, sometimes. be confusing and restricts access to knowledge and information.Monitoring Yes I’ve seen videos disappear of billions of posts per day for infringement police brutality and misconduct relies on automated systems, which often unfairly censor legal speech and Yes, quite frequently. Online filters and expression.Processes that take infringing DMCA notices, which take down infringing content offline (such as filters and notice content consistently overreach and often systems) which take down infringing often result in the blocking of legal content consistently overreach and often content. Monitoring billions of posts per result in the blocking of legal content. day for infringement relies on automated EU Responses to Question 1 5

systems, which cannot detect context a stance on what is copyright infringement. and unfairly censor legal speech and expression. Geoblocking, where different Yes: Since recently Facebook does not content is available in different countries allow viewing users’ content in Belgium can be confusing when it is unclear why without being logged in yourself. This content is not available, and restricts includes not being able to view any access to knowledge and information. people’s data without having a Facebook- When individuals are responsible for account and thus be tracked. monitoring content, they apply their own individual quirks and morality, often Region locking yes inconsistently. For example Facebook So far, no permits hate speech, but bans nudity. Yes, sometimes things are not Yes. Often the filters and automated accessible in my region. detection systems involved are far too proactive and remove legitimate content, Yes, it’s not infrequent to see content sometimes even uploaded by the actual not accessible in my region rightsholder. Furthermore, there is a very shady privately owned system to yes, anonymous reimburse copyrightholders that sits on a huge pile of cash that is NOT reimbursed A few times I have seen legitimate to the rightsholders. Also, the rules to this content removed from YouTube. blocking are unclear: can a nursing woman be shown, or is this nudity? Meanwhile, Yes, quite often. video’s of people proudly shooting machine guns inciting to racial violence Yes, some videos have been “not available are permitted... This is highly inconsistent. in your country”. Processes that take infringing content offline consistently Yes. For example, my company’s Internet overreach and often result in the blocking connection is passing through Luxembourg, of legal content.Geoblocking, where which provides an incorrect geolocation content is available in some countries and which sometimes blocks content. not others can be confusing and restricts access to knowledge and information. Yes. Facebook does weird things. Now you see it now you don’t. Yes! Quite frequently lately content disappears For SoundCloud some disapearing tracks yes. But I do not know if it was removed Yes, I have been unable to access by the users or someone else. I do noc certain contents in my region use Facebook. On Youtube, I have some blocked videos «not allowed in your Yes, one item from a Tumblr blog country» ... and I live in Belgium, a «so Yes, on Soundcloud a music producer/ called democratic and free country». artist friend had their own tracks on their Yes. Multiple times. own Soundcloud account removed ‘due to copyright’, this happened because of Yes, often blanket screening robots, it was a mistake but it took many emails and frustration Yes. Copyright holders often take too strict for the Soundcloud to reinstate his tracks. 6 EU Responses to Question 1

In Facebook there have instances were a No.I have seen commercial content not friend has posted a story link to the source being accessible in my region, that is US and the post including the link being content not accessible in CZ. I’m not sure removed without any reason, this happened if that falls into scope of the question. with the same thing for a number of friends Yes, in both Soundcloud & Facebook. I once saw a spoof Twitter account If you censor information then for a Conservative MP deleted within you continue to drive more illegal half an hour of its creation, during the sites in sharing such content 2010 UK General Election. Nothing else occurs to me off the top of my head I’ve had plenty of videos be unavailable to me on youtube, just because of my location Yes, on Youtube I don’t use Facebook or SoundCloud Yes, for no discernible reason Yes, on Facebook, I have seen peopple If it denounces the bad deeds of a blocket for publishing material on person or a society, they did and Curds and on sexuality/genderissues. they will without a doubt. Soundcloud I do not know - only by name.

Yes I’ve seen many cases were relevant Using Facebook: Only what Facebook and informed political comment (as deletes.They are not serious at all. opposed to abusive or racist propaganda) has been blocked by facebook. Yes. I can’t see opera direct broadcasts from Europe. Yes, I have seen tsu links being removed from Facebook Yes, frequently

Yes, many videos uploaded legally Yes. Since Facebook and SoundCloud to Youtube of U.S. news shows use conputer algorithms to monitor are unable to be accessed by me billions of posts, they are also claiming in Australia via Facebook to customize related sites or pages, etc., that the viewer might be interested in, Yes!.. all the time!.. bogus Copyright thereby directly choosing content for infringement has been used to take marketing bottom lines and filtering out the guts out of the internet any personal choice I would have. They are using psychology against my needs. yes, many times usually with no explanation I have seen content removed, but mostly I have seen content Yes, this happnes a lot! inaccessible in my region.

Yes. For instance on Soundcloud. Yes. Content should not be removed unless it is clearly making use of copyrighted Yes, on a few occasions material for profit. Services should not be required to remove content at any request Yes. In youtube too. Yes, I often see content “unavailable in No I haven’t seen legal content unfairly Canada”. I find that really annoying. Also removed or I haven’t noticed. EU Responses to Question 1 7

it is often not clear why it is unavailable copyright works is central to the media industry.If crowd funding were a bit more I do not use these platforms. equitable and mainstream it might make the media industry more consumer friendly. Yes.. Now the capitalist system means those with money try to preserve the status quo. I am not very IT ekspert to know Yes. E.g. Censoring art & paintings for Not that i can remember nudity but allowing groups like BF yes, removed by a machine to incite hatred. No consistency. and not a person No. Yes. All someone has to do is report Yes, sometimes I’m able to circumnavigate infringement to TOS and whole accounts this by accessing other uploads from can be suspended, often without recourse. different regions globally. Moat of the time, Yes, I have seen material taken down I’m not able to find other copies elsewhere that was not offensive but was of a Yes. There have been several times political nature and challenged corporate where legal content is blocked through and government perspectives. one service to ‘force’ the user to view Yes, I have seen people have songs that it through another service. For unfair they created removed because they removal, I’ve seen things removed simply sounded ‘a bit similar’ to other songs. I’m because someone played their guitar not even going to even start on the non too well on youtube, for example profit fanart, animations, cover songs and Yes, and I know of many other parody videos I have seen removed unfairly people who have seen the same Yes, all the time thing or had their accounts nearly shut down for what they post Yes, all the time. Automated scanning systems seem to overreach a lot as do Some YouTube videos removed due region blocking services. The systems to claimed copyright infringement, seem to have little concept of fair use. though the material has been used for artistic purposes. Not regularly, but I wouldn’t be surprised if something has simply been it is imperative that any and all removed before I had the chance conditions, and or restrictions be to see it! Geoblocking is sometimes visible in legible text AT ALL TIMES. understandable but always annoying. Yes, a brilliant pisstake of Total Eclipse of Yes, and I am sure in many cases the the heart was removed by Sony on youtube content would have been legal to view I think so, when trying to reconnect in my region. Neither automated nor with a link it is sometime gone. manual systems will be perfect and will inevitably result in excessive censorship yes I often have a problem with content access by region Sure.Censorship exists everywhere. The goal of preventing dissemination of 8 EU Responses to Question 1

Sorry I do not use either of those services a lot of compagnies use copyright as a tool to remove content that doesn’t all the time on youtube. few look good for their products, including instances on facebook negative criticism and creative content referencing their work. Not really, no I’ve read about instances like this, but Processes that take infringing content not experienced it personally. offline (such as filters and notice systems) which take down infringing content Yes! I travel quite a lot all over the world, consistently overreach and often result in and it’s pretty scary to see how often the blocking of legal content.Monitoring content is blocked here or there, for billions of posts per day for infringement whatever reason. And even in my country, relies on automated systems, which how many services and (young/small) often unfairly censor legal speech and companies had faced such unfair content expression.Geoblocking, where content blocking, with no (legal) way to contest it. is available in some countries and not others can be confusing and restricts Yes, several times even if access to knowledge and information. protected by fair use When individuals are responsible for monitoring content, they apply their unique Yes, on a regular basis. quirks and morality, often inconsistently. I have had problems accessings Yes, regularly posts with other friends on political subjects, but we have never been YES. Many good articles have been sure why this has happened. removed from facebook and important videos from youtube for not legal rights Oui de nombreuses fois je n’ai pu violation related reasons. This upsets accéder aux contenus. La culture me. The internet should be a place ne doit pas avoir de frontière. where people can share their opinions and actively support human rights, Yes!I have seen other social media animals right and petition violations sites blocked, and non mainstream of those rights and freedoms. information removed.

Yes. The region locks are especially Yes, usually without any annoying and unfair. Why doesn’t the satisfactory explanation EU rules regarding the freedom of Yes. Facebook have deleted movement etc. not include the Internet? song links to YouTube. I use such platforms minimally so the fact I don’t know what’s legal or not. But I know that I have not seen this occur means little I want access to everything. I get very angry Yes. Facebook removes content that when “content” is limited by region & don’t is sometimes even not offensive. understand what good that does aside from providing some kind of copyright yes. rent for someone.I don’t think everything should be free, but there are many things Yes, I have seen material being blocked I can’t buy even if I want to because of the EU Responses to Question 1 9

regionalization of content. For instance, yes, I frequently see “unavailable I am a big fan of HBO and don’t have in your country or region” access to most of what they offer unless a French company offers it (I live in France). Yes. Repeatedly.

Yes. While using Deezer, some content I do NOT use Facebook due to its new was marked as no longer available for my terms of use. They want you to agree region.Given the fact that my region was to spy on ALL of your data on your hard the same as the artist’s one, that looks disc and ALL cloud space AND they a doubtful reason.I would understand want you to agree to spy and use ALL if the content was no longer available of your contacts AND they want you anywher in case the artist whished to agree to use ALL your private data to remove the content. But I seriously publicly. They want to take over your doubt this was the artist’s initiative. complete live and make you completely public. NOT WITH MY CONSENT!!!1st Yes. Facebook regularly content that is q: No2nd q: I did not notice it. against their Byzantine maze of fears, censorship, and personal opinions Yes, I have seen it for youtube

Unable to access: yes. When it Yes. Partic with online TV broadcasts happens, the site usually says I am not in the right country, due to DRM All the time. YouTube has a lot contractual obligations (I am in of videos that I cannot access France, and they have agreements because I live in Germany with a restriction to US customers). yes, links shared by friends which I Unable to access in my region connected with, were unaccessible

No contene removed, but repeatedly don’t know content being blocked regionally. So Yes, many times I stopped trying most of the time, and use darker file-sharing systems As far as I can say, no or VPNs. Annoying and tedious, but I ultimately get the content. Yes, multiple times

Not that I am aware of Yes, mostly because or regional locks for marketing or right purposes. I encounter YES!!! many times. these mostly on youtube, especially on streams.Also, the same happens Geographical restriction, f.i. on Twitch if the hoster was listening to Yes, there has been some posts of breast music in the background.I think it is unfair, cancer survivors, turning their scarred because no one actually benefit from it. bodies into platforms for tasteful, Yes I have seen this often quite well designed tattoos, that have been banned for “sexual content”. I think I have occasionally

Sometimes with SoundCloud, which It sometimes looks very much like it. is sad but not with Facebook 10 EU Responses to Question 1

Yes, and currently established procedure to been removed only to prevent voters review and remove content based on the from learning what was actually said personal opinion/claim works good enough Yes. That prevents legitimate access. Yes. I regularly come across content that I can not access in my country that is heavily Messages from Gaza and sometimes promoted through links posted to facebook also from the rerritories occupied and the like. This is very unfair that I have by Israel are regularily removed. to find ways of working around these blocks, when I want to access this content I haven’t really noticed any removal of legal content. Sometimes things I only have seen “unable to aren’t available in my region access in your region” Yes, in Facebook is not uncommon and Geoblocking, where content is available it amazes me to see pictures of naked in some countries and not others can people (whether they are artistical, be confusing and restricts access pornographic or even people breastfeeding to knowledge and information. childs) removed in a very short time after posting and letting other like explicit yes, usually American tv shows violence against animal content, evend on YouTube don’t playback. drug usage by underage children not being removed at all. This should make my computer is not allowed to people think about what’s really harmful go to faceache (facebookK about some practices and the double morale standards for censorship yes, I have seen many images and videos unlawfully removed due to Facebook’s Yes, some harmless parody gets removed complaints services. As a result, good for copyright infringement while vile islamic people I know have had their accounts extremist warcrime shit is just left on banned because of something they posted and someone flagged it Sometimes

I’ve never used ‘sound cloud’ Yup, I’ve seen videos pulled because an automated system detected a song being Yes. Art works removed from FB played on a TV in the background.

I don´t use platforms like those. yes on all counts. But it happened that I wanted to watch a video on PBS and couldn´t Legal content is often be removed because I don´t live in the US. I guess Yes, but it´s hard to make it evident oh yes I did. Yes, a lot Yes. I have seen transformative parody works removed under claims yes, i have of “copyright infringement” I often cannot access music videos on Yes. It happened too much often YouTube for copyright reasons. I don’t think removing content or making it Yes. Politically embarrassing videos have inaccessible is a good solution, not even EU Responses to Question 1 11

for the film/music business. If I can’t acess Yes, I have! it, I simply forget about it. I don’t go to the cinema nor do I buy the CD. I would Yes, quite often prefer making a monthly contribution (a sort of tax for internet contents). You Tube

Constantly I’ve not had much opportunity to see the “before and after” to fairly judge if Yes. Certain lectures, BBC content, etc., removal has been unfair. That said, this have been unavailable to me in the US is certainly something that happens

Yes, especially on Facebook. The measure Yes, I have regularly encountered with different sticks between indivdiduals content that was removed using the and politicians & corporations. DMCA. Content holders are notoriously bad at interpreting ‘fair use’ Yes I have. Someone I know had their original comedy video taken There are many post I want to do and I get down because there was a Russian somehow blocked. Internet is for everybody television program with a somewhat and everybody has the right to be informed similar (but not the same) name I haven’t seen this sort of thing on yes, i think so, but fail to remember SoundCloud or Facebook, but It appears where and when exactly... to be an almost constant occurrence on Youtube and similar sites Yes, mainly on YouTube. Yes. Canadians cannot view yes I have seen this. Music which is not some American content by GEMA was removed to put GEMA- music up instead. And our government Yes, happens all the time is attacking Twitter and removeing comments which is not in favour of our Yes, and I have also seen political government!This is unacceptable! videos (featuring short news clips that would qualify as ‘Fair Use’ in the USA) yes, music and video footage removed under the pretense of copyright infringement. This is an easy way for Yes! media companies to conduct censorship

Yes, on many occasions I haveseen legal content unfairly removed

For a free internet Yes, Facebook

I’m neith on Soundcloud nor FB but i’ve I haven’t witnessed an incident of heard of some instances via Twitter. unfair removal YET.I would like to continue having free access to any It is my own responsibility to decide on / content I wish to in the future. assess the legality of the content that I seek. I don’t need an automated system to Many videos cannot be determine what is legal or not on my behalf accessed from my country.

Not yet Yes, mostly on Youtube. 12 EU Responses to Question 1

I have not but others (friends) have Yes. More common on YouTube, though seen such things occasionally. Yes, see it all the time Yes, absolutely especially with YouTube yes, both All the time. Copyright has changed from something to protect content Yes, quite frequently creators to another weapon for corporations to control us. yes, of course. Yes! You cannot preach that you want a yes, like region authorization on globally aware society and then restrict youtube andFB allowing harmful, access to information based on location! hate filled posts, pages Yes. FB is particularly disgusting. Very often! As someone currently living I stopped using it in the Republic of Ireland, the amount of restricted content is simply shocking. Yes and when individuals are Also, often content that are using things responsible for monitoring content, under Fair Use - for example, for the they apply their unique quirks and purpose of review - are automatically morality, often inconsistently. struck out or removed by bots. Yes. Some links from the usa. Yes I think I have Yes especially video content on facebook. It’s a pain when I’m told that content isn’t Also the methods of determining the available in my country. That’s when target country are often inaccurate I use other tools like a VPN or TOR. - e.g. if you are on a VPN you may be getting content for a different country All the time. Far too much content, than you are actually in physically. especially videos, is U.S. only for no good reason. I’ve also had bogus Yes, as a resident outside of the USA and copyright claims on my Youtube videos Europe, content is frequently geoblocked and no way to properly report them due to rights concerns. Rights need to move to a global model, and better Yes it is common, “copyright trolling” explanations where content is not available internationally are needed, rather than I haven’t noticed any examples (I’m not a the trite “this content is not available in very regualr facebook or soundcloud user) your region or location.” I have also used I’ve never seen legal content unfairly several sites that have been aggressively removed, but have encountered “This issued DMCA notices for no justified reason content isn’t accessible in your region”. I Yes absolutely. It happens all the do not agree with this, and feel like we time even is the copyright holder shouldn’t deny others not within a specific thinks it even sounds or looks a region/country access to ‘public’ material. little like there original property. Yes, several times Not where I am currently based Rarely but has happened in certain EU Responses to Question 1 13

countries. Should not be allowed. On another note, my friend (and others online apparently) have had THEIR OWN Occasionally creations taken down due to DMCA notices that had no business taking them down Yes, I cannot see videos from certain countries such as the USA and the UKGBNI. No yet I use them too seldom to get a proper idea I can’t notice this because i’m not on facebook Yes, I have experienced geoblocking and legal content removed. Happens all the time on YouTube Yes, I have seen legal content removed Not that I’ve been aware of from these platforms. I am a musician myself and have friends who have had Yes, often content that seems their own songs wrongfully removed from completely legal is blocked SoundCloud. Using automation to censor is Yes, a lot of times. as ridiculous and problematic as it sounds. And Geoblocking has got to be one of Yes. E.g. Censoring art & paintings for nudity. the most annoying things to emerge in recent years. At the very least we should Yes. I have seen original machinemas be given a reason why something is “not (animations) that parody cartoon or video available in your country” I prefer the old game characters being taken down on system, where nothing was censored Youtube, which is a form of censorship Yes. There are a lot of videos on Youtube , Yes. It happens far too often. Content unable to being viewed in a lot of regions, monitoring bots, and spineless web which is unfair, and counterproductive services, who simply remove content for the video’s popularity. without question when they receive (often unwarranted) complaints, will Yes, and it’s irritating. be the downfall of the free internet. It happened with LinkedIn. I have seen many many instances of film clips being unaccessible Yes. For example videos that should clearly with the message that this content be covered under the fair use clause is not available in your area. or otherwise not violate any laws are removed from YouTube constantly. I’ve seen Yes. Regional restrictions have kept me other sites attacked and given notices for from enjoying content legally posted online. things that are legal no matter how you looked at it but some companies just don’t No, not that I know of. bother to investigate and just demand removal of anything even resembling Yes, it is very frustrating to not be able something that might be copyright. to share information directly. Censorship is unfairly and unnecessary applied. No, not as far as I remember.

Yes, and it’s an unfortunate pain. How Yes, of course. In this case “fairly” ir very is one supposed to share the existence dobious, as “fairness” cannot be considered of an artist when they are inaccessible? without due process.In fact, many trolls 14 EU Responses to Question 1

use accusations of copyright to get This clearly shifts the balance of power content removed they dislike - it is a tool into the hands of large businesses and for different kinds of warrior mentalities, away from small content providers from feminists and putinists to islamists. Yes, it happens far to often I’ve seen that specially with Instagram and Facebook because Links to videos produced on other even if it’s artistic content, it goes continents seem to be removed against the platform’s policies regularly. This is utter nonsense, since the internet is a global concept, and It has not happened to me directly the antiquated copyright legislation but I have heard of instances developed by ignorant, stupid lawyers and money-greedy lobbyists is not Yes. The Youtube copyright working in this age of inter-connectivity. fiasco is infamous Update your business model or perish!

Yes, and I’ve supported a number of Not using both individuals who were wrongly taken down by overeager companies filing Yes, all the time. Basically, the filter(s) err indiscriminate copyright violation on the side of caution rather than validity notices that were fraudulent I have often seen this, and it really Yes, I have seen this on e.g Beatport. hurts my trust in these companies

Nope Yes. I’ve seen legal content removed. yes, due to all the region locks often Yes, on a variety of sites, such content is puzzlingly unavailable to view as Youtube and Facebook

Yes, I’ve found content which wouldn’t Yes, on multiple occasions play in my region on Facebook Yes Youtube Says things Cannot yes. All of the time be played In my Country!

Obviously this is an everyday Yes, quite regularly occurrence, the better safe than sorry approach is limiting me every Yes, several videos day to get access to information. Youtube often has been problematic here. Yes. Large businesses simply don’t I get linked something by a friend from find it worth the time it would take to abroad and I can’t watch it because it investigate the merit of every individual hasn’t been made available in my country. takedown request made, especially It’s only a minor annoyance, but one that ones that come from other large could so very easily be fixed, and due businesses. So they simply implement to greedy rights holders hasn’t been the takedown requests automatically, without consideration of merit, and then yes, this happens way too often. Especially it is up to the content provider to argue as a UK national who used to live in the their case to have their content restored. US I had this problem all the time EU Responses to Question 1 15

Yes! Weird regional rules don’t make Yes, Youtube sometimes does sense on a global internet not show songs in my region

Yes, usually mistaken by illegal content Yes, many times legal content on youtube has been blocked by unfair DMCA notices. Yes. Some elements of provided While this was usually corrected after services are limited by country, like several weeks, the content was no longer certain videos on YouTube. current. This system does not work as it is very easy and quick to flag content Yes, when I’m visiting my wife’s (wrongly) as infringing, but very hard and home country of Greece time consuming to get it reinstated. yes! which is both insensitive and harmful. A lot of USA shows are not available in my country. Yes this occurs all the time and can be a little depressing Yes and regularly, most notably on Youtube, but equally on Marktplaats, Ebay, Tumblr Don’t use Facebook Yes, I have seen this and I have felt Yes to both left out of the world community Yes. Art work that meets Facebook rules has Yes I have, and it equates to censorship. been removed from someone that I follow Not that i recall Yes, too often. Yes, it happens all the time I haven’t and I’d like to keep it that way. without explanation. Q1 Yes Yes, both of these have happened and Yes, legal content has been it is frustrating and discriminatory unfairly removed. Yes. DMCA notices are known to request Yes. Access to videos is routinely the removal of content it should have blocked for Canadian IP addresses. no bearing on, and I have personally Geoblocking by US corporate providers experienced this many times over, is an unwarranted restriction of access mostly on YouTube and legal torrents.

Yes. This has happened often. Yes, some youtubes are unavailable to watch in my country Yes. Videos have been removed due to copyright restrictions YouTube often removes legal content unfairly or makes it inaccessible Yes.When individuals are responsible from the Netherlands. www.ted.com for monitoring content, they apply their removes legal content unfairly due own individual quirks and morality, often to a pseudo-science mandate. inconsistently. For example Facebook permits hate speech, but bans nudity. No idea

Yes many times. All to frequently. It leads me to actually boycott the company that 16 EU Responses to Question 1

is doing the fraudulent removal. Yes, its a nuisance

N.a Yes. Often content that I was previously able to access with no problems. This Yes, unfortunately had led me to other platforms in order to access the very same content Yes, even times when content clearly doesn’t violate any private platform Yes, I have! Legal content is agreements, in addition to being legal removed. Not often yet but it is

Yes. Geoblocking is a problem. Automated Yes, it’s a consistent problem for blocking of legal content is also a big Canadians using the internet, and it makes problem. Too many artist get their works academic research almost impossible removed form the internet because of automated copyright infringement Yes: I’m in Canada. notices. Guilty until proven innocent. Occasionally I have been unable to 1/ No2/ access EU content from this Region

Legal content is repeatedly blocked Yes, and I find it frustrating from view in my region Yes. A support group for sick and disabled Yes, e.g. Sony Pictures claimed an queer people was wrongly deleted. opensource movie at YouTube and caused a take down of it even though Yes, I have. they don’t own anything in it (http://www. cartoonbrew.com/ideas-commentary/sony- Yes. Geoblocking occurs regularly, demands-removal-of-open-source-indie- assuming that those outside the short-sintel-from-youtube-98182.html). region are not allowed to view the content while they rightfully can Yes. The Conservative Party used it often, and vice versa, geoblocking is to censor unflattering videos of their easily hacked by using a proxy, making speeches during rallies in Canada. it a moot measure to begin with

Yes, I think. On a Wisconsin site, I recently Yes, my facebook page was taken down posted a comment critical of Governor because my son is in prison and I was Scott Walker. A statement then appeared trying to bring awareness for his cause at the top of the page stating that I would have to go through another site Yes. I have been unable to access before it could be posted. It was then some videos due to regional impossible to get to the second site restrictions. In today’s world this is nonsensical to say the least. Yes, all the time, can’t access content due to region Yes. I have seen several times an apology for the content not being available Yes, I’ve seen many photos being taken for my country.’Maybe we are a lesser down for no apparent reason. There were people?’ Is that what I should think? no copyright issues and the content was pg. yes.Although geofencing should be Yes, legal content is often removed use to alert the user that the content EU Responses to Question 1 17

it is trying to reach can have personal I don’t use them negative results in their country/region. Yes, I have been unable to access Yes, quite a few times some content on Facebook

Yes, especially videos! Through YouTube yes, l saw many times legal content I see both every single day, between removed unfairly and illegally, includidng Facebook using arbitrary criteria to remove even human and animal rights petitions things, to Youtube georestricting videos, even on the country they originate from. Yes. I see a lot of websites that have the restrictions to regions. Yes, I’ve often seen content blocked for unclear reasons. It’s hard to tell Yes. This restricts my access to info if it’s content providers removing content for legit reasons or some Yes, all the time. I never find out why overaggressive internet filter or even just some weird restriction due to where I don’t think that internet is only I live. The bias should be towards free Soundcloud or Facebook. I’m not linking, not aggressive blocking sure if I ever saw this kind of legal content on those sites, but I sure Yes. Also, equal level of nudity or of did see it on Netflix for example. hate speech have received different responses, some being surprisingly Yes, there is content that we are removed while others being shockingly unable to view in Canada all the tolerated. The system deciding on what time due to licensing restrictions should be banned is biased and often Many times. based on moral rather than legal rules

Yes unable to access it due to region Yes, always on youtube. just because it had the intro of star wars it doesn’t mean it’s Yes, many times! making money out of the 5 seconds of it.

Yes, some American sites will say the Yes, many times I see legal content content is not available in your region removed for Copyright reasons but the content was not in violation Can’t say I have. I have never used SoundClound Yes, on many ocasions

I remember it happening with whole I have not personally, but have heard of services, like Pandora, because of copyright it. In any case I use Facebook very rarely. issues. I’m a citizen of the world, and don’t need this kind of restrictions, because Yes, most often with music videos, but there are companies that exploit another sometimes talk show clips as well people’s talent to make themselves Yes, I have. Lots of YouTube videos rich without lifting a finger, and aren’t even capable of adapt to the global yes, alot from google, i no longer communications era we are living. use it... bunch of crooks. 18 EU Responses to Question 1

Yes. A poster for the World Naked I think so, when copyright Bike Ride made by a friend. processes go wrong.

Yes. Often it is overreaching rules No, not really. (such as the ones proposed) that are abused and used vexatiously with false I have seen US websites claims being brought. However, the inaccessible from Europe legal copyright holders should have the right to protect their work, as they yes many times, especially when the do with current copyright laws content exposes the government or shows up their hypocrisy Online filters and Yes. Youtube videos. DMCA notices, which take down infringing content consistently overreach and often Haven’t noticed this result in the blocking of legal content. Monitoring billions of posts per day for Yes, because in germany we have legalized infringement relies on automated systems, pirates called GEMA and additional which cannot detect context and unfairly censorship by the goveremanet, who censor legal speech and expression. I prevents free distribution of information have had many notices removed on face book, especially when I criticise my I’ve often seen legal content removed government Geoblocking, where different because people don’t understand what content is available in different countries rights authors actually have and don’t have. can be confusing when it is unclear why content is not available, and restricts q1 no access to knowledge and information. Yes, I have seen where facebook has When individuals are responsible for disallowed posts that have been taken monitoring content, they apply their own out of context. Yet I have also seen individual quirks and morality, often outrageous comments against Muslims inconsistently. For example Facebook permits hate speech, but bans nudity. Yes, information is often and regularly held hostage in this way. I’ve seen it mentioned in the media, mostly regarding harmless female semi-nudity Yes, this is ridiculous, www mean “World (such as breastfeeding). YouTube I’m Wide” web. Theire is no frontier occasionally barred from watching certain videos due to my geographical location. Yes, many times and many times in other forums have I seen complaints Yes. Automatic filters often overeach about the stupidty of the “offence” and and unfairly remove legal content the inconsistency of it throughout something like facebook Yes. Facebook has removed content. I have never used Soundcloud. Yes, mostly music Yes, I have several times been unable to Yes, people have been blocked access content due to restrictions based from Facebook because of innocent on geographical location - no reason as pictures which for some reason to why or by whom the restrictions were have been classified as obscene. imposed have been given.Removal of content seems to be more uneven - on EU Responses to Question 1 19

one hand it appears that the reporting that should govern internet use options (at least those available to regular users) have little effect, but at other Yes, many times, annoyingly.. times it seems almost as if a copyright claim is a censorship tool and it does not Not that I’m aware of. matter if the claim i legitimate or not. Yes, even under fair use. And doing Yes.On Facebook that does not benefit anyone and it hurts the content creator I’ve seen embedded Youtube videos that didn’t work because they are Yes, many times. blocked in my region by Yukin media Content is regularly region Yes, gated, mostly from the US, and I don’t even live in Somalia. Yes, I noticed this happening several times on Facebook Yes, I did

Yes plenty of times I have never used SoundCloud or Facebook enough to see content removed. I I have seen legal content have, however, been unable to access disappear from the web. certain YouTube content in Britain. yes. Youtube illegitimate copyright strikes Yes, I follow some educational sites that have had their content removed Yes, absolutely, and frequently. sometimes and one had their site shutdown, for no reason, and it took months to Yes, for some links sort out. This was with facebook.

Don’t know Don’t know.

1. YES, Some government comments have Yes, all of the above been removed. Some MP content has been removed, this should not be happening. yep 2. When anyone puts content online that content should stay unless it is infringing Yes to the latter. In the former case copyright or patents. 3. If an owner of I have heard of it being done but copyright or patent puts content online not had personal experience. they have allowed the use of that info by the public and it should not be removed, Yes. Blocks and other things on YouTube, unless by public appeal of judicial review even on things that are clearly within fair use, or even not copyrighted I would not know this since, if it is at all, at least not by others than blocked, I would not have access those who uploaded the videos to it. I find it worrying that content may be blocked and I oppose it. Yes, I have seen legal content unfairly removed and, also, I have been I haven’t knowingly had that experience, unable to access various contents and I shouldn’t expect to unless the because of the region I live in authorities stifle the democratic principles 20 EU Responses to Question 1

Occasionally. Yes: Rebelliouspixels’s ‘Buffy vs Edward: Twilight Remixed’ on Youtube Yes, links have been removed from my region My friend’s facebook account was closed and he was unable to access Me personally not yet, but discussing it because he had used the name he this question we should consider that 1. performed under and not his legal Monitoring billions of posts per day for name. Also, I am part of a group that infringement relies on automated systems, supports breastfeeding and I cannot which cannot detect context and unfairly even begin to enumerate the number of censor legal speech and expression. 2. posts of breastfeeding women that were When individuals are responsible for removed. It is disgusting that Facebook monitoring content, they apply their own permits hate speech but bans nudity individual quirks and morality, often inconsistently. For example Facebook yes, all the time! permits hate speech, but bans nudity How do I even know if something has I have seen legitimate content removed, been removed or I can’t access it in my and / or been able to access it. This is region? There are different rules in different not acceptable. Note that it can push countries so it is hard to know what you people towards less legitimate sites can and can’t send. If something is blocked in an effort to find content that they how can you find out why it was blocked? wish to access, but which has been censored on the ‘legitimate’ sites Yes, in Japan

Yes. Facebook regularly removes I never want to see content removed completely legal content on issues to or controlled by government. It do with Palestine/Israel. They censor is in the world’s best interest to Palestinian rights issues very often. be able to share knowledge!

Yes, I have, many times I have Yes, from time to time links to seen content being used under fair “controversial” opinion such as those use law removed anyways implicating governmental foreknowledge of terrorist attacks or involvement Yes, geoblocking is particular problem. in illegal activities disappear from Facebook and it’s well known that Yes, I don’t believe in censorship. Google censor anything they’re told to. Regional blocking is meaningless when users can use a proxy anyway. Some films are not accessible in my region. This is unfair. Yes on many occasions. Automated tools, which are the only way Yes many times, it has to stop. billions of posts a day can be scrutinised, are coded to err on the side of safety, or No, not to my knowledge as many users would say, overreach and block what should be legal content. Free Yes, I’ve been blocked from content speech should be a global right on the due to geographical location internet. Blocking based on location/area do not use them leads to massive confusion, why should EU Responses to Question 1 21

it be that a source I can view and use at in an over protective manner, often home suddenly becomes inaccessible resulting in a reduced audience and missed because I happen to be somewhere else, opportunities for social promotion of the this confusing manner of accessibility product that is being obscured by the block. prevents the free flow of knowledge Automated filters that seek out copyrighted and information around the world music in videos on sites like YouTube have an indiscriminate and unfair approach, Only on YouTube censoring free expression. Likewise, the monitoring of billions of social media posts Yes, many times. I cancelled my a day for infringing content results in an FB acct for just that reason censorship of legal expression of ideas.

Yes, it is very frustrating Occasinally, I have been unable to view content from another country. Not that I am aware Yes, I have been subject to that myself, I’ve seen political sensorship on however I believe there is much YouTube and I’ve seen sensorship on confusion over what constitute private facebook with regards to copyrights and public ‘commons’. Facebook is Yes, many times, and with no way to the Downtown Mall of the internet. protect one self and ones content Yes, on multiple occassions Yes. Stupid stuff like ‘the quran Yes, especially geoblocking is tiresome, experiement’ is blocked! when you know that the content is I have seen instances of legal content available elsewhere. When official label that was removed for no obvious reason or artist channels are blocked, it really begs the question, what the heck is going I have on behind the scenes. Or when parodies get taken down, because someone used Sometimes a notification that Video the copyright shortcut to silence criticism and pictures have been removed. I have had posts monitored and I am not Yes, posts that adhered completely to always aware of the outcome of that fair use guidelines (and explained in detail how they were compliant with said Not on those sites specifically, but on guidelines) were summarily removed, other sites, most notably on Youtube and the posters were penalized despite where people from other countries having obeyed the applicable laws have provided a link to something and it’s not been available in my region. I have, on several occasions.

Not to my knowledge. Yes and having to prove one’s innocence to copyright claims rather than the claimant Yes, frequently. having to prove their claim reverses the legal burden of proof unjustifiably Geoblocking is a frustrating and confusing system which restricta information No - I don’t in fact use dissemination. For television shows and Facebook or SoundCloud. other copyrighted material, it is applied 22 EU Responses to Question 1

Yes, rather than a fair and legal access to information across entire investigation into the validity of the countries. This is a security risk and content, advertising sponsors blackmail almost certainly in infringement of human platform providers with the threat of rights, so should be strongly opposed. withdrawing their money. This means only those with money get to decide what yes, things critical of Israel content is viewed and small independent tend to get deleted content providers are silenced. Yes, this happens all the time Yes , I sometimes grasped those no explicable occurring. Inconsistent local standards and overreach will result in the takedown of I believe so, although since there is legal content, especially by automated often no way of checking the legality systems. Geoblocking will meanwhile of the original content, it’s hard to tell block access to ideas and information, whether it was removed legally or not negating the freedom of the internet. yes. pretty much everything from america Yes, this happens all the time. The worst is region blocked. even news articles. case I remember reading about was of an artist who licensed a video backdrop to an Yes, especially frustrating coming entertainment company only to find that from a country that we share an subsequently that company requested his undefended border from! own content to be removed from YouTube. Also, regional blocking is wide spread in Yes, there has been a number of times the EU and seriously harms our right to free when I cannot see content ‘in my region’ speech and the idea of eventually having something like a shared European identity Yes I have, and it makes me want to use that service less, or find an alternative I have been unable to access content service without that problem because of the region of the world I am in. Geoblocking is wrong as the wholesale Yes, sometimes there is no chance to approach that it adopts restricts access access a video because some algorithm to things which are almost all probably deems it not appropriate in my country, legal.I did hear a story in the news about even if it does not (to my knowledge) somebody whose business website was contain proprietary content blocked incorrectly as it was deemed to contain inappropriate content (it didn’t Yes. Meaningful humanistic posts with and wasn’t inappropriate in any way).This useful and positively provocative images proves that any system monitoring billions and messages have been removed by of posts online has to be automated and, as Facebook, with no more reason than such, the system will always block things it exposes corporate corruption unfairly.It is also hard to expect a person Occasionally. It seems that most platforms to monitor content as every person’s sense are too quick to judge and censor. It’s of what is acceptable is entirely different. not their job to interpret and implement Yes, too many times the law, so we shouldn’t ask them to do this. Regional restrictions are also Yes, have sen Facebook posts taken down a very bad thing, resulting in limited EU Responses to Question 1 23

I have not noticed this. Don’t use platforms like SoundCloud

Yes, in the form of video content Yes, on Facebook that was region restricted. Yes! This happens on a regular Filters often block legal content. basis in Malaysia. Automated systems cannot jucge context and therefor unfairly censotr Yes! All the time. It’s really frustrating, legal speechj and expression and makes it more difficult to interact with others online Not yet. Let’s keep it simple. Yes Yes, far too many times. Filters aren’t perfect, so it’s not unusual for something Not in my experience but friends tell to get unfairly censured. Also on sites so me they have seen this happening big that the support team doesn’t have time to do a real investigation after any Yes, quite often. And, again, often, complain, it’s not hard for someone with either there is no reason given in a grudge to get something taken down. the first place or they will not give And I have seen that happen several times. reasons (nor even discuss it). As far as being unable to access to legal I have seen this many times, most content. that has become very common prevalent in fan made content that is in the last years and is already restricting not violating copyright under free use. things for worse as it even takes away the means to *pay* to access to something I’ve never seen this happen, or at least never happened to me when using Je n’utilise ni l’un ni l’autre. Facebook = SoundCloud or Facebook, though in BigBother sans respect pour la vie privé ! Youtube for example, there is often Yes, I have seen consistent overreach content that is unavailable for my region resulting in the unfair removal of legal Never use social websites content. For example, the recent film ‘Pixels’ starring Adam Sandler, resulted I have seen content removed but no in takedowns of countless other videos idea whether it was fair or not - the which featured the word ‘pixels’ in their reasons for removal were not given title. There was no valid legal basis to so I couldn’t make a judgement. remove these videos, indeed, many had been created and posted to the internet Yes it’s a very common and serious problem long before the film ‘Pixels’ was even made. that stifles creativity, creates problems for Automated infringement monitoring results creators, damages platforms reputation in exactly this kind of consistent overreach. and ultimately leads to stolen profits or lost Manual monitoring is no better, however, profits from content that does not get made as decisions of whether to take down content or not are left up to an individual’s Yes, legal content removed and lots of own personal judgment, resulting in Youtube videos unavailable in the UK inconsistent takedowns and sometimes outright malicious censorship of moral or Yes, Facebook regularly takes down intellectual content they do not agree with. things it does not agree with without discussion or giving reasons. 24 EU Responses to Question 1

Yes and it should not be allowed! yes, and yes. i have seen takedown Except for online bullying, aimed notices and access restrictions applied at teenagers in particular in an unfair and arbitrary manner.

Yes. And since it’s impossible to monitor I’m not sure. Regardless of my personal all publications manually, the automated experience, the fact remains, the systems put in place end up removing idea of forced impediment to private material that in no way infringing content. communication through any venue Plus, since the number of reported without a warrant is both illegal and contents is also very high, it’s easy to immoral and must not be condoned report contents as infringing material just or accepted in any manner as a quick way to silence it until someone challenges the report and checks it Yes. Hoaxslayer on FB. Also other links that appear dead when clicked on Yes. I have had a perfectly reasonable posting removed. I have I don’t know, not that i’ve noticed, also seen video content on other but thats part of the issue. people’s pages blanked out Yes. Hulu, for instance, refuses to Yes, and I think this is an unfair and allow the Dutch to access any of unethical practice. Users should be able their content for unknown reasons, to make their own decisions about what probably the rest of Europe too content they will look at and what content they will avoid. This is unnecessary Yes. I even experienced it myself on censorship and we are going down a YouTube. I added a piece of classical music, tricky road. Who decides which content by Erik Satie, to a video knowing this will be available and on what basis? particular performance was licensed for Geoblocking, where different content is reuse, but YouTube’s algorithm instantly available in different countries can be tagged the song a being copyrighted confusing when it is unclear why content Yes- it’s infuriating and results in needing is not available, and restricts access to to use unnecessary proxy systems knowledge and information. Monitoring to bypass the stupid restrictions. billions of posts per day for infringement relies on automated systems, which I do not use Soundcloud nor Facebook, cannot detect context and unfairly but there has been content on censor legal speech and expression. YouTube that is not accessible.

Yes. Most disappointing. Who actually Yes: frequently cannot see content on has the legal authority to decide to youtube that is available in other regions censor non offensive materials? Sometimes, yes Yes. Content from the US and Europe is sometimes blocked for Japanese users I don’t recall.

Yes. Content is often not Yes. I have noticed some news being available in my region blocked, so that I have had to go through a series of other links to find Yes. Facebook permits hate speech, but it. And this was ordinary news about the bans nudity even if it is innocent EU Responses to Question 1 25

boats going to Gaza. No propaganda. There have been plenty of cases Published by European newspapers. where content has been unfairly But blocked by the Australian gov removed or prevented from being accessed in my region. Yes, I have. Especially common on youtube Yes. Things that clearly fit under Fair Use Yes I have. and parody clauses are constantly being taken down by parties who deny the Yes. I’ve heard from friends closing existence of such clauses in the first place down complete accounts Yes, it’s a real annoyance. Yes. I’ve seen freely downloadable content And it needs to stop. owned by me removed on the DMCA request of a competitor. I’ve also seen Yes. It is unacceptable to have blocks preventing access from here simply content unfairly removed. because people posting it didn’t assume people from here would look at it Yes, and it’s ridiculous.

Quite a few things in the USA are blocked Yes, I have been unable to access content in the UK which is extremely frustrating. in my region. I am an American living in Japan but sometimes US content is blocked yes. inappropriate take down here. It seems arbitrary and strange messages are a limit to creativity Yes. The removal of content is Yes. It feels like sometimes the website inconsistent and seams to be poorly is a little trigger happy when it comes implemented based on personal to removing or blocking content agenda’s or poorly written systems

Monitoring billions of posts per day yes I have for infringement relies on automated systems, which often unfairly censor Very likely on Facebook. legal speech and expression No. I don’t use those type of platforms. Q1....yes I have heard reports of platforms like Yes. Lots and lots of times. I’m Facebook removing content that clearly estimating over 100 times, but it should not have been removed. could be a huge underestimate. Yes. Too many examples to remember Yes. Many times I have seen legal content Yes, I have been unable to access removed from Facebook material because of my region. Yes, I have seen content being removed Yes. My friend is a birth photographer by automated systems even when and captures beautiful moments of life the content does not violate rules. just beginning. Nothing graphic. Her posts have been filtered for ‘nudity’. Yes. Unable to access free content in my region too often. Yes. Not available in your country 26 EU Responses to Question 1

Yes. Why is that? be. China and North Korea have been heavily criticised for restricting the Yes. YouTube sometimes issues arbitrary internet access to the people. takedown notices when the content is held up in some legal dispute. There is no Yes, and it was often difficult to contest reason that copyright disputes between the invalid takedown request big companies should keep content off of legal services like YouTube YES several times !!!!!

I’ve heard of it happening but I do not use SoundCloud or Facebook not experienced it myself Yes, it is a regular occurrence especially Yes and the reasons are unclear and on Youtube that either an automated this is unacceptable. There must be process will remove perfectly legitimate a clear and uncorruptible process content or a company will use their followed for any interference. power to censor criticism of their work.

Yes I have. It happens more and absolutely, I was in NZ and everything more and it should stop. is blocked for people there. we need to accept we’re a global community all the time, i get so upset not being now and remove these barriers. able to access information just because of my geographical location I don’t use these services so I cannot comment on this question. Yes, i have not been allowed to view certain things in my region. I disagree with I only use Facebook. I don’t recall legal this - it’s the “World-Wide-Web” after all... media being blocked. If it was, and I was sufficiently concerned, I would copy the This is not right. Content should link and access it direct from a browser. be up to poster unless clearly illegal or inciting to hatred. Yes, often social comment and news items are removed because they “Infringe” on I see it on YouTube ALL the time. I the original source. I recently read go an am blocked from seeing music artist who creates stock videos having videos by artists from overseas. his youtube accent suspended because a record company licensed his work for never used soundcloud.Facebook it’s too a music video, then claimed his youtube easy for the admins and hosts of groups account showing samples of his work to impose their own view capriciously available for purchase was “infringing on and throw folks out capriciously and the music video”!There are systems in place Facebook does nothing to stop them. to help creators of some types content control how it is shared online (often it I don’t think so, although I have seen is only utilised for large corporations for where things have been removed but financial gain), however they should be have notion why, or if the removal was expanded upon and made more available legal, because it has been removed. for more forms of content, although for the end user it can often appear restrictive, So far I’ve been able to access the one of the basic principals of copyright internet without restriction, as it should is that the creator can control who views EU Responses to Question 1 27

and has access to the work created, but Yes, absolutely! once they have granted access to that work (per haps after afee has been payed), Yes I have. It’s extremely frustrating how much control dose the creator have, can the require that I don’t read my book Not noticed, don’t use SoundCloud out loud to my young nephew, or can at all and rarely use Facebook. the ford me from loaning or selling on a Yes. For instance, the Discovery channel DVD? - Right now content creators have in the US put up (some of?) their shows the ability to restrict consumption of for free on the web. But they are not content legal purchased like movies or viewable from the EU. Also, I have had audio files or digital books, so the can only a video removed from Youtube that I reaccessed on the device used to purchase had written permission from the creator the content, if i the travel to another to publish in any method possible country that content might no-longer be available, even though I legally purchased Yes. Fed up of having to proxy. it and want to consume it for my own use. Yes, I have, on Facebook. On several Yes. See answers to question 3. occasions recently, posts my friends have made have been unavailable for no Have never seen legal content unfairly good reason, and I have heard reports removed and have, constantly, been from friends I trust that innocent posts unable to access content in the they have made have been removed. region I’m living in at the moment. No, but I make little use of Monitoring billions of posts per day Facebook and none of SoundCloud ends up censoring large amounts (never heard of it) or Twitter of legal expression online. I have seen posts deleted when they Geoblocking is anti the spirit of the should have been left on facebook web. Some bizzarre moral choices are made when blocking images. Yes,content from Australia and US

Yes, fair use is often usurped Yes. One of my friends had an event by takedown notice video taken down due to peripheral background audio in a small segment Sometimes. of the video. At most, that segment of can’t be sure, don’t think so audio should have been redacted yes. I had my own 100% original Seen it happen a lot on YouTube. There are composition removed from SoundCloud many content providers on these services due to their copyright infringement who themselves are asking for the removal detection algorithm mistakenly identifying of these tools, and better content control it as some existing piece of music for blatant plagiarism (Freebooting)

Yes, People on Facebook have often Yes, and it’s beyond frustrating. I’ve complained about this whilst at the even seen specifically Canadian content same time immoral violent postings blocked in Canada. Which is ludicrous. seem impossible to have removed I wouldn’t know if I had been unable 28 EU Responses to Question 1

to access something that had been catching the failures to “protect” their unfairly removed!Monitoring billions of interests, which leads to increased and posts each day inevitably means that disproportionate numbers false positives systems to do so are automated, thus and blocking of legitimate or competing unfairly censoring legal speech.Human material. With no cost to business in doing beings ultimately decide what is legal so there is no pressure upon them to content and therefore biases creep in. I maintain a fair and reasonable balance. wish to make my own decision about The public view of the world is increasingly what I receive from online platforms controlled for the benefit of the entities acting as our conduits, and their political I think so. Some things disappear masters. We can only see what we are for unknown reasons allowed to see, and have little or no oversight of how those decisions are made Yes, sometimes content is removed without explanations even when it Yes and Yes wasn’t posted online to make money. Need a moderate approach I was a founding member of FAST [Federation Against Software Theft] and DON’T USE THEM as I approach my three score years and ten, I would suspect that my understanding Current Automatic filters (used with DMCA) of the issues involved here, are quite on popular websites such as YouTube comprehensive, in comparison to those often takedown legitimate content of the EU Commission who are involved accidently, leaving little recourse for the with this proposal. As an example of my original content holder to oppose the own long-standing commitment to FAST, decision. I see this happening frequently I purchased a BLU-RAY copy of the PBS in the online community news. TV Production of EARTH from SPACE in NTSC, from the USA, which I can’t watch Yes! I’m not happy about this either! on my PAL Home Cinema System, so that I should have the choice, not some I felt that I had paid my dues and could automated piece of software! therefore freely discuss the ramifications of How would I be able to make a judgement this ‘most expensive ever’ movie, to all that as to whether it was legal or otherwise, if would listen in cyberspace via Facebook I couldn’t see it. If a site tells me I cannot etc. and feel comfortable with posting a see something, I have no way of knowing YouTUBE version/s of the PBS Production whether it was blocked on regional as an embedded or hyperlink item, as an grounds unless the site expressly tells important part of my discussions. What me, and even then I only have their word on earth is the internet for, if it doesn’t that a block or a removal is legitimate, readily and freely provide the basis for and that it hasn’t been censored for other DEMOCRATIC DISCUSSION? NEED I SAY more personal or corporate reasons. MORE.So my answer to this particular Furthermore, a large site, relying on question IS a definite YES.A classic example automated tools is bound to make mistakes, of the “essence of the problem” about either in blocking legitimate content, or rights etc. is exemplified by the current in failing to block inappropriate material. situation in the UK. The BBC, for which Corporate parties have a natural tendency I and the vast majority of the viewing toward tuning detection in favour of public, pay handsomely for a TV Licence, are subsidising those who the BBC allow EU Responses to Question 1 29

to watch their output FREE of CHARGE on systems, which lack the ability to discern their computers and mobile devices and on context and unfairly censor legal this is the situation with just one of the speech and expression. The concept 28 members of the EU. Is the EU, as ever, of geoblocking is unfair, resulting in a trying to establish a TOP DOWN, ONE SIZE disparity of content in different countries. FITS ALL SOLUTION to these issues and if The reason for its existence is unclear so why has English NOT been made the and confusing. In the end its function is ONE SIZE FITS ALL LANGUAGE SOLUTION restricting the access to knowledge and for ALL 28 of the EU Membership? information. When the monitoring of content is relegated to individuals they No, but I don’t use Facebook apply their own individual quirks and anymore. It is not safe. morality in the process, to varying degrees of inconsistency. Take a look at Facebook: I personally do not use these platforms permits hate speech, but bans nudity so I cannot answer this question directly. However, I would say that Frequently get irritated because the rule of law using our existing Facebook falls out of something I am court system should apply. reading via a link and when I go back into Fb the original post seems to have Youtube videos occasionally say vanished.Have seen reports of photos not available in my country of eg breastfeeding mum being taken down by Fb.Not sure if these are the Yes. far too often. same thing described in the question... Yes, and this is happening more which Still not defeats the point of the internet Yes, things that reflect governments Yes, by facebook. badly seem to dissapear pretty quickly. Dont use these Yes. I’m often unable to access Not sure material on Facebook in my region.

Yes when trying to access Yes, and when this happens, it is often certain television shows. censoring more than is necessary, apart from the intended illegal censr, the Yes, especially on YouTube, where broom is too wide reaching and unfair content is regularly unavailable in Germany, sometimes due to snippets Yes, unbelievable. of background music or even though it Yes, fairly frequently is an official music promotion video Yes. There’s often region restrictions for Yes. The use of online filters and DMCA some reason. I don’t know why anyone notices are abused, in such a blatant tries to do this in the age of the Internet! manner, that they consistently overreach and, more often than not, result in the Yes. Fair use and summary use of blocking of legal content. Also, the content has been blocked for reasons monitoring of billions of posts per day for such as hiding reviews of poor products. infringement is executed by automated Automated systems may restrict free 30 EU Responses to Question 1

speech by being too aggressive. restrictions are being contemplated.

I do not use these platforms, but No, but some links have gone to places monitoring/blocking systems will where I got a “not available in your inevitably be abused by authorities, and region” notice - generally for video be applied unfairly and incompetently. Yes,whilst obscene and terror Yes, on YouTube, tons of videos related pictures and videos are containing music is blocked due not removed from Facebook? to problems with the GEMA Rarely, but it has happened. Yes, facebook blocked links to my own blog Geoblocking means that what I can Apparently access when I work in France ceases to be available to me in the UK or spain. I be heard of it but it’s not happened to me. This restricts my freedom of choice

Sure, especially on Youtube. There are two Yes links that have been blocked problems, 1. Censorship, 2. InconsistencyIt for no apparent reason seems to be very easily for a political group to make a lot of noise and have Yes. It is too bad that information in the moderators pull down content that public domain is stopped because someone offends them. I think these websites have thinks thay have the right to block it a duty not to take down speech that piss people off religiously or politically. Yes- using YouTube and SoundCloud yes often unable to access often, particularly content made inaccessible outside the United States. Yes. And it takes sometimes days before it is been made available again. An innocent I don’t use social media nipple to some is more disturbing than the horrors of hate speeches and resulting wars I believe so. By Facebook.

I have seen it removed but am not Yes, and on Youtubr as well. It’s ridiculous certain it was “unfairly” removed and inconvenient to have something advertised as available then to be blocked There are times when I’ve been unable to out because I don’t live in the right access material as the link is blocked. country. The internet should be without borders, especially when you consider yup! the fact that you can use an IP blocker and freely access the content anyways. Not sure, how would I know if it was removed? Yes, but not on these platforms. And it’s kinda against what the internet is all about Yes, I have often seen legal content unfairly removed or not been able to Yes and many times in my region :) access it in my region. It is very frustrating that in this day and age there are still Yes, I believe so geographical restrictions on information, and even more disappointing that more Yes, it is quite annoying absolutely the EU Responses to Question 1 31

same video is accessible in one country on soundcloud or Facebook and not in another, just because of Geographical location and not related I personally have not seen this. with any cost whatsoever.E.g. youtube music clip available in Germany and not I’m not in Fakebook in Bulgaria. To worsen the case, there are I’ve seen this often on Facebook, which legal IP content providers, like Netflix not is part of the reason I rarely use it now. available in certain markets, thus limiting distribution of legal content to users that Maybe ,but not sure would pay for it, which is absurd situation. Monitoring billions of posts per day for Yes. Facebook for example allowed infringement relies on automated systems, Nintendo to delete a link on somebody’s which cannot detect context and unfairly wall that lead to a website that discussed censor legal speech and expression circumvention of DRM. Hence, “discussed”. Completely legal.On Youtube we see N/A legal content be claimed as copyright by people that do not own it. Many Not certain videos in Germany that do not break any laws are blocked in Germany. Not so far but I am concerned about the survival of democracy with increasing Yes, Facebook removed a picture of a surveillance which I do not regard woman who’d posted a picture showing as directed at terrorism but more her double mastectomy concealed with about keeping us all under control. tattoos. They claimed it was obscene even though there was nothing except the Online filters and DMCA notices, which woman’s tattoos to be seen. I often can’t take down infringing content consistently see US ads/clips on Youtube, which in the overreach and often often result in the case of ads for shows seems rather daft. blocking of legal content. Monitoring billions of posts per day for infringement Yes, far too often. relies on automated systems, which cannot detect context and unfairly All the time. There is no freedom of speech censor legal speech and expression. on large internet platforms - content gets Geoblocking, where different content removed as and when anyone decides. is available in different countries can be confusing when it is unclear why 1) Yes content is not available, and restricts access to knowledge and information. Any legislation should be extremely When individuals are responsible for carefully framed. “Don’t throw out monitoring content, they apply their own the baby with the bathwater” individual quirks and morality, often Derbyshire inconsistently. For example Facebook permits hate speech, but bans nudity. Do not use Processes that take infringing content I don’t think so offline (such as filters and notice systems) which take down infringing content I have never seen this happen consistently overreach and often result 32 EU Responses to Question 1

in the blocking of legal content. Yes, frequently, especially on youtube with copyright restrictions. So, so, so often. Invariably in the form of a company claiming rights to content they Yes, I believe that Facebook has do not have, be it squashing critiques of unacceptable prejudices in some cases, their work by claiming ownership of the and that Twitter lacks accountability. The fairly used reference material for instance, lack of effort devoted to dealing with trolls or even simply claiming ownership of suggests unwillingness to engage with their the content based solely on the title.This users/clients reasonable expectations. seems to be a particularly significant issue in Germany, as I regularly find I am Yes, including automatic software unable to show friends works by artists which has flagged content provided by who have created original works inspired companies for PR purposes incorrectly, by owned franchises, only to find that or regularly allows non-owners to ownership of the work has been claimed register content fraudulently. based on its tangential relationship to the franchise in question and thusly blocked. Yes, numerous times Infowars facebook page has been shut down. Sorry I do not use either.But I am all for the internet to free os any restriction. Yes, some political posts have been removed/become inaccessible Yed though others in different regions reported still being able to access. Yes due to agreements not being in place for revenue Yes, things get removed from facebook, that they deem inappropriate, but Yes I have, often leave up some hideous things. All or nothing, facebook! Yes multiple times Yes. FB posts complained how it happened Yes too often! to them. I just read one today. My friend posted that FB removed his pic yes yes for nudity but it wasn’t a nude pic.

Yes, and i was shocked. I was kidding with Yes. Overblocking, or in one recent my neighbor, and I reported her picture case, nervousness about giving with just naked shoulders as offensive and access to UK visitors, has ledt me rude, and the day after they really removed unable to access content. the picture. We couldnt believe! :D

Yes, but generally it is released again after review Save the Link question 2: Do you think rightsholders (such as the film or music industries) have too much say in which content is taken down from the web? Do you understand why some content (e.g., pictures, videos, gifs or text) get taken off the Internet?

European Commission consultation question: Are you a holder of rights in digital content protected by copyright which is used in an online platform?

– As a holder of rights in digital content protected by copyright have you faced any of the following circumstances? – An online platform such as a video sharing website or an online content aggregator uses my protected works online without having asked for my authorization? – An online platform such as a video sharing website or an online content aggregator refuses to enter into or negotiate licensing agreement with me – An online platform such as a video sharing website or an online content aggregator is willing to enter into a licensing agreement on terms that I consider unfair – An online platform uses my protected works but claims it is a hosting provider under Article 14 of the E-Commerce directive in order to refuse to negotiate a license or to do so under their own terms If yes, explain. 34 EU Responses to Question 2

Total number of responses: 1411 Unique responses: 1060

“Absolutely, especially when it comes to adaptations of protected works. Having the possibility to adapt existing works and create new types of content (video, audio etc.) is essential to our cultural and individual development. Artists/people have always stood on the shoulders of giants - that’s just how the creative (and intellectual) processes work.”

Yes Oui

I think the balance is right for the right The Internet by definition is a Free holder to take information down service for everyone - not a money maker and sensor in the background I’m happy that content holders have some say but not at the expense of Despite what some rights-holders say, expression and especially not in cases hyperlinks themselves must not be where they don’t actually hold the copyrighted. The freedom to direct web copyright for the work in question users to interesting or relevant content via hyperlinks should (and must) be protected Yes, should only be removed if personal. to preserve the internet itself. Can you It’s a stupid idea thought up by people imagine, for instance, never being able who really don’t understand why the to direct someone to a webpage selling web is there. It’s totally impractical to a wonderful book, simply because you force such controls on an open system. cannot legally post the hyperlink to the page? It is a ridiculous prospect, and will I understand they have profits to protect. be enormously detrimental to both web Once their work becomes a meme, users, and to the rights-holders themselves, it has a net benefit for their output who misguidedly want hyperlinks to and I think they should accept it be copyrighted. Rights-holders already have ample opportunity to request that Yes. Any suggestion that copyright copyrighted content is removed from should be attributed to hyperlinks is websites, and they must be compelled to a disingenuous distortion. Any plan follow due legal process in order to do so. to copyright URLs has nothing to do A large amount of legally-sound content with resolving copyright issues that is automatically removed from the web have been in disarray for years. (for example, ‘fair use’ of copyrighted Sadly, yes. Right holders should only material for purposes of parody and be able to have actual piracy down. review), without due process or any way Anything else is an exaggeration to appeal the removal of content. EU Responses to Question 2 35

Yes. Yes. and IS playable. It is more to do with power and litigious mentality than Yes, but content like child pornography common-sense.Do I understand why has to be removed or blocked other content - pictures, gifs etc. are taken down? More often than not, I don’t. They have too much say and I do not Only rarely are explicit reasons for the always understand the take-downs. decision to take down made available, “Rightsholders” plain siphon revenue which make any sense to the layman. straight out of most artists’ mouths, they have no place in today’s connected world. Yes. I understand why some content A not-for-profit collective dedicated to is taken down, but too much is taken protect artists’ rights could do a much down for the wrong reasons. better job, provided it has safeguards built in to prevent it bossing artists around I believe they should have the power to protect their content but they Rightsholders have far too much say in abuse it significantly out of nothing what is taken down from the internet. more than greed and selfishness. Simply having a copyright should not give complete control over use. I understand why SOME content is taken down. In some cases it’s confusing. Haven’t Yes really seen a problem with that until now, except for the attempts of some I don’t know rightholders to achieve more control on which content can be uploaded, viewed, Not that I am aware listened to or used for non-commercial use but no for the second question No Yes, sometimes thwy are there to No. intimidate or harass a person.

no copyright is important but should only apply to serious content not trivia No I think copyright holders should have rights to govern how their content is used I am not the best person to answer this question - I do not use the YesYes, I understand but disagree internet for music and films. with their arguments. Yes,corporate interests have too much don’t know influence over content on the web

Yes I do - it seems to me to be profit related. No idea - nobody has presented the As a teacher I find it infuriating that clips arguments on both sides in a balanced I want to use in class get taken down way for me to understand. Without that, I can’t judge. There are strong Yes I do. Often it is for ‘reasons’ which are arguments on both sides in individual nonsensical - why should a video/music cases - a universal one-size-fits-all solution clip, for example, be freely available affecting everybody including content in one region, yet banned in another? providers that are happy to publish Particularly when a near-identical clip widely has to be wrong.The technology is listed just below the ‘illegal’ one isn’t there right now to achieve this! 36 EU Responses to Question 2

Yes yes there’s far too much automation about it. I think it requires oversight es their automatic crawling finds content from human beings to verify that the that is a perfectly fair usage, and webs content doesn’t violate intellectual companies unfairly take it down to avoid property, copyright, or Fair Use laws bother rather than look into fair use Yes, there’s definitely a bias towards large Yes, and I think that a lot of the time media companies bullying content sharers, they’re damaging their own cause, and although I do understand the need since the people posting these things to keep new content under control I think are fans and by cracking down on that the period where it’s acceptable to their fanbase they reduce the long strong-arm sharers should be fairly short. term viability of their own products. YES! They go over board in their copyright Absolutely they have far too much control. Remind me of Marvin Gaye’s say, and most of the time it only family - they are greedy and ridiculous! seems to be due to a complete lack of knowledge of what constitutes ‘fair no and I don-t understand. Only if there use’ on their part that things get taken is a legal infringement of laws should down - especially on YouTube. it be used. I presume they get taken off because of their rights to have I’ll take it a step further. I think the their work be seen or not for free copyright industry (it’s hard to call some of the sludge they push on us “entertainment” I think they should be able to ,or”medicine”, for that matter, with a charge or lease the rights of their straight face...) not only overeaches but film to services that stream also overreacts, cutting off their own nose in spite of their face.how many times Yes I understand that some music could they have gotten on the ground videos are copyrighted and the advert- floor of innovative new ways of making free versions get taken down money, and instead chose to treat it like the enemy? The obvious example is 1. These industries have far too much say Napster, but there are others, like YouTube, in content removal. To remove an entire where if they had simply abandoned unauthorized film or music collection is one the “direct”pay model, they could have thing, but to remove a couple of pictures, reaped huge profits from advertisers texts or bits of music is quite another. We’ve been down this road before, it doesn’t work. Yes, they do hace toó muchos poder, and I understand why this happens Yes and yes, though I disagree.

No, this is insane A few deserve removal: how to build a nuclear bomb, how to attack a government Yes, the balance of power is institution, violent hate speech, etc. far too far in their favour Otherwise, many removals are not justified. Pushing the copyright notion in so many 1 - yes 2 - profit is the answer video and audio messages is ludicrous, incredibly costly and has little effect. I don’t think there’s too much say in Litigation lawyers must love it. Pathetic which content is taken down. I think EU Responses to Question 2 37

No, they don’t have too much say. I do Yes. They have too much say. understand why those who produce content have the right to take it off the No, no no! Internet. They have invested money, time and creativity in producing the content and Yes, they use there privilege it should be subject to copyright protection. without considering ‘fair use’

Yes, rightsholders (or those claiming Yes they do. to be so) have too much influence Yes- often it seems the blanket rules over site providers. I understand that punish those using the material in some content needs to be removed to good faith or non-profit situations. prevent harm or other crimes and that rightsholders need to be able to protect Yes way way too much. It is high time that their works but they shouldn’t be able these organisations were required to prove to have stuff taken down so easily what that allege, but I suppose that the amount of money they donate to various Yes. These cases rarely if ever involve government officials, gives them clout. potential lost revenue from the content I understand why some are removed, Yes, they have too much say. but I think it’s counter-productive - Yes I understand why some embracing the power of such easy material is taken down. exposure would surely get better results Yes too much say. No understanding Yes: some is blatant profiting from the work of why some content is taken down of others, but most is fair comment/use No. I’m not clear on this question I do understand, and whilst protecting Yes. an individual’s copyright is important, I find some companies approach yes, corporate rightsholders have too rather precious & over protective. much influence. yes, i understand the limiting effect of materials Yes. And yes, but disagree. removed from the internet yes and yes I understand why inflammatory and Yes, there is too much guilty until proven pornographic communication would innocent in today’s internet, critics be removed from the web/internet are often targeted despite fair use I do understand why some is removed. They use a blanket tool to take down all They do, however, have too much say but uses, which includes legal uses too, but I do not say they should have none at all. webmasters have to choice but to comply. yes and yes, but i do not necessarily agree don’t understand Certainly not! Rightsholders have an inordinate amount Yes they have way too much say, their of say in how policy is set. It appears profits are prioritised over basic free that government’s bend over backwards speech principles in many cases. to cede to company’s lobbying efforts 38 EU Responses to Question 2

and give short shrift to facilitating a users to know if what they are doing is legal grown-up and transparent discussion between citizen stakeholders and Youtube and many other sites constantly company stakeholders. I can hazard a remove user-created content due to guess as to why this is.Most often, the overzealous DMCA and similar copyright message that something has been complaints by big media corporations. removed makes me think that a lawyer This complaints are often without merit, has been in touch with a website owner and would be thrown out by a court of and pressurised them into removing it. law. However, corporations can throw their weight around too easily, and other not sure. if they have sole rights, then companies -- the companies that run they can do what they want, cant they? websites hosting user-generated content -- often bow too easily, out of fear of legal Yes, some level of copyright control is costs to defend the issue. This must stop. acceptable, but it has to go through Copyright, as first created, and to some proper legal channels. Much stuff which is extent still today, is finely balanced: removed serves more as advertisements balanced to support creators, but also for such companies, and I would have the rights and needs of society to share though serves them better by staying up new ideas. This was created in a time when a song might spread around the yes, I think they have too much power world via paper, in a number of years, rise to popularity in decades, and fall out Yes, they have no business in initiating of fashion in a lifetime. So a lifetime of force through the government copyright was sensible. Today, however, a Yes - they seem keen to use the system song spreads around the world in seconds, to self promote ad nauseum, while makes money over days, and generally denying a right of free speech that is in fades within a year. After these creative anyway critical of them. And while madly works fade from popular consumption, keen to prevent a lot of sharing, they’re public interest in them is generally pretty good at taking copywright on academic, historical, and related to anyone elses work posted t their sites. community discussions. As such, copyright terms should be reducing to a few years, Well... Taking down your own intellectual rather than extending to multiple lifetimes, property is fine, but too many people as corporations are encouraging. The abuse it to bully websites into taking extended inability to share creative works, down images or video that they don’t which are often the concepts with which have a right to claim, simply because we share ideas, is a form of control over it’s easier than fighting it legally free speech. A similar issue arises when we, as a global community, are prevented Their copyright claims are insane from seeing content based on geographical location -- so-called “geoblocking”. We I understand that artists and those are now a global community, discussing responsible for recording their work issues -- democratic, political, and require fair remuneration for doing it creative -- globally, within seconds. The world has changed, but the corporations Different countries in the EU have different enforcing this approach -- often bypassing rules on what use of copyright material is copyright law to do so using technical permitted, making it difficult for Internet measures -- are taking their self-serving EU Responses to Question 2 39

profit goals too far. Limiting content to competition one country is too stiffling to this freedom of speech and debate. They undermine Internet should be free as long as nobody global society itself, the bridging of social is hurt personally. The rightholders may divides across the world, for profit. protect their content by encrypting it but they should not have the right to Rights holders already have too much do anything more. Rights should be power to take down content from the same in every european country the web. The USA DMCA is widely abused as there is little penalty for They have too many rights. Those creators, false claims, see for example https:// too, have used other people’s creation/ www.eff.org/en-gb/deeplinks/2015/02/ work for inspiration or base for their absurd-automated-notices-illustrate- content, and should not prevent others abuse-dmca-takedown-process from basing their content off of their work.

I can see both sides Yes. They want the right to stuff us full of advertising so the off set to consumers Creators need to have rights returned should be the right to view/listen to content to them from the rights holders No. Yes Q2: yes These are two separate questions. 1. I Q2....Yes and Yes believe rightsholders have say in which content is available on the web. Piracy I think the limit of rights needs to is a major problem. 2. Yes, I understand be re-examined and re-defined why some content is removed.

Yes to the first. Yes to the second Rightsholders seems to have difficulties understanding when their content is Currently I think they have just enough being used in a flattering way and when say, although they are trying to change it’s being infringed. Their say differs from the rules so they don’t have to do as content provider to content provider. I much to justify taking down content they see more active takedowns on YouTube believe infringes on their copyrights. than I see on Tumblr for example. The A court order should be required to reason why some content gets taken remove content from the internet. off the Internet is usually not detailed or a generic message is provided Yes. Supposed rightsholders (sometimes those seeking take downs do not have There needs to be a way of challenging permission from the rightsholders) copyright claims - automatic removal is have far too much say. The burden of unfair, particularly in cases where music proof should be on the rightsholders happens to be playing in the background and the responsibility for carrying out (as was the case in my video of the Olympic take downs should fall on publishers torch passing through my town), and - as and not web hosts or ISPs. I’m sure has been mentioned plenty of times - legitimate uses for parody, satire They might be a bit powerful, but I and fair use. Leaving people without understand why some images should the ability to make their case skews the come down.... but it may be too much whole system in favour of larger actors 40 EU Responses to Question 2

who can use their monetary and legal corporations and which afford some muscle to do whatever they want rights to individuals despite corporate participation in the creation of such content Yes, I think it unfair that a video can be removed simply because music is Yes they do as they should be required playing in the background, for example. to prove the infringement. This in no way infringes the profits that can be made from a song. Copyright Rightsholders do have too much say in law should not apply to links. which content is taken down from the Web

I think they have far too much say over don’t know internet content. I understand copyright rules, but think they go too far. rights holders believe that rules that exist outside the Internet should apply Yes, rightsholders do have too much say. to the Internet. This is based on the Most of the money is rarely going to the presumption of ‘lost revenue’ They have original artists. If no profit is being made failed to convince me that someone from the pictures, videos, gifs, etc, on watching or listening to something what grounds should the rightsholders on the Internet results in that person complain, unless the videos are in failing to buy the content. They probably some way slandering the brand? would not pay anyway. I get the feeling that rights holders wish to screw as They absolutely do have too much say. much money as they can from us and There are too many subjectives in how to will try anything to get their way. measure quantity of content that can be quoted. Who`s behind this and for what Yes, I think that rightsholders are purpose? will we not even be allowed to sometimes too aggressive in taking state the name of a company or quote down content from the web research materials? For the health and safety of all this needs to be ended. Rightsholders must be free to sell their content and request its removal if posted I understand some of the motivations why without authorisation. But removing or content does get taken off the Internet. taxing links helps no-one. The existing laws This is a new medium. We need to develop need to be unified across the EU because new and democratic ways of working and the internet must remain totally accessible dealing with content in a way that supports equal rights, transparency and fosters They should have no say, and they should understanding. In other words, create new have no right to interfere with free speech platforms for content distribution and Yes. I understand why some support an open dialogue and discourse. content is removed Righstholders do have too much say I think they have too much control because Yes, rights holders (such as the film they take some and leave others, or music industries) have too much I can understand why rightsholders say in which content is taken down would not ant their work copied without from the web. We need new laws and permission. I cannot understand why there protocols to protect free speech on the should be any restrictions on accessing Internet, rules that are not written by EU Responses to Question 2 41

their work. Once they place it on the significant chunks of content. internet, it should be available for all to see. Yes, I do. Sharing is dissemination so Yes, rightholders have too much say. ought to be good for rightsholders

I do understand why some pictures, Yes. Corporate interests are over- videos etc. are removed from the web represented in these kinds of affairs because of their moneyed interests Rightsholders should be able to ask a court and presence in lobbying. Similar to to have infringing content taken down. the SOPA/PIPA campaign several years Experience has shown that if rightsholders ago, corporate interests overshadow communicate with the platform owners the interest of millions, just like in the directly that they often ask for content to current copyright landscape. I have seen be removed that is not, in fact, infringing. images taken down from websites like imgur just because the moneyed interest I understand when content is taken was harmed by them (e.g., a figure in a off the internet when it violates scientific article was posted on pubpeer for a very specific copyright discussing potential fraudulent activities and got taken down based on current Actual creative content such as video and copyright law) Yes. Corporate interests music should be protected, but should are over-represented in these kinds of be subject to fair usage such as short affairs because of their moneyed interests clips for reference.Parody and mimic is and presence in lobbying. Similar to the a form of expression and where original SOPA/PIPA campaign several years ago, content is created to reference existing corporate interests overshadow the interest material this should not constitute of millions, just like in the current copyright a breach of the originator’s content. landscape. I have seen images taken down There needs to be an equal balance from websites like imgur just because the for content owners and service users to moneyed interest was harmed by them enter a dialogue when there is conflict (e.g., a figure in a scientific article was - the ebay complaints model might be posted on pubpeer for discussing potential a useful reference. It should not be a fraudulent activities and got taken case of media giants getting their way down based on current copyright law) and no comeback for individuals. The concept of copyright is now severely I understand why some copyrighted abused - in how many professions do you information is removed from the web, do a job once and then get paid for it over however enforcing this en masse restricts and over again for a lifetime and more? freedom of speech. I think rightsholders should be able to remove content which Although I appreciate that content infringes their copyright, but only when which is unambiguously illegal must be it falls outside the bounds of fair use. I taken down immediately, I think film also feel that the ability to share content and music industries have too much helps rather than hinders content creators say in what is censored on the web. as it functions as a form of advertising Yes, rightsholders are unwilling to share The film and music industries are to a greater extent. However, in certain stakeholders in our cultural life - they parts of the Music industry,Independent do not own it. Some images contain 42 EU Responses to Question 2

artists lead the way in sharing. No I don’t understand why some content is removed and it should Hyperlinks should not be copyrighted in not be possible for this to happen fairness. Removing videos just because without a legally verifiable process an artists song is in the background is wrong. Personally I would feel delighted Yes, no if people were using my creations as long as they were not profiting from them or Yes, I have seen content taken down even claiming it as their own work. And how when the use would be covered by fair-use, can you be offended if your material is due to automatic takedowns via DMCA used for parodies and humourous GIF’s ? A bit of common sense is needed Of course content must be protected and rights maintained but surely there Of course not. It’s the Web. It’s is a middle way that can be followed? nobodies personal property. yes i do understand the legalese behind Yes, in the case of large groups but not the removal of songs or video but quite in the case of the individual rightsholder. often the letter of the law is usually This seems more a matter of resources applied rather than the spirit. to be that can be thrown at the problem but in honest if they aren’t making a profit the case of many large groups, fair use then whats the harm? that is what doesn’t seem to be something considered. they are protecting after all, profit

I understand issues of copyright and no and no fair payment but sharing things to suggest others may like them and Far to much say. Film and music enjoy them is often taken down from industry push things to the ultimate. Youtube etc., perhaps irrationally Copyright holders should have because if people like or are interested rights over their direct items in things they may well buy them No I don’t. I believe in copyright law. I think Media-related monopolies have entirely copy left is silly. If one owns a copyright too much say in what is said and done then they also have the right to give online. Media that appears by those away that intellectual property freely if corporations that contribute to the multi- the owners wish to do so. It seems that billions of dollars extorted from their it is the untalented are those that wish customers to add to their bottom line to see copyright laws abandoned so that should become public domain once it is they may exploit the works of others aired. They should be held accountable for their actions when they act like the Of course, they have too much power Ministry of Propaganda for our corrupt and its destroying our society, the political system. Some things should be environment & they’ve already removed from the internet depending bought the politicians. Disgusting on the nature of the issue involved. If people paid to see it they should be able Yes, I think “rightsholders” have too to access it as long as they so desire much say, and I do understand why some stuff gets taken down Yes I think they have too much say. EU Responses to Question 2 43

There should be sufficient say-so for film person’s idea and make sufficient changes and music industries to dictate when then it is no longer their work. In the things don’t have to be public domain as event that they challenge the “sufficient otherwise they can’t be financially viable. changes” then there are laws and courts As long as there is some transparency over in which to make their challenge. Only why they are doing things (e.g. respecting via the law does a copyright holder have artists’ privacy but not being dictated by the right to remove another person’s unfair financial clout) this is reasonable. work - and a parody is NOT the original.

They need to substantiate the copyright Only within reason, and not loss every time. Old TV shows that are gratuitously or automatically. not being regularly repeated on TV, or have not been on for a long time, In some instances yes rights holders there is nothing for anyone to lose have had too much control. in having them freely on Youtube The internet is a web of electrons Not if they hold the rights to the material arranged in specific order to share taken down. I understand why some information between individuals. It content is removed,e.g. to protect. is not physical property for you to However, other content is removed claim. Keep your greedy paws off! in the name of decency when it is not indecent, e.g. pictures of breast-feeding. The internet should stay basically as it is now. Luddites be dammed. I think copyright should be upheld. I do understand why material which has had it’s YES.The Only Possible reason copyright breeched should be removed. that can apply, is NEEDLESS and RESTRICTIVE CENSORSHIP !!!!!!! When there is legitimate infringement, they should be able to protect the investment I think too many rightsholders abuse made in producing films and music. But the trivial process now available that the current system to remove suspected allows them to demand material be taken infringing content is too vague and lots of down. Whoever put the material on the non-infringing content gets caught up in it web must have equal right and time to respond and justify keeping it up I think that film and music industry have far too much power and because of the way yes i understand if somebody shares copyright law works in certain situations something of mine without my consent, these can work against individuals who it can have negative consequences: produce their own songs, films etc.. Presumably individuals will want to protect Removing links is self defeating. Adding a their intellectual property which is fair link to social media is sharing something enough. I also understand why film and with friends and family, frequently such media industries need to protect their sharing introduces a friend to a musician product from piracy which ultimately or film maker that they have not previously doesn’t benefit anybody but the pirates: been aware of. As for parody and humour The artists and media workers depend - we need it to remain sane in an insane on the industries for their living - also, world. Second, my understanding of pirate copies can be terrible quality so copyright law is that if I take another purchasers of pirate content are usually being ripped off.However, a lot of the 44 EU Responses to Question 2

industrial secrecy surrounding new films The rightsholders have far too much just prior to their premiere is cynical pre- influence in matters which are none release hype deliberately manufactured of their concern, and are stifling around a new film to generate lucrative new avenues of expression. interest, increase promotional reach, and maximise box office and future investment. Yes and No. It is often disingenuous of large companies to claim damage when they rely on “leaks” Sometimes but not always to build aura around their products. for the right reasons

Yes, large commercial Rightsholders Sometimes have consistently tried to protect there I don’t think anything should be commercial interests by stifling new removed from the net, it’s storage. I can technology where it presents a challenge understand why stuff is taken off the net to their current technology investment, but don’t think it will alter anything rather than embrace new technology. Hyperlinks should not be copyrighted. Yes I do think film and media companies are given to much backing to use heavy I believe that copyright should handed methods when it comes to apply to the internet in the same control of copyrighted material. Yes I do way as in the “real” world. understand why some material is removed Yes. I do think that they do have far too but I feel that in areas of uncertainty the much say in which content is taken site holder should have the right to appeal down from the web. Also what can to an independent arbitrator regarding the be seen in one country can’t be seen legitimacy of the request to remove content somewhere else, which make a mockery I think rights holders do not consider of the system anyway. I do understand fair use enough. If copyright is infringed why some content is taken down, but and they consequently suffer a loss, that this can reach absurd lengths. is fair enough, but often it just seems Yes. Copyright laws in general are far too to be petty. Copyright infringement much in favour of letting big businesses fines should be proportional to the keep earning money from work that was actual loss, not exemplary.There should carried out decades ago which serves no be a process where an infringement legitimate purpose for the true reason for is claimed, a dialogue between the copyright which is to encourage innovation claimant and the poster. The host is and growth by protecting new ideas. just a carrier. Is the post office held liable for the content of its letters? First part: Sometimes.Second part: Not always Copyright protection is important, but when a website is forced to just take the word of I understand why they sometimes want a copyright holder that something needs to to protect their IP but when it gets in be removed, when they themselves haven’t the way of parody satire and general even reviewed the content (because they creativity then it’s hurting society to use automated tools) is unfair. A take down protect a company. the opposite of notice stays on the file of an account even if what we should be aiming to do its successfully appealed, and too many will on some sites result in an account being EU Responses to Question 2 45

suspended, but there is no penalty to the Way too much power almost as if they rights holders if they make a false claim, can circumvent the law. Piracy tho’ wrong nor even the requirement to apologise. is almost becoming a crime treated as worse than violent street crime. The use and abuse of the DMCA in the US shows that rights-holders I can understand why many big will always abuse their power. Fair companies want to remove stuff. But use should be a major principle. it does seem a bit “their my toys and you can’t have them” sort of attitude. Yes, and yes (I have studied intellectual Hyperlinks should not be copyrighted. property at university and since!) The proposed copyrighting of hyperlinks is The existing legal process encourages absurd, being both anti-competitive AND unreasonable takedown demands. anti-collaborative. A breach occurs when There needs t be a system, but one and where copyrighted material is posted, which penalises unjustified demands NOT simply by providing a route to it. This or threats. The number of demands is one area where there is an abundance is rising exponentially which means of copyright case law (though much of that ISPs have little ability to assess already alarmingly draconian) which can whether the person making the dead be, and is being applied, without creating actually owns the right they claim to be another level of control and censorship. protecting, or whether infringement is Of particular concern are the assumption real. If current trends continue the system of knowledge of this complex area of will be unworkable and runs the risk of law, with all its national and regional destroying the internet as an open system. variations, and the way that traditional and essential forms of creativity such as parody Yes and yes. Rightsholders can are being circumscribed. Any new rules be over zealous in protecting must look at how traditional custom and their intellectual property. practice might apply in new media, rather than serving commercial and political I understand, in terms of existing copyright interest in stifling creativity and dissent. laws, why some content might be taken down - in the event it has infringed i understand if the copyright holder’s copyright, or no permission to reproduce rights are being breached and or where has been given. This, however, needs hate and abuse are being promulgated. to be in terms of actual copyright laws which exist. Parodies and/or pastiche I agree that the rightsholders’ rights are not actual copies of published are exagerated. The power they material, and should not automatically hold is immoral in my opinion. be removed. Proof that they breach copyright laws needs to be established. I do think that rights holders have to much say which impinges on I think they have the right to defend individual rights of access. their rights. Some things are certainly removed for good reasons. But of course I do understand why some content is there are many abuses of that principle taken down, however, to much emphasis is placed on financial consideration as Rights holders, have to much control opposed to social and recreational matters over content removal. It has now got 46 EU Responses to Question 2

to the point where copyright is abused If someone is making money by stealing for censorship, when unfavourable and re uploading another person’s content content is online. As always the users are then that is wrong, and there should be penalized, but rights holders have no systems like YouTubes where someone penalties for abusing the current system.I can flag content as stolen. I do think that have no issue with legitimate court large corporations can and have abused ordered take downs, but do not believe systems like the one mentioned above. the current system is fit for purpose. I do understand. However I also know As ruled on by a U.S.A judge, when that the best way to get word out about he found the “fair use” of material awesome content is thru sharing links. to be abused by the industry, as happened in the trial of a Youtube I think the balance of power is too much mother and her dancing baby video towards rightsholders at present. Automatic blocking or banning of background I am not sure what are the legal music or parody usage, for example. right of rightsholders to take down content, however I do think that Yes they have to much power! They having content removed\blocked are trying to protect their investments automatically is plane wrong. to the detriment of progress.

I do understand that content creators rights Yes I think they have far too much should be protected against malicious say. Yes I understand that content is actors who make profits by distributing taken off the internet often unfairly their content without consent and without sharing the profit with the creators. Yes they have to much power. And no I don’t understand what some things are I do understand why content is taken down, other than to make money removed however in an age of evolving technology we need I think rightholders have too much say innovative ways of dealing with this regarding content being taken down.

I don’t understand why content Yes, and I think that the bully and intimidate gets removed as it is usually giving people even in instances of fair use. exposure rather than harming I do respect copyright IF the income. People won’t necessarily buy copyright holders respect fair use. something they are prevented from seeing on the Internet anyway. Intellectual property is a nonsense. How can someone own an idea? Also, the Most definitely vast majority of ‘rightsholders’ aren’t They get taken off for finacial even the people who had the ideas reasons, not legal reasons in the first place. The music industry and the academic publishing industry Yes they have too much power as fair especially is basically parasitical usage rights are being trampled. That being said there are legitimate reasons I do understand why rightsholders might for some media to be removed want to limit access to their product, but being too heavyhanded seems to EU Responses to Question 2 47

rebound on them in terms of viewer that automatically remove content goodwill. They may not realise the extent have been shown on YouTube to to which this could actually harm them. be abused and used incorrectly.

