The EU has proposed a new directive on copyright, encompassing a number of sections that have met with stringent criticism from policy experts and digital rights groups, who’ve decried the potential legislation as a mask for censorship – and an end to memes in Europe.
At the heart of this ire is Article 13, a section of the proposed directive that centres on the use of protected content by “information society service providers” (ISSPs), which store and give access to material uploaded by users.
On the surface, it’s a move by the EU to address the disparity in revenues generated by rightsholders of protected content and the online platforms that host the content. Exactly how it attempts to solve this, however, has proven highly controversial.
What is Article 13?
Article 13 of the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the Digital Single Market, to give it its full name, is an attempt to reshape copyright law for the internet age. It’s based around the relationship between copyright holders and online platforms, compelling the latter to enforce tighter regulation over protected content.
According to the Article, those platform providers should (deep breath) “take measures to ensure the functioning of agreements concluded with rightholders for the use of their works or other subject-matter or to prevent the availability on their services of works or other subject-matter identified by rightholders through the cooperation with the service providers.”
Those measures should be “appropriate and proportionate”, and the platforms should provide rightsholders with “adequate reporting on the recognition and use of the works and other subject-matter”.
Why is Article 13 controversial?
Critics of the proposed directive claim that Article 13 violates the fundamental rights of internet users, contradicts rules previously established by the EU’s E-Commerce Directive, and misunderstands the way people engage with material on the internet. Memes, remixes and other types of user-generated content would all be put at risk, they claim, as these could technically be seen as breaches of copyright.
Public domain organisation, the COMMUNIA International Association, says the EU’s measures “stem from an unbalanced vision of copyright as an issue between rightsholders and infringers”, and that the proposal “chooses to ignore limitations and exceptions to copyright, fundamental freedoms, and existing users’ practices”.
The Article stipulates that platforms should “prevent the availability” of protected works, suggesting these ISSPs will need to adopt technology that can recognise and filter work created by someone other than the person uploading it. This could include fragments of music, pictures and videos. If you’ve ever been on the internet, you’ll know that this ‘remix’ culture is a key part of how online communities function. The worry is that Article 13 will hinder this, and create a type of censorship that ignores nuances in how content can be adopted, quoted or parodied.
According to the copyright initiative Copybuzz, this could also massively obstruct digital startups in the EU: “Even if they are not required to implement an online censorship system immediately, new companies will have the threat of mandatory upload filters hanging over them as they grow.
“Why would startups choose to operate under these terms in the EU when they can avoid the problem by setting up a company in jurisdictions with laws better-suited to the digital age? Similarly, why would venture capitalists risk investing in new EU companies, which will be hamstrung by a requirement to filter everything once they grow beyond a certain size?”
There are also concerns Article 13 contradicts the EU’s E-Commerce Directive, which takes a different approach towards ISSPs’ liability for hosting services that store information provided by users.
The Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition has previously warned that: “Some requirements contained in Article 13 can enable abusive behaviour, thereby threatening freedom of expression and information”. Last October, 56 leading academics published a set of recommendations on the proposed directive, including claims that Article 13 is “incompatible with the guarantee of fundamental rights and freedoms and the obligation to strike a fair balance between all rights and freedoms involved”.
What is the next step for Article 13?
The proposed directive on copyright continues to be argued over, with a vote in the European Parliament on the potential legislation set for 20-21 June. A campaign has been established by Copyright 4 Creativity to advocate against Article 13, which argues that the changes could "destroy the internet as we know it", and encourages users to write to their MEP ahead of the vote.
A final note in terms of the UK is the uncertainty of what Brexit will mean for the directive. The directive is intended to act on copyright in the digital single market, so presumably any impact on the UK would hinge on the country's relationship with that entity. In a nutshell, it's too soon to tell and will rely on the larger outcomes of the Brexit negotiations
Holy hell, as an American I thought the loss of Net Neutrality was bad. At least ISPs aren't mandated by the Government to violate net neutrality. What the EU is proposing could truly destroy the internet as we know and negatively affect the lives of millions and destroy websites such as Nationstates.
Thoughts? Why haven't I have seen much outrage against this shit on the internet as I have against the Net Neutrality repeal? Like net neutrality repeal this helps no one but a few big corporations, this time being the dying traditional media at the expense of everyone.
