,
6 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
New statement by #copyright negotiator @AxelVossMdEP revels real agenda behind #Article13. He says about YouTube: Platforms that make money by giving access to ©️ protected works should perhaps not exist at all. #SaveYourInternet
It’s astonishing that @AxelVossMdEP still mixes up copyright infringement and protected content. Patreon, Tinder, TripAdvisor all make money by giving users access to protected content, but not by exploiting authors! Every work is protected from the moment of creation. #Article13
Here is the source for the statement: dw.com/en/memes-could… #Article13 is clearly not about making Youtube pay more for creators. It’s about making sure that such platforms can’t exist and we go back to the days of good old television. #SaveYourInternet 
The same agenda is behind #Article11, as a lawyer of German publishers once testified in the European Parliament: “The first and foremost goal is to prevent these exploiting businesses – simply not have them.” #SaveYourInternet
By “these exploiting businesses”, the lawyer means search engines and social media companies. It’s one thing to say that Google and Facebook should pay more. It’s quite another to state that we shouldn’t have search and social media companies *at all*. #SaveYourInternet
I am convinced that whatever happens, Google and Facebook would not be driven out of business by #Article11 and #Article13. But their smaller competition, the many platforms that make the Internet a medium of many-to-many communication, very well might. I don’t want to lose them.