Yes, they have too much say. They This is completely against the spirit should be required to prove ownership of the Web, which is generous in of copyright before insisting on scope and concept, and becomes material being taken down, and even weakened when people act selfishly. then the submitter should have the right to contest it in a court of law. I firmly believe that the STRANGLEHOLD That “Rights-holders” have over content Yes I think they have too much needs to be almost entirely eradicated, power and too much control strongly curtailed at the VERY least. Parody and Satire need to be important Yes, I believe the rights holders have weapons in holding the powerful too much say, and I do understand and the self-important to account why some content is removed Copyright rules are already broken and It depends... If they own the intellectual should not be applied to linking on property or copyright, they have every right Twitter and Facebook.I am concerned that to remove it - no one else. Yes, some of it hyperlinks do not become copyrighted. makes sense to remove if it is hateful or blatantly offensively harmful to another I suspect the answer is yes. I do not know why things disappear Rightsholders have too much say in which content is taken down from Copyrights should be protected the web. They interpret the rules in a but not the links ridiculous and unnecessary strict way. Removing video that just happens to I have no problem with removing content contain a common word that is the that infringes copyright, provided name of a new movie is insanity. I do that content violates the laws of the understand there are legal cases country in which it is hosted. I would not support simply removing content not sure that big business does not like. THEIR RIGHTS SHOULD BE CURBED AND It depends on where in the world the THEY SHOULD LEAVE THINGS ALONE web services are operated. In the US, big media has too much control as the yes i do DMCA allows for skirting any sort of due Yes, power without oversight. process (as there is no burden of proof Rightsholders industry is efectively (for either ownership or infringement)) crippling access to our culture. This Yes, too much say by rightsholders is not acceptable under premise they re re what content is taken down. have right to sell cultural products.

Tools should exist that allows these A lot of parodies get removed from companies to flag content for inspection video-platforms because they use by an impartial moderator. Tools too much of the original content. But 48 EU Responses to Question 2

that’s what parodies are made of! I understand the Copyright law, however I am not agree with the Current rights holders in America do way that is implemented. have too much power with DMCA, with automatic filters, so much content is I understand they need to protect flagged that websites aren’t able you their intellectual property. However, handle all of the false positives. their judgement as to what constitutes their own property is not infallible. Yes, they seem to have far too much power over these matters! As long If content is copyrighted then it is as there no real piracy involved we fair for it to be taken down if used should be able to see or hear snippets without creators permission of a movie or snippets of music! Rights holders have a lot of say in what I understand why some content is taken gets taken down. Sometimes they are down, especially in the case of new release so aggressive they get things taken music, the artists need to make a living down that are legal under fair use. and that’s difficult if their work is available for free. But I also think that fanworks, gifs YES, fair use should be respected and other forms of appreciation for the original work should not be taken down. Yes, but what is immoral or reprehensive varies from culture to culture and no yes should be left alone. A newspaper’s comments column is of course Unsure up to the editors to regulate.

Yes. I know what the excuses are. Yes. Yes (but it is wrong), and no: (too much dog-in-the-mangerism) I understand that the industry is arguing that they loose to much profit, if content Yes, and they should adapt rather than isn’t taken done. If I like a movie or a trying forcing their ways over consumers song and have some spare money, I buy the content or watch it in cinema or pay- They already have too much say tv. If i don’t have the money and use it in what is accesible, though I can “illegaly” there is no damage done, because understand that as the copyright they can’t get money which I do’nt have, holder they are entitled to some say regardless if the content is used or not They have too much power modelling I think they have too much power that of drug and oil companies. and I don’t understand sometimes why content is removed Despite what some rights-holders say, hyperlinks themselves should Maybe they do have to much rights, a lot not be copyrighted. Copyright rules of content i attempt to view isnt available are already broken and should not in my country. also no i dont under stant be applied to everyday linking on why content gets take off of the internet Twitter and Facebook.Also, Hyperliiks themselves should never be criminal I understand that there is a right to intellectual property Web is the perfect democracy EU Responses to Question 2 49

example. Don’t anti-democratize it such as music or small parts of a movie for instance, should be alright. We got so Yes. Copyright shoild be limited many of such things on the internet anyway. to commercial use Yes,I do,if someone buys something and I think the rightsholder has way too much wants to share it-they should be able say in which content is taken down from to do so. and no,I don’t understand the web. It limits the freedom of speech cos it controls more than just what they have I know that collage films (such as Craig the right to. Competitors aquse eachother Baldwin’s) are illegal, because they use to limit the content. Limiting the speed copyrighted material. But I think they of internet and so on.Yes I do understand should be legal, because they use the why some content are being removed but original material in new ways in order to it’s way more than just a illegal content. comment either on the original material itself or on some other things, so there is Yes, they have too much say and no, I original value added. Plus, famous stuff, don’t understand why there is so much such as Mickey Mouse, are - in my humble censorship except that mind control opinion - part of our culture to such degree, is needed by these gangsters that they have become shared icons of our civilization, which I think everybody should Yes, they obviously have. The right to link be able to use to comment on our world must be protected, and it is way too easy to get material removed from Youtube. Yes, they abuse the system to prevent fair use. Yes and yes. yes I do think they have too much I understand copyright, but say and no I do not understand why Companies are taking it too far some content is take of the web

Yes and yes. Although I know a few They have too much say. A Let’s Play video rightholders ask for content to be removed that features a short sample of a song because it’s in an embarrassing context. should not be taken down due to that.

I do understand why content sometimes Yes. Flgrant IP infringement is real. That is taken off the internet, and while I am being said, a global set of frameworks okay with the way it is now, it should are necessary to effectively manage and not get easier than what it already is. administer fair and beneficial intellectual porperty rights. While the Trans-Pacific The systems in place, especially on Partnership is a step in the direction of a YouTube, use a policy that presumes multilateral policy, all early indications guilt rather than innocence. As such, are that it is severly lacking in the fairness. copyright takedowns have occurred for Yes. I understand that content is removed reasons such as censorship, silencing at the request of rightsholders, but it’s of critique, and for reasons as petty not usually clear what the claim is as improved search ranking. Definately.Yes, I do. Yes, I absolutely do think so and understand why some content gets taken off the I do believe they have too much power internet - copyright or not, small things - especially since there appears to be 50 EU Responses to Question 2

no consequences at all for claiming be limited if they are openly violent or copyright on material not owned by the pornographic, especially child porn claimant. Current regulations are - in my opinion - far from balanced and give too Yes! and No! much power to established industries. I believe rightsholders have been given I understand perfetly well why some too much power of censorship on material is taken down (I’m not stupid), the internet, often times I don’t even but unfair takedown requests and even understand why content is censored. sheer bullying by big media without proper legal reason is way too common. Yes, maybe,I understand why music and TV artists industries remove rights holders have too much say. People some content from Internet should not be able to make money (or over a certain amount of money) from their I think that is correct to remove such work but it should be allowed to appear contents if they have been misused compared to their original aims There is too much emphasis on the “rights” of the industry to the point I don’t know. Yes, some where there is often a reverse-onus no. I can see why somethings get to prove “fair use”. Flagrant copyright taken down due to promoting violation is one thing, but censorship in violence or promoting sex trade. the guise of protecting it is simply a case of manipulating the “rules” to conceal All someone has to do is claim a activity or block fair editorial comment rights violation and the item in question is immediately taken down. Content has to be taken down in situations Even if it’s a totally legal use. where it’s posted unaltered, with the sole aim of using it to make money off Yes, I Think rightsholders of Ad revenue. In the cases where it’s have too much to say. transformed, though, companies have too much power to take it down. There Yes. I think content should be have been many scandals involving DMCA free for nonprofit use. It’s like an overreach, especially via automated means ad for the product/service

The range of content over which right- no, yes holders have the power of removal is, I consider, too broad and is not sufficiently Yes. No, I do not understand open to review or appeal. One example of what I consider unnecessary removal depends of what kind of content is that of youtube videos when mere background or incidental content is I do understand and accept sufficient reason for the removal the way it is now

Seems like restricting who and what can I understand about copyright laws be ‘checked out’ at the library. Or as I understand some take downs but if limiting what reading materials may they abuse this ALL the time and be included @ the library. Things may take down content unfairly often EU Responses to Question 2 51

They have far to much power and say. It Yes, they have too much say. No, I don’t is s hughe disadvantage for anyone else understand why content is removed

Yes, sometimes rightsholders takes down Yes. I’ve seen things like art or videos taken content in “bulk” without even checking if down on DeviantArt or Youtube, even it’s the infringing content, as when an old when everything used in the work was indie movie named “pixel” was removed fair use. These industries don’t even care from Vimeo, Youtube and other places about fair use laws and just let their bots before the Adam Sandler movie came take things down without considering if out or when Microsoft ordered a German each case is a legal use or not. This only university to remove OpenOffice from their makes people who support these industries FTP servers since they only searched for the less inclined to continue supporting them, word “Office” and decided it was infringing which will make these industries suffer. on their intellectual rights of Microsoft They’re not killing piracy or anything like Office.As long as the industries does like that, as there’s no way to eliminate pirates, that, they should have no right what so the only thing they’re killing is themselves ever to touch content on the internet. by doing this to us in the first place

Yes... & removal of content Yes. There is no effective fair use policy is usually childish. anymore. It has also been demonstrated that “leaks” and “infringing” use of 1 Don’t know2 No copyrighted material leads to MORE SALES

Yes. While I understand that copyright No simple answer re rights holders, laws need to be protected, I believe though I tend to sympathise with them that this should not be at the expense as I don’t want to relinquish control of of users who are merely posting music music that I write, play and post. Re Q or film clips particularly to illustrate a 2, it all depends on the content. No one point or to provide background music should be a guardian for other adults. to a piece of home produced video. Providers should be more selective in Far too much. Copyright law is out dated what they remove and more robust and needs to either be rebuilt from in defending ordinary net users. the ground up or scrapped entirely. It was supposed to protect artists and It depends. creators, instead it is used to allow large corporations to sit on rights and It’s definitely skewed in their favor have a stranglehold on expression. and that needs to change Yes. Fair use is already being ignored I’m not sure to be honest as I even if the video is not monetised. don’t know enough about it Yes. I don’t believe any content should Very much be taken down. It should only be labelled in advance and filtered I don’t know as I have not been aware according to age appropriateness. of this being done to specific contents, which is not to say they are not doing I don’t know whether they have this kind of thing. If you could tell me too much power. What is certain is examples, I could answer this question. that they want more and more. 52 EU Responses to Question 2

Yes and No (That’s two questions.) yes, they have too much say. I understand why those companies want things YES/NO taken down, but i do not believe they should have a legal right to do so Yes and yes I understand the reasons that prevent open source - out monetary market The Internet should be a public forum system is outdated and is incompatible where people can discuss any topic without with the freedom the Internet could give us. fear or favour. Those companies which feel threatened need to learn to adapt to Yes, they are greedy, antiquated, and changes in society rather than to curtail the refuse to adopt new business models public’s free speech through legislation. not enough say, and I understand why Music & film people put their stuff up to view & promote it, and encrypt it if they Yes, rightsholders have too much say. dont want it copied. Yes take gratuitous Should be decided by a court or the ‘poster’ morbid real death scenes out as they if they are of the opinion that it is illegal. are very disturbing, even if preceeded money money by warnings of its sickening nature. Perhaps I dont know all the reasons stuff Yes, to both questions. is censored, its unlikley to be because its bad taste, more likley bad business They do have too many rights. “Intellectual property rights” are far beyond yes. I think copyright law sucks reasonable for the intended purpose, as it stifles human creativity namely stimulate / support creativity and innovation. Such rights are clearly Yes, due to copyright laws or obscenity laws distorted to make an endless stream 1. Sometimes.2. Yes. of income to the publishing industry, unjustifiably to the cost of the rest of us. I think they do, and yes I do understand

I have many times become aware or Yes they do. Why am I not able to watch more interested in some content to a video about a show I watch? I don’t the degree of actually buying it after understand why they do this, I’m not sure seeing some random GIF on the internet. why they would stop people looking at Removing “unauthorized” content promotional items which fans want to see therefore works against its intention I totally understand we’re in a transition Holders of copyright should have the between gifted works and highly defended ultimate say as to which elements intellectual property, not all of which of their copyright material are freely is Rentist capitalism, and some does visible to all non fee payers genuinely need an income, but there was a reason the old model was failing Yes. Removal for copyright issues far before the internet: Prince changed and hate content are legitimate. his name to symbol because of property Everything else is censorship. ownership of his unpublished works Yes I understand if it infringes copywrite There is a sad propensity for many laws it should be taken down copyright holders to act as “dog in the EU Responses to Question 2 53

manger,” in that they will request the holders can request videos are removed removal of material which they themselves from YouTube where copyrighted music no longer supply (such as music tracks happens to be playing in the background, deleted from current catalogues) certainly such as the ‘dancing baby case’ the option of filtered content may be a useful one, but it cannot be compulsory I realise that a business’ role is to gain - otherwise such a mechanism may be money and one means towards this, is to used to suppress legitmate dissent, on protect it’s intellectual property. There are, the grounds that certain persons find however, limits in what can be considered it “offensive.” Certainly all material - that property and what not. It is fair for example is legal - must remain available to those to ask for a song to be removed from who wish to see it, with no monitoring of the internet, in the case that the song is their doing so. this is mere spite. There uploaded just to be heard, because you should be a concept similar to the lose money. It is a different case to ask for “freedom of panorama” as it applies to a video to go down that shows something photography, whereby if a particular song very funny, but because the song is played happens to be playing on a workman’s in the background. This is unfair exercise radio while someone films a street scene, of the rights. You kill content with the this is considered to be merely part of a excuse that something indirectly relevant larger whole and therefore not a breach is used. This is abuse, not rights protection of copyright - any more than being in the street and hearing it by accident I do believe that rights holders exercise would be. While there may be a case too much power over removing content, for requesting the removal of content in when no rights infringement is intended certain circumstances - as is the case now and it is obvious that music (for example) - there is no case for any pre-emptive ban is incidental and , often, incomplete. How or restriction on the ability to link to other can this be correct application of law? I material, whether one’s own or others’. understand that it is fair and reasonable for rights over movies and music are They do have too much say and are protected, but this should be in an becoming like a private police force - this appropriate and reasonable manner, with is not what the Internet is supposed to be provision for an open appeals process and is driven by hunger for corporate profit The Internet is about people not Yes. Too much say. No, don’t understand big Business.People are voters why some contect disappears. and remember their enemies

Not sure. No, I don’t understand why... Yes, rightsholders have much too much although I do believe ‘free expression’ say. No, I do not understand why some should not include the right to pornography content gets taken off the Internet on the internet because it is too accessible and too difficult to filter to protect Yes, I think rights-holders have FAR to minors and those being exploited much say in what gets removed. They have far to many ‘rights’ in the first place, The web in a way is a copy of our real world, but especially they should NOT have where you e.g. music is a part of everyday the ability to block fair use under any life. So it seems quite strange and going circumstances. They should also not be too far, that for example, right now rights- able to block use where there is significant 54 EU Responses to Question 2

added material such as incidental No and yes use, parody / humour or creating new works that incorporate the content Yes, if orgs or people have copyright on their original material, that makes sense Yes, fair use is a thing. yes.and yes I don’t know Yes, too much say. It is becoming a Yes. Some rights holders will demand form of censorship. It is wrong. removal of content that should be allowed un ‘fair usage’, such Yes. Right holders as well as cloud as clips a few seconds long. service providers run automatic tools that are far from perfect and No I do not understand. It is supposed frequently hit the wrong things to be legal to include brief quotes from copyrighted material I do understand that content is taken down however i also think rightsholders have undecided too much to say in which content is taken down. Again for example Rebelliouspixels’s I think fair usage should be considered and ‘Buffy vs Edward: Twilight Remixed’ was free speech / artistic interpretation / satire taken down after Lionsgate filed a DMCA should be protected. I know there are a takedown even though the US copyright range of reasons some things get taken office exempted this video to DMCA down. There needs to be the right balance between harm/loss to the subject/owner, I think that rights holders have WAY too and the principles of free speech, artistic much say in which content is taken down expression, and the right to dissent/protest. from the web. I do understand why some content needs to be removed to avoid Yes. They appear to want set copyright violations or because the themselves up as final arbiters of content is illegal, but large companies law, completely bypassing all due can bully small websites easily. process and operating under a “guilty until proven innocent” system. Uses of parody and humour, such as funny gifs, are often removed automatically Large corporate rightsholders are dictating without respect for different laws, or any policy to polititians (who should be way to appeal the removal of content representing voters generally) in order to extend their own copyrights, whilst I understand why some content is taken at the same time lobbying to have the down if it wasn’t used with the copy right to steal the content of ordinary write holders permission. Some film and people which is posted online for their music companies do go too far though own corporate profitable use. Links to if they say there is an infringement corporate owned content acts as free of copy write but the content isn’t advertising yet is most heavily attacked... that close to the item contested

It should only be taken down After it YES I DO. I guess they want even more has been proven to violate whatever money before we can see content. law or statute it has been accused of There are often utube videos which are unable to be shown in New Zealand EU Responses to Question 2 55

which the rest of the world can see legal reasons ans to protect the rights of individuals in certain cirumstances. Large I think creators, songwriters, photographers powerful corporate organisations are etc should have the right to charge a disporporionately powerful compared to fee for their material to be accessed, individuals who lack accesss to powerful but everyone should have equal legal teams and the ability to threaten opportunity to buy those materials. service providers and bully them.

Copyright legislation is a complicated They have a significant influence on subject and the advent of the internet content on websites such as YouTube, raises new questions and challenges as Vimeo and Facebook. As evident through technology becomes more advanced the various corporate deals between the and prolific. I think that this becomes an companies and the industry bodies. issue specifically when copyright holders attempt to force blanket legislation that Do you mean Hollywood and that could unfairly affect non-copyrighted pig Harvey Weinstein? No nobody materials. Destroying the weblink is a should have any more rights than perfect example of this. We don’t throw anyone else and GOVTS SHOULD out the baby with the bathwater do we? MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS!

Sometimes they are tempted to Yrs abuse claiming copyright Yes a lot of things appear to be taken Yes they do have too much say, down when rightsholders request, but yes I do understand. without consideration for whether there might be a legitimate use being made. I firmly believe that the rightsholders have far too much power in what is and Yes, without a doubt - the contract between isn’t taken down off the internet. The buyer and seller does not confer upon current system is so automated that the the seller whatever rights they want!As end user has no chance of appeal in for removal, usually infringement of a timely manner the right to appeal a some imaginary loss of revenue. take-down order should be accessible prior to the order being enacted, rather Politics than a takedown order being applied and then the user having to retroactively Yes. I dont understand. appeal.Additionally, the variable laws, Yes they do, among the millions of requests not just around the EU, but around the sent to Google, some of the DMCA world make the legailities of what can takedown requests are for their own things and cannot be done very confusing. Parody and humour should always be an No currently it seems fine Yes acceptable use, irrespective of what the material is and what has happened to it. Facebook is not able to let innocent use of protected material Yes, and much of it for no reason. I can understand the need to protect copyright Yes, they have way too much power when from blatent violation and the need to they can just send a DMCA notice and it ensure that some material is removed for has to be followed. They should look more 56 EU Responses to Question 2

to providing their content in a way people of being a copyright infringement, even want it, and for decent prices instead. when it is not, and the content is still removed.I understand some content I think rightsholders (such as the film gets removed because the industry feels or music industries) have too much that their content is being copied. say in which content is taken down from the web. I understand why I understand why they would remove some content (e.g., pictures, videos, some content, however who regulates gifs) get taken off the Internet this and for what purpose.

Yes, I believe rightsholders have too They have much too much say! And they much say, but I understand why some are far too free and easy with their power content may be taken off the internet. to take things down, because there is no penalty when they get things wrong Whilst some stuff like child pornography and remove content that is legal, has should be taken down, anything else nothing to do with them, or is protected shouldnt be removed! How can people by fair use clauses -- and this happens make up their own minds if everything we absurdly often.There MUST be penalties see is prescribed by someone ‘in power’? for false/erroneous take-down notices!

I do think that some rights holders It’s reasonable to remove copyrighted overreach in ways that do not help them or material, but the ability to link to existing protect their property, but rather unfairly content should remain. I understand remove intersting content from public why some content is removed. view. I do understand why some content is removed, when clearly in violation of Yes, the film and music industry have too copyright laws, but restraing should be much influence on the web. I understand used instead of a shotgun approach about protecting copyright, but the creative world is being stifled by the over protective Yes. I do understand why influence of lawyers and money makers.

I do think rightsholders have too Yes, rightsholders do have too much say much say. But I do understand why in which content is taken down from certain material is taken down. the web. They seek to apply the most restrictive national laws on the use of I think so copyright material throughout the EU irrespective of whether those laws apply Yes, too much say. I would understand in each internet user’s own country. New and agree with removing “hate” items EU-wide rules need to be developed and I understand why, some content publicised which give rightsholders much is deliberately created to inflame less power than they have at present or defame, or offend. to demand the removal of content (eg pictures, videos, gifs) from the web. Yes. Yes Pressure from rightsholders to have all links copyrighted is an attack on freedom I Understand that it is a complicated of expression and communication and must situation, currently it feels like the Film be resisted. Also, when content is removed and Music industries can accuse anything the person or organisation which placed EU Responses to Question 2 57

the content must have the right of appeal. for content to be taken down.

Copyright rules are already broken. They I imagine (hope) Porn and Paedophilia shouldn’t be applied to the use of links, correspondence is removed. but who for example those that people use to polices it and how unless we’re snooped on. share content on social media. Humour and parody exemptions to copyright are yes I think the film and music often ignored by the implementation industry have too much say of copyright rules on sites like YouTube, where rightsholders can order videos I am not normally a rights to be taken down because their music holder of digital content is in the background. It is not hard to As far as I know, I don’t think rightsholders expand this example to wider uses have too much say in which content is elsewhere on the Internet and imagine taken down from the web, if their say the disastrous effect that enshrining only extends to taking down things that such poor practice in law would have. are copyrighted by them. I think they Yes, rights holders who frequently are have a right decide who it is shared with not the authors of intellectual property and protect profits for their work. As have too much power altogether. No I do far as I understand, that is why some not understand why content should be content is removed from the internet. taken off unless it breaches pornography I think rightsholders have too much laws or is otherwise offensive to the leverage on censored and removed content. majority of right thinking people. I have seen parodies, reviews, and other Artists and Companies should have content protected under fair use removed the protection of copyright law to by copyright claims.I understand that make sure their creations or products some content is a valid copyright violation are not exploited. However, It should and should be removed, but a large only be enforced within reason and amount of censorship has no legal basis. sound judgement. Content should No, peoples privacy should not be only be removed if it directly breaches taken away to provide entertainment copyright or criminal law. to others. Freedom of information I don’t understand it. They’re is important but it should not trump much too powerful. People just privacy unless it poses a threat to the want to post what they want! freedom, safety or wellbeing of others

I think it’s important to protect artists They definitely do. Even if they via copyright, however this needs to do need a tool to deal with some be implemented with discretion issues, at the moment there is far too much collateral damage. The media industry has way too much power and should not be regulating No, it’s easy to see why it the Internet.It is not right and they happens, simply copyright only get away with it because of I agree that genuine rights violations exist. massive lobbying power i.e. money. If I were to take someone’s movie and Yes they do have too much say make money off it that would be wrong. 58 EU Responses to Question 2

But I do think rightsholders have too they should go bankrupt. The race goes much power in taking down content from to the swiftest. internet at their request, the web. People who make commentary but that cannot continue - it’s too time- videos I watch online on news events consuming. This nefarious plan they and speeches have to stop the recording are now proposing will cost money that they’re playing and commenting on every few seconds so as not to run afoul I understand why content is removed of automatic content detectors merely because it is breaking the copyright for wanting to take a political video and law. However, yes they do have a criticise its message. This constitutes little too much say in what is kept suppression of political commentary and removed from the internet. and the present situation is intolerable I think the corporations have too much Yes. The overreach of copyright say and the artists not enough protections for rightsholders is malignant against average content users, and I think they do have too much say and take often skirting or breaking the law in its things down when they should not or it is abuse of censorship-by-copyright. being ‘fair used’ within the law. However I do understand if someone is overusing No, I don’t understand why some the content or copying it without paying content gets taken off the internet. a licence then it should be taken down. probably not I think rights holders should be given more rights to their own intellectual property, as Of course I understand why some illegal downloads and copying are theft. copyrighted material is taken off the internet, but it can be a bit over zealous Yes, manipulated images and parodies are in its enforcement - when it comes to generally harmless to the original product, comedy or parody videos for example. in fact often help publicise the original. But Also I do not believe that hyperlinks the brutal take down orders from the film themselves should be copyrighted. industry just make the media giants look pretty and vengeful and if anything hurts yes they do, no i dont the reputation of the original product.

Absolutely - they are overly concerned I sort of understand. I think film or with losing profits. They must learn to music industries had a big financial make money in new ways - the world has loss and it’s fair they want their moved on, and they are mired in past ways rights. That they all earn enormously of operating. Sure, some copyrighted info anyway is a different subject. gets removed from the smart people and companies have already found ways to Those above mentioned industries had make money on the internet, and stupid needed the public to let them florish. people and companies will go broke. Now thatthey have got a predominant We *must not* artificially prolong their position, they are are driving the people.s death throes. they are now imposing choices. It sounds like unfair manipulation. penalties on everyone due to their failure to maintain their own solvency. If they Yes I think rightsholders have too much cannot find another way to be profitable, influence over which content is removed. I understand their are instances where it is EU Responses to Question 2 59

right for content to be removed, however I I understand that rightsholders want also think that there should be much more to protect their rights. On the other flexibility and allowances for situations hand, the public also has a right to where it is not straightforward copying, to share contents that become part of the allow for more freedom and creativity. culture. Citing other content is a way our culture evolves. We should make Yes they do- particularly when the item sure that we do not put the right of is available in other localities. This just ownership higher than other values makes it more likely that people will resort to illegal means of accessing the content too much and no i do not understand it.

I think that’s just too petty. Yes they The internet, Tim Berners Lee envisaged probably do have too much say as being democratic. No single company or power should control it. It is a riddle Yes No why some material gets erased, for example in the UK,a statement by the yes. a lot of copyuright holders regularly Prime Minister,that the NHS would be, “a abuse dcma takedown notices. often wonderful business”, was removed in removing fare usage under copyright the 2010 election campaign - he had content.yes i understand why some content spoken, departing from his official text, gets removed. nearly always for some released later by Dowuning Street. bogus reasons to do with lost profits... Under the guise of copyright images yes. Punishing or criminalizing those and information are removed or who steal is one thing, but finding data banned because corporate money is on the internet should not be a crime! more important than human beings

To a point yes No, I think rights holders should be able to remove their items Absolutely yes, the very fact that legal from the web. I do understand why departments of companies have been protected content is removed known to reactively request take down of their own, legal content is Yes, I think rightsholders have a bit too testament to the fact that even the much power. There is already plenty current powers are used in a way which of legislation relating to intellectual damages user faith and the reputation property, and it is constantly being of the creative industry as a whole refined. Platforms should not be held responsible to infringement of copyright, Copyright becomes longer and longer and as they are not the host and have not thus legally robs the public. Movies are chosen to upload that material. used to export the American culture. Thus they should be cultural goods, over which - a. Maybe too much influence after a short while - the public has a saying, in areas of dispute. b. Yes while they[the people who watched the movie when it came out] are still alive. Not sure. Yes

In a society where money is distributed Rightsholders have far too much say unfairly and unevenly, we should PROMOTE in which content is taken down. ways to help balance out this inequality 60 EU Responses to Question 2

Yes, but we need to uphold I think they have too much interest in ‘fair use ‘ policies. profit and are unaware that peoples interaction with their product can don’t know and no often spur new interest in it.

Nobody should have a say to take Yes, there absolutely have to much power. content down, except a court of law. Possibly. Yes Yes I understand why some content gets taken down, but we need a level They certainly shouldn’t have playing field, at present big money has more, though I usually understand too much say and too much sway why things are taken down.

Where I agree that any material infringing Yes. And since different countries copyright laws should be removed, have different copyright rules, this hyperlinks should not be copyrighted - the can only lead to confusion information on each page is subject to change.People can ask for things to be Yes, but it is on the owners of digital taken down if they own the copyright media to fight piracy. Netflix has shown to them - therefore hyperlinks must be people are willing to pay for content left copyright-free.Copyright laws are if it is reasonable and convenient. all different right across the EU, which makes it very hard for you to know if I think rights-holders should be able to you are breaking copyright law.Parody prevent other people making money with and humour are perfectly acceptable, the precise things they own the rights provided that they are not illegal (e.g. to. I also think that, if there is a market slanderous).There should also be an for something that they’re not currently appeals process where somebody feels meeting and they require someone who that something is taken down unfairly. *is* meeting it to take content down, they should put it up themselves. With YouTube Not familiar with that specifically, I think the location-based limitations are fairly silly. Why aren’t yes and no. I understand about the companies just putting ads in front copyright but they too much power of videos instead of keeping the videos completely away from countries they Yes far too much say. It must be allowed don’t have agreements with? Who exactly to share information about anything loses out if someone in my country can watch an Imagine Dragons video? I understand that copyright holders have a right to make a living from their Definitely! The big corporations with their work, but too often it appears that it push for outrageously long copyrights is the companies, not the creatives are effectively killing human culture all who are driving the enforcement over the world - They are a disease to human progress! DRM (Digital Restriction Yes generally content appears to be Measures) is nothing but a war by oligarchs removed to protect earnings-streams and major corporations on the 99%.

They definitely have too much say. It’s hard to understand what happens when content gets removed - oftentimes EU Responses to Question 2 61

it just makes no sense to the viewer to be protection for original works, but fair use should still apply without big Some rights-holders want links themselves business stripping content from the to be copyrighted, meaning that existing web or attempting to charge for it. broken rules around what content can be shared could be applied to every- Media industries have too much influence day linking on Twitter and Facebook. in deciding what content can be shared For example, right now rights-holders and how. There is no shortage of content can request videos are removed from production, so there is no reason to YouTube where copyrighted music further restrict sharing and copying. happens to be playing in the background, On the contrary, legislation should such as the ‘dancing baby case’. be relaxed to allow more freedom.

Yes... Sharing is a great way to share sources I think that artists and authors have the and build build followers. Ideas aren’t right to control their own work. At present really unique. Search engines prove this. the corporations control the art/music I’ve searched hundreds of times and found industry, not the artists. Nothing should be that people have already thought of my arbitrarily removed from the Internet, there ideas. It’s called sharing, community. I’m should be a fair and open procedure for tired of a world run by the profit motive. handling any copywright/ownership issues. I believe that we should be supporting what one puts on the internet is already the artists NOT the industry getting rich protected by the existing copyrights law. by their parasitic and greedy behaviour There’s no need to extend this protection of the already powerful lobbies of Yes, they usually don’t have to prove rightsholders. In so doing there’s the strong infringement, just file a protest risk to stifle everything on the internet, even the content of the less considered I’m not sure, but I guess they have too rightsholders category: we the people much sway and that may be why the censorship criteria keep murky Yes, because they are “unconvenient” to mainstream lobbies and they might give I think rights holders have way too much an objective point of view of facts. say in which content is taken down. It’s ruining the experience for everyone. The All The censorhip is made by bots people policing such things often have no which overkills tons of legal contents idea what they are looking at or listening in “defense” of big lobbies. Once you’ve to. I know people who have had their been censored, there’s no turning back own content removed because some half wit working for a big movie company Sometimes they have too much say mistakenly thought it was breaching their copyright. And then Youtube removes the Yes, they have too much say video and issues a warning - guilty. If one tries to dispute the claims, they are ignored. their automatic systems fail and target fair It’s ludicrous! And if links are copyrighted, use too often, yes they have over reached then that really will be the beginning of Rightsholder companies have entirely the end. People will abandon the internet too much say in what gets taken down in droves. It will become a corporate ghost when content is posted. There needs town, full of ridiculous rules... and nobody 62 EU Responses to Question 2

to follow them. Good luck with that one like an empty place in newspaper.

I understand, but, as a culture that is Rightsholders limit a lot of what can gravitating to information, it’s impossible to be seen online, even if that’s stuff that remove all derivative content. Everything could get them more people to see we say,do,think, it’s all derivative from their content. Although I understand some work or other. Even new works take there are things that should be removed from old ones. But this is what generates because otherwise rightsholders new ideas, the constant mashing of would get no money for their stuff diverse topics, to result in new concepts. The interests of internet users and no,yes of content providers are not always the same. Content providers have Yep, they get taken down because they extended copyrights to very long infringe upon a rightsholder’s ownership periods and are trying to impose global of a product (artistic, whatever.) And rules that are only favorable to them these rightsholders are absolutely owed but often hinder users needlessly. their income, I have no qualms with that. However the amount of power I think they have too much say. I that these industries already wield don’t understand why some content is way off the scale, and more would get taken off the Internet. be completely unnecessary. People should be allowed to share things Yes. Artists must have the right to “fair with their friends, for fucks sakes. use” to generate new creative works. Also, critics and teachers must have No and Yes. I understand copyright, access to fair use for their work. but making gifs, using excerpts and the like, shouldn’t be illegal. Yes, they generally have too much to say, not only in what is taken down I don’t know the law, but some from the web, but also in not permitting “fair use” of quotations and music other users/artists to remix and re- clips is important to daily life use/recycle, that is how information becomes truly free and organic. In the It’s not that bad. I understand why content current situation, rightsholders are part is being removen. The motivations are of censorship and media manipulation driven by both good and evil aspirations. They have a heavy handed say. Some that have too much money have too much say in case of content distribution, Yes to part 1 and no to part 2 and this is a self-reinforcing loop, as the ones with the most money for marketing yes, i do get most attention and therefore again money.Yet, I doubt that Mickey Mouse or they should get their rights protected some other relatively stupid characters but yes, sometimes it is a bit too tight are so valuable to stay in copyright Sometimes rightsholders do exaggerate forever.Of course, it is never said, why too much, but if something that is stated in some content has been removed, as a legal document, gets infringed, they have the empty placeholder always contains rights for action, but ONLY if it is for illegal “removed for copyright violations”. It is EU Responses to Question 2 63

purpose, not as background music/ links. providers, with less resources to argue their case, it is essential that any copyright I understand why rightsholders can remove protection measures do not simply give the content and am all for it, but to restrict rightsholders the ability to remove, or have hyperlinking is not the way. The web isn’t removed, content - including removing just for rightsholders, it’s for everyone access to content through removing or blocking hyperlinks - without review that They have way top much say in it.I know their rights have actually been infringed. why it gets taken off, but they are simply Content providers also must have rights: an abuse of copyright laws. I don’t mind they must have the right and ability jail sentences as long as copyright to argue their case BEFORE content is gets pulled back to 20 years MAX. removed or blocked, without being put into a position where the time or cost of arguing Yes. The internet is the current social their case is too onerous for their means. It forum. People have been sharing music is also essential when creating rules which in this way for hundreds of years, now it’s cover many jurisdictions not to end up, in just much more visible because you can effect, implementing the most restrictive track its progress. I do understand why ruling from each separate jurisdiction. The some content is removed, but if someone incentive to do so by rightsholders is to uses a song in the background of a most aggressively protect their content. YouTube video, then their video shouldn’t The incentive to do so by online platforms be taken down. Especially if they credit is simplicity, automation and defensively the artist at the beginning, end, or video protecting their own legal position. summary. How else will other people However, the effect is to create a wildly find it and share it? In the long term it unbalanced and restrictive set of rules in would probably help to increase sales. aggregate, that go far beyond what what No, it is against freedom of speech be considered balanced or permissible in any of the individual jurisdictions fair use is not often honored by large media conglomerates. This Yes, They abuse take down rights in often leads to non-infringing content the face of fair use doctrine. Yes some being overzealously removed content is taken off the net because people are afraid of lawyers. Sometimes yes to both of those questions the content does infringe, usually not.

Rightsholders are never the ones It is very one sided who put consumer interest first, they should have no voice in this matter. Absolutely, lobbyists and corporate lawyers dictate ignorant lawmakers what can be Of course some violation of copyright removed. If you don’t want to share your occurs, and it is natural for rightsholders to product for free, than don’t share it on the want to protect their rights and prevent this. internet. But stop complaining that people What is important is that any measures to make copyright infringements. The poor do so are balanced and proportionate. Fair business models of the technologically use, parody, reportage, free speech and challenged media companies are comment, teaching, amongst many other the problem, not the consumer. things, also require protection: as these are often the preserve of smaller content That’s ok 64 EU Responses to Question 2

Yes, Yes. Though I’ll say it’s true that these are the people who own the right to distribute I understand. But sometimes content is and sell their product, and it’s not wrong taken down by a party that does not own for them to want to make money off of the content. They have too much say what they create. That said, they get far too much power and reach in doing so. I do think rightsholders have way too Especially if they have a lot of money. If much say in the content which is taken they got their way, nobody would be able down, a lot of unfair or false copyright to produce content based on their IP at claims are being made on the internet all, even in jest or as a fan appreciation. these days, but for the internet to be a The internet in its current form would die sustainable open platform copyright infringement should even be allowed I feel that rightholders, notably major for personal or educational use. the only industries and corporations, have far too copyright case i can object to is against much power (which already lies in their commercial use. general copyright as it is favour as they have more funding available now is evil and a crime against humanity to engage actively), especially given the very aggressive and incorrect censorship Yes. This should be the right of information. Indeed, copyright of the artist him/herself. enforcement is no longer about pirate sites, but is becoming a tool used as a sword to Yes to both silence critics who mention brand names, Yes, I think rights holders have too much materials, article information, or anything say. My niece’s high school put together they feel they have any decent chance a super cute video to a song. The whole of success in flagging as copyrighted school and in one take everyone was material just to silence a critic or an involved - an ENORMOUS EFFORT. opponent. This has been often used to They had to strip the video of sound. such an effect, for example, in American Such a shame and now this memoir of political debate, to censor politicians my beautiful niece has been forever who views aren’t congruent with that of a butchered. The music was not used particular ideology or viewset, especially for any monetary gain for anyone if the politician in question is criticised and exposed as being a sham or fraud of some I do think that rightsholders should sort. This runs the risk of extending into allow more stuff to be shared between Europe, where backdoor deals between users. Most of us want to preview stuff corporations and government are censored before we commit money to buying by non-disclosure agreements that act as a something, that way we don’t waste form of copyright censorship. Indeed, even money on a bad album or movie. without NDA protections, corporations can often argue that so-called ‘trade secrets’ Yes, it is especially onerous with are being stolen (but when corporations Youtube. I understand but they are keep *everything* secret, they can claim doing themselves a disservice everything they do as a ‘trade secret’ - even nefarious material that is in the interests Rightholders (those with money) have of the public to disclose publicly). The too much to say on what content can people are disadvantaged in this, as they be taken down. I do not understand why do not have the money nor the means to some content is removed so easily. appeal. Often, copyright strikes are faceless EU Responses to Question 2 65

systems via automated systems, where doing. When the usage of the material is complaints can be ignored, or even if one is unfair, that is already protected by law. persistent for weeks, be answered in a way that fails to address the problem. Indeed, I understand copyright to an extent. But the average layperson has no true grasp of I think there should be a distinction law, and the indecipherable nature of the between people who own copyrights on legalese of which copyright law is written their own work and corporations that hold is often too bamboozling for them to copyrights. As well, it’s annoying that - grasp, and therefore, retort. Seeing as the even though it’s voluntary - when I put my individual is not in a position to financially photos out on FB, for example, they can fight (without major assistance from be used with my being compensated. It third parties: EFF, for example, can’t help needs to work both ways or not at all everybody with a similar case to “dancing baby”), and especially with corporate the rights holders want the world leverage over lobbyists passing laws to go back intake when they owned in-favour of unfair copyright laws (such everybody and everyone was treated as ones that threaten to cut off internet like a slave. I do understand why connections which would be a violation of material is removed from the internet free speech, and in this modern age, would but in some cases these removes are be a death knell to an online social life) the not legal and the RIAA or MPAA doe not system should be geared in favour of the have ownership of the said material individual, with the corporation required No, internet has to be free to prove there was a breech, not for the individual to disprove the accusation. As long as copyright isn’t infringed. Yes I understand why some content is removed Yes. If there’s an immediate treat, A JUDGE could order something taken no and I don-t understand. Only if there down. Copyright should never have is a legal infringement of laws should the same weight as free speech for it be used. I presume they get taken any politician. Not even close! off because of their rights to have their work be seen or not for free they have to much control for too long change it now..... I understand the need to protect film or music from exploitation. I am not aware Yes. Without web content like Youtube my how some content is taken off the internet. music collection would be much poorer. If I like music I find on the web I BUY IT. Of course, rightsholders should have SOME voice about their content which In general, yes. They can scare could be copyrighted. But, every removal organizations into removing content should be reasonable and valid - for simply because they themselves are large ex: if someone posts song recording to companies with legal departments youtube which is copyrighted, it should be No. The right is already abused on removed. And this should apply to content some sites to take down any critisism itself only, not links to that content! or negative reviews, making it more Of course, right holders have a right difficult to tell what the quality of a to act if their rights are really violated. product is or what a company is actually But there should be room for fair use. 66 EU Responses to Question 2

Also, we have seen take-down notices be copyrighted. Most of the times it being abused to silence criticism. isn’t copyrighted.I understand that copyrighted content in some cases Yes, they do, and yes I understand. But at needs to get taken off the internet. the same time it’s an overreaction. I see people trying to upload gameplay videos Yes they have too much control. of Star Wars games and having to censor the music because it’s copyrighted. As Yes, I understand why some content gets if anyone’s going to watch a Star Wars taken off, mainly owing to copyright issues. gameplay video complete with player However, the hyperlinks themselves commentary and ingame sound effects should not be copyrighted. I think certain, just to be able to rip the music. These are mostly corporate rights-holders are people who are trying to run their channels more concerned about their own profits and are severely hampered in their ability than the rights of content creators (who to do so by draconic copyright enforcement. have often assigned their rights away). With proposed extensions of copyright Yes. I do think they have too much globally, this can only get worse. I think say, and yes, I still understand that there needs to be better focus on fair some stuff is fair to remove, but use of materials, such as personal videos obtained with music on in the background. Yes and yes. The internet gives the Also, parody must be able to use consumer, any consumer, more choice over materials -- that’s the whole point of it I what he consumes. Allowing industries to control what is and isn’t available So called ‘rightsholders’ do, indeed, online is essentially allowing them a more have far too much power. Only content controlling grip on the market and limits can be copywritten. A ‘link’ (more the power of the consumers -- the people. accurately as URL listing) is an address and is NOT ‘intellectual property’ No.. If its yours i think i should be easier to take it down ( drunk pics etc) Yes and Yes. Still, these laws are going too far. Certain laws and regulations Yes, they have too much influence are turning our world into a horrible thing. I understand rightholders want to If it’s copyrighted, they see money, but that doesn’t give them should have the right rights to censor us for profits.I thought we were past this childish behaviour. Rights holders have a right to exercise their rights in my opinion Rightsholders do not have too much to say on the web and they are justified Yes. They want the right to stuff us full of to protect their rights and interests. advertising so the off set to consumers should be the right to view/listen to content Completely agree that rightsholders have too much say. I wouldn’t mind yes anti-copyright is the preferred if the money went to the artists, but global solution, fuck capitalism! I understand their cut is negligible. Rightsholders have too much to say. Look at what Prince has to say Content gets taken down without even Yes, Yes looking at the content they claim to EU Responses to Question 2 67

Yea, they publicate it, and then decide I feel rights holders such as the film who can and can not see it.. For extra and music industries have far too much gain and leverage of course. Getting say in what is taken down from the a big fine for promoting an image/ Internet. Parody and humour are often video is just fucking pathetic aswell. taken down without due consideration. Please ensure that links are not Yes, as a rights holder you cannot expect copyrighted. That will destroy the very that you have full control over who sees useful and effective linking system your work. I can show a foto to my friends and family in the physical world, I should No, and no. I think rightsholders are not be infringing on anyones rights when usually dettached from the production I do the same in the digital world.It is of the goods (in this case music or films) not possible for content rights holders of which they have the rights. They are to expect that their content can be a just instruments of profit with no place popular part of the cultural environment in a truly fair market. I think the people of society, while not allowing society involved in the ACTUAL production of to use that content in a fair manner. those goods should be the ones to decide. yes. some of the time Yes I personally think that some rightsholders have too much say. I think it’s fair for content to be taken down if it’s breaching copyright, intellectual yes, I understand property, or human rights. I don’t think it’s fair if it’s taken down just because 1: No 2:Yes someone thinks it should be an income stream (if it wouldn’t usually be one) Yes, and yes.

Again commercial use and personal I have never been unable to access use makes the difference. content I wanted to see, but this does not mean that it does not happen I understand that the people who first pushed for DRM are now proposing a May be. I don’t know. return to old conyent-delivery in order to Yes, some rightsholders have to much enforce their rights. However, those rights influence. Sometimes I understand that are NOT the authors’, but the publishers’. some content get taken off, but the thruth Yes, I do and I understand the laws must be said and not taken off the Internet although lots of content is taken Yes they have too much say and I don’t offline without actually contacting understand why such content is taken off. the video owner and they are taken offline for really dumb reasons (like Yes, most definitely. I can understand it sound in the background or in games) only as a causal result of actions by, based even when the video isn’t even making on interests of, industry and government, money off the content in question. but not as anythging that is any good for anybody not directly connected with I am not too familiar with what is now these institutions. On the contrary. standard practice for removals as a result requests from rights-holders. Yes they have too much say. The same way But I think a tax on links is wrong. 68 EU Responses to Question 2

as if you stole their “property” anywhere of giants - that’s just how the creative else LAWS protect them and they have (and intellectual) processes work. the resources to handle their own “affairs” which they should do as a “cost” and “risk” Content that is legal and copyrighted which IS inherent within their industry - we should be under the control of those DO NOT have to sacrifice our FREEDOM who have the rights. No one else should so they can have total control. If someone have control. I agree that those rules are breaks the law then they can investigate already in place and there is no need and prosecute according to the law, u for further “regulations” by politicians. know the way the law is SUPPOSED to work. Giving them control of ALL Despite what some rights-holders say, CONTENT is vexatious and DELIBERATE hyperlinks themselves should not be and undermines TRUE DEMOCRACY copyrighted. Copyright rules are already broken and should not be applied to Yes, they routinely ignore fair use everyday linking on Twitter and Facebook. Uses of parody and humour, such as Yes. I understand that rightsholders funny gifs, should be acceptable uses (Usually big corporations.) have the right of copyrighted content, but are often to attempt to stop illegal sharing of their removed automatically without any work, but at the same time... I stopped way to appeal the removal of content. watching movies and I despise most “popular” music simply because of all the I think that copyright holders have bullshit they’re saddling their content with a right to prevent free distribution of their copyrighted work. They have too much power and it is not always clear why the film and music industry are getting their certain content is removed come-uppance. if they had not been so exploitative in the past, people would be Yes. As a content creator myself, it is happier to pay for downloads. Charging 20 my personal belief that once your euros or more for a cd which cost 0.20cents content is released to the public, it to established their greed. And yes they some reasonable degree belongs to the definitely have too much say. The artist is public. Taking down a 15-minute video the only entity entitled to a cut of profits. over a 30-second copyrighted movie or music snippet in the background They do have to much influence and in is counter-productive and does not some cases I do understand why it got benefit anyone. Nobody will change taken off No link tax, ‘old fashioned’ firms their mind on buying a song because are trying to protect their old fashioned they can listen to a part of it in the business models and not recognizing background of a restaurant in a video. new developments on the internet.

Absolutely, especially when it comes to Too much say They feel buthurt adaptations of protected works. Having the possibility to adapt existing works While piracy is a bad thing, the amount and create new types of content (video, of control these greedy companies have audio etc.) is essential to our cultural and and how aggressively they fight against individual development. Artists/people every thing they see as piracy is plain have always stood on the shoulders ridiculous. This is exacerbated by idiotically inflated copyright terms (and the fact that EU Responses to Question 2 69

copyright tends to be in the hands of a the content - holding Twitter to account company rather than an actual artist). because a tweeted a link to a video on Youtube that may or may not contain Yes and not always copyright material (since this is rarely actually checked before sending take-down Yes I understand that things sometimes notices, I see no reason to believe they need to be taken down. However the will be any more rigorous in the future) is old pricing model and outdated sales ridiculous and would massively break so techniques no longer work . It’s time to many services. The ability for services to change, an ebook should not cost as much provide a place for users to place their or close to a paper book for example. own content and link to it from other non- affiliated services is critical to how the web Yes they do have to much to say. No i do not. works. Restricting this behaviour, making Yes they have too much say in this companies check every link on their service, already no need to enforce more would cause so much overhead that linking entirely would need to be banned unless Yes,they have too much control you can prove ownership of the target - very difficult when the target may be e.g. Yes!!! and yes I understand. the BBC news website, a deviant art page, a youtube video - all provided by different Yes. Video’s of the meteorite in Russia companies, with different non-linked user some time ago where blocked because accounts, requiring huge amounts of work the car radio played music.Sharing news to organise the identification of ownership and culture is humane. Don’t block it. Yes, the film and music industry Yes to the first part. For the second part, I has too much power over what understand, without necessarily approving gets taken down from the web.

Take downs are too inclusive. Some I understand where some has but in the content should be taken down but main it is totally unecessary ‘ownership’ content with fair use should remain Yes, rights holders have to much say I think rightsholders have too much say in over what gets taken down. They may which content is taken down from the web. argue that they’re losing money. If that’s They are able to file erroneous take-down the case, provide a service your users notices to services such as Youtube, who want to pay for in the first place may be a hosting provider under Article 14 of the E-Commerce directive, causing cost Yes, yes. overheads to the service and generally causing the service to take down the Rightsholders have too much say. The content without checking the validity of total idea of the Internet is about the take-down notice (presumably to keep freedom and interconnectivity. It should associated costs down). I understand that not be made into a profit-making tool rightsholders should be able to control by the few who “own” content. their works online, but the onus should not be on Youtube and similar services Yes, they do. And yes, because they want to enforce this. This should certainly not to destroy our culture. Don’t let them! extend beyond the service that is hosting Yes for both. 70 EU Responses to Question 2

No, there is a lot of copyright what of their material is published infringement on the net on the web just as they should be able to control material that they Regarding part A of this question, I do not have rights to in any medium know enough to have an opinion. Regarding part B, no I do not understand what is do think they have too much power. taken down, who is authorised to do so, And they leverage it to protect nor how this is implemented Intenet wide. currency undermining creativity, culture dissemination an personal Not sure growth. Specially to those that would benefit more of it. Those who are Yes - releasing full films/games/music unable to reach it in any other way.I do is one thing if it enables people to get understand why its take off the internet. hold of full, copyrighted material for Yet it is just as i mentioned above. free. Small clips in the background etc will not deter people from buying the Yes, rightsholders have too much say in full song - if anything, the reverse. And which content is taken down from the web. companies already know this - they openly put movie trailers at the start I understand that artists become grateful of YouTube clips to advertise. If they when people share their work, they gain genuinely thought that seeing a clip public.I understand that big rightsholders would make people NOT subsequently profit allot from hard working artists, see the full film, they wouldn’t do it even more when they’re dead, and an educated and ‘arts knowing’ public is not They have far too much say and the good for that profit of so few.I understand burden of proof should be on them perfectly that freedom to share as never been so easy and unexpensive, and that I understand that copyright holders (often) is threatening the big profiteers, not the don’t want their products to be distributed artists much less the Arts.I understand freely, and they should be protected from that Knowledge is the problem, not Arts.I this, or fairly compensated. However, I understand that access to independent think the tools used or proposed in this news and to Knowledge is threatening fight against misuse are often, especially for the very alone few on top of the lately, overreaching and restrict basic power ladder, and that is the problem. freedom of everyone for the interests Not so long ago they were burning books of a few, and this is unacceptable. A and even people for that, knowledge better, cleaner compromise has to be and information.Thanks for reading made here. I also think “fair use” needs me, if you have any power on this issue a new, better discussion – e.g., fan-made, PLEASE help our Human spirit (wich is non-profit derivatives are art, too, and sharing all that is possible to share) should be allowed accordingly (maybe with a small fee, like for song covers) Yes, rights holders seem more concerned on stopping people from accessing their They have too much power, I don’t products than selling them, and public understand why some content is removed. interest is secondary to their opinion.Yes, some content is taken off for legal reasons, yes. Yes. This is two questions, not one but it should be sold with the right to share. Rights holders should be able to say EU Responses to Question 2 71

I think they do. Obviously some content globally, the hypocrisy that somehow only should be taken down, especially if it is people in area x are worthy of content will directly hurting or harassing an individual. never fly no matter if we have the internet But that has nothing to do with music or still scribe on papyrus. knowledge will or film industries trying to sniff out always find a way to reach the seekers. copyright claims. They take themselves too seriously and apparently others do too Rightholders regularly abuse the power to take down even legal content. Yes, and I understand that rightsholder needs to protect their income I understand their right of taken off from stream, but that can be done by the internet of pictures, videos and so on not allowing downloading but I dont understand why? People will want to be free and talk freely and if a yes, each photo or movie is property site wont allow it some other site will. of is maker unless he says otherwise I get it, but I think it is a foolish, short- yes, they have too much power. I term, artist-damaging practice. People understand how some content is removed will follow whom they are able to but it must be done in accordance follow, and in the long-term that will be with proper legal mechanisms. people with freely accessible content. I think there is too much emphasis on the Yes, rightsholders try to block the poor business side of copyrighting, and not from acessing contents. They have so much enough that is meant to help people money, why bother people that buy a CD or Movie and decide to share it with the The rightholders may protect world? Why don´t they try to block porn? their content via encryption if they wish to but nothing else. I’ve actually bought a lot of film and music CDs because I had the Yes, there should forced internet licensing opportunity to watch/listen to them that applies to every region, not just online. Restrictions will have the certain regions. Why should content opposite effect on me - I’ll not buy. be restricted? Just license it for the whole world to be fair for consumers Yes, big rightsholders are bullying everyone into submission, while individual I do not know much about this artists are often unable to effectively fight people “stealing” their work. And I understand. It is their right, however censoring links is just absurd. People content through the web should who invented this have absolutely no crculate without restrictions. idea about technology. They should go and play with sticks and stones instead Yes. No

Yes, far too much say. Yes, the copyright laws are outdated and rightsholders have too much control Yes. Yes Yes, I feel that rights holders have to i understand why but geographical much control to censor content, and discrimination and limitation of availability this will only get worse under the of content, huge discrepancy in income TTP. I understand why content gets 72 EU Responses to Question 2

removed, but I think it goes too far hyperlinks themselves should not be copyrighted. Copyright rules are already They absolutely have too much broken and should not be applied to power. I generally understand why everyday linking on Twitter and Facebook. some content is taken down. It is Right now rights-holders can request due to copyright infringement videos are removed from YouTube where copyrighted music happens to be playing in Of course that they have too much power!! the background, such as the ‘dancing baby The musicians and other artists should case’.Different countries in the EU have be able to sell their creations directly different rules on what use of copyright nowadays, instead of having such parasits material is permitted, making it difficult as the music industries in the middle. for Internet users to know if what they are doing is legal.Uses of parody and humour, Yes. WAY too much control such as funny gifs, should be acceptable They definitely have way too much uses of copyrighted content, but are power, they’re basically carpet-bombing often removed automatically without any sites in a “innocent until proven guilty” way to appeal the removal of content. manner, frequently going beyond any I’ve seen cases of rightsholders bullying reasonable standard right into censorship sites. Most cases of content removal have The EU lacks a fair use exception doctrine. been ridiculous and probably harmful to the rightsholder in the long run. Yes, they should have the burden of proof Yes, they often overreach in their effort yes there is too much say in take down and take down completely legal content

Obviously copyright and patents have Yes, it is all about money become abusive and excessive, all driven by bribes to politicians and policy They do have too much say, they makers to enact laws and polities, which should now own the internet. favor the particular interests (large Rightsholders seem unable to adapt media providers) against the general their business models to the changing interest (the public and the nations) times. And they want legislation that I share hundreds of links every will save them from having to make the week, sharing information I believe effort. Trying to ban links to content is some people may find interesting or way beyond the line of acceptable, and helpful. Spreading knowledge so to would cripple the web as we know it speak. Do rights-holders really want they are all about the money, and will to alienate the quest for learning? take as much as they can get... they would Let me chose what I want to see and share charge me for my thoughts one at a time if they could put a meter in my head... Yes. They should have to provide a public explanation Rightholders unfairly limit access to protected works, stifling innovation. Yes. Depends Takedown requests appear to be random and sometimes made for Despite what some rights-holders say, content not owned by the claimant EU Responses to Question 2 73

YES, they have too much say in Yes, it is completely ridiculous to remove removing content. NO. Content links to content on the internet which is should only be removed by court publicly available anyway. If people have order under legal due process given permission for their pictures or videos to be posted then I don’t see the problem. They have too much say. My own home videos were removed Yes interests because there was music playing. Probably not even copyrighted. I think it’s bad business to not allow people to access things like YouTube videos of Yes to both your music but I don’t necessarily think they shouldn’t have the right to do so. Content should only be taken down with due process. Nothing legal should be I think as is with existing copywriting taken off Internet, I don’t understand rules, things are fair. If the performers how something can be taken off in do not want their music shared, they’re a jurisdiction different from where ultimately limiting their exposure and the content is physically located. that is their choice. I totally understand why some copywrited or personal 1) Not really because reality is that almost private content gets removed any content can be found in Internet rather easily, specially music and videos Yes to first part. No to second part irrespective of the copyright situation. Nevertheless the problem is mainly in some In my opinion, we need a whole new companies (You Tube is the main one) that system of intellectual property rights that have a business model based in the masive heavily favors freedom of information. use of pirated content. Perhaps the solution is not in enforcing aditional copyright laws yes, too much power, when you make but in making sure that companies like something and you send it to the world, it YouTube respect the law 2) Yes but we need belongs to the world.. stop being so greedy! to consider as different issues the removal Yes, I do believe they have too much of pirated content available legally in control. And Yes I do understand why other Internet sites and the removal of some material gets taken down. content because of political censorship Yes I understand but not when it’s regional Yes, Yes. locked I do not think websites have YES. Far too much power is given to to pay money when using snippets of the film and music industries - the text to preview other content online internet belongs to the people - ALL Yes they have, and I don’t people - not corporations or government. always understand Copyrighted content that would hurt an individual artist can be removed, Yes their copyright is not being but only at the request of the artist. breached if no money is being made

Yes they have too much say but yes. everyone will find videos, pictures, I also understand why content etc offensive to some degree. however, is sometimes removed opinions stated without bullying or 74 EU Responses to Question 2

threatening others is just that, an Yes. It seems that things are opinion. because e.g. if christians find taken down to protect profit. something offensive because it points out why they are wrong, it should not be I am not at all familiar enough with subject removed. facts are facts whether people want to agree or believe in them Not only do they have too much say in what is taken down, but the extent to Rightsholders clearly have more control which the industries are involved in than is ethically permissible. And no, I don’t policy making is just plain wrong. always understand - I can only assume that certain lobbyists, powerbrokers and Yes, especially since most of these people ‘political correctors’ are being appeased are not making money from this content

Is it to do with copyright infringements? Yes. Yes.

Yes, they have too much say. Yes they do. Understand that some rights- Yes, I do understand holders want the links themselves to be copyrighted, meaning that existing broken Yes too much say and no real recourse rules, around what content can be shared, to argue via facebook etc. Judge and could be applied to any common link on jury bypassed. Fair rights, CC rights are Twitter, Facebook, etc. For example, as of all abused. Of course rights of content this moment rights-holders can request originators should be respected but there videos to be removed from Youtube needs to be dialogue and not automated where copyrighted music happens to pull downs or unaddressable pull downs be playing in the background (see the ‘dancing baby case’ against Universal Yes I understand why and can understand music). Different countries in the EU have why they want to protect their work very different rules when it comes to the usage of copyrighted material, giving rise Absolutely, the quest for profit is to a climate of uncertainty for Internet slowly eroding the rights of others users about the legality of their actions. The use of parody and humor, such as Yes, but too much power has been funny gifs, is often removed automatically given to these people instead of without respect for different laws, or any lstening to the man on the street. way to appeal the removal of content

I do not understand everything about this, Yes, rightholder have too much saying. but I do know that although a perfect copy of eg. the Mona Lisa is just a copy, a slight Yes. Copyright is extended for too change makes it ‘new work’. Alternatively, long a period of time on content that many such ‘new works’ can be created to should have already long since been cover a wide area and stifle other people’s released to the public domain creative talent if a big or well protected industry got something there first. I have some sympathy for film and music companies trying to root out outright Yes hyperlinks should not be copyrighted. piracy to ensure the basic royalties can be maintained for actors /singers etc. yes too much influence, no I don’t However much sharing is of snippets understand. (why have two questions here?) only - surely this encourages people to EU Responses to Question 2 75

go see /buy the whole film /album etc. models which would severely reduce/ cut out this method. Their model is Too much content is taken down, for antiquated. Newer business models such example parody and humour, like funny as Spotify, Pandora, Netflix etc. attempt gifs are taken down automatically to do this. This is about bigwigs wanting even when there is no need for it more money, typically not the content creators making any more than before As a professional working in the creative media sector I believe that there should I undestand that if they are selling be no limits as to what content the some product and you can own it for Internet provides. If I want my products free from some source, is not right to be seen on the Web then I should be fully prepared that they are distributed Yes, I feel that the media companies have further without my knowledge. Obviously, ridiculous amounts of power. It shouldn’t be website operators should have systems their job to police the internet, especially in place to restrict certain content and due to their money grabbing nature. to remove content when asked to do so by the original owner/producer Yes & Yes

It seems vague and complicated to Yes, but i do understand when understand what constitutes fair use content is illegally published. and what is copyright infringement. To the first part of the question Yes.For the Yes, rightsholders have a powerful second part of the question Sometimes it grip on which content can be shared. is not clear why some content is deleted It’s expected that content should be when it forms part of the cultural record. withdrawn if it’s infringing, but currently it seems the film and music industries are It is ridiculous that rights holders are especially zealous with their powers. able to disrupt good content with for example background (copyrighted) Yes. Rightsholder should be able to protect music is heard incidenatlly, inthe their work and get paid fairly but they background of a video or similar should prove that infringement occurred The ‘dancing baby case’ was just silly. I understand why they get taken Nobody would have downloaded down, but they take it too far. poor quality music. The legal situation appears confusing due to the worldwide If they release it into the public domain, nature of the web. Restricting links then it is public. Simple as that. If the seems unworkable to me content is ‘smuggled’ onto the net by other means, then I understand their Yes, they have too much control which can concern - but only to a degree. There is be abused... for example - removing the such a think as promotion - and a viral material of a competitor. The only things I video, or piece of writing etc. can promote see removed from the internet are reports the original content owner in a way that of corporate crimes against humanity... no marketing campaign could. Maybe ones that they are trying to make happen rightsholders should start thinking about right at that time. For example - any embracing new methods of promotion news or activist posting regarding the (that is free) as well as new business TPP, which could not be shared on 76 EU Responses to Question 2

facebook... it was obviously blocked Yes - removing things that are clearly fair use or just a summary of the content. Yes. No, and yes Yes - I understand that online platforms Yes, but definitely disagree with this do take down copyrighted content, but I’m not sure that there is enough They definitely have way to much authority protection for fair use (such as using short over what people share and post online. clips for humour or study) or whether I hope that some content is removed there is the opportunity to appeal. because it is racist or unacceptable to some people, but I know that most times it Yes, far too much say. Rights-holders should is by those that want to keep certain things not be allowed tools which they could from the public, and they want monetary use to censor the kind of discussions and compensation for the use of it. They need cultural exchanges which internet users to realize that once it hits the internet, it expect to have. A high threshold should is public. Who puts personal stuff online? be set for when rights holders are allowed to intervene and force content to be taken Yes! down. They should not be allowed to remove parodies, or tributes, or fan-made Yes & Yes. extensions, or unrelated works where Yes, though I do understand why done snatches of copyrighted content happen content is taken off the internet. to be audible or visible in the background. They should not even be allowed many Absolutely of the unconscionable rights which they currently enjoy, such as the right to Yes, and No extort money from public spaces if those spaces want to play background music. It I understand why some content gets taken also badly needs to be recognised that off. Copyright holders tend to be a bit existing copyright law is outdated, and overzealous with their takedowns, though fundamentally at odds with the way that computer systems work. “Copies” of any I think that people need to be paid for digital work are made dozens of times, the work they do. Therefore, I think it’s invisibly and without human interaction, right that viewers of film and music in the course of sending that data over a should only get products from official network link for any purpose. Copies are sites. I can understand that extreme even made by the computer hardware violence/abuse/abusive content should when displaying media on a screen! be removed. However, this must be an agreed line, not one based upon Yes. I don’t understand arbitrary decisions that could be fuelled by the popular press tabloids. Yes, I believe rightsholders have too much say in which content is removed. copyright violation Legitimate use of copyrighted material can often be prevented by rightsholders No. They have to pay to rightholders don’t know, it isn’t a simple issue I do understand why rights holders do this, but the restrictions can seem clumsy. Yes. Often automated tools are EU Responses to Question 2 77

being used to remove content materials legally to ensure the continued without reason or justification ability of individuals and companies to continue to produce new works. And to Far too much say. And often the ensure free speech, a fair and free trade legal “rightsholders” have little actual market, evidence based science and rights to the content. They are not the many other foundations of our society. same people as those who actually produced the content. Content gets yes - and they do it automatically, taken off the internet due to greed. sometimes wrongly

Those who have copyrights for the Absolutley yes. Cencorship will lead content do have the right to control how us back deep into the darkness. it is used. There are some pictures and videos which should be taken off the As a musician, I understand why some internet when they are harmful to others music, film and video content is made unavailable because I have to pay for All they want is protection for their recordings but as music shops have profits, Once up should stay up diminished it is increasingly difficult (appart from child pornography) to get hold of some recordings. Also many local venues for playing live music Rights holders are only interested have been shut down by people whose in the financial return from web complaints have undue influence which activity - issues of free expression, etc means that it is very hard to hear new conflict with this fundamentally. music - sometimes you tube is the only place where you can explore these On balance large rightsholders to have too artists. That makes it a cultural space. much say. Rightsholders can ask for content to be taken down, and that happens as As a rightsholder myself (professional standard. If anything there should be more composer) I think that rightsholders, in balances to help insure that this is not particular non-creating rightsholders such abused, and that fair use is protected. And as multinational publishing houses, have that smaller and individual rightsholders too much say on what can be removed, and and creators are not penalised because what can be hidden (via search engines large rightsholders have too much power. etc) on the Internet. There is a balance to Hyperlinks are a form of referencing, and be struck, but at the moment it is struck are essential to the very foundations too far in favour of excessive censorship. of the modern Internet. Much like the This needs remedied, not exacerbated traditional library can not work without a catalogue saying where works are located Copyright is obviously a big thing online. I the Internet can not work without free believe media companies have the right use of hyperlinks. A far bigger problem is to take down content that is deliberately the lack of protection for fair use, and for being stolen, however they should also proper referencing and linking. These are consider the fact that their songs, films essential not only for end users, but for etc will be used online by people in their rightsholders themselves. It is vital that own content. As long as people explain copyright not only protects rightsholders, that the copyright is not owned by them, but also allows everyone the ability to it shouldent be a problem in my opinion. access material under fair use and to use 78 EU Responses to Question 2

Damn right they have too much say. I can have too have power to take things down understand individuals who want their work to exist only in certain forums within Hell yes certain time frames, such as a comedian who wants to finish their new tour before I am rarely informed as to why uploading all their new jokes to Youtube. material is removed from the web. But I definitely can’t understand the power I may sometimes agree with its given to companies to simply attempt to removal but I would like to know. deny the world access to the creation I can well understand why the producers of the artists they fund.The reasons why of films like Star Wars don’t want their content is removed vary of course, though films viewable for free on the internet.I they generally fit into 1.Reputation 2. also know that music sales have suffered Perceived effects on profit.At any rate, I because it’s so easy to download music for think if you want your art, e.g. a film, not to free from the internet & some well known be on the internet, the only way to do it, is musicians struggle to make a living out of NOT TO UPLOAD IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. producing musicOn the otherhand I think Or NOT TO SHARE IT WITH ANYONE that parody & spoofs are original pieces WHO MIGHT UPLOAD IT.Otherwise, it’s of art & should not be removed if they essentially in the public domain. I think use a well known piece of music as part in the end the sharing is a good thing, it’s of the parody of that music / artist etc just that the rightsholders have thus far been too stupide to work out how to make I do and I do. Fair use and parody exist, money out of all the free publicity.This is an but the automated bots that crawl for area in which Netflix is doing a great job. content can’t tell the difference.

Definitely. If I use a file storage service I do think they have too much say on the Internet to backup my files, I don’t in what gets taken down, and I do think a third party, whether a publisher or understand why of course infringement an ISP should be able to deny me the right should have to be proven. to access the service to retrieve them I think content should be accessible as long Do not understand as the rights holders are given sufficient credit.It is not always clear why some Every new content contains elements that content is removed from the Internet. have been used before. It really depends in which proportion. When a museum I think copyright holders should have displays counterfeit art the road signs the right to determine fair internet use leading to the exhibition are not removed. of their work but this should be within Links are not part of the exhibition sensible guidelines. These guidelines should be clear, simple and widely First question: Yes Second question: Yes known. Owners should be able to For direct copyright violations (aka entire request infringements be taken down. films made available, or excerpts that are I think corporations as a whole do not act shown for commercial gain) rights holders with integrity and only act in self interest. should be able to take down - However fair use should still be allowed for comedic and I think rights holders have too much say in educational uses. Currently rights holders which content is taken down from the web. EU Responses to Question 2 79

I understand why some content is taken off. “Bluetooth”, is simply petty and childish, IMO. So there needs to be a more mature I think the profit model for balance between what should be available the entertainment industry is for everyone, and what needs protecting. outdated and flawed I understand this is their business I think the right balance is important, in order to make a profit. it would be great if we didn’t live in a capitalist world, everyone was equal I understand why copyrighted content, e.g. and artists just created free music upload of TV episodes or movies, is taken because the loved it, alas we do not. off the internet. However, we must be careful of overreach in this regard - such I think the rightholders have way too as with the ‘dancing baby case’. We MUST much say in which content is taken NOT institute laws that penalize individuals down from the web. They often go too for fair use. I have seen other cases of far in their attempts to protect their fair use being blocked or penalized. IP, especially the big companies. I understand why some things need I understand copyright laws etc. to be removed, but sharing has to be But the Internet was meant to be a taken in account in some fashion. I platform without “masters” or “rulers”, can share or borrow a DVD with a it was all written down. The different friend, why can’t i do it with a file? industries are trying to control it as much as possible though, it is wrong! If no-one paid for copyrighted It is not theirs to control or regulate. material, there wouldn’t be any to pirate. Creative artists need to be I understand it when there is rewarded for their endeavours. copyright infringement Infringement should need to be proven in I understand that companies have court not simply removed on suspicion of it, a right to protect their property, but this gives too much power to corporations allowing a few powerful groups to exert a stranglehold over creative It is often not clear why something acts is detrimental to the freedom of is taken off the internet. expression and freedom of creativity. It is their livelihood but the courts I understand that some content can be should make the decision removed if it has been legitimately pirated. However, that has to be proven in a court Many time privately taken pictures of law before removal. Rightsholders etc are blocked because some Greedy deserve a say in what is used otherwise Corporation claims rights to it their industries (music, TV, Film etc) will suffer. But there are incidences where No, not always this is abused to unjustly stifle creativity. No. No I understand the copyright implications. Not at all. But there is also such a thing as “copyleft”. And trying to copyright public domain Not sure and yes stuff like “Happy Birthday”, or the word 80 EU Responses to Question 2

Not Sure that I know enough Sometimes have content removed about this aspect? for reasons that I am not aware of.

Obviously complete films should not be The artists should have the right to have shared. However trailers and content no content removed, not the film/music longer available to buy should be allowed. industries. I don’t understand why some I think the rightsholders should only have content is removed from the Internet power to take down content which they are currently producing and selling The rules governing these removals tend to be DMCA requests, these are not stringent Rightholders have gone far beyond enough and can result in fair use content their rights, intruding and interfering e.g. comment and parody. There is no with the way each individual interracts consequence for companies incorrectly with art and spiritual content. taking down valid content and there is a lack of appropriate appeals mechanisms. Rightsholders should be able to protect their content, but they should The simple answeris: The world is waking not be able to unilaterally decide up to the reality that the morons in what counts as a violation charge are now very frightened They know we are on to them and their time Rightsholders should have some say is limited so they are trying every trick about which content is on the web, but to limit communication between us all. this must be balanaced against other concerns. I understand why some There are too many false positives. content is take off the internet. They do have too much say. They Some rights-holders want links themselves are not required to prove whether to be copyrighted, meaning that existing something is infringing material, and broken rules around what content can fair use is only a defence, and thus be shared could be applied to every- not prima facie established day linking on Twitter and Facebook. For example, right now rights-holders can They have far too much say request videos are removed from YouTube where copyrighted music happens to be they should be able to look after playing in the background, such as the their interlectual property ‘dancing baby case’. Different countries To a point. It is understandable to in the EU have different rules on what remove entire films/music tracks, but use of copyright material is permitted, not to attempt to stifle reviews making it difficult for Internet users to know if what they are doing is legal. Uses To some degree yes. example: if they are of parody and humour, such as funny gifs, not selling or releasing that particular are often removed automatically without version of a work, then they should not respect for different laws, or any way to have any say in its display or use. Sure, they appeal the removal of content. Also, the may own rights to another version and so issue is treated differently online than in they may feel revenue is under threat if the other media, even though the web is a version they don’t own is available. Cest la newer, likely more progressive medium vie...Get ownership of the offending version and promptly offer that for sale. But for EU Responses to Question 2 81

far too long we have all been denied the Yes they do have to much influence over vast panorama of art & creativity that is the internet, and I am not certain why truly magnificent and makes life on earth some content gets removed, although I do such a rich and rewarding thing...denied understand copyright and piracy violations it for the sake of somebodies bottom line. How sad is that!! To dumb down and Yes, and yes make very narrow the whole of planet earths creative vastness for the sake of Yes, as long as what they’re taking down some money!!!! Please, get creative and is proven to infringe on their rights think of smarter more intelligent ways yes, but how long should of gaining from this WONDERLAND some rights remain? Understand copyright Yes, content creators need to have rights Unsure of what these but they should be fair to users as well companies do take off..... Yes, rightsholders have too much say.No, We need to limit the rights such as copy I don’t understand why some content is write to a period of seven years or less taken off, especially fair-use content.

Yes and No Yes, they are over reactive to the use of images and music. Yes and yes, and in most cases I wonder whats the harm? Especially if its used in a Yes, they are part of a dying regime. free manner or for parody or humor. Isent Yes, they have far, far too much control the latter meant to be an exception usually? over which content is removed from Yes and yes. They often try to defend the web. I do understand why SOME the indefensible based on outdated content is removed, but there is much laws enacted in a different age content removed that is LEGAL. Content and based on outdated criteria. owners do too little to make sure the content they request removal of, is Yes I do - the process is particularly actually being used in an infringing one-sided, and lacks transparency. I way OR is actually something they understand why some content is removed. have the legal right to remove

Yes I do. It is not acceptable to copyright Yes, they have too many rights a hyperlink. Everyday linking is a vibrant and I don’t understand why internet and social essential.adoption, parody and humour should be welcomed, Yes, they have too much control. it is usually affectionate. Often it leads Such content is good advertising me to look for and like the original. at best, and harmless at worst

Yes I undersstand, however copyright Yes, while I recognize the right of the issues are complicated! copyright owners to limit distribution of their protected works, it should not come Yes I understand but content must at a price of limiting everyone else from be available to critique or parody. free sharing, mixing and remixing works that are public domain. In the instances 82 EU Responses to Question 2

where content is taken down, there is/ it, the better for them should exist some kind of notice content have been taken down due to complaint I think so. I don’t know the criteria from IP rights holders and whom to contact applied for taking off some content. in case the takedown was not appropriate Yes, I think the rightsholders have too much Yes. I understand the requirement to power, and I hope that situation changes protect copyright, but it is over zealous and limiting to creativity. Only outright Yes these companies use their financiel theft verbatim should be an infringement, power in an unfair way. I do not and that should be subject to legal proof understand why some content is taken off the internet, unless it is illegal. Yes. Intellectual Property regulations are far too extreme, and should be modified. Yes - often on Youtube rights holders abuse the DMCA to stifle criticism or creative Yes. It’s none of their business and transformative use of their media what I post. This simply allows corporations to censor and control Rights holders have too much possibility the way they are perceived online. to take down content. They can mandate to take down any content whether justified Yes. Laws have to have a sense of or not, without having to fear problems balance, not be weighted too much in for unjustifiedly taking down content of favour of controlling innocent sharing of other right holders. Currently the rights interests, which is not intentional stealing of Larger right holders trump those of of intellectual property for profit. smaller right holders. Hyperlinks don’t infringe on anyones “rights” on the content. Yes. Of course they should have the On the contrary, each link to a specific right to take down complete episodes content increases the visibility and is of new shows but fan videos (and other indeed purely positive for the rights holder forms of fan art) are free ads for the of the particular content. It increases show and should be allowed (it brings the visibility of the content. Just like the them more money for goodness sake) (physical)address of a store or a venue is not infringing on the copyrights of the store Yes. Rightsholders have serially owner or of the music band playing on abused takedown systems, without that venue on a particular day. Publishing suffering any penalties. the address is on the contrary purely positive for the store or the venue. It is not Yes.Yes. even possible to check the status of the copyright of a place being linked to. The YouTube is in constant violation of fair use, status could change every millisecond and free speech and parody laws because of could even change during a session of a this. Someone makes a news video with a user. It is technically impossible to exercise 10 second clip of copyrighted content, and a check every millisecond, just to be sure. it gets taken down! Nobody takes down Apart from that, there is no algorithmic the TV news!I know why content gets taken solution available and even possible to down, and it’s almost always for the wrong check the copyright of some content. reason: an algorithm decided it needs to go. Yes, as organized interest group Yes. The fewer people know EU Responses to Question 2 83

they bully. And sometimes it is very way too much say & unclear agreements unclear why something is removed sharing is not theft! yes to screws not glue & drm-free content Yes, they are taken to serious. I understand their reasons, but don’t agree with them. Even if it is fair that copyright is respected, it sometimes goes too far. I am much If personal photos are such content, more in favour of “copyleft” policies, then, yes. There is a difference between which allows the utilisation of content copyrighting the content and copyrighting under more flexible conditions. links!!!Beware of “dancing baby case”, strikt copyright rules may stretch too far. yes they have too much in some cases. yes i comprehend why this happens, Control of mega-sized star vehicles but a blanket or automatic approach music and movies deserve to be is not reasonable or acceptable controlled by their masters The question about «ownership» is Yes.While sometimes this is justified, there something we should begin debate in has been quite a lot of abuse on this. school because it is a very strange stuff... and mostly in a digital world. Maybe Yes right holders have far too much power changing our relation to money (the why we want to own) or its creation process Content should only be removed may change the way we are doing stuff when harmful or offending in the entire world. Sharing is caring! Yes they have too much to say. Clearly, they This is too complex a subject for a only represent their own profits and not the small response block. Rightsholders artists off of which they leech, and of whom should have rights but there should also only the most successful ever see any be fairuse so some correspondance real reimbursement. The standard music and arbitration may be required industry companies are mainly extortionists in a suit, really. They don’t care about art 1) I think they have too much say. or content, they only care about money. Especially because it is often the case And thus, their influence on what should that the original content creator is not or should not be taken down will only the one demanding the content to be server their own pockets, regardless if it is taken down. 2) I understand that right a legitimate claim or not. I do understand holders want to protect their revenues. why some content is taken down, but at this However, the content is taken down moment, the reasons for taking something once and put back up ten times again by down are highly inconsistent. Hate speech different people (thankfully so). There is and racial violence is allowed but nudity obviously a need to find another way. (ie. even nursing mothers) isn’t? And this is just one example. Despite what some in some cases, they have too many rights-holders say, hyperlinks themselves rights, for example when only small should not be copyrighted. Copyright pieces of music or images are re- rules are already broken and should not used to create a new work. be applied to everyday linking on Twitter and Facebook.Fix the copyright laws Yes. Rights-holders too often treat first. Listen to Richard Stallman, he has potential customers as potential enemies some good propositions on the case. and are too aggressive in taking even 84 EU Responses to Question 2

harmless pieces of their works offline maak de juiste keuze. Meer wetten en even though this can help getting more restricties zorgen voor meer wrijving in people to know of their product. de maatschappij. Toegang tot het internet en zijn inhoud maakt de wereld slimmer. Yes I think they have too much power Rightsholders have way too much power: Yes, I do think so. I think that the sharing of there are too many false-positives resulting most content on a non-commercial basis in legitimate content being automatically should be allowed in general without taken down, regardless of whether they making the “perpetrators” criminals.I do own the copyright on that content. understand the reasoning that is typically used to justify taking content offline, but They act toon quickly, often I think that it is almost always flawed and resulting in wrongful removals. heavily skewed in the direction of giving too much advantage to the rightholders I agree with this statement. I believe I as opposed to the general public.I think do understand why certain material is that laws such as copyright are supposed removed: because people in certain to exist for the common good: give positions of vested interest are losing incentives to authors so that the general money, and use outmoded laws to public receives more works or art. Fair protect their incomes and positions use provisions and especially reasonable copyright expiry times (e.g., 5 or 10 years Understanding the difference between as opposed to “50 or more years after the popular culture and what is in the death of the author) should be instituted, public domain, vs expropriation of because the “deal” (trading freedom intellectual property, can be subtle for the creation of more works of art) is and hard to judge fairly, there is a currently struck in a way that is heavily difference, but in general social use, disadvantageous to the public at large. there has to be some leeway allowed when “theft” is clearly not the intention. I believe that rights holders should be able to request that content which infringes They have too much say. Screencaps, on their copyright be taken down. short clips and gifs should not be seen as copyright infringement. Yes - fair use is a reasonable practice. Yes - I understand that films etc. need It depends upon the context of each to have royalties paid in order for case. More often than not rightsholders the work to be worthwhile. But the commit to overkill instead of reasonable media should be figuring out ways consideration. Parody should always of combatting the competition as be granted immunity from take down opposed to applying blanket bans. notices provided the individual(s) Look at how well Netflix is doing! behind the parody have taken the time to declare their intention thus. I understand why some things are removed, but reasons should be given I understand it, but I don’t think it’s necessary. The only thing spreading your Yes. It happened to me as well. media can do, is get more resources. yes, they have too much say. Gebruik jullie gezond verstand en No, I do not understand. EU Responses to Question 2 85

I only understand they take down the Yes, they have too much power, but content on their own websites. I do understand the importance of not infringing copyright or IPR Definitely, they are basically violating our constitution. And the website They have the rights to do owners are scared and remove so according to laws. stuff without questioning. I understand the right of copyright holders Two different questions here. Yes, I to remove content that is presented understand content gets taken off the whole or in parts designed to fit together Internet, though who benefits from that into a whole. However, the principle of action remains a puzzle to me. Yes, I think fair use must be maintained, and should rightsholders have too much say in what be more inclusive, not weakened is taken down. We should be very careful in letting any party decide what should be Yes and yes. There are obviously cases on the internet and what not, as the wrong where content is truly pirated and should kind of censorship is only a step away. be taken down. But copyright currently lasts too long and covers too much to We must respect copyright. They may be in the general interest. There should request taking down content that their be mandatory licensing and wider fair copyright applies to but no more and use provisions for much material no less.Any regulations/laws must must not put burden those who want YES. The capital organisations of (copy) to share own work under permissive rights are a menage to free society. Copy (copyleft) licensing or public domain. right means the right to copy. Again agencies and companies act like pavlovian yes they have too much to say. I do dogs in their hypocritical and bigot auto- not understand in some cases. pilot banning. No better than the IS

Film and music industries refuse to adapt Way too much. Copyright is the reason to the advancement of technology. There and it excludes fair use or the copyright is plenty of money and jobs for them is lost. Idiotic reasoning is at fault if they develop new business models. Instead, their lobbyists are actively I understand that content creators and trying to cripple progress in the name publishers want money for their work, but of corporate profits. Please stop it. I think some companies or individuals go too far in taking down fan-made content The rightsholders have too much or non-commercial content that they feel say in which content is taken Down are too close to their products or may be and too much content is removed using their products.It should be allowed that I don’t believe should be. as a private person to show appreciation for content by using it to some extend, if it Anybody with too much money and an has no commercial gains for that person. opinion has too much to say in content regulation. It shouldn’t be up to the Absolutely. Free speech and self money stream what gets taken down expression are being trampled on in the and what doesn’t.I do understand why name of copywritten material. People some things are taken down, however, should not have to turn off all media and some people do cross a line. devices before recording their family 86 EU Responses to Question 2

and friends for fear that something only benefit the artist if people shared in the background will prevent their their work as it increases awareness ability to share that picture or video of the particular artist. Provided that it is not presented in a way which is At the moment they appear to have too not consistent with the artists vision much power, yes. The trouble with the legal world is it’s tricky to get visibility. Yes they do have to much power, making I’m sure end-users would be shocked stuff unavailable or muting it just because if they found out how much pressure it has some background music is too much social media sites are under from big I would like to strip them of that right. this multinationals and powerful industry could also be seen as a way of promoting lobbies. I understand that it’s tricky to run the music piece. I have had my own videos a media producing business if people just blocked in countries because they had copy and distribute the material without a minor piece with background music. any payment. However the Internet has disrupted many businesses over time, and YES, i have seen this many times. it’s time that the entertainment business They have too much power - and it aligns with the Internet, not the other way is very often abused.I understand around. Services like Netflix are a good why bootlegged movies gets taken example of how consumers are happy to down, but they’re going too far with pay for a decent entertainment service still pictures and simple animations.

