The European Parliament has advocated the new regulations identified by some as "ACTA" 2”. The votes “for” were nearly twice as much as “against” (exactly 438:226). Some believe that the EU body is setting up some form of censorship on the Internet, and the primary objective of these regulations is to restrict freedom of expression. Those who feel this way probably do not fully understand what has been voted on in the European Parliament.
Regulations named hastily "Acta 2" they aim to protect copyright, not to establish censorship. In some simplification it can be said that the recently voted directive concerns more or less the same matter as the Polish Copyright and Related Rights Act.
Principles of the Copyright Directive
The Internet is a zone where almost everything is allowed. For example, you can “take” someone else’s track, put it on your website and earn money on it (without sharing profit with the author). The main objective of the Directive is to address this phenomenon. The new EU law is intended to cover major portals. The point is that the owners of these services do not make money without the authors.
However, the directive will not cover small portals, more specifically those that employ 50 persons and have an annual turnover of not more than 10,000,000 EUR (i.e. smaller portals will be treated “ulgibly”). At the same time, it should be stressed that the opinions on "censorship of the Internet" by what is termed "ACTA" 2”, These are allegations that go away with the truth.
If someone is the author of, for example, a blog, then the EU directive will not restrict his freedom of expression, nor will it prevent him from presenting his views on any issue. The only restriction will remain the law of the EU Member State concerned.
Polish publishers supported the new EU law
The website of the House of Press Publishers reads:
„The European Parliament voted on numerous amendments and adopted a report on the Copyright Directive in the Digital Single Market (...) The publishers welcomed the decision of the European Parliament (...) It is encouraging that politicians have not succumbed to the mass lobbying action of opponents of the adoption of the directive, often going to lies and misinformation."
The House of Press Publishers also points to what (in short) the new EU law consists of:
„It's not ACTA. 2, and applying rules if you earn from me, then share your profit.”
This passage of the opinion illustrates the key element of the emotional "storm" which has erupted around the new directive. The world is not black and white. The complex issue of copyright cannot be simplified to the opinion that adopted rules are ACTA 2, Great scandal and great censorship. Some artists feel underestimated, not just for financial reasons.
If someone believes that the restrictions of the new directive are too far-reaching, then of course he has the right to do so. However, account account should also be taken of the other side of the medal.
An unknown person representing the artistic community posted an entry on the social profile that makes you think:
„I'm an artist, my work is a joy. But I also have to pay my bills from something.”
Author: Andrzej Dmowski
Lawyer and Doctor of Legal Sciences of the University of Warsaw. From 2011 one from Managing Partners in Russell Bedford Poland. Previously on the BDO advisory network, as well as Deloitte & Touche. Author of the book “Transfer Prices”, co-author of the commentary “The Corporate Income Tax Act”, author of many publications on tax law.
source: https://www.forbes.pl/opinie/dyrektywa-o-ochronie-praw-autorskich-o-co-chodzi-w-nowej-dyrektywie/zgm0zdm