
Will EU Copyright Break the Internet?
07/26/18 • 43 min
The parliament of the European Union narrowly voted down legislation intended to control copyright violations on the internet. The sponsors of the legislation argued that multinational internet companies like Google were essentially stealing content from newspapers and publishers. Their proposed fix would have levied what critics called a “link tax” on hyperlinked content, making it prohibitively expensive for a program like Google News to aggregate news content. In addition, the rules would have essentially forced platforms like Youtube that rely on user-uploaded content, like Youtube, to put in place content filters to screen out copyrighted content. However, the expense of these filters and regulatory compliance would have, ironically, given the major companies an advantage over smaller startups, leading to a less competitive internet. In addition, the content filters would have accidentally excluded legitimate non-copyrighted material, including memes, parodies, and covers. Although this was European legislation, the legislation has implications for American regulatory policy, including the new SESTA/FOSTA rules.
Further Readings/References:
- In this article, Mike argues that this legislation would turn the internet into tv, “a limited broadcast medium only for those who are pre-checked by gatekeepers.”
- Any content filter will accidentally exclude legitimate conflict. Here Mike crunches the potential false positive rate.
- Paul has argued before that the SESTA/FOSTA legislation will have ill unintended consequences.
- One of the most important opponents of this legislation has been European Parliament member Julia Reda, representative of the Pirate Party.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
The parliament of the European Union narrowly voted down legislation intended to control copyright violations on the internet. The sponsors of the legislation argued that multinational internet companies like Google were essentially stealing content from newspapers and publishers. Their proposed fix would have levied what critics called a “link tax” on hyperlinked content, making it prohibitively expensive for a program like Google News to aggregate news content. In addition, the rules would have essentially forced platforms like Youtube that rely on user-uploaded content, like Youtube, to put in place content filters to screen out copyrighted content. However, the expense of these filters and regulatory compliance would have, ironically, given the major companies an advantage over smaller startups, leading to a less competitive internet. In addition, the content filters would have accidentally excluded legitimate non-copyrighted material, including memes, parodies, and covers. Although this was European legislation, the legislation has implications for American regulatory policy, including the new SESTA/FOSTA rules.
Further Readings/References:
- In this article, Mike argues that this legislation would turn the internet into tv, “a limited broadcast medium only for those who are pre-checked by gatekeepers.”
- Any content filter will accidentally exclude legitimate conflict. Here Mike crunches the potential false positive rate.
- Paul has argued before that the SESTA/FOSTA legislation will have ill unintended consequences.
- One of the most important opponents of this legislation has been European Parliament member Julia Reda, representative of the Pirate Party.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Previous Episode

Can You Monetize Everything You Do?
New technologies have made it possible for us to monetize more and more of our daily lives. First, we discuss the third party marketers who are using devices (eg cellphones, smart speakers) connected to smart tvs to compile data on consumers. While these companies are guilty of deceptive practices, there is the future potential for consumers to profit from that data themselves. Likewise, we cover a new internet browser called Brave, which allows users to sell their own browsing habits to advertisers and which could radically transform digital advertising. Finally, we talk about Ice Poseidon, who is not a lesser known of the Greek deities but a Twitch streamer who allows his followers to watch him go about his day and prank strangers. While a new wave of “always on” streamers often engage in juvenile behavior, they represent the way in which streaming has enabled ordinary people to make a living in ways previously impossible.
Further Readings/References:
Sapna Maheshwari’s NYT article on smart TV surveillance.
Stephen Shankland’s write-up of the Brave browser.
Ice Poseidon shows that it’s possible to simultaneously be repulsed by someone’s behavior and feel bad for them.
Prototype’s latest article, by Julia Slupska, “Election Hacking and the Global Politics of Attention.”
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Next Episode

The Right to Print Arms?
Mark McDaniel from Reason Magazine joins us to discuss homemade gun technology in response to a recent court case involving gun ownership activist, Cody Wilson, and his group, Defense Distributed, who were the minds behind the “Wiki Weapon Project”.
Cody Wilson and his group went unnoticed until they actually tried to build a weapon, specifically named the “Liberator”. However, when the printer company, Stratasys, heard of this plan they took his printer and reported Wilson’s intentions to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF). The press got wind of this dispute when Wilson posted a viral video of Stratasys taking the printer away. Later on, the State Department got involved when Wilson posted the blueprints of how to print the “Liberator”.
What kind of guns can be printed? What are the rules for making a traditional weapon at home? Why should we care if people can have 3D-printed guns so easily? How far away are we, technologically speaking, from creating legit firearms in our homes?
Further Readings
Trevor Burrus’ and Meggan Dewitt’s article about the amicus position the Cato Institute took on 3D printed guns.
Mark McDaniel on how to legally make your own 3D printed gun.
Andy Greenberg from Wired on how 3D guns are now deemed untraceable.
Andrea O’Sullivan from Reason explains how the computer code to make 3D printed guns is protected by the 1st Amendment.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
If you like this episode you’ll love
Episode Comments
Generate a badge
Get a badge for your website that links back to this episode
<a href="https://goodpods.com/podcasts/building-tomorrow-63401/will-eu-copyright-break-the-internet-3328824"> <img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/goodpods-images-bucket/badges/generic-badge-1.svg" alt="listen to will eu copyright break the internet? on goodpods" style="width: 225px" /> </a>
Copy