Obviously, rights-holders should have Yes. The business side of music is some control over how their content is taking advantage of both the artists used. Removing YouTube videos because and the public in an unfair way of a song that happens to be playing the background, or removing parody I do understand why some gets taken down, or humour content, seems silly to me. The music industry must learn to give Yes! See above. We need unfettered ground. It benefits nobody to take down access not curated content. Wedding videos etc, that have background music from discos (that have possibly Yes and although I can understand why I already paid for the music rights). All it still think they should be less in control. promotes is hostility towards the industry which is going to hurt their cause. It’s their content so most of the time I understand if they want to take it down. Yes. Posting an entire movie on YouTube is obviously illegal but the principle of ‘fair I support some stakeholders such use’ must be upheld when the content as film and music industry in serves a purpose. Often the rights-holders protecting proprietary rights of artists simply shoot themselves in the foot etc. Yes, I understand why some regardless by depriving many people of content gets taken off the web a chance to learn about their content. no, copyrights should be respected I can understand

I think rights holders should be allowed I think the existing systems errs too to remove content being used with out far towards protecting the interests of consent...although as an artist it can copyright holders. The copyright system EU Responses to Question 2 87

was originally intended to strike a balance student who uses hyperlinks in her blogs to between the interests of producers of ensure no plagiarism exists, all materials content and the public. Over the years used can be traced back to the original content producers have lobbied to extend site of use. Artists for example, usually copyright unfairly in their favour, and require to be contacted with a request to ultimately against their own interests. use their material. Open source means Making content widely available raises that anyone can use it without having to public awareness, ultimately increasing cite where the work has come from rewards for content producers. Secondary uses of content such as criticism, parody I think the take down process favours and humour should be permitted without the film/music industry and other large interference. Only where there is clear corporations too much and results in intent to deprive copyright holders of the unwarranted removal of legitimate their rights should content be removed creative or critical works. I fully understand and then only after due legal process the value of copyright, but we are losing the balance between protecting the Yes they would definately have too much intellectual property of the copyright control if the proposals were implemented. holder and promoting the public good. This has the potential to totally stifle the Trying to copyright links themselves will legal internet, and would drive online life stifle not only innovation and the sharing underground, as is currently the case in of knowledge, but the inherent value most repressive regimes around the world of the internet itself. There’s a reason addresses start with http - without it, there Their right to make money does not is no ‘internet’ as we know it today trump my right to a simple life.They may wish to be Draconian but must Yes, once something is uploaded to not expect me to pass laws that favour the internet copywrightholders should their industry at the cost of other social understand that their artistic work benefits or liberties.When content is has become property of society! created with the sole purpose of making money then it has to fight to survive, it Not necessarily too much, but they should must not expect special treatment. consider how many more people their content reaches when people share it. In Yes. Some content is copyrighted, and some cases I understand why content gets the holder of that copyright should have taken off, for example if it is used in some the right to determine when and how it is way that it goes against the believes of used. Others should respect that right the makers. Not always tho, sometimes it feels like content is taken off with I believe rightsholders are extreme in their little to none actual legimite reason. actions, bet they’ve sung “happy birthday” and never once paid the copyright fee I understand copyright concerns. The issue for using it every time they sang it. This should be commercial gain, not fair use. song was actually copyrighted by two sisters who were the creators. There Yes. Rightsholders often submit frivolous is absolutely no doubt in my mind that complaints and because the costs of going copyrights are broken by the rightsholders to court against large corporations can be themselves. Yes I understand why some enormous, many sites have removed legal content is taken down, I am an academic content instead of fighting for what is right 88 EU Responses to Question 2

I do not understand why they would like understand why illegal (as CLEARLY to take down photos that have no private defined by laws made for everyone’s material in them. The film industry goes to good, not just for the good of corporate RIDICULOUS lenghts with their cencorship, money), deeply offensive, or content that taking down videos with a small clip from breaks a particular site’s code of conduct a movie, which should be protected by fair will be removed, but corporations have use. Same thing with the music industry. no right to dictate what information gets shared simply because they have money. Yes...for example, that Italian guy has the The argument that their businesses are rights to the ‘Che’ picture, but if it is used suffering if they don’t is pure garbage in a creative way it should be fine & I don’t think companies should get a cut either I understand that there are certain things that are offensive or violent yes yes that should not be shown but censorship has to be objective. Yas they do Les auteurs/créateurs doivent pouvoir They are private companies and they gérer leurs oeuvres en fonctions try to earn as much money as possible. des licences qu’ils choisissent. That’s what companies do. But they do it without a blink of compassion, regards The rightholders have definitely too much for human rights, or even decency. It is say in which content is taken down from up to the regulations to keep them in the web. The culture must be free the right path. Work that is not a mere copy of their original content should not yes they overuse their money and be removable without a court order. influence to corrupt politics instead of reviewing their business model I think rightsholders are struggling to maintain control of their intellectual yes and yes property rather than have too much say. Yes, I understand that inappropriate The only case I can think of where I content is taken off the internet. think the rights laws were abused was with “The Innocence of Muslims” where I do not always see the reason for certain there was a clear political agenda content being removed. While I understand removing entire movies, etc, I think it’s They clearly have too much rights, as pathetic to remove a video in which evidenced by YouTube’s automated the background music is copyrighted DCMA takedown system being far too when nobody is turning a clear and frequently abused, and legal content being obvious commercial profit from it, and it removed because the person uploading considerably lowers my esteem for the the content does not have the money artists whose labels do this. Likewise for and resources to dispute the industry parody and humour content - these are in court, effectively creating a sort of essential elements of our culture and corruption as the big companies can use summarily removing them is thuggish their influence and money to deny people the possibility to have their case tried in No & Yes court, and even “buying” their way out of court. While I do understand certain Yes, they have far too much say. I content being removed, I think the laws on EU Responses to Question 2 89

this are outdated and outright damaging I do think that the rightsholders (such consumers, and needs a redesign that as the film or music industries) have too mirrors the developments of the internet much say in which content is taken down era, and that is less focused on giving from the web? I don’t really understand the industry power over the consumers, why some content (e.g., pictures, videos, instead protecting both consumers and gifs) get taken off the Internet? intellectual property. Today’s laws are damaging for everyone, and the proposed Yes, the “rights holders” are laws would only make matters worse not always the creators of the content, let the artists decide I think that to a certain extent, and to a certain extent only, living artists no... but censoring abusively is the (but not dead ones, obviously) have way for some content to be deleted the right to decide how their work will be or should be distributed. As I think it is ridiculous that when availability for commercial “rightsholders” and could be global from a technical viewpoint, their turf wars, fuck them! the market is still segmented into areas where you may or may not access the Once a content has been released, with information, based on DRM. There is an associated license, there is no reason mandatory free circulation of services to take it off the internet, as long as its within the EU it’s great time that same usage respects the terms of the license. principle be extended to the world (with Concerning derived works of an original exceptions remaining... exceptional). work, whether such a license should diffuse is not as simple. License of an Yes, they are too restrictive on culture artwork should probably not diffuse 2. Their film, their rights. Why when the derived work does not have the should swe see bits for nothing. same appliance at all. For example, it is normal that a remix music should conform 1) originators should have the right to to the original music license, whereas control their inhouse produced content, a video where an artwork happens in but not to block non commercial use the background should not be subject and sharing of content provided this is to the license, nor should be a parody. done without meaningful alteration, full accreditation and disclosure of origin and Rightsholders are failing (again) to a transparent “poster string” including understand what is happening. People are the first “sharer/web poster”.2) yes and MORE likely to pay money for something both commercial interests and social if they are confident it is worth it. They mores/cultural sensibilities should be simply will not be tricked into paying respected, though non transparent and non money in the hope that something is any debatable censure from a state/regional good. We have moved to a new model. governing body can never be acceptable. They can either adapt, or wage their foolish Quixotic war and be left behind. I do understand, and I worry about criminal and terrorist use of the internet, Yes to part one of the question and no to but I worry MORE about censorship. part two. I must say the question is not France has always been so proud of its at all well formulated. Ighly confusing. free press, and it is terrible that they tightening down on this. Very wrong. 90 EU Responses to Question 2

I don’t really know about these issues service where you could watch movies or TV series in their original language legaly I haven’t noticed. I don’t always understand I understand the need to remove very offensive videos but without checks to I appreciate Them taking some commercial financial / political interests content content down, but common sense must will.be removed simply because it be used and acceptance of credit given doesn’t fit into a particular agenda by small private users who have the inability to pay large licensing costs. No. Yes ofcourse I do. I think it ok. to have copyright and the right yes indeed! to restrict the usage of SELF PRODUCED COMMERCIAL stuff. Such as music for Yes, for privacy sale and movies for sale, books for sale, paintings for sale etc. - from professional Yes, rightholders have far to much to say artists. EVERY other thing made public must regarding what should be displayed on be AND STAY open source. Additionally the web or not. The users are sometimes the private user must have the right to considered as guilty by default, even withdraw every bit of his own self fabricatet when they are sharing their own content, data without exception - like a private and there are far too much contents copyright - only other private persons removed from the web without reasons. should be allowed to save these public Many takedowns seem abusive, a.o. private data for their private use without because their rules are not clear. permission of the owner. Companies should NOT in ANY CASE be allowed to use data of I do think that rights holders and industry any kind of private origin without especially groups have too much say in online expressed permission of the owner. Terms content. The stupid thing is (to use music of use must NOT in ANY CASE be allowed lyric videos as an example), even if the which restrict users with global phrases to person uploading the video posts details allow changing automaticly the ownership of the song, the artist and copyright of private data.I understand why some details, the content can still be taken down content is deleted when company owned because it was “not authorised”, which copyrights for comercial products like inadvertently stifles or reduces knowledge mentioned above are violated. I do agree of the song/artist, which impacts with deleting this data. BUT: Commercial legitimate sales. They are affecting their copyright should end after 10 years without own bottom line in the pursuit of profit. the possibility to prolong this ownership or selling it AT ALL for company owned They have way too many say in that matter. copyright for products they have produced The Internet has no borders and instead themselves (like mentioned above).Private of blocking content in some countries copyright should NEVER END! AND private rightsholders should instead come up copyright should be allowed to be sold with a service which legaly allows you only ONE time. The buyer should NOT be to consume thier content regardless of allowed to sell ANY KIND of copyright where you live e.g. it is sad that netflix for bought from private entities.Copyrights example wasnt avalabe in Austria until should NOT be a trade good. NEVER!!! about a year ago and there was no other EU Responses to Question 2 91

Yes, & yes understand the reasons very well. And copyrighted material should be removed No, what I read gets curiouser and if someone else makes a profit out of curiouser - my tech knowledge it.But the industry can act ridiculous gives no reason for most sometimes, and way too restrictive and harsh for the sake of potential profits. I understand the right’s holders point of view and understand that they don’t Yes. The overreach of copyright want to give away expensively produced protections for rightsholders is malignant content for free. Still, I hold the opinion against average content users, and that they are extremely slow moving often skirting or breaking the law in and that this is damaging to the creative its abuse of censorship-by-copyright industry itself. If you can’t see what others do how can you improve on it? In other I do understand these reactions.They cases, I also noticed some overreactions or are trying to make money from it. But absurdities like the birthday song license sometimes gifs and pictures which are being shared help to spread the yes!! the laws concerning that are out of knowledge of any franchise that is date. is it not possible to consider “sharing” being distributed like that at a very low to be a new form of distribution? in that cost for the owner. So it is mostly just a model the *creators* should get some matter of perspective that is needed. money for each “share.” meanwhile the work is exposed to a wider audience. no, unless it is that the story they tell PLEASE NOTE that I said creators, not doesn’t fit the official narrative? I guess necessarily the “owners” of the work. some might be removed for reasonable safety concerns, like protecting the identity No, I think it’s reasonable that the of children, or something like that rightsholder, whether it be a company or an individual author, should absolutely have Yes, I believe the film and music industries a say in whether or not a creation used have way too much say in which content or posted online without the permission is taken down from the web. It’s very pety of the author or the rightsholder, should when a home video is removed because be taken down. I may not agree with the it has a song from a commercial band share the agencies and the producers take off the authors’ income, but in I gave in trying to understand why which sharing copyrighted content, you’re not content needs to be removed while just screwing over the company, but the other similar content doesn’t seem to author as well, and that simply cannot be. be a problem. Sometimes I think the big companies have too much power These are two separate questions but yes to both I think that’s just too petty. Yes they probably do have too much say I sometimes understand but I certainly don’t agree with some content being If it contravenes copyright it should removed for poorly applied reasoning be permitted to remove it. A person (or company) has a right to their a) Yes.b) Yes. intellectual property. However, if it is only removed because a particular As I am an content creator myself I industry does not approve, then yes, I 92 EU Responses to Question 2

do think that they have too much say. Yes they do have too much say. The internet should be free for all to share and learn. Yes. So often legal content get taken off. I do understand that material which is I understand the rightsholders positions, clearly illegal have to take off the Internet however changing copyright laws to ruin and take away public domain is wrong, Large media organizations collectively the and those involved should be penalized rights holders for the vast majority of the from removing public domain property. web content have too much say over the All for the sake of making them more mater. They arbitrarily cause important money. The internet is there for sharing, content to disappear with out providing and those that like what they see or hear, proper public explanation in plane end up buying the rightsholders content. language. This all causes me to question Especially with the legitimate avenues why some of the pictures, Videos etc. get like iTunes and Google’s Play Store. taken down from web sites I visit frequently. (A) No. (B) yes Yes i understadn and suopport the ownership of rightholders and believe Yes, they are attempting to monopolise there should be respected incl. allowing and censor what is freely shared and ways like removing own contant if this is discussed online and must be stopped. I mine. Having said this still those groups understand they may be attempting to of rightsholders should not be over protect their copyrights, but there is no representant in committees who decide reason why their copyright to limited about the way the internet works information should be given priority over and above the free speech and sharing In certain cases, yes. Especially of knowledge and information in wider in Germany with GEMA - we are public, which is crucial for democracy unable to see many videos available and free-market capitalism to function. elsewhere around the world. I respect the copyright wherever it´s I actually understand the rightsholder. neccessary, but some ppl. overdo it The creators of content, the sometimes. If something´s not available artists, need to be protected anymore on CD/DVD and there´s no way to buy it regulary, posting such content I think a fair balance needs to be is rather “fair use”. What´s the sense of struck between protecting intellectual removing i. e. “The Chipmunk Adventure” property, and the freedom of individuals from Youtube, when we Germans aren´t to share, create, innovate etc. Heavy even allowed to buy it from the US handedness is not the answer because the DVD or BluRay ain´t available here in Germany (and won´t for the next They should be allowed to take years or decades, whyever it´s so)? down their own content, yes. And yes, I do understand it they are violently trying to hold on to a dying system. They habe too mich influence in this case Yes I do think they (rightsholders) have I think that copyright holders have too much say over what content is taken a right to prevent free distribution down from the web. Sometimes it’s hard of their copyrighted work. EU Responses to Question 2 93

to understand the reasons behind the restricts freedoms, sometimes it decision to take some content down protects someones work. Don’t know

Righsholders should be in charge of Up to a certain point yes. People should their rights and decide themselves when get paid for their work, but the way it is they make them available online usually being prosecuted and imposed the content the rightholders propose Yes, the default appears to be a “shot first, it’s frightening and dangerous in a not get confirmation later” type of mentality so long term. This kind of policies are easy to turn into laws and force people As far as I understand it, content gets taken to do things their own and only way down because the companies think, that leaving the content up will cause them It is understandable that artists pecuniary losses. At least that is always authors and those representing them the argument, as far as I understand. I need to make a living and that not all think they are wrong, and they will not content can be freely accessible. have any losses. And yes, I think they have too much of a say. I think that the artist’s Yes, big business has to much power. The opinions and preferences concerning their people are the ones to suffer from this. It creations are also violated. Film and music kills creativity and cultural exchange. I industry do not serve the purpose of the have seen translated content from Asia artists, protecting their rights, rather they been taken down as a consequence only work in their own interest. I think no one in the western world will ever artists should have more control over their see this content. That can not be a work, even if they use the music industry good thing! I have no problem with to produce and sell their work. Of course tackling straight up criminal piracy, but the music industry deserves a share of unfortunately it doesn’t stop there. the profit, but the larger part should go to the artist, not to the industry as it is now Oh yes!

In some cases, censorship is too much Yes, at times I do

Usually the entity requiring content It’s getting more and more ridiculous. You to be taken down is the company that can’t even take pictures anymore without pays the artist, not the artist himself. the risk to break some copyright laws.

I understand why some content is taken Rightsholders definitely have way too down, but I have also experienced much to say in which content is taken situations where legitimate content down from the web. Only recently Sony has been removed by big companies removed content from Youtube that who have no right to do so they didn’t own, but only licensed. The original publisher had to fight back to They do have too much say. get his own content back on the internet. These are not incidents and for original If someone holds copyright then they content creators there is hardly a way logically should control its use on the to fight those huge organisations web. Whether the copyright is over- zealous in the first place is another matter. I understand, that those who hold the Sometimes copyright unnecessarily rights to a piece of media have the right 94 EU Responses to Question 2

to defend it, and thus ask that unlawful to go. That should always be free. uploads be taken down even if in many cases this has nothing to do with the Yes, they have to much say and content interests or will of the creator of said media. often gets unfairly removed. And in quite a few cases this is not even in accordance with fair use legislations. Sometimes content is removed With that said: the hyperlink structure and for no apparent reason links themselves are NOT something you I understand that some copyrighted can own. That notion is as ridiculous as content gets removed, and I claiming a Road belongs to you because understand that. However, I do not you painted a picture on the pavement understand why news material is Yes they do. deemed «unavailable» in my region.

Content already taken down too often Copyright rules are already broken and for no good reason, don’t understand why should not be applied to everyday linking some things need to be taken down at all on Twitter and Facebook. Uses of parody and humour, such as funny gifs, should be in part, yes. i see the need to somehow acceptable uses of copyrighted content, but suppress the sharing of complete works are often removed automatically without that are the base of revenue for the any way to appeal the removal of content. rights-holders, but there already are cases of restriction that are more than yes, they have too much power questionable. the case of hyperlinks – online and I understand why some the online equivalent of pointing your content can be removed finger and saying ‘this one, over there’, I understand that Youtube videos featuring or calling a thing by its name – would content copied or adapted verbatim, mainly target discourse about things, through tactics as adding a frame around a not infringement on the rights to things. video, or having some unrelated ‘cover art’ given what a touchy subject legal action accompany a music track that is licensed, against speech is already when based should not yield profits for the infringing on law to uphold human rights, it’s clear uploaders, and should yield profits to the how unacceptably infringing it would rightful owners, or be taken down. However be to allow rights-holders the ability to I’m going to have to draw the line on disallow speech they find inconvenient. citations. As per Dutch law, discussing an Producers should have a certain control article, or voicing an opinion on a creative of their material. Shure. I am a producer work usually involves a reasonable form myself. But I consider it wrong that of citation. ‘Citing’ in video form often somebody in the USA may see something, concerns using a fragment of a licensed I might not. Frontiers are not that relevant work. Commenting on such a work is a in the internet, that’s a fact. So a video unique creative work in itself, and in my free to USA on Youtube should be free opinion should be possible as speech. in EU as well. But again: Producers of Overreach on behalf of the content owners images and films should have certain of content cited usually stifles the work of control about their material. But Snippets critics and commentary in general. Shows, of Text in a serach engine is just necessary especially concerning political subjects and to make a informed decision where opinions need to be able to be discussed. EU Responses to Question 2 95

This often requires citing or referring the yes and no, subject matter itself. I often find that criticism (say a bad review on a game I have a rough idea of the reasons, accompanying footage of a game failing) but I don’t think taking off legal is valid and valuable, and have seen that content from the Internet is a footage of games has been used to censor solution to the copyright problem. such criticism and review. This I consider to be gross overreach. The line is often very Yes, definately clear in distinguishing what is a derived I think that these publishers have far too work ‘in name only’, fake criticism to mask much influence over the web. All they have the illegitimate upload of a licensed work. to do is make a complaint, and hosting Works that only ‘coincidentally’ happen services (like YouTube) instantly comply, to contain other works, such as home with no scrutiny of the copyright claim recordings with radio or TV broadcasts in the background, tend to degrade the Yes. They have way too much say already original work to such a degree, that I do and don’t need any more rights online than not consider these to be ‘usable’ to pirate they already have. Yes. Content is taken an original work. Taking them down on down due to intellectual property rights that basis, is something that I consider to be rather heavy handed, as often the home I get why content is taken down. If it recording itself would be it’s own work. A obviously infringes copyright and hurts the compromise for instance could be reached, creator and this creator is not credited for if an ‘offending’ work in the background the work, measures should be taken. But could be blocked out, which is especially the way music and films are consumed simple in the case of audio. It can also today is so much different that it was 10 be said that radio broadcasts are usually years ago, it appears the rights holders already paid for by taxpayers via some still live in the past when it comes to separate, older tax, such as is the case in availability of content. It’s much more the Netherlands (kijk- en luistergelden) by their own fault than the fault of the user. all citizens. Although this does not cover (extensive) retransmission and broadcast Rightholders stifle free speech and a of the original work by its listeners, it free evolution of the Internet. I never is somewhat fair to assume that when understand - from a legal standpoint something is broadcast over the medium - why content can be removed. of TV and / or radio, that it will be present in a pervasive manner, that replaying •Different countries in the EU have / recording the work unintentionally different rules on what use of copyright cannot be regarded as an infringement. material is permitted, making it I could, by those strict standards, claim difficult for Internet users to know public space by broadcasting my own if what they are doing is legal. privately licensed works in public space, and then have all public recordings All this copyright discussion is not about the censored citing my content rights. rights of the authors but about those who market content. They should vanish for ever Two questions: Yes- Yes together with their old business models.

YESNO Copyrights are important, nevertheless these should not be an excuse 96 EU Responses to Question 2

to limit internet access much power together with all these secret services and governments all Fair use must be respected around the world.Otherwise there would not be this passenger name record in I can see this as the “anti pirate bay” Europe. Otherwise there would not be legislation, which would prevent websites this outrages trying to reinstall Safe- that share links to copyright content Habour and otherwise there would not without hosting the content themselves be this sniffing around in our financial from hiding behind the “we don’t host the transactions and bank-accounts!And content, just a link to something available also otherwise there would not be all elsewhere” argument all the time. However this downtaking of the music-platforms it’s a dangerous precedent, and won’t which we Linux-Users set up (Spotify, solve the problem, DHT (distributed hash Groveshark and others) and otherwise tables) already provide a link-free way to these film-lobbyists would not try to buy find such content by the use of so-called our courts and abuseing them agains us “magnet links”, and even the aged “.torrent” filesharers!! Stopp these lobbyists!! Stop the file format, is a link to a link to something EU-Commission! Stop the us-government that is copyrighted, not a direct link, so and the british government from spying would arguably not be covered. That out our data and abuseing our data!! leaves regular web links, and publishers such as news papers, and whistle blowers yes, although much content is such as Aaron Schwarz, who have, or removed unneccesarily link to publicly available content - and then question becomes one of liability, yes, I respect that content must vs. visibility vs. accountability... If people be protected but has become to make web links public for the benefit of expensive and controlled. search engines, but try to block humans from using them, or try and sue journalists Yes, I think corporations have too much who expose information that is public. The say in this matter, which is a matter of responsibility should lay with the provider public concern and ought to be decided of the content, to make it available securely, by public consent. I understand that there and selectively... and in cases where are rules about what can and can’t be content is stolen, or being distributed shared on the Internet and how things illegally, other laws are already in place. are shared (see creative commons) and I think common sense ought to apply No I dont really care about that which does not mean the common sense issue as regards rightsholders of corporations and politicians or some elite but the common sense of the vast we need to create universal fair use majority of humanity who are using the rights to balance the rights of the internet to create a better world for us all public and the individual rightholders Yes. I am a copyrights holder and I Yes I do. On the other hand, the Internet understand the system clearly. It is never forgets. Once it’s there, it’s there flawed as it currently exists as virtual forever and any attempt to remove it only media is clearly not the same substance increases the popularity of the content. as printed media, being transient and temporary. Copyright laws need Yes these rightholders have far too to be updated to insure freedom of EU Responses to Question 2 97

speech and flow of information This is the type of thinking that belongs to the previous century ... There are new They do have too much say and I do not business models today that can very understand why some content (e.g., pictures, well make the right holders more money videos, gifs) get taken off the Internet. and there are many capable people out there Who can help the rights holders I’m too ignorant to have an opinion. in this direction .... Look at Spotify, etc..

I don’t understand the process Yes, I believe that rights-holders have been given too much say.On the Yes to both questions contrary, regulations should be in favour I understand why some content of the public for ensuring freedom of get taken off the net, but most of expression and access to information the times the reason is not fair and knowledge for everybody.

Yes, they have too much say. For Yes, they do. Yes. instance, taking down unfavourable Yes. And I think they often abuse that power. reviews or parodies Yes. For example, it’s way too easy to Yes, in the sense that they have too much take down a video from youtube if you say in how expensive and legally risky it is are a rights holder. There is almost to keep certain content on the web. While no way to even contest the claims. the law may allow the content, it can be far too expensive to get a court ruling I do think they have too much say in that. saying so, and can expose the webhost to If a content is to be copyright protected unreasonably large liability should the it should never be published. Otherwise court find the content infringing. Thus, upon this kind of policy towards protecting a complaint, most content is treated as rightsholders (usually not the real creator guilty of infringement until proven innocent or owner but some bigger company publishing the work) can give rise to really Yes, I believe corporations have too much unfair behavior from rightsholders. An say in which content is taken down from extreme example is that it could even the web, and I dpn’t understand why come to the point when a publisher of a some content get taken off the Internet. song could demand everyone singing (not I do not understand why some as performance but even in their own home things get taken off the internet. by themselves) or listening to their songs a fee or tax. It might seems far-fetched but I don not think that rightsholders currently if you buy any physical media have the right for this (writable CD/DC, memory card, etc.) that is capable of recording (in any format) any this is not something they should have copyrighted material you are required by 100% permission to do! A short explanation law to pay an extra tax (in Hungary). This with a link to the original content should be implies that you are going to use the media left behind each time something is taken to store material on it for which you have offline. Also there should be a systematic not paid. Therefore it is automatically way to “count” and aggregate each assumed that you are planning to violate action so that we can get a big picture. copyright laws in a way or another.The 98 EU Responses to Question 2

second thing is not strictly copyright I do because no longer can we say listen related but still about rights. There has to my music to someone else, even if we been abuse of its rights by Monsanto to buy it legally. They sell us something and get someone pay for something they never then tell us we can’t even use it on another intended to grow on their land (Monsanto of our own devices. Imagine if a Sony CD crops were grown on the land next to the could only be played on a Sony CD Player. person in question and some of that crop This is what is happening to the internet. spread to his land therefore giving the legal My friends can’t lend me music for a party right to Monsanto to sue this person). The because it’s tied to a only their computer moral of the story is that any company or individual might impose something How and why would hyperlinks unfair if rightsholders get even more be copyrighted? Uses of parody rights and they can lobby for whatever and humour should be acceptable they wish to achieve. This whole system uses of copyrighted content. is flawed because we are all entitled to rights as well as the rightsholders (that The problem is that the rights-holders is using our senses and living our lives are all old-men that fail to understand without having to pay for everything the value of the free advertisement that suits corporate agenda). Whenever they’re getting off people. They get their they lobby for their rights the rights of way just because they have money everyone else seems to be forgotten. I do not believe that links should be I think it depends on the situation and that’s copyrighted, only content. If a portion of what copyrights and trademarks are for content is peripheral to the item posted it should not be cause for removal of the I understand that they need to control their post. At times there may be legitimate content, but at this moment they have the cause for removal of content but there right and the practical waz to remove, but must be a mechanism in place fair to both they bear no practival responsibility for sides. Rights holder, the more powerful false removals. The average person cannot they are, intimidate providers and posters defend his own content against large companies and copyright organizations. Sometimes they do but I also think an adjustment is needed when it comes to our To follow up to question one, very often (mine included) attitude to and respect for I have seen acceptable or legal content original creative work and the individual removed by automatic systems (“bots”) who created it. If the music industry in that remove content regardless of particular however hadn’t been so greedy context, permissions or other mitigating for so long (pre internet) perhaps people factors. Often there is no way to appeal would have a different attitude now. this process or be informed or contacted ahead of time it is creating a culture Yes, they have too much say, and where large IP holders can more or less no, I don’t fully understand bully the public into doing what they I do indeed believe rightsholders have want with very few repercussions. too much to say in a number of matters. Yes, I feel that rightholders do Although I see why things get take off the have too much to say. web, I disagree in how it makes them lose money. There’s numerous that provide EU Responses to Question 2 99

their content for free, to let people hear the usage of any kind of material. But or see it, before deciding whether it’s this action is so inconsistent one has to worth purchasing or not. I am one of wonder why right’s holders bother the those that like to view/hear/experience way they do when a dozen uploads of videos, music, or similar things to know a song on YouTube can exist for years whether It’s worth the money or not untouched and a gameplay video from a videogame gets flagged. There’s a Yes they have too much say and although modicum of moderation to be found here I can of course understand why some content gets taken down, legislators The real problem is that the rights pay far more attention to the wants holders are never the actual creators of rightsholders than they do to the but rather big corporations. electorate - which is unjust, and means that would ultimately result in the ability Yes, reasonable uses of protected material and freedom to use the internet being (e.g., incidental use) should not be vilified negatively impacted upon for socio- economically disadvantaged internet Yes they do. There have been many users. It’s blatant elitism/classism. stories of content incorrectly taken anything else is simply pandering to down, without genuine investigation vested interests. vested interests have Yes and despite what some rights-holders more say than the individual citizen. say, hyperlinks themselves should not be I understand, however fair use should copyrighted. Copyright rules are already be possible. Also, blocking content broken and should not be applied to will not get them more profit. On everyday linking on Twitter and Facebook. the contrary, it will create a bad Yes they have far too much power sentiment for those companies I do understand that right holders want I understand that many artists need to protect their content, they should have to make money based on royalties the last word in taking down content and liscencing sometimes, but it from a site if they own the copyrights. still seems unfair I can’t see that However I am against preemptive taking content and often don’t know why down of content as it often prevents Yes. I understand why it is removed in creating derivative work or fair use. the case of copyright, but most often I think that content on the web should There’s a line between Fair Use and stay on the web, unless there is a good copyright infringement. All too often I reason to remove it. Not just political, feel rights holders feel their intellectual or to keep the public in the dark properties or copyrights are threatened, Too much is taken down, but some or will be threatened, and take immediate rights must be judiciously preserved action instead of considering the situation. Do pirates exist? Does copyright I think there is a lack of counterbalance infringement of many kinds exist? Yes. if material is blocked despite But it’s not excuse to label content beeing legal. I do understand why creators and boogeymen and commit to some content do get removed but I an extreme prejudice policy of stifling also think the current commercial 100 EU Responses to Question 2

copyright terms are ridicously long They do have too much power, yes. I don’t understand. No, I believe in democracy more than the wish of publishers to control the They hold all the cards as far as content use of public comment, examination creators go, they have the back up from and communication of what occurs legal teams worth millions of euros that and is expressed online. normal people who, under fair use should be allowed to repurpose with respect to the Yes. This can result in people original, wouldnt be able to pay for at all getting unfairly penalised despite using content fairly not sure bout that ...intellectual property rights i imagine, Save the Link question 3: Do you believe platforms such as SoundCloud, Twitter, or YouTube should face regulations requiring them to monitor your Internet activity, or filter and remove content you produce and share? Or should alleged infringement have to be proven in a court of law before censorship occurs?

European Commission consultation question: Mere conduit/caching/hosting describe the activities that are undertaken by a service provider. However, new business models and services have appeared since the adopting of the E-commerce Directive. For instance, some cloud service providers might also be covered under hosting services e.g. pure data storage. Other cloud-based services, as processing, might fall under a different category or not fit correctly into any of the existing ones. The same can apply to linking services and search engines, where there has been some diverging case-law at national level. Do you think that further categories of intermediary services should be established, besides mere conduit/caching/hosting and/or should the existing categories be clarified? 102 EU Responses to Question 3

Total number of responses: 1833 Unique responses: 1456

“No, I am strongly opposed to internet platforms being required to carry out monitoring or filtering of users’ content. This is a quasi-judicial role that private companies are neither competent nor empowered to carry out. It ignores the due process of law, of any description.”

Monitoring billions of posts per day results Alleged infringenment should have in automated systems that unfairly censor to be proven in a court of law before legal speech and expression. • When applying censorship. The EU Commission websites make decisions on what is legal has proposed an idea that would content they are acting like courts and require platforms to censor the web judges, a role they are not qualified for, by monitoring and removing content and are very likely this delicate balance posted by Internet users. I do not support wrong. • When individuals monitor content this so-called ‘duty of care’ provision they apply their own individual quirks in the Digital Single Market plan.When and morality, often inconsistently. individuals monitor content they apply their own unique quirks and morality, often “Infringement” shouldn’t be illegal inconsistently. For example Facebook permits hate speech, but bans nudity. Court of law, or at least some serious user protest I do not believe in the censorship that will happen if say twitter has to I oppose censorship by platforms and enforce, at will, as they will err on the am in favour of the latter option. side of caution, stifling free speech!

should be decided by a court They shouldn’t face regulations of that kind. This would only serve content Monitoring should not occur marketing but not the common public. without proven infringement Therefore it’s in the interest of the I do not believe in supervision by anybody, public to keep this as fee as possible. unless there is a legal requirement, No, they should be focusing on making proven before a legal court. their service better for their users. Websites should not be required to monitor Whenever they remove content that the internet activity of their users. The is not inflamatory, racist or moraly amount of people using these services and problematic. This is probably more amount of content uploaded every hour important to be on the look out fore would make this incredibly impractical. No and Yes EU Responses to Question 3 103

No Yes before a removal could be forced.

No,platforms should not perform this role. I am against all regulations that But it should if possible be undertaken by monitor. I strongly believe in free an independent institution. Postings which speech as a necessary way to deep incite to hate, terrorism, discrimination democracy and higher awareness for etc. should be taken down automatically, all.Even when I disagree to certain with a right to judicial review for those views that are published. I cherish who posted it. Others may need to the freedom to express ourselves. be put to a court before removal. there should be no censorship! no censorship Privacy is equally valid on the second internet as in anywhere else.

yes, I do think that some kind of monitoring Not sure is ok. If a violation is suspected, initial takedown should be quick. But if the The EU Commission has proposed an idea takedown is challenged by the uploading that would require platforms to censor user, it should be reverted immediately the web by monitoring and removing and, upon demand of the alleged copyright content posted by Internet users. I do holder, be proven in a court of law. not support this so-called ‘duty of care’ provision in the Digital Single Market While automated processes may result planMonitoring billions of posts per day in unfairly removing/blocking legal results in automated systems that unfairly content, if it is monitored by humans, censor legal speech and expression.When those who monitor tend to exercise their websites make decisions on what is legal “value judgements”, so that there will content they are acting like courts and always be a risk that their decisions will judges, a role they are not qualified for, be biased, prejudiced and inconsistent. and are very to get the balance wrong. Example provided by “savethelink”: When individuals monitor content they Facebook permits hate speech, but apply their own unique quirks and morality, bans nudity.The question is also wether often inconsistently. For example Facebook it is appropriate for the websites to permits hate speech, but bans nudity. judge what is legal and what is not. And settling these types of disputes in They are not courts of law, after all. courts is just a waste of juridical resources. The courts should be prosecuting and It should be proven in a court of law. punishing criminals instead of enforcing broken copyright laws that haven’t been Court of Law. Too often unpopular actualised since the times of the printing not illegal points of view have press. Society has changed fundamentally been monitored or removed since then, and so should copyright laws.

They should not be forced no to do this themselves no, alleged infringement should sounds right be proven in a court of lax

No.Infrigement should be proven I don’t think it is the role of companies 104 EU Responses to Question 3

to filter and/or remove content. It leads Alleged infringement should be proven in a to inconsistencies which can be viewed court of law before censorship is allowed. in Facebook policies, for example. Not required!!! The companies do self no. the best monitoring and control is regulate and often use political correctness done on a broad scale- every person and not reality. Self regulation should making their own judgement and be subject to open and even fielded response, then these either adding or protection for those who they censor not adding up to some consensus and the 3 strikes and you shut out will fester a sore known as a class system Monitoring is a waste of energy which leads to loss of free thought. The and it gives «monitorers» a huge censor and the privately ran process for level of power that is unfair reinstatement of removed items must be open to liable challenge in legal courts of Arbitration maybe before going the country of the listing persons origen to a court would be fair No. This is spying. If there is an alleged 1) The internet has allowed for a mass infringement, take it to court content creation. Such regulations would limit possibilities offered by the creation I do NOT believe that social media should and sharing of content. Additionally, it be able to monitor internet activity not would be very possible that platforms directly connected with their service. And over do the monitoring and filtering to if content is blocked or removed, there avoid problems, and that in turn could should be an appeals process possible. make people refrain from posting content But having to bring every “infringement” if it is only to be taken down soon. It to a court of law is not sensible. is a vicious circle that should not be fed. 2) Alleged infringements should be No, as with any infringement, it proven in a court only if it can be proven should need to be proven. that a remunerated illegal activity is taking place. By expanding copyright no they shouldn’t monitor our activity and exceptions, many currently infringement alleged infringements should be proven in cases would not even be taken to court a court of law before censorship occurs no, the internet should be kept open, No, I do not believe internet platforms such the producer should be responsible as the above should be required to monitor for the content, not the platform. user activity, because it will inevitably be taken out of hand and ultimately result in It is impractical in almost every way a Zero Tolerance Policy across the board. for the owners of platforms like Twitter Fair Rights usage would be threatened, and YouTube to monitor all of the and even minor instances where no harm content that users post. An enforcement is intended would be turned against of this will inevitably lead to overly the user(s) to unduly punish them. broad filters that will impede people from using their freedom of speech. It should be proven in a court, obviously

I think it has to be proven in a court of law. legal action before infringement Otherwise they can remove anything they disagree with whether others do or not should be proven EU Responses to Question 3 105

No platform no matter how big or Alleged infringement would need to be small should be able to censor content argued at court. Suppliers and providers based on unreliable data, as often can’t be engaged in the business of provided by media corporations. censorship. If anything, offending content Furthermore, no one’s data should ever is the responsibility of the poster. be monitored, no matter the reason. They can filter but mot charge me for In the Commission’s Digital Single Market the content I place on there plateform. plan, they proposed the idea of a ‘duty of They are juste a tool, a récipient, a care’ that would require intermediaries plateform NOT LÉGI$LATOR$! to proactively monitor, and remove content posted by Internet users on their Infringement should be proven first platform. Monitoring billions of posts per day results in automated systems No. There must be no censorship of the that unfairly censor legal speech and internet. Any alleged infringement needs to expression. When websites make decisions be proved in a court of law! This must not on what is legal content they are acting be left to private companies to determine like courts and judges, a role they are No. Infringement should have to be not qualified for, and are very likely this proven in court before censorship is delicate balance wrong. When individuals enacted. If content is censored before monitor content they apply their own it is ruled by an impartial and official individual quirks and morality, often party, the censorship is unfounded inconsistently. For example Facebook permits hate speech, but bans nudity. No, and yes

NO! Proved in court

Court of law ofcourse Any alleged infringement must be proven in a court of law before a link Yes or content are censored. Freedom of infringement must be proven speech and communication must apply everywhere, including Internet. It is not Any alleged infringement MUST be proven acceptable that either content-producers in a court of law. Anything LESS is nothing (publishers, media, etc.) or intermediaries more than hearsay and censorship! have a say in what we say or transmit.

Of course alleged infringement will have NOT AT ALL.. So called infringement to be proven in a court of law before should be made to be proven censorship occurs. Free speech is both a fundamental right in, and a foundational responsibility should land on the characteristic of, [a] modern democracy. poster - give them ( via the website the post is on ) the request to take it The rights holders should need to down so it can be challenged fairly - prove that they actually own the sharing platforms only responsibility rights before content is removed. should be passing on the request

No they should not filter or remove, and ABSOLUTELY NOT. The current policing should be proven in a court of law before system works well enough, and giving 106 EU Responses to Question 3

corporations permission to track no, and have them prove it individuals is an incredibly sticky slope for Human Rights in general That would be a good system only for small services, where qualified individuals Unless content blatantly flaunts could go through content case-by-case. human rights or is degrading or However, with huge platforms, like indecent, infringement should have Youtube, that is impossible to achieve. to be proven in a court of law Automated systems will have a huge margin of error on removing content No. I should be proven on court of course. that is still not infringing anything.

No, they should not monitor I think that Internet platforms are not the internet activity. Yes, it has to court of law, and that they should not under be proven in a court of law. any circumstances be given the rights or duties of a court of law. Censorship Should be proven in court. “Innocent until is a very dangerous thing and any case proven guilty” should means something. related to it should be deliberated on by the court. Also, making Internet platforms Any platform shouldn’t face censor content will shift the burden of legal this type of regulations. proof disproportionately to the Internet Although I have no belief in the court users: they will have to go to court and being fair, it would be better that the prove that their content should not have despotism that is in place now. been removed. Most companies have a legal department, most Internet users It should never be up to the judgement of do not. In any case that concerns human companies what is legal or illegal that is rights there should exist a presumption of not their task. Having to go to court of law innocence, and the issues of censorship first might be a step too far, but I imagine certainly fall under that category there can be a middle way. Also, I don’t think online activities should be monitored The latter at all, again, censorship is only a step away. No and a resounding yes. They must Content can be reported on afterwards prove their case first otherwise if deemed racist, illegal, etc. by anyone. it is the same as tyranny. No, no censoring. Gathering of personal Alleged infringement should have data such as results of such monitoring is to be proven in a court of law insecure such requirements by government before censorship occurs. are unacceptable.It’s publisher/ platform’s responsibility to show content Nobody should monitor my internet only appropriate to their audience. activity. I’m tired of being spied on where ever I go. Especially, as most of the spying Infringment has to be proven first. results in more ads and commercials All platforms must not be held targeted me especially.And yes, alleged responsible for what the users share. infringement should be decided by a No. Yes court, not people with money. They don’t have more right, just because No. Proven in court. they can apply more pressure. On the EU Responses to Question 3 107

contrary, they are more in the wrong. be required to monitor user content as that quickly leads to censorship. Well, it depends weather it is non commercial use or commercial use. If My opinion is that social media platforms it should go to court, it will often be should provide tools for the community very expensive for non commercial to flag up inappropriate content (eg. users, both if they winn or loose. pornography, child abuse, animal abuse), and any semi-automated or automated Biased systems should have human oversight. I believe these systems are already in place No one should be allowed to monitor on Facebook and YouTube and work pretty innocent people. Infringement well. I believe that infringement from a should be proven in court. legal point of view should definitely be aligned with the offline world, where You can’t have algorithms replacing the infringement must be proven due process in courts, but I don’t know through a legal process before action how this would work in practice. We is taken. Obviously any user who faces can’t have courts being flooded with a legal challenge still has the choice to millions of website infringements. That remove any alleged infringing material would be a panacea for lawyers if they feel the challenge is legitimate It has to be proven by court of law. I don’t believe individual websites alleged infringement have to be proven in are qualified to make censorship a court of law before censorship occurs decisions on users’ content. This will result in inconsistent censorship. Corporations should not be given (or trusted with) this kind of oversight Do not regulate my activity. Period. responsibility without some legal Prove it process that is transparent and open to challenge from interested parties I think thats a hard problem..

Big Brothers’ surveillance wether state Some content is simply not fit for a site like agencies or private entereprises is a youtube for example, and youtube should course to free society and should be have the right to control what content is banned and hunted down forever on their site. Taking every censorship to a court of law would be too time consuming It is an impossible task for the platforms to police net activity and will shut them Of course not.Yes, definitely. down if they are forced to comply I do not support monitoring of I don’t think companies should be forced my internet activity. Such alleged to monitor all our activity on the internet. infringement should be proven in a Some services do track a lot of activity, court of law before censorship occurs often to improve services, but for people, who like less tracking, no options would be They should establish clear policies left, if tracking user activity is mandatory. and only enforce those policies (aka terms of use on their site) The latter. Internet services should not 108 EU Responses to Question 3

No...unless the content is Absolutely not. ‘Innocent until proven promoting hate and violence otherwise.’ Each individual case may not need to go through the court but the rules Alleged infringement have to must be clear and the same for everyone. be proven before they can gain acces to change our content. Online platforms must NOT be required to monitor my online activity. Of course No service provider should monitor its most platforms collect some logs users - and such regulations is just a about user behaviour, but requiring a power grab by the mafiaa and like- comprehensive monitoring scheme minded entities.Court process should by law would be outrageous. be mandatory for censoring anything. All cencorship should go No, the Internet has to stay through legal channels free. Sharing is caring. To protect freedom of expression it is Absolutely not ! If the politicians and essential that content should only be the bureaucrats can’t cope with free removed as following due legal process. communication and transparency, Content hosting platforms should not they should step down from their be required to monitor and censor self-centered “high heavens” - content even in the most extreme cases. notice the quotation marks ! Automated systems will not be able to make accurate judgements on what is or is No censorship without prior not acceptable and as hosting companies proof in court of law will wish to avoid potential liability this will result in excessive censorship Yes, please! No they should not have to monitor Prove it in court of law my internet activity. Any infringement It’s unreasonable to expect websites should have to be proven in a court of to monitor all user-created content, law before any censorship occurs and requiring them to do so can Monitoring burden should be done by and will effectively kill many those that care and not be foisted on small players in the game others (unless they offer). However if a I think that if the content is obviously court determines something is infringing not my own, it should be taken down then those that are distributing must stop. on request (like sharing a current run No. Illegal activity should be proven movie) Otherwise, yes there should before actions are taken be some sort of dispute resolution No.No. Something between. Proactive monitoring would have to be implemented by machines due to the I think that perhaps a court case would be number of posts. If this was then filtered by better suited, such as a dispute tribunal or a website, they are more likely to remove other such mediation process. Litigation content and play it safe. This will have a is not a good way to deal with censorship. chilling effect on freedom of speech. Litigation will instigate a war on the rightsholders, much like what happened EU Responses to Question 3 109

with Lars Ulrich from Metallica, when cannot be viewed, consumed, created he went to court with regards to people online based on the individual beliefs of downloading their music for free from the individual shareholders, who generally internet. Noone likes antisocial behaviour. do not possess the legal expertise In the case of censorship for the sake of necessary. This is a fundamental principle limiting knowledge shared between users of the internet that needs to be upheld (i.e., keeping people in the dark), that is just blatant fascism, which is intolerable and Any sort of mass-monitoring should not be will result in the aforementioned resistance allowed. Any content taken down must be to those preventing people access to proven to have been infringing on some information and the right to transparency. law, and the decision must be disputable FB is a great example of hypocrisy when it comes to selectively removing content. It should be proven, especially as Female nipples are banned, yet male active regulations by companies nipples are fine, and hate-speech is could easily lead to censorship of perfectly acceptable. I understand the politically unwanted material while hate speech from the point of view that it claiming copyright infringement. breaches the right to freedom of speech, NO! However most all courts of law are but all in all, we are at the same time corrupt, and ultimately will NOT make banned from exercising our freedom of the difference. The very best protection speech on FB by expressing ourselves with lies with the organizations created and pictures instead of words. There are FB run by the people. Questionnaires like pages inciting violence against minority this, and the voices of the masses need groups, rape violence against women, and to be presented at the highest levels. animal abuse to the extreme. Seriously screwed up. And this is right up there Privacy is every European constitutional wright, only when it involves If I want to express how I feel, or get my terroristic treaths an exception point across, on Facebook, by using a should be allowed to be made music file from another website, I don`t want my freedom to do this debilitated. No they should not have the right Corporations should find ways to make automatically, I think it would have to money, that don`t limit freedom of speech, be proven in the eyes of law first. listening and reading. In what case, there`d be no reason for such activity in legal court. Legal proof in a court of law should be required. The game of account The latter...innocent until proven guilty, deletion is an abuse of power and only with legitimate grounds. and should be condemned.

No platform should be forced to monitor No. activity on behalf of any third party except under judicial review. Any alleged No. Privacy and the ability to infringement needs to be proven in a court speak freely are fundamental of law before censorship occurs. It is not requirements of freedom in society acceptable that the principle of guilty until proven innocent be applied to internet Obvious Pornography should not be content or its users. Corporations should on face book, but the other is more a not have the ability to dictate what can/ matter of a person searching for it.. 110 EU Responses to Question 3

Alleged infringement should absolutely far above any kind of private interest. have to be proven in a court of law Please read Victor Hugo again.If somebody before any cencorship occurs, to do broke my car, I can’t just say « it’s John otherwise would be plain criminal. » and get money from John’s insurance. There’re rules, laws, attorneys, judges, Definitely NOT courts... It’s not the far-west. Internet is not a far-west neither. The same rules Alleged infringement should absolutely and laws should apply. Nowadays, some have to be proven in court before rights-holders are just acting like cowboys. censorship occurs: that’s what a legal system is FOR, after all I believe all content should be allowed, except for (1) hateful, terrorist inspiring No regs trash with no redeeming content, after a thorough review and (2) copyrighted No censorship. Caveat Emptor works used beyond “fair use”, as & self due diligence determined by a court of law Companies that host content don’t I ABSLOUTELY DO NOT think SoundCloud, represent the law and don’t have tools Twitter, or YouTube have any business to judge. They shouldn’t be the ones whatsoever monitoring anyone’s Internet ruling what is “acceptable” or not. activity! If there seems to have been Especially when this ruling is set in an infringement of the law, it must be automated rules that cannot grasp the proven in a court of law and a decision complexity of human communication must be handed down. Vigilantism is a and unnecessarily censor information, social poison to be avoided at all costs! while they are so easy to bypass. No & Yes no and yes. The latter, surveillance has too every infrigement sould be proven many points of failure before any measure is taken. No, requiring sites to monitor everyone I think platforms such as those mentioned is ridiculous and invasive. And like all should monitor content for obvious crimes, they must be proven legally in inappropriate activity (porn, erroneous court before any punishment is meted out material, etc.) to an extent and remove content when notified of an outright I understand that monitoring must be violation of propriety. In some cases, done in order to protect young people infringements will lead to court action, or to stop incitement to violence, sexism when a party needs to pursue its cause or hatred of any kind(including terrorists’ or feels ingregiously attacked. values). I have not idea how this can be done without some form of monitoring. How many times I saw educational content blocked because of a rights-holder Aucune censure sans procès request? How cynical they are? We were university students, not thieves.Please stop No censorship, unless mandated by a judge harass freedom of speech: citation, parody, humour, etc. rights are fundamental to It has to be proven by a court, otherwise sustain our Democracies. And these come you are not in a free country EU Responses to Question 3 111

If a copyright holder can prove to an not another.There is online bullying that IP that protected information is being should be stopped somehow -- no idea used without consent, they can ask it be how. There is also lots of recruitment taken down. If it is not, then the copyright for jihadism and that must be stopped holder should have to use the courts somehow too.I DO think Twitter should be required to take down jihadist accounts Needs to be proven but, beyond that, I don’t think platforms should be required to monitor or filter If the content is criminal and proven to activity in any way shape or form. be so it could be removed following a justified complaint. If not, there should Yes to court-- no to automatic regulation. be no censorship. The platforms should Very badly worded question be monitored only by their users. Plaforms should not ever have to Yes, it shouldn’t be up to the monitor users’ activity. Whatever the companies to remove things for reason.On the other hand, whenever an subjective or vague reasons offending content is reported, it should be manually inspected. People inspecting These platforms should absolutely not be the content should follow a determined forced to monitor and filter our content. written policy, and if necessary, should There’s already far too sweeping and broad be able to ask the assistance of legally laws on this, which can cause rather serious recognized advisors.For example, nudity problems for YouTube content creators, as should not be a banning reason, unless a DCMA strike on youtube will result in the platform specifies it clearly in its restrictions on your account, regardless user conditions. On the other hand, racist, of whether the DCMA claim is legitimate insulting or anti-gay speeches should not or not, and with people making a living be permitted, as they are not even legal. off of making content for the internet If an offending user keeps recidiving after these days, this could have potentially being warned, it is normal to ban him. disastrous consequences. We’ve already seen this happen multiple times. I believe a NO. It is not possible or desirable for them better system could be put in place, where to do this. That would be like making the alleged infringements are reviewed, but phone company liable for nasty phone calls in the end, the responsibility of proving that an infringement is actual infringement When websites make decisions on what and not just a company or intellectual is legal content they are acting like property holder abusing the power given to courts and judges, a role they are not them by today’s broken laws, lies with the qualified for, and are very likely this holder of those rights, not with the person delicate balance wrong. When individuals allegedly infringing and certainly not with monitor content they apply their own content distributors like YouTube and individual quirks and morality, often soundcloud - the core of our justice system inconsistently. For example Facebook is, after all, “innocent until proven guilty” permits hate speech, but bans nudity.

I think there should be some monitoring No to first part, yes to second part. of content but I don’t have an opinion as to who should do it and why that group, Alleged infringement must be proven in a organization, institution, platform and court of law before censorship occurs? 112 EU Responses to Question 3

No, if those who claim infringement Alleged infringement should have to be are willing to cover court costs, and proven in a court of law before censorship nuisance suits are dealt with in the occurs. Please don’t facilitate censorship. spirit the are presented (a farce). Corporations already have too much political power - they don’t need any more. If it’s related to any Criminal or Terrorist activity, it should be removed FREEDOM! without recourse to a Court of Law I prefer a court of law, justice and egality. Computer-based monitoring of content is regularly inefficient and irrelevant. no censorship, freedom of information Policing content ONLY by legal action in sharing between users (kids should court is not practicable either (lenghty, not be allowed unsupervised access to costly). Some middle way has to be found. internet anyway as they have loads of other activities to do during growing No and yes, how can you know it’s up), that’s THE ONLY thing guaranteeing infrigement if it’s not proven. freedom. Not some bullshit regulations ‘to protect’ this and that, no thanks! No, we don’t need the thought police. No need for censorship either No, duty of care amounts to censorship

No to regulations requiring monitoring. No, I don’t believe there Yes, the alleged infringement should be such controls should be proven in court NO. liberty before law. Always in court beyond obvious, fair, and legally Difficult - some content is just not right sound house-rules, censorship should and should be removed. There should not be the task of platforms. be a very good reason for removal. No. I believe that if no profit is being No, I don’t believe such made from the sharing of content (in monitoring is a good idea. the case of bootleg DVDs), and that all rights are attributed to the content The law should be there to protect creators, then I think there is no problem. everybody not simply those with financial ‘muscle’ therfore I think I Fri We live in 2015 this question alone gement should be proved in the courts shouldnt even be asked! What you do on the Internet should not be monitored No, DMCA and similar regulations until a court sees it necessary for an are broken and often abused, investigation, I dont thing we want organisations like the Stasi or the SS back. Court of law prior to censorship The freedom of speech and privacy is very important in a Democraty and we should They should be tried in a court of law. I never sacrifice it for some illusion of safety. would consider it acceptable to have a fast track for this sort of disputes, but it should Infringement should be proven in court not happen as a routine administrative task - there should be clear rules for the obvious Absolutely not. transgressions, the rest should go to court EU Responses to Question 3 113

These platforms should not have the right part of the problem. Imagine a time or the obligation to touch or monitor these when robots patrol shopping centres data AT ALL. The user is responsible for blacking out entire shop windows his stuff. The user owns his texts and his self produced data. If laws are violated, don’t be silly. see my answer to only the user should be taken responsible the previous question for it. NO kind of monitoring should be allowed.Only a court should have the YouTube etc. should be monitoring right to allow the monitoring of persons what is posted on their website in special cases - and this person should They should not monitor anything! Personal be made aware of it.If to many other user rights count higher than copyrights. complain about an especially rude user, nude content or any other kind of content, I don’t think platforms should be this account should be allowed to be monitoring my Internet activity. deleted. But NOT the person be restricted/ thrown out of this platform. Bullies a) No.b) Yes. will get diciplined by the community. Proven in a court of law. Outside regulations should not require Censorship is unacceptable. them to monitor activity. All alleged infringement should by proven in a The second, but as this is costly and court of law before censorship occurs complicated to do already, I understand the idea to get a new law on the way.But Copyright infringement needs I think it is the wrong way nevertheless. to be proven in court, like any infringement in any other media No to question one. These Website-Host are not nearly qualified to act like they are Socalled “social media” is dangerous in full authority to interfere with anything enough - legalese and corporate that is posted and not liked by them. When “RIGHTS” trick human brains out this is given through individuals they most likely ban things from websites on their I believe that content creators and right own behalf based on their morality. holders should be viewed as equals and that we need strong laws to protect Difficult question. There are reasonable freedom of expression through whatever concerns, like when somebody broadcasts means, including remixing existing content, beforehand that he intends to go and as long as it is not outright plagiarism. I shoot up a school, or invites others to feel that the feedback loop would have join in something like that. But equally, to be shortened: For example, if I post a I don’t like the thought that relevant, video that contains infringing material, I possibly true information that is against should be noticed immediately and then an “official narrative” can be taken get the opportunity to change the video down, so that I no longer have access or to contest the infringement statement to a broad spectrum of information and points of view on world events It is the automated monitoring of the internet that results in machines deciding Alleged infringement should have what we can and can not see. Allowing to be proven in a court of law censorship on this level is a very large before censorship occurs 114 EU Responses to Question 3

I don’t think the platforms should be standard copyright prior to TPP legislation held reliable for what the users are doing and they should not filter and/or There should be no monitoring allowed monitor. Surely a reliable way to protect for nobody for profitable reasons. content owners has to be available but Having quidelines in place in general no new regulations are necessary - only (like monitoring hate propaganda) is an the big companies will benefit from this, O.. thing to do, but there is now need and they are already very well able to to monitor my private activities protect themselves!! We don’t need more restrictions - the internet has to stay a There is so much content produced on free place for free responsible citizens! a daily basis that this kind of regulation will seriously damage these platforms. Yes I agree on the latter. Alleged Perhaps they should simply focus on infringement needs to be proven improving the ability to report content before censorship occurs that is considered against standards.

A difficult one this. Where there is obvious No platforms should monitor my Internet infringement of a law (for example, activity, or filter and remove content I inappropriate pictures of minors) then produced and share. Alleged infringement this should be monitored, however, if a should have to be proven in a court post does not contravene any law then of law before censorship occurs a court of law is required to prove that a post should be removed. If content of a Free speech no controlls please post is deemed to be inappropriate, even The EU Commission has proposed an idea if legal, then the law needs to changed, if that would require platforms to censor necessary, rather than a person’s freedom the web by monitoring and removing of speech being removed arbitrarily. content posted by Internet users. I do It should be proven on court not support this so-called ‘duty of care’ provision in the Digital Single Market plan No, they should not be forced to participate in spying on their clients. Alleged They should not be forced to do the infringement should have to be proven in monitoring, any more than a library a court of law before censorship occurs should be forced to interrogate you as to whether or not you photocopied Immediate censorship is an abuse. Anyone pages of a book you borrowed. posting offensive material must be contacted first and requested to remove it They should not be required to be judge, jury and executioner of any activity Must be proven before on the internet. That is the purpose of the law and the court system. Alleged improvement must be proven in a court of laws before censorship No, this is unacceptable in occurs. Further the burden of proof in a free democracy. such cases must rest with the party doing the censorship to prove that the content not sure, information that is deemed inquestion infringes, on their intellectual negative, hurtful, dangerous, property as a direct result of the actions of injurous, by the person it is about, the individual in question. Again subject to should be able to be removed EU Responses to Question 3 115

Definitely not. I don’t think platforms should have any role in monitoring my internet activity or Stop monitoring us interfering with any content I wish to share. Censorship is anathema to a free society I believe that any alleged infringement be proven in a court of law before No, we don’t want censoship censorship is to be taken. It is unfair to people who produce content on youtube Content providers should that may use only a fraction of someone not replace the courts else’s intellectual property. Like Gaming Reviewers, they pour hours of their blood, Courts of law ted to take a long time until sweat and tears into making a high quality a verdict is cast. So wating for a court is not review, and use little to no footage from an option in most cases. Maybe the content a game, but still receive a copyright strike is blocked first and then court decides? But from someone on behalf of the game’s that is not very good either. There need to publisher. Even if the reviewer has had full be tight rules to which everyone can agree public consent from the developer and and the platforms can adhere. I do not like publisher prior to making the review. the platforms monitoring my activities. And even less I like if they share this sensible It should be proven in court information with others, say the NSA or any other Security Agency or even any No, firstly because it infringes on our right other third person. The rights of individual to browse anonymously (just as when privacy protection need to be strengthened watching television, going to the library, again. The use of the information that I or walking in the street observing shop provide needs to be more strictly regulated, windows, or doing just about anything in and it needs to be more transparent than this world). Second, it will lead to people a sentence in the too-long terms of use finding and developing alternative websites. Third, it will be prohibitively expensive Only if content is illegal or not to implement and increase the cost of appropriate (like criminal activity) shopping online. Fourth it could increase should censorship be in question the traffic on the Internet, slowing down overall connections, also increasing Should have to be proven in a court the cost of ISP services to everyone. As of law before censorship occurs with any other part of human life in the modern world, any censorship MUST be Aleged infringement should have authorised by a court so that there can to be proven in a court of law be a PUBLIC hearing and an impartial bevor censorship occurs. decision otherwise the dictates of one No it shouldn’t be routinely monitored, group could drown the voices of the many only prosecuted when copyright No. A definitive “No” to both. infringement damages artists income (not copyright holder’s) Alleged infringement should have to be proven Where prevention ends and starts ooppression? It is a difficult one but I I don’t believe so. “copyright” in the believe in freedom of speech from the age of the internet is D.E.A.D respect from one to another. I don’t think the current tendency of imposing the 116 EU Responses to Question 3

order instead of educating people on certain ideas from the beginning. it. This needs a lot of effort and patience but in long term pays off. Monitoring all Monitoring all activity of all users on such the activities in those networks haven’t platforms amounts to the assumption improved the situation, just produced more that every user is a criminal which is opportunities for other parties to obtain unlawful by itself. Innocent until proven “clients” that seek alternatives to censorship. guilty is one of the core principles of any I think education about the consequences lawful society. It is a huge invasion of of our acts should be a priority privacy and on top of that, as the service providers will easily confirm, incredibly No, certainly not, and yes, of course. impractical from a technical side. They simply do not have the ressources to Everybody is innocent until proven implement monitoring like that quilty. I guess that is just in the USA and not in the EU. Let multinationals and eu When individuals monitor content they politicians prove it in a court of law. If apply their own individual quirks and there is one thing we don’t need is more morality, often inconsistently. Free censorship. It will the death of democracy, expression and free transmission of but maybe that is exactly what the eu information contributes to democracy. is after. The eu can be called a lot of things, democratic is not one of them! No. Immediate takedowns amount to unfettered censorship Internet has to be free, as long as nobody is personally hurt. There should These platforms should not have be no right for people, especially in to monitor my internet activity. high positions, to control the internet and therefore to control the people Has to be proven in court, too much potential for abuse otherwise No one should monitor anyone’s activity on the internet, with the exception naturally, a general preassumption of guilt of those already found guilty of the is unacceptable. access to and collection crime in which is being investigated of individual data must only be granted on a case-by-case basis, via a probably No, of course not. cause against the targeted individual.

No censorship without court action first No immediate censorship, but first prove alleged infringement. No regulations or proofs of hyperlinks at all. They are the heart of free Alleged infringement should be surfing over the world wide web. proven in a court of law

If we want to uphold our law where It is not up to YouTube to play everyone is innocent until proven guilty Internet Police. Let the courts decide this question is a non-issue. Putting those if infringement has taken place powers into money making companies sells our laws to the biggest wallet. Monitoring billions of posts per day Filtering content is against freedom of results in automated systems that unfairly speech. Even if some voices should not censor legal speech and expression. be heard, there is no reason to forbid EU Responses to Question 3 117

No, they already have their own First question: no, except for clearly system, and severe action need illegal content (as already in to have a court approval practice).Second question: Yes.

Automation is unfortunately, regarding No, that would be frightening the scale of these services, necessary. Especially for ‘new’ services starting They should just get to host files. We have (start-ups) the manpower required for bigger problems to solve as a society manual filtering is simply not present. I however do believe that there should be Required monitoring is completely an appeals process in place, with some unworkable in any way that would be fair rules, especially with companies of size, to the users and owners of these Web sites as these are the new ‘media’ that pretty No, platforms should not be required much monopolize the internet landscape. to monitor activity, filter, or remove Parties that are large enough (think Google, content. Alleged infringement should facebook and subsidiaries) can afford be reviewed by a court and removed/ to have a much more intricate filtering censored only by subpoena and appeals process. Still, for them, the amount of incoming material is huge, but Leave Internet Users alone. Web is for the current hybrid of 1st line automated everyone, not for companies. #freeyourdata filtering and a manual, human-staffed appeals process, seems to be the way to No. No website has the right to monitor go. Mandates to ensure fair treatment in my Internet activity. That would be an these appeals processes, in my eyes, can invasion of privacy. They have no rights be enshrined in some kind of general law to censor what content I post either. It is (as long as it is one protecting the ‘small up to, entirely, the intellectual property man’, not one to only serve large content rights owner to prove infringement in holders’ rights) Smaller parties should a court of law to censor anything have some leeway concerning these rules, as services starting out can’t afford this, prove it in court they need to focus their small team on getting the tech right, first and foremost No, infringement has to be proven in a court of law. Obvious violations should alleged infringement has to be proven in be taken down by facebook without a court of law before censorship occurs? the need of a court, e.g. reuploading YouTube videos on facebook. it has to be proven in court, that the content in question is illegal or harmful I agree, infringement must be to civil society. automatic censorship proven before court of law. oof unproven legality is unlawful in itself with most civil codes. No algorithm is perfect. Automated filters make mistakes. Proactive censorship need to be proven after is unfair and unjust, especially when investigation of any allegations victims of false accusations have no chance to rectify the case. And most of No thye should not monitor my activity all, it denies a right of Fair Use and and and yes, they should be proven in a court greed belongs to the seven Deadly Sins of law but one created for such matters (in case you pretend to belong to a party 118 EU Responses to Question 3

or organization which upholds “Christian infringement, maybe the content values”). Furthermore, greed does not creator should be contacted first optimize profit. The mass purchasing power to reach a mutual agreement. is finite. What people can’t afford won’t be sold and will reduce profits as “dead No I do not think that You Tube has any articles”. If nobody links to your publishing right whatever to monitor my internet house websites anymore, they will drown captivity, nor do I think that it is appropriate in insignificance. adaption in means of that they should be required to do so art and creativity, all for greed’s sake. under new regulations. A “duty of care” is required of medical staff, and teachers, Alleged infringements should be it not a suitable concept for a company proven before action is taken. Content running an internet platform. There are filtering only favours large companies. rules about censorship in this country and They can afford to wait, many I believe these rules should be adhered to independent content creators cannot no, never Censorship. That is exactly what this is about. It is only in the interest of selfish no... relax some of the rules for creativity rich fucks trying to control everyone on this planet and a bunch of bought and paid Infringement needs to be proved in a for politicians. So no, NO REGULATIONS! court of law before censorship by an anonymous corporate burocracy Infringement should be proven in a court of law. That’s the democratic way I am aware there are practical issues with saying everything should go No, there are already laws to protect through a court of law, but the current intellectual property, the owner should system doesn’t work either and the have to go through the proper court proposed one is ridiculous. Perhaps proceedings before a censorship accrues there should be a separate body dealing with these cases which has the time Definitely an alleged infringment must to dedicate to doing this properly? be proven in a court of law. But really I think for all content posted on the whats the point of courts if internet by any company or individual you can bypass them? there should be a rights tag along with it so that people know from the getgo Infringement should only be considered whether they have permission to link or when commercial use is involved. Private post in anyway regarding that material use does not cause direct damages to the copyright holder. It is an overreach I believe platforms like soundcloud, of property law to consider such facebook or twitter should only be required to take content down onc eit has Let’s not turn corporations into the police been proven by a court of law to infringe force and gold miners of the Internet. on the owners rights, not just based The Internet belongs to all the people! on a allegation by some third party Never. The Net must be free. don’t know No and no Instead of bluntly censoring alleged EU Responses to Question 3 119

No. I believe in the right to privacy. that it believes reduces the profitability of their own copyrights. While a company No. The only fair way to prove alleged certainly has the right to decide what to infingement should be through host on its own platform, such removals proof in a court of law, with the impact free speech just as much as if they burden of proof on the accuser. were the result of a take-down request

These sites should not be required A court of law should decide for filtering to monitor the vast amount of or removing content from internet, but content posted to them with as quick procedure as possible.

This would place a huge burden on the ISPs A very few clear and simple guidelines for censorship can be effectively used I believe platforms such as SoundCloud, by platforms to filter internet activity Twitter, or YouTube should NOT face that obviously promotes bullying, regulations requiring them to monitor terrorism, and other forms of crime, but your Internet activity, or filter and remove most internet activity falls into highly content you produce and share? Alleged subjective grey areas that should require infringement has to to be first proven in a court of law to establish infringement a court of law before censorship occurs. before censorship can occur

I believe platforms should face No. Yes. minimum regulation Of course alleged infringment have to My Internet activity should be proven before every censorship. not be monitored No. It should be proven in a court of law Most importantly - it should be possible to take the rightsholders to court for I believe in innocence until proven abusing take-down systems (like DMCA guilty. Absolutely they should have requests). Millions of requests where only to prove it in a court of law a few percent are valid - should be illegal they sure have to be proven The infringement should be proven first, or at the very least should be treated as Shares should be monitored, but CI is non-infringing if the claim of infringement not the greatest problem here. While is disputed. Only after a court has ruled it is important, that these channels not on it, if the complaint is not withdrawn, become a tool for piracy, consumers should should it be removed. Most importantly, not be bullied for trivial infringement. platforms should never be exposed to risk for hosting merely allegedly infringing Absolutely not. It should be proven first. content, otherwise they will take the safest route and remove all content that I think they are not authorities so has recieved a complaint. Furthermore, monitoring us is saying that our authorities, acquisitions of platforms by media government wants to force them to spy on owners, or their mergers, should be us (for whatever reason). There are certain closely scrutinized, and only very rarely and well equipped government agencies allowed, since the resulting merged to do just that. We don’t need another company will likely remove all content layer of spies... We also enter a community 120 EU Responses to Question 3

with the assumption that our data/info pull peoples data. Shortcuts never is only shared with whom we intend to worked out before they won’t now share it (I know it does not work this way but it should be so). If and only if removal Alleged infringement of copyright of infringing content is not possible or the should have to be proven to an person/company is not willing to cooperate established independent body. in doig so then bringing the case to court should definitely be the first step and No, because they’re run by old men that censorship should happen after that. just want to shut everything new down

We have legal proceedings for a reason. Absolutely not should they be required to Providers should never be judge and jury monitor internet activity. However that in one. They should be neither of them should not mean that they should not keep and eye out for obviously unacceptable NO! It shouldn’t go to court either, no content and take seriously complaints one should be monitoring my internet activity and preventing me from Not sure about this one. seeing anything I would like to NO MONITORING.The infringement No monitoring at all, and no pull- needs to be proven in court first downs before court order not at all! The alleged infringement have to be proven I’ve seen too many cases where content in a court of law before censorship occurs. by Youtubers have been taken down Court of law, definitely. before anything has been actually proven. I agree fully that alleged infringement The current catagories appear to be should be proven in a court of law before functioning correctly. The duty of action is taken. In all social medias copyright protection should fall on the hosting site, not on search engines which I don’t believe that kind of monitoring act as content aggregators. We must be is necessary and IF it was then careful not to censor free speech or give alleged infringement should definitely authority to unregulated, unimpatial bots. have to be proven in a court of law before censorship occurs I feel that any form of infringement should have to be proven before a court of law Should be proven in a court of law

Proven in a court of law Definitely not. However as it stands proving every infringement in court is impractical. No. I think that this should remain within the law. If an offense is being investigated They should not face regulations such as abusive/threatening behaviour. and alleged infringements should Once reported to the police, they should have to be proven in a court of law be able to within the law ask for this before censorship is imposed. information and get a warrant, even If infringement is proven by law or for large data captures. They should suggested and confirmed by the two parties have to explain the criteria and the via some outside communication then it necessity for it. Get a warrant, then is the media platforms’ responsibility to EU Responses to Question 3 121

remove them, but surely not before. There Regulations requiring services like are also many cases (parodies, educational Twitter to monitor and censor user materials, etc) that are legal in which activities are unreasonable and will one can use copyrighted materials and cause more problems than they solve it would be a limitation of the internet as an open source as well as for creatives, No internet activity monitoring by comedians and teachers to take these private companies! If there’s a problem, things down on accident or otherwise let the law take its normal course

I do not think that social media should alleged infringement must be proven in a have to self monitor free speech, in court of law before censorship can occur much the same way that I do not think any social venue should be required No, youtube and soundcloud to monitor and police the speech of should be free and open. patrons on it’s property. A healthy society Absolutely not there is a huge amount regulates itself without need for artificial of original content by independant constructs. Any alleged infringement content providers on Youtube. Policing should have to be proven in a court of such regulations would make the law. Or else we should simply realise that cost prohibitive. The current system information has become too available, of right owners being able to flag too pervasive, too transmittable to be and take down original content may constrained by traditional concepts not be ideal but it is working. of copyright and a different reward needs to be found for creativity Censorship should not be carried out other than by a court of law Alleged infringements should be seriously considered before action is taken. A robot Only a court should act like a court detecting a piece of music and immediately flagging a video is a sloppy, lazy and unfair They should not be monitoring process. Regulations need to exist to label individuals. Alleged infringement what is and isn’t an infringement. These should be proved beyond doubtthere regulations need to be applied to a human should be no censorship. process, who is able to make a call on the situation, with minimal activity from Infringement should be a automated programs. If the case of serious, matter for the courts. take it before a court. Do not automate this process. Monitoring Internet activity The platforms acts as conduits - this is simply isn’t the answer. It’s inefficient, similar to demanding that the phone it’s fear-mongering and inconsistent company listens to all conversations and blocks out any unlawful speech. Alleged 99% of copyright claims actually fall under infringement should have to be proven, fair use. It’s just that the people in charge possibly in court, and if the court finds in of YouTube, Twitter and the like are too favour of the poster then the rightsholder lazy or spineless to actually investigate. should be liable to make the poster whole - that road have to go both ways No, I should not be censored or followed/ spyed on. who is to choose/Know what No. Alegations should be proven as in all they decide to censor? freedom of speech? things in the courts. I believe in democracy 122 EU Responses to Question 3

more than the wish of publishers to control the right and only way to go the use of public comment, examination and communication of what occurs and is Monitoring citizens private expressed online. I support Free Linking. internet activity is deplorable. Anyone who says they believe in the benifit of facilitating the communication of our No, Yes democracy should be supporting and I think that, if it were a requirement for aiding a cheap accessible internet that lets a company to check through everything us express ourselves to each other and its users create, the companies would comment and link to other expressions and either cease to exist or stop being worth realitys occuring online. We must be free to using. If they have to hand-police us - and speak and document our world and what why should a company be in that position is happening and been communicated in anyway? - then it becomes unworkably it to each other. Linking is a way of doing expensive in terms of employee time. this, it is a simple means of resperating If they do it automatically, you’ll have what occurs in our world, information problems with censorship of things that enables and is the circulation of the wit shouldn’t be censored (like Scunthorpe). and reason of a functioning and thriving When it comes to discrete content (videos, democratic body. I support the free use of music clips etc.) I think the companies linking on a free cheap accessible internet should be able to take it down. It shouldn’t that facilitates the better functioning be a requirement for them to do so unless and growing of our democracy. Linking it’s court-ordered, and I definitely don’t on an open internet of comment and think it should be encouraged. I also think access is a service for democracy. To stop exceptions should exist for things like or restrict linking is to stop or restrict hate speech and bullying - those should the ‘currency of our democracy’ which ‘is not need a court order to be taken down. information’ as Tomas Jefferson wrote My other concern is that this could lead while he was writing USA’s Constitution. to increased name-policing, which is bad no, maybe news for anyone who isn’t using their legal name. This strongly affects trans people in No. Must be proven before censorship particular, but also internet personalities and anyone who doesn’t like the name their In a court of law, no question. parents gave them enough to use it. It also has the creepy factor of making it somehow no. let there be prroof OK for companies - I’m looking at you, Facebook - to demand ID from their user No, my privacy is mine. I do not want base without any evidence of wrongdoing, anybody to be snooping in on what I which is disturbing. I don’t want to have do. It might not make waves now but to trust them with my passport number, if “First they came.....” becomes a reality date of birth or any of a variety of pieces then freedom as a whole will be gone. of information that they really do not need. Routinely being called Sam instead No, infringement should be of legal-name Mark is not something they proven in court of law first should be able to claim is a bad thing when No, monitoring will add too much no-one knows your legal name because overhead to an organisation adn you always introduce yourself as Sam! will be open to abuse. Courts are EU Responses to Question 3 123

I agree with the second option accountability. Usually the media industry wins due to big media bucks. Infringement should be PROVEN IN COURT. I’m sure that these regulations No, they should not. It needs will then be shown for what they truly to be proven not alleged are: a way to impose monopoly and restrain human creativity. Censorship 100% no NO! and if they keep pushing we has no place in Democratic Societies will push back, maybe shut them down. The people rule not the mpaa or others a No way. They’re not watchdogs. Censorship like. WE LET THEM HAVE COPYRIGHTS, its should be no task of the platform owners not a human right. regulations requiring monitoring your Internet activity, only with NO. The internet belongs to the people a warrant on a per person use usage. and should be FREE not controlled. Monitoring billions of posts per day I’m not aware of this being a problem for results in automated systems that unfairly me but YouTube and especially Facebook censor legal speech and expression. When should not be monitoring my content. individuals monitor content they apply their own individual quirks and morality, Infringement should have to be proven often inconsistently. For example Facebook before action is taken against posted permits hate speech, but bans nudity. content. Without proof, users could lose the tools to effectively collaborate online. No regulations Online platforms should be required Service providers are not police institutions. *not* to monitor my Internet activity They are only providers. Any alleged and censorship should come only as a infringement of the copyright should consequence of a court decision. We live firstly be proved in the first place, and in a state under the rule of law, after all. only then censorship may occur THEY SHOULD MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS Platforms should not be allowed to monitor me in any way without a No, platforms that share content should warrant, and alleged infringement not be required to moniter, filter or should definitely be proven in a court remove content. Alleged infringement of law before censorship occurs should have to be proven in a court of law before censorship occurs No to monitoring of my internet activity. No censorship Only blatant copyright violations should be considered and removed, No Prove it first only after a pronunciation of a court

I don’t believe both. I think every website Absolutely not. Any instance of alleged should act like a forum: a democratic infringement should first go through a decision approved by the majority of mediation process, where an agreement users based on a user-requested dispute. can be reached without recourse to legal assistance, then if this does not work than Do not believe in internet companies legal action prior to any take down acting as judge, jury and executioner. There is no transparancy nor Alleged infringement should have to be 124 EU Responses to Question 3

proven in a court of law before censorship that would without any doubt be full of occors, never just on their say so errors, human and computer. Users would simply stop using that shit and move on to The latter provision makes more sense some open source sharing activity.Quite probably, all the business would move Once again, if these proposals actually to Asia or Africa or Latin America, where go through, people won’t want to use there is very vague notion of copyrights. the internet the way they do now. At the very least, it would make people Regulation of this kind of platforms use it less often and most likely, only for would limit severely the capability to essentials. People don’t want their activity distribute information and/or content. monitored. They will start to look around No platform should block people’s for an alternative to this new “corporate content if that same people is willing internet”. Perhaps some sort of uncensored, to share it freely. Alleged content underground internet alternative would should be proven before censorship emerge. That wouldn’t surprise me at all. Surely alleged infringement have A hybrid version should suffice, to be proven in a court of law using the platform tools first, and before censorship occurs if a compromise cannot be reached, then going to a court of law. In a court of law. Obviously

Every removal must be approved by a Proven in court, according to the court before the contents are removed. laws of your own country neither, a “report” mecanism and then A Digital Single Market Plan should the right to remove after verification be favorable to free speech and not hinder it. Many Europeans want to Infringement should always have to think for themselves and for this they be proven in a court of law before need as many different viewpoints as censorship. Otherwise it’s not justice, possible as long as they do not incite to but rather just corporate fascism. violence or perversion. Abuses should be proven and prosecuted individually The latter, of course! They should face regulations. It The content should be censored or has to be proven in a court of law removed only after the action is taken before censorship occurs. by the official party/copyright holder. Absolutely not! Prove allegations of Regulation or censorship of Twitter infringement before censoring content etc would be dumb. Let every internet user breathe free! I think, generally, someone monitoring my internet activity, or any other activity All these platforms contain huge amounts for that matter, is official violation of our of materials, and forcing them to censor human rights and constitutional rights in the content would be highly damaging most countries. Internet should remain to their business, as it would rise the public property and public space, and users prices an order of magnitude, forcing to should filter content based on whether it implement automated content filtering, offends/abuses/harasses their identity or EU Responses to Question 3 125

not, like the option of reporting something innocent. That is the wrong way around! that Facebook provides. There should be regulations, made only by these platforms NO! to first part of the question and with the information and help provided by yest to second part of the question users, independent of governments and rightsholders, that establish clearly what In no way does hampering your privacy they should consider when taking action create a better environment for the following a report. Of course any alleged every day user, I don’t need Google their infringement should be proven in court! assistance for providing the ‘perfect web’

Innocent until proven guilty, content I have no desire for online platform stays up until infringement proven providers to be forced to interpret and adjudicate the law. They are first and No to part 1 and yes to part 2 foremost businesses, working to protect their reasonable profits. Any requirement no i dont believe so, alleged infringement placed upon them will be implemented has to be proven before censorship in the way that is most cost effective to them, and which primarily protects no.proof of infringement themselves from legal action: and needed before censorship that will essentially mean automated systems adopting the most restrictive court of law interpretations. They will be very unlikely to adopt an interpretation that champions No it’s nothing to do with them the rights of small content providers to they are just a conduit. fair use, parody, reportage, free speech, This should have to be proven in teaching aids and other acceptable use some way, original content belongs of copyrighted content. Adopting such a to no other than the producer. position, under such regulations, would expose the online provider themselves Proven in a court of law.Of course. This is to the possibility of legal action, whether touching the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ the content is acceptable or not. No doctrine we’ve fought 8 centuries to get. online provider is likely to wish to expose themselves to such a possibility. Where a No/Yes rightsholder believes their rights are being infringed, the claim needs to be assessed Prove in court by a independent adjudicator, with the content provider being provided with equal Preferably court, since we already have ability to defend their rights before any evidence these kinds of systems avoiding judgement about content removal occurs the courts favor businesses big time. No. Courts. No censorship The second one. Definitely the second one. No Alleged infringement No it is against freedom of should be proven in court. speech & information Excellent idea! And while we’re at it. let’s alleged infringement should always be start the Fourth Reich too and let people proven before any action gets taken. wear yellow stars when they use the Otherwise we are all guilty until proven 126 EU Responses to Question 3

internet as well.An independent court I believe that the alleged infringement of law has to decide if censorship is should have to be proven in a court of warranted, this fundamental democratic law before censorship occurs. You are function cannot be performed by the innocent until proven guilty in a court of industry who is a direct party in a process. law with everything else so why not this?

