• Tag Archives EU
  • European Copyright Ruling Ushers in New Dark Era for Hyperlinks

    In a case which threatens to cause turmoil for thousands if not millions of websites, the Court of Justice of the European Union decided today that a website that merely links to material that infringes copyright, can itself be found guilty of copyright infringement, provided only that the operator knew or could reasonably have known that the material was infringing. Worse, they will be presumed to know of this if the links are provided for “the pursuit of financial gain”.

    The case, GS Media BV v. Sanoma, concerned a Dutch news website, GeenStijl, that linked to leaked pre-publication photos from Playboy magazine, as well as publishing a thumbnail of one of them. The photos were hosted not by GeenStijl itself but at first by an Australian image hosting website, then later by Imageshack, and subsequently still other web hosts, with GeenStijl updating the links as the copyright owner had the photos taken down from one image host after another.

    The court’s press release [PDF] spins this decision in such a positive light that much reporting on the case, including that by Reuters, gets it wrong, and assumes that only for-profit websites are affected by the decision. To be clear, that’s not the case. Even a non-profit website or individual who links to infringing content can be liable for infringing copyright if they knew that the material was infringing, for example after receiving notice of this from the copyright holder. And anyway, the definition of “financial gain” is broad enough to encompass any website, like GeenStijl, that runs ads.

    This terrible ruling is hard to fathom given that the court accepted “that hyperlinks contribute to [the Internet’s] sound operation as well as to the exchange of opinions and information in that network”, and that “it may be difficult, in particular for individuals who wish to post such links, to ascertain whether [a] website to which those links are expected to lead, provides access to works [that] the copyright holders … have consented to … posting on the internet”. Nevertheless, that’s exactly what the judgment effectively requires website operators to do, if they are to avoid the risk of being found to have knowingly linked to infringing content.

    There are also many times when knowingly linking to something that is infringing is entirely legitimate. For example, a post calling out a plagiarized news article might link to the original article and to the plagiarized one, so that readers can compare and judge for themselves. According to this judgment, the author of that post could themselves be liable for copyright infringement for linking to the plagiarized article—madness.

    This judgment is a gift to copyright holders, who now have a vastly expanded array of targets against which to bring copyright infringement lawsuits. The result will be that websites operating in Europe will be much more reticent to allow external hyperlinks, and may even remove historical material that contains such links, in fear of punishing liability.

    Source: European Copyright Ruling Ushers in New Dark Era for Hyperlinks | Electronic Frontier Foundation




  • Apple Is Only the Beginning of the EU Tax Grab

    In the aftermath of the EU’s latest escalation in its tax war with US multinational corporations, the rebuke from the US was swift, stretching from the US Treasury all the way to Congress: according to Kevin Brady, the House Ways and Means Chairman, the EU Apple decision was  “predatory and naked tax grab.”

    Chuck Schumer, the third-ranking Senate Democrat on the committee, said that the EU is unfairly undermining U.S. companies’ ability to compete in Europe.  Naturally, the Treasury also chimed in, and a spokesperson said that “the Commission’s actions could threaten to undermine foreign investment, the business climate in Europe, and the important spirit of economic partnership between the U.S. and the EU.”

    Naturally, the US would confine itself only to heated words: after all, there was little chance Washington would do anything to truly jeopardize trade relations between the two core trading partners, and Europe knows it.

    However, with Europe desperate to boost its dwindling public coffers and only beginning its anti-tax avoidance campaign, AAPL was merely the start in the European Commission’s crackdown. As the WSJ writes, following today’s ruling that Apple got an unfair advantage over its competitors because of help it got from Ireland government’s, the EU’s antitrust regulator is likely next to turn to two other ongoing tax investigations on its docket: Amazon.com and McDonald’s.

    The EU regulator has previously disclosed that it is looking at the arrangements both companies have with tax authorities in Luxembourg. In the case of McDonald’s, the WSJ reports that antitrust commissioner Margrethe Vestager said in 2015 that the investigation concerned a 2009 tax ruling granted to a Luxembourg unit of the restaurant chain, called McDonald’s Europe Franchising, that resulted in the fast-food chain “paying no tax on their European royalties either in Luxembourg or in the U.S.” The unit, which collects royalty fees from McDonald’s franchisees across Europe and Russia, recorded a profit of more than €250 million in 2013 alone, the commission said.

    As for Amazon, the tax ruling in question dates back to 2003. It applies to an Amazon subsidiary based in Luxembourg called Amazon EU Sarl. Investigators said in 2014 that “most of Amazon’s European profits” were routed through the unit, but that the structure of the subsidiary made it so that those profits were not taxed in Luxembourg.

    We expect Google, which has infamously used the “Dutch sandwich” legal tax evasion scheme for years, will eventually make its way in Europe’s crosshairs too.

    Vestager on Tuesday gave no concrete timing on when the two investigations would come to a close.

    Just like Ireland, Luxembourg has denied giving the companies special treatment, and both Amazon and McDonald’s have said they believe they’ve been paying their European taxes appropriately. However both multinational companies warn in their annual report that they could end up on the hook for more if the investigations don’t go their way.

    In addition to US corporations’ rising tax problems at the Commission level, companies operating in Europe are also facing increased enforcement efforts at a national level. Authorities in Spain and France recently have raided offices of Google’s parent company, Alphabet, and French authorities have demanded more than €1 billion in back taxes and fines from the company. Alphabet says it’s paid all the taxes it owes.

    Considering the deteriorating state of Europe’s projected financials, in big part a result of Europe’s declining tax base as millions of aging workers are set to retire and instead of contributing will become a drain of government cash, we expect today’s dramatic crackdown against Apple to be only the beginning of a long slog which will ultimately hurt Europe itself.

    Consider that despite its receipt of €13 billion, the biggest loser from today’s decision is Ireland itself. As Reuters comments, Dublin already faces a competitive threat from the United Kingdom, which once outside the EU may cut its own corporate tax rate. According to Ireland’s Economic and Social Research Institute, a 1 percentage point cut in the UK corporate tax rate could reduce the probability of non-EU states sending foreign direct investment into Ireland by 4 percent. Irish firms send 44 percent of their exports to the UK, so future trade barriers could mess up Ireland’s economic recovery.

    The size of Apple’s potential bill puts Ireland in even more of a corner. While on one hand a 13 billion euro payment would be a windfall for the Irish people, it’s also a big blow to competitiveness if companies fear past dealings could be subject to retrospective meddling. Ireland could simply lower the corporate tax rate across the board. Other countries in the EU with less competitive rates would be among the losers.

    To be sure, the full impact of the unwind of Europe’s tax policies will take many years; the bigger question is whether, as a result of the ongoing nationalist, refugee and social upheavals, there will even be a Europe in several years.

    Source: Apple Is Only the Beginning of the EU Tax Grab | Foundation for Economic Education