No censorship and monitoring Proven in a court of law, of course. If I change content, it is my right to post it for I Giving them the right to remove what they have created new art with pre-existing art. want without any rules is a bad idea Platforms like twitter should not face No, this is against common human rights regulations requiring them to monitor internet activity, filter and remove content No. Websites should not be forced to I produce and share (there is too much of monitor their users. Just as much as a that monitoring and filter already by many mail company should open envolops. parties). Infringement has to be proven in a court of law first before removal, It should be proven in a court of law, filtering and monitoring is allowed. monitoring the content i produce often is either privacy infringement or plain there should be proven infringement unnecessary, filtering and removing content without due process is plain It’s not the job of any platform to regulate censorship. if it is not proven in a court something because an outside party of law, then this opens up a way for tells them to. The law and the law alone these companies to not just censor holds that right and it should remain in illegal and infringing content but any the hands of it. If any rights holder deems content under the guise of copyright something to violate their copyright, they should take it up with the person in I strongly believe any sort of infringement question in a proper court of law and not must be proven in a court of law, force the platform to be their stooge and before any censorship occurs. middleman. That’s not their job. It’s up to the rights holder themselves to protect Should be proved in Court! what they create, not said middleman No. They just provide a service. I believe even an informal court where Alleged infringement should be proven alleged infringement must be proven in court before censorship occurs, would be an improvement to the current system, but this assumes the position that It should have to be proven. the individual has the finances or necessary legal assistance to effectively argue their No I do NOT support this. case. It’s said “a man who represents himself, has a fool for a client”. Indeed, alleged infringement should have to be in the age of recession and poverty, few proven. Forcing the companies to do places can afford proper legal assistance, and an unfair burden to their business model. those that try to represent themselves run Also, they are not scholars of the law such the risk of falling for common legal traps as lawyers and judges are and will be and loopholes. In a court of law, a single prone to more mistakes and erring on the individual, who is in want of knowledge side of caution - to the public’s detriment EU Responses to Question 3 127

of law, with no access to an appropriate web. A judge in a proper court of law lawyer, is fighting an experience is the only one.Forbidding everything corporation with paid lawyers who spend does not stop it from existing. their days and nights studying all sorts of similar cases. The disparity is obvious. The be real give me some kind original purpose of copyright laws was of a private life now..... to prevent people from manufacturing counterfeit goods and stealing another It should be proved in a court of law person’s idea and profiteering off of it, Infringement should have to be proven in but these days it’s no longer used against a court of law. Otherwise, the little guy mass manufacture (which is now housed in (internet users) has to expend resources China, far out of the legal reach of many), appealing potentially absurd decisions. but against individuals who make minor infringements - showing images, quoting It’s not their job, nor should it be, to particular exerpts. This is not the original monitor me to make sure I’m following purpose it was intended for. I believe that the law. That is a matter for law websites should not be required to monitor enforcement, government, the courts. internet activity, to filter or remove - as they are commercial enterprises whose original Many of these services are simply too goal was to sell a product. They are quickly large to be able to effectively regulate being molded into become the ‘policemen this content. Automated systems will not of the internet’, but being a commercial suffice, falsely flagging a lot of content enterprise, their main focus is finances, and missing many others. Doing it not fairness, and therefore the cheapest manyually would in some cases literally way for them to solve any problem is to take hundreds of thousands of people. permit all copyright claims to stand, censor The responsibility should lay with those the content and close any accounts. How claiming the copyright. While some can an individual with no knowledge of infringements should be obvious, such as law sue them? They can’t. It might be the posting full works, unaltered, anything cheapest option, but its neither fair... nor that falls under Fair Use should be left right. The commercial enterprises of the untouched. Anything inbetween should internet - SoundCloud, Twitter, Youtube, etc be handled on an individual basis, either - should not be the guardians of information. through a court of law or an independant Too much is at stake in the freedom organisation specialising in copyright laws. of press, of the right to voice concerns Under no circumstance should companies and criticisms, to allow profiteering automatically be placed in the right. As companies to dictate content policies mentioned, on websites like YouTube this has already been abused on a regular basis. They have not such rights unless in case of clear crimminal use Yes and no. Things to do with violence -- violence toward nonhuman animals, like I believe sensorship and mass monitoring the “I Hate Cats Page” that encourages are bad. Copyright infringement sadistic behavior, and toward women should be proven in court. and people of color should definitely be monitored and reported, not Not any private organisation, nor any just removed, to the authorities politician, should have anything to say about what’s available on the should be proven in court 128 EU Responses to Question 3

No they should not. material should them sensoring organizations. They are be removed once an item has been totally uvnacceptable at such a task proven in court to be illegal alleged infringement should be proven No regulations. in a court of law before censorship occurs. What about dev’l. a specific They should be able to remove offensive court for this particular situation content eg hate speech as defined by law, extremism in all its forms, animal Yes, practical concerns should not cruelty Etc but only after a certain take precedence over freedom of amount of complaints are received. speech, a basic human right. absolutely not. use the courts, folks WE Get a warning like on youtube... After that have enough of surveillance and censorship u choose conaequence if its copyright... in the government to require it in this way The rest is freespeech or free images :P

Infringement must be proven. Copyright owners like all other This is how democracy works. property owners should have to Otherwise it’s not democracy enforce their electronic rights the same way that they enforce their non The law should decide electronic rights: thru the courts

No, I don’t think mentioned platforms Q3 No, users shouldn’t be monitored no should monitor such activity. If platforms shouldn’t be forced to. Where is rightsholders want to monitor it by the freedom of information and expression? themselves (for example checking newly added videos on youtube), they can do it No, let users report inappropriate material and platforms should allow reporting such to proper authorities (police, court) content. But I don’t think it is the problem of platforms to monitor their content Infringements must be proven.

Such monitoring has a strong big-brother Censorship should never be left to smell and is totally out of proportion individual people or corporations. Any to the harm it is supposed to prevent. claim of damages should be settled in court

Infringement has to be proven. Fair use NO regulations to monitor individuals needs to be expanded. We’re all just internet activity! No censorship, period! people trying to live fair lives, we’re not thieves out there trying to steal Nobody should track my internet everything. For every single internet pirate activity or filter and remove my content you potentially undermine with this kind wich i choose to share and produce. of idiocy, you hurt a thousand average It’s a violation of my privacyrights. internet users who have no intention of No, and yes. Plus, a warrant must be abusing copyright, let alone have the required prior to any searches. This is knowledge to illegally acquire anything. all about political control of individual It’s completely outrageous that websites access, which can be taken to the extremes get that task. Not because I care about of unwarranted censorship. In the case their amount of work, but because it makes of corporate politics, facebook bans EU Responses to Question 3 129

female but not male nipples. Ridiculous automated system or a mere individual.

Platform such as SoundCloud or Twitter no they should not have the right (for example) should NOT be legially to monitor our internet activity. required to monitor content. The responsibility of enforcement is with NO. Social media platforms already the so called owner not the platform invade my privacy to much and this would give them power (if they want it or not) Alleged infringements should to do so even more. Any breach of law be proven in a court of law should have to be proven in a court of law in the country where it happened No, You may have signed an agreement (not where the content is owned). with them, and whatever they might change they do not have the right A takedown should be preceded by a to do it. There are certain moral discussion among the concerned parties. boundaries one should not cross. Blanket takedowns are happenibg too easily and often already, without Infringements should always be the poster having any recourse or proven in a court of law. consultation. A court of law however, only in the case of legal action. No, platforms should NOT face regulations requiring to monitor what users do. I don’t want people to decide what Alleged infringement SHOULd be proven content I view for no reason! in a court of law BEFORE censorment. I think obvious infringements should Always via a court of law. Openness be allowed to be removed right away. and transparency are vital. The web is a For instance, if a movie has been communications tool, a crucial enabler of uploaded to youtube. Where it gets voices and creativity in an ever-increasing into ‘grey areas’ (clips of movies game- security-conscious, paranoid world play) then it should be reviewed.

Removal of the content should be Under the ‘duty of care’ that would done after legal procedures or a require intermediaries to proactively settlement between the parties monitor and remove content posted by Internet users on their platform, the only No one deserves to suppress the freedom way that they could monitor billions of of speech/opinion in any way without being posts per day would be with automated completely right in a logical, humane way. systems that unfairly censor legal speech and expression. Having websites make This in an insane idea, the technical decisions on what is legal content sets implications are disaterous for any but them up to act as courts and judges, a role the largest companies. Additionally, it they are not qualified for. As a result, they would mean constant infringement in will often make poor decisions. And of the privacy and right of free speech course, when individuals monitor content of hunderds of millions of people on a they apply their own individual beliefs, daily basis. This has never been good quirks and morality, often along cultural for society.Questions of infringement, and religious lines, and inconsistently guild and legality are complicated issues. They should not be decided by an Yes No 130 EU Responses to Question 3

in court unless completely inappropriate of facing the courts??? PROVEN like depicting something illegal IN A COURT OF “LAW”

I believe that alleged infringement Alleged infringements have to be proven should have to be proven in a court in a court of law before censorship occurs. of law before censorship occurs. It should be proven It should be proven if there is an actual infringement in a court. No. Prove it in court.

¿quién decide que es legal? ¿o moral? No. I have both promoted AND slammed si yo decido subir mi trabajo gratis a businesses that I like and dislike, la red y compartirlo para que otros lo respectively. SoundCloud, Twitter, and reproduzcan ¿cuál sería el problema? es YouTube should have NO authority to mi trabajo. Who decides who is legal? censor the internet via removing hyperlinks O moral? if I decide to free up my work and share the network for others to play No. This puts an unfair and unnecessary what would be the problem? it’s my job burden in the hands of social media/ content platforms, even more so for no, neverinfringement has smaller competitors. It is impossible to to be proven in court watch every video and recognize every copyrighted work that may appear in it, No, as it has to be proven in court,first! or analyze the melodies and samples of every single song uploaded. Protecting Everyone is innocent until proven. a company’s IP is that company’s (or Also, I think the use of anything should individual’s) responsibility, and theirs alone. be completely legal as long as it is not for commercial purposes. Regulations by platforms should be proven in court of law, otherwise they become No, the “proven innocent until found tools on the arbitrary preferences of banks. guilty” should also apply here and these platforms should have to prove Platforms such as Twitter and YouTube the infringement in a court of law should not face regulations that require them to remove content based on Never! No one can take the right or take regulations of any type other than permission to monitor my internet activity. judged by a court of law. There is It is a great violation on humanity! no reason for censorship by those outside a legitimate court system We have to be able to say and write what we think and of course alleged When websites make decisions on what is infringement has to be proved in a legal content they are acting like courts court of law before censorship occurs and judges, a role they are not qualified for.Monitoring billions of posts per day I thought they were already filtering and results in automated systems that unfairly removing content, but it should be proven censor legal speech and expression. in a court of law, like everything else. proof is needed Of course not. Why should anyone be monitoring anyone? The law decides or are they afraid EU Responses to Question 3 131

It is those with vested interests and power not be made by companies trippers who want it. Censorship is the result of Fascism. Voltaire said to the effect No. I don’t want to be monitored that look to who you are not allowed to criticize to see who is running things Internet messages should never be monitores without a court order and Absolutely not. Of course the onus is on because they may be linked to police or censors to prove alleged infringement. government investigation of illegal activity. Doesn’t the rule of law apply here? innocent until proven guilty. No, that should not be their task

Absolutely not! It should be proven in a court of law, our system is that you are innocent SoundCloud, Twitter, Facebook and untill proven guilty. That has been YouTube and all the rest should be held deteriorating for a while. We (people) accountable for what they are doing have rights, not only the big companies and Any Infringement they ARE doing must be proven in a court of law. The latter option

Censorship should require a court Alleged infringement have to be proven in judgement. However, it is reasonable that a court of law before censorship occurs. copyright owners can ask for infringing Alleged infringement should be proven content to be removed, and reasonable website owners will comply with requests I believe people have the right to manage if the content is indeed infringing their own cloud environment. As it currently is designed to be personal.The Court only creator of this cloud platform must respect we shouldn’t be monitored the actions/opinions of their customers. It’s on those platform one of their responsibilities to maintain a safe environment. So yes they may Alleged infringement should be proven in monitor the user activities. However only a court of law before censorship occurs when it’s necessary and not by default. This needs to be established by mutual This should always have to be proven consent. And clear platform house-rules. in a court of law with due process I do not believe platforms should be There should of course not be required to monitor Internet activity, such regulations. What a crazy or filter and remove content. This is idea... Such infringement should, as creating a climate of suspicion and any other infringement, first be self-censorship which could lead to proven in a court... OF COURSE! criminalizing everyday activities.

When individuals monitor content I don’t think they should, as I feel that they apply their own individual quirks would be compromising my privacy. and morality, often inconsistently. For example Facebook permits hate I want a free uncensored internet speech, but bans nudity. I think these choices are too arbitrary and should Infringement means there is no freedom of speech. Alleged infringement, is not 132 EU Responses to Question 3

actual infringement. since 9/11 was a false potentially inconsistency to the process. flag government coup, US government They are commercial companies and set up, known one year in advance, all US have no place in deciding what breaches laws since 9/11 2001 are meaningless. or does not breach copyright law against another company / individual. I feel the It is not the role of intermediaries to check company that believes their copyright is content on their website. Making websites being infringed should first contact the responsible for what is or isn’t legal seems user that placed the possibly infringing very inefficient since we already have a content on the platform. Possibly the court of law to make these descisions. platform could aid with this, providing tools for rightsholders to contact users, Let evidence speak in a public especially as this could be done without court before removing content revealing personal information about the user at such an early stage. The user then No regualtions or censoring can argue their case to the company / internet and internet platforms. individual that believes their copyrights No, i d not! are being breached and hopefully come to an agreement and act upon that. If this Open platforms should not be fails, and the company / individual still required to monitor content. History believes that their copyrights are being has proven that this leads to too breached, then they should approach much removal of fair use content. the courts with their complaint, who can make a much more correct decision Unless it’s something already illegal as to whether the content actually (like trying to hire a hitman), the alleged infringes copyright and, if so, order its infringements should be proven in a removal. This keeps the decisions in the court of law before censorship occurs hands of the courts, where it belongs

Censorship as a necessary evil can only No, various platforms such as SoundCloud, be the prerogative of a court of law Twitter or Youtube should not be able to invade my privacy and monitor my Internet No monitoring should be mandated. activity. Alleged infringement should have A takedown notice should be to be proven with evidence, in a court of filed if content is illegal law if necessary, before censorship occurs.

I do not believe platforms such as Prove it in court Blanket law can be abused SoundCloud, Twitter, etc should face refulations requiring them to monitor users’ Absolutely not. This is a violation internet activity. In order for them to do this, of users privacy and basic human they would have to use either automated rights. This is literally a fancy word tools or individual scrutiny. Automated for shooting on your users. tools will not catch everything and, much worse, will erroneously mark legal speech no yes and expression as infringing, individual scrutiny means that a normal citizen, I do not think it is reasonable for my not a court, will be making decisions as behaviour to be monitored and censored to whether content infringes, and they as a matter of course. If I am not uploading will apply their own moral biases and material clearly owned by someone EU Responses to Question 3 133

else or infringing on the rights of others I don’t think there should be laws my activity is nobody else’s business. I requiring companies to act as judges. should be able to link accordingly. Courts Freedom of expression should be ensure that adequate proof is required preserved and only reduced for specific rather than accusation being enough cases, as decided by a court of law

They should not have that level of Infringiment must be proved censorship. If something is contra before removed. societal norms the web citizens will deal with it. Baring that, it Platforms should not have to face should pass through the courts regulations requiring internet activity monitoring. Before any form of ithink it should be proven in a court censorship occurs, infringement should of law before censorship occurs have to be proven in a court of law.

Neither - there should be an Infringement should always be proven in independent arbitration rocess court, and the person posted should be responsible for it, not the service provider Absolutely not: an uninvolved and innocent third party should not be held No, unless it is plagarism or liable for my actions and opinions. belongs to the hate speech, pornography, or terror catagory NO TO THE FIRST, YES TO THE SECOND No private company should monitor It would be impossible for different anyone. This is fascism. This is a path best organisations to impose a huge avoid at all costs. Law enforcement and variety of standards across many execution of it must be left to their rightful jurisdictions. It would also give private holders in the bodies of police and courts. parties enormous discretionary power over what we could and could If it doesn’t have to go through a not see. Any copyright infringement court of law, it is CENSORSHIP, a tool should be proven in a court of law of tirany, dictatorship.Censorship is a sign of tirant fear of it’s people. Social media should not be monitored and alleged infringement should A court of law is the only real way to ensure have to be proven in a court of all parties are giving equal consideration. law before censorship occurs No. Allegations need to be No to the first part, and yes proven, not just alleged to the second part. No! That is insane. Alleged infringement Absolutely. The justice system goes that should most certainly be proven in court you are innocent until proven guilty before any form of censorship occur

The responsibility for monitoring internet That should definitely be proven in court. I activity should fall to an independent do not understand how commercial interest body not beholden to corporate interests should be more important than freedom of speech, privacy and creativity. Also, No cencership without court action these companies should not be the ones 134 EU Responses to Question 3

exercising law, that’s what the court is for. It’s impossible to monitor this amount of content. If websites are forced to do Too much regulation already this, they will do it hastily and carelessly. I think it would be best if the following Content should be filtered only for criminal system was in place: service providers activity, e.g. child abuse pictures, race can block content, but if user whose hate speech etc... Freedom of speech, content was blocked clicks “it’s legal thought and expression should be inviolate. content, please unblock it”, then the Guidelines need to be applied consistantly. service provider has to either unblock it At the end of the day, I would rather a instantly or prove infringement in court free internet where sometimes I may see or hear things i would rather not, than Yes. an internet hobbled and constrained by lawmakers. It is to a degree self policing Legal matters should be decided by legal with users reporting the worst cases. experts, not online business people no. Defenitly no. The EU Commission has proposed an idea that would require platforms to censor the No, I believe the courts are the cornerstone web by monitoring and removing content of a democratic society and as such posted by Internet users. I do not support should be consulted at all times. this so-called ‘duty of care’ provision in the Digital Single Market plan. When Regulation is more commnonly used as websites make decisions on what is legal censorship and I think courts are still useful content they are acting like courts and and we shouldn´t bypass them. Some stuff judges, a role they are not qualified for, shouldn´t be allowed (pedophilia, drugs and are very to get the balance wrong. and other contents), but we can´t use that Monitoring billions of posts per day to forbidden and censor everything results in automated systems that unfairly censor legal speech and expression. Monitoring leads to censorship and the death of the Internet as we know it. Infringement should be proven first. It’s up to the copyright holder They should not face such regulations. to enforce the copyright The telephone providers are not required to monitor all calls just in case someone I believe that the very fact that the is playing copyrighted music over their internet is open is what makes it so lines, nor should ISP’s have to filter all special. And the fact is that the growth email attachments in case I share a song and success of the internet is owed to or video clip. The argument is that my the very fact that it is a place where all examples are one on one (very small information may be shared, and people audience) and no one is making money off are free to voice their opinions and share of the song or clip, but while eventually content with others. Alleged infringement we’re likely to see an end to torrents should be treated no differently than due to the fact that those downloads any other crime, and should have to be indeed do not provide any revenue to the proven in court before action occurs. copyright holders, there’s a vast difference between mash-up songs and short clips/ Definitely disagree gifs than sharing entire songs or movies. need be proven in court EU Responses to Question 3 135

No to both censorship and burocracy. If content if properly licensed for the entire world, all regions, then this would not be court of law but that’s biased too an issue. Instead, content producers restrict based on who’s court it is. content so not everyone can view it legally. This has created the problem users face Should alleged infringement have today and it’s simply, remove the license to be proven in a court of law restrictions by licensing for the whole before censorship occurs world. then no removal or censorship or court cases would be needed. Think of No platform should monitor the the consumers, for a change, we want to user’s internet activity. Infringement view or listen to your content, why ware should definitely be proven in court you making it more difficult to do so? before content is taken down. Online platforms should do Platforms should not be made minimal monitoring. responsible for monitoring internet activity or permitted to filter or remove Alleged infringement should be proven in content. Alleged infringement should a court of law before censorship occurs. be proven in court prior to censorship I have my own blog, so NO! I have chosen Monitor? no, blatant for-profit sufficiently to publish on the blog so that folks have unchanged content should be possible free and easy access to my material to make a copyright claim and be taken down. This should be informed to the I believe those platforms uiploader and the uploader should shouldn’t face legislation have ways to dispute the claim without having to go to court. That should be the Definitely (soundcloud, twitter, youtube,...) last resort of the copyright holder if the should NOT filter and remove my content. uploader disputes the claim after the Yes, alleged infringement have to be proven uploader have been informed the alledged in a court of law before censorship occurs. copyright holder is ready to go to court INfringement should be proved in a I don’t want them to monitor court of law before censorship my internet activity proven in court Freedom of speech! That’s all I have to say and I don’t believe that this kind of decision Do not use these service shoul be made outside of a court of law. It is unwise to give content providers No. I don’t believe that the platform should the right to monitor internet activity be responsible for this. If companies want their interests protected, they no,no should be the ones who pay for it Warrantless monitoring of internet use They should not face regulations should be illegal, and actionable. In other words, if I can prove that a group or a Alleged infringement should have to corporation is surrveiling my use of the be proven in a court of law before web I should be legally allowed to launch censorship occurs at the very least. a law suit against those doing the watching. 136 EU Responses to Question 3

And yes, the courts should be brought in to and remove content, I think it’s a bad rule whether or not a citizen is infringing idea. Alleged infringement have to be upon the copyright held by the creator proven in court before censorship. of the article having been copywritten Only a court of law should have the power I do not think platforms have any right to remove publications of any kind to monitor any users Online activity nor filter or remove content. It should These companies are not judges or first be proven in a court of law courts. They cannot decide by themselves. Freedom of speech is essential in our The internet should be a level playing field countries. It is very rare that freedom for everyone. Therefore, no regulations of speech has to be monitored. Why would these companies be able to Censorship without a judge ordering it decide what is right and what is wrong? seems like illegally breaking freedom of speech to me. I understand that every No, a Court of Law should do it service has their rules to follow. If they say “no porn”, then it makes sense to take NO monitor of my Internet activity, or filter down a porn video, but the ones reporting and remove content I produce and share. the video and taking it down should be real alleged infringement must be proven in human beings, not software. I had seen a court of law before censorship occurs pictures of female tribal people been taken down in Facebook by automated software. No monitoring. Alleged infringement should have to be proven in a court of law Absolutely not. Prove it in a court of law Obviously the less censorship the No monitoring better, and the burden should be high with copyright accusations, and there First part: no. Second part: yes. must be built in protections for Fair Use and non corporate use of content. Of Yes to the first question, definitely course, politicians and corporations love censorship, because it gives them I think this is very complicated, because more power and control over society, for example, I did a search on Bob and prevents the dirty truth about their Dylan the other day and with the new activities from getting out on the internet. privacy laws, only 5 pages came up. I can’t see how they can implement I really thought that these companies this fairly without overdoing it. already do monitoring of some kind. I have had Copywrite notices from YouTube Definitely not.Right now Habeas Corpus that did not actually apply to the song is dead on the internet with the current in question. There is ample room on approach, they basically take down the internet for ‘legal’ content filtering everything, no questions asked, even rules specific to each form of media. when it’s not their content, and the onus of proof falls on the creators, who usually please let me share on the web don’t have any recourse to fight back. what I want without censorship or regulations. I’m an responsable adult If this results in requiring platforms to monitor user’s activity, i.e. filter Just as with any copyright infringement EU Responses to Question 3 137

there should be some kind of proven in a court of law before framework and procedures in place any censorship takes place to ensure a fair and just decision. nothing will be shared anymore if alleged infringements have to be proven in they have their way...people will be a court of law before censorship occurs? unable to get a wide perspective on the world we live in... poor people The EU Commission has proposed an idea might as well move back in a cave. that would require platforms to censor the web by monitoring and removing Content platforms should continue to have content posted by Internet users. I do a Safe Harbor provision, insulating them not support this so-called ‘duty of care’ from content added by end users. There provision in the Digital Single Market should be no filters short of blocking planMonitoring billions of posts per day obvious malicious software. Courts should results in automated systems that unfairly be the only bodies allowed to take down censor legal speech and expression.When or limit content after a presentation of websites make decisions on what is legal the facts and arguments for/against content they are acting like courts and judges, a role they are not qualified for, They should not monitor my Internet and are very to get the balance wrong. activity. They should not remove When individuals monitor content they content I produce unless infringement apply their own unique quirks and morality, has been proven in a court of law often inconsistently. For example Facebook permits hate speech, but bans nudity. No, because thats “vigilantism”. Vigilantism is bad because is police and judges, Censorship should never occur. Any the legal system, the best one to know “illegal activity” (ie. posting of copyrighted when and how to apply the law. material) should be deemed as such in a court of law before removal. A crime should be alledged before action is taken or greater crimes would I think sites should not be given be committed by not doing that. power to decide such things. The infringement has to be proven in court I believe they should have clearer policies on what they will share, thereby I am against all kind of censorship preventing some of the disgraceful or monitoring, privacy is very things they currently allow. important, as well as freedom No, they should not monitor my activity. No. Companies cannot be made to act as Infringement MUST be proven! We are police or judges. Rightsowners ought to innocent until proven guilty, theoretically. defend their interests, if they are harmed, proactively, and not ask others to do it prove infringement in court preemptively in their name, least this Should be proven in a court of law with a would be automatically overapplied. panel of jurors who do not represent the Besides, what I do in the web cannot interests of the prosecuting company be monitored by a service provider (be it an ISP or Google or Twitter). No other than racial, hate, extremism etc Alleged infringement should be 138 EU Responses to Question 3

Platforms like YouTube have a business before any action could be taken. model based in the masive use of pirated content. This is unaceptable and these Q 1: No Q 2: Yes companies should modify their behaviour rather radically. There are no technical no (part 1) yes (part 2) excuses for not doing that. Again we need No. A easy analogy is a market to consider as diferent things the fast place where the owners are being removal of pirated content (that should hold responsible for the actions of be done by companies like You Tune clients or a intruder. it’s not fair without going to a court) and the removal of really private material (that of course Alleged infringement should have to go should not be done without going to s to Court! AND net providers should not court). How to separate these two sets of be exempt from law suits if they give contents is rather easy in most of the cases information on you and your web behaviour to government or other businesses. The Well, there should be some soft regulation, former should have to have a court order. but nor to rigid. It depends if an account is constantly violating private property These things should never be rights for his own uses, or if the account decided outside of court. is distributing the content further or even creating new informations out of it Infringement should be proven in court before cemsorship occurs No way No. SoundCloud, Twitter or Youtube NO i dont want them monitoring my activity are tools for freedom of speach. The monitoring are a “speedbump” and a anything alleged should be collective punishment for the commuinty. proven in a court of law Let the law do what the law is tended to do. No to montoring Yes to producing proof Censorship should only come after the Should have to be proven, or the courts have ruled against a perpetrator “Infringer” should be informed first. and deemed their activity illegal

If these platforms are to act as agents No one should have the right to remove of the law, then I suggest they do so content except if it is proven in court in all terrains. Thus, they should have to be illegal, or is clearly illegal. the same training, education, and No, they should definitely not monitor my accountability in law that a judge Internet activity, nor filter and remove does. Else, let judges be judges. content I produce and share. They don’t Infringement should have to be proven have the competence to act like judges. in court. Regulations requiring service No, no systematic monitoring should providers to monitor my activity is be done. It should be proven in intrusive and privacy invading. court before censorship occurs. NO, there shall be no monitoring, Of course it should be proven in court infringement should be proven beyond any reasonable doubt in a court of law We need regulations. I believe courts are EU Responses to Question 3 139

unnecessary in most cases. They should censorship. Twitter and YouTube should only be needed if it is not clear if there has be very careful in removing content. been an infringement or not. The platforms mostly follow blindly and remove content Infringement have to be proven first, much too quickly. Many times it’s even blanket censoring is way overkill automatic and results in false positives. It’s complicated. As much as I appreciate Censorship should not occur on a regular individual freedom, I do accept the basis and platforms should definitely not responsibility that I need to exercise a have to monitor what their users do. reasonable ‘duty of care’ to ensure that our society works well for most of the people Yes I do. See the answer to q2 for more info. most of the time. I do not believe that it’s unreasonable for massively wealthy Absolutely not! I am an aspiring content and influential organizations to be held creator, and I would not want my work to reasonable standards. Reasonable to end up being censored just because accommodations, no matter what form I happen to use an Intellectual property they take are going to require money. as basis or part of my work!When it Which means collectively we need to comes to complete and total copying have tough conversations about how we of films and movies into Youtube, differentiate “’free’ as in speech” and “’free’ that is when regulations can step in. as in beer” in a globally connected world Otherwise I believe alleged infringement must be proven in court first! Should be determined in legal process of some kind - perhaps not court I believe that it should be proven in court if it is the individuals content no no no yes yes yes!!!

Well, it should go through a court, I think Obviously no monitoring of my activity should be required. Of course not. You can’t do that at will. Preemptive monitoring of the public (or Absolutely no. I have the right to a large portion thereof) should never privacy, free speech and expression. I be acceptable. Also, in addition to the live in a democracy, or so I am told above monitoring would not solve any what right has Twitter for example got problems but would introduce new to spy on me?! Alleged infringement ones. Having a court determine the should always have to be proven in a correct course of action may be slower, court of law because otherwise this is a but will not harm innocent people in a dictatorship with no recourse to the law misguided attempt to curb infringement.

2 questions: 1) No 2) Yes Requiring platform providers to monitor users’ activites is utterly unreasonable. No. That is a breach of privacy and Some level of vigilance against cyber- people’s personal integrity. crime is justified, but requiring platform providers to be the copyright police No, such mass surveillance is inefficient would put a burden on them which and targets innocent people. It might they are simply not fit to carry. have a negative effect on people, and might, in the long run, lead to more self- Court 140 EU Responses to Question 3

should be proven in court of Part 1: Absolutely not. Part 2: Yes law before taken down No, that would limit the flow of information No. The onus should be on the “owners” and is against public interesst and there should be a proven violation before content is taken down there should be no censorship, except in extreme situations that threaten I believe it needs to be proven first. The the public, ie violent pornography sheer amount of work it would take a and jihadist propaganda company to monitor content intelligently is unfeasable, and automated means have Proven in Court of Law first proven to be too scattershot over the years Alleged infringement needs to be Social media platforms should not have proven in a court of law since, as seen the power to monitor internet activity commonly on youtube, the fact that its not without due process i.e. a court of law required to do so is abused commonly. should be involved before censorship occurs, rather than the website having Absolutely not, no one should the ability of direct censorship monitor internet usage. Infringements must be proved in court. The court must decide, NOT censored by businesses in the ‘business’ Infringement should be proved in a court of law I will fight it with whatever means posible. The fact that theese rules are written by Infringement should be proven people who dont have a clue and proposed before censorship by companies with an endless sack of gold SC, Twitter and Youtube should do an and an arsenal of lobbyists is just crazy. initial pass but ultimately it should No. I believe that only proper courts of be proven in a court of law law should have the power to censor. No one should be required to I have mixed feelings about this one monitor anyone unless there though I agree it should be fair is a court order behind it.

NO, I don’t agree with this. This To the former: No, to the latter: Yes. would be a repression of freedom A filter functionality is automatic and will No they have no right. Proven in court. automatically not be able to understand the difference between quotation of The alleged copyright infringement someone else work in order to share a must be proven in court before any opinion so this restricts our freedom to content can be taken down. express ourself (freedom of speech).

No, platforms should not act as a police alleged infringement have to be proven in a court of law before censorship occurs! If an idiot is driving his BMW in 250 km/h, do you ask BMW to monitor there Hyperlinks are the foundation cars? Or remove the posibility to drive of the Interne. No link tax, and faster then a by BMW selected speed? no censoring links online !! EU Responses to Question 3 141

Innocent & uncensored until That proposal is completely unreasonable, proven otherwise unworkable, and totalitarian

It should be proven in a c ourt of law. I don’t believe any internet “platform” should be made to monitor our Of course every platform has to be free! activity unless a court of law decides Who can claim to be the owner ? this on a case-by-case basis

The ability to link is what makes the No, they should not have regulations web a web, and is fundamental to the requiring them to monitor my activities. Any censorship should require proof ..Proven in a court of law to of infringement in a court of law. publicise incompetance. The alleged infringement should •The EU Commission has proposed an idea be proven in a court. that would require platforms to censor the web by monitoring and removing No! No censorship under any circumstances content posted by Internet users. I do not support this so-called ‘duty of care’ Any action must be preceded by provision in the Digital Single Market the judgment of a court of law! plan•Monitoring billions of posts per day results in automated systems that unfairly I think that the monitoring of internet censor legal speech and expression.•When activity is completely insane. You wouldn’t websites make decisions on what is legal have little camera bots follow every content they are acting like courts and person around and record everything judges, a role they are not qualified for, and they do at every moment of every day are very to get the balance wrong.•When and send it to whoever, so why do that individuals monitor content they apply to people when they are on the internet? their own unique quirks and morality, often And as for filtering and removing content, inconsistently. For example Facebook that’s equally ludicrous. That’s like if permits hate speech, but bans nudity. in addition to a camera bot you had a robot follow you around that zapped 1 No2Yes and disintegrated everything you made that someone disagreed with, regardless I do not believe that providers should of if you or anyone else thought what monitor my internet activity. I believe that you made was fine. News flash. People infringements should have to be proven are citizens on the internet too in a court of law. This would (I hope) cut down on the number of occasions that Absolutely not. Alleged infringement has large companies attempt to bully people. to be demonstrated before making any accusations, and IP addresses should not It is absurd and infeasible for these be used as evidence. If you think that, platforms to monitor all content then you should also request mandatory pro-actively. They do have a duty to opening of all your correspondence remove illegal material, in response and mail. It’s the same thing to complaints, after due investigation. Copyright infringement on such platforms No, I do not think that they should receive should be handled proportionately external regulation. Certainly a court and based on clear evidence of law or a consumer/producer agreed 142 EU Responses to Question 3

forum should be the arbiter if necessary There should only be censorship with appeal for both sides in any dispute. when material is offensive e.g. racist, sexist, homophobic etc. Political No. The internet must be open and opinion respctfully expressed free to all. Any infringement must be should never be censored. proven before action can be taken. Should have to be proven in court of law. Dear GOD no. Alleged infringement must be proved No to first question.(Q3) Yes to second (Q3) in court before censorship is allowed. Platforms should not monitor internet There should be no monitoring of social activity, national security forces appear media or online sharing. Any alleged to be doing this already and there is no infringement of copyright should be need to further erode civil liberties pursued through the existing legal process. when it leads obviously to the suffering It should have to be discovered and of someone else, it should directly proven. There’s no need to make be effected by the said companies. website owners the nannies and courts usually deal with laws. enforcers of the content owners No, they should only act under No and yes it should be complaint, provided the complainant proven in a court of law can prove they hold the copyright.

Censorship should be confined to cases There should be no “gate keepers” where photos were taken and/or shared or “police” deciding what links and without the subject’s permission (i.e. content will be allowed, this should be revenge porn), or horrifying content like done by courts and a thorough legal ISIS beheadings. Otherwise, infringement process. These are not procedures or should have to be proven in court. decisions to be decided by algorithms / businesses / corporations etc. The wishes Not sure about this one. Going into court / needs of publishers do not outweigh sucks, not to mention the amount of money those of the rest of the population. it costs. You’re asking if a broken system should be monitored by a broken system. This is a tricky one. If someone without the copyright uploads a whole episode of most have be proven a series, a whole movie, a whole song or No, I believe people can monitor each something like that, then yes, they should other when given tools to report be filtered. If it’s only a part of the work, illegal behaviour and bullying like some funny scene, then no. That’s just positive for the rightholder, as it increases No, they shouldn’t monitor activity, interest in the work at no cost for them. except for hate speech and child If it’s a song in the background, in such porn. Infringements must be dealt a way that it’s clearly not the purpose of with by the courts, otherwise the video, tweet, or whatever, to “show we live in a vigilante world off” that work, it’s just silly to filter it. Remixes, which essentially turns a work No, such monitoring is censorship. It into another work, should be legal. In should be proven in court of law EU Responses to Question 3 143

short, a court should absolutely be the unconvential speakers and thinkers one deciding if something is illegal should not be interfered with. Who the hell is going to police that lot?? Regulations, of the type suggested, are too difficult to monitor. Let those No i think i should be allowed to be a free alleging infringement prove it in thinking human being who as long as I a court of law - at their cost do no mental or physical harm to a real person should be allowed to do as I like Removal for copyright infringement or hate content should be summary. Everything Removal of content should only be else should go to a court of law. done following due legal process

Put it to court first. Don’t just take it down Court of law. and tell us to “forget it and get on with life” Alleged infringement should have to Alleged infringements should be proven in court, just saying that’s be proven in court mine etc is not good enough control

No, I do not believe that my internet Throwing allegations around will become activity should be monitored. Removing easy for PR firms acting for clients content leads to censorship, and should and create an industry. However real be considered carefully. Obviously dissent and freedom of expression will there are exceptions, such as hate be totally suppressed. make the rich speech and indecent images, but this pay for their courtcases, and also allow should be monitored by law courts and people time to change their posted new boundaries and laws created. ‘offensive’ material before punishment alleged infringement must have to be Censorship is a very sticky subject. proven in a court of law - otherwise the Provided material is legal, it is nobody’s potential for abuse are vast, limiting business who puts it up or who free speech and human rights. accesses it. Questions of good taste are notoriously difficult to rule upon While censorship is unwelcomed there is a need to protect the vulnerable and Need to be proven before censorship maladjusted the latter whom tend to feel that if the information is on a public Alleged infringemnet should of forum that it is okay to act in that manner. course be proven in a court of This is a difficult question to resolve law before censorship occurs dont know Software should allow for ‘self- regulation’ via cyber-juries. Dont use twitter or soundcloud but I do utube. Watching activity should not be No. Should be proven in a court of law monitored. However posting activity should be.. to try to keep down terrorist Existing laws have been crafted with recruitment and philshing scam theives, the delicate balance between free + anything promoting racism, violence expression and legal speech in mind. or crime and disguising it as art or These laws should be used to curb politics. Though genuine eccentric and abusive behaviour online, rather than 144 EU Responses to Question 3

creating a new system. When websites Platforms should not be required to censor, make decisions on what is legal content filter or remove content that has not been they are acting like courts and judges, a proven infringing. In fact I would be in role they are not qualified for, and are favor of greater restrictions on what they very likely this delicate balance wrong are ALLOWED to censor / filter / remove...

I understand that in the case of apparent No of course these platforms should not human rights violation it is important that be monitoring people’s use of the internet. the internet should react immediately. E.g. you cannot have videos showing murders, alleged infringement should be rapes or child molesting be shown freely - proven before censoring this is against human dignity. You can even request for content to go down if someone There must be an assumption of has taken pictures of you while you where innocence unless proven otherwise on holidays and you don’t want to show Infringement should be proven your face to everybody in this planet. But before censorship. these are apparent cases and are very different from having a political speech Absolutely not, and yes it should be proven go down for an irrelevant reason. E.g. in a court before any censorship occurs. you cannot take down a political speech or a view because the one who had the Content management should be reactive, camera happened to listen to a song at rather than proactive. Content managers that moment and now the video has this should intervene only when complaints song in it. This is again abuse of rights from users have been received, and the content is either *obviously* illegal/hate The unrealistic expectation of billions speech. By *obvious*, I mean obvious to of daily posts being monitored, is likely any random group of people. Otherwise, to result in a blanket banning approach. it should go to independent assessment. This is a terrible infringement of peoples Automated systems should not be used. ability for individual expression and the sharing of creative thoughts Some platforms do have standards they enforce about content, others don’t. It Alleged infringement have to be proven should be up to the platform to decide in a court of law before censorship occurs what comments to accept for comment - that is the purpose of courts - to protect sections and what not. Many platforms the citizens from creeping censorship. have a button comment makers can use to complain about other comments I do not trust wholesale surveillance reporting to Government and Government Definitely not. Every thing should be done agencies such as MI5, MI6, GCHQ, NSA with due process like for everyone else. (of the US), Police. But with the problem with Muslim extremists of Daesh and Content that is patently illegal other terrorists roaming freely it would (pornography, incitement to hate crimes) seem then that ‘ordinary’ peoples safety/ should be censored - but nothing else security must be upheld by monitoring to a controlled degree. But who has Platforms should not monitor our activity, the qualification to judge so that it this is a gross infringement of privacy is fair and consistent monitoring . and freedom of speech! Content should EU Responses to Question 3 145

only be removed if it causes harm (e.g. censorship. Innocent until proven guilty.... bullying content), and at the request of When individuals monitor content they a victim. In the case of copyright, the apply their own individual quirks and court should determine the law, not the morality, often inconsistently. For example individual platforms who are likely to Facebook permits hate speech, but bans be risk averse and to lack understanding nudity. Monitoring billions of posts per day of the nuances of legal principles. results in automated systems that unfairly censor legal speech and expression YouTube already tries to monitor activity on its site, using a system called ContentID. Soundcloud, Twitter, or Youtube are not Unfortunately, it is garbage, and results qualified to determine properly what in items being removed due to spurious content is legal, and what is not. Only claims of infringement. Like this - https:// a court is qualified to properly make torrentfreak.com/universal-music-hijacks- those determinations. As it is now, these youtube-videos-of-indie-artist-150317/ platforms often remove content without proper cause just because they have been Corporate sponsored monitoring and asked to do so by some large company. censorship of social media without resort to legal proof of justification is Monitoring billions of posts per day an abuse of the rights of the majority of results in automated systems that unfairly law abiding ordinary citizens and has no censor legal speech and expression place outside of fascist dictatorships. Infringement should be proven in court No regulations to monitor my activity, first, not by some automated system privacy is sacrosanct. It should ALWAYS be proven before censorship Any alleged infringement needs to go before some sort of tribunal if it is No and yes otherwise it isn’t a legal process offensive. If it is political I see no harm in it and that is what is taken down in NZ NO regulations! Absolutely not. No censorship! Freedom for all! 3a - No3b - Yes No I don’t believe any censorship of any Alleged infringements have to be proven in kind has any foundation ethically or in law. a court of law before censorship can occure A ‘duty of care’ encourages hosting No. My internet activity is my business companies to play safe and apply much and should not be monitored. There is more censorship than is legally required. no reason to suspect people of illegal Of course they must -- they need to protect activity. Alleged infringement needs to themselves. This completely removes be proven before censorship occurs. all fair use rights and many other rights (such as freedom of speech) from content Alleged infringement claims has to be creators. We have seen far too many proven. So-called “right holders” that make cases of abuse of takedown notices by wrong accusations should be punished content owners, sometimes deliberate and (with fees of some kind) for doing so, to sometimes from negligence, resulting in force them to double-check each claim the removal of new works, with impacts on the revenue streams for the creators It should be proven in court before of those works. The ‘duty of care’ should 146 EU Responses to Question 3

be on content owners to exercise full care system is always going to be behind the before making any complaint! With serious internet and as such cannot and will not sanctions against any complainants held to keep up with what people are doing on/ be making invalid complaints. Particularly using the internet for Market plan serious penalties must be imposed on notices incorrectly claiming ownership of Requiring providers to monitor activity copyright (whether deliberate or through and censor content makes the concept of negligence). In addition, all complainants a free and open internet a farce. Existing making invalid complaints must pay the systems for blocking and removing content costs of adjudication and of forcing the aready seem pretty robust. Tightening legal platform to re-instate any work taken requirements would only hamstring the down as a result of that complaint. A internet and destroy its creative potential. suitable approach might be only allowing takedown requests from complainants who Alleged infringement should have to be have posted a substantial bond to cover proven in a court of law before censorship. adjudication, reparations and penalties for I think those writing the laws an unaware any invalid complaints they may make. of the dynamics and volume of content Such decisions should be on the web. The question also does not taken only in court specify the type of infringement, and this is complicated by different laws applying Nobody should have the right to monitor to different countries on a platform my internet activity. Any infringement that is designed to create an integrated should be proven in a court of law. global community. Copyright laws vary from country to country, as does fair use No. Nobody should monitor my internet policies. Copyright laws are often updated activity at all. After all they don’t and extended prior to public domain monitor my snail mail, do they? use of content comes into force. Laws around mature content, what is defined as The EU Commission has proposed an idea mature content also varies from country to that would require platforms to censor the country. The current situation is complex, web by monitoring and removing content but unless the internet is redesigned to posted by Internet users. I do not support operate in isolation per region it will this so-called ‘duty of care’ provision in remain hard to police.Sharing is what we the Digital Single monitoring billions of as humans do, its how we communicate. posts per day results in automated systems Stopping by nature is not possible. that unfairly censor legal speech and expression.Additionally what court of law absolutely not! CENSORSHIP would you allow to adjudicate, the legal will never work system in the home of the person who posted, the legal system in the country Platforms should not monitor my of the rightsholder, or the legal system activity and only remove content where the platform is based? Automatically ordered by court decissions deferring to a court of law makes the appealing of takedown orders, a costly Too confused a question option out of reach of the vast majority for a sensible answer of end-users and thus something which It should be proven in a court of is totally inaccessible.The current legal law before censorship occurs EU Responses to Question 3 147

Alleged infringement should need to Platforms can be regulated but they be proven in a court of law before need to balance rights better than censorship occurs. Monitoring should be they do, they need better légal training restricted to extremely harmful material. and there should be an independant organ we can appeal to when we don’t Private commercial entities at work in agree with platform’s decisions the market need to maintain their cold equations of profit and loss - but at the Infringement should have to be proven in same time, the platform they provide has a court of law of the country the uploaded between seamlessly interwoven with the resides in before censorship occurs. way the communities of the wider society talk and interact with each other. Perhaps No censorship unless court a new category of commerce should be proves necessary. devised to accommodate the conflicting demands on these - our! - global forums. Platforms such as SoundCloud, Twitter, or YouTube should NOT face regulations better would be an agreement/contract requiring them to monitor your Internet when signing up which makes the user activity, or filter and remove content you aware of limitations of free speech produce and share? Alleged infringement (Human Rights). If something is truly should have to be proven in a court out of order I think it is ok to censor and of law before censorship occurs take a clip off the net very quickly and (like that terrible video of a beheading) While internet service sites should do all immediately and then go to court of law. that they can to ensure that their site is used in a lawful manner, they should not be They should be held to the censoring user created content unless that strictest standards that can be content has been proven to be unlawful devised to retain our privacy Platforms should not face regulation Have to be proven first requiring monitoring, filtering and removal of my content. Alleged infringement should Court action be required to be proved before censorship

No to regulation. Alleged infringement It should have to be proven beyond should be proven in a court of law all reasonable doubt! People should before any censorship be imposed be innocent until PROVEN guilty!

A tricky subject. I do not like the idea I don’t think these platforms should have of being monitored. And too much non the right to remove content I produce infringing stuff is being removed and shareWhere violent or hateful content exists it should be frozen and No should be proven in a court inaccessible but NOT removed until a court of law decides on censorship. Platforms should not have to act as “policemen”. The process It is impossible to monitor and fairly censor of the Law needs to be carried the volume of data passing through the through before the “punishment” i.e. major internet sites today. Attempting to do censorship is adm9inistered. this through automation has resulted in a lot of unintended consequences. I believe 148 EU Responses to Question 3

infringement should be proven before to respond and take action if required, action is taken. This would ensure that or alternatively deny the claims.There only real, harmful violations are pursued should be the option to escalate the matter to a court of law if required. No. The infringement should have to be proven No. Companies should not be responsible for monitoring me. Alleged Alleged infringement should be infringement needs proof in court proven in court before platforms are allowed to do perform such acts. I believe a very good reason is required before monitoring. An independent judicial Yes, the content must be filtered and committee should review each case. even removed if it is a foul content, abusive and discriminating It must absolutely be proven in a court of law! That is the only place which can I do not think platforms should be forced legal determine what is legal and what is to regulate and monitor their users not. Giving this responsibility to private companies will inevitably go only in one I don’t think they should have direction: disproportionate censorship. to monitor my activity. In an effort to protect themselves from lawsuits, they’ll become as trigger-happy Alleged infringement should need as the copyright holders themselves. There to be proven in a Court of Law MUST be penalties for wrongful take-down! If infringement occurs allegedly, it should no,yes be proven by correct legal procedure. these services should not be monitoring Some types of content can be banned by our activity. It should require a court the platform. In general, infringements order before censorship occurs should be proven in court, but there could also be some alternative means of The only monitoring of internet usage judging the content, which the platform should be with a court order, and court or service provider could require the orders should be of limited duration. If user to accept. For example a system of the suppliers of content want to limit voting, such as used by OkCupid, where the distribution of their content, they users/administrators vote whether should make it available by license only, a some content violates the rules or service like Pirate Bay, but one where you not. Monitoring internet activity is in have to join a pay a fee for download. general not acceptable, except when required by a court order. The same Extreme, anti-social, threatening should apply to any form of filtering content should be removed by platforms, but alleged infringement No.Alleged infringement should have to should be proven before removal. be proven beyond reasonable doubt to the platforms by the industry, and a clear I do not think such platforms should be explanation of what the infringement required to monitor the content hosted is sent on to the user by the platform by them. They should be required to before any action or removal takes enforce proven court orders retiring place.The user should then have time take down. But should also be able EU Responses to Question 3 149

to object on behalf of their users. so there needs to be some discretion in what content appears online. Platforms such as SoundCloud, Twitter and YouTube must not be required to I do NOT believe platforms such as proactively monitor users’ Internet SoundCloud, Twitter, or YouTube should activity and to filter and remove face regulations requiring them to monitor content. This would lead to automated your Internet activity, or filter and remove systems’censoring legal speech and content you produce and share? Alleged expression. A website should not be infringement have to be proven in a required to act like judge and jury. court of law before censorship occurs.

Infringement must be proven in court Yes they should face regulations. before any censorship can be considered. I believe information should be freely Yes, I think it is fair that a private available for the development of society organization should, of right, be able to censor what people put on its pages It’s really all beyond me (I’m 81 !) but it seems that we can’t now put the Genie If an infringement has to be proven in a back in the bottle. Even if there were court of law before it can face censorship never any political motive for ‘snooping then the content will be avaible/visable I would certainly find it hard to believe until the case is proven which could be it was so, Politicians act very secretly some time. However, if the only alternative and duplicitously, which probably was to this potentialy lengthy process is always the case but now we are aware monitoring regulations, they would of it, thanks largely to the internet. have to be very intricate and extensive to cover all situations. Regulation and No! I do NOT believe platforms should monitoring would only be acceptable face regulations requiring them to monitor to people if they could understand my Internet activity, or filter and remove what the regulations were and the content I produce and share. Alleged what they were being monitored for. infringement should have to be proven in a court of law before censorship occurs No, should be proven I do not think it is humanly possible Do you believe platforms such as for platforms to monitor all content, SoundCloud, Twitter, or YouTube should or physically possible to automate face regulations requiring them to monitor the monitoring of such content. your Internet activity, or filter and remove content you produce and share? Absolutely I don’t know. no!Or should alleged infringement have to be proven in a court of law No, alleged infringement should be proven before censorship occurs?Yes, always. No, they shouldn’t face the regulations I don’t want internet monitoring No. This would be a breach of regulations at all my right to free speech. Again this requires more than a straight I believe any monitoring of my internet ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer. Some content is activity by these platforms would likely to inappropriate or offensive 150 EU Responses to Question 3

be a breach of my privacy. They may happened and sue the criminal for it. The remove content I produce and share same should apply to websites which have provided it is a valid breach of copyright.I become our modern digital roadways believe alleged infringement should be proven in a court of law of the users No because The EU Commission country before any action is taken. has proposed an idea that would require platforms to censor the web No. Infringement should have to be by monitoring and removing content proven with a right to respond before posted by Internet users. I do not support censorship occurs. In any event, there this so-called ‘duty of care’ provision should be no ex parte censorship in the Digital Single Market plan

I believe that platforms should have I’m not happy about my internet the right to manage their own content activity being monitored, or its contents but should conform to court ordered being filtered or removed, unless an removal of illegal content (such and child alleged fringement has been proved. pornography, snuff content or defamation) no & no No, never! If censorship is going to take place it must have its reasons proven! Absolutely and definitely NOT - let’s It is no more the job of YouTube to have the rule of law please monitor the videos I post than it is the job of the highway maintenance people Any alleged infringement should to stalk my car! If my car needs stalking, be proven in law before censorship the police should get a warrant... occurs - websites like Twitter, YouTube etc. Should not be put in a position Absolutely not, the internet is a free place, to filter and monitor user activity. but regulated enough, if you regulate it more people will switch to Tor browser It should happen in a court of law and the like, where regulation is nil, and We are spied upon far too much as it you can have easier access to drugs, guns, is. Personally, I would be happier if *all* anything. People will sail off into the spying were made illegal - Facebook, I’m unknown unregulated waters where they talking to *you*! The distinction between don’t have these over the top regulations industrial spying (which we now endure) Websites like Twitter, Facebook and and government spying (which is a growing Youtube are the digital roadways we use and ominous trend) is very narrow. We to get to places. Everything we do today cannot be free if powers we know nothing happens online. Being online is not optional about know everything about us. So no, I any more. If you want to know anything or believe censorship should occur - NEVER. do anything you have to use the Internet. I think all of this is ridiculous. We’ve None of us can make it through a normal had the internet for years and years, day without using it. When a crime takes and now it’s becoming an issue? place on a road we do not sue the owner of the road. One can’t go to a court of I do not believe service providers/plaforms law and say that the owner of the road is should monitor Internet activity. I think responsible for a criminal using it, you have the 2 parties should talk it out and if to go to a court of law to prove a crime has there’s no resolution then it needs to EU Responses to Question 3 151

be proven in court. There also needs It should not be the responsibility of to be rules in place so Internet trolls the platforms to police the content that don’t browbeat the average citizen is posted/uploaded by its users. It is unfair on them and more importantly I believe the proposed Digital Single it should not be their decision on what Market plan would result in automated gets censored. Any alleged infringement systems unfairly censoring legal speech should be reported through appropriate and expression. I believe this should legal channels and proven before there is be the duty of judges and courts any consideration of filtering or removal. and not websites. Websites should not act like courts and judges. Infringement should definitely be proven in a court of law before censorship occurs- These organisations should not at the very least there should be a way remove content people produce and of fighting the decision since there have share unless there is well established been many occasions where the decision laws are being infringed. to censor something was a mistake

I do not want my content to be NO. Next they’ll be wanting all birthday filtered without undue cause cards and letters etc opened! That is beyond the pail and needs stopped now! There needs to be a balance between the two as for instance Youtube cannot we live by the law not hearsay. so no, i dont police every video and the courts need to be spied on 24/7 in case i break the cannot take every case. At the moment law.its my right as a human being to either videos are taken down too quickly live within the law or outside it. its my risk for the smallest reason and this must to take if i choose to do so. and no 1 has stop in favour of the big copiers. the right to try and protect me from myself. yes it should be proven before 1st part: No. second part: yes. monitoring and censorship occurs. No. No amount of ‘walking by’ or No, they would be made to censor without ‘browsing’ should be considered criminal. following proper legal process. This means Punish sales not happenstance that what is allowed and what is taken down would be decided by financial threats Proven in court. from sponsors and advertisers rather than fair and impartial legal decision. The courts must be the only authority able to authorise monitoring in order to With some subjects it’s not a bad idea. I prevent companies, who are by definition do think if you have nothing to hide you motivated by short term profit, from should be ok. But I also don’t want to be becoming the arbiters of what constitutes treated like in the old communist countries. acceptable content or behaviour Yes I think it should be proven in a court This regulation is useless: 1. It will create Serious common-sense ingringement two-step links that cannot be followed should be decided by the Court, The by machines automatically - reducing the rest, it should be up to the user to ability to monitor. 2. I, as a website owner, choosing what to use, or not. have to monitor the links I provided to make sure the content does not change. 152 EU Responses to Question 3

I either have to implement censor-link a. No. b. Yes redirects that fetch the site before I redirect users OR I need to fetch the site It should be proven first on a regular basis (once a day for a link that is clicked once a year = 365x more Probably not. Let courts act but act quickly! traffic). Both are useless if you have to I do not support the ‘duty of care’ log in. 3. *I* would need to remove the provision, the automated systems this link and look it up in the internet archive would require, and the arbitrary and to provide the old content. This should inconsistent decisions this would produce. be done by the one who clicks the link Absolutely allegations should be proven In a society where money is distributed first. My ISP...or Facebook....or whoever is unfairly and unevenly, we should PROMOTE not, and should not be ‘Web policemen’. ways to help balance out this inequality The presumption of innocence is the If platforms are made responsible cornerstone of modern judicial system. It for the content then we will have should be applied in any case of alleged censorship that is even worse than unlawful behaviour including copyright state censor. The platforms will pre- infringement and that a proper court emptively remove more than a court order must be the only basis for any would have removed. Any form of acting censorship, fines, account termination on content should occur according to a or content filtering or removal democratically established set of rules and should hence be the privilege of the It is ridiculous to expect such platforms to state and its courts, not companies. monitor all content. Only a court of law should be able to censor any content. no they do not have the right to monitor my activities nor do they have the right I should be proven in a court of law. to filter them nor to remove them. The EU Commission’s idea to get platforms Noone should spy using the ‘telescreens@ to censor the web by monitoring and Orwell predicted in his book, “1984” removing content posted by Internet users without legal authority from a Court is wrong. I am 100% against this ‘duty of of Law. Courts of Lawshould decide care’ provision in the Digital Single Market what infringes and what not. plan.The internet should not be censored but should be policed to an extent to Infringement should be proven in a court of make sure that activity on it is legal.It is a law and not administered by corporations matter for the courts to decide what is and I believe that monitoring Internet isn’t illegal use of copyrighted material - activity is wrong, and that any filtering platforms should not be made to do this. or content removal should be subject Why monitor? I see no reason to a court of law if challenged yes alleged infringement should be proven Only the courts should have the right and content not be removed willy nilly to decide what is legal or illegal. Delegating this job to platforms sets a Infringement should be a matter dangerous precedent and would almost for courts, as has been normal for certainly undermine our legal system. EU Responses to Question 3 153

all legal matters for centuries. and everybody you hate, will find a way around it. No! Content is the responsibility of the person posting and if any infringement No. And yes has occurred the court should force them to remove it, not the provider No, I am strongly opposed to internet platforms being required to carry out Proven before filtered monitoring or filtering of users’ content. This is a quasi-judicial role that private Should be down to the courts companies are neither competent nor empowered to carry out. It ignores the Postings should be subject to reasonable due process of law, of any description. regulations regarding freedom of speech, but only in the country of origin. Something like that would ruin those sites as it’s impossible to check so much content Platforms should not be required in a way that’s fair for the users. That would to monitor internet activity. just silence the Internet, destroying the best communication tool in existence This is a democracy, there should be no monitoring Pas de censure MAIS PAS DE TRACKING ! C’est mon droit et ma liberté de bloquer Proof in court absolutely should be ceux qui se mêlent de ma navigation. required, bare minimum. No tight monitoring except for material like Sensoring is just wrong!!! pornography or child exploitation It needs to be proven, otherwise free No, they shouldn’t. Yes, it should be proven expression will be stifled as responsibility before censorship overrides freedom is handed to individual companies.

No, because they are not in a position I do not support this so-called ‘duty to do so fairly. They are likely to of care’ provision in the Digital Single overreact to protect themselves Market plan. When websites make decisions on what is legally permissible It should have to be proven content, they are acting like courts and in a court of law judges - roles they are not qualified for, I think it should be screened for and have no legal authority to fulfill. inappropriate content, but copyrighted Alleged infringement should have material should be able to be used for to be proven in a court of law. parodies, fan or debates reasons - as well as educational or original reproduction Somebody has got to monitor it otherwise how are things like child pornography Definitely not. And absolutely going to be discovered, you can’t rely on Courts and the law are the correct way the pornographers to report themselves ! to deal with this, there should be no Making content providers act as both automatic power to censor anything police and judge runs contrary to modern without demonstrable evidence values, it’s going back to how the repressive No. Try to monitor us and we, regimes we love to condemn work 154 EU Responses to Question 3

Infringement should always before the safety of the public and daily have to be proved. break the laws they purport to uphold.

Infringement should be no and it should have to be proven in a court of law. proven in a court of law

No they shouldn’t have to monitor Alleged infringement should bve proven before assumed guilty and any should need to be proven in court monitoring is an invasion of privicy

No because friends and family Must be proven a court of law often use these platforms to share their own performances. I don’t think anyone should monitor anyone’s Internet activity. Certain sites, no in a court blogs, forums, etc could be monitored if they are proven to contain activities, No. Facebook should allow endangering other people (e.g. if they members to self regulate are used by terrorists or other violations of human rights). Regarding the content Common snse and decency should be used of larger platforms, social networks, etc I don’t know. I would have to see - I think it works well currently - when proposed regulations to understand users report content. This is the right their scope before I could answer this. way to regulate web sites and platforms. Regarding the rights infringement - there No - I disagree strongly.We have laws have to be clear rules which action is in most countries to cover any kind of infringement and which isn’t (a party on abuse, pornographic, illegal activities youtube because some song is played etc, those who uphold the law just need in the background, or small fragment of to get up to date. It is only a different song used somewhere don’t look). And of medium and that does not affect the law. course it has to be proven in court before any action occurs. Or what happens No this is a breach of my human rights with Presumption of innocence - a basic element in most legal systems? No they damned well should not: they are simple platforms, not branches Proven. Tho i also think a platform should of the secret services This is pure, have clear and easy ways to complain. cynical, arrogance. If the collective governments are so sodding paranoid should some level of monitoring about what any given individual does online they should do their OWN bloody Content providers should not research, using their own media, AFTER be required to be police convincing higher judicial authorities No, I think any infringement of freedom that they have a legitimate need to spy of speech that does not involve Alleged infringement have to be proven in incitement to violence or has content a court of law before censorship occurs as liable to cause severe offence to others censorship would and often is controlled should be unacceptable -it is a natural by those who do not have the public right of expression- although I would interests at heart, put profit and companies hope the only form of redress does not EU Responses to Question 3 155

involve resorting to the long drawn- should require courts out machinations of courts of law. The Internet is so important as a medium No, this will censor freedom for information exchange that its freedom of speech and expression from restrictions surpasses any possible commercial advantage imaginable. The Absolutely NOT. I think a content provider communication it enables between should be able to decide, at the point individuals and groups provides a means of publishing for the first time, under of communication relatively unrestricted what circumstances his content should by political and commercial forces and as be shareable and to whom. Once out such it is one of the most important things there, it should be permanent, unless we have to ensure the road we travel proven to be malicious and wrong by an reflects the needs of ordinary people. independent body (not necessarily a court of law).Anything that makes profiling Well, considering I live in a nation where people easier for any purpose without the judicial system is based on the their knowledge, or by using information victory of “innocent until proven guilty that was collected for reasons other in a court of law, I’d have to go with the than intended by the person concerned, larger option over the former. Besides, should be resisted. I can see the value heaven forbid people have of profiling in, say, combating terrorism, something as inconvenient to corporations but it is too easy to invade the rights as options or free speech and privacy of individuals for the wrong reasons. Governments and authorities I don’t think tjey shpud be able to remove cannot be trusted to use the abilities in content when it does not involve profits an acceptable (to me) way - better if the of any kind and is a cree hobby technology is resisted so that they don’t have the ability! Key is not having the No, and yes, it should definitely ability or right to correlate information be proven in court on individuals from unrelated sources ! No, they shouldn’t have to yes they should have to be face these regulations. proven in courts of law Bring a legal case in court of law Better to go to court before censorship, please

No because content is censored by Any censoring should be possible arbitrary processes that are more exclusively on the basis of court decision to do with the need for cheap take I believe that infringement outside downs rather than for justice and the grounds of fan-created content fairplay over the use of data and fair use should be proven beyond Yes Yes all doubt and verified before any removal of material should occur No, they really shouldn’t be involved in deciding what gets posted. There should be a legal process that censorship should have to undertake Yes, we are all innocent until proven guilty. before content is removed. 156 EU Responses to Question 3

Should have to be proved. But should Platforms should not be responsible. still respect the original artist Court should decide if there is copyright infringement No. The courts should have to be involved first no-one’s internet activity should not be monitored by any organization - They have an obligation to stop unless complaints were made if, for terrorism but should not generally be example, it was offensive (racist, etc) policing copyright infringement You should have to have SOME evidence Monitoring internet activity is onerous, that I have done something wrong very expensive and legally questionable. before taking down my content, not just Producing and sharing materials is how some accusation which is most often we move forward on innovation and FALSE either by poorly thought out creative content. To limit, tax or censor automation or by DELIBERATE attempts these is harmful to social progress. It to eitehr monetize or censor MY work represents a dinosaur age that only hinders development for a limited profit motive no, providers should not be required to monitor and enforce regulations. They should monitor, yes, but only if alleged infringement should be proven material posted could lead to them being sued. And, to the second question, no. The I believe infringement should be situation would become impossible. proven in a court of law. My answer to question 1 is also applicable here They should be required to take down material which may be illegal, because Censorship of public content for instigation it incites hatred, breaches copyright of illegal activities may be rightfully etc. pending court procedings. considered, NOT private communication unless a warrant is obtained If clear breach of copyright, then it should be possible for owners to request It is dependent on WHAT content content be taken down as long as they they are filtering and removing. have some evidence of their ownership. If the poster has grounds to contest this, yes and no he should have a right to do so, with the decision ultimately made by a judge no the internet seems to be the only place where one can be truly free (as far as I Justice should run through court know because various secret services are still keeping an eye on our activity) The second option. Content that I produce gets taken down because it No should be free to research as required. LOOKS similar to others? NO WAY! If a wrong doer the moral issue will be self governing repeats can be reported? Regulations or no, there already is monitoring and filtering. Censorship No, it should be proven in a court, its dangerous to encourage companies No. Alleged infringement should to make these judges in a less clear, ALWAYS be proven first. cautious and accountable way. EU Responses to Question 3 157

Infrignment should be settled with the advertising standards authority does individual producing / distributing the content, not with the website or internet Surely the courts should decide. The web provider. Only if illegal actions are proven is for sharing information freely - content and the indivudal isn’t answering to the owning companies make plenty of court requests should the service provider money from YouTube and so on already. be involved to remove acces to content If companies decide to build a paywall they must realise their information I’d expect it to be proven in a court of won’t be so widely seen. Their choice, law before any such action take place our choice. What’s wrong with that?!

Now I don’t think those platforms should monitor anyone, just as no-one monitors Of course alleged infringement should (or does someone?) people in pubs have to be proven, just like any other law “sharing” their thoughts and emotions and songs. Censorship is not good, but IN answer to the first question... yeah, maybe if a court of law (whose No! Alleged infringement must laws?) gets involved it is better. be proven in a court of law The only reason for regulations is to Absolutely not. Any recording or monitoring protect dishonest government. There of data is a personal security liability should be no regulations and if an as well as an unwarranted invasion of individual considers an offence has been privacy. Policing of the law is not the committed it is up to them to take action. job of Facebook or other services unless they have received complaints from alleged infringement should other users. In such a case they should have to be proven in some way then notify the relevant authorities. before censorship occurs

Absolutely not, we are spied on Proven by everybody who has any official position as it is. Prove the allegations No. They cannot put the amount in court before any censorship. of resource required to make a decision for the number of requests They need clear Terms of Use and clear that they would receive. This means procedures for what will be removed they will have to remove content under those terms. There are cases whether it is n breach or not. (harrassment etc) where waiting for a court of law would be undesirable, but in It should be proven before removal, the copyright issues, there needs to be real current situation is too open to abuse clarity about why something is removed Knowing how messed up most courts of law I very much oppose any of my net use being are, especially in terms of length of time to tracked by anyone. Any filtering should act, I feel it should fall to an independent be up to me: I can still report anything watchdog to review and decide in most offensive or dangerous. I don’t think rights cases, but leaving it open to be taken to holders should have to have the expense court if the decision is disagreed with. of court proceedings, but commissioner could hear their complaints much as the no censorship except by court order 158 EU Responses to Question 3

No I do not. If this sort of monitoring that would require platforms to censor increases or continues, more and the web by monitoring and removing more of us will need to take our content posted by Internet users. I do privacy concerns in hand. not support this so-called ‘duty of care’ provision in the Digital Single Market absolutely not planMonitoring billions of posts per day results in automated systems that unfairly No. All infringemtnts should be censor legal speech and expression.When proved in a court of law. websites make decisions on what is legal content they are acting like courts and Yes, judges, a role they are not qualified for, No one should be liable unless and are very to get the balance wrong. damages are proven in a fair Websites (such as Facebook, SoundCloud, independent court or arbitration Twitter, and all others) should absolutely Should only be monitored or taken NOT be monitoring user content. On the down under court order. No one should contrary, they should facilite sharing of be liable for criminal prosecution content, without having access to that for clicking a link that takes them to content themselves -- this is technically unlicensed copyrighted content that possible, and would prevent many abuses they could not be aware of in advance of power. If user-created content is to be policed and monitored, it MUST be by Prove it in a court of law, not by democratically elected institutions, rather censorship and bullying. than corporations. I say this knowing just how abusive our security institions have No. The internet must be free. A website been when it comes to monitoring and has no right to refuse to allow you to talk controlling citizens’ freedom of speech. about or link another website unless it That needs to be reigned in. Yet, allowing violates the T&C. There’s no reason for corporations to individually monitor and facebook to block youtube, ect. That’s a control this, often with shadowy hands-off transparent attempt to divide the internet influence by governments, is MUCH worse

Of course it has to be proven in a What I do is nobody else’s business. I court of law. It is the foundation on personally would kill all cookies an I which the justice system relies upon. would browse freely. People should have the right to block their own content, but No, but I understand some activity not block anybody else’s con tent will need to be monitored to prevent actual terrorism Private platforms imposing their own community standards is one thing. Legal no! infringement must be proved. censorship or any requirement to spy on their users is another thing altogether - When websites make decisions and particularly chilling to freedom of on what is legal content they are expression in an international context acting like courts and judges, a role they are not qualified for, and will It should have to be proven inevitably to get the balance wrong Allegations of crimes need to The EU Commission has proposed an idea EU Responses to Question 3 159

be proven before punishment is to be proven before a court of law implemented. It’s a simple rule of law which has worked for 1000 years. Allwged infringement needs to be proven in court Q3 No there should be no such censorship Infringement needs to be Q3-NO to monitoring, filtering or proven before censorship. removing content produced and shared by individuals. YES to the alleged Freedom of expression is paramount infringement having to be proven in to a free society. To be offended by court before censorship occurs. somebody’s opinion should not give you the right to silence them. Q1:No No, there should be no such regulation Q3....No censorship ever Some shared content is copyright Infringement should have to be protected and should be removed upon proven in a court of law proof of same. An initial arbitration mechanism would appear more expedient There ought to be a process provibg than depending on a court of law. ownership before removing media Content platforms such as SoundCloud No, it is not their responsibility to monitor or YouTube should only be allowed to my internet activity. If content needs to take down content which directly violates be removed it is the responsibility of the copyright laws. For example, I shouldn’t rights holder to pursue this and it needs to be allowed to upload a music video from be proven in court that the rights holder an artist who is not in my employment. does, in fact, hold the rights. Furthermore, Anything else should be down to the such measures would mean that the content holders to track down, request platforms themselves would be performing its removal and if the uploader appeals censorship, and could impose their own then it should be taken to a court of censorship. Facebook for instance does law specialising in copyright law not allow nudity, but allows hate speech. Expecting total surveillance on automated Where extrajudicial censorship takes user-generated content sites is - even in place, the state should have no part in purely practical implementation terms it. Companies may choose to remove - ludicrous. It would drown out up-and- content they host, but if the law requires coming sites and services who lack the it, then the judgement must be made manpower to check every single upload, by a court on a case by case basis. and most likely deny Europeans access to products and services generated outside I think there can be a compromise, but the EU while strangling them of the ability censorship is usually too pervasive to set up their own competitors. And all of that is before we get to the potential Proven in a court of law before censorship freedom of speech issues that come Alleged infringement needs to with people being allowed to act as their be proven before censorship. own judges of what constitutes legal content and what standards they apply Yes, I do believe that infringement has 160 EU Responses to Question 3

No, this would censor and stifle freedom able to speak freely - it’s about being polite of expression and legal content would and listening, so we can all be listened to, end up blocked too. All the rights won whether or not our listeners agree with us by fans for remixes could be in jepody Infringement should need to be proved in Infringing content needs a more rigorous court before material can be taken down process such as court of law because the processes in place are being abused As long as what I post isn’t offensive (porn and people who clearly fall in fair use or or religious hate), no-one should have to whose content is entirely original are being monitor anything that I post. Freedom of unfairly and maliciously attacked via these speach should extend to the internet automated systems for removing content.

Alleged infringement should have to Regulations to self-monitor and filter be proven in a court, otherwise justice internet activity should not be permitted is being ignored and people may be without very precise regulation of unfairly persecuted with no legal ability limited removal rules to avoid personal to seek redress. Automated systems bias judgements,or a court order. cannot fairly censor people. Nobody appointed websites as decision makers Independent courts should decide or courts, and they have no legal stance. what censorship occurs

Leave it alone. Is there going to be an I do not believe platforms should appeal process? Does the accused get to be required to monitor my Internat meet their accuser face to face to make activity in order to remove links I wish amends or clear the air, or express their to share with others. Liniks are the defense? The whole thing is a waste lifeblood of the Internet. Links make of time and resources and leaves the the Internet the unique tool it is. power very lob-sided. Administrative nightmare with no recourse when Always with recourse to law unless removal errors are made. STOP this now of specific content can be justifiably identified and enshrined in law itself No. Infringements need to be proven in a court of law before any censorship occurs. It is ridiculous to expect such platforms to monitor all online content. Even if Alleged infringement should they couold do so, much free speech be proven in court would be unfairly censored.

No regulations that put SoundCloud, Twitter No, platforms should not have this or You Tube in charge of deciding what power. Yes, alleged infringement content I or anyone may share. Alleged should be proven in a court of law. infringements should have to be proven in a court of law before censorship occurs No to monitoring Yes to have to prove infringement before censorship Infringement should have to be proven in court before censorship I think it is an unfair requirement to ask occurs as it’s only fair. them to regulate the consumer’s usage. I think they should be required to educate People who post need to be non-bullying their consumers but infringement should and respectful ot other users, but also be have to be proven before censorship occurs EU Responses to Question 3 161

I believe that alleged infringement should If there is infringement, it should have to be proven in a court of law before be proven in a court of law. any kind of censorship can be considered. Platforms should not have the power to Platforms for posting content should not be monitor your Internet activity, nor should required to be in the business of monitoring they be able to remove content you that content. If a person posts hate speech produce and share without informing or infringes copyright, this should be you first and making their reasons clear enforced by the courts. Those who host the platform should not be required to Infringement should be proven in a court decide what is or is not permissible. Those of law before censorship occurs. These who host platforms should be required platforms should not monitor individuals’ to take down illegal or infringing content internet activity, unless there is evidence to when ordered to do so by a court, but suggest that an individual would be likely not be responsible for censorship or to use the internet for criminal activity monitoring. Making platform providers responsible will (a) lead to conservative No, it shouldnot be monitored judgements and censorship (b) make it hard but infringement proved in a for innovators to create new platforms. court oflawif need be. They should be proven in a court of law Censorship should never occur until proven in a court of law Infringement cases should be settled in court Some monitoring and filter/removal is required without court I don’t think a court of law should be required to have infringing content I certainly don’t believe that platforms removed from websites and web services, such as Twitter should be allowed to but excerpting, quoting and linking to remove content that I create or share original content is not infringement

It must go to law Censorship should be proven before action is taken, or action should be taken There should be no regulations requiring as a result of arbitration and agreement platforms to monitor my internet activity. from both sides. Monitoring, filtering etc. should be absolutely minimized. Violent and pornographic images should be filtered and removed if they are real rather Censorship should only be enforced after than fiction. It is up to users to prove they infringement is proven on a court of law. are fiction to these platforms if they wish to Any other kind of censorship is natural reupload them.Other infringements should to dictatorial states/persons/leaders have to be be proven in a court of law. Alleged infringement should have to be Platforms SHOULD NOT be required proven in court before censorship occurs. to monitor our internet activity. There is already way too much monitoring Alleged infringement should have to and censorship taking place on the web be proven before censorship occurs (perhaps in more efficient ways than Court should decide court, for small infringements) A court order should be necessary 162 EU Responses to Question 3

Automatic monitoring is too error prone, should be extremely restricted as to because of the amount of information what it applies to. Incitement to kill such that needs to be monitored. Even if only as Jihadi promotion is an area where .01% of all allegations of infringements is censorship could be legitimate. Not much wrong, the sheer number of allegations else. Content warnings and age restrictions that will be done will result in many should however apply to relevant material false positive allegations and takedowns. Copyright does not serve the public Infringing on people activities, when interest on the internet, currently nothing illegal is being conducted, is unacceptable. There needs to be Arbitrary censorship is an undeniable evidence of guilt before infringement of civil liberties - Internet platforms are allowed to always has been, always will be monitor a visitor’s actions. Unfortunately being stupid is not a crime, though Alleged infringement should be proven it sometimes should be in a court of law before it is censored. There should be a process which is Not one organisation should monitor transparent and simple to understand what I wish to hear or watch. This is a such that possibly damaging content presumption of guilt which is contrary to will be immediately and automatically the rights I have under UK law. If someone identified and blocked for a very short time deliberately distributes material which until there can be a fair and accessible breaks copyright law then this should be process of evaluation which is kept brought to the attention of the relevant available for examination by anyone who authorities and if necessary, removed wants to know the reason. This should AFTER any breach has been proved. include a method for analysing and reversing the decision without greatly Any regualation to monitor the complicated or expensive red tape internet should be subject to prior judicial review before any action Any legal claim should be proven before it is acted upon. To do otherwise privacy should always be paramount is to promote a ‘guilty until proven and censorship is very tricky. a innocent’ justice system and opens the disinterested third party should be door to people using or threatening involved in determining infringement infringement to censor opposing viewpoints by burying them for long Current regulations are too strict periods under legal bureaucracy for No regulation please. personal, ideological or commercial gain.

Infringement should be proven in court or I believe the latter. Big Brother is not the at least be very obvious. If someone posts kind of world I want to live in. It’s going a rightsholder’s entire song and claims it as to far these days. The state in these their own, that is obvious infringement but areas needs to be reined in. Freedom if someone uses a few seconds of it in their is a good thing. Freedom of expression own video or remixes it or otherwise makes is a good thing to. Freedom of speech something new of it isn’t that fair use? is a good thing. Support these things.

Censorship is a very dangerous thing. it This should only take place with oversight EU Responses to Question 3 163

from the courts. Internet platforms should elsewhere. Hate material, child and violent not be required to monitor users’ activity. porn and incitement to violence, religious If however it comes to their attention that or otherwise, unfortunately ought to be paedophiles/terrorists/rapists are posting monitored if there is any capacity to do vile content, they should feel empowered so effectively, as a price of free speech. to remove it themselves. The posters of such content should be able to appeal Absolutely NOT...if I produce and share, via the courts. Specialist training should that is MY right if it’s MY material. Unless be made available for decisionmakers it is inflammatory or downright illegal, no one else should have the censorship nobody should monitor anyone’s internet rights to my materials. Infringement activity without a court order. i really MUST be proven before action is taken don’t believe in censorship of any kind, if something offends then don’t partake, Innocent until proved guilty. Would after all god offends the devil. if we be violated by any automated are talking infringment of copyright system acting bluntly. then yes a court should be involved if they really want to punish people I think court is a step too far but there should be some form of No-one should monitor the internet independent arbitration. activity of private individuals! Alleged infringements should be dealt Alleged infringement should have with in a court of law. No one should be to be proven in a court of law encouraged to become state snoops, that smacks of Nazism and is bringing George No. Should have to be proven. Orwells vision of 1984 near to reality.

As public accommodations, Soundcloud, I think the ideal we should strive Twitter and Youtube are obligated to serve for is is a balance somewhere in the public without discrimination, however, between those two choices as self-governing corporations, they have some responsibility to filter content in I am outraged by the suggestion that a order to maintain a modicum of civility by profit making private platform, who may curtailing the expressions of hate or threats have a vested interest should be censoring and additionally protecting copyrighted material that has been shared. In what material and users’ personal information way is it appropriate to ask companies like Google (who own Youtube) that are guilty Websites should be monitored for of tax avoidance on a massive scale, to act counter-terrorism purposes, and if its as moral guardians and administer the law illegal to share something then sure, give in place of legally qualified lawyers and them the right to remove the links. judges? What checks and balances would be put in place? What room will there I think alleged infringement should be for contention, argument and debate? have to be proven in court first The EU is supposedly democratic what price democracy and free speech when a This seems an unnecessary measure. Some machine makes autocratic decisions about things will always be shared (e.g. porn) that the content of a video or Facebook post? we’d rather were not but monitoring and people’s time should be better directed NO. No censorship without 164 EU Responses to Question 3

proof of infringement. have authority that regular citizens do not?

Once you have uploaded then it I think it would be absolutely should remain in the public domain. disastrous for freedom and a dark day for democracy if companies were I think these things should go before even given license let alone duty to a court as this is the only fair way. monitor our use of their products and services. Utterly unacceptable. Unless the content contravenes the terms and conditions of the site, or breaks the law, The regulation of platforms begs the no sites should not have to police content. question of who sets the the regulations and how much could these be driven by The internet is a web of electrons narrow national or commercial interests. arranged in specific order to share The monitoring of billions of post each information between individuals. It day would also require automated is not physical property for you to monitoring of posts just to cope with the claim. Keep your greedy paws off! volume of traffic experience tells us this would lead to false positive and negatives. I do not think sites should be required Furthermore, where individuals monitor to monitor activity. That would add content they apply their own unique a lot of overhead to smaller sites quirks and morality, often inconsistently. without the money or manpower of larger sites, such as Google Platforms such as SoundCloud, Twitter and YouTube should not face regulations No. That would be like requiring the requiring them to monitor Internet telephone company to be responsible activity.Alleged infringements should for monitoring everyone’s phone calls. have to be proven in a court of law It’s a basic premise of freedom of speech before censorship can occur. that it should only be curtailed where I don’t think that they should have to harm can be proved. It is difficult to monitor my internet activity and filter and see how harm can be proved anywhere remove content I produce and share. I do other than a court of law. I am disquieted think that there should be some free body about a system of monitoring that could that people can appeal to in cases where lead to unregulated censorship. content shouldn’t be shared, without the NO - platforms should have NO SAY, in need to go to court, but I do think that what is “Acceptable” !!!!This is simply going to court should be an option. ANOTHER LAYER OF CENSORSHIP !!! All infringement cases and similar should Prove in court that infringement be required to be carried out in a court has happened of law with the standard laws applying in particular innocent until proven guilty. No, providers such as YouTube have no business monitoring user’s activity There is a danger of censorship here. The facility to monitor content should not, Innocent before proven guilty is a hallmark as a rule, be applied across the board, of most modern, democratic justice however if there is reason to believe systems. Why should (alleged) rightsholders there is a wrong doing then it could be EU Responses to Question 3 165

permissible under a court ruling.Further proven before removal. to the above, some content could be removed for a variety of reasons, but I think internet hosts are acting as a service there must be recourse to appeal against for the content, not as originators. Should the removal initially to the provider and the post office be held responsible for then to an independent arbitrator before the content of the letters it carries? The finally challenging it in court if necessary. originators should be held to account, not the carrier or host. Their function absolutely it should be proven first. there should be to put the parties into contact are clear examples of takedown notices rather than police the content, unless being used improperly where a company it is proven to actually contravene buys the rights to use a design then they the law or their terms of service. issue a takedown notice against the original artist. the movie ‘Pixels’ is a prime example Platform sites should be allowed to get involved and arbitrate a dispute over If posting something violates the rules an infringement notice, they should of the platforms they are right to take it not be required to monitor uploads for down. They ought not to have to remove infringement (that is the responsibility material when asked to do so by others of the content producer). A court of the courts should have the final decision. law show only be a last resort.

If infringement is alleged it should be The problems with the DMCA in the proven before any action is taken to US shows that giving rights-holders remove or filter content. Platforms complete control is bad for everyone. should not be required to monitor anyones activity on the internet. In general yes, a court and not a company or individual should make decisions, for Innocent until found guilty consistency, oversight and appropriateness. Of course, a certain amount of monitoring prove infringement first is always necessary, and some content first RECOMMENDED for removal (ideally by No body should be allowed or required the original poster), and only removed by to monitor my internet activity, nor the platform operator in extremis. There interfere in any way with content I should be clear and substantial penalties share. Due process of law should be levied against the platform operator followed before any censorship is for inappropriate REMOVAL, so that this made for any alleged infringement is not used as an arbitrary censorship any where not just on the internet. mechanism, but is used with extreme discretion only where it is extremely likely No I do not belive service providers that a court would back it. Automated should have to check peoples content. mechanisms should do no more than warn If a copyright holder has evidence of the original poster and alert the platform an infringement of their copyright then operator to check manually, if action is they should directly request the removal not taken. These procedures should be of the material by the site owner and if published and transparent, as should the material is not removed they should any actions taken on the basis of them. then take out their own court case Self monitoring and reporting by users Alleged infringement should be 166 EU Responses to Question 3

should have agreed processes to follow. on generalised programmed rubrics. As Alleged infringements should go through a result, it is not likely to have the same the legal process of the land where rigour that a court case has. This has the the alleged infringement occurred. potential for a number of false positives and diminished content which, on closer Platforms will never be able to properly inspection might not infringe copyright. do a job which belongs to a court of law. Alleged infringement should be proven Censorship should not be with and certainly not automated. individuals and groups rather their requires some legal standing with No point censoring something before it access to independent appeal/review becomes public. As for my own activity, of course I don’t want it censored in advance Always through a judicial process. Have just because somebody doesn’t like me we learnt nothing from history. I am opposed to monitoring of content Hell no, there should not be excessive by the respective platforms. A court monitoring to anyone’s web services. It just order should be required before punishes the people who do it for fun and content is taken down. It should be never catches people who do it maliciously. the rights holders burden to prove infringement, not the users burden to Alleged infringement needs to be justified prove fair use, or non- infringement. in some way - if not before a court then in some way which gives you a right to Corporations like law court because it challenge. Any takedown found not to be scares people allowing them to be steam- justified should be compensated. There rolled by their legal teams and huge whole issue of unjustified threats needs to funding. Hence the Electronic Frontier be addressed and put on an equitable basis Foundation and public funding of cases heard in court is absolutely necessary No I do not believe these platforms should be monitored and filtered. It I do not think that service operators should go to court first and be proven. should be burdened with making the decision regarding what is “legal The whole idea of monitoring internet content” or automatically remove any activity takes us into Orwellian realms. content. I do believe that there should There needs to be clearer laws on what be a legal procedure for removing should be immediately censored and content which balances rights of free what needs proving in a court of law. speech with rights of content creators. The concept of corporations having ‘human rights’ is a serious problem. The law and court is our way of dealing with this, not arbitrary This issue seems to be one of who holds decisions with no oversight the responsibility for publication - whether the individual or the platform. The key No one should be monitoring my problem for this type of monitoring is that internet activity. There should be legal it is not specific in the same way that a protection, innocent until proven guilty specific legal action is. Consequently, at by an independent legal authority a practical level, it is more likely to be monitored by some form of software based It should have to be proven. The internet EU Responses to Question 3 167

should not be exempt from the doctrine Proven in a court of law. of “innocent until proven guilty.” You should have to prove ownership The whole idea about internet censorship before a take down request. Large is like going back in time. It has no companies should post bond. place in this ‘enlightened society. The one size fits all approach so favoured No. No. No. Nope nope. by lawmakers always ends up fitting none. Whatever issue is being addressed will not I think that removing content be solved by this, merely driven elsewhere. without recourse is wrong. Maybe you should actually address the concerns of your citizens instead of making It’s usually unreasonable to require service them think their thoughts need approval? providers to be responsible for policing copyright infringement of their users. On I am appalled at the idea that some the other hand, requiring each individual faceless person can make a decision as to case to go to the courts before a decision what is appropriate for me to see. If I object is made is even less practical. It’s not to content I am quite able to turn it off clear what the right approach is here. myself. I believe that they should need to prove infringement of law before removal. No they should not have to monitor me, or filter without some No, we do not need thought-police. A form of appeals procedure. legal process should be in place.

Alleged infringement should be No action should be taken until demonstrated in court before censorship infringement has been proved in a court of law. That’s what the courts are for. Of No, they shouldn’t monitor my activity course social media platforms should not be required to monitor what their Platforms should not face regulations users do - that would be the equivalent requiring them to monitor Internet of requiring the postal services to activity. If there is an alleged infingement inspect the content of all letters! it should be judged by a court of law. All censorship needs to be vetted by a court Sensorship is normally something you of law before the censorship activity occurs. would expect from places like China and/ or dictatorships. Please, don’t go down Some censorship may be deemed okay, that road. As in all other context, the but I would like to know who it is who only sane thing to do prior to deciding on thinks they have the authority to censor censorship, is letting the case in question go through court. This is not something No companies such as Twitter should not to be decided by private companies, as have any reason to monitor my internect the possibikities of misuse are too many activity. They will already remove improper content when alerted to the problem. No, firstly, because it is impossible and secondly and most worryingly it might No to part A Yes to part B lead to crude and discriminatory profiling. All infringements of the law should No, this should not be the responsibility of course have to be proven in law. of the content provider. This is effectively 168 EU Responses to Question 3

asking these comapnies to do the work will be able to adhere to all the new rules. that law enforcement should be doing all along. If genuine breach of copyright Court of Law! Simple, this monitoring takes place and is validated in court - then has already gone too far! standard legislation for digital copyright ownership should apply. Infringement of no-one should be monitoring my internet digital copyright however is still being activity. Any perceived infringement treated as a jailable offence in a lot of by me must be proven in court. western countries, Which is just ridiculous Service providers should not monitor the No censorship! The courts are there activity of individuals. It is legitimate for for a reason, and if anyone suspects them to monitor the actual content of infringement let them take it up their own platforms, but referencing Q1 there. What next? Thought crimes? where I remarked on automated tools, the pitfalls of necessary automation apply Infringement should be PROVEN here as well. Certainly there should be no beyound a shadow of a doubt before assumption of guilt, or pre-emptive right any kind of consequence occurs to enforce removal withoutsome formal adjudication, but there again corporations No, it is for a court of law to determine would win by mere threat of court action whether an infringement has occurred. against smaller actors who could not sustain the cost even if they were to win To preserve free exchange of information it should take a court order.I could ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!! My internet activity imagine whiting out parts of photos with should be as private as the letters I an explanation and a way given to access receive through the post. In fact they it if it is useful information, as opposed should be far more private than this due to child pornography for example to the scale of possible abuses of my data or large scale datasets which include It is for a judge to decide on what my data. It should not be up to private is legal property, not the Internet websites to have to monitor their users, providers or service industry something that they will always do in otherwise the most powerful player a way that reflects their own individual can censor anything they want. quirks and morality. For example facebook permits hate speech but bans nudity I believe not. This would kill the electronic “free speech”! No, no, no and no. Alleged infringement needs to be investigated to prevent abuse THEY SHOULD NOT ACT AS JUDGES FOR of censorship. As far as I am concerned THE PUBLIC IT SHOULD GO TO COURT. there is no need to monitor or censor a persons internet activity unless they are Censorship without legal oversight actively bullying or abusing other people is just dirty censorship. I say no to online. It would be hugely impractical/ self-appointed guards of morale impossible to enforce monitoring of all Additional requirements on websites to activity on a site and requiring sites to police and track content limits creativity do so would result in the closing down of and limits what new companies can many great sites. Linking and sharing are achieve. Only large established companies foundations of what makes the internet EU Responses to Question 3 169

great and should not face regulation. NO. No one has any right to monitor my internet activity or remove my content They should be required to I produce or share. Infringement MUST remove illegal content be proven in a court of law before censorship - this should be a given! yesno Infringement MUST be proven in Must be proven a court of law in the country of residence for the alleged violator No.Should be proven in a court of law Free speech nowadays is applied rather Appeal mechanism but not selectively depending upon the agendas courts - too expensive of the people in power. No one should be NO and NO because as Buckminster Fuller able to decide arbitrarily what to filter or so presciently suggested ... “You never censor without due process and a court change things by fighting the existing order. That goes for snooping as well. reality. To change something, build a new Alleged infringements should be proved in model that makes the existing model a court of Law before Censorship occurs obsolete.” Perhaps that’s what the EU should be considering now about the EU Alleged infringement should be itself, in the context of the fact that there proven in a court before censorship are THREE EU PRESIDENTS in charge of THREE LAYERS of EU Commissioners, at I do believe that some limited monitoring the top of the tree, so to speak, dreaming is required for the purpose of safety. up ideas, to justify their self-serving Monitoring for such terrorism activities, missions, to make profit and taxes out of child pornography, hate speech, that which Time Berners Lee GAVE FREELY racism, abuse of any sort and other to Humanity including the PEOPLES of unethical, immoral practices that falls EUROPE, for the purposes of making the under such extreme categories. Yes “RIGHT CONNECTIONS”.The EU Commission infringement should be proven in the has proposed an idea that would require court of law before censorship occurs platforms to censor the web by monitoring and removing content posted by Internet Any alleged infringement of rights users. I do not support this so-called owners by internet users needs to be ‘duty of care’ provision in the Digital subject to the rule of law. The existing Single Market plan. Monitoring billions court structures must be used for this. of posts per day results in automated systems that unfairly censor legal speech NO! the legal system is already in and expression. When websites make place to address bad people.. the only decisions on what is legal content they system missing is the system making are acting like courts and judges, a role bad politicians accountable and give they are not qualified for, and are very them jail time where warranted! they prone to get the balance wrong. When create any scenario to make the average individuals monitor content they apply person a criminal.. THAT’S CRIMINAL! their own unique quirks and morality, often inconsistently. For example Facebook No I do not believe they should face permits hate speech, but bans nudity. such regulations. And Yes I believe infringement should be proved in a 170 EU Responses to Question 3

court of law before censorship occurs. Yes have to be proven in a court of law.

No to first, yes to second. What! That is a weird idea. It sounds like the things I would expect to No. We should be allowed to go find in communist China or other about our own business totalitarian states. As for the Court of Law, Her Majesty versus wee Jimmy. Yes innocent till proven guilty No platforms should not be required to that’s a hard one... yes someone should monitor our internet activity, or filter or be monitoring. courts can be expensive remove content we produce or share. and long winded. if there were regulations Alleged infringement should have to that were broad enough to allow opinions be proven in a court of law first. without threatening or bullying others, then the platform owners should be Proof first. able to sufficiently monitor that, no? There’s some really egregious people in the Perhaps some monitoring could be comment sections, and a lot of negative good. BUT it seems that there are no and uncalled for stuff....but I guess, if you’re fair or ethical guidelines in place, it’s for free speech, then you’re supposed to at the whim of those monitoring support the worst versions of it, or then we’re all in trouble....but some of the “bad” Absolutely not!!! I don’t want anyone speech is just downright counterproductive monitoring my internet activity. to all of humanity and its further Google is bad enough as it is. knowledge....I guess you could eliminate really stupid speech and petty arguments We should not be subjected to where people aren’t even referring to the monitoring by Youtube or any other video or issue being presented, I think that platform and they shouldn’t be subject stuff is very wasteful and fills up pages to these regulations either. Alleged better served with other productive and infringement has to be proven first valid material and constructive comments.... NoYes proven in a court of law Absolutely not! Legal infringement Should be proven before courts first must be proved in a court of law. or arbitrary body to handle it Innocent until proven guilty !

No. infringement should go to court but Should be proven in court of law or it should go to genuienly independent through due process of the law arbitration first and not the vested alleged infringement should be interest of say the ad standards authority approved in a court of law which is anything but independent. We have courts for a reason. Yes I think an alleged infringement Let them do their job needs to be held in a court of law The current invasions of privacy in Rule of law should always prevail the world do not need to be made especially the premise of innocence worse. There needs to be a legal reason first and proven guilt as well the for censorship, rather than assuming rights of freedom of expression EU Responses to Question 3 171

everyone is an infringer without proof someone telling me what I can and can’t say or do on a daily basis - no. We have No, yes to in court. laws, which also apply to the internet, but I can choose to ignore the law at my own No content should ever be regulated risk. Do I have someone editing or removing or otherwise mismanaged until said what pours out of my mouth in the real content has been proven to be in world - as much as I’d like it sometimes infringement in a court of law - no. That is the internet. It’s not always a nice place. Illegal content (read, in context No. Only if guilty. Our Law states to the laws in place in country) should be people or considered innocent until removed, but having a filter over every proven guilty - why is this different? post is the denial of freedom of speech I cannot see how such regulation could NO, I don’t believe in that be applied fairly, it would needlessly impede legal speech and expression. A No, I feel the internet should be an open court of law to show when infringment place. Governments however don’t like this has occurred sounds better as they can’t control their public easily.

They should not face such regulations. I believe that SoundCloud, Twitter and Alleged infringement has to be proven in YouTube should not face regulations to court of law before censorship occurs monitor internet activity. This would be a form of censorship where the vast majority Website operators should be self- behave responsibly online. Websites managing and only take it to the extremes should use their own internal monitoring of court action where necessary and warn users in certain circumstances I think we need some third way - something and potentially ban them if necessary. in between. So that artists and creators This should only be done in exceptional have a recourse and ability to earn a living circumstances and where someone may from their creations, but not so that it be threatened and infringement should be requires costly and lengthy court decisions. proven in a court of law. To clarify, I do not support any form of internet censorship Infringement should have to be or mass monitoring. Individual websites proven before censorship occurs. should instead pursue their own policies.

It should be proven in a court of law They shouldn’t have to monitor it. If the alleged infringement relates to it should be proven in court first copyright, it sounds like a legal matter and should be dealt with as such. No, unless it is criminal or terrorist. Otherwise infringement should Yes, court review must happen BEFORE have to be proven in court. content is removed else it is the DESTRUCTION OF FREE SPEECH. The prove it in court! onus of copyright has ALWAYS been on the holder. Media conglomerates are No they should not face these regulations trying to get away with murder. Copyright This is a futile process. The internet is the is a fundamentally flawed concept. If the virtual version of everyday life. Do I have concept was applied everywhere, no 172 EU Responses to Question 3

one would have access to the Internet posts are ignored and not reposted and because Tum Burners Lee and his team positive messages sent in their place, would have copyrighted (or patented) this is far better as a way of educating the technology. Copyright is an immoral users of the net than any censor and nonsensical demarcation between the improvement of humanity as a whole Maybe Facebook should rethink their and the benefit of the few. It is an earning rules. But I think site owners have the model that is inefficient. There are better right to set their own rules. Anything ways to receive earnings from creative that might provoke violence should be work but humanity will not implement illegal. But these proposals are more these methods as long as the idea that you about paranoid business interests can “copyright” a piece of work exists. No to monitoring/filtering/content the last removal by platforms Infringements should be proven in a court of law Innocent until proven guilty I don’t believe platforms should Perhaps the music industry should be need to monitor copyright responsible for making sure royalties are collected every time their artists No! Not at all benifit from using Twitter. Idiotic No, courts should be made ground zero Platforms should not be depended on to impose any kind of censorship to monitor and censor people. They should not have the power to decide No,they should be proved in a court of law between right and wrong and to infringe No: do we not have freedom of speech on privacy and freedom of expression. and Expression? Do we not have the Media-sharing platforms should not right to express ourselves however we be required to actively protect the want as long as it is not slanderous to content of others, as the current system others? A court appearance should be works reasonably well.Allegations of mandatory and all costs paid by said infringement should be proven in a court person complaining about infringement of law before censorship action is taken. HELL NO! it is ridiculous and petty-minded to suggest NO & YES. that platforms such as Twitter or Youtube should monitor content. The illegitimacy No, definitely not. Alleged infringement of such content should be deciced upon should be proven in a court of law. by external judicial means before any action to censor should be made No, it is not their responsibility at all and such regulations would be damaging to Courts are the right place to debate such the free sharing of information, would be things. Censorship sounds reasonable easy to misuse, and also economically until you consider who decides on who damaging to the providers and users. Also, the censors should be. What training/ this is technically difficult or impossible qualifications should they have? Freedom to implement in such a way as not to of speech is a valuable right and self filter or remove perfectly legal content. policing works well. Unpleasant, racist EU Responses to Question 3 173

All cases should be judged individually proved by more than the accuser. by a court of law, and the decision and its justification publicly available I don’t believe that online platforms should be obliged to actively monitor or filter No to restrictions, yes to content uploaded to their servers, as this actually needing proof is impractical given the scale of the data involved and risks hampering genuine I think that this is a difficult terrain. I creative work. If they receive a complaint want Twitter and others to be responsible about infringement and follow a fair and remove hate content/sexual and process which considers both sides of the violent abuse etc. It’s important to act dispute, they shouldn’t be held responsible. proactively around cyber bullying. But, I feel that people have a right to air Infringement should absolutely have to views which I might find abhorrent. I be proven in a court of law before any don’t want to censor free speech. censorship occurs. Furthermore, platforms such as the abovementioned should not No and not necessarily. But the be co-opted by rights-holders and forced burden on the plaintiff should be to do performance rights policing. I do much heavier than it is now to prevent not support the “duty of care” provision copyfraud, harassing takedowns, in the Digital Single Market plan, nor do and disagreement masquerading I support the imposition of automated as copyright-based objections rights-monitoring systems (which would more befit totalitarian states), or the no, social (and media) platforms should requirement for website operators to not face regulation requiring them act as informal and poorly-accountable to monitor internet activity, or filter members of the justice system. and remove content. Infringements should be proven (but may not Intentional infringement should necessarily require court of law). be proven in a court of law

No they should not remove Infringement and the impact of that infringement should have to be proven in No. When websites make decisions a court of law before censorship occurs on what is legal content they are acting like courts and judges, a role No, they should not. That raises their they are not qualified for, and are very costs which means people who use likely this delicate balance wrong. that service have to pay more due to lazy and incompetent legal bodies No. No failing to bother to do their jobs.

Having individuals’ online activity There are two questions here, which cannot monitored in favour of large be answered together by just yes or no. corporations would be ridiculous and first question: no second question: yes an horrendous step backwards. I think there are times that the No, the costs are too high for the content should be removed business involved such that they would never get off the ground. Definitely courts should decide Infringement should be reasonably and not the platforms 174 EU Responses to Question 3

No to Question #1 Yes to Question #2 Courtss should determine unsure Proven in an open court

Court review process I want no one to minitor my internet activity

There could be cases for doing so. No one should be forced to censor or remove content without the The volume of content transactions means oversight of a court of law, that rational, consistent censorship is impossible. This means that overkill will be they should face regulation. alleged applied, and manipulated to supress ideas infringement should be proved that conflict with state/corporate agendas. legally before any censorship

Yes/Yes Platforms should not be monitoring my internet activity. Police can do that only I think the onus should remain on the with a warrant, so why would it be legal for rightsholder. Hosting services should the platform to do it without a warrant? remain neutral. It isn’t simply a question of users versus rightsholders, but also Alleged infringement have to be proven the ability of smaller rightsholders, and in a court of law before censorship occurs. those creating new works, including using We are not guilty until proven innocent. elements from other works to continue to have their works protected. It is also All legal expression should be essential for democracy that rightsholders freely allowed without fear of should have to prove infringement - that interference or routine monitoring. they have the rights, and that use is outside fair use. The system described allows for Just leave the Internet alone. It is a place large rightsholders to continue to dominate for all communities to come together. and to be able to close down competitors Any restrictions can only be harmful. without having to prove that they are Infringement needs to be proven indeed the rightsholders. Without fair before items can censored. Automated use, the ability to talk, reference, quote, systems are not up to the job of illustrate etc other’s works the foundations doing this and web sites should act of democracy are threatened, as individual as judges as they are not qualified. protests and opinion is easily silenced. No. Infringement must be proven Should be proven before censorship in a court of law by impartial/ Alleged infringement should be proven unbiased official entities. first. Monitoring the web follows the No, because you essentially letting principle of guilty until proven innocent, a company model society. which delivers a dangerous precedent No. Until it is proven in a court of law No Perhaps that a specific criminal offence has been They should have laws about what or is being committed, there should they do with the data they have and be no requirement for Internet space- be limited in what they remove providers to police their users, any more than landlords or mortgage providers EU Responses to Question 3 175

should be responsible for criminally- No, I don’t think they should monitor policing their tenants or householders. users. I want infringements to be proven That is what we have courts for I think I should be able to create and post infringement should definitely be freely, without platforms being forced prroven before action is taken that to monitor activity. There are existing might affect individual rights laws and sensible terms and conditions in place that oppose harmful content. Innocent until proven guilty. Content should not be monitored unless there I do not believe in censorship and is real evidence of illegal activity and monitoring of the Internet. a court order should be necessary Our internet activity should Monitoring on such a big scale is bound not be monitored by anyone, to failure. Infringements need to be including our governments evaluated by people not computer scripts Absolutely not. For a start, only massive First question: no Second question: yes corporations would be able to afford it, so it means innovation will cease, Alleged infringement should be proven and secondly it’s an obvious invasion of before content is taken down privacy, which I believe is a Human Right.

I believe they have no right to I object to being monitored and spied censor or remove free speech. on as it is so unless I post or share illegal content, I don’t expect it to be All copyright disputes should be settled in restricted or removed, too many videos court, after the infringee has been sufficient have mysteriously become unavailable time to remove the content themselves. on YouTube for no apparent reason?

They absolutely should not be No censorship! required to monitor anyone’s activity. Innocent until proven guilty If content is highly offensive (racist, homophobic...) it should definitely been Alleged infringement should have to be taken down and to court! Otherwise no, proven in a court of law before censorship leave it. Stop policing what people say. occurs. One person should not have the right to unilaterally decide they They should have to prove infringement don’t like my content and remove it Accusations should always be No, they should not be monitoring my placed before the courts, not left activity anyways, required or not. Having a to corporate interests whose only trial for censorship makes more sense, even concern is extorting profit. if it is a lot more lengthy and costly. Ideally, we could find some solution inbetween the Alleged infringement should be proven privacy-infringing mandatory monitoring, in a Court of law before censorship, as and the costly, over-worked court systems. it can genuinely be done by mistake Also, I really don’t think that one can rather than out of malice. Regulations put blanket-solutions over a system as would only make users afraid of posting incomprehensibly diverse as the Internet content and it would stifle creative outlets 176 EU Responses to Question 3

like Facebook, Youtube and Twitter. censorship or monitoring.

Platforms should NOT have the Alleged infringements should be looked at ability to monitor nor remove individually, carefully, before censorship content. Alleged infringement should occurs. Websites should not make their be proven in a court of law. own decisions about what is legal and what is not. That role belongs to th courts. Regulations making online platforms (e.g. YouTube) responsible for content Platforms should not be above individuals that users have posted would be an enormous drain on these platforms to The courts are there for good the extent that they would not longer reason and they should be used be able to function as effective low-cost sharing tools in the way that they have. It Alleged infringements should is critical that infringement be proven in have to be proven in a court of a court of law before censorship occurs. law before censorship occurs

The platforms shouldn’t be held I think they should have regulations accountable for what YOU decide applied, but also court of law should to share, or publish. YOU have be used to prove infringements. to be responsible for that I don’t use social media. Part 1: NoPart 2: No Maybe not necessarily proven in This should need to be proven, it stifles a court but the bar should be at he right to freedom of expression higher than it seems to be now.

Censorship must be controlled No, I don’t by law The isp or app provider i agree that all abusive, dishonist, should not have that burdon defamatory and stolen interlectual It should be up to a court to decide property should be removed whose property it is and not some To the first question, no. To the computer program that blocks things second, not unless the accused denies Proof in a court of law should be required. that the content alleged to be an infringement violates terms of service Infringement must be proved in a court of law. No, these platforms should respond to legitimate concerns about illegal No. With the necessary automatic posting when advise by the public monitoring of such a huge amount of content, overreach will inevitably occur. No. What enters the internet stays on the internet. Copyright in the I think a court of law is unnecessary if 21st century means the right to copy there is a clear breech of copyright, but I whatever you feel like copying think these platforms should be less hasty in removing content for other reasons Innocent until proven guilty should apply here as much as anywhere else q3 There should be no EU Responses to Question 3 177

It is outrageous that such action can be PROVED initiated without due legal process. I strongly object to requiring a platform to Alleged infringement has to be proven in monitor my activity or filter and remove a court of law before censorship occurs. content that I produce and share.Alleged infringement should be subject to proof Any infringements need to overseen before an independent court. Remove by a tribunal of some sort. What the so-called duty of care provision motivates corporations means they from the digital single market plan. should not be judge jury and enforcer Monitoring for hate and incitement to Automated systems are an abject violence I agree with. I can even agree that failure, proof before punishment copyright infringement for profit should be a no no. But we are supposed to live in Infringement must be proven. a free, democratic country where we are supposed to have freedom of speech They should not be able to take anything down. alleged infringement no I don’t think they should have have to be proven in a court of those regulations. The internet law before censorship occurs is free for everybody. yes I think it should come before a court of No should have to be proven in court Law before things get banned unless of a sexual nature eg. Paedophilia No, I believe alleged infringement No Such alleged infringement should have to be proven in a court of be treated through the legal system law before censorship occurs No they shouldn’t have to filter stuff, and No, absolutely not unless it is yes, it should have to be proven first certainly pornography, filled with Should be proven in the bad language, threats, etc court before any action It must be proven in a court of law No, if a crime has been committed Everything is lawful until proved otherwise then it should be addressed through due legal process whether it is Infringement should be proved on the web or in the street No, platforms should not police Should be proven in court. copyright-infringement.

Whatever happened to “innocent Prove it in a court of law. The majority until proven guilty”? Of course no of content that is used in an infringing censorship till allegations are proven. way is not used for commercial purposes. Sharing is caring. Sharing is advertising. This is against our rights . We just Sharing should not be illegal. use internet . We do no harm In some cases alleged infringement Should have to be proven should be proven in a court of lawcourt law before censorship occurs. 178 EU Responses to Question 3

All content produced and shared should Absolutely not. Speech should have to be proven as infringement in a be suppressed *only* after the court of law before censorship occurs removal has been justified before an *independent* judge or tribunal Users should be free to share and use the platforms as they see fit, and it is the right No! They can do what they want with their holders who must be ultimately responsible own platforms, and they do. Regulating for protecting their works by issuing take this is a waste of time.Yes, censorship down requests. In cases where there is should occur in a court of law - OR - if dispute whether right is infringed or not, the platform itself decides to censor. things should go to court for resolution Alleged infringement should have o No, internet is a functioning be proven before censorship occurs anarchy and should remain so. It should have to be proven! Alleged infringement should be subject to the test of law Absolutely no to monitoring my activity, absolutely not to filter and remove my No. Actively policing members should own content. Alleged infringement is not be the job of the service just that. Our judicial system is built on an innocent until proven guilty No filtering! platform. Someone thinks I’m infringing on their copyright, prove it first! No. If I break a copyright law, it should be thoroughly checked before alleged infringement have to be proven in being taken down. By that I mean, it a court of law before censorship occurs? does not necessarily have to be in a court of law, rather I want them to alleged infringement should be check if any copyright is infringed proved in a court of law before the content is taken down. Alleged infringement should have to Maybe somewhere in between - alleged be proven in a court of law before infringement could first lead to a direct censorship occures. When websites make challenge to the uploader to explain both decisions on what is legal content they sides of the material in question - reasons are acting like courts and judges, a role for and against leaving it online, then only they are not qualified for, and are very if it is clear that the intent was to unfairly likely this delicate balance wrong. benefit from use of another’s intellectual property should it be taken to law. Instant Alleged infringement should have removal without discussion or reason to be proven in a court of law. The given smacks of unjustifiable cencorship. internet is not a place for corporatised vigilante justice, although it seems No. Not under law and certainly not willy- it is moving in that direction. nilly at any big company’s request. Firstly, the person making the request must prove Any censorship should be subject that they hold copyright to the content to due legal process. and secondly that said copyright has been infringed. Unless this is done within a Democracy is all about freedom of speech court of law, massive abuse will occur. freedom of expression and peoples EU Responses to Question 3 179

human rights with which to do this. To I do not believe sites such as needlessly regulate the internet for Twitter and Youtube should have innocent people whilst the real criminals to monitor shared content. who are well known to the security services continue to get off scott free, is I do not believe that any Organisation utterly wrong. The UN and all govts don’t should be required to monitor internet like us having our human rights . The activity or filter or remove internet content answer to q3 is a resounding...’alleged unless a Court of Law requires required that infringements have to be proven in a that specific content be censored. Requiring court of law before censorship occurs organisations to monitor and make judgements about internet activity and I believe freedom of speech should be content is potentially a very dangerous step, preserved on the Internet, so long as it does fraught with problems of interpretation, not infringe on others rights to this freedom, commercial bias etc. It would inevitably nor does it incite religious/ racial hate lead to a totally unjustifiable suppression against others any alleged in fringement of free speech and suppression of on this freedom needs to be protected freedom of information, two cornerstones in a court of law & requests made to of any free or democratic society. scrutinise individual account should be submitted through the proper channels, I fiercely believe that no organisation for instance to prevent acts of terrorism. should regulate, monitor, filter or remove content I or anyone else produce or I believe in net neutrality. and share! This would be a fatal blow to freedom of expression and our Freedom of Speech!If there are creativity. and not censorship reasons to do such things, the alleged infringement must be proven in a court of I believe that existing censorship tools have law before any censorship is considered. become fraught with false positives that have frequently and regularly taken down If companies business models no content that does not infringe on copyright longer work in a modern digital age it is holders intellectual property. Expanding them that need to change not the new this to billions of posts/messages a day inovitive organisations. There is a huge will have an unfair impact on free speech. misconception that all file/link sharing Also this requires that companies who sites online only provide access to illegal impose these tools are free to interpret content. This is completely untrue and the conditions of censorship without any all though such content is available so legal qualification and are almost certainly is much legal content. By shutting such going to get it very wrong as it will almost sites down you are directly negatively certainly contain cultural and personal bias effecting content providers due solely because larger content providers are I believe the courts should decide before telling you to in order to protect their before any monitoring or filtering or own interests. In addition it is ridicules to removal of content is permited. The suggest that all files downloaded illegally worst people to make such decisions would have been purchased legally if are politicians who sadly cannot foresee the download was not available. I hope consequences but want to be seen as doing you side with the vast majority of people something, rather than do the right things. and the developing tech world and not with big business who has had its day. 180 EU Responses to Question 3

If criminals like drug cartels, murderers, are not qualified to act a courts and and gangsters have been caught and judges – alleged infringement must be evidence can be found by retreiving proven in a real court in a real court of conversation, or type, this should be law before any censorship can occur. made available by court order. If people like the corporate trash who owns No and the alleged infringement facebook witholds infirmation on these should be proven in a court of people, they are as guilty, and should law before censorship occurs. be jailed. Any information shoul only be handed over if there is a bonifide court no censorship please order. No one should be allowed access No control. If the state, or the European without it, and only properly vetted super-state, thinks I’ve done something people should be allowed to handle wrong, it is up to them to prove it in a information, not the nosy parker next court of law. And I will be asserting my door who cares nothing for privacy indfeasible rights under Common Law - I Infringement must be proven in a court reside in a Common Law jurisdiction. of law. If we allow the internet to be No monitors, no censorship. censored we, the people, will be wholly Keep the internet free. controlled by our governments, and that is unacceptable, pure and simple. No to all of the above. Our freedoms are getting smaller with all these Infringement needs to be proven before regulations and restrictions. People cencorship. This is a slippery slope to should be able to make their own censorship. Who in these companies decisions as to what they want to access. makes these decisions? People who are Un-elected and unaccountable - this is No to censorship a terrible idea for freedom of speech. no to the first and yes to the second Infringement should be proven No way should this happen infringement should have to be proved before I am monitored No way!

Infringements need to be No, alleged infringement must first proven in court first be proven in a court of law.

Internet activity should not be monitored. No, expecting social media platforms to monitor content is missing the point. We Monitoring & filtering should not be default have a legal system for resolving such activities and should only be undertaken issues. Technology firms should not be as part of a criminal investigation. expected to take on judicial roles on the cheap, because that would be the naturally, I believe that infringement worst of all possible outcomes for all should have to be proved in court... concerned. There is already a major social No – this will almost definitely result in media platform that allows hate speech automated systems that unfairly censor to go unchallenged, but bans nudity. legal speech and expression. Websites These companies are just not capable EU Responses to Question 3 181

of judging what is socially acceptable, The internet must remain open and free despite being called “social media”. from censorship by the organisations unless alleged infringements No, they should not be allowed to are proven in a law court. monitor internet activity. Yes alleged infringement needs to be proved in a There should be no cencorship unless an court of law before censorship happens. infringement is proved in a court of law

No, they should not be monitoring at all. they should not monitor our activity, giving authorities more power over us is not a No. Should be done in a court of law. good thing(it usually corrupts them if they are not corrupted already) It would Nobody should monitor my online be better if we had more power over activity without a court order. authorities! Why is the statement “innocent until proven guilty” slowly being eroded? Only if someone places unacceptable statuses Under no circumstances

Platforms should not be required to Web service providers should have no monitor their users’ internet activity, responsibility for content provided by any more than pubs and cafes should third party contributors.Web service be required to record and monitor providers should have a duty NOT to their customers’ conversations. monitor or record the activity of those users who are simply accessing data. Prove infringement before censorship. Web service providers have a duty to Defend our freedom and privacy! keep private any records made of users The internet is the most accessible who are creating or modifying content window on the world. It’s both anarchistic on their services. No sale or transfer of and democratic at the same time. Any any such records should be permitted one who believes that anarchy can be except after full and open discussion governed doesn’t know what anarchy in a court of law.Any infringement of means. Anyone who feels the internet intellectual copyright should be proved Needs to be governed have their own in a full and open discussion in a court agenda to promote, or skeletons to be of law held in the country of residence kept in a cupboard. Last but not least, and subject to the laws of that country everyone who insists that they Can govern in which the alleged infringer resides. this world, be it by the internet or the Alleged infringers should be protected sword,,, well, perhaps it would be kinder from all personal and financial risks to commit them to the care of a home for right up to the point of conviction. the mentally hilarious. That would leave us democratic anarchists to get to get along together at our Own Sovereign discretion. Save the Link question 4: Should websites and users be forced to pay a link tax? Put simply: should websites should have to pay money when using snippets of text to preview other content online?

European Commission consultation question: Are you a holder of rights in digital content protected by copyright which is used in an online platform?

– As a holder of rights in digital content protected by copyright have you faced any of the following circumstances?

– An online platform such as a video sharing website or an online content aggregator uses my protected works online without having asked for my authorization? – An online platform such as a video sharing website or an online content aggregator refuses to enter into or negotiate licensing agreement with me – An online platform such as a video sharing website or an online content aggregator is willing to enter into a licensing agreement on terms that I consider unfair – An online platform uses my protected works but claims it is a hosting provider under Article 14 of the E-Commerce directive in order to refuse to negotiate a license or to do so under their own terms If yes, explain. EU Responses to Question 4 183

Total number of responses: 1333 Unique responses: 868

“We now live in a global community, linked by an open Internet, and imposing laws like this that stem the flow of data across only one region of the Internet would have an effect on communication over it everywhere, not just the EU. Established publishers online may be able to live with such taxes being put in place, but what happens to those starting out building new services online? Link taxation is a near sighted and ill-thought through concept, leading to a weakening of the open Internet and stifling the free movement of knowledge and information.”

No Absolutely not, if it’s in accordance with copyright regulations, meaning the No link tax. If people put information text is used for a non-commercial and/ online, it is in the public domain for fair use. or educational purposes or for preview, and the full text is not displayed. No, this should be considered fair use and no taxes should be applied at all. absolutely not!

No! Absolutely NOT! The internet must remain free, and not taken over by CORRUPT A ‘link tax’ would be entirely wrong. interests bribing member of the EU. Another way of looking at it is that the linked content is getting free advertising Absolutely not! The very so maybe the linked websites should thought scares me! pay the tax. A link tax is clearly absurd and will only stifle innovation Absolutely not! This is a way to ensure that innovation and inspiration be A “link tax” would destroy the internet smothered, that exchanges and knowledge be hampered, that cultural, social and A definate don’t know! economic development be hamstrung and that we slip back into the Dark Ages. A link tax is simply nonsense. A link is like a suggestion or recommendation. Absolutely not. It’s an insane idea, that Why would someone have to pay in would abolish the WWW completely, order to recommend something? making search engines, blogs, and social networks impossible Absolutely no Absolutely not. That’s like a poll tax. Open Absolutely no taxes communication is not only desirable, it’s Absolutely not essential. That must not be impeded. 184 EU Responses to Question 4

Absolutely not. The Internet is built on for many sites, and lead to a severe freedom of information. A link tax is the hampering of the internet’s ability to be equivalent of literary critics being charged a creative outlet, which is one of its most for every time they quote part of a book important purposes today. It’s also entirely unfair - websites are already paying to Absolutely not. The Internet’s brilliance maintain and run their sites, and I honestly is in the way it allows the free flow can’t see what purpose a “link tax” would of information and sharing of ideas. serve, or who should receive the money People already pay for their Internet services, either from landlines or mobile. Again, this should be fair use. Apart And they have the choice to pay for from the cost, it might make publishing premium services online. If you put a on the web a lot more cumbersome for tariff on linking, you effectively shut private persons and small organizations. down a highly competitive market and isolate small businesses and charities Again: of course not.

Absolutely not. The only thing a tax Are you serious? Of course not, this like that would accomplish is to make it is an absolutely terrible idea harder for small businesses and startups to function, make it harder for people Change the way we create money and to communicate casually, and make it think Basic Income instead of pay to clic. harder for knowledge and information to That «level of misunderstanding» makes be shared and distributed. The internet is me angry and sad becaus Internet is the to human knowledge what air travel has most beautiful thing humans ever created been to human transportation. Restrict to boost up their knowledge and needs it, and the only conclusion I can draw is of freedom. It should e encourage that that it’s a malicious attempt to sabotage way... sharing, knowledge and freedom. the greatest knowledge-sharing network Definetly no.The Internet as a free in the history of the human race. medium of communication should stay Absolutely not. There are ways that a common source of sharing knowledge online text can be made private or without havin to pay anything. unlinkable without charging. Again, Fuck no. That’d kill the internet and charging sites money for their content literally be racing free speech. based on royalties is an incredibly sticky slope for the free internet. The whole idea haha, this should prevent ads is that it is a public forum and that any too, *RIGHT* ?put simply, no. and all content is available to all, unless parameters are set within a website’s own Hell no. Taxes are for the administration (not forced onto another’s!) physical, not virtual world

Absolutely not. This is shared commons I am not in favour of the link tax and any other interpretation is simple thought policing, and an excuse I should not be taxed for used to thwart the dissemination previewing content of social/political movements I’m against this kind of taxes. It’s Absolutely not. This would be disastrous usually only beneficial to large content EU Responses to Question 4 185

producers and it might be dangerous paying for, information should be free on who will produce and control any and not held by the highest bidder. kind of content. It is too temptative not to be used in their favor Link taxes stifle speech. A link is simply a reference to the original material in its If someone os forced to pay a link tax, unadulterated form. On clicking such a link, it means that every webpage must be the end user sees the content referred in scanned for “infringing links”, and this the environment of the original contents means a need for almost total control over owner. All profitability and content non-public parts of the web, a control for ‘paywalling’ can be done on the side of which some jerks in politics are longing the content owner, on the content owners’ for.It will also change the cashflow of the own site. Linking does not prevent or block web, allowing government news outlets such efforts, and therefore also does not to make money by simply producing interfere with the profitability of content bullshit, and Merkel and Hillary and Putin itself. If a content owner is too lazy to will make money every time when online take measures to protect paid-for content, tabloids show their ugly faces - because then that is at the caution of the content they will declare themselves to be a owner, not of the party placing a link. The source of income for “news” agencies. nature of opinion, news, academia and discourse in general, is to refer to other, In no case websites and users should previous discourse. Much of this is already be forced to pay for this kind of usage. placed in the public domain, or placed publicly accompanied by advertising to Indeed, the EU lacks a fair generate revenue on the internet. The use exception doctrine. link tax, directed at search and indexing groups, content aggregators like Google Laws that create link taxes for online and Facebook, on behalf of the content platforms harm our ability to innovate publishers (mainly Elsevier and Springer online and actually give entrenched groups, as those payrolling this entire publishers more power over online content. debate) is disproportionately harmful to Regardless of where you live, many of our independent sites and resources voicing favourite websites will be impacted by bad opinions or fact. Take wikipedia. It now regulations the Web is global and it will only needs to maintain its own server costs, affect Internet users everywhere.Many would now have to pay to cite / and link websites cannot afford to pay money to link to academic papers, or newspaper articles to excerpts of content available elsewhere (mind you, not include content, simply online. New fees on linking limit what they placing a reference). It would bankrupt link to, or could force them to shut down the wikipedia project instantly. Opinion? entirely.Taxing links stifles innovation A blog? It cannot explicitly link or refer for new online services. The next reddit to any content worth mentioning, as this or Twitter would be unable to start up would incur the tax. Having an opinion is under these rules.The web is an incredible free. Hosting it on the internet is cheap. information space, and every successful Referring to potentially any other human scheme to prevent linking weakens work: unaffordable. This won’t work. the foundation of the open Internet. The current body of scholarly works, (as Link tax indicates that every piece also, might I add, is for the most part of content or information is worth funded by public money, yet locked in proprietary, paid-for-access storage by 186 EU Responses to Question 4

above mentioned Elsevier and Springer, Most definitely not.. incurring huge costs along the order of tens of millions yearly, for these educational Negative. This is ridiculous. I pay enough institutions, also publicly funded, to access for everything. I refuse to accept such the fruits of their own publicly funded nonsense They’re capitalizing my beautiful labour) would not be able to exist without internet and i will no longer stand for it. the ability to freely place references. The implicit cost of these references (archive never subscriptions) is covered by the universities No and invisibly publicly funded, but it is not reflecting any added special benefit or No value added by above mentioned media companies. Imagine a ‘news tax’, in which No and no newspapers would have to pay a fixed percentage to the subjects of a news story No as this gives power to the rich (dead, alive, or cat). How does one think to control the flow of information. this would affect the reporting of news? This must never be allowed. What is the harm in linking, e.g. placing a reference to the original work in its No because there is no infringment natural context (hosted by the publisher other than the two parties involved. In of said work), other than the original work other words why should a third party receiving more views? For the person be involved if I am posting a link to a linking, it forms a reference to whatever second party for material that is tagged they are discussing. For the person linked as free access and distribution to, it provides a new, free stream of incoming viewers / content consumers. It No I do not agree with this!! very much seems that Springer and Co. very No link tax should be paid. much realize that archiving is now a low- cost, technologically ‘solved’ problem, and NO LINK TAX! therefore in profit margins is a race to the bottom. Instead of focusing on their value No link tax. Info should be free up added benefit, the editing and curation to the point of needing access to a of content, they choose to lobby for the research journal, eg. How long until same broken public works-ransoming the pass it on to the consumer? cartel mechanics they have applied to academia, and thus far have gotten away No link taxes. with keeping in place due to the opaque financing records of public education. NO No

Links are the beauty of the internet. Taxing NO ONE should be charged a link tax links is a silly idea that will cost millions. no taxes Smaller website and businesses will not be able to afford this and will have to limit No taxes on snippets etc on their linking or just give up completely. This the internet. Everything else is will make it harder for new online services outrageously ridiculous and will only to start up, as well. This plan is the start lead to tax evasion and pirating of the crumbling of the open information source that is the current internet EU Responses to Question 4 187

no the content creators should pay any they can attach (without payment) to such tax, as the links provided by sites the link. Reality is that with the current such as Yahoo, Bing or Google actually situation in Internet, rather soon we will drive business and eyeballs to them have no problem because the amount of new independent interesting material No the Internet is build of of links and available will be rather limited (but we of implementing a tax like this threatens course will have a lot of advertisements the Internet as we know it today disguised as original material, no problem)

No they should not if they are No, how much more red tape is going merely using snippets to direct to get used around this planet? This viewers to the whole article is just another way to deter people from using copyrighted material. I am No way this is a preposterous idea. also doubtful that the original content creator will get the full amount to be No way! Never ever! A snippet is always paid. There’s always some government a free form of advertising for the person/ “official” begging for tax money, a fee company set up the text. A link tax is here, a fee there. You administration, an absolute no go. This would minimize postage, processing, the collectors. It’s the ability of regular internet users to a never ending list meant to make it too get a wide spread set of information difficult to even bother, likely also too to build their own opinion on topics. expensive to even want to share content Censoring the internet is the wrong way! No, I don’t think so No web pages should be able to show text or related things free of charge. No, id rather stop using the internet, Particularly if these web pages are big corporations dont deserve rights created by individuals or non profit and tax on everyone and everything.. organizations advocating for a specific cause. This is especially true for web No, it will cause more economically pages that are engaging in E commerce. driven usage and shut out more Copyright enforcement should be solly in community based website creation the hands of government in these cases, not for private interests to dictate. No, it’s only a money making tool. Would be similar to tax the air we breathe. No websites should not be As much as we can find arguments to forced to pay a link tax. do something like this, ultimately it is only about control and money. No, absolutely not. That’s just a ploy to squeeze more money out of No, No, and NO! internet users and content makers No, sharing ideas and works of No, as those snippets are short and have others through citing and linking is a descriptive role - analogous to including something that has been done the a short excerpt from a book in its review - beginning of the written word. something which surely must be allowed no, that again tramples on fair use rights No, but perhaps some limits should be established to the amount of text that No, that attacks the very core of what 188 EU Responses to Question 4

the web is, taxing it would kill it. No.

No, that makes the internet useless No. A link tax would be detrimental to everyone. It would make the Internet No, that’s a ridiculous idea. It undermines virtually unusable. If someone wants the entire working of the world wide web to charge for content, they must do it within their own web domain only No, that’s captialist bullshit we all pay enough taxes already No. Absolutely not.

No, the INTERnet is based on No. But they should reference the source. INTERconnectivity. A html page without links to other pages would be utterly no. creative commons useless, especially since the vast majority of links on any given page link to content No. Fair use is a right and does on the same domain. It would be like taxing not have to be paid for encyclopedia’s on the number of entries. No. If websites wish to charge for content, No, they should not. they should use a “paywall” or other mechanism -- linking to that content, and No, this is absurd, inhumane, and again, other fair-use, should not be restricted a crime against humanity. this would first of all require every website to identify No. Imposing such a tax is neither itself, would secondly severely limit non- necessary nor to the good for the corporate websites and probably destroy state of the Internet as a whole. a lot of them. it would put a tax on using the effectively infinite ability to use links No. Information should be free to use and would destroy free speech on the and to share. Most worthwhile content internet too. paying for speech is wrong. is spread by “word of mouth” (i.e. linking), and charging to link content will no, to my opinion, offering a sample ultimately leave only “approved” content does not constitute a violation (that will be filtered and controlled by the state or by media giants). NO, users should NOT be forced to pay a link tax! No. It would be of great detrimental value to both end-users and content creators if No! quotes, citations, snippets or other previews to or on links would no longer be possible. No! Paying a link tax would have By linking to another website you are both serious repercussions, limiting online providing a service to the end-user (by services and innovation due to costs guiding them to more relevant content) and the other website (by leading traffic to their No! The whole point of the Internet site, which may be monetized). Websites is to share information as freely that wish to remain inaccessable to the and as cheaply as possible majority of users already have a great array of tools at their disposal to do so. No!!! No. Link tax is the dumbest thing I have No!!!!!! heard. It does not cost anyone anything EU Responses to Question 4 189

if the snippets of content are displayed - No. This would break the internet at least if implemented right. If this was enforced, what would small sites do? Just No. This would completely destroy use less links, use no links? That would the free-sharing of information that the disconnect the content. This more sounds Internet is based on, and which has created like a different kind of censorship all its innovation and revolutionised the world so far. This would commodify the No. No no no. This is wrong in SO sharing of information and completely MANY ways. The whole web is based distort the equality of information on hyperlinks. Linking sources and give sharing that the Internet should have. a citation of it is the most important Without this quality, the Internet will be thing if the internet should survive as a turned into a glorified shopping mall useful source of free knowledge. And for anything. This would create a huge even now european internet-business barrier against the ability for people and startups have so many to overcame, to freely search out new and unknown that they probably never will compete information online. Futhermore it would with the US. Taking away web neutrality clog up internet transactions and greatly (and: yes, it is taken away - look what increase the cost of ISP services as well as telekom did) was a hard strike for IT- online products/services/shopping etc economy. So don’t do the next one. No. where did this come from? No. That would destroy the free should I pay rights if I tell my friend distribution of information what my neighbour said?

No. Thats a cash grab. If i see a link NO. Would be stupid and absurd that interests me, I follow it and the source may generate income from my Not at all viewing it on their site. It’s essentially free publicity for them. Why should they Of course not get the benefits of exposure and cash Of course not. Freedom of link should No. The link is the very base of stay that way - if publishers don’t the Internet. Paying for linking like it, they can use a paywall affects small business. Of course not. It would be like paying No. This could force many low-budget to use a public library when in a city sites that serve millions of people in another country. Provided the (such as Daily Kos) to shut down. It amount viewed is small [as with % would limit internet freedom. used for review purposes in printed text], there should be no reason No. This should be allowed as “fair use”. It should also be acknowledged Only commercial websites that that such sharing likely has diffuse are making a profit off content they but real economic benefits to society did not produce should pay tax at large, as well as rights holders Only if you really want to No. This undermines the destroy the internet. concept of free speech Q4 No 190 EU Responses to Question 4

Short answer: No of course not. Long be accessible to everybody answer: implementing such a tax is pretty much impossible and amounts to illegal The web is an incredible information censorship, since many private bloggers space, and every successful scheme have fairly low income and could not to prevent linking weakens the afford to pay that kind of tax. Also by the foundation of the open Internet logic of that idea traditional paper media should also pay that tax every single time There should absolutely not be a tax they mention other media, people or even associated with linking to content. when they cite anything anyone has said This is a very important process for sharing information and knowledge. So long as only a portion is used and the original source is linked to, it should There should be no link tax at all, that’s be counted as fair use. It is no different a completely unreasonable idea. than quotation. Reusage of an entire There should be no taxes to use the text should be counted as copyright internet, nor to link to other content infringement that law already exists. This is not acceptable! I Telling people about interesting content see no right for that! should never be taxed! If I give my friends book recommendations, reciting This is outright stupidity. Who even a few lines from memory I do not need thought this up? Have they ever used to pay the publisher. I should not have the internet? Have they ever read news to do so because I do the same on the in a newspaper that references reports internet.A link tax will kill the internet from other news outlets? The internet as a free means of communication. is the medium of the future and links are what holds it together. If you put a that is ‘micro-transaction’ nonsense tax on links you will severely restrict The “link tax” is the virtual equivalent the internet and slow down business of the “oxygen tax”: should we pay for and innovation, as well as culture breathing? Should we pay for sharing Websites who use links only advertise information? That said, be certain for the website they link. People get sent that link replacements will appear as to the site behind the link, so why should soon as a tax is voted: circumventing they pay for making content known? that tax is just a technical matter. What an historically stupid idea - like The idea of a link tax is abhorrent. It the window tax (people just bricked up goes against the basic principles of the their windows) or the water-wheel tax (it internet - that of making information shut down mills all over Britain but didn’t available. The only people to benefit add up to revenue for the government.) from this practice will be the people People will find other ways around it, who do not want to majority of the because communication is a natural public to educate themselves human activity and cannot be stifled for The internet isn’t really “free”, since long, but governments will a) not get the there are networks, software and money they imagine they will, and b) they storage to maintain, but it should will lose a means of spying on us and what we are interested in, and in their EU Responses to Question 4 191

tiny-minded world, that’s supposed to be that very thing! And the same continues important, isn’t it? But maybe pumping up to apply even if links are being shared in the already obscene “take” of the biggest a professional way by an organization. If corporations is all they’re really interested I choose to pay somebody to phone me in, even though even they must know it up and let me know every time an article can’t go on forever. What is this - grab of interest to me is in one of the papers, every last penny and “sauve qui peut”? that’s a useful service, but it isn’t an C’mon - stretch for a little sanity here. infringement of the papers’ articles. If they email me, or Tweet me, or display them What is my country or any other on a webpage, that doesn’t fundamentally country have done for me in order to change what’s happening or add a breach have a better internet connection (for of copyrighted material into the situation. example)? No, I don’t think that I should The link-sharer is telling me about pay any taxes when I access a link. articles they think I’d like to read (on the original websites, with me encountering Yes advertising, subscription charges, or whatever the publisher wishes); they aren’t “Hey, have you seen today’s ‘Daily Bugle’ — re-publishing the article themselves, or there’s a story ‘Are the PC brigade stealing leeching traffic from the original source. the identity of the memory of Diana?’” (Quite the opposite! If they’re any good, If I say to a colleague in the office, or on they are _increasing_ traffic.) Links are the phone to my mum, I am simply telling links. They are signposts of the internet. them about the article, alerting them to They are how the worldwide web works. it, by using its name (its headline). I’m not Please don’t let publishing organizations infringing any copyright. Even if I read out bully you into destroying this (and most the standfirst, or a particularly relevant probably themselves in the process_.; paragraph, to give them a taste of it, I’m simply signalling what the article contains A link tax could very easily break the — drawing their attention to it, publicizing web as it is. Its existence would force it. The same is true online. If I share a many platforms to restrict what is linked link to an article electronically to people to (especially smaller platform providers) I know, I’m suggesting they may wish to and potentially cause useful services such read it. Obviously I have to include enough as Google News to shut down entirely as context to let them know what it’s about, they did in Spain. If Twitter were to have to and to entice them into reading it. This is pay a link tax, it would either have to be a no more a copyright infringement than flat rate for all links, which would charge chatting by the office water cooler or on for users linking to their own content on the blower to my mum. Indeed, many news other services, or require complex analysis websites specifically include metadata in to decide which links need to be taxed. their article pages so that when sharing a link on Twitter or Facebook, the headline A link tax favors the large and powerful and standfirst are automatically included. media but stifles the small, new and It’d be absurdly hypocritically of an creative sites. This is a destructive idea organization to complain about, treat as an infringement of copyright, or demand A link tax is a terrible idea as it payment for, an article excerpt which has would damage the net as a whole as only been included because of code they people will simply stop using sites specifically put into their sites for doing that implement such a policy. 192 EU Responses to Question 4

A link tax is just another money Absolutely not, this would be grab by big business tantamount to censorship.

A link tax will make the web much Absolutely not! less useful, simply because it will discourage people from linking to useful Absolutely not! Don’t the big companies or interesting content. Just as in old make enough money already? world media you have the right to quote something or mention the name of a Absolutely not! Such a scheme would book or news article, the web heavily choke the Internet and bring information depends on making links freely.; exchange to a halt. Imagine what would happen if we had to pay a myriad of A link tax would be massively tolls and charges every time we drove detrimental to what is currently the a highway, city road or side street!! greatest platform for freedom of speech and democracy ever created Absolutely not!!!! Links are THE backbone of the Internet and this will A link-tax is absurd. However, the completely ruin it for EVERYONE!!! As concept could be tested with a an web hoster, we will never agree provisional fee on joke-sourcing. to or comply with such nonsense!!

A very very strong NO. Absolutely NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Absolutely and unequivocally not. A Absolutely NOT. link tax will destroy the intrinsic value of the internet. The corporations that Absolutely not. A “link tax” advocate for such taxes will not survive will stifle information sharing, such a move. Users will simply stop creativity, and innovation. using them as has already happened Absolutely not. If the content owner multiple times in a variety of industries. does not want the material to be freely That list is already pretty long. But how available online, then do not put it about this: if a link tax is imposed, an on the internet in the first place equivalent data usage fee should be also charged to corporations/governments and Absolutely not. Links are vital to both the distributed to users to compensate users originator and user of content. I can think for the use of their data. To privilege one of little that could do more universal harm segment of the industry over another is to the free movement of information. inherently unfair and discriminatory. Absolutely not. The internet should be free Absolutely no! Absolutely not. This creates artificial Absolutely not value, a kind of interest on internet usage, which will lead to the same kind of crisis Absolutely not, that’s just ridiculous. as the artificial value of mortgages and Absolutely not, this sounds any other interest-based structure. more like a lame reason for Absolutely not. This makes no sense countires to get more money. and goes against the founding principles of the internet. The link tax would EU Responses to Question 4 193

kill innovation which has made the Heck no! net into such a fantastic media Hell no All of these ideas are absurd. The internet isn’t a government. It can not be governed. Hell no! That’s like removing the It can not be monitored. To pay tax on links web from World Wide Web. is a baffling concept, both for freedom of speech, small businesses and internet users Hell no. That is the dumbest thing you could possibly do. The internet is built and no. no. around links. Think about google and every other search engine ever. Think Another clear “NO!!”. of informative websites such as one used by students. It is vital that the Certainly not: it is against the internet remains an intricate web of of workings of the internet information connected to everything. It would be really rubbish to destroy that. Certainly Not! I can live without snippets but links clearly not. this is beyond mean- should always be free and authors spirited selfishness and greed. this can should always be named even if only really be seen as a deliberate they allow free distribution. attempt to stifle the worldwide web by a fearful and or guilty establishment i disagree, is stifles the freedom of expression Definitely not I do not believe that industry should have Definitly no! This would ruin any more say regarding content than the Internet as we know it. authors or artists or ordinary citizens No

don’t know I do NOT think commercial interests are the right authority to decide what Everything online works with links, a tax should be removed! Of course not! like this would basically destroy internet as we know it and render it useless I do not think websites have to pay money when using snippets of text to Frankly, the internet SHOULD preview other content onlineWebsites be free. ALL OF IT should not have to pay to use links. FUCK NO LINK TAX, THATS This is completely ridiculous. TOTALLY FUCKED!!!!!!!!!!!!! I don’t think so Fuck no. Why should websites and users I don’t think so. Websites should have to pay a link tax on top of free, word- be able to use other content of-mouth advertising? If I like a companies’ service or products, I’ll recommend it to I don’t understand no others. If I hate it, I’ll also inform others. If ANYTHING, these companies should I think that the link tax is backstairs way be paying ME for spreading the word for big companies profit from the web.

god no If personal photos are such content, then, 194 EU Responses to Question 4

yes. Taxing links may undermine the very Link taxes should not be allowed, because foundation of open internet. This question linking and using snippets of copyrighted should be approached with GREAT care. text should definitely fall under the fair use provisions of copyright lay. In books, we are allowed to cite other books without having to pay a Links to an original content or snippets monetary amount. On the internet, with a link to the original work should the same stance should be taken. not be restricted in any way.If the work is publicly available, advertising Internet should be free otherwise it it and showing where it can be found will degrade and ceise existense should always be fine.In case the artist made the work publicly available by It is a basic right like language. Will inadvertance, the blame is his. they want to copyright thise next. My link is my content. If you start taxing la red es una increíble forma de link, you start taxing content. Taxing link is intercambiar conocimientos ¿pagar the death of the open internet. Besides, a para compartir tu trabajo? no estoy de link is FREE ADVERTISING for content that acuerdo the network is an incredible has been put on the PUBLIC INTERNET! If way to share knowledge ¿I must pay for people don’t want their data to be linked sharing my own work? I disagree I always to, they simply should keep it private. give credit for the work of other’s NEVER! if I had to pay money, Laws that create link taxes for online I wouldn’t use the service platforms harm our ability to innovate online and actually give entrenched No publishers more power over online content.Taxing links stifles innovation No - it contradicts fair use principles. for new online services. The next reddit or Twitter would be unable to start up No - this is in no way enforceable and under these rules.The web is an incredible any attempt to do so would ruin smaller information space, and every successful sites and inconvenience larger ones scheme to prevent linking weakens the foundation of the open Internet. No •Evidence already shows the harm that existing link tax has done. A study in Spain Link tax is stupid found that the law “will cost publishers €10 million...which would fall disproportionately Link tax sounds like a preposterous idea. It on smaller publishers.” •Regardless would probably destroy the internet as we of where you live, many favourite know it today and would wreck the careers websites will be impacted by this plan of uncountable online professionals. No a link tax is a bad idea. Links Link tax? That is absurd. I have a small should be unregulated web site which contains primarily scientific ideas in a neglected area of No and no. Although I wish that links are study. Please see: www.jimworthey.com only used to redirect to the original source . New taxes or any new bureaucracy and not to someone copy/pasting an article. would stifle valuable ideas No certainly not. EU Responses to Question 4 195

NO DEFINITELY NOT No rediculous.. U already pay to have a website... Its just a way to no fast lines to make providers richer make extra money on the backs of others... Just plain wrong... No I don’t! Sincerely, Eric No tax No link tax No taxes! No link tax or similar. No they should not if they are NO LINK TAX! SNIPPETS ARE merely using snippets to direct LEGAL! LINK RESTRICTIONS AND viewers to the whole article TAXES WOULD BE INSANE! no to both No link tax. Authors cite sources. Websites link back to original content. NO way There should not be a fee for linking back to freely available content simply No way! Internet should actually because it exists on another site. be free of any tax or cost. And so should water, by the way No link tax. That is almost the antitheses if what a world wide web should be. No way. There are too many reasons not to do this. Blogs post 1000s of links, they No link tax. The internet allows for will have to monitor all their links all the cross-sourcing, cross-citing, etc. Why time and see if conditions have changed. would one possibly remove that? Linking to public content is like repeating the newspapers headlines I have seen on No link tax. The net is open. Period. the street. I don’t have to pay for that either. If the original site doesn’t want its content No link tax. The power to tax to be linked to they should put it behind is the power to destroy a paywall. In other words: if they want to No NNo protect their content it is their duty. If I want to protect the contents of my house, no No I close the door as well. I cannot make others responsible if I put my belongings No No NO NO NO on the street and people take it. The reason websites do not go behind paywalls is no of course not. what an absurd idea!!! because they love to be linked to. Making us pay for the links is just a sneaky way No one should have to pay a “Link tax” for them to improve their business. The internet is a vast and incredible storehouse of information, which has NO we already pay a fee for our internet been freely available since it’s inception. To even consider a link tax (or any No we should not pay any tax, we of these proposals for that matter)is pay enough for the internet unthinkable to me. It’s nothing more than corporate greed. The idea should be No websites and users should not be scrapped and never mentioned again forced to pay a link tax. That would be unfair to smaller publishers and small 196 EU Responses to Question 4

websites. Small websites would be No, it will break the internet unable to afford the payments and be forced to limit what they link or shut No, links and otherwise have to be free. down all together. The internet is an open source of information and it is no, no essential that it stays an open source. No, no, no. The boost to the economy No, a link tax will contribute to a lack resulting from free access to tf facilitates is of deep domain knowledge, something far more valuable than any fine users are that we, humanity will need in order to likely willing to accept --- and will be more help the environment and find some equally distributed, as well. A parallel to form of peace amoungst ourselves hardcopy Free Use policy should suffice

No, absolutely not! Why? What is No, nobody should be charged for the real reason behin dthis? We are citing other content - especially when talking about links, not the content it is linked to the original source. itself. Of course, the snippet should be No, not forcing. World wide web is a free reasonably short, but otherwise, it is zone to go and to surf and place a link. just the pointer to the real content No, obviously not. There is still a No, absolutely not. This is as right to use other content in a new absurd as taxing people for writing context. Furthermore, enforcing this down a (physical) address tax would be close to impossible on No, an attribution should suffice the internet and would greatly damage the internet. However, the creator No, as it would hinder people’s should be credited for the work used. ability to “stumble upon” content through less wealthy sites who No, of course not might not afford to pay link tax. No, of course not. no, as long as the text snippets do No, otherwise we might also not exceed a certain length. start charging for air use in planes No, cross referencing is important and public transport also

No, definitely not No, sharing links benefits everyone. for instance, if a friend posts a link to a film I No, easily accessible exchange may not have heard of that they believe I of information would become would like, I may go and see it, generating limited to upper classes income for the film makers and studio. The same for products, travel almost everything No, I do not. I can think of. There is so much information available it is impossible to keep on top No, I don’t think so. of everything but links posted by friends, a ‘heads up’ are always welcome! No, in most cases it even draws more attention to the original data. No, such payments are a crazy idea, spawning censorship and No, information should be free EU Responses to Question 4 197

subverting democratic consensus legit information and makes it easier for and informed consent corrupt politicians and other officials to manipulate public opinion. No, that is absurd, one is helping the other when doing that.The only sense No, this would stifle freedom of in doing that is reinforce monopoly information on the internet.The internet and to shut down all the others. as we know it would cease to exist

No, that should be free No, we already pay to use internet

No, that’s absurd. And even ignores that No, websites and users should not those same links are what carries traffic be forced to pay a link tax. over to the target sites! which makes it double dumb. Of course links can be No, websites should not have to misused, just like butterknives can be used pay when using snippets of text to to torture. But it is the misuses that need preview other content online. to be persecuted, not the butterknives! No, why should taxpayers No, that’s the base of the world wide web. support a dying business. If you forbid html links to other pages, the rest of the world will point and laugh and No, you would be damning traffic to sites just keep hyperlinking. It’s like forbidding which would then languish in cyberspace birds to fly into your country, pointless. No,not at all, this would undermine NO, the hole idea is stupid and the the free communication via the web stupid people that think that any tax NO! on anything part of the internet is right should be fired and jailed. No! Absolutely not! A link tax would kill the web, kill free expression, prevent No, the internet should remain free millions of bloggers and vloggers No, there should be no link tax from doing what they do. That would absolutely kill citizen journalism which No, this is a money grabbing scheme by is the best thing we’ve got going now!!!! companies to make even more money. It is wrong to charge a small business or No! Certainly not! content producer extra money, when they NO! Every small business and already have to pay for webhosting, video independent user will be destroyed by a hosting and advertising to get their names link tax while the massive corporations out there in the first place. Not to mention will just be able to dodge the link with the current economic problems the tax like they do every other tax world is facing, makes it even more difficult for these people to survive. It only serves NO! Link tax is a greedmeister’s scheme. to benefit large corporations that want Profit ueber alles, you money sick slobs more and more money, despite already getting more than enough of a profit share NO! Nerver from the original sales of their products NO! NO! NO! I will NOT pay a link NO, this law does nothing but cencors tax. Information should be FREE. 198 EU Responses to Question 4

NO! Sharing knowledge is important. will be blocked by these governments

No! That would be the end of wikipedia, No. Apart from taking away a big chunk a website used by many to learn. of the internet’s appeal, I think it will Knowledge should be freely available have huge adverse effects. There will be to everybody, so anybody can educate less linking in the first place. Second, it themselves and grow stronger in an will affect all content that would have increasingly competitive world. been linked to in the first place as people no longer get to see that content.F.e. if I NO! The basis of the world wibe web was read an interesting headline on Google free sharing of interlinked information. News, I will typically go to the full article Why on earth would anyone consider it a and by that action, I generate income good idea to tax this? The internet is one for the owner of the content. I may of the greatest achievements of our time, even spend money for it if it’s behind a and now legislation proposes to break paywall (and have done so in the past). it under the guise of protecting us, but really just giving in to corporate greed. NO. As long as it is attributed Taxing links will make way for a two-lane appropriately and this means to the internet, where content that has a (huge) standard required by the content owner. company behind it will get a preferential treatment, while blocking out access to No. controlfreaks always want to suck individually generated personal content. money out of their abuse of power. Simply put, yet again, the big commercial It is sick but control-freakyness is companies will rake in the cash and even curable, I am sure. Taxing links stifles more importantly, it will be a way to innovation for new online services effectively disable access to information. (think: the next reddit or Twitter) – and I cannot and will not agree with that. ensures the dominance of entrenched Serve the people, don’t steal from them. players. The web is an incredible information space, and every successful NO! Who is that money supposed to go to? scheme to prevent linking weakens the foundation of the open Internet. NO! Who is that money supposed to go to? There will be no more open internet No. If someone wants to charge others to use their snippets, fine. I suspect they No!!! A link tax??? what are you will not get many takers. But there’s kidding... why not just pull the cord on no need to make a mechanism of the internet entirely??? who are these enforcement - let the market decide people making these decisions??? Who will be getting all the money? This no. information is only controlled is all so awful I want to scream!!! by fascists like North Korea.

No. No. It’s free advertisement for the sites linked to No. Absolutely not No. Just like traditional media is allowed No. Any link tax is unacceptable in the to quote from other works web sites also open and democratic media of the Internet. should have the right to quote. As for A link tax will be rejected in the United links, the current standard is that if you States and Canada. Payments of link taxes reference some document then you should EU Responses to Question 4 199

provide a link to it and hyperlinks that a military concept, it was supposed to be walk around rightsholders and scientific a system, designed to resist stranglehold, publishers are far superior since they isolation, disconnection. The internet was goes to the actual content of the articles originally a resource used by researchers instead of some stupid paywall so a link to share and develop ideas in unity, for tax is in direct conflict with the goals free. As a model of free information, it of education of the people of Europ fundamentally relies on hyperlinking to work. Free hyperlinks, that work universally, No. Not only is this ludicrous it is an on any machine, on any browser. Having administrative nightmare and subject paid-for links would break the system: to errors and false accusations due notably all browsers would have to to hacking and malicious attacks. implement it, it’s not consistent with the rest of the world, it’s not demanded by No. Simply no. the people who use it (only by corporate lobbyists out of touch with reality). Indeed, No. That is ridiculous and there is paid-for links are pointless: websites can no place for that on the internet already censor and block information No. That will be the death of the current behind what is called a “pay wall”. Some internet, and will only give rise to a parallel newspaper websites already have this set illegal internet. Don’t try controlling a up. If paid-for content needs to be blocked, world-wide medium with local, inapt it is already possible for them to do that on legislation. Especially not with taxing links, their own website (no need to block links because it is just as with corporate tax- or charge for them!). But by sharing the evasion the servers will find a permissive information publicly, in a system designed country without tax, while destroying high- for open sharing of information and tech jobs in the old country. That’s a bad resources, designed to resist disconnection message to your voters for any politician. and isolation and strangulation, they are implicitly consenting to share NO. That would go directly against that information openly. If I publish a the right to share information photograph of myself online, and it gets used, and I get angry it got taken, who is to No. That’s absurd blame? The one who took it, unknowingly? Or myself, for publishing it publicly in full NO. The Internet is exploding and view? Most people would say myself. If I transforming our lives for the better. it want my information private... I shouldn’t has proved it’s worth. the companies publish it. The link tax would cost many who are complaining have many times of the poorest in the world who already proved their worthlessness. We can have difficulties getting online, and always replace a few sharks in suits. We would negatively affect small start-ups. cannot replace the free open Internet It’s essentially an additional payment for what doesn’t contribute for much. No. The internet should be free. It is Harsh copyright laws and the ability to the greatest protection for freedom and paywall websites already exist. Links - a information exchange ever imagined. fundamental backbone of how the internet No. The internet, when originally devised works - do not need to be changed. As the by CERN, was a tool and resource designed saying goes... if it isn’t broke, don’t fix it to share information freely. Before then, as No. The major media giants control too 200 EU Responses to Question 4

much of what can be said and what is No. This is simply “fair use” said. There is much hidden from the public majority that pay would make certain No. This should be considered as “fair use”. who can afford to follow the threads Without such links, fewer people would to where any truth might be found find the source material. It is well known that open access to “teaser” material No. The other websites should increases sales of the actual product. This consider this as free advertising kind of unwarranted taxation amounts to an insidious form of censorship No. The right to reference and quote is part of free expression No. This will priveledge only certain sections of society who because No. They are creating links that will create of wealth will have free access to interest in the full contact and then the all available information. This puts owner of the material will get his/her many people back into the dark ages views when they access the full context of communication due to cost.

No. They should most definitely not. An No. This would be very detrimental to idea like this would in my eyes easily sites hosted in Europe. Many will shut be abused, in the manner that regular down. It will also be very costly to enforce. sayings or statements could be used to In addition, this would cause speech force people to pay. Paying for words, and the dissemination of information text and similar that is regular-day use, to be available only to corporations or simply just snippets, is part of making and the rich as the poor would not the “free web” not free. Not to mention have the funds to pay link taxes how this would impact free speach! No. Ultimately the owners of linked No. This idea is completely absurd. The content are already benefitting internet depends on links to function. from increased traffic which sould be sufficient ‘payment-in-kind’ No. This is a grotesque proposal that runs counter to the entire development No. Websites should be able to of the world-wide-web. The web would freely link and display short parts of not have become the world-changing content that is available for free part of our lives that it is today, had this idea been in existence in its early No. What the fuck is this? You can’t days, and implementing such an idea charge people money to use links, you now would threaten to stifle and shut don’t OWN links. what right have you to down the innovative, creative and charge for them? Besides, if this passes, unpredictable ways in which it will develop people will just copy/paste URL’s without and change our world in the future. turning them into links. It’ll be slightly more inconvenient, but nobody is going to NO. THis is just a way to tax the internet pay money for that shit. Don’t be stupid. to death. The EU gets Tax money,big business lobyists are happy, critisism of the No...This is the whole point of the internet EU is made more difficult and the internet is to share knowledge so I may be writing dies. A win-win-win-win situation for the about something specific, say women EU-elite and a big loss for humanity in WWII and want to link from many countries sites to give a overall picture EU Responses to Question 4 201

with links to the source material. A link free. Must be scary for those politicians tax means only commercial knowledge will be shared, and the internet has Not at all, when you link a content or share already been dumbed down enough a preview, you add value to this content by Google commercial interest putting advertisements before real information Of course not

No.Content publisher may decide to Of course not , you cant give people show particular content only to visitors chance to have an information and after who paid (or to visitors to whom the that take it away from them . Just a content is delivered via paying proxy better control . And musicians and movie partner), but nobody should be “forced” makers , well we all know they make A to pay anything.As universally applied HUGE amount of money so I think they “tax” it does not make much sense. should stop fighting for their “right “ just to take a Dollar or two or Five from no.keep links free every single person . Art should be paid , but allowed free in some moments No.No advertising company pays me money but they all shove ad’s in my face Of course not! This is a naked power that I never asked for. If that is legal, and money grab. The author of this then taking some content without asking obscenity should have his or her name should also be legal, as long as you state and address published everywhere on the source / give credit if needed. the net. With photos. And Anonymous should begin digging into their lives.. No.No tax if snippets of text /preview is only citation, i.e. legally permissible Of course not! This is ridiculous. reproduction of proprietary content without How about charging politicians approval from the owner.No tax if snippets money for creating absurd laws? of text /preview goes beyond citation, but consent of the owner must be sought. of course not. that’s stupid.do you have to pay money to scientists if you quote Noooo out of a article they’ve written? NO!

Nope. Of course not. The area concerned is best explored and exposed to a broader Nope. Should I have to pay a tax when I audience in this manner. I’m not saying suggest in person that my friend check out it should be the other way around, but a new musician? Should I have to pay a it would make a lot more sense to pay tax when I play a song I bought in iTunes for publicity then to charge for it. for a friend who is visiting my house? Of course not. The whole idea of the web is Nope. This is self defeating and amounts the free transfer and sharing of knowledge, to a tax to benefit publishing houses. If creativity and the exposure of corruption. they don’t want their “previews” shared See what Tim Berners-Lee has to say then don’t put them out there. It’s like saying that movie studios should Paying a link tax would shut down many charge to watch preview trailers. small websites, creating a monetary barrier for people on low incomes or Nope. We don’t need one. Information is running small businesses. It would reduce 202 EU Responses to Question 4

the growth of the internet and hamper That would put us right in the sites which might start organically and shoes of North Koreans. The best not be backed by wealthy people contributors don’t have the proper funds to publish in a paid way. Requiring websites to pay a link tax is an outrageous idea The idea of a link tax is abhorrent. It goes against the basic principles of the Snippets should be considered a form internet - that of making information of fair use. Moreover they represent an available. The only people to benefit incentive to follow the link so there is an from this practice will be the people advantage also from the destination site. who do not want to majority of the public to educate themselves Snippets should be ok provided the source is stated. Such short abstracts The idea of having websites pay a should not be fee based when a link tax is wrong. The cost will fall complete rewrite is being done disproportionately on smaller publishers, as shown in the study from Spain. Even Society is currently following a natural though these regulations are for Europe, evolution to shared information and the Internet is world-wide in name and access. Penalties (fees/taxes) while nature. Internet use everywhere will be attractive to the wealthy and those in impacted by this plan. Many websites power, the effects will be negative in cannot afford to pay the fees that will be ways which none of us can imagine required to show bits of text to preview content on a link. They will have to limit Stop control us with your greed what they link to or shut down entirely. for money and power That will limit the web. It’s a bad plan. Taxes should not be applied Don’t let that happen. Taxing links stifles innovation for new online services Taxing links goes against the (think: the next reddit or Twitter) – and concept of the internet. We should ensures the dominance of entrenched embrace free information for all. players. The web is an incredible information space, and every successful That is an absolutely terrible idea. No scheme to prevent linking weakens they shouldn’t. It’s completely disgraceful the foundation of the open Internet. that anyone would even consider this. The internet must remain free for use That is as ridiculous as saying people by individuals. The property rights of should pay tax for sharing ideas in individual intellectual property holders are conversations. It is ABSURD! overruled by the human rights of ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘information transparency’ That is bullshit! The IT in Canada already costs That is ridiculous. Of course not. enough, and with all the offensive ads popping up so often, we should That makes no sense at all. The hyperlinks not have to pay money for this are here since the internet has born, maybe even before. It also drives traffic There are fairer ways to monetise to the linked site, so why charge for websites - so, no users should not have that? It makes no sense at all to me. EU Responses to Question 4 203

to pay linktax. Links should remain This is just plain stupid, paying for publicly free, or the internet loses it’s point. available information? Every website in the world would shut down other There is no reason for link tax other than than the big websites. I’d stop using the simple corporate greed. It’s one-sided internet and use alternative networks. and harmful to everyone. This prohibits basic functionality. It falls under Fair Use. Utterly not. That’s not how the web works. Will reviewers have to pay to exhibit opinions? Will aggregate sites suddenly websites and users should NOT be forced collapse? Link tax is a plan thought out to pay a link tax. This would block the free for the immediate present with absolutely flow of information on the internet. It’s no regard to the impact it will have how I gain much of my knowledge and I frequently use links to direct other people There should be a system in place whereby to my sources and to give due credit to profitable businesses absorb the costs the sources. It is a powerful way of sharing of such services in a direct relation to knowledge and people often use a few the benefits provided to each business. lines to show the potential reader what Users and websites that receive no the content is, as a quote. To the best of measurable financial benefit should not my knowledge, this is standard practice in pay anything for any of this. The ISP’s and copyright in the UK and is common sense others who gain direct financial benefits fromt their users should absorb the costs. Websites shouldn’t be liable for their Their users are paying them already. users actions or for linking. It’s not their job to police the internet and such a There should never be a “link tax”. This tax will unfairly treat businesses; is just one more way corrupt politicians are extorting money for nothing of value. What on earth? Yeesh, no. That would Websites should be free to provide content be ridiculous. If the problem is that and links without being concerned about so it costs the content host to host the content, the content is used by someone They absolutely should NOT! It’s just else, and the someone else gets all the an absurd concept that would destroy revenue generated, then tell the ad the Internet as we know it and leave companies to sort it out. Don’t penalise it another wasteland inhabited only people for promoting content online by the already rich and powerful. What?! No. This would be a grave They shouldn’t have to pay. abuse of the open internet.

This is abomination. Internet should remain What?? And who would profit a free place for everybody. One cannot from that stupid idea? tax ideas freely circulating among people Why? No I don’t. We already This is an attempted cash grab and does pay enough taxes. not serve the people who use the internet the most and therefore it’s a terrible idea yes

This is both a rip off and a You will break the web with this. Please way to limit free speech stop trying to squeeze more and more money out of the systems/people 204 EU Responses to Question 4

and focus on the common good A link tax would change the Internet beyond recognition. I cannot see . If anything, it should be the other way how private, non commercial users around ... By linking we are driving traffic could be made to pay a link tax. to those websites, and the way the Internet works today that’s helping them !!! A no brainer. Making people pay excludes people who can’t pay, and that is a huge . No! percentage of the world’s population.

....!!!...NO..!!!.. what weedy rubbish...!! A tax is not appropriate. However, if copyrited material is used permission A link is just a reference. Why should you should be obtained within the law or tax it? Should I pay taxes if I say: “You compensation made appropriately can read more about this interesting topic in book xyz.”? No, because I am A tax would tax everyone who posts a just recommending a book! A lot of link. Will I be forced to add my credit card links are recommendations, sources for or banking information to every website I further reading or just showing pictures comment on because I could post a link? around. Nobody would tax me if I’d show I can understand that essential copies of some imprinted pictures to my friends texts may oppose the writers intentions. But citation should be allowed in the web. This A link tax goes against the entire kind of censorship attacks scientific speech spirit of the Internet. Most linking promotes trade and knowledge A vexed question. Who would benefit from the Tax?How would it be enforced?How A link tax is ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS. would the level of tax be arrived at?Would The internet is not called the web for it be a fixed fee or a sliding scale?The nothing. The best part of the internet question is rather broad and vague and are links. Any tax like that will ruin the throws up so many more questions. whole idea of the internet. Who gets the money from this tax? Big business again? absolutely no

A link tax is utterly undemocratic and absolutely no user tax! we pay our sip’s heavy-handed. The idea naturally stifles enough already. if businesses want to the ability of net users to disseminate charge for using their content, that’s information. It necessarily supports another story. just like ip law, the person dominant and entrenched players and thus or entity creating the text should have also stifles innovation. Who is doing the the right to charge or share for free forcing of the tax and for what purpose? It’s yet another case of the rich and ABSOLUTELY NO! powerful protecting what they’ve got Absolutely not A link tax should not be forced on users Absolutely NOT - the idea undermines a A link tax will restrict and ultimately kill the main principle of the internet. Links should internet as we know it, it’s one of the worst not be restricted at all - the publisher things that could happen. They can’t take can choose whether he allows people to down whole sites in overseas countries so link to his content on the publishing web this is the way they’ll target them instead. server. He can restrict this now!The internet EU Responses to Question 4 205

shouldn’t be taxed in this way - if we must absolutely not! have an internet tax to raise revenue, it should perhaps be on connectivity, and Absolutely not! Besides being contrary to should NOT be related to what information the use of the Internet as it exists today and is being accessed!But it should be possible incompatible with the right of quotation in for a publisher to charge specifically for some places, it is also silly in and of itself. access to specific information and give Would people be prevented from reviewing the user the choice whether to accept that books and exemplifying their arguments charge or do without the information. Need with short quotes? How about reporting better technology to make that possible. on a web-page in the news? Going down this road would not lead to a good place. Absolutely not, it’s difficult enough to make money with a website. When Absolutely not! I don’t understand how websites are forced to pay money for the very essence of the Internet has been using snippets of text to preview other deemed something that governments content online, many cannot afford to believe tent have the right to control. It pay these kind of fees and have to limit is a public forum. It is no one person or what they link to, or shut down entirely group’s property. This whole endeavour by the EU is ludicrous! It is clearly a scheme Absolutely not, or we should be paid set in motion by the wealthiest with the for mentioning their products, films etc most political clout for their own benefit! to our friends, in return. Why should we advertise their promotions for free/ Absolutely not! It will severely limit the ability of people to be able to browse Absolutely not, the internet is used by across the web and say, look up on the many, for one because people can afford news for instance - and this will especially you, anywhere. And it should stay that hurt those with little to no income at all. way, this is as bad as window tax from the medieval times. They paid to look Absolutely not! Links, quotations, out, we’d be paying to look in. If the thumbnails and previews should websites have to pay that still doesn’t remain entirely free, for the sake work because sometimes you need to of total equality on the net. quote something on your blog, and it doensn’t make sense to go through a Absolutely not! Who told any govt rigmarole nobody is going to bother with anywhere that they own the internet?

Absolutely not, this would make the Absolutely not!!!! internet a very unfriendly place to get Absolutely not. real information. For instance, a person could write that something was said Absolutely not. All that does is by another, without providing links restrict freedom of information to for proper attribution. People reading those that can afford it. Snippets of articles, or comments would have to content should be viewed as fair use do all of the research over again if -- not to mention free publicity. they wanted to be able to trust what they were reading. Just think of all the Absolutely not. And more than that, it is scientific and medical articles that a ridiculous concept that only the most would become far less trustworthy depraved, greed obsessed and small 206 EU Responses to Question 4

minded people could have come up with. intelligence as a species even further

Absolutely not. Internet is fastest way Absolutely not. The very essence of the to spread knowledge and no kind web and its usefulness relies on linking of barriers should be added to it and sharing with extracts and titles. Much of the value of the web requires Absolutely not. Is this a joke? fair use for comment and review.

Absolutely not. Links should remain Absolutely not. They used to tax the open and free for everyone, in the spirit amount of windows a house contained of a free and competitive internet. and this is equally absurd. If they cannot manage public funds adequately and Absolutely not. No to taxing the Internet. efficiently, which is proved regularly, it is not acceptable to continue to find ways to Absolutely not. One of the values of the extort even more money from the public internet is the ability for cross referencing to fund their incompetence and corruption. content. I am not aware that, for example, a The internet is created for the people by review of a book in a journal or newspaper the people and remains free for everyone’s is obliged to pay for permission to review benefit. It is a “ ... human right to connect.” published material. Similarly link tax has the potential to stifle the value of Absolutely not. THis is utter madness. the internet. In any event, this should be between the publisher of the material Absolutely not. This proposal is profoundly and the website. It should not be taxed. damaging to innovation, freedom of expression and the information Absolutely not. Speaking as both an potential of the internet. I could not Economist and an Information Scientist, afford to maintain my web or social who has also studied some systems media sites if this went forward. theory in relation to both disciplines, this is an absurd and retrograde suggestion. Absolutely not. This would be It threatens the entire basis of the web. seriously impede the freedom of The phrase “killing the goose that lays sharing and accessing information the golden eggs” springs to mind. and put power to the wrong hands

Absolutely not. The reality is that if such Absolutely not. This would restrict freedom a tax is implemented businesses will of expression to what users can afford to simply not offer content in that region. pay for, which would appear to contravene The example of Spain and its attempt the European Convention on Human Rights. at this should serve as a warning to legislators of the unintended, but obvious Absolutely not. We all use comments and consequences of these actions. images that we’ve seen or heard before. A link tax will remove a significant number Absolutely not. The vast majority of of lower income users, limiting valuable websites make no money and are communications and biasing information in fact not commercial operations. and discussions toward a financial class The vast majority will therefore stop operating, leaving in place only the Absolutely not. We’re already paying giant, monocultural corporate types, the price in overpriced internet services thus diminishing our culture and and user fees as it is. If we keep getting EU Responses to Question 4 207

nailed for these services, it’ll be too cost ALL websites and links to prohibitive to keep. We’ll just be sick of them should be free. it and not waste anymore time on the internet. We can still access information And no No. from traditional sources like the library. and nono Absolutely not. With how massive websites can be now, especially ones that allow Any kind of URL link tax is absurd. Linking members to post content, that would is the fundamental idea which made the bankrupt probably millions of sites. It entire world-wide-web possible. Using never posed a problem before, so it snippets of text as a preview (without shouldn’t now. Besides, the stuff you’re charge) should remain permitted under linking to is free. Why should linking to it the “fair usage” doctrine or equivalent have to be paid for by the owner of the present in most jurisdictions site? ESPECIALLY for the sites where they Any scheme to prevent linking weakens weren’t the one who put the link there? And the foundation of the open interest. Any as an online artist myself, this would be campaigning body, especially a minor dangerous. Oftentimes I use free references one or new one, will be inhibited and on the internet to help my artwork. When limited as to what they can link to. A study I’m done with the picture and I post it, what in Spain found that an existing law will do I do to show people what references cost publishers 10 million euros, falling I used just to be courteous to the people disproportionally on smaller publishers. who made those references? I link them, of course! When I am posting sometimes as mentioned earlier, a link does in no 3 or 4 links per picture I make, that adds way touch the rights a rights-holder has up. And it’d be especially disastrous for and needs for protecting their content artists that do photomanipulation. Many from, say, piracy. links are the equivalent times I see their reference list exceed 20 of a sourced footnote in a scientific paper, links! This is not a good idea, especially of calling something by an identifyable for sites that allow content creation name, or pointing a finger to indicate identity. it is essential to all discourse on Absolutely outrageous suggestion! content, from scientific work to everyday We already have so much important talk, and therefore must be protected information hidden behind ridiculously and not limited in any way. such a link expensive paywalls. Putting a general tax would be absurd in the extreme. tax on links would seriously interfere with the dissemination of knowledge As with all copyright issues. If a link is which is the crowning glory of the being used commercialy to further the internet. I think it would actually business interests of the person posting hold up human development and it, they should certainly ask permission growth! Completely crazy idea! of the link holder whom may also benefit from the arrangment, though should have Against the right to refuse if the use of the link ALL INFORMATION SHOULD BE FREE is deemed innapropriate for whatever reason. Barring the use of links to expose All links need to be accessible. crime or corruption. However refused It is too important permissions from the criminals could result 208 EU Responses to Question 4

in litigation.... but thats going to happen FEEL about LIFE, should have been openly anyway if serious crime has happened welcomed by every, business and rights holder, as FREE PROMOTION, as it should Bullshit most definitely continue to be so. I do not think websites have to pay money when But I think this is wrong This very using snippets of text to preview other idea strikes me as 100% INSANE content onlineABSOLUTELY NOT - please see responses to Q1 Q2 Q3Laws that create but no for the second question No link taxes for online platforms harm our but not all NO Link Tax...That is a ability to innovate online and actually blatant money grab and will restrict give entrenched publishers more power the free movement of ideas over online content. Regardless of where you live, many of our favourite websites BUT Tim Berners Lee’s free gift of http, will be impacted by bad regulations the www and mosaic, to the entirety of Web is global and it will affect Internet humanity, was provided for the social users everywhere. Many websites cannot as well as economic benefit of ALL the afford to pay money to link to excerpts PEOPLE, not just those in business and of content available elsewhere online. particularly NOT just for those that make New fees on linking limit what they link profit from hyperspace. I have, of my to, or could force them to shut down own profit-free will and at no cost to entirely.Taxing links stifles innovation for anyone, been BLOGGING since the advent new online services. The next reddit or of BLOGGER, and posted hundreds, nay Twitter would be unable to start up under thousands of properly accredited links, these rules. The web is an incredible which have spread the word about the information space, and every successful good things in life, as a result of which I scheme to prevent linking weakens have FREELY promoted pictures, video, the foundation of the open Internet. gifs etc., as I continue to do today and that was long before the rights holders and Certainly not companies WOKE-UP to using the internet Certainly not if this goes without themselves, particularly Facebook, to the courts’ involvement promote their wares. The fact that most Profit Making entities on earth now have Certainly not! a Facebook presence, stands as testimony to that. If copyrighting, charging for and Certainly not! The Web is the greatest taxing thereof is implemented by the EU political tool the world has known and how am I and every other one of the other it is evolving its own culture. It also is billion or so people like me going to be the greatest of libraries and a potent recompensed for our own material that educational tool which requires the is FREELY ADVERTISING those who would freedom to evolve without limitation. seek PROFIT and the PROFIT MAKERS. I Many organisations are being threatened was a founding member of *zaadz, have by its power in rapid communication but my own letschangetheworld.ning presence those that are need to devise ways from in cyberspace and have been active at which they too can benefit rather than Facebook since the advent of their Timeline legislate against natural development. upgrade and during the whole of that time, mine and the views of others, on how WE Certainly not. EU Responses to Question 4 209

Certainly not. Are we taxed to breath? tax links would be impractical anyway.

Charging for the Internet will centralise Definitely not, the information control in the hands of the largest exchange power of the Internet companies and lead to monopolies. is built around hyperlinks. It will be the end of the free press. Definitely not, the success of the Companies should not have to pay a link worldwide web is precisely because tax, and previewing other content online it doesn’t add a barrier to entry should be a basic part of the web’s function. definitely not! Content creators still need to make a living, and until a worldwide basic Definitely not! This is completely insane. income exists (if it ever does) people This will end blogs and small businesses. need to get paid for what they do. However, too much is suppressed and Definitely NOT!!!! content can’t reach it’s full market Definitely not. potential the way content is removed by rightholder’s legal teams currently. Definitely Not. Fair use must be protected. And linking and referencing are essential definately not. keep the parts of any body of information. It is money grabbers out essential that websites continue to freely Definitely no link tax or any (in all senses) link to other websites - this other such payment is the very foundations of the World Wide Web. Without this our ability to remain Definitely NO, they should not be informed is severely compromised. It is required to pay anything! vital that websites and blogs continue to be able to function. Both so that Definitely not individuals and companies can make a living, and so that as end users we Definitely not - once you introduce money can all make informed decisions in all barriers it limits freedom of access and aspects of our lives. Referencing works thus expression - again once that ugly is vital. It is vital to support opinions, materialist factor arises it sets a precedent forms the bedrock for scientific reporting for further increases in costs until the and evaluation, is essential for fair poorer are denied access altogether. consumer rights, for companies to market their products. It is essential for Definitely not, one of the powerful a healthy free market and democracy. features of the Internet has always been the “hyperlink”, the alternative would Definitely not. It amounts to free be to rerun the search engine with advertising of others content and slightly modified search string which suppression sounds like cutting off your would make the whole “research on the nose to spite your face, it’s counter intuitive Internet” process clumsy and unwieldy ! Definitely not. It hasn’t worked in the past Definitely not, provided the source of and will not work now. We need a free flow snippets of text is acknowledged. Links of information. This smacks of big brother. should remain totally free. Any attempt to 210 EU Responses to Question 4

Definitely not. It’s our internet, Hell No! This is just another way to not yours, so leave it alone. censor content. Is governments want to raise taxes why don’t they target all that Depends on the website and whether corporate tax that is stored in tax havens they have the permission/good will off shore?! This will effect the global of the other content creator. use of the web and many websites who cannot afford this tax will close down. Don´t know. Taxing links stifles innovation for new online service, for example, Twitter, and Don’t know ensures dominance of entrenched players. Evidence already shows the harm that Or is that the point? It’s anti competition existing link tax has done. A study in and should face legal challenge just for Spain found that the law “will cost that. The web is an incredible information publishers €10 million...which would fall space and every successful scheme to disproportionately on smaller publishers.” prevent linking weakens the foundation When websites are forced to pay money of the open internet. The EU is supposed for using snippets of text to preview other to be about openness and freedom and content online, many cannot afford to not censorship and authoritarian rule pay these kind of fees and have to limit Historically the use of reasonable what they link to, or shut down entirely quotations in other media has never been Fair use is a right and does taxed, and there is no reason to treat digital not have to be paid for. media differently.If this tax ever became mandatory, it would be impossible to Fair use No. Click bait yes. enforce, as there are not enough courts and judges on the planet to hear all the cases. forcing pay walls onto the internet will destroy the very thing they find valuable. if Holy hell this is such an awful idea that I it’s no longer free then half their clientele don’t even know where to start. The use of will no longer stay around. halving the snippets of text or images pulled from the people that see their ads and content. site that is being linked to is designed to draw people into clicking that link - giving HAHAHA, no way! them a preview of what the story is actually about and allowing them to better find Heck no. This would completely the sites, articles and blogs that they are obliterate so much of the internet actually interested in. It is beneficial for the including small businesses, creativity site being linked to as they get the viewers, and even for people like me who and it’s beneficial for the users as they educated themselves online. I’m not get the content they want. The idea that coughing up money just to do research. a charge like this should be used to prop up dying print industries at the expense Hell no of up-and-coming web industries is daft

Hell no, there are already systems I a deeply horrified by this suggestion. in place to do this. This tax would The internet is BUILT UPON hyperlinks! only stifle development and restrict Previews are beneficial to the recipient the average person. Bad idea. of the link. Any restriction on the right to HELL NO! link can only be intended to stifle the free EU Responses to Question 4 211

exchange of information and content that is Such a concept is incredibly destructive the whole purpose of the internet! I believe this idea would be entirely unenforceable I do not agree with the proposed link and that whoever is suggesting it has not tax. It is designed to hobble the internet thought it through and does not really and make it a far less useful tool than understand how the internet works! it is at present. The internet has done so much good in getting news that I absolutely oppose a link tax. It is counter otherwise wouldn’t have reached the to the founding spirit of the web and to eyes and ears of so many people. This the open sharing of knowledge that has so idea seems to be to do just that. To stop helped global eduction and engagement the internet from doing what it does best. Giving information to the people. You’re I am 100% against all forms of censorship our representatives. Do some good. and any limiting of web freedom. I do not think so: It is better to allow I am not normally a holder of rights in hyperlinking to the grates extent possible digital content, however I do not believe an across-the-board tax on hyperlinks is I do not think websites have to pay justifiable, on any level. Quoting is common money when using snippets of text to practise in publishing, and there is no tax preview other content online.no placed on that. Why should the internet be subject to such a draconian law? I do not think websites have to pay money when using snippets of text to I believe sites should be scored as preview other content onlineAren’t to how much this makes up their we paying enough in taxes. This is just total content, but otherwise no. another way of achieving censorship through the means of taxation. It is I believe the Internet should be a place devious and probably unenforceable. here intellectual property holders should not have excessive rights. The virtue of I do not think websites have to pay the Internet is its freedom and freeness. money when using snippets of text to Making information into property just preview other content onlineNo makes profits for a few while denying access to the many. That should be an I do not think websites have to pay obsolete model in the Information Age. money when using snippets of text to preview other content onlineNO! I cannot imagine how such an Absolutely NOT! Ridiculous! asinine proposal could be policed. “Link tax” - what nonsense! I do not understand No they should not

I do No, they absolutely shouldn’t I do not understand why some contents are taken from the web, legal contents. I do not agree with a link tax. If there Also, rightsholders should only hold rights is no financial benefit to a website that for two years max, then the rights should is providing a link, why should it be be universal/free No they should not, NO expected to pay for doing so. The whole they must no pay link tax. This is a kind idea of the internet is free information. of measure natural to dictatorships

I do not agree with it being removed No. I do understand why it has to be taken 212 EU Responses to Question 4

down there should be no link tax on the internet, and would unfairly bias the spread of information in i don’t Absolutely NO!!! the favour of large businesses.

I don’t know much about this issue, I understand why some things are but it sounds like a bad idea to me. removed, but reasons should be given

I don’t think so. Websites should I would accept that if in scientific papers be able to use other content that are published in conferences all over the world we pay taxes for each I don’t think there should be a reference we make to other papers to charge for information sharing. support the case. Links are references. It is like saying that you have to pay taxes I dont understand I do not think websites when you reference anything that is not have to pay money when using snippets of your content. If, e.g., I say “Albert Einstein text to preview other content onlineNo said E=mc2” should I pay tax? If not, then I must be missing something. Computer why should I pay tax when I say “Albert’s programs depend upon internal Einstein formula (link)”? It is insane links connecting up various parts of IDK the software, not only links to data but more importantly to the various if information is in the public domain executables needed to sustain a dot on right of access should remain open your screen. Likewise the web was built and free. Any link tax is again another to do the same thing. It is an extension ploy by large media corporations to of your computer, ask Bill Gates. increase their profitability and help them cling to an outdated business I support Free Linking. model This should not supersede the I think if people are already paying publics right to an open internet for the internet,they shouldn’t If the content they are linking too is have to pay in addition to it freely available then it should be freely I think it would be disastrous to have a link available to link to along with an excerpt tax. The internet is a universal tool that if wanted to provide context. If the content binds the people of the world. There are is not free then it should still be possible some who would have no issues with a to link to it just without the excerpt. link tax, but for other it would put access If this becomes the case, that “tax” will to information too far out of reach. Taxes only go towards giving the already should be constructive, not destructive. wealthy power-brokers even more This would be a tax with an unsound financial power. Why would I want political goal. It cannot be justified. to give them this added power? I think not, but again, I’m not sure. Im not even gonna answer this one.. Haven’t spent a lot of time thinking The whole idea is just too dumb about this or looking into it. In no cases should there be a tax on links. I think that a link tax would severely This would be a great blockade for the limit the fair spread of information distribution and avaibleness of information EU Responses to Question 4 213

Is this a possibilitie??? Link taxes would empower publishers, impose unmanageable costs and stifle It is ridiculous to even think of charging innovation, ruining the open sharing of websites for linking to other websites, since ideas and information throughout the web. the goal of every website is to get traffic and links are the way traffic finds you Link taxes would prevent the majority of the world’s population from Laws that create link taxes for online having equal access to information. platforms harm our ability to innovate Link taxes should not exist. online and actually give entrenched publishers more power over online content. Links are an inherent element of the World Wide Web, they facilitate information Levying a tax on linking would break a sharing and the accessibility of data. fundamental part of the way the Internet Attempting to tax link(s) is an abhorrent works. We now live in a global community, process. As a fundamental method of linked by an open Internet, and imposing accessing the web, making it chargable laws like this that stem the flow of data cannot be justified in the global basis across only one region of the Internet that is the Internet.If what you are would have an effect on communication looking to do, is to totally shut down over it everywhere, not just the EU. the internet and its massive benefits for Established publishers online may be society today across Europe, then you able to live with such taxes being put in are going the right way. Never mind the place, but what happens to those starting benefits that the internet brings and the out building new services online? Link monies that governments already make taxation is a near sighted and ill-thought from internet based activitiesCharging through concept, leading to a weakening for Links feels to be much more of a of the open Internet and stifling the free ‘Money-Grab’ by governments, rather movement of knowledge and information. than a reasoned expectation by internet users and bodies.The inherent structure Link tax is a horrible idea that is of the WWW was to make data more against the fundamental concept of accessible, charging for links stops this the Internet. Politicians shouldn’t try to reshape what the Internet has become Links are the mechanism of sharing to make a small lobby group happy. our knowledge there should not be a tax on the sharing of information. Link tax is an abomination - it would just This is a step towards ignorance promote the current wealthy/ powerful for the sake of corporate profit

Link tax is an outrageous idea and totally Links provide payment by way of increased undermines the versatility of the internet. traffic to the linked content, a monetary tax will simply presume profit from the use Link tax will perpetuate the digital divide. of the link which may well not occur - thus Link taxes are likely to simply increase diminishing the variety of content which the power of the ‘big players’, reduce the is a resource for all internet users. It is ability of smaller websites to compete, simply more censorship of those who do and slow down the use of the internet as a not have corporate financial resources. knowledge sharing and extending device Links should not be taxed - if the EU 214 EU Responses to Question 4

parliament is short of money, why can’t tax? People? NO - government and it make cut backs like the rest of us, large corporations only. It would starting with MEPs salaries?Publishers CRUSH creativity and innovation. should not have control of internet usage - this is a matter for the courts NO - STOP DESTROYING THE WEB - and legal system.Taxing links will put a THIS FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IS financial burden on smaller business and WHAT THE NET IS ABOUT NOT BLAND anybody else using the internet. This is CORPORATES TELLING THE PUBLIC grossly unfair as some may not be able WHAT TO DO AND WHEN TO DO IT. to afford to pay these taxes and may prevent other businesses from entering No - the idea with internet was to give the market.The web is an incredible anyone a voice at the same conditions. information space, and every successful Nothing one the web should cost diffrent scheme to prevent linking weakens from any user. It should be free. the foundation of the open Internet. No - this is an example of holders’ Make the legacy industries adapt or die automatic commercial policy of maximising income. May I ask, do you know how computers and/or the internet works from a technical NO - unenforceable piece of supidity stand point? Because this is not in any way No -- the idea is an iniquitous something that is acceptable by anyone. step away from freedom. Never No absolutely not NEVER. No and No NHo No certainly not No No certainly not, any kind of ‘link tax’ would No - absolutely not, as long as it’s clear be a devastating blow and jeopardises the who the content creator is and that it’s foundations that the Internet is built on. a genuine short preview rather than the no definitely not majority of the content. If platforms such as Google and Facebook are discouraged No fees because that will slow from allowing links because of the risk and reduce information sharing if of having to pay out, this would have a not kill it almost completely. negative effect on those who wish to permit and even encourage free linking No I do not agree. Internet is a network to their creative work, in order to enable not a shop. If you want to cash on people to find it via these popular websites. every glimpse of what you sell put your content behind a login procedure. No - and how would it be monitored. A link tax is like charging fans for If I post something, I know it is open making their idol more popular unless I put some sort of control on it. No I don’t NO - it would stifle the internet! And who would benefit from the link No I don’t believe that websites EU Responses to Question 4 215

should pay a link tax for snips of text like to be restricted in what he thinks to preview other content online. or what he says? I don’t think so.

No I don’t believe they should. No of course not

No I don’t think they should be No of course not. forced to pay a link tax NO ONE should be FORCED to pay to link No it should be free to content that is posted on the Internet !!!!If you post to the Internet, it should No it will kill the Internet! Then be widely understood, that the post you perhaps that is exactly what make, holds NO COPYRIGHT, AND SHOULD (some) Governments want! NOT BE USED TO GENERATE PROFITS. The INTERNET, was DESIGNED to be no keep it free FREE, and SHOULD REMAIN SO !!!!!!!!!!

No link tax No one should be taxed yet again

No link tax, or fee of any kind that would No one should have to pay a link tax impact the free movement across the web no opinion NO LINK TAX! No sure not No link tax. No tax No link tax. It’s their problem to resolve with publicity or whatever NO TAX ON LINKS. It would not be fair. Using snippets of text from books, films No link tax. The internet is like a public and documents has always been allowed library and no one has the right to charge under copyright law. In fact I believe that for reviewing public information a specific number of words are permitted - why should digital communication be any no link taxes! different.It would stifle innovation.It would No more than non-internet severely impact on information sharing. media. As long as the links and No tax on links. Many communications authorship are acknowledged. between friends contain links for No No information which is part of any search or research and by its very nature No No. demands some relevant description to enable choice. Without it much that is No No. No new and/or innovative will simply die

No No. This is a money grab! NO TAX.

No not at all! Writing and posting in the NO TAXES! internet is like speaking with others. Asking this question is the same as No Taxing period!!! asking: Should people pay money for quoting someone else? Would anyone No they should not, this is a form of 216 EU Responses to Question 4

financial censorship which would No way. Ridiculous. Another undermine the little people example of rampant greed

No they should not. NO we pay enough taxes. WTF?

No they shouldn’t - this isn’t No we should not pay any tax, we rights infringement at all! pay enough for the internet

No they shouldn’t, the web is based upon No--this is definitely an infringement on the links to references to back up their claims, right to share knowledge. One is allowed to the internet is a digital encyclopaedia quote small sections (when credit is given of all things human. We should be free to the owner) when one is writing a book. to link to anything we choose for free. No-one should have to pay a “link tax”. No This ide is also rediculus. It limits It is clearly just another way of making alot of posibilitys to use internet money out of ripping off joe public. In and limits entrepreneurship. fact companies should pay the poster of the link for providing free advertising No to a link tax ... I pay my provider plenty for an internet /phone every month No, a link tax! preposterous

No to a link tax. Taxing linking will No, absolutely not! How complicated do reduce linking, isolating web-users you want to make life? Its unworkable into their own little silos and further and will stifle the free market! polarization. The modern world needs more interconnectedness not less No, absolutely not. Paying a link tax would severely impact accessibility of websites No to the tax/link fee. The snippets are and public access to information in general. good for the media companies, as it drive people to their payer websites. No, and the very idea is as unjust as it it ridiculous. No way No, are you nuts? No way ! Never ! Thoughts are free. Besides , I don´t trust coroporations NO, because it would cost a large and governments. Taxes aren´t paid by amount of money that only laerge corporations . Only enforced on individuals. earners could afford, smaller busineeses would be stifled or go bankrupt as No way we already pay for internet and they are forced to pay for vital links. this just takes the piss charging more No, because the increase in cost No way, people suggesting such a law would rebound to the website owner should be immediately imprisoned and as links become too expensive to publicly shamed. Maybe the stocks could include on 2nd & 3rd party websites be brought back for this purpose!!!!!! No, because there are no fees No way!!! Link tax is daylight robbery!! to associate the taxes with

NO WAY!!!! No, breaks the digital economy as it’s growing, and is totally regressive EU Responses to Question 4 217

no, but permission probably No, linking information is the essence should be sought first. of the world wide web. As a scientist I believe that being able to trace where No, but previews should not remain information comes from, is what makes active if the site’s they link to the network of sites useful. Putting a tax request that they be taken down on these links would destroy this feature

NO, definitely not. No, linking is a fundamental tenet of the Internet as are clips and no, fair usage of copyright already protects should be considered fair usage this. there is no need for more red tape and would result is fewer and fewer No, links should be clear, but free. providers of content. which is what big i.e. you should be free to link, but not media wants.sorry but if i make something pass off others content as your own. for the web its up to me how i distribute it. i own the copyright no matter what a No, not at all, never. eula says...there not binding in the eu.(yet) No, not if its publically available on No, fair use the internet. What’s next? All written notes must be turned so that they can No, frankly this is crazy idea, the internet be checked for copyrighted references is about linking and sharing of information, and the author of the note charged? this is fundamental to the internet and making a charge for this would be the No, obviously not. This just favours end of the interent as we know it big websites over small ones.

No, how ridiculous. No, of course not! Link tax is an absurd idea. It would harm the development of the web. No, I disagree that link taxes should be paid. It is an infringement on no, simple. Unless huge tracts of the freedom of the internet. dialogue, verse or lyrics are used then there should be no tax. No, information cannot be owned No, that doesn’t even make any sense. To No, information should be free to view. start, to which government it’ll be paid? The one where the host is localed, the one No, it is a fundamental principal where the person creating a link is living, of the internet. Anyone can link to the one that has more users accessing to anything. You can’t charge someone the content? Unless the global Internet for “pointing” to where information is is wiped away, any possible solution would be unfair for both users and to No, it is absurd.When the publishes have many governments. There’s also the the word mu name, God or Europe in their important detail that many websites aren’t pieces who will they pay link tax to. making much money, if they’re making NO, it’s called Fair Use! any money at all. And the exceptions, the ones that are making money, already No, linking and posting snippets is fair-use. pay taxes as corporations, and their stockholders pay income taxes. Adding an No, linking benefits the target site already. additional tax that isn’t related directly 218 EU Responses to Question 4

to their revenues is illogical and would for the full work to ensure that the close down many sites, as well as giving rightsholder is fairly compensated. no way for new ones to be created No, there should be no link text. Small No, that is a terrible idea. The web snippets of text used as previews of works the way we think and taxing content should fall within fair use, in links would be like trying to tax us for the same way that citing or quoting associating memories and ideas authors is allowed in larger articles

No, that is completely against fair No, there should not be any link tax use and (summary) links are not even the real content. It would be No, they should not highly destructive to free speech. No, they shouldn’t No, that kind of makes communication and sharing information more difficult. No, this is an outrageous suggestion. It runs counter to the very idea of the No, that puts the entire control of how ‘world wide web’. The internet is too the Internet is put together into the important to everyone to be restricted hands of the companies with the most in this way, and it is a basic right for money, the most vested interests. How all humans to have access to this tool, can that not be a terrible plan? without such restriction. Such rules will stifle competition and innovation, and No, that would destroy much of the we’ll get a situation like we currently interrelationship that makes the have in US media markets, where a few internet such a egalitarian platform huge corporations control media access.

No, that’s an utterly terrible idea! No, this is nonsense. At least until car drivers and industry pay sufficient No, the internet is open and needs to taxes on externalities such as kids stay that way in order for it remain breathing their toxic waste accessible to all and for online innovation to continue, which is its strength. no, this is stupid and whoever came up with this should be ashamed. No, the web is the greatest educational tool and free access to explore links to further No, this removes the right of free speech new educational avenues is essential which I’m supposed to have. The European countries seem to be wanting to remove No, the whole point of the internet is this. What happened to this being a trade that it is a forum of ideas - one of the agreement? Why is mainland Europe trying few in which we can all participate. to run my country? They don’t live here!

No, there should be no link tax. The net no, this seems like an April Fools joke should be free to facilitate sharing of information and ideas and connections. No, this should come under fair-use. The link tax is unaffordable to many If there was going to be a ‘link tax’ in people and families. Why must we play, it should be in the other direction pay a tax for previewing a piece of so that you’d pay services to link to text or work? We should certainly pay your content as a business directory or EU Responses to Question 4 219

similar concept. This already happens internet. Don’t make the internet in practice and is called ‘advertising’. a place only for the wealthy

No, this would be a tax on the free- No! flow of ideas and information. NO! Definitely not. No, this would fundamentally alter the ability to share information NO! NO NO NO NO NO NO. How do you & inform others of material that think the internet works?! The internet is might be of interest to them. most peoples main source of information. To tax knowledge... that’s disgusting. No, this would not be sustainable, and would be a fatal shot to the heart of No! That’s just silly! Google would go creativity and information sharing through bankrupt from all the tax. Facebook too. one of mankind’s greatest inventions And Wikipedia. Not just the Internet, but the entire world would break down! We No, user can pay for the text would lose the ability to have all the on these websites, if they want world’s information at our fingertips, to. But not for a preview. leading to a global brain drain. It would bring us back to the middle ages no, web taxes are a terrible idea, in concept and potential application No! The ‘fair use’ policy is there for a reason and absolutely applicable in this situation. No, websites and users should not be forced to pay a link tax! When websites No! The internet should be a free platform. are forced to pay money for using Stop trying to monetise the world! snippets of text to preview other content online, many cannot afford to pay these NO! The web is an incredible information kind of fees and have to limit what space, and every successful scheme they link to, or shut down entirely to prevent linking weakens the foundation of the open Internet No, websites should not have to pay a link tax - it will harm the free, open internet NO! This goes against everything and favour only big corporations. the internet stands for.

No, websites shouldn’t have to pay to show No! This is rediculous! So when I write an “snippets” that preview other content. essay or write in my journal and quote These “snippets” help promote these an author AND give them credit for the other sites, books, magazines and expose quote I should pay for that now too? Get their content to others. The internet serious. If you want to monetize your needs these links or what is the point if links simply setup a subscription model the internet. It is to share information for the content! That’s an individual’s right to do. But their responsibility to No, yes enforce and maintain. Governments need to stay out of free speech No,absolutely not! NO! This is the age of information, shared No: here in Canada we already pay freely it will advance society for the better an exorbitant amount to access the 220 EU Responses to Question 4

NO! Too likely to make websites and users No. Further monetization is destructive. give up on having comment sections No. Hosting costs money enough NO! WTH did this come from? What wretched individual or agency came No. I acknowledge that money is a up with this insidious little idea? necessary part for long-term, sustainable solutions. However, a link tax policy NO! You may as well be forcing people seems like an incredibly clumsy tool that to pay tax on the air they breathe. will likely do more harm than good

NO!!!!! and NO No. I am a college teacher and web links are very important No!Do MP’s pay for dinner expenses?Seems for my students’ education it’s all about taxing something No. I think the author/source of the No. content previewed should be cited, adding the link to the original source, No. A link tax goes against everything but without paying anything. the Internet is supposed to stand for NO. If “unfairness” is being done then No. Absolutely not those cases should be decided by a well constituted arbitration process. NO. Absolutely not. This is absurd and ridiculous. The internet MUST remain free No. if the link goes dead, that’s fine. but simply saying “hey, you can find No. Charging a fee for linking would stuff here” is not criminal. The sale force smaller and less wealthy websites of such is. not giving directions to limit what they linked to or else shut down entirely. This would be a backwards No. In jurisdictions with fair use, fair step, away from the truly open Internet dealing, or similar, link text should typically with its vast opportunities for researching exempt from copyright. In jurisdictions and exchanging information - and so that lack such exceptions to copyright, a promoting education and discussion. similar measure should be added to allow Taxing links stifles innovation for new reasonable use of copyrighted text as online services and concentrates web link text. The arbiter of reasonableness power in the hands of a limited number should be a court, and not a rightsholder. of large, established websites. No. In most cases this linking is to the No. Create content specifically for the benefit of the site linked to, and there purpose of sharing, as many already is no reason to charge any fee. The do today. Sharing is used as a principal internet search engines work through means of marketing and distribution. It links. A tax would result in very few is a flawed idea to look at taxing this. links, and the internet would become unworkable, but perhaps that is the No. Defeats the whole ethos of the internet idea behind this whole thing. - the free exchange of information No. Information should be free, unless No. Fair usage should apply. However, specifically copy written by the owner and deep links are problematical. then a singular charge should be applied EU Responses to Question 4 221

No. It is a tax on information. the greatest “book of knowledge” Tax adverts instead ever produced would be similar to the Taliban refusing scientific education to No. It is an unworkable and ill-conceived people so they can keep their power. idea that cannot be applied fairly, nor is it ever intended to be applied fairly. No. That is patently ridiculous

No. It’s free advertisement No. That what is posted on the Internet for the sites linked to is public, and the case cannot be made that the vast majority of authors No. Just a money grab from on the internet do NOT want their the government content to be mentioned (e.g., blogs)

No. Just put the source, that´s it. No. That will destroy small businesses and prevent poor people from using No. Keep globalism and governments the internet or setting up wensites as out of our private stuff. they won’t be able to afford it. It’s a discriminatory policy, which will also No. Linking is fundamental to the web, damage the ability of less well off countries and it’s unreasonable to impose costs to get their people building websites, on people linking to other content. worsening the gap between rich and poor. No. Links are how the internet works. It is No. That would undermine entire foolish to pay to link to third party content communities that rely on said links as when that content could easily be replaced focal points for discussion. It would without the original linker’s knowledge. also be an unfair advantage in favor No. Never. It is money grabbing of larger entities over startups idea with no sensible basis in NO. That’s counterproductive in the realities of the Internet. both political and economic terms. no. no Shrinking the web makes no sense.

No. No in any shape or form. No. The entire idea of a link tax is ridiculous, and will limit the sharing No. No. No. No. Ridiculous idea. of ideas and information.

No. Quite how this would work No. The harm of link tax as already been is beyond comprehension documented in Spain, where a study found that the law will cost publishers €10 No. Quoting small snippets to indicate what million, affecting the smaller publishers content is linked to should be considered disproportionately. In the end there would fair use. A link tax would be likely to be a very small selection of content entrench large players (Google, Facebook) available and a halt to the growth of while making it difficult for newcomers to small/new businesses and innovations. innovate. Freedom to link is fundamental Taxing links stifles innovation and ensures to the phenomenal success of the internet, the dominance of already established and should not be restricted or taxed. powerhouses. Due to the global nature of the web internet users everywhere will No. Strangling the information highway, be affected by these changes, regardless 222 EU Responses to Question 4

of country. The web is an incredible should be allowed. Also, policing it information space. Every successful would be nigh impossible and would scheme to prevent linking weakens the backfire on those who want these rules. very foundation of the open internet No. This would greatly impact No. The Internet was suppæosed to be information sharing. non commercial at the first place!!! No. This would limit the freedom of No. The mere thought is internet. Internet belongs to everyone repulsive and flawed and it should absolutely not be limited. We (people, humans) should be able No. The whole point of the internet and allowed to express ourselfs is its interconnectedness, it’s in the freely on internet (as long as no name. This would stifle and destroy the illigal content is shared of course). internet and its benefits very quickly. No. This would limit the No. They are, in fact, giving free spread of information. publicity to those sites to which they are providing links. No. This would make it harder for startups and other small companies to No. This idea is simply mad and ends up - a get recognition on the internet. This also in Germany or Spain - strengthening the would not help to regulate unauthorized market position of the market leader. In sharing of content, because users still could Germany it has led to Google being able to reupload something as their own content. extract zero price licenses from publishers and news sites which are not offered to No. This would massively compromise others. This entrenches monopoly - exactly the neutrality and freedom of the the opposite of what consumers need. internet. The internet is free and neutral, giving equal voice to all. This cannot No. This is a money grab that threatens be allowed to be taken from us. the impartiality of the Internet and monetizes an international human right No. This would simply prevent people from to access information and communicate finding information on the internet. Maybe the allowable size (in number of words\ No. This is a ridiculous idea that would letters or percantage of the original text) stifle the openess of the web of the snippet could we defined by law

No. This is a vital part of the web NO. To tax what? The fact that they infrastructure that would be detrimented are PROMOTING knowledge and potentially monetizable content? No. This is nothing more than greedy scumbags descending to a new low No. To whom and why? Noone has any rights to any money when someone links No. This will just increase the cost and to their content. And noone should create freedom of the internet as a whole. rights for such a thing. The internet is When using small snippets of text to meant to be the place to publish things preview this should come under the ‘Fair (if you want to provide restricted access Use’ heading. Fair enough if someone only there is technology for that). is copying the whole text but snippets EU Responses to Question 4 223

No. Valuable content may be put behind using any kind of link. PERIOD.The only a paywall. If the content is something thing that a company should be allowed anyone can view, it shouldn’t matter to take money for is the used webspace where the viewing happens as long as the from entities who provide websites and for original source is appropriately credited. offering space for commercials.Youtube Posting entire articles is another matter for example should only be allowed to and falls under copyright infringement. make money with offering the space for commercials. NOTHING ELSE!NOTHING No. We don’t have to be paying now for else should be allowed to create money. these services now. Why will we have to Every other way of making money for pay for them in the future? How much more internet companies should be regarded as money do they want to extract from us? bribery and prosecuted for both parties - officials from gov. entities should be No. Websites and users should not be accounted personal AND the gov. entity forced to pay a ‘link tax’. The very idea is should be taken responsible for bribery. untenable and unconscionable. Any law And the punishment should be SEVERE! that creates ‘link taxes’ for online platforms will be grossly detrimental to freedom of Non ! speech, thought and expression will harm our ability to innovate and build new online Non absolument pas. Les extraits businesses (like Twitter and Reddit) and et les liens doivent être gratuits. will give established publishers even more power over online content.Many websites Nope simply cannot afford to pay money to link to excerpts of content available elsewhere Nope! online. New fees on linking will limit Nope. what they link to, or could even force them to shut down entirely. The web is an Not at all! incredible information space, and every scheme to prevent linking will weaken the Not at all. Link tax is a stupid idea. very foundations of the open internet. Not at all. This is an integral part of internet No. Yet again big companies will be use and engagement. Requiring fees for able to steam roller over individuals such marginal elements will squeeze the without recourse to justice or fair play. life out of online activity by a very wide range of individuals and communities. No... this is ridiculous and entirely contrary to the spirit and ambition of the internet. Not for just “snippets”.

No.no.no. Definitely not. That’s what made Not for snippets, possibly for commercial the Internet what it is. It would kill it. use of large amounts of material but even that is questionable No.The whole point of the Web is to create and to share contents from everywhere. not more tax especially link taxes. Adding a “Tax” for linking will limit the links should be free and open creativity, innovation and free speach. Obviously not. The linking and indexing Nobody, be it a private person or a non function clearly operates, on balance, to private entity should pay for setting or for the benefit of those being indexed. That 224 EU Responses to Question 4

these beneficiaries also want to be paid for NO PAYING . FURTHER THOUGHTS if some being helped would be laughable, were it bodies want there to be payment then not so offensive. Taxing links would cripple they may pay , especially if they do not pay the usefulness of the worldwide web. other dues that the rest of society does. of course not, it’s about time we Ridiculous to tax links abandon the idea that everything should be quantified in dollar signs Ridiculous. NO

Of course not! Don’t be so silly! Same problem as the previous case - like asking you to pay when you give Of course not. someone dorections, advice, etc... What should one say - there is new Of course not. If you want your content movie, it is very good, go check the to be exclusive to your site, put it behind site of you know who and find it...? a paywall and riddle it with DRM tech so that no one get get it. Otherwise, the Setting links and using snippets are 2 Internet should be free to link to and totally different things. Setting links using to quote content from other sources. the target’s self-defined head or title or Not copy the whole thing of course. headline or some description the link- setter comes up with MUST be legal Of course not. So fascism is and free by definition (exceptions only on the rise in Europe? for link targets that are 100% obviously illegal). Anything put online publicly is Of curse not public, period. A site that does not want to be linked by search engines has to Oh hell no, the idea is preposterous use established standards like HTML Only commercial activity should be payed meta data and robots.txt. The usage of snippets and their length could easily be Pay per view would kill the very solved within the content using a to-be- nature of the internet. This would only defined HTML meta tag. Unfortunately, serve to kill off new start ups, make content providers seem to be stupid. research and information gathering harder and generally make the open Shared information should internet a more closed system that remain free in all aspects stifles development and growth. Should I pay to share my own content, People will stop sharing if it adds to no. Paying a tax for sharing a link, is like their costs. If it is commercial companies paying a tax for talking. It’s stupid. who want us to see/hear their products Simple answer: No they will almost certainly find such a tax counter productive, as people will Simply no. stop directing friends towards whatever is being sold if it incurs a charge. Simply put: no.The internet flourishes, when people link to each others content, Previews are a valuable clue as either by single words or using content. to content. Crazy to pay. Without linking, or with link tax, I believe that what makes the internet what it is, Put Simply NO . In more detail ABSOLUTELY EU Responses to Question 4 225

would be much harder to achieve for the is nothing more than text with these very individual or small company that it would links. In other words, taxing links on the make everything worse for everyone. internet will undermine the internet ITSELF. Every shred of progress that the web has Snippets of text are not “publications”, wrought -- every child learning about NASA and should not fall under copyright online, every citizen buying a parking ticket protection. This is the very epitome faster from a website, every email such as of “fair use”, and should be free to do. this one found due to an issue linked on No taxes, no money to the publisher, websites -- MUST, by definition, by limited no charge at all. The publisher stands and controlled by such taxes. Worse, many to benefit from traffic generated by small startups and public good services, hyperlinks - what is the problem? such as the news aggregators known as “Planets” will become unworkable, since So long as a link is used as a form of they are not yet profitable, or not designed citation and an article or page does not to create profit, but also are too small, attempt to plagiarise information, and said prototypical, or transient to apply for non- information has been posted freely to the profit status. Taxing internet links would internet in a publicly accessible area, there essentially destroy the internet as we know is no reason that any form of recompense it, restoring big corporate control over or taxation should be required for using media. The concept itself is a cynical ploy that link. Anything otherwise would be by those with vested interests, and MUST coming close to an attempt to suppress the be prevented from EVER becoming law freeflow of publicly available information and could more easily be used for dishonest Taxing links stifles innovation for or unlawful practices than legitimate ones. new online services. The next reddit or Twitter would be unable So the question’s unclear. to start up under these rules. Absolutely not. Fair use! That is completely ridiculous Such a link tax would impede the natural flow of information - to That is outrageous, of course not. mankind’s detriment. We should be looking more towards advancing That is ridiculous. The internet civilisations, NOT holding them back survives on linked text. If the text was not in the public domain, it could Taxing links does not seem practicable not be linked. Simple as that and would stifle the model of the web which leads to so much evolution and That it absolutely ridiculous and would creativity. Content should not be copied, destroy the internet and ecommerce, but linking to content preserves the as well as making it easier for terrorist rights and ownership of the content and so on to hide from the authorities by creator so should be done freely. sending hidden URLS by text or mail. A newspaper doesn’t pay an address tax for Taxing links is absolutely CRAZY. The listing the addresses of its advertisers Internet (what most people think of as The Internet) is successful almost ONLY because That’s as stupid as when a few years it is a global implementation of a concept ago, the U.S. postal service tried to called Hypertext. Hypertext, in essence, charge postage on sending email. And 226 EU Responses to Question 4

just as petty, I’d like to point out. The internet should be free from any taxes. I should be able to show or point my friend the ability to search for information using to anything on the internet via a link quite links should not be limited in any way, freely and without any charge whatever particularly by charging a linking fee. If having found the source of the information The internet was founded to enable being searched for there is a charge to the free exchange of information any actually access it, that is then up to the restriction, control or taxation would user/searcher to decide. TO DECIDE infringe upon this basic function creating an unequal bias away from the individual The fundamental purpose of a hyperlink, user for whome the internet was founded. the key defining concept of “hypertext” which is what the Web is built from, is to The link tax is for revenue raising and refer to external material. If that incurred hindering the sharing of information. a cost, or was disallowed, the Web would This is exactly what corporations and become a boring place of small isolated modern governments want as they fight islands instead of a thriving, global, living the loss from tradition mediums and strive source of information with cross-links for censoring the spread of information wherever they are motivated. Any useful to only their message and agendas hyperlink should not be blind, but include some short description of what it leads The whole idea of the World Wide Web to. Long quotes of text would border on is that it is a WEB. Information should be information aggregation, and that is a passed freely as if spoken on the street. The separate issue entirely, one where I think whole part of links is to join information, some sort of fee would be reasonable if the in pieces, to make a coherent whole. The links were provided as part of a for-profit web “surfer” can then come to their own business operation.However, if ordinary, conclusion. Perhaps, this is what frightens everyday linking to certain content would governments, people who have a free will. cost money, I would go as far as saying that the Web as we know it would cease to exist. Their too powerful. When filming my family in a bar where there is music in The idea of a link tax is absurd and the background, the copyright of that unworkable. Linking is fundamental to music should not be enough to remove the internet and is merely free speech! all content. When linking only to a page which is infringing copyright, the page The idea of a link tax is totally absurd should be removed, not the link. It would and unworkable. It would completely be the same as too forbid saying ‘hé, ruin the internet, whose main tool is look over there’when seeing something the link. All links must be totally free, which could illegal. No, no, no, no just as people quoting others in the street are free to speak. Free speech There is already too much regulation on the is a fundamental human right. Internet. If this kind of control was applied to the real world we would call it fascism. The idea of a link tax is utterly absurd, given the disproportionate There is no justification whatsoever for damage that would result the proposed “link tax.” There is a long established principle - at least in England The Internet must be free to all people. - that material from other sources may EU Responses to Question 4 227

be freely quoted for the purposes of conduits of communication and information review or criticism, provided that such dissemination.To try to put up paywalls extracts are reasonably short. It seems and turnpikes would have a disastrous to me that the use of links is similar to effect on any number of forms of traffic this, and is in no way problematic. caught in this system- for example what happens to links in educational papers, There should be no ‘link tax’ materials and resources? Workplace reports? Press releases? Hyperlinks shared There should be no fee for in campaigning literature and materials? previewing content or for links. Charity documents and material? Petitions? Personal websites, CVs and blogs? Social There should be no link tax media pages? Petitions? Local government There should be no link tax. It makes or municipal services information sites?It’s no sense for anyone. It would be like trying to put taxes on footnotes like taxing a bus driver because he and indexes in books.Utterly wrong and gave you directions to the library impossible to enforce meaningfully.

There should be no link tax. Snippets of 15 This is an awful idea. Costs incurred are words or up to 0.25% of text (ie a quarter likely to be passed on in the form of ‘pay page from a 100 page book) should be to use’ charges which will deter free allowed free of copyright and tax. expression and the sharing of information across the internet. The alternative There should never be a reason for a link scenario could see countless websites tax. It would be like saying that library’s shutting down - unable, or unwilling to would have to pay a tax for index cards pay these charges and impossible for them to cover such a huge potential cost There should not be any link tax, that’s the most ridiculous idea I’ve ever heard. This is both a rip off and a way to limit free speech There’s nearly no point to the web if hyperlinks are restricted. This is crazy - any country implementing A tax on hyperlinks will make this is committing economic suicide. the web nearly useless. Entrepreneurship will go to wherever the internet is most free. These charges ‘act’ like exploitation...... a scam like technique for hidden costs. NO! This is probably the worst idea in the history of the union. And that says a lot... This flies in the face of the document model on which the entire web is built. This seems to me to be a cynical If this tax were to come into existence it attempt to destroy the tenet of the would break the internet on a technical sharing knowledge economy that has and social level, the cultural loss would flourished in my adult lifetime. Deeply be huge and the financial loss would be worrying, deeply suspect and very crippling to high technology economies dangerous for any democratic country.

This goes too far. It is not a very good idea This tax is ridiculous.

This is a completely ill thought-out idea: This type of law attacks the core idea of hyperlinks are massively important an open Internet, by setting an arbitrary 228 EU Responses to Question 4

tax on something as fundamental as Websites and users should NEVER be hyperlinking, it sets a bar which the rich required to pay any money for links or and powerful pass with ease, whereas the previews of content. This imposes an poorer in society are then limited to use excessive burden on sharing information the Internet to a lesser degree. The Internet should be an open platform for everyone, Websites and users SHOULD NOT be forced not only those with the privilege of wealth. to pay a link tax when using snippets of text to preview other content online This would be a really bad idea, and shut down many voices. It would solidly Websites and users should not be forced to entrench the current big internet players pay a link tax. Put simply: websites should and stifle innovation. It becomes a human- not have to pay money when using snippets rights issue, because (for example) it would of text to preview other content online. shut out worthwhile web use and access by people on tiny wages in 3rd-world Websites should not be forced to pay countries. It’s an unacceptable move. a ‘link tax’. The web should remain as free as possible, which means not to be Under no circumstances at all. If content is exploited as a source of profit regardless. made freely available at a particular link anyone must be able to publish that link. Websites should not have to pay a fee This must apply equally whether there is or “link tax” ss these costs are likely to any curation or not of the links, whether be passed on to the user, which may or not there is any commercial gain and discourage Internet usage altogether whether or not there is any commercial Websites should not have to pay money to agreement between the link owner and use snippets of text for previewing. I’m very the link publisher. If the content owner much in favour of knowledge being widely does not want to allow third parties to and freely available to all - not exclusive publish links then they should not make to those who can afford a link tax. the content available at a fixed link. There are plenty of tools available to Websites should not have to pay require either login or non-permanent money when using snippets of text/ links to avoid linking if they wish. links to preview other content online

Under no circumstances should a Websites should not pay money to tax be levied on any Internet link link or excerpt other sources.

Users should not have to pay a tax Well no, of course not, peer file sharing or anything else to see something is waht the internet code is based upon. is redistributed widely online If you wanted a revenue stream then flag complete content and offer it in We are taxed enough. There should be competition to the bit torrent price of no link tax. The internet was designed “free”, make content 5c, easy to purchase, by the people and with money provided across all platforms, and resaleable to by the people. The link technology is others. ensure the money goes to the paid for through fees and royalties. creators, not the lawyers. But ‘taxing’ Governments get taxes from sale of the hyperlinks? Are you cray cray? net service. That should be sufficient. EU Responses to Question 4 229

What all in the world can we tax? As have to write BS petitions like this... already layed out in my answer to those people need to go permanently! question number 2: The web in a way is a copy of our real world & is an incredible Without links, the internet stops information space, and every successful functioning. not being able to link to scheme to prevent linking weakens sources for content on the web will the foundation of the open Internet ultimately hurt produces of original content, and will benefit sites who create What av ridiculous suggestion! content by rewriting other peoples articles. Absolutely no way should The google has faced such “taxes” in relation to its news search in various What is the point or purpose of a link tax? E.U. countries, it has (rightly) decided to Just because you can? Linking spreads stop offering its free discovery service. information, opens markets, helps spread When this free advertising (involving no knowledge and information. Why would effort on the part pf the content creator) anyone in their right mind consider taxing was removed, the news websites saw a this? Will you next be taxing people dramatic drop in visitors to their websitesIt recommending books to their friends, is worth noting that Google and other or giving directions in the street? These major search engines already offer a are the functions of links. If you think simple way for content creators to “Opt-ot” they should be taxed you’re not fit for on a site by site or page by page basis,. purpose. You need to learn a lot more about how the internet actually works, Yes rather than how you think it works. Yes What? That is a ridiculous idea and makes no sense. Do you pay money Yes a small/fair tax might be acceptable..? to read the blurb on the back of a book? No you do not. Get this idea Yes And yes Snippets are only an in the bin where it belongs. (no) “introduction” to the article in question. If that would happen then everything While I see the argument for this, the and share on Facebook would become problem is whether it penalises people illegal when it’s clearly not! who don’t deserve it, more than those who shouldn’t be allowed the freedom yes No. How about a handshake tax? to flout copyright law. So, probably Makes about as much sense. You are not unless a sort of handicapping attempting to profit form people right system can be introduced. to connect with other human beings simply because the internet was used Who the hell to? Not practical to organise. to do so. This is even more absurd Think of how quickly you can insert a than taxing clean and and sunshine. link into a blog post or facebook. Yes they do if they want to why should someone who can’t manage the money that we are FORCED to pay Yes This tax is a stupid idea that will get any more of our money? they aren’t stifle creativity and information sharing improving society with it, they are actually Yes, and yes using it against all of us and then we 230 EU Responses to Question 4

Yes, I understand Of course not! The idea is absurd

Yes! Change your business model, the world has changed. I do not think websites have to pay money when using snippets of text to preview other content online Save the Link question 5: Do you agree that sharing content owned by others (pictures, videos, and blogs) should NOT be governed by the same rules that we use to punish extremism, hate speech, and abuse online. Why or why not?

European Commission consultation question: Do you consider that different categories of illegal content require different policy approaches as regards notice-and-action procedures, and in particular different requirements as regards the content of the notice? Should the content providers be given the opportunity to give their views to the hosting service provider on the alleged illegality of the content? 232 EU Responses to Question 5

1635 people responded ‘yes’ Total number of extended responses: 1544 Unique responses: 1409

“There is no comparison between the harm done to society by copyright infrigement to the harm done by extremism, hate speech and abuse, on the web or anywhere. These cannot be governed by the same rules.”

Existing laws have been crafted with the Sharing content is no crime and therefor delicate balance between free expression should not be punished like a crime. and legal speech in mind. These laws should be used to curb abusive behaviour Sharing something is different from online, rather than creating a new actually holding and expressing system. • When copyrighted material is that opinion yourself illegally shared the harm is usually an economic and business one. However, When copyrighted material is shared extreme and abusive messages have a the harm is usually an economic and lifelong emotional and mental impact, on business one. However, extreme and individuals and society. •These two issues abusive messages have a lifelong do not fit under the same framework. emotional and mental impact, on individuals and society.These two issues All forms of speech should be free. do not fit under the same framework. Creating exceptions to the first amendment, or subverting it through Why use different rules - and dowe not copy write, is infringement of that right condone free speech, expression of idea?Abuse and Hate speech is wrong, I agree! Only content that but freedom of expression is a right! violates the individual or public good should be removed Yes, sharing has nothing in common with abuse and other harmful actions. Therefore I do not agree to apply the same it is not fair to punish it like such things. rules, it would undermine the free circulation of ideas. Yes, This is like showing people your newspaper or book or using citations. if sharing is not for profit, then it should Why should this be any different? not be punished in an extreme manner Yes. People have the right to share Not sure. It depends on the situation personal creative actions. In the United EU Responses to Question 5 233

States, it is called Freedom of Speech largely overestimated, in most cases content providers giving alternate ways of YesThe motive is to be identified obtaining digital copies actually benefit as being the trigger for action. from the so-called “piracy”. Hate speach, extremism, and abuse have direct and most “Do you consider that different categories of the time _vital_ consequence (look at of illegal content require different policy the amount of people committing suicide approaches as regards notice-and-action because of internet abuse). Therefore procedures, and in particular different there is a legitimate reason to be able requirements as regards the content of the to control and police that. Given that on notice?”ABSOLUTELY.Sharing copyrighted one side you have vital consequences material may cause economic damage, on REAL people (hate speach, abuse), while extremism, hate speeches cause and on the other side you have alleged very different type of harm. THESE ISSUES financial loss, there is objectively no SHOULD BE TREATED SEPARATELY. reason to treat both issues the same way.

Depends. Links to others’ information I believe the less government intervenes is used to spread information, so unless the better.I also believe that punishment is there is a copyright on the information, NOT the best way to create a better world it should be allowed to be used by and that awareness of impact and inclusion others. But, using information that has a are more adequate ways to create a better copyright, like books, should hold some world for all.Extremism, hate and abuse form of punishment if the entire book are expressions of a confused mind and is used to reprint/copy. However, if only the more we fight this, the more it gets a portion is being used to make others bigger.Extremism, hate and abuse can be aware of it’s contents and availability limited by creating healthy boundaries with while providing links to the rightful a heart at peace for the sake of the well owner, then I see that as being okay. But being of mankind and by creating better anything else is the same as stealing ways of communicating with each other.

Extremism, hate speech, and abuse online I do not agree. Much “ownership” is should be held accountable. Same rules simply a financial arrangement and not those that pass it along in same context. connected to the actual creators of media. Governed by parameters of law. In most cases, there is no harm in sharing I agree the content, so it should be handled different from malicious actions I agree, because live is more important than things It’s a difficult question.

I agree. There is a fundamental flaw in Legislators have a key role in making believing something immaterial, such as our digital sphere a safe space where pictures, videos, blogs is actual property individuals can be free from abuse and and be considered as such. Immaterial harassment.Our laws have been crafted “Content” is at the end of the day just with the delicate balance between free a set of bytes, that one can replicate expression and legal speech in mind. without removing the “ownership” of the These laws should be used to curb original issuer.The argument that copying abusive behaviour online, rather than actually harms the content industry is 234 EU Responses to Question 5

creating a new system.When copyrighted The Internet should be used material is shared the harm is usually an freely and without government economic and business one. However, or corporate interference extreme and abusive messages have a lifelong emotional and mental impact, on The overarching use of criminalization of individuals and society.These two issues non-commercial copyright infringement do not fit under the same framework. So leads to a diminishment of justice: no I do not think they should be governed Punishment becomes arbitrary, almost the same way. They are not the same. everyone is a criminal according to such laws. Who is punished depends no on who happens to be focussed on by rights holders, or even by anyone else no to the same rules that would like to damage said people.It also makes people more likely to follow No, it should stay in the hands extremists paths, because if anyone is a of the law makers. criminal, what difference does it make? no. there is a significant difference This is a loaded question. Without a between commercial entities losing out dought a sane answer is yes. But before I on SOME of their profits, and far more can say yes the question of who is going serious psychological or even physical to determine extremism, hate speech harm being done to human beings & abuse. A good example would be the song of F#&k Paris came out the day after Off course! the November ahootings. The song was Sharing content aids to understanding. supposedly supported by Black Life matters Extremism (if I understand the yet these same people sanctioned not definition correctly), hate speech or allowing whites in their circles of healing abuse does not aid understanding which were conducted on public property. Even though segregation is against the Sharing content owned by others should law this is viewed as civil disobedience NOT be governed by the same rules that and applauded as how things need to be. we use to punish extremism, hate speech, Regulation cannot be imposed on internet and abuse online. The later harm people. use because Extremism, hate speech, The former harm economic benefits. abuse & what is sane and insane will be Have we come to the point were money governed by the golden rule. The powers has the same value has persons? that be fought the gutenberg press because a free mind is a true danger to control should be governed by different rules: copyright is a commercial This one is complex! affair subject to civil law, whereas extremism and hate speech should When copyrighted material is illegally be dealt with by criminal law. shared the harm is usually an economic and business one. However, extreme The harm of copyright infringement is not and abusive messages have a lifelong comparable to the harm of extremism emotional and mental impact, on and abuse. We might as well start individuals and society. These two issues cutting off the hands of petty thieves. do not fit under the same framework. EU Responses to Question 5 235

Yes - media sharing is not the same as different than someone recommending a violent speech or incitement to violence. restaurant to someone else. That second person may choose to investigate the Yes I agree recommendation further, or not. And if they really want to know something, they’ll yes, apples and oranges find the content and view it anyway.

Yes, I do agree that the two should be It should not, because something is distinct and governed by differing rules/ convenient to the powers that be does not laws. It is not necessary to react with make it right if the end result is the same nuclear force against minor infractions except for under the view of those seeking No, because it opens the possibility of a Zero Tolerance Policy, and time and time those in power being able to control again such instances have proven how content they simply don’t like, rather detrimental they are to everyone involved than content that is objectionable in a more objective, societal manner. yes; We have to rethink the punishments Yes. The Internet can have a lot of used in the legal systems, sharing a positive consequences, like learning movie should not be punished harder from and getting to know other people. than raping another human being

Agree We should be able to pass info with out it being governed, and who is the agree. different problems cannot one to say you cant share that, well its be addressed by the same rules plain give the gov to much and they I do agree that linking to news and will go tyrannical, and that’s why we information content by websites should should all stand up and say no more. NOT be governed/regulated in the same Yes. way that illegal, threatening online behavior is governed. News stories in print Content sharing should absolutely not be cite sources, use quotes, include pictures governed by the same rules that punish all the time. Each of these is “in addition to” extremism, hate speech and abuse. Content the main news being reported. And each sharing is an exchange of knowledge with often naturally causes the reader to want goal of enrichment and not the goal of to read or see more about the incident, inciting hatred or crimes against humanity. the players or the outcome/effects of the incident. Print media CANNOT physically I agree, and if the content is a problem, it’s link the reader to additional information the content itself that should be dealt with relating to the story, it is limited naturally in that way. The internet and internet No as this will lead to censorship websites however CAN conveniently link the reader to more information. No but i also dont think hate speech That is a valuable to everyone. Many should be punished as that is yet again people only get their information online an infrigement on rights of free speech today. Many more don’t have access to print media at any given time. Linking Sharing content generated and/or owned to additional information online is no by others must not be governed by the 236 EU Responses to Question 5

same rules that deal with hate speech, totalitarian. But the sharing of photos calls on violence and other kinds of abuse is most certainly a completely different online. While these kinds of extremism thing, one that I also support. pose a direct threat to rights of other people, online sharing may or may not Humans are social animals. To be infringe rights of owners, producers, or social means we share. Sharing leads to publishers. The latter can be properly happiness. Happiness leads to peace established only at a court of law. I agree. Sharing content owned by others Yes, I agree. Everthing on the is not always illegal, and most importantly, Internet should be free to use.; even if illegal, extremism, hate speech etc is always worse. These things should YES! not be measured by the same standard or fought with the same means. I agree. There is a vast difference! I’m not sure I understand the question. In master fravia’s own words:”The Sharing content (owned by anybody) web was made for SHARING, not as such should not be governed by for hoarding and not for selling.” same rules.However, it’s necessary to understand that in some contexts, No, two very separate issues. extremism, hate speech and abuse may be achieved via sharing content. Yes , I agree that my sharing should not be governed by the same rules as No i do not agree. These two issues do criminals or radical extremist using the not fit under the same framework. internet to further their cause , my use of the internet is purely to exchange Yes!!! information that is pertinent to political , social matters that would have an Yes. Sharing is an important part affect me personally , and to voice an of the Internet ecosystem and a opinion with a collective force to make a small economic harm is completely difference, on subjects that would be very different from extremism. difficult to do without the internet ...... Copyright laws already exist. People’s Yes. Sharing content does not as a opinions, even “hate speech” is their right general rule put life and safety at risk. and censoring that could lead to censoring less and less extreme cases. Also, “abuse a link just like the bullet is never online” is already being “abused” (look the one that is responsibel for the at extremist “feminists” aka feminazi’s ) shooting, its where people point it at. Criminalizing sharing and linking doesn’t Absolutely. If any person or organization solve any problems. Instead it creates put content on the Internet they should crime where none existed before, and be aware of the Internet is public place gives corporations and copyright holders and anyone can share the content. the right to censor free speech and abuse the rights of well-meaning Internet users. Extremism and hate speech are It is unacceptable for the often baseless cover-up labels for free speech. Any claims of monetary losses caused by law that uses these terms is usually sharing to outweigh the right to free EU Responses to Question 5 237

speech, free expression and justice. impinged upon in the case of hate Internet users are the more vulnerable speech, presumably to protect the stupid party and they should be given more and gullible from their own inability to protections from copyright holders, not less think critically. Abuse should be dealt with as the assault it actually is, with Definitely not - that would be absurd criminal charges and penalties. I don’t know what people consider extremism, I agree because it would kill the but I probably would argue it should freedom of expression which the fall under free speech protections. internet is guaranteeing today. Of course, seems to compare I believe everyone has a right to their flowers and weapon privacy, but if they choose to publish it on their own forum then it is out Of course. Hatred and abuse (when proven) there for the rest of us to share. are clearly different categories of offense than sharing (potentially innocently) I never understood why stealing was copyrighted material. These latter offenses punished harder than, say, rape or murder. (when proved) should be subject to It’s ridiculous the way money makers reasonable recovery of economic losses. have convinced the world that money is more important that the well-being and Sharing content is the essens of the life of others. So no, it should definitely internet and a free society. If a big not be punished in the same fashion as brother-society looks upon and punishes extremism, hate speech and abuse. this like terrorism - it will surely produce billions of terrorists. And we will be I totally agree, There is no reason to happy to destroy a society like that deal sharing others content the same way as you deal with hatespeach. Sharing content not intended to denigrate or do harm to others clearly Information wants to be shared should not fall under laws designed to protect by punishing extremism It is ridiculous to even ask this. Of course bullying hate speech and abuse it should not be treated the same. Sharing content should not be governed by No wee need free speech for the same rules as hate speech and abuse, democracy to work simply because it is not.Most of the time, No, as long as we’re not sharing people aren’t thinking about stealing, hate speech and abuse when using content online. Most of the time, they are using it for fan-made things No. It is not that bad as extremism, hate like streams, photos, blogs and more. speech and abuse online. The first: It is only This way of sharing is most of the time money in question, the 2. It could end up encouraging others to look more into that hurting people physically.And as mentioned particular content, potentially resulting before. The net should be non commercial. in free marketing for content creators.

Obviously not as they are two different Sharing content via pictures, videos or things. Unfortunately it seems most similar formats should not be governed people agree free speech must be unless it is clearly being used for 238 EU Responses to Question 5

monetary gain in violation of copyright. They should be subject to Simply sharing content which contains copyright laws only copywritten material does not harm the holder and should not be restricted Well .. It should not be a loop hole that allows spreading abuse, hate and Sharing hate speech and radical views extremism..As long as you make it clear the helps give people insight into the content does not reflect your own views. reasons for such bigotry or extremism, and allows us to challenge it. Banning While sharing content owned by others can the proliferation of this information is a be wrong, it is not in the same category form of censorship, which I am against as hate speech and online abuse.

The impact of sharing copyrighted material yes I agree. is a financial one only - it is completely different than the emotional and mental Yes, because abuse and hate speech are impact of extremism, hate speech and much worse, more grave and serious abuse. Online should be kept as SAFE as Yes, I agree. Amiable sharing is probably possible - a place where people can be free one of our better traits - to be encouraged. from bullying and harassment. There are already laws to protect free speech while Yes, I agree. The harm caused by protecting individuals from abuse. These sharing content owned by others is laws should be extended to online behavior generally negligible compared with rather than creating a new set of rules. extremism, hate speech and online abuse, therefore it is not fair to judge these There is plenty of verifiable science that two practices using the same rules allows decisions to be made about what is harmful. The problem is that many times Yes. Different topic. These two issues it’s an algorithm that does the sorting do not fit under the same framework with little or not enough human input. When there is human input, the person Yes...these are two completely reviewing is not deeply competent in the unrelated circumstances and should psychology needed to make that decision. not lumped into one category

These two issues do not fit under the Bottom line, using content that isn’t yours same framework. Legislators have a key is wrong and infringes on someone else’s role in making our digital sphere a safe rights, possibly impacts their livelihood space where individuals can be free from or privacy. There are shades here, and I abuse and harassment. Existing laws have don’t want to go too far to the extreme been crafted with the delicate balance but I also feel that unless the original between free expression and legal speech owner of the content has made it freely in mind. These laws should be used to available, it should not be shared curb abusive behaviour online, rather than creating a new system. When copyrighted Casual use ie for a blog or comment is not material is illegally shared the harm is an attempt to rip off a copyright holder usually an economic and business one. and should not be judged as such when no However, extreme and abusive messages harm is intended. In other words don’t bring have a lifelong emotional and mental an AK-47 to a fist fight. As a writer I don’t impact, on individuals and society. object to someone quoting a paragraph of EU Responses to Question 5 239

my story but sure do object if he/she copies hate speech and abuse apply regardless the whole story and calls it his/her work of the medium and I see no need to treat the online world differently Culture is first and foremost for all people to enjoy, not a money machine It is essential that different types of for multinational giants, and should be infringement are treated proportionally. treated as such. There’s not an artist in It would be ridiculous to argue that the world who would not agree with sharing content should be controlled having a large audience for their creations, in the same way that extremism and enforcement of strict ownership or abuse should be controlled. and publication rules hurts this goal No, it is not the same stuff so should be Depends on the content...if the handled differently.If people are too lazy content is hateful or abusive, then or stupid to differentiate between social yeah it should face barriers to being harm and financial loss they should not be easily spread. Otherwise...no allowed to control the lives of others either.

Hate speech and copyright infringement No. Sharing content owned by others are not related at all and they needs to a should be treated like a minor criminal separate mechanism to deal with both. offense - the online rules should closely mimic the real world rules I agree. Economic damage from copyright infringement, if actually demonstrable, can No.I think there are more grades of shade always be repaid. Emotional abuse and in sharing content owned by others. One threats of physical violence are far less key point should be whether sharing easily negated and deserve stricter control. results income to the sharer. Furthermore the owner should be indicated. I agree. The harm (real or imagined) done by content sharing is not Of course there’s a difference between comparable to the harm caused by inciting violence and being abusive than if real crimes such as abuse online. I were to forget to ask the content creator for permission to share the content. It I do NOT agree. Online hate and makes no sense to treat someone who abuse sends the message that it’s smokes marijuana the same as someone acceptable behavior ‘offline’ who murdered someone. Why would you apply the same rules to online content? Immaterial rights should not be Abusive and violent content should be forced as severely as ‘’real crimes’’. In dealt with by the appropriate figures. many cases financial loss is abstract I believe there is such a thing as cyber because people would not be ready forensics. Why not use them to convict to buy content in any case anyone of instigating emotional and mental abuse? As for those who just didn’t request In general sharing content only serves permission before sharing content, why not to raise peoples awareness and could establish a REASONABLE fee? Not every be looked upon as a form of advertising. one is a criminal on the internet, you would In particular civil law and not criminal want to take into account the person’s law should apply in cases where it prior history, such as previous convictions. is believed the sharing is harmful Third strike scenario, for example Criminal laws governing extremism, 240 EU Responses to Question 5

On Daily motion, my video was given They should be governed by an age gate. Even though to most, somewhat different rules, since the it doesn`t seem sexual or hateful. In crimes are as different as property it, a guy blows to his thumb to make crime is from violent crime. music. I re-uploaded it. https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=jppyNd7_clo This is a complicated question asked too simply. Content owned by others can be Sharing content owned by others an infringement on their personal rights, (pictures, videos, and blogs) should portrayed in manners unbecoming, NOT be governed by the same rules and thus as serious an offence as any that we use to punish extremism, hate other type of ‘abusive’ liberty. speech, and abuse online. These are categorically very different infractions, yes Copyright infringement is a much especially where the motive for distributing less serious crime than extremism, copyright content is educational or hate speech, and on-line abuse humanitarian, not profit-motivated Yes, because sharing media is a way of Sharing content should not be governed expressing yourself and the anonimity of by the same laws used to punish abuse, the internet already protects the individuals hate speech and extremism online. Doing posting/ being offended by said media so will not only cripple the innovation necessary for a knowledge economy, Yes, it should not be governed in the but it will also detract from the work same way. Some basic rules are required necessary to address legitimate cases so that people won’t take content freely of abuse, hate speech and extremism. In from others and then claim it as their fact, the sharing of content should not own (you have to make sure people know be subject to this type of legislation at who originally made the piece you are all, except in the most extreme cases. If sharing). But I do not believe it requires the ability of an individual user to share such drastic measures as hate speech. content with others is prohibited or made Yes, of course I agree that sharing content economically impossible, not only will that should not be under the authority of rules damage the public good of the internet, used to govern extremism, hate speech, but, in the long run, will only hasten the and online abuse. The intent is discussion demise of the corporations/institutions that and social reflection and not harm advocate for this. Free and legitimate use and attribution of content is fundamental Yes. Sharing content is NOT extremism, to the internet. Without it, the internet hate speech or abuse. They are will lose a significant portion of its ability different and should be treated to foster innovation, increase economic differently with different rules/laws benefit and promote the public good. Yes. The punishment should fit the crime The same laws should not be used. Sharing content is simply expressing yourself, and A fundamental principle of law is limiting what you can share is limiting proportionality, that the level of free speech (within reason of course, you punishment should be related to the cannot share content in a way that would degree of damage an infraction has damage the original content creator). significant potential to cause. Beyond that, there is considerable precedent that EU Responses to Question 5 241

copyright infringement is a civil rather than content?YES!!! If John reported to the police criminal matter unless the infringement I stole a car, hopefully, I will be given the resulted in direct financial gain opportunity to prove I didn’t steal any car.

Absolutely not - The web should Extremism, hate speech and abuse affect be a free oinformation source individuals and groups of human beings negatively and baselessly, and should ABSOLUTELY NOT THE SAME! The be removed from web sites, after careful internet is ‘by the people for the people’. review. Content that belongs to others Current hate & abuse laws exist and are should be available under “fair use” applied to safeguard us from extremism I actually wish we would punish Abuse, extremism and hate speech has extremism, hate speech, and abuse emotional impacts that do not exist when online far more than sharing content sharing content owned by others, which owned by others. Currently it seems has an economical impact. Both should be as if sharing content owned by others punished, but the scale is different. Just like is punished far more. I believe sharing street criminals get punished differently if owned content is at worst a nuisance and they steal a loaf of bread vs kill somebody. at best a promotion for the concerned content. It in no way can be compared agree. to the horrendous potential results of extremism, hate speech, and abuse online! Because that is completely rediculous I agree that sharing content owned by copyright infrigement should not be others (pictures, videos, and blogs) should counted as the same kind of illegality as NOT be goverened by the same rules hate-speech or abuse.those two just do that we use to punish extremism, hate not have the same impact on individuals. speech and abuse online because the Copyrighted content should be governed governance of extremism, hate speech by the laws governing intellectual property. &/or abuse determination &/or speed Extremism and hate speech should be of determination would be rendered governed by the laws of the state/regional inordinately slow, if not ineffective. organization in which they occur. I agree. Most of the links on the internet Correct are completely harmless and there is no single solution to govern them Do you consider that different categories of illegal content require different policy I agree. One is more a civil crime approaches as regards notice-and-action while the other is a criminal act procedures, and in particular different I agree. There is any number of reasons requirements as regards the content of someone might link to something someone the notice?YES!!! It’s so obvious. If I stole said, wrote, etc. It might be for news, for an apple in a store, I won’t be punished fun, to point out how they disagree with the same way as the guy who assaulted a them, or even by accident. Even if they are police officer with a firearm. Should the linking because they are agreeing with content providers be given the opportunity something you don’t like, we’re crossing to give their views to the hosting service into violation of free speech when we provider on the alleged illegality of the 242 EU Responses to Question 5

say that we have a right to punish people but that is up to the individual themself for liking things we don’t like or are even disgusted by. People should be punished No I do not agree. We should not be for bad actions, not bad thoughts constructing a charter for internet trolls.

I have reported hate speech and been no, absurd concept. told by Facebook that there was nothing wrong with the post in question. Several No, the internet was developed originally people I know were in complet agreement for the free unfettered sharing of ideas with me, but the post was not taken down. - it is a worldwide resource, not to be Something needs to be done to stop certain governed or infringed by a minority statements and images from being shown. No. This is a different situation. Are we The main problem, as I see it, is the censors’ talking about linking to another person’s objectivity. It seems to be very biased. site or copying material. The former should Il est parfois très compliqué de be of benefit to the site owner. The latter définir l’un et l’autre. Une clarification should be illegal with certain qualifications européenne s’impose sur ces définitions No. This is an entirely different category, avant que je puisse me prononcer. and should be treated differently. This Internet must remain free. Otherwise doesn’t necessarily mean that owned it will be pushed to the underground content should be shared with no restrictions. Freely allowing any and all It should not be governed by the same sharing of owned content would effectively rules, sharing culture is not a crime strip intellectual property owners of all their rights, and give them no means to It should not be governed by the same stop actual abuse of their content, and rules. For culture to exist it must be while the “all information should be free” free as much as possible. This is the utopia may sound nice, the “it’ll promote idea behind fair user laws, which allow and encourage content creation and people to “riff” off each other’s creative enrich our culture” argument that’s so work. Sharing another’s content, as long frequently used does not hold water, as as it is not hate speach etc, must be time has shown goodwill alone will not examined in context and judged as an feed content creators. With the advent infringement of rights (or not). To equate of services like patreon and kickstarter this behaviour with extremism or abuse we’ve seen new options for content demonstrates how desperate the old creators to make a living, but as the guard is to defend their dying business situation is now, intellectual property models. Should corporate tax evasion be laws are still necessary to protect the equated with terrorism? There is a better rights and livelihood of content creators. argument for this (tax evasion harms However, the acts and consequences the entire country) than for suggesting of illegal content sharing and abusive sharing content online is hate speech behaviour are completely different beasts, and should be treated differently No because extremism, hate speech and abuse online are wrong. Sharing content Of course I think that. Sharing owned by others isn’t bad as long as the is a good thing. original holder is okay with sharing it, Of course not. The reason is thery EU Responses to Question 5 243

aren’t the same kinds of content and be creative and show it to a large audience shouldn’t be treated the same is one of the driving forces of the internet.

Sharing a content that belong to other yes, because this is not the right-holders is a fault, which in the worst same risk for people case would make the right-holder loose money.On the other hand, hate speeches Yes, but in some circumstances that are offending people, destroying their amounts to stealing/robbery, depriving lives, and can lead them to suicide. The someone or body from financial psychological impact is much more gain that is legitimately theirs. consequent, and should not be treated lightly.These two topics are completely Yes, I agree that sharing content owned different : the first one can be relativized by others should NOT be governed in most cases or be caused by ignorance, by the same rules used to punish the second one is a direct assault which hate speech or online abuse. falls in the responsability of tribunals. Yes, should not be governed by There should be no ‘rules’ at all. not same rules. Sharing content owned even against ‘hate speech’. It is better by others is governed by copyright that suck people reveal themselves. if rules. Laws governing freedom of a person has made a lot of money from expression are a separate matter. stolen content, then they should have it Yes, there is a whole world confiscated. That rule already exists. it between copyright infrigement These are two different issues completely. and hate speech or terrorism. Extremist hate speech has nothing to do Yes, we don’t endorse a link when we share with sharing cartoons about Mickey Mouse.; Yes. A regulatory system already They should be separate issues exists to govern this behavior When copyrighted material is Yes. Hate crimes hurt people. Content illegally shared the harm is usually an owners claim they’re losing money economic and business one. However, but there’s no evidence they would extreme and abusive messages have be paid more if the content they a lifelong emotional and mental ask to be removed was gone. impact, on individuals and society Yes. If they are not covered by extremis Yes one ust assume they are not extreme. Yes I agree that sharing content owned by “Illegal content” is too broad of a label others (pictures, videos, and blogs) should to effectively manage with legislation. NOT be governed by the same rules that Hate speech is not equivocal to violation we use to punish extremism, hate speech, of intellectual property and should not and abuse online. These rules should be be treated as such by the law. The high used to curb abusive behaviour online, possibility of misinterpretation and rather than creating a new system subjectivity must be taken into account. Yes i do, The governments control enough Moreover, it is beneficial to the society for of our private lives already, The ability to its members to be exposed to new content, 244 EU Responses to Question 5

even if the legality of this exposure is responsibility of the law breaking user. dubious, rather than stay unaware of it As long as the person sharing the content “Sharing content” is “communication”, references the original owner of the usually not a serious crime. material it should not be a problem. It certainly should NOT be governed the same Absolutely not! Hate speech, extremism way extremism, hate speech and abuse is. and abuse are used to cause real That’s like saying someone making a music emotional pain towards a person or video of their favourite anime is as bad as group. You cannot compare threats someone actively promoting terrorism to life to the loss of a few dollars! Complex issue. Who decides what is Absolutly sharing a song or a movie should hate speech? Who enforces it? It very not be governed by the same rules that are much depends on the content of the used to punish extremism or abuse, simply image & the context in which it is used because they are completly different. If content owners whould provide a legal Content is not the same as my body an fair way of distributing their content - I have stalking problems, and “piracy” wouldnt even matter anymore wish police would protect me - the German legal system stems from the Agreed. The vast majority of images are witchburning times. (abortionforbidding shared for goodwill and and bring people and the new suicideforbidding law is closer together thus weakening extremism enforcing RELIGION) The very idea that corporations can prevent me from Any move interpreting dissent as getting knowledge like the church extremism should be avoided at all costs. did in the bad old days scares me

As expressed in the other answers, I believe Extremism, hate speech and abuse that every community should decide are all acts that the person commits what to ban and what to allow. Not every very consciously. In contrast, posting community should be put under the same something infringing on the internet can rules.There are rude communities and happen without the person knowing gentle communities. And the user decides that they infringed something. This which community suites her or him.If laws should be as much a differentiation as are broken, the user is responsible for his murder and involuntary homicide is deeds. And the community is the entity to decide what is ok and what is not ok Frequently, such infringments can be besides legality. Members and content innocent and should not be treated as who/which are too rude or offensive will acts of aggression. The affected parties be exterminated by the community. If a in most cases are not hurt physically or certain community is too rude, stay out of mentally and in most cases the financial it. There could be a set of rules put up for loss is minuscule, if at all. I myself was each community right at the beginning - recently asked to remove an online like no nudity or forbitten words or stuff design I had created which was part of like that - the community should be the the “1984 George Orwell” estate. I did so rule maker and be responsible for itself, without question, but it had not occurred not anybody else except if laws are to me that I was infringing copyright. If broken. A broken law should be solely the I had been punished in the same way EU Responses to Question 5 245

as an extremist or someone producing If you are for censoring the internet, then hate speech, it would have not only you are clearly bought by someone with been a travesty but a senseless waste of an agenda you hack frauds. We dare you everyone’s time & money in legal fees etc to censor the internet you old farts. You don’t even know what the Internet means Hate speech and abuse should be for humanity so piss off please. Thanks.; treated like in real life, sharing content which is owned by others is protected I agree.Because those regulations under publishing laws, similar to hard are stupid even when aimed at copy content, like books and all. extremism, hate speech and abuse. huh??! is that a serious question?? What I am a publisher myself and I greatly do those have to do with each other? benefit from this exposure. And that is true for every publisher out there, even the I absolutely agree. I find it vital to be media outlets who claim that services like able to share a piece of information I news.google.de and the like “steel” from find interesting with people I know, to them. The truth is quite the opposite. A educate people on topics they don’t large amount of people is referred to pages know much about at the moment or to like spiegel.de via aggregators. And these illustrate a point. I can’t even fathom in companies earn by showing ads. The only what way is sharing a news article on an thing is: the landscape has changed and interesting topic the same as hate speech. the old idea of financing there publications only by selling advertising isn’t enough I agree because it is not the same any more. The big misunderstanding is, sort of crime. It is not about violence that a link or a shared headline is not a and hate but about money way to copy somebody else. Quite the opposite. It’s a very gentle gesture, as it I agree, because there is not a uniform brings even more people to your site.; standard governing speech. I depend on the content. If the content I agree, because they are cultural itself is hate speech or extremism, goods and nobody is hurt. If you yes.I agree with the notion that there use pictures, videos, music of others should be more rules to prevent for making money you should pay abuse online, but the current take on for it but not if used personally a new law is wrong and one-sided. I agree, the content that reflects our I don’t believe sharing content owned culture has to be accessible to anyone. by others should be governed by the Hate speech, extremism and abuse same rules that we use to punish online are still activities that are illegal extremism, hate speech and abuse online, and should be treated as such. There since these are very different. Sharing are of course issues about who and interesting or entertaining content how the definitions are created by should be encouraged, not punished I agree. I don’t believe sharing content owned by I agree. And everyone who doesn’t is others should be governed by the same clearly against Human Progress and rules that we use to punish extremism, Freedom of Speech. Let me say it this way: hate speech and abuse online, since these 246 EU Responses to Question 5

are very different. Sharing interesting been crafted with the delicate balance or entertaining content should be between free expression and legal encouraged, not punished. It also gives speech in mind. These laws should be the owner a free spread of its content used to curb abusive behaviour online, without having to invest any amount rather than creating a new system of money for it, as quoted before. If the material posted is publicly allowed I think sharing content owned by others to be shared, no problem. Material should be with the owners permission. But with copyrights must be respected. if the owner posts it on-line, it is reasonable Extremism and abuse must be curbed to suppose that he or she wants it read, so I should be able to post a link to it. Indeed

I think that sharing personal content It is important for law abiding citizens online should be governed by the same of countries in this world to be able to rules that we use to punish hate speech freely share content created by others and abuse. Anything done online is by on social media platforms. This way its nature public and such we should people can work to rase awareness conduct ourselves as we would in public. about topics that are of importance to them without having to spend lots I think there are enough rules and laws of time to create personal content to protect content owners. the existing laws should be used instead of adding It limits our freedom, offers the path for more and more rules to the system. Apart manipulation on all different levels from this owned content and hate speech or abuse are two completely different It should definitely not be punished in the matters which can’t be put under the same same way. Online abuse and hate speech rules! Economic loss and the emotional are already poorly dealt with, with very or personal impact to a person can’t be few police officers/departments trained governed by one rule but have to be in how to deal with credible threats. Why treated by different sets of regulations!! put more stress on these departments and possibly risking lives of individuals I’m not sure, it really depends on the kind of being threatened online in order to content you are referring to. Rules for those police linking to blogs videos, etc.? who do take an extremist stance shouldn’t be imposed on the rest of internet users. It should not be governed by the same rules. Free expression is If it is against the law then it is against necessary for democracy the law. The regulations need to be the same, it is the sentence which relies It should not be. They are clearly different on how badly the law is broken. cases of illegality, particularly in the new ‘sharing’ world of the web. If we If it truly is Hate speech, then we are to protect intellectual property already have laws for that rights we should build mechanisms into the content - eg, DRM If the content includes extremism, hate speech, and abuse then those laws should It shouldn’t be governed be applied. If it does not fall into those categories, then no. Existing laws have Its not the same and never will be EU Responses to Question 5 247

i formation cant be owned it can No, I do not agree. Sharing content is only kept secret but never will what human beings do to pass along anyone own information vor data to others how good or bad something maybe. Punishing people for using word Legislators have a key role in of mouth online entrenches on their making our digital sphere a safe fundamental rights as a human being. space where individuals can be free They don’t even equate to extremism, from abuse and harassment. hate speech or abuse. Having the same punishments for sharing content like a Legislators have a key role in making picture, video or blog, is how the world our digital sphere a safe space where knows what’s really going on. As even the individuals can be free from abuse and media can be controlled by a corporation harassment.Our laws have been crafted into sharing its own company rhetoric. It with the delicate balance between free creates an unbalanced, dystopian society expression and legal speech in mind. when you control free speech that way. These laws should be used to curb abusive behaviour online, rather than No, it should be handled differently creating a new system.When copyrighted material is shared the harm is usually an NO! - I feel that there are limits economic and business one. However, to what is acceptable... extreme and abusive messages have a lifelong emotional and mental impact, on No. Because we cannot know who and individuals and society.These two issues what is out there without seeing what they do not fit under the same framework. have to say and do. If we censor anyone who has an opinion we find unacceptable, No I don’t. A new system of laws A new these people will still exist and will simply system of laws is not desirable or needed find more secretive and subversive ways to communicate which noone can then No if the purpose is merely to monitor. If someone posts something illegal inform and not to make money at present, the police and security forces, then it should be allowed. as well as individuals, can observe and track them. By censoring such material, No it is different it is about sharing criminals become much harder to track ideas that Benefit people whereas hate speech etc hurts people and No. It´s one thing to fight extremism or weakness sociatial bonds. hate speech (and here the law can´t be hard enough in some cases). It´s another no It should be governed by the same thing to sue someone just because he rules. For the same reason the rules are posts the video of a song, esp. when there in the first place. What is good for they recommend to buy the album the goose is also god for the gander instead of illegally downloading it.

No it should not. The entertainment Not governed by the same rules - industry has to much say in these matters. but sharing “bad” things probably should get a warning of some kind No these unwanted contents can be dealt with Of course I agree. The former is the sharing of information the latter hurts people. No they should not 248 EU Responses to Question 5

Of course not. Linking to blogs or Sharing content is not incitement to pictures is the every day lifeblood of the murder! Of course it should not be internet and social media. Extremism, governed by rules designed for extremists. hate speech and abuse need to be curtailed and excised from decent online Sharing content owned by others (pictures, discourse. The two are not equatable videos, and blogs) should NOT be governed by the same rules that used to punish Of course not. We must not think in terms extremism, hate speech, and abuse of lowest common denominators. online as this is (on an individual level) a civil offence and not a criminal one. Of course there is a big difference. We have to punish extremism but these rules Sharing content owned by others (pictures, should not be used for normal people. videos, and blogs) should NOT be governed by the same rules that we use Openly sharing content should to punish extremism, hate speech, and be considered fair-use abuse online. Because sharing a file is not much different than borrowing a DVD Private users forward links for unknown from a friend. It’s not a searious offence reasons. To remit a link does not automatically imply any accordance with Sharing Content owned by others the content of any Internet page.I often doesn’t have to be completely free, use links as a wrong or bad example for but in can’t be censored like hate friends.I won’t get punished for using speech and abuse online. There links to Internet pages because I’m not have to bo diffenent procedures. responsible for the primal content. Sharing content owned by others sharing content is a completely should only be prosecuted when it different thing to engaging in hateful damages the artists earnings or abusive activity. these two things should not be treated the same way. Sharing content should be healthy way for a good culture development and in no Sharing content is definitely not on the way should be compared to the later in same level as extremism, hate speech terms of punishment because it is stating or abuse. Sharing content is said to lose that the former is as bad as the latter when others money - which I still doubt - and it’s clear the latter is usually way more extremism, hate speech and abuse harmful and undesirable than the former probably do not cost anyone money, at least not directly. Extremism, hate speech Sharing freely accessible contents is not and abuse are just a whole other level, a a crime - extremism, hate speech and different quality of law infringement. They abuse online are definitely crimes. cut into other people’s rights and content sharing may cost some people money, Sharing inocuous books or pictures which is not even clear. Punishing them with your friends is hardly the same all by the same rules is just ridiculous thing as calling on all ‘followers of the faith to kill Jews and Western infidels’. Sharing content is not extremism, In what world would you use anti- hate speech, or online abuse, so terror legislation against an 8 year old punishment shouldn’t be as if it is sharing Peter Pan with a classmate? Apparently the world called ‘EU’ EU Responses to Question 5 249

Sharing is part of freedom in any case: referencing content is not creating or endorsing it. A journalist or should not. Harmful messages should a lawyer for example has to reference be free. Hate messages should always megia created by extremists occasionally be removed to stop the hate.; to prove said extremists views or even criminal behaviour. As such context is That is a sticky situation, however, it important. Condemning something just should be covered the same as the fifth for mentioning it leads to irrational fear, amendment of the constitution for the U.S mystification and only helps to strenghten extremists. To illustrate this with an That’s a difficult question, but short example from popular literature: in the answer is: I think it must be distinguished Harry Potter novels a lot of Voldemorts between abuse and financial damage. threat and eventual rise into power comes The Internet age is only a few years old. from the fact that most people even fear It is too soon to start making laws about mentioning his name. This also gives controlling it and should remain free him an air of mystique and power which and open. I am a very experienced IT draws in followers. If he was just a known professional, I worked for an ISP over criminal people would likely have a lot 15 years ago and have some views on less interest and would report anything how best to regulate the Internet suspicious to the authorities easily

The responsibility of sharing content owned These two issues do not fit under by others must be that of the people that the same framework. share. The have to ask for permission. They absolutely should be treated The thing with copying content is that no differently, because they are different. physical objects are being stolen. The They are not even in the same league extra cost of a copy is close to zero. No They should not be governed people get directly harmed (sure there is by the same rules. loss of income in some or even most cases, but souls and bodies remain intact). With This idea is also completely absurd, Sharing extremism, hate speech and abuse the content has nothing to do with extremism case is completely different. These exist to harm people directly. It is clear that this is a difficult matter. in one way, extremism, hate speech and abuse should extremism, hate speech and abuse is not come with the same rules attached as violence aimed directly at other people, sharing content. Especially not if sharing whereas sharing of owned content in that content might actually draw people to sufficiently large part is more akin to the site of the content owner, in which case theft (though by no means the same!) in the shared content should be regarded that it targets people’s ability to monetise as free advertisement and nothing else their rights to their possessions. (such as selling copies, lending, licensing, etc.) There is no point to this question, as pretty naturally, these matters can get blurry, much every social media, forum and any such as undercutting a person’s ability to other type of site that allows users to make money as part of a larger abusive talk to each other has rules in its Terms campaign against that person. since of Service that disallow extremism, hate what this law wants to target is piracy of speech and other forms of abuse. But 250 EU Responses to Question 5

media, we have to consider whether the When copyrighted material is shared the victims would be people directly, such as harm is usually an economic and business an independent artist, or a corporation. one. However, extreme and abusive if the target is a corporation, sharing messages have a lifelong emotional and can only have the quasi-theft effect, not mental impact, on individuals and society. the effect of directed personal violence. therefore these matters must be kept Why compare those two thing as if separate, no matter the inconvenience they are equals? Feels like comparing for rights-holding corporations. apple with road apple to me

This would really limit the social Why not? It is not the same problem. power of the internet; Hate speech and inciting hatred should be handled due to it’s propensity to Time has moved and now every internet break society, stifle civil public discourse, user is a little publisher of its own on indirectly lead to a breeding ground for pltaforms like Facebook or Twitter. violent acts and the subsequent disruption Sharing content of others is part of a of society. Maximizing profit on licensed culture and mostly it is intended by those works by charging a fee for every ‘technical who provide this content. In days where replication’ (copies made for technological information floods us, the normal user reasons) of such a work is backwards. is not able to sort out what is rightfully Realizing that the world is different and shared and what violates copyright rules. that reality slowly changes is how the law So there is a big difference between should work. It should adapt and adjust extremism, hate speech and abuse, which accordingly, not try to replicate the old are clearly not “sharing” but initiating. status quo under a new technological paradigm. Information and content are no Too much regulation stifles creativity. longer physical products, in the sense that There are alternative ways (e.g. traditional logistics apply. The companies concerts, crowdfunding, donations) of that own this content refuse to understand ensuring the creators get rewarded. The this from a business perspective, as they transfer of copyrights to middle links is percieve it as hurting their profit margins. reprehensible, especially when copyrights Instead of adopting a more reasonable are extended into near eternity (Happy approach to a world where their products birthday song, Mickey Mouse, etc.). can (and will) be replicated and distributed ad infinitum, at no extra cost, they cling on Use laws to curb abusive behaviour to the exact same physical price tags for a online. The internet needs to be limited ‘single use’ emulation of a physical monitored to make it an abuse free hard copy of said work. They introduce environment. Copyright laws do not technological restraints that (intentionally) sufficiently address these issues limit the portability of such a work within my personal library of purchased content. We should not mix apples and I cannot port a book purchased for my oranges. Sharing copyrighted material amazon kindle for consumption to any constitutes one class of problems of a other digital device, unless Amazon wants mainly economical nature, spreading me to. When amazon discontinues support hate speech is another category with for previously purchased devices, i lose all social and political consequences of my content, or at least my only pathway to access them, unless i buy a new, amazon EU Responses to Question 5 251

certified device. Or perhaps, one day, yes, because I believe they are two amazon goes bankrupt. ‘My’ content is different things and should not be gone. Users are confronted with a world treated with the same rules in which all content is equally priced to a physical copy, however in return they Yes, hate, abuse and extremism hurt people receive a ‘lease’ on ‘their’ copy of a work. sharing pictures or snippets of film do not. This lease is completely under control of the original content owner (up to the yes, i agree. sharing is good for developing method of consumption is dictated) and production and creation of new, it enforces the only way around this is ‘illegally’ creativity, stimulated exchange of ideas pirating your own purchase. Punishing and makes community members closer this as you’d punish extremism is absurd. to each other. It facilitates information, Punishing this with a comparison to theft, ideas and news sharing and creates a or the destruction of an original work is space for joint work and cooperation. absurd. Punishing this at all is absurd This has nothing disrupt or undermining to be treated as punishable ; yes i agree, because sharing content means usually informing others and/ Yes, i.e. it should not. These rules serve the or educating others. My believe is, that protection of all users indiscriminately. sharing content, that you do not own is not They are intended to protect our freedom inherintly harmful to society. This sharing (e.g. from being insulted or worse) enables people to learn and educate and to prevent users from instigating themselves, without having the finacial others to crimes. To apply the same means to do so outside the internet. there rules, however, to copyright questions, is a difference between a student, that serves only the financial interests of a has to study all day, who cannot work certain group and is liable to misuse. (otherwise is wouldnt be fulltime study) Yes, of course and a person, that has already a job and can afford to use his financial means to Yes. Because they have different logics get content. This relation is not on even harmful to society, becasue the person Yes. Exisiting laws seem to cover this well wouldnt have acess to this content in the first place, therefore no profit is lost adn Yes. Extremism, hate speech, and abuse no harm is done to society. There is no are detrimental to everyone. Sharing evil intention behind sharing information content, whether it infringes on the creator/ and content in general, since humanity owner or not, is only detrimental to the has shared stories and myths for severals monetary interests of the rightsholders. thousand years now, without copyrights. These two issues are not equivalent To say it is the as to undermine a socity by hatred and/or abuse would be a lie. In my Yes. Hate has nothing to do mind it is more important to control, that with money interests. the media is not censored, so that in one country there can be a completely opposite Yes. I think it is called Freedom of opinon about a situation, than in others Speech? Has America left us? countries, having the same fact to go on Yes. Online abuse and hate speech are to begin with, that is called propaganda. easy to block by content creators. It is rare yes they are different values that extremism is a serious threat on the 252 EU Responses to Question 5

world wide web. Online threats and abuse It is not the same.I agree that I need are more often trolls than actual threats permision to share content owned by others,but not by the same rules that we yes. Perspective, please use to punish extremism or abusers online

Yes. The internet should be an open place Law abiding citizens should not have for discussion and intellectual discourse. the same rules applied to them Just like discussing ideas around the kitchen table, borrowing books from No. First of all only personal content should another person, sharing links and credited be protected by the law. Especially this content should be completely legal and should be protected from corporations. are a cornerstone of the internet. Majority disputes regarding private content should be regulated by a civil law. Yes. We are talking about literary material and copyright not extremism and violence No. I can see how some of these things could overlap. It is very difficult to You have to differentiate always. No one- prove intent but I believe intent is size-fits-all approach. Opinions must be the dividing line. Sharing is not the respected even if you dislike them. same as hate speech or abuse

Abuse of copyright is not the same thing as No.Because it loses it’s power against abuse of people. The goals and standards extremism, hate speech and abuse, in addressing these issues have little as it is not as harmful to share as it is to do with each other. Any regulations to hate. To put otherwise, it’s not that should be kept similarly separate important the loss of money that occurs from copyright laws as it is the loss of Any laws implemented should be used lives or emotional harm. Furthermore, to curb abusive behaviour online sharing content can improve your life, open minds etc... it not that bad... I agree that sharing content owned by others (pictures, videos, and blogs) should Of course they shouldn’t. Why should they? NOT be governed by the same rules Completely different activities that have that we use to punish extremism, hate zero to do with each other. For one thing, speech, and abuse online, because this combatting hate speech and abuse should is what Internet freedom is all about. be given much higher priority among police and the justice system. Makes as I agree with this Legislators have a much sense as governing arson, murder, key role in making our digital sphere and jaywalking with the same laws a safe space where individuals can be free from abuse and harassment This is an infringement on our right to freedom on the internet.; I fully agree, content sharing shouldn’t fall under the same rules used to punish While I doubt that punishing extremism extreme and harmful behavior online (Is advocating pacifism or communism extremist? Is Tibetan separatism extremist?) I think I agree, but don’t really get and hate speech (Should Ukrainians the connection. I may be 94 years expressing anti-Russian sentiments, or old but I’m pretty naive about Tibetans speaking poorly of the Chinese, be matters pertaining to the internet jailed?) is appropriate, I agree. The balance EU Responses to Question 5 253

between free speech and copyright retribution and limits freedom of protection is already overly in favor of the thought and speech over the internet. latter, despite the importance of the former. Should these disparate offenses be lumped They are two completely distinct things. together, the resulting legislation is likely The first is a financial issue (and mainly to be inadequate, as well as overzealous. for the rightsholders)The second is a Furthermore, while the necessity of hate moral issue. I am less concerned about speech laws is debatable, harsher copyright the first one as there are already sufficient law is already proven unnecessary, as means of protection in place (the current media industries take in record profits, intended changes are only meant to place despite convenient pirate alternatives. control on people’s lives and to take away Recall that the original purpose of even more money from people to which copyright law was not to limit copying - they have no legal or moral right. These that is merely the method. The purpose was kinds of changes would only protect to promote science and the arts. And that the interest of big companies generally is has done, even when it was much milder who have the time, the money and the manpower to go after such issues). Yes, because they are different things. Unlawful use of copyright of others should Yes, I agree that sharing content owned be punished normally. Lawmakers should by others (pictures, videos, and blogs) draft specific punishment for these acts should NOT be governed by the same rules that are used to punish extremism, Yes, I agree. It seems this is the hate speech, and abuse online, because whole premise of social media there is a major and obvious qualitative difference between these forms of content. A dialogue is always important in matters Pictures, videos, etc. are generally not such as these. An initial cease and desist harmful in themselves, and provide only or at least an attempt to contact content information, ideas, pleasing or otherwise providers is essential to preventing entertaining views or music, and so on, these laws from being abused into a whereas extremism and hate speech and method of silencing those that large abuse are meant to cause or promote harm organisations do not agree with. It is important in our society for both sides to Yes. Seems a touch excessive. be able to communicate and reconcile their differences in a legally appropriate absolutely not, sharing is no crime: manner.Illegal content should be tackled it’s growing together, it’s culture in the cyberspace in a similar fashion to how it is tackled in the real world, though Agree. It is very different. I believe, it is important to differentiate between how, and why a piece of content is some crimes which are only possible borrowed is an important part of the digitally (for example, digital replication facts that should be considdered. or “copying” of content without harming the original content’s physical integrity) I agree, because using the same regulations and those which are possible in both for content sharing (wich is, in the end, (for example slander, hate speech etc.) information) that is used against violent/ dangerous behaviour is nonsense. Absolutely! The Right to Freedom of Expression and Association (provided I agree. Because it’s disproportionate 254 EU Responses to Question 5

for under article 19a of the International merit serious punishment.Everybody Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) should be allowed to give their views and protects amongst other things the right defend themselves and their content. to hold and express opinions, including political ones and ones which in certain Copyright infrimgement is a rather different circles might be considered as being thing than hate speech and onlne abuse, dissenting, without needing to fear any most jurisdictions have separate laws for form of reprisal for doing so, provided the two. It should be the same on the web these activities are conducted in a manner - creating a new legal framework to lump that ios peaceable and does not seek the these two is the wrong approach. Lets work deberate erosion of the rights of others with the existing laws against both hate spech and copyright infringement rather As long as the original producer of than creating a new system to try and the content is recognized, it should be cover both of these very dfferent cases fine to share what they have created - especially if they were aiming for others Corporations aren’t going to be to do just that. So no, it should not be affected in any significant way by governed by the same rules that are people sharing small snippets of their used to punish extremism and abuse. products. The sheep will still buy That is a completely different matter. Existing laws governing speech and Badly written question. I think like expression have been crafted to be any information it should be judged blind to the origin. After all, they are the as whether it is proper public debate same regardless of the media of origin or just hate speech. There is already Racial discrimination laws like Australia I agree fully, as infringing crimes are 18C (Though shalt not vilify) which is NOT as bad as extrimism, murder, tempered bu 18D (Unless this is a useful hate speeches or abuse. Infringing is public debate or study). I would add an in general publishing something that 18E which is that any comments must be isn’t yours. It may very well be called noted as factual or not. So if someone stealing, but even theft hasn’t got as harsh sees what you’ve written and it says “All punishments (in the majority of cases) XXXX are YYYY” I can say, actually, no I agree that sharing content owned and they have to say. It is my opinion by others (pictures, videos, and blogs) that All XXX are YYYY based on this link. should NOT be governed by the same However this is disputed by people who rules that we use to punish extremism, have read this link (see the use of links hate speech, and abuse online - to say and why we need to keep them free) So otherwise is punish individuals for not we allow people freedom of speech but being corporations (i.e. vested interests). we require them when asked to justify the basis of that speech and provide I agree, it should not be governed by the an alternative opinion if that exists. same rules. It is totally out of proportion

Copying and selling other peoples work I believe in freedom of speech. I would far is dishonest, and anyone doing it should prefer to read things I don’t agree with than forfeit their ill gotten gains. However have it banned and thus go under ground. extremism, hate speech, and abuse online should be considered serious crimes that I do not necessarily agree. This is a EU Responses to Question 5 255

issue that needs to be looked at with Most content shared is free care and moderate regulation to find advertising. This means more precious those that originally made such hateful profit for the corporations. or abusive content and actually punish them (something that doesn’t happen No, because sharing is empowering the vast majority of the time until it and unless it is subject to copy right causes emotional affects like suicide to infringement it should be allowed others) and in the meanwhile the content expressing such extremism or hate should No, they should not be as there is a be removed. This should be done by world of difference between sharing users requests such as it already is on something you find interesting or amusing Facebook. To be clear this should not be and promoting extreme points of view a law in which only police and governing or inciting hatred. It is nonsensical authories choose what is “extremist” to imagine them to be the same.; as there may be political censorship, noIts the difference between the but a continued importance of safety minor question of intellectual property impressed upon the internet community rights and the well-being of society I don’t believe there should be ANY rules Not all sharing of protected material is to free speech. Speech with the sole actual piracy and that grey zone must purpose of causing injury to a single person be acknowledged. Certainly attempting or groups of people should of course be to control this kind of behaviour with held accountable for any resulting crime. the same level of force used to punish But again, a healthy society would simply extremism and hate speech is abusive ignore hateful speech. Since this is not the case in our society we should be focusing Of course they should not -- the two our efforts on transforming us into one situations are significantly different

If we end up with all sharing content Our laws have been crafted with the being governed by the same rules as delicate balance between free expression extremism etc we would all end up being and legal speech in mind. These laws punished for little or nothing it would get should be used to curb abusive behavior way out of hand that could see someones online, rather than creating a new system. life being ruined and/or a childs life. ; sharing content owned by others (pictures, It of course depends upon the content. videos, and blogs) should NOT be governed Sharing content is informative, creative and by the same rules that we use to punish bonding. All content cannot be governed extremism, hate speech, and abuse online by a single system. If a person personally owns a piece of content, they ought to be Sharing content should be totally able to do with it as they see fit, except if free, end of discussion. that content is harmful, abusive, or illegal. Copyright infringement and hate speech Sharing content via links should not mean are simply two totally separate subjects that we are 100% responsible for that and labeling them similar offenses under content, especially since the content for once system is absolutely bizarre and a link is largely dynamic in nature. The invalidates the actual impact very real nature of a link is linking to an alive and illegal and harmful material creates changing resource and not a static copy 256 EU Responses to Question 5

of data. Trying to regulate that away a support democracy’s free circulation will change the internet in stifling and and the priority of it’s wit and reason being breaking ways and uneven the playing fully conscious and informed as can be. field. It will make it hard for people who have little or no resources to do Yes, because that’s ridiculous and policy any linking and commercially disable makers thinking it isn’t is frightening. platforms of freedom (such as YouTube) yes, sharing generates exposure The law should be the arbiter for content and is a positive thing. of any censorship, NOT a Extremism and hatespeech are not company, or any other body positive things and can be criminal

They should have different rules to Yes. Because freedom of expression and fit different particulars. They are the sharing of ideas and information simply different, and there is no good is why the internet exists reason to pretend otherwise Yes. Because that is just typical They should not be governed by the same overreaching by the government to laws.so Yes I agree with the premise justify a total surveillance state of the question. As to Why they should not. Sharing the content is of benefit to Yes. Because these things impact on our the owner. if it is available on the open freedom of speech and threaten to turn the internet then I am doing them a service web into some sort of Orwellian device. by promoting their content I am directing Yes. Content sharing, to the extent My and anyone I share the content with’s it’s an offense, would be a form “Attention” to their content. Attention is of property crime at worst the currency of the net and the world always has been. The Chinese knew this Yes. Freedom of expression is a nuclear 3000 years ago, the fact that we are even principle of what Western Democracies discussing this speaks loudly. The fact (should) stand for. Censorship should not that the EU is even considering such a be allowed to trump such a basic freedom badly thought out policy is extremely worrying and stinks of Corporate Fascism. ...I am not sure how these things are linked. If it’s a question of people on, say, They should not be treated as such. Facebook sharing links to hate speech, This is simply an invalid equivalency. then it’s up to Facebook to create policy on that. They seem to be going for “if someone yes - 2 different issues complains and we agree, we’ll take it Yes - basically it is two different down”, which seems pretty reasonable. I crimes and that it happens on assume there are already laws of some the net make no difference kind dealing with hate speech by itself, so that should already be in place for Yes I agree. Free speech within dealing with the source. The problem Europe has been one of the with taking down links to unpleasant keystones of our development.; things is that they can be educational. There’s a big difference between “this Yes, ‘Information is the currency of our site agrees with my prejudices! All X democracy’ if we censor it, we dont value are Y!” and “this site is saying this EU Responses to Question 5 257

A certain regulation is needed but, damage, if any, is so much less obviously extreme rules should be applicated ONLY if the content is No, Because it’s not hate speech clearly violent, potentially terristic and it’s freedom of speech so on. All that occurred in Paris last friday can teach us a lot of thinghs No, because we share what we care about, not what we necessarily own. Absolutely. Speech should remain Free, whereas Violence should never be No, it’s like triying to gobern private tolerated no matter how ‘legitimate’ it conversations just because they’re may seem, and that holds for governments taking place in the street even more so than for regular people no, we need to preserve consideration Agreed. Those are all different cases if we want to live in groups

Existing laws have been crafted with No! the delicate balance between free No! Sharing a link to something as simple expression and legal speech in mind. as a video or a cute picture is nowhere These laws should be used to curb near the same category as telling someone abusive behaviour online, rather than to go kill themselves, or anything like creating a new system. These two issues that. And it’s insanity to think so do not fit under the same framework. No. Simply as the one is a public order issue Good grief. I wish there were more and the other a potentially commercial rules on hate speech (Fox and folks like one. Measures to combat hate are way Limbaugh) and community elsewhere. too draconian and were not designed for People share tons of information for the purpose of copyright protection free. Let them be. We are all enriched. Of course not. It’s human nature to I agree because hate speech and appropriate, share and enjoy cultural extremism has nothing to do with items such as images, music, food, sharing something online. It’s literature etc. In fact it a genuine antidote something else completely different to all kinds of unpleasant nationalistic I agree, because internet is a free and racist hatreds. Maybe creators community, and all that is shareable deserve some form of compensation should be freely shared. but our human world depends upon the sharing of these creative forces I agree. sharing content owned by others doesn’t hurt anyone, and should other then it does not have any thing to do NOT be governed by the same rules with extremism, hate speech, and abuse that we use to punish extremism, online. i guess they are trying to use them hate speech, and abuse online as a gateway to pass such laws. I don’t read online texts that push extremism, It is totally not the same thing hate speech, or abuse on anyone. I also don’t put my vote behind any system No sharing content should not that tries to censer. So NO NO NO to #Q5 fall into the same category as My message to all the GOVs out there is extremism, hate speech or abuse - the simple stay the FUCKING BLOODY HELL 258 EU Responses to Question 5

OUT OF THE INTERNET we will never let the Net should be available to be shared you control it, we grow weary of the old as long as credit is provided to the author fucked up ways of shills from the past. Yes, I agree Sharing content belonging to others to make money from it is a legitimate yes, I do concern, which should not be confused with free speech or abuses of free speech. As long as the shared content is LINKED to the original poster or Sharing content owned by others should CREDITED, it’s not illegal. be punished under copyright law when applicable, not under extremist or No, because sharing is an activity hate crime law. Let those laws apply to which spreads information. content deemed hateful or extremist. Content owned by others should not be Sharing is a positive action and it is at governed by the same rules for the other the heart of innovation and progress. crimes because even if there’s an economic Even in cases of abuse, it cannot be lost for rightsholders, there’s no damage compared and treated similarly to negative to people or society and even the loss actions like extremism and hatred. could be recovered if doing so in a smart way (Thinking how many people has SHOULD NOT BE GOVERNED EQUALLY started to buy Game of Thrones because of chapters they downloaded illegally) The same rules which punish extremism online should not apply to content owned I agree because these things by others. It is important to take action are not comparable. against hate speech and abusive actions, sharing content is not the same issue. Of course NOT. It would be a step towards thought control The Web is the Creative Commons, belonging to people, not corporations, using content put out into the public or govvernments controlled by domain, has always been shareable, corporations, rather than by people by listening to the radio, television, etc. Advertising pays for this many times These are completely different over!!! industry is greed and corrupt ppl things. Freedom of speech should be only continue to pad their bank accounts. generally granted to all people Crimes against human beings are one thing, crimes against inanimate objects Yes - simple sharing and extremist/ another and against corporations[which abusive content are usually two are NOT people!] is yet another completely different things Damage done by illegal copyright sharing Yes because sharing is not like publishing. is simply economical and often concerns huge media corporations which are quite Yes I agree that the rules should be able to defend themselves. But hate different. There is no comparison between speech/online abuse/harassment etc do sharing content and the other things their damage to individuals (often young listed in the question. I believe that each and inexperienced ones) who do not have blogger, video poster or photo posted on armies of lawyers at their beck and call EU Responses to Question 5 259

and who are much more easily duped - and Again, most definitely not. Extremism, hate who therefore need more protection. These speech and abuse are VERY different from two situations are extremely different. simply posting a video or a picture online (except if it’s a whole movie for example). I agree. Science, history and art should be shared because it’s a human heritage. Again, there is an ‘innocent until Negative feelings like extremism, hate proven guilty’ doctrine at play speech and abuse are not a human heritage but ignorance and it should Agree it needs individual review be ignored/censured because it’s in a cotextual fashion unconstructive. As simple as that. Agree, information should I believe that producing or sharing be freely available hateful speech should be treated alike regardless of platform. However, due to Agree. I need to be able to share ease of linking I think a carefully nuanced information from the net approach to online material needs to be Agreed, they should be treated taken so that critique of hate speech, for differently. It straddles the edge of example, is not held to be hate speech in culture and normal communication. itself or seen as promoting hate speech. People communicate, and this is simply please keep your legislation how it is done in a more modern way. off my life. thanks. ; Basic human rights still exist, even Sharing content owned/produced by on the internet. It’s the context that’s others benefits that owner/producer, important, not content. However good that is organic advertising at its core. Content keeps people coming back. Whereas hate speech, in all its forms Certainly not, this is against freedom no matter to whom is adressed, creates of speech & information the proper environment for everything that is bad in the world to develop. correct, sharing what someone else posted should be handled as a normal way users no..because sharing a song you like is interact online. This does not fall in the nothing like sharing a hate message same camp as anything that incites hate that could harm others. there is no and discontent, threatens the livelihood correlation between the two issues of anyone, or anything extremist. Sharing yes of course! content is part of what the internet is built on, it is a normal thing people do and Yes. Governments are constituted to have done since long before there was protect life and property of the people an internet. It is a human need to share. who put them in office not to help Corporations to reduce what is ours at disagree, sharing knowledge is not birth Do this in transparency for all to same as sharing explosives or pot of see otherwise governments will be left in soup or cup of sugar... knowledge is the dustbin or history.One thing history not perishable, can become obsolete has taught us and that is Governments but never perish. use of someone else have murdered more people than knowledge is actually leaning, i understand wars have. We are watching you. that creator of the content need to live 260 EU Responses to Question 5

and earn money, i think it should be Governments shouldn’t punish any then renumerated, but not penalised. comment on the internet, not even if it’s considered hate speech or abuse. What Don’t shoot the messenger. People have is considered hate speech in one country the right to look at the content or not is perfectly accepted in another. Again, locally bounded legislation cannot (and Existing laws have been crafted with the should not) try to solve these expressions delicate balance between free expression in a democracy. When using the internet and legal speech in mind. These laws you have a choice to read or not to read should be used to curb abusive behaviour these opinions, and this freedom should be online, rather than creating a new system.; protected, not it’s content. We’re not China.

Extremism is an abused word, it I agree because the focus should triggers the wrong switches and gives a be on the dangerous stuff, not the person full access to what he shouldn’t moneymaking bussinness want to know. In the EU we believe in innocent until proven, don’t let us I agree this is not the same, and doesn’t turn into a bloody police state. deserve same penalties. In order to evolve togehter we should be able to share Extremism, hate speech and abuse fall information and creations made by others. ; into one kind of debate about free speech: essentially one about the expression I agree, there’s a sharp line of opinions. The question of where the between violation on humans balance is drawn is contentious and varies and money related things across different countries and cultures. Copyright concerns are motivated by I agree, they are unrelated a completely debate: copyrights exist so that content creators can enjoy a I agree, we should not be seen as reasonable financial recompense for their such criminals as extremiste etc. creation. The debate constitutes when selective use of copyrighted content is i agree, yet i think that hate speech, fair: for example parody, or a critical extremism and abuse should not be review, or as a teaching aid. The balance removed without due process either, is between financial considerations and if someone abuses online or promotes free speech. This is a completely different hate speech, start a trial against them. question. Conflating the two issues would just blocking the website is madness, clearly tend to shift where the balance because it threatens the basic open is held to lie in favour of the copyright infrastructure of the internet. holder, for all the wrong reasons I agree; Extremism, hateful speech, abuse are I agree! Simply because most likely it will directed at persons and society, not not involve violence nor bodily harm corporations. Different rules should apply I agree. Blogs, videos & pictures are quite Fair use should not be governed by laws different from hate speech and other online written for extremism, hate speech and abuse & should be treated differently abuse, UNLESS they are violating one of those laws in a provable fashion. I agree. I think there should be EU Responses to Question 5 261

more attention for refferencing the I don’t think extremism and/or hate creator of the original content. speech should be abridged. however abhorrent I personally find it I believe I agree. Perhaps some mechanism in the absolute right to free speech. for protecting content should be Only stopping short of the right to yell offered to those who want it fire in a crowded movie theater

I agree. These are different issues, I fully agree. Because hate crime harms intent is very important. people. Sharing media does not. All that media sharing does is make the rights I am fully opposed to have free expression holder no money, which is what they resent. limited as it is proposed. Understanding To label something like that as strongly as some times free expression is abused, or a hate crime is downright preposterous does not have the same value in different cultures. Nevertheless, I prefer to cope I heartedly agree, on the grounds that with completely opposed opinions copyright remains distinctly in the civil myself. Free speech in Europe is different domain - tort law - whereby economic from Iran Or China as examples. damages are recovered, is the most appropriate for an economic loss. I believe not. Just as as we punish criminals Extremism, hate speech and abuse differently to different degrees for different online constitute criminal law for the crimes, the same applies here. Of course fact the damage they do isn’t explicitly or the Movie and Music industry wants exclusively economical - indeed, all three you to treat Copyright Infringement as if fall under a form of emotional abuse, someone was murdered, but that’s just which cannot be weighed on any set of not the case. Maybe they shouldn’t be scales to determine cost. How much does paying their artist 50 million a year, movie, it cost to help a woman frightened of her or album... Maybe their CEOs shouldn’t own shadow because the man that was be making 50 million or more a year. stalking her sent messages of harassment and threatening death? We may never I do not agree that sharing content owned know, because the traumatising event has by others (pictures, videos, and blogs) no basis in economics. Indeed, the man should NOT be governed by the same may have to be jailed for the protection of rules that we use to punish extremism, society from a potential physical threat. hate speech and abuse online because How much does it cost to recover a loss they are not the same thing. Sharing of 10 pirated CDs at £5 each? Well, we information for the benefit of society know it’s a loss of 50. It’s a calculable is not the same as harming others. loss. Emotional trauma doesn’t factor in, I do not like censorship of any kind and neither does it in copyright law. Did the pirate of the CDs threaten anyone? I don’t believe sharing content owned No. Is he a physical threat who needs by others should be governed by the to be isolated from society? No. So jail same rules that we use to punish is not appropriate - but a reasonable extremism, hate speech and online abuse. recovery of losses is. Should the pirate The two are are distinctly different. pay the £50? Absolutely. The two are Content that is deemed ok by current clearly distinct: both in their causes and law should be freely distributable. means, and also their outcomes. They should therefore remain distinct in law 262 EU Responses to Question 5

I’m against link tax and I want no just either done without truly thinking censoring links online because I’m for about it (and with no intent to harm freedom of speech, also online and it anyone) or because they are broke and should be available for everyone.; powerless with little recourse. It is not the action of a hardened criminal and If they share it, it is shared. period it hurts no one physically nor does it deny anyone else freedom or dignity. At If we want to consider our society as most it takes some of their money and at information and knowledge society, worst should be punished only for that. how can we freely share information with the risk of being punished with It should not. The latter hurts actual people rules that are meant for extremism? while the former, at absolute worst, can be compared to theft. It would be like If you use your freedom of speech by making theft equivalent to assault.The retweeting any hatemonger just to show only exception is the sharing of content the world what an idiot he/she is, you is equivalent to abuse, such as sharing should NOT be the one prosecuted for private photos to try and shame someone, that hate. A child can see that this is a but then it should already be counted as bizarre situation, an certainly NOT in abuse and as such already fall under the the best interest of european citizens!! existing laws. The only thing that might need adjusting is the definitions of abuse. info and news is so quick today.... people demand to see pics ect right Mostly, except as I said before - those now, so the rules have to be diff.. things that condone and encourage rape and animal mutilation, etc. it is a slippery slope to full control of all information no , we need access to info dissemination and free speech It is ridiculous to punish sharing content using those rules. No it should not. The sharing of information is at it’s core better for people and helps It should not then to learn and expand their horizons. It should not be governed by the same no Most are not harmful rules as those that govern hate speech. Simply put, people need to be able to No regulations. if somebody else has the freely discuss any topic with references. power to rule is the end of freedom. Therefore, I should be able to link to (say) the KKK website, provide pictures, No, it should be the same etc., and not face punishment for rules, hate is hate Etc doing so. I might simply be criticizing it, writing a parody piece, etc No. Because equating the two is an example of a simpleton, or an It should not be governed the same. While oligarch who thinks they have I don’t share media in that way, people the right to control our lives who do often don’t even understand that it is wrong. Many are young. But regardless, No. Because those are two different their intent is at worst comparable to things, one legal, one not legal. a shoplifter, but most often probably however, if there is an outcry about EU Responses to Question 5 263

content that is prejudicial to others, it dictatorship. This is just one incarnation is important to judge and make rules of that ambition, and it must be stopped.

Not at all. Intent and real harm Of course, yes. Extremism, hate, etc has to be taken into account. Also represent serious threats to people. the concept of proportionality Sharing content, even if stolen, is NOT serious. If very many do the same, it adds Not sure up to a serious effect on the company that owns the rights, but maybe that’s worth Of course not - extremism, hate speech considering. It’s ridiculous to blame single and abuse online is forbidden always individuals for the actions of millions. If and for everyone, no exceptions - on millions “steal”, maybe some definitions the other hand - licensed content is of the word “property” have changed. forbidden only for those, who don’t have Real ownership can be had over specific licence. ANd that is a really big difference! objects, like a specific house, a car, an Licensed content is not against law in original painting. If someone sees the principle, extremism, abuse, etc. is house, car or painting, likes it and makes a copy, the copy is not at all owned by Of course they should not: sharing the owner of the original. It’s completely content owned by others is an economic owned by the guy who made the copy. offense, often with no great financial Today, making a copy can be extremely damage to the rights holder. Intrusive easy. The copy can be indistinguishable legislation to prevent such practices is from the original. They’re digital. Thus the out of proportion. Abuse and inciting idea is the item. To protect an idea as if it hate is something entirely different. was a a physical item is a new idea. It is Of course they shouldn’t. The argument is similar to claiming that a word belongs always that it’s for the good of everyone to a company and anyone using the word because it’s the same laws used to counter has to pay. This industry must realize that hate, but guess what? If you want to it had a very short golden age when they counter hate, do it. Go after those people. could gather billions, but that age is gone Don’t disingenuously abuse people’s and will never return. Good riddance. morality to enforce totalitarian nonsense Of course! The intent and quality of these on their lives. We’re not naive. We know two very separate types of activities needs the gambit here. The gambit is to kill an to be reflected in the rules and laws internet that’s proving to be way too much of a nuisance to big business interests. Of course. The crime fitting the punishment We’ve only just entered the era where is an intergral part of any just legal system. the populace can wield the internet to protect their own interests, so it’s no Only if its like stalker behaviour or coincidence that legislatures everywhere bullying... Peoples lives can be ruind by are moving in to crack down on it. Gotta online sharing of sensative materials.. I protect the donors! Gotta protect big say that if u can proove ur in the picture U money!I’m not afraid of muslim refugees. have the right to decide what happens... I’m not afraid of Jihad. I’m not afraid of what the news is telling me to be afraid please protest the internet for of. I’m afraid of corporate America and yourself, the world and evenyone ! corporate Europe establishing an economic 264 EU Responses to Question 5

Property rights are private rights, the effect is quite negative and, at in stark contrast to the state’s times, detrimental for all involved regulation to public rights to safety Sharing copyrighted material is actually Q5 No, there are already laws in place promoting that material. Abusive messages to deal with extremism, hate speech and and bigotry are generally deemed online abuse. The rest of the internet illegal and should not be allowed should not be censored or governed by the same rules because that stifles freedom Should not be governed by the same rules of speech and freedom of information. as they are simply not the same content

Same rules: those enacted into law. should not...censorship carried too far!

Sharing content and links is harmless, The fact that questions like this have to even necessary in exchanging views be asked makes me so sad. It’s like people and ideas.On the other hand, name have gone completely mentally insane, all calling and hate speech may ought of us.why the hell would you govern two to be removable by the victim. very seperate things by the same laws?

Sharing content is an excellent way for The rules must be the same for sharing people to share news and get family and any content but it will take time to friends involved in current event issues develop a just and well-balanced enforcement of these rules. sharing content is NOT extremism, hate speech, or abuse! There are laws in place that deal with hate speech, extremism and online abuse. Sharing content isn’t the same as Content other then that should NOT be threathening, hate speech or abuse online. governed because that goes directly against the right to freedom of speech and Sharing content should be the right to share/impart information. allowed, except for profit There are obscenity and privacy laws Sharing content should definitely not abounding, these should be used be governed by the same rules as appropriately and sparingly. Content the other items. They are completely owned by others, for example pictures, different issues. Sharing content without videos and blogs should be in now permission should be subject to proof way lumped together with extremism, and subsequent takedown. If permission hate crimes and online abuse is granted by a creator of content, that should take precedence over any There is a difference between people intermediate “copyright” holder security and copyright infringment. Lts not mix these together Sharing content should NOT be punished in the same manner as, say, extremism. There is no such thing as bad publicity,and Why? For the same reason we don’t we hear licensed songs on the radio all punish a shoplifter in the same manner as day long and see expensive cars yet that is one that murders another human being. no copyright infringement.. Logical Guys! Excessive and oppressive punishments never have positive results. Historically There should be separate systems and EU Responses to Question 5 265

rules for different kinds of content. laws have been crafted with the delicate balance between free expression and they should not be. they are seprate issues legal speech in mind. These laws should be used to thwart abusive behaviour This is an overly emotive question and online, rather than creating a new so I’m not going to answer it. I find it system. When copyrighted material is annoying when organisations like yours illegally shared the harm is usually an do this as it invalidates and undermines economic and business one. However, the rational and necessary work that you extreme and abusive messages have a do. It makes me not want to take part in lifelong emotional and mental impact, on your surveys. I hope you’re reading all individuals and society. These two issues the responses before you send them. do not fit under the same framework

This is just commercial risk to a product, yes because its not that at all its just it should not be punishable by law. part of being a world wide community In case of illegal commercial use and if the authors don’t want that it is the opposition van do a civil suit. pretty simple - don’t put it on the internet, that’s always been the way & it works This is quite a leading question, to which any sane person will say no.However, if Yes I agree, because it’s pathetic as existing we want people to be able to substantiate laws are sufficient. Free expression and claims, links are the tool. Imagine freedom of speech are universal human Wikipedia without corroborating links... rights and retrictive laws such as being proposed take these rights away. ; To punish is okay, but on a lower level as extremism and so on. Yes I do.

Unfair; Yes I fully agree with this.

Well, I believe we should punish people yes Knowledge should be shared, sharing those kind of things, yes. But hate messages are something you isn’t that why we have laws for? should decide whether you accept it, it depends on your criteria While copyright infringement is wrong, it should not be considered the same as yes- freedom is not the same as hate speech and online abuse. They should extremism & hate speech not be governed by the same rules. Hate speech and online abuse is much worse, so Yes, absolutely.why? If you don’t know the the rules should reflect the infringement. answer to that, then why are you here..?

Why would you consider removing Yes, because it’s only fair! the already effective rules that punish extremism, hate speech, and abuse Yes, because property crime is very online? The sharing of such material is different from violent crime. For wrong. Even creating a new system is example, it neglects the big difference fraught with peril. Lawmakers have a between stealing and pirating. If you key role in making our digital sphere a steal something, it’s gone. If you pirate safe space where individuals can be free something, it’s still there, you just from abuse and harassment. The existing made a copy for yourself. The use of 266 EU Responses to Question 5

others of the thing you are pirating is Powers That Be, it is legislation like this. not impaired in any way, so this is NOT violent crime (like hate speech, abuse, Yes, it involves a totally etc.) and should not be governed by different set of ethics. the laws against violent crimes. YES, it should NOT be governed by the Yes, because sharing information is vital same “rules.” The INTERNET is OPEN for to building new ideas and not a crime the sole purpose to protect TRUE freedom of speech and the TRUE free flow of yes, because the internet is and has to free information and as the ONLY TRUE be a free communication system. legitimate measure still open to continue to prevent naysayers from utilizing methods Yes, because what is published on the of CENSORSHIP to “protect” us from the internet is part of the common and “truth” while they use the cloak of the whoever publishes it tacitly agrees to this so-called “democracy” they profess to encourage and uphold/stand for while Yes, I agree. Because extremism systematically dismantling it from within and hate speeches are really treatening the freedom of life!! Yes. “Sharing content” is citizen journalism and must be protected Yes, I agree. Because hate speeches, glorify extremism etc. are awful crimes Yes. Comparing the sharing of content that should be stopped inmediately. These to extremism is like comparing a are acts of terror to destroy Europe and misdemeanor to a felony. Only an the whole world, but telling the truth idiot would think the two should be about IS and islamisation is necessity punished in the same manner number 1 today. We have to know what is going on in the world. I just fear that Yes. Hate speech and abuse deserve to we are to late because we have very be removed ASAP. However, I often try very coward governments in Europe! to kick some views to pictures, videos, and blogs via link rather than copying Yes, I agree. Sharing pictures is not such directly. In all seriousness, if I extremism, hate speech or abuse. What’s have to pay for links to sites or content next, punishment for sharing a meal? produced by others, I’m going to stop making links altogether and just copy/ Yes, I do, because if not the freedom of paste, denying the source some views speech and expression is in great danger. and possibly fans/followers/customers

Yes, I do. The reason for implementing the Yes. I agree because they are same rules is that the same medium (the two different things internet) is concerned. Therefore, insitutions with financial interests, and those who Yes. It’s ridiculous to compare this who have an insatiable urge for power and to hate speech and abuse absolute control, will benefit from this, in ways simple users cannot imagine, and Yes. Sharing content owned by others which have little or nothing to do with the is to pay a tribute to these others, to alledged goals. It is another step towards the creators of the content, not a crime the annihilation of privacy, resulting in total is it? The European Union is becoming control. If anything destroys any trust in the more and more a dictatorship... EU Responses to Question 5 267

Nothing I want to live for! Too much get’s put under the extremist bannder these days Yes. There are very different things. Pathetic, there are no links

Yes. These two categories of illegal content Why is this a question? Are decisions like are vastly different from and orthogonal these what our tax money pays for? The to one another, and should never be put punishment for piracy is the US is already together under a uniting framework. absurd beyond the point of argument. No, Copyright infringement is nowhere near content sharing under no circumstances as impactful as hate speech or abuse, should be governed by the same laws as and arguably consists of more gray area. hate speech, abuse and extremism online. Indeed, the two require such different It’s not the same crime, not the same approach (and reproach) that joining scope. One may say that it’s damaging in the two would prove a grave mistake terms of profits but the reality is if your and, again, a disservice to the users. content eg. pictures, music, videos are worth the money, and the experience your Different framework audience will pay for it. To support you, and because they want to see more content. Different rules and solutions should In am emerging age of convenience and apply to different problems accessibility, companies must adapt to Eventual damage to property is not changing customer needs if they want to equivalent to damage to people. remain in business. It seems a lot of large The former can be remedied, the brands are still in denial about that, namely latter must be prevented the music and movie industry. If you can not provide content that people WANT to pay Free speech should be total for anything for, then it is you who should change. This other than extremism or hate speech.; is a basic concept in social media. Sharing. Posting, making a discussion. If we can not I agree. Sharing should follow the rules post a copyrighted image online then that of free speech. Only copyrighted content is a violation of the human rights. Freedom should be subject to takedown notices of speech. Get off your high horses and reevaluate your ideas about the internet. I do not agree with governing sharing Political action is not the way to change it of content owned by others with the same rules as extremism, hate speech, yes it’s not commercial. and abuse. Extremism, hate speech, and abuse are significantly more serious Copyright infringement is a grey area issues, sharing of content owned by which doesn’t generally harm other people, others does need rules and punishment other than economically, perhaps in some but it should not be the same ones. cases. Extreme hate and abuse online is a serious human rights violation, and No, sharing content online should should be treated much more seriously NOT be governed by the same rules that are used to punish extremism, Definitely not by the same rules as it would hate speech, and abuse online. These shutdown debate, knowledge, and joy! rules are too harsh and too extreme to apply for the sharing of content. depends - if using to promote extremism, etc - then punish 268 EU Responses to Question 5

Existing laws have been crafted with the not the messenger delicate balance between free expression and legal speech in mind. These laws No I do not agree. There are should be used to curb abusive behaviour already existing laws in place online, rather than creating a new system that are more than adequate generally, the use of content is No it’s private, not for publication a civil matter, not a criminal one and should be treated as such No, these are two entirely different problems. Regulating the sharing of Hate speech is a criminal matter, and content needs an open and honest should be dealt with by the courts, and discussion, taking into account the reality not conflated with copyright issues. of a large part of the population and how Conversely, the US “DMCA” experience they think they should be able to use shows it is a present risk to free expression. the internet, and share content online The mere assertion of copyright can be used to legally prohibit opinions and No. We will have situations like on commercial products such as garage Thailand, that a user has been arrested for door openers, by an unpunished fraud placing a “like” on a photo and sharing it. upon the courts. It would be substantially Not at all. Sharing is part of the human worse to lump copyright problems nature and is an inherently social with hate speech and extremism. behaviour, while extremism, hate speech I agree that economic and business and abuse are anti-social behaviours. issues are completely different from hate, Not the same rules, copyright and abuse or extremist web sites. Laws for ownership of content cannot be compared the latter could perhaps be strengthened to hate speech and abuse, and should and applied under a new framework. The be covered by free speech, therefore business issues are already covered under not governed by the same rules existing copyright laws and, if anything, should be moderated somewhat Of course, not being able to share would hurt non-profits, the I agree. Hate speech hurts people & has a music industry and others lasting impact on people. Illegally shared copyrighted material only affects business Of course. The later have direct income. The two issues are different and victims. The first does not. It is a shouldn’t be governed by the same system false equivalence. No heath or life is threatened if you share content. It should NOT be an issue to share pictures, videos and blogs since they have already Sharing content owned by others (pictures, been put on the public internet for the rest videos, and blogs) should NOT be governed of us to see or watch or read. Extremism, by the same rules that we use to punish hate speech and abuse are not even in extremism, hate speech, and abuse online. the same category as the others, not Because sharers of such content are related at all, so all of these things should causing no direct or indirect harm to other NOT be governed by the same rules. human beings. The only “harmed” party is alleged or projected profit. Profit should No - attack the source instead, not receive the same legal protection EU Responses to Question 5 269

as people. It is morally wrong and unfair rules that we use to punish extremism, and it doesn’t reflect social consent. hate speech, and abuse online

Sharing is the opposite of violence.Sharing They should not be treated the is the Human spirit at its best, when it’s not same. Self expression is a normal alone.Sharing is our History and the story of part of the human experience our survival and growth, it is the opposite of abuse, hate, extremism, violence. Two separate problems, two separate answers. Copyright infringement is The same concerns we have when economic and can be governed by writing in our own words have to apply existing laws. Extremism, abuse etc when we share others’ ideas and works. needs a different set of rules and But they are not the same thing. regulations and punishments

The sharing of content ie: pictures, Yes because there’s too much videos, blogs and such is in actuality room for misinterpretation! a form of word of mouth advertising. Extremism, hate speech and abuse Yes I agree. We´re dealing with different are not even close to similar. It really issues and contents and like in whole is time you idiots in government grew things, balance and common sense up and paid attention to reality. must prevail. The goal is always punish or get people´s money. I don´t defend a There is a massive difference between society without rules, but one where rules hate speech and extremism and sharing apply to anyone in the same manner content owned by others. These two matters should be dealt with separately. Yes, because otherwise it Listening to a song on sound cloud would be censorship. should not be in the same category as online abuse. It’s not rocket science Yes, I do. Because these two issues do not fit under the same framework.; These definitely are in different leagues. Extremism etc has a very negative and Yes, sharing content that has been in the limiting impact on others causing fear public forum and is innocuous should be and more hate. Sharing content and treated in a far different way than hate potentially sharing copyrighted content speech and abuse. There is a need to make is about sharing creative products, anonymity less easy for people who are which at worst will have a commercial depraved and disturbed as they pose a real impact and at best will have positive threat to the innocent majority of people effect. Limiting this sharing by proactive Yes, we should not change our way of monitoring or other measures might life just because there is a risk. Sharing, also lessen the positive effects. bloging, etc is a right os fredom of spech.; These issues do not fit under the same Yes! When I’m sharing a silly video framework. You need a different set of clip with cats, I shouldn’t worry if the rules for such different circumstances. music used in it is legal. On the other Sharing content owned by others hand if I was harassing someone (truly (pictures, videos, and blogs) should harassing them, not just disagreeing definitely NOT be governed by the same with them), then I should be punished 270 EU Responses to Question 5

yes. Liberty. and copyright trolls and implement fair and forward looking copyright laws Yes. The mental and emotional damage suffered by victims (who are PEOPLE) of I agree. They are two different things hate speech and the like cannot fairly be compared to the largely financial I don’t believe it is the same issue damage caused to CORPORATIONS by illegal sharing of copyright material I’m not sure that I understand the and the like. The same rules ought not question. Indeed there is a difference to be applied to both these cases between this 2 kind of penalties but I’m not sure that we have to create now Yes. The same rules should apply another organization just for that. to any information, but freedom of linking shall prevail.; no it’s free speech absolutely. libraries should burn and No they should not. The rules used to librarians should be decapitated. o really govern hateful and intentionally damaging ?google should absolutely burn since and cruel behavior should be much more they share content used by all. what severe. That said, no one should profit quarter brain puked these ideas ? from selling someone else’s content unless they are paying the original content Copyright infringement could be viewed as owner, and have come to an agreement stealing from someone, while extremism, with them. But sharing is nice. We are hate speech or online abuse is harming taught to share...we probably shouldn’t someone. We don’t have the same rules criminalize it and still have the audacity for stealing as we do for violence. to call ourselves a decent society

Existing laws have been crafter with No, because it’s obviously the delicate balance between free not the same thing expression and legal speech in mind. These laws should be used to curb abusive Yes, I agree. However, if a picture or other behaviour online. There is no need for a content is posted on FB, for example, no new system. Illegally shared copyrighted one should be able to take that content material, and extreme and abusive out of FB! Otherwise, big penalties messages, are very different issues and Yes, sharing content should not be don’t fit under the same framework subject to those rules unless it contains I agree. These are benign and often examples of extremism, hate speech unintended crimes, even sharing copyright and abuse. Surely this would act as a protected material is often of positive trojan horse to punish those who share effect for the copyright holder due to content deemed as ‘inappropriate’ by exposure and also if they can get ad some (who?) disproportionately. profits etc. (For instance Awolnation - Yes, this is common sense. Why is this Sail, Nanalew version has 183 million even a question? It just shows how views, official Red Bull Records version ridiculous things have become!!! 22,5 million. All profits still go to Red Bull Records, although she tried to get Yes! These things are not even remotely compensation). Stop bowing to corporatism close or connected in any way. EU Responses to Question 5 271

Yes. Because one is sharing of creative on a bar, i don’t see any. At most, the works. Extremism, hate speech and guy could have viewed a show he didn’t online abuse will never be acceptable. have the right to view, so pay a fee, or something like that. If it’s for the act of I agree. Because the art creativity of sharing something, he isn’t at fault if others encourage our own art creativity. someone downloads a show that he isn’t Together we create better, nicer world :) entitled to view. With that way of thinking, we should sue the car makers because of Yes, i agree. all the traffic accidents involving cars.

Yes. The copyright laws need to be Yes these 2 issues do not belong in the completely revamps to ONLY protect same category of crime. The existing the original artist or company. These laws are sufficient and working well rights should NOT be transferred or anyone or any company. Yes. As long as it’s not extremism, abusive or hate speech, it should not Absolutely. I know of many who download be treated as such. To treat anything a movie (for example) in order to see for outside of it as such would cause themselves whether or not the movie is people to be afraid to share anything actually worth buying. If they find a movie that they love they always end up buying Absolutely not. Sharing content is a positive it. If this was not available, they would action, whereas all of the others are never consider seeing or buying the flick. negative. I don’t think laws will solve the Hollywood doesn’t exactly tell the truth supposed problem. I think that we need when rating a new movie. On the other to remake the system so that all content hand, someone mass copying movies creators can earn a good living and so and selling them should be in prison. that providers that don’t really support creators are shunned. I think bad providers I agree that sharing content should not are a much bigger issue than individuals. be governed by the same rules used I use free open-source software but I to punish extremism, hate speech, and also make a donation to the developers abuse. That would be going too far, of the software because I believe that would be too harsh, too extreme and their project is worth supporting. totalitarian. There should be no Internet censorship in the name of extra profit Absolutely. Treating terrorism and file-sharing with the same standards Regulation on the internet is would be madness in real life, why fruitless and pointless. Once on the would the web be any different? internet, always on the internet Alleged use of copyrighted material They’re totally different activities. Even and allegedly abusive content should more, the standard broadcast TV is an be treated differently. In both cases outdated content delivery system. Even balancing private and public rights, if you have cable, it’s just much more and supporting a lively internet. convenient to download the TV shows and viewing them when you have the Because is not the same. time, than when the broadcast company wanted to broadcast it. If that has some Copyright is not a right, but a privilege. similarity to someone putting a bomb It is a temporary monopoly to exploit 272 EU Responses to Question 5

public property. Private monopolies the freedom to engage in “hate speech” are abhorrent and should be ruled by and “extremism” (whatever that means), civil law, never the criminal code and of course the freedom to link and share content. If people are really unhappy don’t know that their content is being used, then they should ask that it be taken down. The Economic effects and psychological only speech that should be regulated effects should not be considered as by the law is: advertising content for the same things. Sharing content that truthfulness, legitimate and believable we do not own, such as a picture for threats against someone, and criminal which we did not pay, creates economic activity. The rest should be free, and that harm. Sharing content that generates includes speech which is: unpopular, harassment or hatred or abuse produces politically incorrect, “extremist”, “hate”, psychological and emotional distress “offensive”, “derogatory”, and which on individuals or group of individuals. irritates the powerful. As the expression It has to be punished more harshly and goes: “It is not popular speech that needs more efficiently. These two issues cannot to be protected, but unpopular speech.” be ruled by the same framework I believe sharing content should be Everyone has a right to freedom governed by a different set of rules. Mainly of expression. Censorship is that if by sharing said content, more typical of dictators.; exposure is given, and proper attribution is done, it is quite different than hate speech, Free speech is not hate speech. abuse, etc. YouTube already does monitor Everyone should have the right for music used, although I used a song to share whatever they want. I had licensed and it got flagged. It was I agree that separate rules should exist cleared up fast enough but errors are made for sharing content as opposed to criminal I do agree. Why? Because they acts of terrorism and hate crime ... this are not the same in any way is a NO BRAINER and only the greedy corporate mentality could think otherwise I don’t know what to answer for this question I agree, because we have the right to share and collaborate online, and no I feel anything put out on the web by an one has the right to censor these rights individual is public property at that point

I agree. The free of speech is indeed If sharing is with the intent to increase a delicate topic, nevertheless, sharing awareness or knowledge then this should ideas/pictures/etc made by others, not be treated in the same way as those should be possible as long as it isn’t hate posting woth the intent to incite hatred or speech or any form of abuse towards encourage extremism. This could easily be others. Also, as long as the reference weighed up by a court in the cases where to the original source is mentioned. punishment might be deemed suitable.

I agree. This is a matter of the fundamental It shouldn’t. Obvious reasons human right to freedom of expression Legislators have a key role in making I believe in freedom of speech, including our digital sphere a safe space where EU Responses to Question 5 273

individuals can be free from abuse and but things like property rights just must harassment. Existing laws have been be protected secondarily to the rights of crafted with the delicate balance between people, like information, communication, free expression and legal speech in mind. freedom of expression, education...; These laws should be used to curb abusive behaviour online, rather than creating a People should be allowed to new system. When copyrighted material share as long as there are no is illegally shared the harm is usually an infringements of human rights economic and business one. However, extreme and abusive messages have a sharing a picture is not abuse... the lifelong emotional and mental impact, on people who are wanting all this are just individuals and society. These two issues money grabbing tyrants and control do not fit under the same framework. freaks - I remember the internet when it was a free communal space where we Most cases of content sharing bring all shared with one another.... Now it’s a positive effect to the content like a strip mall with no free parking creator, except in cases of plagiarism. Punishing sharing could have a marked Sharing content in a community negative effect on the creative aspects is quite distinct from hate speech of the web and therefore should and incitement to violent acts and not be considered an option. should be treated differently no because it is not the same thing at all Sharing content is not the same as extremism, hate speech, and abuse. No it should not. These issues are Pointing to online resources by links is different - one is economic in nature and not a theft of intellectual property the other one personal (emotional) Sharing content that way is like “citing” No, because culture should be what other people say. I should be shared, and everyone should be able to cite other people to be able able to see what we want to critize it. If a newspaper publish a photo that I think is modified, I should No, the later represents a be able to show it to better critize it. violent and harmful intent. The answer is directly related to the No.Because people have the right contents nature and purpose, the to express their feelings problem is that the parameters to qualify free speech as extremism and Of course not! They are very different hate are becoming rather blurred problems, one is merely economic, the other is much more severe. The damage and extent of those crimes is completely different. People Of course not. For the same reason will loose all respect for the law. we distinguish between violent crimes and misdemeanors! The fact that hackers expose corruption and the disgraceful behaviour of those in Of course they should not be governed by power should be lauded not criminalised. the same rules. Because we must protect ALL whistleblowers should be given people and their rights in the first place, protection from those who would use their 274 EU Responses to Question 5

positions to subjugate all those whose that in a society with truely free speech, opinions they just don’t happen to like. the people also have the right to be wrong, In fact, I don’t want those people who and theredor also have the right to express, consider themselves better than me sharing for example hate and extremismen. We the same bandwidth as me. Get them off!!!!! can not have free speech and regulations on it, at the same time. But we can The punishment should fit the crime! decide in which direction it should lean Also, the “damage” done by such sharing should be proven before Yes, we just copy, we don’t steal any punishment is applied. Yes. Sharing and collaboration is we are not making money by the key for the new economy and sharing so let us share knowledge based society

We should never put them in the same Yes. Totally different. basket. Extremism, hate speech and abuse online is against an individual person. Your taking away their freedom of (usually). Whereas sharing someones expression, sharing a song should be judged elses pics, vids or blogs is not against the same as extremism and hate speech their character, it hurts their pockets (finance) not their feelings (as such). Youre just sharing something... you put it out on the internet to be seen ... Yes “why or why not” stupid question we shouldnt get introuble for sharing something someone wanted to be noticed... Yes I agree but there should be some limits to the sharing of original material Absolutely not, there is a huge difference (this is not easy technically). On the other between sharing content and other hand we need to be VERY careful to put crimes, just because copyright holders are censorship in the Internet under the label powerful organizations with fat wallets of hate speed or things like that. Only VERY cannot mean their rights are above others clear negative content (like instructions on how to build a bomb) should be Because that rule infringes excluded, always with a court of law freedom of speech and privacy participation and with full transparency Content sharing should not be punished, (for example creating a public page where assuming credit is given to source, a list of excluded pages is included) and there is not theft of material for Yes, because ownership of content commercial gain. The Web should be does not meet the strict criteria dedicated, as the National Geographic to the listed exceptions to the used to say, to the “increase and right to freedom of speech diffusion of knowledge”, and therefore not hampered or shackled in any way Yes, I agree. The consequenzes of sharing content are not a form of extremismen. Different crimes, different laws. It is But i also have to point out that solid even an offence to consider these things “free speech” society has to accept that to have the same level of damage free speech can also be abused and that extremism, hatered and abuse is entirely independent people have the duty to bear different to sharing links and content - and opinions, which they don’t agree on. And EU Responses to Question 5 275

therefore require different treatment I agree. Shared content is merely a pointer/reference to the original media Freedom of speech should be a guiding and the original link creator is thereby principle for the net. Extremism must be governed to follow copyright. that “extreme”, I may hate Nazis and should be able to say so and share the same with I agree. These are completely different my friends. In terms of hate speech, I should crimes under very different legislations, not be able to promote doing harm to and they should remain separated. For Nazis, Jews, Blacks, Arabs, Native People, those interested in extremism there will Developmentally Delayed, Feminists .... . always be uncensored platforms where What is defined as abusive on line should they can be free to express anything, call be bounded by themes of injustice, threat, it Darknets or whatever. Relations of this maltreatment, before being considered are futile, and will only push these people punishable. For example there is a big even further out in the darkness where difference between saying to a suicidal it’s even harder to set them straight. See person “that is your right” (may be the state of illegal drugs for reference. It’s insensitive but not abusive), and saying “You completely absurd that people sharing should not use more oxygen, just do it!” content should be viewed the same way. Both attempts to regulate these two Honestly, I don’t know where to start very different things are for nothing, but extremism, hate speech, and abuse even more so for those sharing legal online are dangerouse to people. content. It’s a huge waste of resources The other bit serves merely to which generates close to no results. defend outdated buisnissmodels I believe that the sharing of content I agree because we need to be honest should not be looked at in a similar way on what is proper social behavior to how extremism and hate is monitored. It could be misused and misinterpreted, I agree that sharing content should be which would lead to a situation where a right for all mankind. It’s developing free speech would no longer exist. the sociaty forward. It’s not the same as extremism, hate speech and abuse I do not agree with the idea that online. Let the law deal with it. harsh punishment is the way to go. It’s easy to see that piracy of content is I agree with the above statement. reduced when easily accessible legal They are completely different means are provided. In my mind the focus should be on competing with I agree, because casting the net too piracy rather than combating it widely only hurts democracy while doing nothing to control illegal content I don’t really know enough to form a good opinion on that I’m afraid! I agree. Copyright infringements should not be treated equally to I don’t think it should be governed by criminal things like extremism the same rules as those things,at all. If someone puts it on the internet and doesn’t I agree. It is two quite different things. fix it to not be shared or say it can’t be- I agree. It limits our freedom then it’s open. But if they do say it can’t of speech on internet. be shared-then yes,something should be 276 EU Responses to Question 5

done about it. But just sharing is not the proportion and trivialize the genuine same thing as extremism,hate speech or crimes that hurt PEOPLE rather than the abuse,unless, that is what’s being shared potential profits of big corporations

It is absolutely preposterous to think of No. Content shared in order to facilitate taxing links on web platforms. First of all, the commission of a crime should be web platform is a terrible terrible term, governed in the same way that any much to broad and frankly doesn’t mean other accomplice to a crime is. anything. Secondly, generating previews of content can easily be generated, and No. They address 2 different issues often is, on the end user’s computer. You have to realise that computers not unless parameters are don’t lend themselves to legislature applied VERY VERY carefully founded in the century before the last Sad this question has to be asked... one. We are past that. The winning strategy now is to embrace this fantastic Sharing content owned by third parties new technology and move forward. is already governed by different rules in some places (e.g. private copying of It should be governed by the same rules copyrighted content to people you know It should not, because its silly. more then fleetingly is allowed in some places). Copyright should not be used as a Legislators have a key role in making tool of general censorship or as a method our digital sphere a safe space where of maximizing profit - but as a tool to individuals can be free from abuse encourage creation and enrich the public. and harassment. Think Iran and China Much of what today is considered infringing here. Existing laws have been crafted neither harms nor robs the author of with the delicate balance between free anything and to relentlessly enforce a strict expression and legal speech in mind. copyright regime on everything would These laws should be used to curb abusive only serve to make the world poorer. behaviour online, rather than creating a new system. When copyrighted material Sharing is not the same as stealing, no is illegally shared the harm is usually an matter how much the media industry economic and business one. However, wants us to believe it, and even if it were, extreme and abusive messages have a petty theft is nowhere near as bad as e.g. lifelong emotional and mental impact, on terrorism.There needs to be different set individuals and society. These two issues of rules for benign everyday activities do not fit under the same framework. performed by ordinary people and malign use of information technology No, because those two things by extremists, haters and perverts. are completely different and has no relation at all! Should not

No, it should not. Simply reposting what should NOT be governed by same someone else has said or done is not the rules. Sharing content is at the most, same thing as doing it yourself. Judge theft. Extremism, hate speech, & abuse each case by a case-by-case basis. can lead to bodily harm or murder

No, it would be completely out of The sharing of content MIGHT, arguably, EU Responses to Question 5 277

have an economic cost to the content Yes, because sharing content is simply “owners” but the potential damage a copyright issue and should only pales in comparison to that of REAL be subject to the copyright laws. criminal activity - including the dissemination of extremist views and Yes, I agree that sharing content owned hate toward identified groups on-line by others (pictures, videos, and blogs) should NOT be governed by the same The two should definitely be governed by rules that we use to punish extremism, different rules. The simple reason being hate speech, and abuse online. that sharing content in the vast majority of cases has no malicious intent. It is simply Yes, if the sharing is nonprofit the act of one human being sharing an experience with another. In the case of Yes! If someone sells heroine or tobacco hate speech, there is a clear, provable ill (or smuggled tobacco), should they intent that needs to be curbed. As such, the be governed by the same rules? two cannot be compared to each other yes. hate crime can kill. showing There has always been a delicate balance examples of literature, art, or other required between allowing free speech non offensive media which doesn’t and curbing criminal or abusive or ‘hate’ harm others shouldn’t be a crime behaviour. However copyright regulation Yes. They are two completely and maintaining this balance between different issues free speech and abusive behaviour should not be treated the same way - a different ...too simplistic... lacks intelligence....! framework is required for the economic/ business regulation of copyright than that •Legislators have a key role in making for the regulation of political messages our digital sphere a safe space where individuals can be free from abuse and There must be differentiation in the harassment.•Our laws have been crafted law to address both situations with the delicate balance between free expression and legal speech in mind. When we, the technology, and the These laws should be used to curb world around us evolves, we need to abusive behaviour online, rather than make sure the rules do to. Preferably creating a new system.•When copyrighted by people who understands what material is shared the harm is usually an they vote on, sadly enough this proves economic and business one. However, we need to show them how extreme and abusive messages have a Yes I agree because they are different lifelong emotional and mental impact, on activities with different consequences individuals and society.•These two issues do not fit under the same framework. Yes I agree, because they are not similar issues 1 No2 These are adequately covered by current rules on copyright etc. Yes sharing ideas that are not intending to insight crime is a whole different category 1. I agree that information of all types than hate speech and abuse. Blanket should be able to exchanged freely rules are based on the inability to think. with others. 2. The sort of views that should be governed differently are 278 EU Responses to Question 5

those that contains:- extremism, hate, Absolutely NOT! abuse and intolerance or try to incite others to violence or mutilation. These Absolutely not. All you’re doing is sharing type of actions should be treated with something free someone else has made. immediate removal of the content Even if what you are sharing IS extremist, and the offenders possibly caught hateful or abusive, you aren’t the one who and punished in a judicial manner made it. The only time I think something should be done with sharing content is in 1. Sharing of content on the internet the case of reposting an artist’s art without should continue to be free and open.2. their permission, because you’re gaining Abuse and violence speech on the attention using someone else’s hard work. internet should be subject to the same And you did nothing for it. But I don’t think laws as apply in other areas of society. such a thing should be bothered with unless the artist specifically asks to have A clear distinction needs to be drawn something done, like have it taken down between *promoting* hate and abuse, and give the reposter a slap on the wrist versus *highlighting or commenting on* such behaviour. To criticise abuse Absolutely not. It’s just sharing on the web, it is natural to link to the of knowledge and/or promotion material one is criticising. This cannot, of other material. in itself or in isolation, be taken to imply endorsement. Further, the content of Absolutely not. The use of such regulation a link can change, so those linking is completely disproportionate and to material cannot be assumed to allows authorities, governments be aware of the current content. etc far too much power. This only leads to repression of truth. Absolutely Absolutely not. These are not Absolutely agree that normal content- the same activities and are not sharing should not be governed by the even remotely related. same rules applied to criminal acts Absolutely not. These crimes, when Absolutely agree, the Internet should actual crimes have even been committed, allow people to communicate and are orders of magnitude apart. share things across the world. Absolutely yes Absolutely agree. In a free and democratic society, stopping the reasonable and Absolutely. It is absurd to criminalise fair sharing of content will stifle debate people simply for fostering interest and the open exchange of ideas. and curiosity in others and helping to spread information which improves Absolutely disproportionate people’s awareness and understanding and surely improves the quality of Absolutely no. This will lead to punishing our experiences and knowledge. innocent owners in any way the rulers wish and restricting and oppressing Absolutely. The reason is obvious the freedom of expression. to anyone with a modicum of intelligence and/or common sense Absolutely not EU Responses to Question 5 279

Absolutely.Existing laws have been crafted agree, they 2 completely different things with the delicate balance between free expression and legal speech in mind. Agree. Different issues altogether. These laws should be used to curb abusive The latter is obvious criminal activity. behaviour online, rather than creating a Most people are not criminals new system. When copyrighted material is illegally shared the harm is usually an Agree. Freedom of speech within economic and business one. However, the law should not be censored extreme and abusive messages have a Agree. Sharing content owned by lifelong emotional and mental impact, on others should be covered by existing individuals and society. These two issues copyright, and breach of, laws.Laws do not fit under the same framework. to punish extremism, hate speech Again, sharing content should certainly etc are also much to heavy and not come under laws designed to liable to censorship. Free Speech! punish or prevent abuse. The two are Agree. Sharing is not creating,information very different things. Hate speech should be freely accessible to all. and abuse do far more harm than any Censorship should only be allowed AFTER copyright infringement ever can. a crime has been proven in court Again, two questions. You forgot the agreed, although any of that material question mark at the end of the first becomes public the rules used for sentence. I don’t understand the full extremism hate speech etc may apply ramifications here. Your point sounds ( still a dangerous precedent) good, but is it really that easy to segregate the issues into black and white. I’m agreed. protection of free speech. just asking. I don’t know the answer. Agreed. Simple sharing of content, Agree it should not as there is risk for particularly that freely available, or misuse of interpretation of the rules. available under Creative Commons With that said it is difficult to answer this licence should have no penalty at without reading the rules in question. law. Other material should only be shared with the permission of the Agree it should not be governed by those copyright owner, but doing so without rules. Most of it is harmless, people permission should only result in a civil enjoying communicating, and no-one complaint not a criminial charge. is making a profit or taking earnings from creators. In fact such activity Agreed. The web should remain probably publishes them further afield. free. Publishing content should Attribution should be respected, though automatically make it for public use.

Agree, these are two different levels Agreed. They are very different, thus of content. Hate content, animal and it’s appropriate to treat differently. human abuse, pornography must be Again, if “unfairness” is being done then punished. Sharing content may consist those cases should be decided by a of differing levels-- with permission, well constituted arbitration process. with citations, with reference, or with none. One size all doesn’t fit Another tricky one... Sharing a link is very 280 EU Responses to Question 5

different from copying. If I share a link to that existing rules to punish extremism, a blog, people can click that link and go hate speech, and abuse online are fair, to the actual blog, and all credits for the adequate or contravene free speach. blog will go to the blogger. If I create my own blog and just copy the posts from As long as the content does not contain some other blog, that’s clearly a bad thing. abuse, hate speech or other negative However, sharing a link directly to a photo content then it should be shared freely. will create traffic to a webserver without the owner really having a way to get money as long as the content shared for it. But again, if the photo is signed, it acknowledges the source and it will raise awarness that the creator exists, isn’t claimed as a person’s own then which in turn makes it more likely that the comparing that to extremism, hate creator can make money on their work in speech and abuse is outraegous. the future. Sharing a picture and actively As society becomes educated in the use of encouraging people to harass or kill other free speech users of the WWW will become people are two very different beasts, and aware of how to or how not to conduct should be treated as such. It should not themselves. Many profit making companies be punished even remotely similarly are exploiting the Net and the public Any content displayed on the web through skewed advertising and exploiting should show source and the level of individuals especially on charitable matters freedom to re-circulate that content where fortunes are made and most of the money collected is unaccountable. Surely Any problems of shared content owned it must be better to allow the WWW to by others are dealt with by civil law. develop and evolve in a natural way Extremism, hate and abuse are dealt with by criminal law. There is no need Awful question but if you share hate speech to change this system for the Internet. etc it is the same as using it. isnt it?

As long as a user’s content doesn’t infringe Basically if you put a picture or an the rules on extremism, hate speech and opinionated blog online to share, it will abuse, then users should have the right be used and shared, maybe not how to post that online. It is like taking away you imagined it might be. But people someone’s right to free speech. It is like must be responsible for the stuff they making the internet into a dictatorship. write or say and be held to account People need the right to speak freely what for it. If it breaches the rules of violent they think as long as it doesn’t infringe the antisocial extremism, racism, hate rules which I mentioned above. Human speech, personal abuse and insulting psychology demands that we can speak on a public forum.. then those people freely. Have a look at what happened in should punished and held to account countries where people couldn’t speak because hate speech causes harm to freely, the people rebelled and overturned real people. Organisations don’t count the rulers. Don’t end up hated like that as real people. They are unimportant! if you want to keep your customers. Because it is an abuse of the right As long as credit is given everything to freedom of speech / thought should be allowed to be shared on line like free speech. I am not even sure Because it isn’t extremism, EU Responses to Question 5 281

hate speech, or abuse.; governed by the same rules we use to punish extremism, hate speech and abuse. Because sharing content, even where That would be like equating shoplifting owned is not an offense of the same type and deliberate psychological torture. or magnitude as extremism or hate crime. These are 2 completely different issues.

Because sharing just brings something Common sense and human rights to a greater audience. Where values should rule the obvious. extremism, hate speech, and abuse online are actual harmful actions Complicated question. If you’re sharing it, in some way you’re promoting it so there Because that would mean that you can’t is responsibility. Again, it would have to be link to products you’re reviewing can’t done on a case by case - in a court of law. post pictures etc without permission Many times people share things without and they (manufacturers) won’t really knowing what they are or even give support if it’s not favorable viewing them thoroughly or even at all

Both property and freedom of expression Connecting this question to extremism are being challenged in today societies, & hate speech is very irritating to me & I they are however separate debates. consider this comparison as influential, Offending property rights is laughable. even manipulating: Existing laws have been Taking offense from trawling a public crafted with the delicate balance between space is also laughable. Its a common free expression and legal speech in mind. ground, used by humans, charging rent These laws should be used to curb abusive and shutting down debate is inhumane behaviour online, rather than creating a new system. When copyrighted material Breach of copyright is a civil offence, is illegally shared the harm is usually an whereas the others are criminal matters economic and business one. However, - at least in England. There is no case for extreme and abusive messages have a using criminal sanctions in civil cases of lifelong emotional and mental impact, on course, if someone’s “blog” is spreading individuals and society. These two issues racial hatred, then that needs to be do not fit under the same framework addressed - but that is because of the racial hatred, the medium of promulgating it Content control beyond limits is, by being irrelevant for the purposes of taking itself, extreme. We should maintain action. Most “shares” in my experience are balance. Not abuse the free content mere links to the original source anyway, uploading, not abuse the content rather than wholesale “copy and paste” downloading. Is this much to ask? jobs - and I see nothing wrong in that. Content sharing has been covered by an Can’t answer yes or no to this - it depends evolved set of rules, carefully balancing on the nature of the sharing - hence the rights of content owners with the sharing beheadings I would wish to see ability of people to share information. removed speedily and investigated Any abuses can be adequately dealt with by further adaptation of these existing Clean and harmless contents should rules, rather than imposing a costly, not be governed by rules. draconian new set of laws. Abusive online behaviour is a completely separate issue Clearly sharing content should NOT be 282 EU Responses to Question 5

to copyright infringement. Laws to tackle Copyright and free speech are two one, should be individually crafted, so that different and orthogonal issues. They they do not over-reach their boundaries should be governed differently. and unfairly impinge on other areas Copyright infringement and extremist Content sharing is a divisive issue because hate speech are different issues. we many content creators actually make already have laws about inciting their living from the content they create hatred and violence which should and ‘free’ sharing can seriously impact on apply here as anywhere. their income. At the very least, content should always be ascribed to the originator Copyright infringement is relatively petty and not displayed as though it were the compared to hate speech. The two are creation of the copier. But, clearly, the not the same kind of ‘crime’: copyright sharing of most content should not be infringement is a civil matter, and should subject the stringent laws that apply to remain so hate speech is criminal. extremism and hate speech. Most content and should be treated as criminal. sharing is, or should be, subject to civil law, whereas extremism, hate speech and Copyright owners do have rights abuse should be subject to criminal law. even more than comment makers just expressing their own opinions Content sharing is not terrorismAttempts to censor or control the Internet by Copyright should not even be in the clueless politicians acting for spies same paragraph as hate and terrorism. or monopolists are doomed. We need appropriate due process put together by all of us, not just the CEO’s. Content sharing should be governed by rules already in place re Extremism, Hate Copyright violation is in a different Speech & Abuse. Why do otherwise? category from extremism, hate speech and abuse online. The same Content sharing should hardly even be rules should therefore NOT apply a ‘crime’, and to the extent that it is, the rules and penalties for it should not be the Copyrighted content is a civil matter based same as those for more overtly criminal on actual or potential financial losses and acts like fraud or abuse / harassment rights to usage/ownership of a creative work. Extremism, hate speech and abuse Content should be not be governed are criminal matters, due to their actual by same rules as hate speech,etc. or potential physical or emotional harm. It is very important people get Anybody who is considering conflating to see and read about things the these entirely different matters is lacking a mainstream media refuses to cover. basic understanding of the principles of our legal system, and needs to consult legal content should not be governed by the experts before proceeding. Again, sharing same rules to punish because the usage another’s content is usually beneficial for of said content is not malevolent the owner as it is free publicity! People SEEK shares and links. This rule would be Copyright allows for fair use of quotations, entirely unenforceable and this should be extracts, and other use which does not apparent to anybody who considers for a detract from the copyright holders rights moment the way that the internet works. EU Responses to Question 5 283

Corporate profits should not be conflated Each site should provide a mechanism with matters of public safety or national that ... - allow the uploader to specify security. News publishers already profit the sharing policy per posted text and/ from heinous acts of criminality, just or file - make that sharing policy clear for look at the front page of any tabloid any user reading (or viewing, listening to) rag published this weekend. NewsCorp that posted text and/or file Furthermore maybe missing out on a few extra pennies a cloud service operator must not claim from online linking, should not be ownership for everything the user shares. punished in the same way that a spree- Currently anyone can violate copyright murderer shooting up a concert venue laws by uploading a simple selfie to is. The two are clearly poles apart. multiple social media platforms

Corporations should not be allowed to Existing laws have been crafted with the use the hysterical linking of copyright delicate balance between free expression “violations” with far more extreme and legal speech in mind. These laws activities in order to censor, tax, and should be used to curb abusive behaviour control the entire content of the internet online, rather than creating a new system. for their own profit. The internet should continue to be a resource for all users, Existing laws have been crafted with not just a censored revenue source for the the delicate balance between free greed obsessed corporations. Supposed expression and legal speech in mind. financial losses are not on a par with the These laws should be used to curb abusive very real damage caused by actual abuse behaviour online, rather than creating a of individuals and society generally. new system. When copyrighted material is illegally shared the harm is usually an Definitely need their own set of rules, economic and business one. However, the shades of grey are too varied extreme and abusive messages have a lifelong emotional and mental impact, on Definitely not. Why is a picture counted individuals and society. These two issues as extremism? This is utter madness do not fit under the same framework

Depends on the intention of the sharer. Existing laws should be applies. Don’t try and create a whole new system. Depends on who owns it - If you want to change anything ban generally should not hate talk, emotional and mental abuse spread over the internet. That Depends what’s being shared : i’d draw the is what needs to be stopped line at any abuse pics of children or adults; Extremism and hate speech and abuse different harm and pornography should all be restricted dont know in some way. Everything else it is fine to share. If I owned pics, or content e already have enough laws in place. which are available and they are shared We do not need more and we do not that is ok. If I don’t want to share them need to pay for links. We just need I would safeguard them in some way, to make the laws work but not by or not make them available online. impedeng the free flow of information. Extremism and hate speech are totally 284 EU Responses to Question 5

different from sharing information, really and truely become civilized society.; and should be treated differently Extremism, hate speech and other abuse Extremism, hate speech and abuse online is no way the same as sharing per are all terms coined by someone else se. The only way this activity (sharing somewhere else that may or may not pics, blogs, etc) should only be regulated apply to me depending upon the context. when the laws governing hate speech, I’m against censorship of ANY KIND. etremism, etc have been breached. Period. I don’t believe that information, which is a universal and unalienable Extremism, hate speech, abuse and right as far as I am concerned, can be Paedophilia should always be prevented. owned by any one person or corporation, This should be based on a minimum lists of or entity. Once it’s left your mouth, pen, expectations that each provider (Facebook, brain, it is fair game to the processes Twitter etc) should adhere to. Additionally of evolution. Punishing anybody for there should be the capability for end users something that they have shared, said, or to say that something fall into the aforesaid thought is a crime of the highest order. categories and be subject to action by the provider However there should be Extremism, hate speech and abuse are a chance for the person who makes the completely separate from content. The offending ‘comment/posting etc’ to justify two subjects are not linked in any way why it does not fall into these catagories and should be the subject of completely (such as parody etc)The EU should different laws, processes and frameworks. state as a minimum what is expected, Existing laws already address extremism, but then leave the full implementation hate speech, abuse, libel, revenge porn, of these rules to the providers etc. These do not seem to require revision -- if they do that should be addressed Fair use rules should apply. Where separately, not under this framework. someone has placed material in the public domain users should be free to Extremism, hate speech and abuse reuse and redistribute it within reason. online are more serious infringements than sharing content owned by others. Firstly we nee freedom of access to spread So, punishment can’t be the same truth in support of democracy and the rule of the citizenry where others seek to lie. Extremism, hate speech and abuse Many organisations work for authority or online are not the same thing as global corporations clandestinely and must sharing content and should not be be exposed along with their falsehoods governed by the same rules. Freedom of expression is vital in Extremism, hate speech and abuse true democracies and should not be online is still as damaging as it is offline. compromised by the legitimate need to I do not see why this should be tolerated restrict violent extremism, hate speech online if it is not tolerated offline. and abuse. We are in danger of giving big corporations control over the flow of Extremism, hate speech and abuse online, information to the detriment of freedom is morally worng. It lead to lives being of expression and of new entries to the destroyed and war. We can all treat each market. We must always be wary of vested other better and perhaps, in the near future interests and their well funded lobbyists. EU Responses to Question 5 285

Freedom of speech is a human right, whilst Hyperlinks comprise the very fabric of some share hateful views, others share the the ‘Web’. Please understand, the Internet same items to humiliate them. Context is just a collection of servers connected is always required, so the prevention by IP address. Without the Web of of sharing by default is not the correct interconnecting hyperlinks, everyone’s response. It will cause other problems. ability to find the information they seek This law is so poorly thought through, and will be hugely compromised. Old business is unpolicable, will radicalise some and models have been shown time and again create more anonymous internet usage. to simply not work online. Those still clinging to old, unfair business practices Freespeech This is only being devised so are not motivated by the interests of activists do not share the truth about war the common good. For all the ills in this criminals and their acts like Apartheid world today, education is perhaps the Israel & Saudi Arabia & Nigeria etc most broad-reaching, effective way to etc David Cameron is a war criminal address them. By decimating ‘the Web’, and aids and abets war criminals! we decimate people’s ability to inform themselves. How on earth can a few Friendly sharing is different and much ‘old business’ dinosaurs investment less problematic than hate speech portfolios be more important than that?;

Hate speech should be treated the I Agree - Free speech that is NOT Hate same however it is produced Speech or abuse should be permitted

Hate speech wounds people and can I agree and there should be no rules be used to foment discrimination or or infringement on our free speech violence . It has caused lots of pain . It needs to be censored . I’m sick of I agree but also think that owners the media allowing idiots to just spew of content should have rights nonsense . Peacefully sharing videos and over it. The same rules should memes or blogs is an different thing apply as for printed content

Hate speech, extremism and abuse are I agree it should not. Culture is popular extremely serious issues that can lead and should be shared as such, regardless to radicalisation, suicide, exacerbating of whether Disney own the image rights mental health issues and so forth. They to Mickey Mouse. These companies seem can put lives at risk. They are therefore to thrive on their products being part of far more urgent to tackle as a result the mainstream culture and yet try very than copyright, where an individual or hard to stifle and oppress any expression organisation’s right has been breached or innovation regarding their products but no risk to their life is at stake. I agree it shouldn’t be governed Have to tread the fine line between under the same rules censorship and excluding damagingly hateful and intolerant views - online I agree that a separate and entirely communities should have ability to independent system needs to be applied respond, censure or even block the worst as a single, catch-all set of legislation is far too easily abused for political purposes. Human Rights apply to ALL spheres of life - internet being just one of them. I agree that information sharing ought 286 EU Responses to Question 5

never be considered à felony, as it is speech? Absurd idea! Punishment should connected to freedom of expression, à only be pursued if a CRIME has been fundamental right. Nothing connected commited, sharing is not a crime ffs! with infosharing should ever be at Risk of being called criminal unless it puts I agree that the rules monitoring and someone’ life and safety at Risk. punishing extremism should not apply to the daily use of content sharing. I agree that it should be separate rules for different content. It’s simple enough I agree that these two issues are completely to see what is harmful and what isn’t, this different and I believe the existing laws is just a case of MPs not understanding are adequate for handling either issue the way the internet works and trying to fix it all with a blanket approach. I agree that they should not be governed by the same rules as their violations(if I agree that it should not be there are any) are not on the same level governed by the same rules as hate speech and abuse. They are the sharing of information as opposed I agree that it’s shouldn’t be to the targeting of malicious slander governed in the same way. and the support of violence to others

I agree that sharing content owned I agree that they should not be governed by others (pictures, videos, and blogs) by the same rules. For the very same should NOT be governed by the same reasons that I wouldn’t want to be treated rules that we use to punish extremism, like a terrorist, because I’m not one. hate speech, and abuse online because they are NOT the SAME I agree we should not have the same rules

I agree that sharing content owned I agree with that statement by others (pictures, videos, and blogs) should NOT be governed by the same I agree with the sentence. rules that we use to punish extremism, I agree with this statement hate speech, and abuse online. I do not believe these are comparable crimes, so I agree, because online debate & it does not make sense to govern them discussion of images video’s & blogs with the same piece of legislation are the life blood of democracy.

I agree that sharing content owned I agree, because there is no comparison by others (pictures, videos, and blogs) should NOT be governed by the same I agree, except content which has rules that we use to punish extremism, been shared privately by the owner hate speech, and abuse online. The should not be shared without freedom to share the thoughts of others their consent by anyone else is fundamental to free speech. I agree, of course. Hate speech and I agree that sharing should NOT be treated other such activities are actively harmful the same as punishment for extremism, to societies and targeted groups and hate speech and abuse online! How is individuals. Sharing normal content sharing cat videos anywhere near the harms no one, and may well be in same as extremism or terrorism or hate the interest of the general public EU Responses to Question 5 287

I agree, that they are two completely sharing and fair use on the web. We already different matters and should not have copyright laws that fit that purpose. be governed by the same rules. I agree. The economic and commercial I agree! One size does not fit damage caused by illegal sharing all. Intent is important of copyrighted material cannot be compared with the massive long-term I agree. And the reason is that it’s not the psychological and social impact of same thing. Links can be anything at all extremist and hate-filled messages. good, bad, or neither of the two. They can be bad and informative, or neutral and yet I agree. The harm done by sharing still possible to be used in unforeseen ways. copyrighted material is to businesses, And restricting their use in this way will whereas abusive and harassing messages have a chilling impact on a) information, and content are harmful to individuals and b) free speech, and hence c) democracy. groups of people. You present two separate Also, the internet will find a way around it. issues, which should not be dealt with under the same legislative framework. I agree. If there is no financial profit then no one is harmed. I AGREE. The rules of copyright applicable to books and music, for example, should I agree. One is primarily a civil issue- not be allowed to apply to internet content. the other is a serious criminal matter. These rules were designed to provide a Enforcing criminal penalties in intellectual reasonable income for authors given that property claims needs to be reigned in each copy of the relevant media would normally be used by several or many I agree. Personal sharing from peer to people quite legitimately. The attempts to peer is not only here to stay, but helps apply the same copyright rules, such that strengthen the “global village”. Hearing a royalty is payable each time one person about someone on the other side of the looks at an item is quite unjustifiable world having the same or similar problems you do, makes that person more real. I agree. The rules used to prevent and Most Western countries have adequate punish extremism, hate speech and online laws against hate speech and are starting abuse are not relevant to other uses of to create laws against online bullying. the internet. These are rule put in place These laws need to be edited to keep to protect people and make the internet up with the times, but are not the same a safer place.If legislators are concerned as private peer to peer communication. about people sharing other peoples Bullying is not peer to peer, but rather content being dangerous or harmful they one person or entity attacking another should make seperate laws to govern this.

I agree. Sharing content is at worst I agree. While linking may or may not a financial threat. Extremism, have an economic impact, the other items abuse etc. is a threat to society. directly hurt people and are more extreme.

I agree. Such rules have their place, and I agree. Wholeheartedly I am all for protecting people against abuse and stopping racist and other hate I agree.Owners right do need to be material. but those laws should not be protected, but this is not even in the usurped to apply to and try to control same category as terrorism etc, let 288 EU Responses to Question 5

alone the same level of seriousness. extremism,hate speach and abuse

I believe new proposed legislation is I believe there should not be ‘blanket’ using a “sledgehammer to cracking a rules regarding these issues walnut” approach. Not all hyperlinks lead to copyrighted material, so to behave as I can’t agree with that but I equally though it does is not the right approach. I cannot see how you could differentiate have no problem with protection of artists, between the two situations without just that this new proposal would hamstring snooping or monitoring, Back to the Internet as a whole and damage who does the monitoring ? education, freedom of speech and a myriad other things, some of which have yet to be. I definitely agree that sharing content Do not stifle humankinds growth, please owned by others should NOT be governed rethink this and take a less draconian by the same rules. Extremism, hate step to protect copyrighted material.; speech and abuse online hurt people. Rules about content owned by others is I believe that “sharing is caring”. Human just about the greed of corporations civilization works by sharing and copying. Any attempts to hinder sharing I do agree that different categories or copying just make things worse. of “illegal” content require different approaches. There is no comparison I believe that free communication, and between copyright and racism the development of language and culture, are dependent on an ability to quote, I do agree that sharing content owned by reference and share the work of others. others should not be governed by the same However moral questions require a more rules we use to punish extremism, hate nuanced consideration than blanket bans speech and abuse, as though sharing other people’s material without permission may I believe that sharing content owned be immoral, it is not as harmful or immoral by others (pictures, videos, and blogs) as extremism, hate speech and abuse. should NOT be governed by the same rules that we use to punish extremism, I do agree, but think ownership hate speech, and abuse online, as they are should be acknowledged very different things and are much less I do agree. Negative contant require legal offensive to those that do take offence. regulations, positive or neutral not I believe that sharing content owned by I do agree. The two things are different and others should NOT be governed by the should be treated on their own merits. same rules used to punish extremism etc. This is because they are not the I do agree. There’s no need for a same things. Copyrighted material that government to control this. is shared has an economic effect if any effect at all. Abusive and extreme I do not agree that the same rules which messages have long lasting effects govern abusive, hateful or pornographic on individuals and society too.; content should be applied to the free sharing of information in the form I believe that such content should NOT of pictures, videos or blogs. Because be governed by the same rules as with information should remain free EU Responses to Question 5 289

I do not agree. I am a strong believer in comfortable. I am genuinely worried about freedom of speech, to the point that I any limitations to free speech because it believe even hate speech and extremism incentivises taking offence. Giving legal online should not be legally removed, recourse to being offended will lead to though I equally believe in the freedom more and more people being ever more to tell these people that they are bigots offended because being offended gives and examples of the worst of humanity.I them legal powers. We want less people am of the opinion that the only censorship offended not more. Have you ever in a of opinions should be done by the owners moment of weakness wished harm on of the platforms by their own terms of someone who was being an asshole to service.As to how sharing content owned you on the internet? I’m sure most of us by others should be treated, I am of the have. Imagine you had a system which same opinion. The judgement should lay allowed you to do so, might you have on the moderators of these platforms. held on to that feeling of offence instead of letting it go and forgetting the whole I do not agree. Sharing music and pictures incident? In this way punishing offence is not the same as plotting terrorism. creates more of it. When someone upsets us the right response is to calm I do not believe that adoption of down, ignore them and block them from the Chinese Model of internet your online platform. In our culture of censorship is consistent or perpetual offence claims of harassment appropriate with Western values are used to shut down disagreement and criticism. I’ve seen this happen many times I do not believe this as it opens up options online. We must ensure this behaviour for people to abuse peoples privacy or is not codified to law. The reason it’s not well being without fear of repercussions right to censor people for their speech I do. These rules are already overbroad except if it directly incites crime is not and do NOT need to be extended. Let because it wouldn’t be justifiable in some the idiots be idiots, let people call them circumstances to shut down abusers. It’s out for being idiots, and if they look because the power to censor is not a power like dangerous idiots then they’ll be we should feel comfortable granting to nice and easy for the police to find. anyone in power. Name one person from government whom you would trust to I don’t agree with that argument uphold free speech while only banning altogether but instead say that having trolls, genuine abusers and stalkers laws at all for this will not work and are a waste of time and money, as well as I don’t believe sharing content owned a waste of money for those who have by others should be governed by the little, unlike those who make the laws same rules that we use to punish extremism, hate speech and abuse online, I don’t agree with the concept of “safe since these are very different. Sharing spaces”, they are a hip term for censorship interesting or entertaining content and punishing people for their speech. should be encouraged, not punished. Everyone has the right to be safe. No- one has the right to only hear views and I don’t feel qualified to comment opinions they are comfortable hearing. on sharing content owned by There’s no such thing as the right to be others as I rarely if ever do this. 290 EU Responses to Question 5

I don’t know it isn’t a bad idea to remind people that plagarism does get people in trouble. I don’t see why the two should be conflated We just have to be fair with all of this. The internet is not a tool in which to I don’t think these two issues should add more rules and govern. Do we want be governed by the same framework a society that is blind or do we want a - hate speech and online abuse society that today is rich and full of life? are infinitely more damaging than sharing copyrighted material. I think it shouldn’t be governed by the same rules as extremism, hate speech, I don’t understand it enough etc. because as long as the content is to make judgement being shared properly (such as there is no monetary gain from content that is not I have zero tolerance for hate and owned by the person sharing it), there is no bullying on the internet, and I support harm done to anyone. Whereas with things the punishment of perpetrators to the such as hate speech and abuse, people are fullest extent of the law. But copyright actually harmed by these actions and thus infringement? That falls somewhere they shouldn’t be held to the same rules between laziness and bad taste. If someone is foolish enough to provide I think sharing content requires it’s own obvious evidence of their identity when rules. Sharing content is what makes sharing content illegally, I have no you look for a content creator. I would problem with them being prosecuted. not have heard of many artists I like They *should* be. However I do *not* without the freely shared information agree that a huge amount of resources should be allocated toward this I think the current system works and exercise, because it’s a losing game that existing laws have the balance about right. Abusive messages can cause i say we keep the spy’s out of our private lasting harm and distress - whereas harm videos and pictures where will the spying caused by infringement of copyright lead to teens being locked up for sending is a business matter. How can these private sexy pics and videos to each be treated the same? They cannot. other will that be classed as illegal porn grandad’s locked up with pics and videos I think the rules should be different. of his grandkids on his pc because they think he has kiddie porn and also where I think there should be a degree of is our freedom of speech if we don’t like regulation over sharing content created the murdering tories will we get locked by others, more specifically in regards up cause we hate the party in power and to those who are using it for personal if they do bring in this law will it only be gain. It is unfair to allow others to profit the public that’s watched or everyone while the creator gets nothing, and including the bankers MPs and the spy’s to ; strong recompense should be accessible. However, for those who are sharing within I think if we’re looking at the content as a private space and with permission, there being shared and not being abused in should not be the same level of regulation. the sense that people are claiming the content as their own, then no, it doesn’t I think they should be as they produce need to be governed in that sense. But the same result. The problem is where EU Responses to Question 5 291

do you draw the line ? It could be question: In my view our legislators have a used to hold back certain views the key role in making our digital sphere a safe government does not like for example. space where individuals can be free from abuse and harassment. Given that existing I think we should all be responsible for laws have been crafted with the delicate what we share and sharing hate content, balance between free expression and unless to draw attention to the ludicrous legal speech in mind; these laws need to nature of it, should be something we take be used to curb abusive behaviour online, responsibility for. Sharing racist opinions rather than creating a new system. Finally, spreads stupidity and people should be when copyrighted material is illegally made accountable for what they spread. shared the harm is usually an economic and business one. However, when it comes I totally agree. As long as the sharing to extreme and abusive messages, these links back to the original content, so the can have a lifelong emotional and mental content creator gets due credit for their impact, on individuals and society. These work, then it can only help promote two issues do not fit under the same their work. Abuse extremism and hate framework and must be kept separate.; speech is a totally different issue. I’m a big user of the internet, buying I totally agree. Completely different things equipment, talking to people, finding and must be treated a accordingly. I’m not out things, searching for information. putting some to jail for stealing a bread My life would be so much poorer like someone who murdered or raped without the facility of the web, as it is, to do all of these things.; I TOTALLY DISAGREE with that total- society criminalization. Amateurish IDK things are social-communication tools. If content owned by others is to be I wholeheartedly agree that sharing shared the extremist, hate speech and content owned by others is fundamentally abuse should be removed first ie it different from extremism/hate speech/ should be governed by the same rules. abuse and should be treated differently. I can understand a desire to discourage If I couldn’t shre viseos, pictures etc I certain incidences of people from would not be able to know my GREAT- sharing the content of others however Grand children. My only link is through that should be dealt with a manner the internet. By all means watch that corresponds to the situation, this suspected hate and abuse but we do would be significantly over the top, after have brains and choices. DO NOT THINK all the affect tends to be limited to a TO INTERFERE WHERE GOVERNANCE reduction in potential economic profits. IS NOT WANTED OR NEEDED!! The people will be heard on this!!! I would hope that existing rules on (for example) slander would be If I were to share a picture of a enough to work with, without needing cat how would that be anything to come up with a sledge-hammer but harmless if the owner og the approach as is being discussed here pittoresk was happy to share???

I write to add to my previous submission on if its owned by others and your sharing 16 Nov 2015 the following regarding this 292 EU Responses to Question 5

outside the already existing rules of Illegally sharing commercial content fair usage then you have the right to damages the profits of companies, share, comment on it.if your sharing it it should be a matter of contract for gain then the law already has rules law, not criminal prosecution in place that make it illegal. they should be enough...all i see is a few big media Illegally sharing information (whistle companies buying laws to close off the blowing, sharing documentaries, citing internet. they dont get that they down news shows, sharing old movies that rights- own it, but it doesnt stop them from trying holders do not care about because new to buy it. all in the name of profits. movies would be more profitable) is also a democratic act - taking power from huge If someone is spreading hate speech and corporations and giving it to the public. extremism it should be punishable and Even if it is illegal now, this can prevent proven in a court of law. Don’t punish censorship once the copyright is removed. the rest of us for the actions of a few I is different from harming people directly. mindless idiots.The internet is a wonderful Corporations are not people, not in the EU. place for information, keep it that way. I fear systems that this creates more issues with take-downs of legally posted content If the content in question has no restrictions to it (ie- paywall, privacy content) then In a society where money is distributed it should not be governed. The act (not unfairly and unevenly, we should PROMOTE sale) of stripping such protections should ways to help balance out this inequality be punished, not merely finding and linking or sharing such ‘open’ content In criminal law harming people is an offense that is sanctioned very differently If the content includes extremism, hate from harming goods. We should also speech and abuse etc which the majority make this distinction in the web. believe is disgusting and abhorrent, then those laws should be applied. If it does in that case i do not agree. abuse and not fall into those categories, then no, the hate speech are criminal offences. this is a sharing of content owned by others is ok. direct contradiction of what i was writing So long as the originators of the source are before. I do not know if the technology given the most appropriate promotion etc as we know it can do both: liberty of then it is respectful in my opinion. Many the net and pursue criminal activities. times such sharing leads to sales for the originator, esp with regards to music and In the saame way that the mind films. You often discover something you distinguishes, so the internet should: Time might never have, and then you buy their Berners Lee said he envisaged the internet material and/or see them in concert etc; to function as freely as he human mind.

If the content is in the public domain, Information is not hate and neither is it unless specifically stated, there should dangerous. The power to share information be the expectation that it will be shared is a human right and should be monitored by the owners of the website and not If we’re protecting peoples 1st amendment the government, because it’s not a online, regardless of the message you governmental issue. It is just a sham and should have the ability to communicate it in a pitiful excuse to ban us from sharing an open and censorship free environment useful and expansive information EU Responses to Question 5 293

Innocuous content ie pictures, videos and but there’s need to have some balance blogs should not be governed by rules between removing any abuse, hate designed for criminal activity online preaching and any forms of extremism and respecting people’s freedom of speech. Intellectual property and safety are entirely different areas. It would be It is absurd to compare the sharing entirely inappropriate and impossible of content with hate speech, etc. to make one law to govern both. These are completely different things. Existing laws are already quite Intellectual property rights should be adequate to cover both situations. protected. However, treating an infraction as the same as hate speech or abuse It is absurd to place potential copyright is wrong, and it is an abuse of power infringement on the same level as extremism, hate speech, and abuse online Internet is there to share to all. With restrictions the Internet will die It is for the EU parliament and national governments to make the internet safer and Internet use promoting hate, abuse, free from abuse and unsavoury content. or violent extremist propaganda should be governed separately from It is not on a par but copyrights should all other types of internet use. be protected as long as material caries such a warning in a clear and Issues of open expression and abusive fair manner. If no such warning exists behaviour are wholly separate from one should not be punished later economic and business concerns over copyrighted material. It would it is not the same thing and extremists be wrong to conflate these issues and hate speeches and abusive speech under the same framework. should be governed by other means

It absolutely should NOT. I grew up It is unjust to bring in rules to govern taping favorite songs from the radio to hateful behaviour and then extend those listen to. No One can honestly liken that rules to apply to sharing content. to ‘extremism, hate speech or abuse.’ It makes no sense to use the same It depends on the content and the actual rules to govern sharing content without action performed(i.e. publishing a top permission and hate speech etc. The secret military data is obviously different former may have a financial effect, from posting a screenshot of a movie in a whereas the latter can have much movie review blog). But as a rule of thumb, more serious psychological effects. a day to day content sharing that is causing no harm to the content owner and clearly It must be allowable to share any content references the said owner as such should that is in the public domain. Powers to not be a prosecutable an offence by itself control extremist, hat or abuse on-line must be used in exceptional circumstances It depends on the content, if the only and under judicial control content is going to harm someone undeservedly, then yes, otherwise no. It probably should be though may need caution and discretion as It depends. Really neutral on the issue, to intent and motive so definitely 294 EU Responses to Question 5

needs court examination It should not be, because they’re not the same kind of crimes. Copyright It seems absurd that there is consideration infringement, that sort of thing, of putting what are essentially intellectual would be closer to the mark property questions unto the same space as assault issues. Extreme and abusive It should not be, though it should messages are electronic assault and be punished. Extremism and should be dealt with by police and the abuse is worse, though. legal system in much the same ways as serious verbal or physical assault is It should not. The consequences of existing managed. Questions around the use law is to inhibit abusive behaviour, while of copyrighted material rightly belong not inhibiting free expression of opinion. with specialist lawyers in a civil court These are totally different issues

It seems like they are only goverend this It should not. We already have way when people share these things. But laws for this. Copyright law when artists / companies uses creating by the normal citizen they seem to get away It should not. Why, because hate, with this kind of stealing (as they put it extremism and abuse spring mainly from themselves). So if they are not measured by the dysfunctional society based on greed the same rules, why should a citizen be? and competition advocated by the very power that now wants to control the net It should be a case of using appropriate tools and amounts of legislation. It shouldn’t be governed by the same In the same way that different rules as extremism, unless it itself legislation governs bows and arrows, supports, invites or sympathises guns and nuclear missiles. It sounds like a copyright issue, not It should be made clear that either it some kind of violent offense is possible to share content, where the It’s a question of civil vs criminal law, principle of freedom of speech should be copyright is not covered by criminal law applied as widely as possible, or that the in most cases so its use should be subject content is only available as a commercial to protections intended to allow for product, i.e., for a fee, in which case the flexibility and new models rather than sharing stipulations should be specified. insisting on existing business methods It should not be covered by the same It’s about time these corporates understood rules: they are different things. that the most successful web based It should not be governed by same law content is mostly free. That’s how Google Sharing a picture of a cat for example started:-). Kodi is another useful eample. has nothing to do with hate speech Laws already exist to balance free It should not be governed expression and legal speech. These if it is not offensive. laws should be used to curb abusive behaviour online, rather than creating a It should not be treated the same new system. Infringement of copyright unless specific pieces in question ARE is a separate issue and should not be extremism, hate speech, or abuse conflated with laws on freedom of EU Responses to Question 5 295

expression and curbing online abuse Looking at other people’s content has always been OK, if you borrow a book from Laws intended to curb hate speech a library you are allowed to read it ! The or online abuse need to be applied. problem is who checks content for all the This does not require the creation of a nasty stuff and who pays for that. Probably new system that is intended to serve a the people who benefit from the Internet different purpose and other interests. most, i.e. the Internet Service Providers, the could pay a volume dependent levy to Laws shouldn’t be created as tools to be wholly used for monitoring the Internet censure. Laws should protect people, and for the nasty (and mostly illegal) stuff. focus on punishing things that cause real harm. As it is, right holders already have Loss of revenue is certainly not on the the means to persecute piracy (which cause same level as loss of life or getting real financial harm) and they can use them. threats. Especially when the loss of There’s no need to give them more power revenue concerns an industry with known to control and punish even someone who abusive and predatory practices innocently, and without gaining anything, just shared something that included Mere sharing is significantly different some piece of copyrighted content (which from extremism etc. However, I do not doesn’t cause any real financial harm) consider that extremism or “hate speech” should automatically be taken down Le bon droit est un droit adapté. without proof of harm in the same way Le droit d’auteur existe aussi. that I think content-sharing need proof of infringement before it is taken down, Leave things the way they therefore I consider that the same rules are - no sensoring! should apply. Nevertheless, I am realistic enough to know that there is no likelihood Legislators have a key role in making that the rules regarding free but offensive our digital sphere a safe space where speech will be changed, so I have to be individuals can be free from abuse and satisfied with advocating that content- harassment.Our existing laws have been sharing is trivial, and should not be crafted with the delicate balance between treated in the same way extremism is. free expression and legal speech in mind. These existing laws should be used to Most definitely. While sharing of curb abusive behaviour online, rather copyrighted content should be not be than creating a new system. We do not encouraged, the penalty for such actions need more laws, just enforcement of should be reasonable fines. This would lead those we already have. When copyrighted to easier convictions and less costly trials, material is shared the harm is usually an leaving more time for the justice system economic and business one. However, to pursue more serious crimes. Escalating extreme and abusive messages have a penalties for repeat offenders should lifelong emotional and mental impact, on provide a deterrent to continued violations individuals and society.These two issues do not fit under the same framework. No - copyright infringement is a completely different thing than extremism and abuse Legitimate content sharing helps everyone. and should be governed by different rules. Hate speech and abuse helps no one. They should not be treated equally. No - the same laws will and should apply 296 EU Responses to Question 5

no matter how any online content is used. is already purchased and sharing it for (I think your question phrasing makes no profit isn’t a crime. Blockbusters are answering the question difficult.) earning more money than ever. Good musicians play in front of crowded No - there is freedom of speech, stadiums. I doubt it that selling DVDs and but not if certain things go public, CDs is a significant source of income for and the internet is very public anyone. And yes - someone worked hard to produce the content that is shared, and No as it is entirely different it’s not the music or movie corporations - the ones that lobby for greater control, No because it can be hurtful to the people punishments and violation of basic human targeted by the hate speech or extremism; rights. If some product is good, it earns No because this is in private A LOT of money, even if someone shares it somewhere on the Internet. And trying no I do not agree -- They should be to earn more and more, at the expence governed by rules around hate speech etc. of everything should be punishable, not sharing. Internet is part of our society - it is No I do not! Why should the two separate used for communication, learning, sharing matters, of way different levels of severity, information, ideas and sometimes content be viewed as similar, when clearly to that some call illegal. Each regulation any sane individual, they are not? How risks more harmful than useful. In this the Hell can sharing a regular piece of case, part of our freedom shouldn’t be music or a blog by viewed as as serious taken away because of someone’s greed as a hate crime? Any law should be specific to the item it is meant to address No it shpuld not. If a user is stealing - meaning that it should be intelligently material then it needs to be prosecuted worded and refined so that there are no in the way that theft is prosecuted. unforeseen, unintended consequences and to guard against abuse by government, NO OBVIOUSLY or local, agencies who creatively devise No person or organization is ‘need’ to use a law inappropriately. an oracle. Linking to something No I don’t agree. is not tacit support for it

No i don’t believe it should most know the No political correctness is hideous enough difference between extremism and hate as it is with its social interference with speech to be able to report it themselves. freedom of expression - it should be kept well away from the internet - anything No it should not be governed the same that causes the thought police to extend way.If shared without permission then yes, their existing socially all-embracing there must be some form of accountability hold on public discourse carries us ever but to go so far is nothing short of tyranny. nearer to an Orwellian nightmare. The internet should provide that breath of No It should only be governed by unadulterated, clear fresh freedom of applicable copyright and ownership laws expression we once enjoyed but is denied to us in social discourse at present. No it shouldn’t. And it is too cynical to put it in the same category. The content No sharing content should not EU Responses to Question 5 297

fall into the same category as negates the fact that all ‘new’ ideas are extremism, hate speech or abuse. essentially open source, they derive from all the other ideas and information the No simple answer. Don’t know what those person who thinks of the ‘new’ idea was ‘rules’ are, but I don’t see how any universal exposed to that led to the ‘new’ idea. ‘rules’ can be applied - perceptions of Being able to expand on other people’s what is or is not abuse or extremism vary ideas and take them in new directions the between people, cultures and over time. original thinker never thought of is how Any universal ‘rules’, however sensible new forms of art, new forms of music, new and fair-seeming now and to some, will lines and fields of scientific reasoning, not be so to others, or in the future. new inventions, etc., come into existence. We need to be able to discuss anything openly, honestly and without fear of No, because extremism, hate speech, and reprisal, regardless of the topic. There is abuse are all examples of illegal speech, an impossible line to draw between what as well as potentially causing lasting is honest discussion and what is incitement damage to the victims mental health. to abuse or hatred. Don’t know the answer, Such speech has no redeeming value but universal rules cannot be ‘it’! whatsoever, whereas sharing content can often help to advertise the content to No so long as it can’t be potential customers - I can name several used for pornography video games I have only purchased due to seeing their content shared online. no they should be governed individually by there content nothing is just black or wight no, because the intent of the shared content can be different then the No they should not since they original post. it’s all about the intent are very different issues NO, different issues. No this is not justice, there are different backgrounds required for laws against No, hate speech and abuse should terrorism that are way too extreme not be condoned. Extremism is not to deal with minor transgressions of necessarily hate speech or abuse copyright law. Trying to conflate the two sounds like a nightmare.Bad legislation No, I do not agree, The situation is different can only add to the calls for Brexit. so the rules need to be different.

No way! ; No, I don’t think sharing of copyrighted material belongs in the same boat as hate No Wrong behavior should speech, bigotry, etc. We’re taking Apple’s not be supported and oranges here. The former is extreme levels of vitriol targeted at individuals no- they are completely different matters or group SPECIFICALLY TO HARM AND/ OR DEHUMANIZE THEM, and the other No, because art is a product of the culture exists in a legal and moral grey area where that the artist lives in, their ideas are the only group that seems to have any generated by the world around them, they consensus is the one making money by interpret that world and in turn their art making it illegal, which is a little something becomes a part of that world for others to we in the U.S.A. call a “conflict of interest” interpret. The idea of ‘intellectual property’ 298 EU Responses to Question 5

No, it should not. Large companies have NO! Except for very rare instances ‘hate/ enough pull on the Internet already, bigotry/etc’ is just that - hate from idiots! they don’t need to contort our laws to The KKK comes to mind and their ‘outing’ achieve their agenda. We need a legal by ‘Anonymous’ is a great example of system that can respond quickly to self-balancing online. However, “Online our changing soviety, instead of letting Bullying” comes to mind, in particular the privileged few bastadize all of the as this is mainly aimed at teenagers language used in out outdated laws. and causal links to suicide etc. are proven facts at this stage. This deserves No, it should’t be goberned by the same special/separate legislation. However, rules, because it doesn’t provoke any the user should have the right to ‘read/ damage, moral o monetary, it doesn’t hurt look/listen’ OR NOT! The internet is people and neither the pockets of the firms about information, all information! who own the rights of the content shared No! People put things out to share. No, it shouldn’t, and simply If it totally violates the abuse policy because it’s not the same thing then it should be removed

No, it’s bad to plagiarise content No. but should not be punished as harshly as extremism etc No. Censorship should only occur when actions or words infringe on the human No, it’s too extreme, an over reaction. rights of another individual or group. All other actions should have to go through No, please retain this distinction. We due process within the legal system need software that allows content originators to control shares: allowing No. Copyright is a whole lot less serious them or not, ideally on a case-by-case than sharing content owned by others basis. A “fair use” exception should exist No. Criminal activity or damages should be NO, sharing a link shows the original owner proved before legal action should be taken

No, the laws should treat No. Extremism and abuse are a completely all content equally different issue from sharing content on the web. The former are anti-social and No, there’s no need to place content criminally unacceptable. The latter are sharing- particularly non-professional pro-social and may have many positive or fan-created content- under any effects. Consider sharing a funny, relevant censorship rules. To suggest otherwise and caring piece with someone who is is a violation of people’s rights to depressed or suffering PTSD. Then it’s speak and share what they believe removed or disallowed due to some mostly irrelevant ruling about copyright. No, they are quite blatantly two Totally bogus and possibly harmful very different subjects. That’s a really obviously daft idea! No. However, rights holders should be able to remove flagrant abuse, such as posting No,, not right sharing an entire film, music track, etc. No; No. If content is owned by others it should EU Responses to Question 5 299

not be shared without their permission. sending the message that human life is less valuable than “lost sales” (which is a No. It is necessary to swiftly take down false logic by the way). The word “piracy” abusive and extremist comments has been twisted to equate copyright to prevent incitement or harm to infringement with violent criminals at sea individuals. The same concerns do not apply to copyright infringements and no. we already have laws governing thus there is time to consider the merits extremism, hate speech and abuse. of any complaint and any counter- we should apply those as necessary, arguments before making a decision rather than limiting free speech.

No. Natural persons are more No. We need to differentiate between important than corporate persons abusive and hateful messages from infringement of copyright. these are No. Not everything is the same and two distinct problems and should not appearances can be deceiving. be under the same umbrella. They are treated differently by legislators and No. Sharing a picture is very this should carry over to the internet different from hate speech! No...... same as Facebook No. Sharing content and punishing extremism are not necessarily related. Non-copyright content should be available for sharing freely when not used to No. Sharing content owned by others promote antisocial/abuse/extremism, etc. on the internet is no different from There is a difference between sharing ideas sharing information/knowledge learned (visual, auditory, etc.) for consideration from books, movies, TV shows. and the onslaught of hate mongering toward a violent or disruptive end which No. There are already far too many does not serve any societal benefit instances of laws being stretched to cover areas they were never intended to cover, Not entirely. Rules to stop one type of often with highly unjust, undemocratic, thing are being misused to stop others. and downright bizarre results. This manipulation of the rules is wrong.

No. There is sufficient legal control already not same..ex:a potato is not a tree

No. There’s no connection between NOT the same thing. Besides, most of simply sharing content and the time the content has been paid for. If hateful or abusive speech I buy a loaf of bread, is it still owned by the baker or can I share it with friends? No. This systematic expansion of what is essentially a civil issue into having not! Because one mans poison is more dire consequences than violent another mans honey! It’s all down to criminal behavior must stop. It seems interpretation or mis -interpretation. every day I am reading news that some person is being sent to prison for longer Obiously sharing content is not than most violent criminals because hate speach or similar. they possibly caused some giant media company some lost sales. You are Obviously content sharing has to be 300 EU Responses to Question 5

regulated differently. First of all because Of course it shouldn’t. Extremists WANT most sharing is done by people who organisations like the EU to impose have no idea how to source properly draconian, unpopular and restrictive or why they should source the content, legislation on the general public, because what copyright laws are in effect and that encourages fear and resentment. Just how they work. Secondly because think about what you’d be doing with this: I don’t believe sharing content for causing the very people you’re supposed information, culture or simple enjoyment to be protecting and representing to hate should be punished like it is a crime you. Is that really sensible? Just because we can’t afford expensive lobbyists doesn’t Obviously I agree. Such measures mean we wouldn’t vote you out of office if are only justified where human you caved in to corporate bullying. Beware life is a risk. Corporate profit is EU - your fate is in your hands here!! certainly not in that category Of course it shouldn’t. Why? Because Obviously it should be governed one thing is to SHARE and another is to by the same rules HATE or ABUSE. It’s as simple as that.

Of course I agree, it seems to me Of course not - the idea is too that entertainment industry are ridiculous to comment further. Anyone trying to use any law they can who supports this is a crackpot!

Of course it shouldn’t be governed by the of course not, because they same rules! Human beings have been are clearly worlds apart sharing information and collaborating for the betterment of humanity for millenia! Of course not, that is downright ludicrous. Not even remotely similar Of course it shouldn’t be punished by the same laws- that’s like saying if I go Of course not. into a bookstore and copy a passage with my phone I should be tried as Of course not. Copyright is a civil court a terror suspect. It’s madness. matter, and the other are criminal court matters, alternatively fully legal under Of course it shouldn’t be, totally different freedom of speech, depending on country scenarios, one is a civil infringement the other a criminal offense. Of course not. I have never heard anything so absurd. The majority of Of course it shouldn’t, it’s a different issue. websites are desperate for links to be I agree that content owned by others created to move their content up the should not be shared without consent ladder and become the trending item. / acknowledgement but, while it might Without links, this wouldn’t happen. threaten income, it is pretty unlikely to result in a threat to life or liberty of course not. information sharing is a positive. hate speech or abuse is hurtful Of course it shouldn’t! Sharing info etc is what will defeat extremism, hate Of course not. One of these speech, and abuse: this works more two acts is victimless. quickly and effectively than any law of course not. sharing content - photos, EU Responses to Question 5 301

videos & blogs - as long as they dont find out what is happening as opposed to contain hate speech, abuse or extremism, what the corporate media choose to tell us. is common & acceptable & harmless. it’s illogical that the same laws should Our laws have been crafted with the apply to innocent sharing of content to delicate balance between free expression extremism, hate speech, & abuse online. and legal speech in mind. These laws complete nonsense! use common sense! should be used to curb abusive behaviour online, rather than creating a new system Of course these should be governed; Our laws have been crafted with the of course they are different. One is delicate balance between free expression alleged copyright infringement, the and legal speech in mind. These laws other is far more dangerous to society should be used to curb abusive behaviour online, rather than creating a new system. Of course we should have When copyrighted material is shared the freedom to use the internet. harm is usually an economic and business one. However, extreme and abusive Of course. Big brother fascismo messages have a lifelong emotional and is the extremist here. mental impact, on individuals and society.

Of course. Copyright infringement, Our laws have been crafted with the while illegal, does not have the delicate balance between free expression same consequences as extremism, and legal speech in mind. These laws hate speech or abuse -- unless they should be used to curb abusive behaviour actually are intended as such online, rather than creating a new system.When copyrighted material is Offensive or illegal material should be shared the harm is usually an economic firmly dealt with by criminal law. Civil and business one. However, extreme issues are not the same and putting the and abusive messages have a lifelong two together is a recipe for confusion emotional and mental impact, on and manipulation by the industry. individuals and society.These two issues One law can’t govern all different areas. do not fit under the same framework. You need specific laws for specific areas. ; Over a thousand years and more, we One of these things is hurtful to a person, have gradually built up laws protecting the other is not. It’s really not complicated. free speech, with largely effective checks and balances to protect individual and One thing is destructive and the corporate rights whilst allowing a society other is collaborative in nature. to discuss, learn, create, and expand. Go figure which is which. Allowing corporations to have individual control over what they censor, and by Online abuse is not the same as negation, what they allow, effectively illegal sharing of copyrighted bypasses all of these existing safeguards, material. To bring them together throws out thousands of years of law and will be harmful to both causes. philosophy, and institutes a corporate lock- down of the democratic process. Similarly, Only if it involves bullying or other abuse Corporations push these Copyright and similar control agendas to stiffle only sharing information freely allows us to 302 EU Responses to Question 5

competition and increase profit margins, at Q5....no governing content. the expense of society’s very fundamental No censorship ever. fabric. Their desire to extend Copyright by a lifetime is in direct opposition to the Reference my answer to question 2. The ever increasing speed of communication of rights concerning words and images ideas across global society. Please reject shared on internet websites need to these cynical attempts to usurp power be re-examined and re-defined from the people, and reign in corporations as quickly as possible, for the good of us Regardless of reason, no government all -- even, in the long-term, corporations should be able to store reams of information about our online presence. It’s Ownership in the internet age is a difficult an absolute invasion of our privacy and subject. If I want to own something, I civil rights. Once a person is proven guilty, copyright it in print on paper. If I put it or under serious suspicion on a crime, on the web, I assume anybody can use then there is a case to examine data it. That’s a practical fact. Creativity is unlimited, and so is curiosity. And, of Rules governing copyrighted material course greed is also unlimited---THAT should not be the same as those governing is THE problem, especially when it is extremism, hate speech, etc. because they institutionalized in corporate law. Just ask are two different things. When copyright the U.S. Supreme Court--who will hand is violated, no one is endangered. Damage ANYTHING to the richest Americans from copyright violation is financial. On the other hand, hate speech and extremism Policing copyrights should be quite can result in physical harm, human rights separate from hate speech etc. Current violations, and death. There is absolutely copyright laws are already abused as a no comparison between the two, and censorship tool, for example by companies they should not be treated the same. seeking to take down unflattering reviews Rules other than copyright that Provided that you have permission govern extremism, hate speech and to share it it should be alright.If you abuse online should not restrict the don’t get permission to share it then redistribution of copyrighted content. you share it anyway then you should be punished.But yes it should not be rules should be made afresh. laws cover governed by those same rules hate speech - should not conflate these with commercial / copyright rules Punishment must fit the crime. Copying digital files is not in he Seems like different rule would apply same ballpark as hate speech. here. Sharing links is reasonable. There are enough paywalls to protect usage Q5 I agree, current laws are good enough Separate these two issues Q5- YES, pictures videos and blogs should NOT be governed by same rules Sharing another’s content does not assume as trolling, hate speech and abuse etc.. agreement. In the interest of getting a balanced view, freedom of speech and Q5: yes, I agree that they should not freedom to listen must be upheld. be governed by the same rules as extremism, hate speech or abuse online. Sharing content and points of view EU Responses to Question 5 303

is a good thing. Extremism and Sharing content is the crux of what the hate propaganda should be dealt internet is about. Every part of the internet with in a separate manner is designed to be used communally, and to punish people for using the absolute Sharing content bwlinging to others need most basic function of the internet is an not be governed by those same rules act of futile absurdity. It also does not cause damage in the way that extremism, Sharing content is a form of art. hate speech and abuse - no one is It’s not a form of thievery. emotionally or psychologically harmed by it, no one is targeted or marginalised sharing content is an essential part for it. An issue of economic impact cannot of a free society, and has nothing to be treated the same as one of deep do with extremism or hate crimes. personal and psychological impact The later should be treated as they happen. A blanket restrictive law serves sharing content is usually a desire to let nothing except authoritarianism. others know about something good. Abuse and hatred are quite different and seek to Sharing content is harmless and cause harm. It would be senseless to use must be left alone. Hate and abuse the same law for such different things offences should be banned. Sharing content online is free advertising Sharing content is informative and for the content owners and, as such, collaborative. Of course there are shouldn’t be treat the same way as outliers, but the vast majority of shared hate speech etc. The two comparrisons content is nowhere near ‘extremism.; are miles apart in similarities Sharing content is not extremism, hate Sharing content owned by another is speech or abuse, even though those acts not the same as abusing that other can be carried out by sharing content. You can use a car to rob a bank but that sharing content owned by others doesn’t mean that car usage should be (pictures, videos, and blogs) should restricted as if it were commiting robbery. NOT be governed by the same rules ... there is too much room for malicious Sharing content is not that different from attacks, in an effort for monetary gain. generating content e.g., speech & videos. Keep the internet free and open. The rules governing free speech appear to be adequate in allowing free speech, Sharing content owned by others (pictures, and I do not see why sharing content videos, and blogs) should NOT be governed should not be covered by the same rules. by the same rules that we use to examine online abuse. Being able to share content Sharing content is one of the many reasons is a fundamental human right, supports why the Internet is what it is today. I should free speech and needs to be protected. be able to send links to the original content or copies of it to anyone I want without Sharing content owned by others (pictures, being restricted or punished for doing videos, and blogs) should NOT be governed so. My computer/mobile device already by the same rules that we use to punish has made a copy of this content locally extremism, hate speech, and abuse online so I can view it so why do I need special as copyright infringement & freedom of permission to send it someone else? 304 EU Responses to Question 5

speech/expression are two different things. Sharing content owned by others is anticipated the moment anything is Sharing content owned by others (pictures, posted If the original post is by the videos, and blogs) should NOT be governed originator or their representative. If by the same rules that we use to punish such content is used by others then extremism, hate speech, and abuse online. standard copyright laws must apply Copyright material is usually protected for financial gain. Extreme/ abusive material Sharing content owned by others is causes more intense damage & hurt totall different from hate speech, abuse, etc., and of course should not Sharing content owned by others (pictures, be governed by the same rules. videos, and blogs) should NOT be governed by the same rules that we use to punish Sharing content owned by others should extremism, hate speech, and abuse not be governed by the same rules that online. For one, bad words should never are used to punish extremism, hate speech be punished. Behaviors should. Sharing and abuse online. They are about property, content is a different behavior from not about violence or public order. anything else and should have its form of punishment specified separately to Sharing content owned by others ensure that the punishment fits the crime. should not be governed by the same rules that we use to punish extremism, Sharing content owned by others hate speech and abuse online. (pictures, videos, and blogs) should NOT be governed by the same rules Sharing content owned by others that we use to punish extremism, hate should NOT be governed by the same speech, and abuse online. While the rules that we use to punish extremism, former is intended to share, the latter is hate speech and abuse online. Sharing malicious with an intention to do harm content is not hate speech or abuse. If the content shared is copyrighted, it Sharing content owned by others (pictures, should be governed by copyright laws videos, and blogs) should NOT be governed by the same rules that we use to punish Sharing content owned by others should extremism, hate speech, and abuse online... not be governed by the same rules used Because the intent in sharing such content to punish extremism, hate speech and is not malicious. Its good to share good abuse unless it is used for those intents. things. Its not good to share hatred, divisive Otherwise it should be treated according speech or abuse which are all harmful. to reasonable copyright laws which allow fair use but which penalize use for profit. Sharing content owned by others for NON COMMERCIAL use should not be sharing content owned by others governed by the same rules that apply to should not be governed in the same extremism, hate speech and abuse online. way that extremism, hate speech or abuse is governed online, copyright Sharing content owned by others has a infringement does not qualify in the completely different intent and result same hateful way as any of those listed. compared to extremism, hate speech, and abuse online. These are not the same and Sharing content owned by others should should not be governed by the same rules not be subject to these rules as, among other reasons, it may have the effect EU Responses to Question 5 305

of denying people access to useful encouraging terrorism or at least causing or helpful sites and information lasting emotional harm, the second is merely about protecting copyright Sharing content owned by others should take place according to rules, but these Sharing content should NOT be rules should be far more relaxed than the governed by the same rules that punish sort of legislation that is (should be) in extremism, hate speech, and abuse online. place to combat extremism, hate speech Economic and emotional issues are not and abuse. There are two totally different the same at all and require completely levels of activity here. One should be different management techniques. harmless, the other is hugely dangerous. If sharing of content is avoiding payment Sharing content should not be governed for copyright material, that should be by the same rules that punish online hate dealt with, in a manner proportional to and abuse. The motivations and outcomes the damage sustained by the copyright of each of these actions are completely owner. Such fraudulent activity, however, different. They deserve separate rules. should still be dealt with by rules that are different from those that tackle Sharing content that does not hurt extremism, hate speech and abuse or is designed to hurt others is obviously not in the same category as Sharing content owned by others such extremism, hate speech or abuse. as pictures, videos and blogs, should not be governed by those same rules Sharing content that is hate speech should for extremism, hate speech or abuse. count as hate speech, when it is clear that this is the intent of the person who shared Sharing content owned by others that the content. If I link to a Nazi website does not lead to violence is different and make clear I am a Nazi sympathiser from violent extremism of any kind with text in or near my link, then that is arguably hate speech. If I link to a website Sharing content owned by others without with content from many users, some of their permission should not be allowed but whom engage in hate speech, but I do not links to that content which is governed by specifically link to that speech, then it is the content owner should be allowed to the person who generated the content the extent permitted by the content owner. that is responsible, not me. Conversely, if I Rules for hate etc should not be extended post hate speech to Twitter, then it should to videos etc, it’s not the same gravity be me that is responsible, not Twitter.

Sharing content produced by others Sharing content that is not considered bears no relationship to creating hate extreme, hate speech, or abuse speech or other forms of extremism should be part of free expression and governing them with the same set of rules is itself extreme censoship Sharing content that others (individuals, governments and businesses) is part Sharing content should be free of our modern, democratic system of information and should not be Sharing content should not be governed restricted, punished or supressed by the rules used against extremism, hate speech and on-line abuse. The two things Sharing content via links on social media are completely different, the first is about with no claim of ownership should 306 EU Responses to Question 5

be totally acceptable. Reproducing see why that should be taxed someone else’s content on a website without permission should remain an Sharing does not harm, it only broadens infringement and subject to removal the exposure. What about sharing cat on the request of the original author pictures or such is extremism, hate, or without the need for legal proceedings. abusive? It seems like an overreaching measure to have them governed by the Sharing content with proper referencing same rules by default, even though the allows information flow, education and rules might apply in some rare cases supports free speech. Extremism, hate speech and abuse etc. are obvious special Sharing information is what makes us cases and need to be treated differently human and bonds together society. (with caution) but governments should Yes, we need to monitor abuse and not allow the over-reaching of laws hatred but it is idiotic to punish the about national security to be used by 99.99% for the sake of the .001% media providers looking to protect their assets. The two scenarios are totally Sharing information should not be different and should not be conflated. penalised in the same way as we punish extremism, hate speech and abuse Sharing content, personaly owned by online. In the interests of humanity, others, should be regarded differently information should be accessible than extremism, hate and abuse, as long to all regardless of income as it is not of secreat content/information. Depending on the background of each and Sharing information/images owned by everyone who is sharing content, measures others is not new. Newspapers, magazines must be enforced. Extrimists sharing hate and periodicals have reproduced work messages should be punished as such. for decades. “Reproduced by kind Other type of contents shared by regular permission of.....” is all that is needed along persons should be enforced different with a proviso to the owner that they measures, always by a court of law will receive acknowledgement and ....a link(!) to their website. An article about Sharing copyrighted information should obesity and an unhealthy diet should most definitely NOT be governed by not be taken down because it contains a the same rules that apply to extremism, link to an article in a newspaper about hate speech, and abuse online. They the benefits of fruit in your diet-plan. are completely different forms of expression. Copyright infringement Sharing interesting and innocuous (or can occur innocently when people do even ambiguous) information should not not know their legal rights, and is in be governed in the same way as hate most instances not done maliciously speech, abuse or extremism. There is a difference in the rest of the law and this Sharing cultural artefacts is PART should be maintained online. The burden of culture. It is certainly different to of proof must be maintained and the those who want to destroy culture. assumption of innocence preserved, and due legal processes observed. Protection Sharing does not automatically is key and public safety, but where these entail abuse, hate or extremism, it is are clearly not at risk no restriction freedom of expression and I do not should be possible. The medium is not EU Responses to Question 5 307

the message- legislate the problematic someone so why treat it the same as content (hate speech, abuse, extremist something that does cause these sort content) and not the method used to of effects. Treating it this way is its own communicate it. A pamphlet which sort of extremism and is totally out of contravenes such legislation should be proportion to the harm (if any) done able to be adequately pursued in the same way as a website because it is CONTENT Sharing legal and unharmful material with that is the issue. Certainly deliberate other users should not be criminalised. proliferation of for example revenge Bundling innocent material with hate porn should be adequately regulated but speech, extremism and online abuse is it should not be possible to criminalise preposterous - it blurs the distinction say climate change activism as a result between right and wrong behaviour, and makes a mockery of a legal system Sharing Internet content is a fundamental in which the punishment should fit the method of ensuring free speech and crime. Punishing people for innocent acts allowing the dissemination of information is beyond ridiculous. It is a regressive act and criticism as well as other content. This and does not belong in a forward-thinking, right should be absolutely guarenteed mature society.Legislators have a key and not subject to the unelected role in making our digital sphere a safe opionion or interference by 3rd party space where individuals can be free from interests, corporate or institutional abuse and harassment.Our laws have other than under due process after been crafted with the delicate balance INDEPENDENT judicial review. between free expression and legal speech in mind. These laws should be used to sharing is a positive act, punishment curb abusive behaviour online, rather than for a positive act is ridiculous. there creating a new system.When copyrighted should be rules but they should material is shared the harm is usually an be transparent and obvious economic and business one. However, extreme and abusive messages have a Sharing is caring lifelong emotional and mental impact, on individuals and on society.These two issues Sharing is caring and sharing content of do not fit under the same framework.Trying others should be welcomed and most to make them fit is like trying to mix oil with certainly should not governed by the same water. Let’s have a grown-up approach to rules used to punish hate speech etc the internet - it is not the possession of the Sharing is fun, harmless and informative. few - but the right of all.The internet should Hands off our freedom. I recall one guy not be abused as a mechanism for control - saying years ago: the Internet is something which is a dangerous form of extremism in good created out of the altruism of itself - and it is that control that should be ordinary people. Sooner or later the criminalised - not the victims of that abuse. corporate world will destroy it and then Sharing material, except where explicitly we’ll have to create something else. Even banned by the owners, should be OK as he said it, I felt how true this could be. except extreme hate propaganda and Sharing is not extremism or hate speech similarly harmful material. Suitable so why should it be treated the same? warnings and age restrictions should It doesn’t physically or mentally hurt be carried with appropriate material 308 EU Responses to Question 5

Sharing online content with attribution share ideas is the opposite of extremism. is perfectly fine. Stealing another’s multimedia or text is a completely Sharing should be allowed, but for pofit different matter. There should be harsh penalties when caught purposely trying Sharing should not be governed by the to claim another’s info as your own but same rules as extremism or hate speech. part of that should involve the discretion Abuse, extremism and hate speech contain of the original owner of the content the seeds of real violence and threaten personal physical or emotional injury. The Sharing others content should always be physical analogy here is to actually throw done only with the owners permission. If abuse at a person in the street (which I don’t want to share my photos it should is punishable) or make hate speeches be up to me do so or not to do so. If I have (normally seen as a crime along the lines something I will share for a fee I should of incitement to riot)In contrast, sharing have the right to stipulate that and to a link to some copyrighted material (with have my wish respectd - just the same as potentially a teaser of the content) will in printed or otherwise produced materials. general contain at most a small, negative If it’s a cent or a dollar to view the one commercial impact and in many cases who wishes can pay or not view and the will be a positive commercial gain as fee should go to the owner/creator - not the increased visibility of the teaser will to anyone else. I can create a website cause more people to visit the original to show the works of creators and I can material and potentially purchase it. charge them to show their works and have The physical analogy here is a book fees paid - and give them the fees. If the review, which may contain small pieces creator wants to share his/her work for of a copyrighted work and is generally free it’s up to them and if not that should encouraged as it increases visibility of be their choice also. This is not rocket the work and is a commercial gain. science it’s simply common sense. It may be complex to work out the details but Sharing these things in the private domain that’s what needs to be done. If the sharing without profit and merely to illustrate question is related to abusive or damaging a point or to illuminate an argument materials there must be a fair screening shouldn’t fall under the same rules as process and a serious and inescapable those to punish extremism, hate speech consequence for any unfair discrimination and online abuse. If one put something on that does not conform to fair practices the internet for all to see then it should be allowed to share freely and fairly Sharing pictures, videos and written as long as it’s done without gain. If it is material that has been displayed publicly done for gain then the gain should be must remain free of control, as long as shared with the owner otherwise there it is not done for financial gain. Where should be no penalty. There’s too much the original material was displayed only recourse to commerce, life isn’t all about for payment, then reasonable samples the market and if it is then what has should be allowed to be redisplayed become of our civilisation that everything by others for the purposes of criticism has to be costed? It cannot be right. explanation, education and comment. None of this is in any way “piracy” and Sharing trademarked content is not a it is certainly not similar to extremism -- crime in the same league as terrorism, indeed an open society with freedom to sexual or physical abuse, rape, or the EU Responses to Question 5 309

promotion of this kind of content. If it Since the advertising industry is trying is addressed at all, it should be seen as to completely rule our live, the ‘small’ akin to shoplifting. Existing laws should people get left out by not being able to be used to curb abusive behaviour afford ‘ad space’. I recognize this most with musical artists that I like, who don’t get sharing video or pictures might cause the promotion they deserve. Link are THE a loss of revenue but will never create way for them to get their names out there the harm hate or abuse online causes so cannot possibly be punished in the same Sometimes you share in order to way. after all you wouldn’t sentance a describe why the thing you are sharing speeding motorist the same as a stalker to is bad: to educate and oppose.

Sharing with families and friends That depends on content and intention should not be governed by the same rather than source. If the content is rules as for extremism, surely..? extremist, hate-provoking or abusive/abuse encouraging, or more innocent material, should be governed because if the content e.g. personal photographs, is shared and/ is not extreme or hate speech and abuse or altered with the intention of bullying, then no one will be hurt and need not be demeaning,abusing etc.,then the same bothered whether it is governed or not rules should apply regardless of source.

SHOULD BE. That depends on the content and the intent. Spreading hate material and Should not use the same rules,a extremist views and content depicting lot of complaints are about abuse is wrong if the intent is to encourage commercial business, not crimes. the depicted behaviour. If the intent is to publicise and bring down the Should still be regulated perpetrators of such material and bring but in different way. them to justice then thats a good thing. Shouldn’t that be up to the site That is a ridiculous question. Those two owners? I’m sorry but this is a rather things are far removed from being equal. stupidly framed question. Copyright infringement is wrong and can Simplify & condense your question damage our shared knowledge and growth. ass holeStop being a dick, keep links Extremism, hate, and abuse can result in free & online. We shouldn’t have to people dying. So, no, these two should justify ourselves to corporate scum that not carry the same legal repercussions rule our world.Get them lynched The basis of the democracy that we Simply because probably 99% of what is pay lip service to, is the freedom to shared is NOT extremist, hateful, or abusive express our opinions. Our opinions are formed on the basis of ideas, opinions Simply, content owned by others need and snippets of genuine fact that we not fall under extremism, hate speech have been exposed to. The wider the and abuse. People should have the right platform and discussion that we base to avoid others with a grudge putting our opinions on, the better the chance out things online they don’t want if it that our opinions are at least marginally doesn’t fall under those headings. informed and considered. Sharing and 310 EU Responses to Question 5

debating ideas is vitally important in information between individuals. It supporting the promotion of innovation. is not physical property for you to Abuse of individuals, promulgating claim. Keep your greedy paws off! intolerance and violence is at the extreme end of a spectrum and it seems only The Internet is built around sharing appropriate that while such material information. Resharing content (with may be removed temporarily everyone proper attribution) should not be treated should have recourse to the law to decide at all in the same manner as hate speech if that removal should stay in force. or abuse unless the reshared content is, itself, illegally hateful or abusive The content in question is often positive. Why not put the same efforts The internet is such a powerful thing into better socialisation of people on that there would soon develop an even earth so that negative problems such greater chasm between the rich and the as hate and abuse can be eased. ; poor. Strife will ensue making everyone’s life narrower and more fearful. The current system is sufficient to police abuses of free expression. The internet operates more as speech than A new system is not required. publication, despite being largely print in nature. It is also largely informal. Applying The difference between commercial the standards applied to traditional print interests and personal input are media misunderstands the medium. People vastly different, so two different reference pop culture, famous works sets of laws are necessary and topical subjects every day in speech without fear of reprisal, they use the The excercise of free expression should internet in the same way. The informal use be prioritised over protecting us from the of the internet is akin to singing Rigoletto opinions of others with whom we disagree in the bath, no one expects to apply for permission to do so. People take this The existing law should be left as it is, same sensibility to their informal use of as you cannot have one law to cover the internet. Unless there is a clear intent everything, in my opinion it is totally wrong. to plagiarise or pirate a work for profit, then this everyday use of works, ancient The freedom to share ideas, information and modern, which have permeated the and video without restriction, must be public consciousness should be accepted maintained as a right of each citizen. as they are in everyday speech. Moderation of extremism, hate speech and abuse one line is adequately controlled The INTERNET, itself, was invented, LONG currently. For Government or Unions to AFTER many countries, established the restrict the internet is, in my view, an abuse RIGHT to “Freedom of Speech, therefore, of power and an abuse of freedom. ; FREEDOM OF SPEECH, should ALWAYS take precidence over Copyright !!!We should The general sharing of content ALL accept, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, that is not extremism, hate speech or if you post ANYTHING to the Internet, abuse. To subject it to the same you MUST accept, that that post WILL be rules is an abuse in itself. re-posted, at some time, or another.ALL The internet is a web of electrons information posted to the Internet, should arranged in specific order to share be considered to be “Freely Available” EU Responses to Question 5 311

for re-posting, UNLESS, it has a SPECIFIC public toilet door, we don’t take away all Copyright Notice Affixed to the Post. toilet doors. We don’t blame toilet doors. We ALREADY have Laws, in individual Countries, that apply to “Obscene”, “Illegal”, The sharing of content gwned by others and “Hateful” Posts, IN PLACE --- THEY are (pictures, videos, and blogs) should the ONLY RULES that should EVER be used NOT be governed by the same rules to control the content of individual Posts, that we use to punish extremism, hate or Re-Posts, of any available material. speech, and abuse online. Copyright is No one wants, needs, or will accept, ANY a commercial consideration and should NEW STRUCTURE, to interfere with the be dealt with under commercial law, Status Quo !!!!!!Any attempt to create a whereas hate crime etc should be dealt new system, based on the proposals you with under criminal law: it is dangerous recommend, can ONLY be construed as woolly thinking to confuse the two. being PURELY COMMERCIALLY BASED, and, as such, UNACCEPTABLE TO USERS !!!!!! The sharing of content is integral to the internet. Ownership of material The law as it exists is sufficient used is normally acknowledgred as a courtesy.Sharing content owned by The legal basis for the 2 must others should NOT be governed by remain separate, just as it is separate rules that we use to control extremism, for similar violations offline hate speech, and abuse online.

The punishment must fit the crime. The sharing of content owned by others is Anything else would be uncivilized. The very different from promoting extremism act of sharing content that is (or may be) or hatred online. I write books, and my owned by others DOES NOT and CANNOT content is on the internet, but if someone be considered to be in the same league shares a book of mine illegally, the only as other, more serious, rules and laws person to get hurt is me, financially. This is totally different from someone/ The rules governing all media and organs some people being victimized by hatred, of public information are to do with extremist propganda, or abuse online protecting authorship and preventing plagiarism, passing off, misconduct related The sharing of material that is to accuracy, privacy etc. It is inappropriate not offensive in general to others to conflate the various grades of formal should not be regulated in the infringements, instances of inaccuracy, same way as offensive material. professional negligence or at worst deliberate dishonesty and intellectual The sharing of pictures, etc. is pretty fraud - generally industrial and economic innocuous and has become a part of crimes - with crimes of a completely everyday life so should be allowed to different nature targeting individual continue unhindered.However extremism, human beings or groups in society.Indeed online abuse, Etc. are a totally different ball it is dishonest and dangerous to conflate game and should be monitored at least. If aggressive antisocial acts with other types there is a sufficient number of complaints of misdemeanours, simply because they or reasonable grounds then there should use a common platform: the link is spurious be a facility for its removal. But again and the relationship merely superficial. If a course of appeal should still apply. somebody scrawls hateful swastikas on a 312 EU Responses to Question 5

the special conditions we have had anywhere else. There is no need for to put in place to battle extremism more laws. More laws covering the same and hate speech should be used problems will only confuse things. sparingly and with careful planning. they should not become the norm. There are existing laws which enable the control of extremist views whilst The terms ‘extremism’ and ‘racism’ are still providing a platform for fredom of ill-defined and often used to shut down expression. We do not need new laws dialogue. The Internet does not need or which are more about financal protection want a ‘nanny-class’ of prod-noses. than protection fron extremist views the use of anti hate / extremism There can be NO justification for such laws to regulate commercial draconian action against sovereign people. situations is inappropriate. There is a clear distinction between The web is a wonderful way of sharing financial harm and emotional abuse. ideas, your work and skills. As a Financial harm should be proven and photographer I put my photos on the net to recompensed appropriately rather than be shared by as many people as possible. It punitively. It should be resolved between would be the same if I kept a blog or I share the complainent and poster where possible. videos. Yes it can be annoying if someone Emotional harm, abuse and hate speech uses your material to make money for can be very subjective. There are a lot of themselves or uses my material in an shades between illegal and undesirable inappropriate way but that’s the price I’m with no clear distinctions. Complaints can prepared to pay for a free web. I believe also be vexatious rather than of merit. that the web should be free and not in the Response should be proportional. A set hands of governments or global businesses of official guidelines, with examples of unacceptable content, would set some The World Wide Web was invented by a sort of standards, but policing this type European working at CERN. Its essence of content will always be difficult as is the transparent use of links. That the acceptable boundaries are very system and the WWW has revolutionized indistinct.This is currently policed by the the world more thoroughly than any content hoster. Clear guidelines here sociocultural change since the Industrial would help everyone. The authorities Revolution. The proposals to restrict should be involved where a law has been and censor this are a disaster in the broken, but to suggest that everything making. Europe gave the world a goose should be recorded in case a law is laying golden eggs. Now it wants to kill broken is inappropriate and unnecessary. it. This is illiterate, ignorant, short Existing laws should be adequate to distinguish between free speech and Theft of intellectual property is hardly abuse. This is a fluid boundary and in the same class as real or threatened cannot be wholly legislated anyway. physical violence and should not carry the same punishment. There is a difference between sharing something for financial gain (downloading a There are enough laws already to movie instead of paying for it), and sharing punish extremism, hate and abuse, something out of interest (“Hey, look at this these apply equally on the internet as it’s cool”), word of mouth is as old a speech EU Responses to Question 5 313

itself and should not be stifled in any way. There is no comparison between the harm Any law that tries to curb free speech (even done to society by copyright infrigement to speech we don’t agree with), should be very the harm done by extremism, hate speech carefully considered before it is proposed. and abuse, on the web or anywhere. These Extremism, hate speech, and abuse online cannot be governed by the same rules. are often precursors to criminal acts in the “real world”, whereas someone who There is no equivalence between the shares a link to a video is very unlikely two things. In intent and effect they are to then go and steal a DVD in real life. different from one another. The laws of slander, “hate speech” or inciting There is a difference between violence are not used to resolve copyright threatening behaviour and criticising disputes. I feel uncomfortable about the politicians and companies. Claiming “thought crime” category, but understand these 2 are the same is moronic. that persistent abuse or the organising and inspiration of violence must be There is a great danger that principle limited. Sharing other peoples words and such as fair use and parody will be images can have a valuable role in this. stifled by excessive legislation. It would be difficult to draw attention to and deal with a problem if it were There is a serious ‘category error’ in this illegal to show others the problematic proposal - the same one that sometimes, in content. There is a real danger that this legal and political arguments, puts/appears attempt to add revenue to publishers to put property crime in the same bracket will help the trolls, fascists and bigots. as crime against the person (physical, psychological, emotional). While of course There is no need to create a there is a spectrum of seriousness and whole new set of rules to try and consequence in each field of justice, their regulate digital expression, and I overlap needs to be viewed in terms of caution you against doing so. impact on each other, and not conflated. Equating people and things risks making There requires to be clear distinction the legislative/regulatory system no better between extremism, hate speech, and than those who abuse the freedoms it is abuse issues and ythe sharing of mterials designed to protect. It further breeds a culture of contempt and avoidance, driving There should be fair usage parameters. the very mechanisms of systematic abuse, Punishment cannot be disproportionate while penalising those with no intention to other crimes. Rich corporations to do so. The internet does us a service should not be allowed to buy increased in bringing these distinctions into sharp punishment for wrongs against them. focus. How we respond makes it very clear where, as a society, our priorities lie, and There should be no link what’s so ever who is in the driving seat - and whether between the two. One deals with copyright our institutions (particularly the corporate) law and the other is some of the most serve us or the other way around. horrible crimes possible to commit by a human. They should never be lumped There is difference between copyright and together, only a complete fool would do so. extremism, hate and abuse and should be assessed and judged accordingly. Blanket There should be three levels of ‘sharing’ laws are dangerous in my opinion. - with- open content, and content shared 314 EU Responses to Question 5

for entirely private reasons, or not of the disproportionately powerful and competing with the original not subject another example of that power and to restriction .... along the lines of US ‘fair influence being misused or even abused. use’ permissions- owned content shared for commercial gain subject to a scale of These are two separate and distinct civil and criminal penalties, depending categories, and require different kinds on the level of money involved and the of regulation. Extremism has many degree of persistance- hate crimes and definitions and can be misused to apply incitement to violence subject yo the same to anything you don’t agree with, so I criminal penalties as if done face to face think only its specific content should be monitored. Hate speech and abuse There should be two different rules for the (including sexual abuse!!!) should sharing of a music video, for example, and be eliminated wherever possible sharing a hate speech. They are not the same thing and should not be regarded as These are two very different issues. Sharing the same. I am all for tighter laws and rules content is normal. It may be a threat to for hate speech, as it is abhorrent. Sharing business models, but does not mean that a video link is not in the same league. the internet should be censored by a few gate keepers, who are having difficulty There’s a clear difference between sharing adjusting to the new reality.Hate speech content and promoting hate/extremism. can be dealt with by current laws that Using laws to restrict the latter to police exist in all countries. These laws have the former is overkill. It would also be been crafted by legislators, and courts a clear sign of a totalitarian state over a long period of time, and reflect a balance that society as a whole expects These are different ‘crimes’ obviously and respects. Copyright should have a somebody sharing personal/intimate very limited term, and NOT be used as a material could span both scenarios.It is tool of censorship, and digital slavery. worrying that somebody sharing internet content with friends could potentially be These items are legally separate in the real treated the same way as an extremist. world and treated as such. The blurring of these frameworks in the digital world is not These are two different issues and it is only disingenuous, it serves as a platform to important that we do not try to address one retrofit our real world with the same illogic. problem by restricting another. There are rules that govern extremism, hate speech These two issues do not fit under and abuse - in any public format, of which the same framework.; online is one. This needs to be addressed separately from other sharing online. these two issues should be treated completely separately. There is a positive These are two entirely separate issues. value in sharing content ( even if its Yet again, we’re seeing one set of copyrighted ) since it allows people who circumstances or concerns (about which might not have the resources to purchase people broadly agree there is a need for such content, to enjoy it and learn from regulation) being used as a back door it. However there is no benefits to society to regulate freedom of expression and from “extremism, hate speech, and abuse” the day to day use of the internet. This is simply a back door to protect the interests They are 2 different issues so they should EU Responses to Question 5 315

NOT be governed by same rules whereas the victims of the second category are usually businesses - their interactions They are clearly different issues with other entities are markedly different. and their is no blanket response for all these issues. That is what court They should not be classed as EXTREMISTS! and law proceedings are for. No not the same laws at all. Because the powerful lobbyist have to much influence They are completely different things and created these draconian laws!!!! and innocent sharing should not be subject to laws covering extremism They should not be governed by the hate speech and abuse. Those things same rules for the same reason that are being used as an excuse to clamp murder is more serious than shoplifting down on ordinary decent people They should not be governed by the same They are constitutionally different. They rules. Gov’t should be concentrating should be subject to different regulations. on those extremists (etc) under specific laws including fining google, facebook, They are not connected. If you do not twitter etc for allowing extremists agree with the content, then remove and others to post anything at all yourself from the source of the content. They should not be governed by the They are two completely different things. If same sat of rules - they are quite I share a link of a cute kitten rolling in cat different categories and therefore nip and mention how cute it is, I should be need quite different regulations, if persecuted for fair use and free speech? If and where regulations are needed. anything I’m driving more views to the page which can create more monetization!!! They should not. It should always be Hate and abuse is uncalled for and possible to make fair use of music, art, shouldn’t be a part of the same question. videos, etc, for instance in articles, etc. Remove the noggin from the posterior!!! Extremism, hate speech etc should not

They are two incredibly different aspects This goes to the heart of the whole of the Internet, I do not understand argument about how we treat crimes how sharing content could be governed against property and crimes against the in a similar way to online violence person. In my opinion the latter should (such as hate speech, or abuse). They always be seen as the more important should be governed seperately. although that is not to say that some protection for intellectual property should They are very different things. One is a not be provided. However, corporations protection of commerce. The other is have huge resources to protect their protection of people from harm. They aren’t property whereas individuals only have the same and shouldn’t be treated as such, their own resources and those which the state chooses to apply to protect them. They require different treatment. The social harms of extremism, hate speech This is a strangely worded question but yes and abuse are far greater than the harms I agree that sharing content should NOT be of potential lost revenue due to copyright governed by the same rules that we use to infringement. Furthermore, the victims of punish extremism, hate speech and abuse the first category are usually individuals, online. Aren’t there enough laws already 316 EU Responses to Question 5

existing to govern what is right and what is regardless of tone or color, should be wrong? Why do we need new and improved subjected to the same rules across the laws when the old laws are far from busted. board. If there are exceptions, then there will be loop holes that will be This is a straw man question, ignored it exploited for the benefit of a few, and to the detriment of the majority. This is all about protecting commercial interests, and nothing about concern Too many laws that are not founded on fact for the people. Extremism, hate speech, and truth destroy our creative expression - etc (movable targets in themselves) and sovereign rights to explore the Earth. simply cannot be equated as the same thing as copyrighted pop videos. Two words - FREE SPEECH.

This is difficult, as it can be hard to trace Under some circumstances, sharing the originator of material, but I can readily such material can promote sales (for see that they may want to be credited example, there is some recent evidence for their work. I would very much like to of distribution companies publishing see a permanent, indelible credit applied their material on torrent sites), so yes. to each work as it is first posted, so that not only can creativity be acknowledged, Unless there is evidence of a hate crime, but so that it is possible to see if you are I don’t understand how property claims unwittingly reposting from a site you would could fall under the same rules. We prefer not to support (eg Britain First) already have laws governing hate crimes and laws governing property claims This is two different matters and should be treated as such. Use current laws to limit/stop abusive speech online and keep the This move will turn Europe into the internet a safe place to spend time. kind of state as Russia under Stalin.; Do not create new laws for it.

This needs care. Sharing such material Using archaic real world punishments in a way that indicates approval is for what is essentially free speech and equivalent to creating it, whereas using to content sharing, should not be tolerated to illustrate how unacceptable it is is just and should not be encouraged the opposite.The current rules on this sort of material are much too strict anyway. Wait, so we’re treating cyberbullying, Such censorship should be confined to in which children have been known to publication of material advocating or be targeted so appallingly they take teaching criminal activity. Tolerance of their own lives, with some technical offensiveness (including abuse) is the price breach of the law in which a large which has to be paid for freedom of speech. corporation is barely affected other than to have a bunch of their lawyers This should not be the business of the State; pretend to be outraged? Nope. Wrong.

Those should be separate rules since they We are free to speak, and free to ignore are much different issues. First should be ideas we find repugnant. This being so, allowed, 2nd should never be allowed anyone in their right mind can reject hateful ideas when presented with truth. To be brutally honest, ALL speech, Abuse needs to be curbed, however freedom of speech must be preserved EU Responses to Question 5 317

We don’t need a new system/laws for that human rights applied to all even if tackling abusive behaviour online. they were homosexuals, I now find that Our current legal system has already those who do not agree with the pushing of been established to ensure that free boundaries by the LGBT political agendas expression is possible within the laws are being persecuted and subjected of what is acceptable legal speech. to hate speech. They are being denied human rights by the LGBT politicised We have ewnough laws to prevent abuse agendas. The political fundamentalism we have seen over 4 decades has been We have rights not to be misled and micro just as frightening as the terrorists. ;

We mostly share content online the same When copyrighted material is illegally way we share stories at diner parties shared the harm is usually an economic or during conversation. It’s not done to and business one. However, extreme make money. If it was, it’s an economic and abusive messages have a lifelong harm and should be treated accordingly emotional and mental impact, on but not with the same rules that we individuals and society. These two issues use to punish extremism for example. do not fit under the same framework These are totally different topics. Who decides? Under what pretext are We need rules, but one should not go to those decisions made? I don’t like the court martial for not buying bus ticket colour of your hair, your eyes, where is this going to stop? Extremism is always we should at least have the right to be able used as an example of reasons to restrict to report such. wht do u want ? throw us our rights! As if some bloody extremist is back to dark ages where only men ruled n going to sit online and happily chat about women were mere means of a machine? their extremist views and decide to go WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO EXPRESS and do some bloody awful thing to others! ALL CONTENT FREELY UNLESS IT IS These despicable human beings have EXPRESSLY USED TO INTIMIDATE, been doing this stuff since we threw rocks HATE AND CAUSE CRIME at each other, they found ways to contact each o their then just as I’m sure they do We should invest much more to now! Restricting everyone else to get at an moderation and deliberation than extremely small minority is an atom bomb to building fences and road-blocks, yo crack a nut! Freedom of Expression is everywhere, not only on internet and should always remain a basic human right! I can’t stand the present Government we should not be governed by the same but they have every right to put their rules as extremists, but, permissions for views out, so why can’t the rest of us? publishing ‘owned’ copyrights should be protected as they now are.; wholeheartedly agree

We would be drawing attention to it, not Why would the two even be conflated? promoting these ideas. Sometimes the ones They are two separate, albeit over-lapping, who are the most extreme are the censors concepts. Although the medium of racism who block legitimate discussion, legitimate or incitement could be pictures, videos, and free speech and legitimate understanding blogs they wouldn’t have to be. One is a which is not hate. Although I used to think partly question of financial or intellectual 318 EU Responses to Question 5

interests in the content, the other a and information sharing though threat to social order and freedom. One some rules should apply is a question of economic resource, the other of potentially criminal behaviour Yes agreed. Today extremism and hate speech are loosely defined and Why would you conflate the sharing of targeted predominantly against one content illegally with hate speech or group. The authorities could decide to abusing another person online? The two include anything in it, such as criticism things have NOTHING to do with one of government, politicians or other another except in some cases the location ideologies in the future. The internet has of the criminal. This suggestion is ridiculous been revolutionary in giving us access to alternative views that the MSM and Yeah. Why on earth would you want to treat governments would rather that we did sharing content as a hate crime? They’re not hear. In fact, I am certain that if totally different things and cannot be put in governments can have their way they will the same box. Why is this even a question? use new laws to simply “ban truth telling”.

Yes - a false comparison. Yes because for freedom of expression they need to be protected. It is dangerous Yes - because not proportionate if governments and multinationals can influence what we see and share, that YES - for the reasons set out in Q1 Q2 Q3 is a loss if our democratic rights; Q4Legislators have a key role in making our digital sphere a safe space where Yes Because it is none of those things individuals can be free from abuse and harassment. Our laws have been crafted Yes because quite simply it is not the with the delicate balance between free same thing and the temptation to expression and legal speech in mind. misuse the rules will be significant. These laws should be used to curb abusive behaviour online, rather than Yes because the first is just a sharing of creating a new system.When copyrighted information the second is a promotion material is shared the harm is usually an of Hate, the two are entirely different economic and business one. However, and should be treated differently extreme and abusive messages have a lifelong emotional and mental impact, on yes Because the sharing content could individuals and society.These two issues be simply an affirmation to the content, do not fit under the same framework. not especificly for or against the owner

Yes - sharing content should NOT be Yes because there is no way to perfectly governed in any way. It is the heart control content that has been made and and soul of the internet - SHARING. when you release it you should know that. Extremism, hate and abuse should be Hate speech and online abuse are far more monitored and removed, but that is damaging to a person then having their not sharing. COMPLETELY different. personal property stolen or looked at.

Yes - simply sharing content is a far cry from Yes because they are often not intended extremism, hate speech and / or abuse maliciously like extremism, hate speech, and online abuse are, so such yes -it is basically simple conversation punishment does not fit that ‘crime’ EU Responses to Question 5 319

Yes because they’re 2 totally different for example be under watch the categories. Sharing harmless (even if it is same as those getting people to go controversial) content is an expression of out and murder innocent people. free speech and supports the ideology of democracy. Extremism, hate speech, Yes I agree, it should not be because and abuse is immoral, inhumane and it is not of the same serious felony degrades the good of civilization, goes against freedom and should be the Yes i agree, sharing get the original only thing regulated on the Internet artist more exposure to prevent this would be at the cost of them Yes democracy depends on freedom of information yes i agree. for reasons already stated, honest, thoughtful, opinions should Yes Hate speech and abuse should be allowed as long as they are not not be tolerated if we are to have threatening others or bullying others civilized debate and progress Yes I agree. If those owners don’t want Yes I agree that sharing content owned by to share their stuff, no-one is forcing others (pictures, videos, and blogs) should them to do it in the first place NOT be governed by the same rules that we use to punish extremism, hate speech, and Yes I agree. It’s completely different. abuse online. They are obviously different When done properly (acknowledging issues that require different solutions. the original author) sharing content usually helps everyone. There’s no yes I agree that they should be governed excuse for hate speech in any form. differently. what’s the big deal to tell someone “Hey, check this out...http://...... )” Yes I do agree. Anything published to The big deal is that is our free speech that the internet in whole or in part should they are trying to take away! We need to be classified as public domain material take people who want all of this away!. for anyone to use, particularly since it’s readily available to billions of people in Yes I agree that this kind of positive seconds and also in perpetuity. This was informative sharing should not be the original concept in the first place. subject to the same legislation as that Information Access. If people want to used to penalise the use of links for make money on their property, then they negative purposes. Positive link sharing must provide a sample for free publically has become a vital ways of sharing in order to encourage commercial sales. useful and informative information. Yes it is clearly not the same issue Yes I agree there should be different rules for that content. And The extremism, Yes it should not be governed by the hate speech and abuse is intended same rules that we use to punish to harm someone, the other isn’t extremism, hate speech, and abuse online.because it is different from it Yes I agree, and because it’s a total and utter false equivalence. Yes it should not. The offence is with the original poster. extremism is a matter Yes I agree, for instance should those for careful judgement otherwise we will sharing a video of a new film trailer get more of the nonsense that Cameron 320 EU Responses to Question 5

showed with his classification of anyona have the facility to rent it out to them. against bombing Syria as ‘terrorist sympathisers’. we are purportedly Yes they should NOT be living in democratic states with free governed by the same rules speech held in high regard. we allow arbiters of this at our own peril. Yes, agree. Keep the Web free from snooping government and their yes it’s called “free expression” agencies. Look out for 1984.

Yes Not that damaging to society yes, all artists borrow from one another to a certain extent, so hate speech and hurtful Yes of cources not, becuase the rules speech is NOT that category of speech.... are not suiatble for such application It’s like putting innocent marijuana users in prison with the worst of the worst and Yes of course, given that such content mandatory minimum crap....We have way is legal and that the sharer does not too much litigation in this country already use the content in such a way as to be for stupid stuff, and DA’s wanting $$$$$$ characterized as being extremist. and making names and advancement for themselves at all our expense....You only Yes sharing of knowledge, information need to watch the doc on Aaron Schwartz and learning is paramount to an open to see the extent of that nonsense, the and engaged society. Impeding access judicial system is truly berserk, one to this for the sake of a few under need only look at SCOTUS to see that the guise of perceived lost financial opportunity is damaging to the rights Yes, because alleged copyright of a just and open society wanting infringement is of a completely different to better the general interest order. I’d crime--much less destructive- -than hate speech and abuse. Yes should NOT be governed by same rules as extremism, hate speech, and Yes, because it’s ridiculous. abuse online as these are disharmonious & divisive to mixed communities, Yes, because legislators have a key role let alone against the law. in making our digital sphere a safe space where individuals can be free from abuse Yes they definitely should, provided you and harassment. Existing laws have been are dealing with infants. But really, Elon crafted with the delicate balance between Musk did not need to be very old before free expression and legal speech in mind. he was able to demonstrate the difference These laws should be used to curb abusive between reality and gaming. He will not behaviour online, rather than creating a be the only one. We must grow up in a new system. When copyrighted material world where we have a chance to become is illegally shared the harm is usually an adults able to discern the difference economic and business one. However, between what has an impact and what extreme and abusive messages have a will not help anyone. This can only happen lifelong emotional and mental impact, on if we learn of ideas strange to us and individuals and society. These two issues think them out. What we should have do not fit under the same framework.; laws for is to ensure that a person owns their own data. If someone wants to store Yes, because sharing content is a copyright my date of birth, for example, I should issue and only subject to copyright laws EU Responses to Question 5 321

yes, because sharing is not abuse by others can be done for very good reasons, or at least for harmless ones Yes, because that is ridiculous Yes, I agree that applying rules for anti- Yes, because they are not the same thing terrorism etc. to all content is ridiculous. Moreover, companies will probably find Yes, because they are two it loses them money in the end, because very different things people will simply find it too difficult to recommend something they like to friends Yes, but credit must always be given. as they do currently by sharing a link. If it yes, copyrights are one thing but using rules incurs a charge they won’t do it - period. to protect people’s sovereignty to address Yes, I agree that it should not be governed civil matters is manipulating the system. by the same rules. Extremism, hate speech yes, for the same reason that and abuse online have a lifelong emotional we don’t hang jaywalkers and mental impact on individuals and society while sharing copyrighted Yes, for they are two separate issues and material illegally just has an economic do not fit under the same framework. -The and business harm which is not severe illegal sharing of copyrighted material results, usually, in an economic or financial Yes, I agree that these two issues should not harm. -While the extreme and abusive be governed by the exact same rule. They messages have a lifelong emotional and are after all, completely different issues mental impact, both on individuals and Yes, I agree that we need separate rules society. There are currently existing laws for this. It should stay in the realm of that have been crafted with the delicate corporate law and copyright management balance between free expression and legal speech in mind. They should be Yes, I agree. As long as it does not used to curb abusive behavior online, intend to harm anyone, sharing content rather than creating a new system should be under different rules. How else can we find out about the rest yes, free speech is a sign of a of the world and keep updated? developed civilisation Yes, I agree. Because sharing information yes, freedom of expression is what freedom is all about is a democratic right. Yes, I agree. Innocently sharing Yes, hate speech and online abuse can lead photos is not the same as to psychological problems or disorders extremism, hatred or abuse. Yes, how can any right minded Yes, I agree. It should be perfectly person mention the two things obvious why not, it’s not the same in the same sentence? level of seriousness at all. Yes, I agree because these are completly Yes, I agree. This is fair use of different crimes. Extremism, hate-speech content to further the culture and abuse are a direct attempt to stir up bad feeling in the community and bring Yes, I agree. We are comparing apples and harm to others. Sharing content owned 322 EU Responses to Question 5

oranges here. Extremism, hate speech regulated by governments for ANY and abuse can cause real damage to an reason in ANY way. You cannot stop individual/individuals, whereas the other a grand mother from singing a Celine is on the public domain where someone Dion song to her hand child at home chose to put it on the public domain. We all have a choice. You don’t want your pictures, yes, it’s an totally different level video, blog to be shared, don’t publish it on the public domain in the first place Yes, it’s called “fair use” and as long as it is not hate speech, abusive or some form Yes, I believe in that, because you are not of extremism it should be allowed to exist making any direct harm to other people and roam freely in the online world

Yes, I completely agree, freedom of yes, its a free world; expression is a main staple of democracy. Privacy is another but that’s already gone. Yes, not hate speech etc, just should say the source and author of content Yes, I do believe it should be treated differently. This is because the content may Yes, sharing content by just not be being used for the original purpose linking to it is never a crime! or for a different reason and to shame Yes, sharing content generally has nothing rather than agree with the content creator to do with the negative aspects of the if it is offensive. Furthermore, existing internet mentioned above, why use the laws attempt to resolve this issue and same rules? It is utterly perverse to equate balance between free speech and legal hate speech etc to sharing content. Just speech and should be used as opposed greedy people trying to get more and more to creating an entirely different system. for themselves as usual, commodification Any form of widespread censorship only and the ruining of the internet gives credence to those who portray nasty and potentially offensive posts in the first Yes, sharing content is not the same thing place. In exceptional circumstances I do as extremism, hate speech and abuse. believe that posts should be removed Many content owners will not mind their or reported but this could be done content being shared. In fact most of them through existing website infrastructure will welcome this free advertising and as opposed to a blanker system. many depend on this type of publicity. Plus anything can be seen as content so this Yes, I mostly agree. But if it’s someone’s does not address any clear problem, but original work that the creator sells, it would harm many innocent internet users. doesn’t seem ok to pass it around for nothing. But that isn’t usually the case Yes, sharing content owned by others - the sharing extends the audience for results primarily in economic/business the works. It certainly isn’t the same as related harm. The harm caused by hate speech or cyberbullying, etc. extreme and abusive messages are more personal in nature, with mental/ Yes, I think the rules used to punish emotional repercussions which can hate speech are becoming misuesd last for years. Thus, the two issues Yes, I wholeheartedly agree that content should be considered separately-some sharing should not and CANNOT be rules might be the same for both, but each would also have its own rules EU Responses to Question 5 323

Yes, the question compares two as the owner get’s the credit entirely different things. The rules used to punish extremism, hate Yes. A separate set of rules needs to speech, and abuse are already too be created for content sharing. close to thought-crime as they are. Yes. Again, this would be seriously Yes, the sames rules should be used, but impede the freedom of sharing and recognising that there are two different accessing information, could be easily areas here and the effects of any content misused and would result in unfair has to be considered in the framework and and disproportional punishment the humour level of where it appeared Yes. Are we stupid? Yes, The spirit of sharing freely and generously is what makes the internet Yes. As children we’re taught that useful and strong. Courts can be used sharing is a virtue, so this must to take down extreme or abusive be reflected in adult life.; content. Everything else should be Yes. Because it’s ridiculous available for debate and wonder to conflate the two and information freely provided. Yes. Because its not the same thing Yes, the systems should be separate. It should be possible to think of effective Yes. Because unless they are making systems to monitor both types from it, then it is free advertising for the content owner Yes, there is no need to govern sharing of content of others unless it is Yes. Content sharing usually doesn’t obviously copyrighted. Separate rules cause harm to people in general are needed for hate and extremism Yes. Creative expression, ideas Yes, there should be different and information should flow as rules and a different process easily as possible while destructive extremism, hate speech and abuse Yes, this is an entirely different should be fought at every turn. issue for society Yes. Different issues Yes, we should have the right to express ourselves in any way we feel. Yes. I don’t want to lose freedom of expression in order to ‘protect’ Yes,absolutely myself/society from extremism, Yes: we are not all out to destroy the hate speech and abuse. world. Most of us want to spread the Yes. If it’s fair use (or the local equivalent), message of peace, love and all our then no permission is needed and no cat pics, as well as keep in touch with punishment is appropriate. Everyone must family and friends. Maybe even make chill. If it’s not fair use, it’s merely copyright them laugh or think about things infringement, which is an entirely different Yes! Simply put, it’s not a crime to category from hate speech and abuse. The share other peoples content as long boundary between what’s protected by fair use and what exceeds fair use is fuzzy and 324 EU Responses to Question 5

contestable. We cannot protect freedom of and may be done without any intent to speech and punish speakers who can’t find cause harm or achieve financial gain. It the line defining copyright infringement may be important to suspend abusive or in the haze of legal uncertainty. Copyright threatening content quickly to reduce the infringement can be inadvertent, and risk of physical/emotional harm, while reasonable people can disagree about it would be more appropriate to wait it even after courts have ruled, and for proof before removing copyrighted certainly before courts have ruled. None content. The threat of being treated the of this is like hate speech or abuse same way as an extremist or abuser could also stifle fair use of copyrighted content. yes. Internet is a free place. It should not be governed. YES. Sharing information is what freedom is all about , and is not the same as Yes. It’s a completely different mattar. Hate speech and abuse , and we must Producers have the right to receive differentiate between the two. their money for their work Yes. The harm caused by sharing Yes. It’s people just sharing info copyrighted content is not in the same category as the harm caused by sharing Yes. It’s ridiculously out of order. hate speech, abuse or extremism. These are two completely separate issues Yes. Legislators have a key role in for which a very different balance making our digital sphere a safe needs to be struck by laws. It would space where individuals can be free be incompetent and/or immoral to from abuse and harassment. require that the same laws be used. YES. NOT THE SAME THING Yes. The intention behind them is different Yes. open sharing advances the wellbeing Yes. The Internet on post and sharing of society. incitement to harm others, should be a RIGHT, not a privilege. hate speech and abuse are detrimental to society. Extremism is a loaded word Yes. The motivations and impacts of these that should only be used in context actions are extremely different and should therefore be governed by different laws Yes. People say and do whatever they think is right or perceived to be inherently yes. there is a clear distinction between right. Copyright laws are arbitrary (as is criminal and non-criminal activity and they freedom too) and limit creative expression shouldn’t be governed by the same laws for people to use. People should care for people not big business. Thank you. Yes. These are entirely different matters and should be dealt with as such Yes. Restrictions on freedoms of speech have never been a step forward. Yes. These are separate issues, and should be treated as such Yes. Sharing content is at most an economic harm unlike abuse etc. Yes. They are different. It would be like trying to apply road traffic laws to Yes. Sharing copyrighted content is tax fraud cases. Those who thought of unlikely to cause physical harm to others these potential laws are imbeciles. EU Responses to Question 5 325

Yes. They are not causing harm Yes.The two issues are different.Existing as hate speech etc do laws should be applied in relation to abusive content. The ownership Yes. This is certainly doing away issue is primarily commercial and with free speech, and should not be must not be linked with moral/legal harmful to anyone--who should have issues which are more serious. known that anything they put on social media was open to anyone YesSharing information online keeps us closer to the principles of democracy Yes. We can share in person without that we have strived for over the years. being punished so why not online? YesThe two are completely different. Yes. Why, because they are not Infringing copyright is often a matter necessarily one and the same of ignorance, rather than intent. It is an economic issue, not an issue of an Yes.... “apples & oranges” individual’s or public safety. And it needs careful consideration of the different rights Yes.Because otherwise it involved in each case - including fair use. would be to limiting You’re could be sharing the content Yes.If they were published they with others for their opinion, or were intended to be shared commenting on it. You are not Yes.The majority of us are regular folk. necessarily promoting the material