As EU Starts To Draft Its Most Important New Online Law, The Digital Services Act, MEPs Want Basic Rights High On The Agenda

from the but-massive-lobbying-and-dirty-tricks-will-soon-fix-that dept

The EU is now starting to work in earnest on what is likely to be its most important new law for the online world, the Digital Services Act (DSA). Techdirt wrote about this last year, when the European Commission started sketching out (bad) ideas for the new law. The basic impetus for the DSA is to replace the EU's e-Commerce Directive, which was passed 20 years ago, and is clearly in need of an update. As the European Commission's page on the DSA explains, there are two core elements:

First, the Commission would propose clear rules framing the responsibilities of digital services to address the risks faced by their users and to protect their rights. The legal obligations would ensure a modern system of cooperation for the supervision of platforms and guarantee effective enforcement.

Second, the Digital Services Act package would propose ex ante rules covering large online platforms acting as gatekeepers, which now set the rules of the game for their users and their competitors. The initiative should ensure that those platforms behave fairly and can be challenged by new entrants and existing competitors, so that consumers have the widest choice and the Single Market remains competitive and open to innovations.

Those aims mean that the DSA touches on several of the most contentious issues in the online world, such as the introduction of mandatory pan-European rules for tackling online hate speech and disinformation, and efforts to control platforms that are "gatekeepers" -- basically US companies like Google and Facebook. In other words, the DSA is going to be important, and not just for the EU. One of the key players in the drafting of the DSA is the European Parliament. The good news is that in a series of votes MEPs have made clear that they want protection for key human rights to be an integral part of the new law.

The votes concerned reports from three of the Parliament's specialist committees: those for the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, Legal Affairs, and Civil Liberties (pdf). The three reports are couched in a rather impenetrable EU-speak; fortunately, the European Parliament has put out a press release on the votes that provides a more comprehensible summary of the three reports. The European Parliament is quite open about what the EU hopes to achieve with the DSA: "With the upcoming package, the European Union aims to shape the digital economy at EU level as well as setting the standards for the rest of the world, as it did with data protection." One of the priorities of the DSA is tackling illegal content online. On this, MEPs say:

A binding "notice-and-action" mechanism must be set up so that users can notify online intermediaries about potentially illegal online content or activities. This would help online intermediaries to react quickly and be more transparent regarding the actions they have taken on potentially illegal content. Users should be able to seek redress through a national dispute settlement body.

The European Parliament wants a distinction made between illegal content and harmful content, with a legal liability only for the former. MEPs say that there should be no general monitoring of users, and that platforms should not use upload filters for controlling harmful or illegal content: "The final decision on whether content is legal or not should instead be taken by an independent judiciary and not by private undertakings". It's hard to square that with the awful Article 17 of the EU Copyright Directive, which inevitably requires precisely this kind of upload filter to block allegedly infringing content. MEPs say that harmful content should be dealt with through "enhanced transparency obligations and by helping citizens to acquire media and digital literacy regarding the dissemination of such content." According to the European Parliament, another priority of the DSA should be enhancing consumer protection and user safety:

Platforms and online intermediation services will need to get better at detecting and taking down false claims and tackling rogue traders, e.g. those selling false medical equipment or dangerous products online, as happened during the COVID-19 outbreak.

MEPs also call for a new "Know Your Business Customer" principle to be introduced, requiring platforms to check and stop fraudulent companies using their services to sell their illegal and unsafe products and content.

More controversial is a call for rules to prevent -- not merely remedy -- what MEPs called "market failures by big platforms". The stated aim is to open up markets to new entrants. Some of the most striking ideas to emerge from the reports are: to allow online users to opt out of content curation, to be informed if a service is enabled by AI, and to ban microtargeted advertising:

Targeted advertising must be regulated more strictly in favour of less intrusive, contextualised forms of advertising that require less data and do not depend on previous user interaction with content. MEPs also call on the Commission to further assess options for regulating targeted advertising, including a phase-out leading to a ban.

As Techdirt has noted, such targeted advertising doesn't really seem to bring much in the way of benefit to advertisers, but certainly causes people to be tracked relentlessly, and huge amounts of personal information to be gathered. Getting rid of it in the EU could encourage companies to re-think their advertising strategies globally, just as the GDPR has had a big knock-on effect on data protection everywhere. That would be welcome, as would a move to enshrine in the DSA a right to use digital services anonymously "whenever possible". Adding a right to strong encryption without backdoors would be even better: at the moment, one report simply "Stresses the importance to apply effective end-to-end encryption to data".

Two of the reports approved by the European Parliament are what are known as "legislative initiatives" (PDF). Although not binding on the European Commission, such initiatives require a much fuller response if any of the proposed ideas are rejected. This gives the European Parliament's ideas more chance of making it into the final text of the DSA. Against that, some of the most powerful companies in the world will be deeply affected by the EU's new law, which guarantees years of fierce lobbying and dirty tricks, as the dispiriting experience of the Copyright Directive demonstrated.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter, Diaspora, or Mastodon.

Filed Under: digital services act, dsa, e-commerce directive, eu, eu parliament, harmful content, illegal content, intermediary liability, online harms, tracking

German Political Leader Questions YouTubers' Right To Tell Fans Not To Vote For Her Party, Urgently Summons Her Advisers In Response -- By Fax

from the doof-doof-doof dept

One of the many ugly aspects of the Article 13/17 disaster is the way that politicians not only ignored the concerns of millions of EU citizens, but actively insulted them, describing them as "bots" or Google "astroturfing". As Mike noted at the time, treating people with contempt, shortly before the main elections for the European Parliament, was not a wise move. German politicians were particularly contemptuous of young voters, and the latter did not forget. The mainstream German political parties -- the center-right CDU and CSU, and the center-left SDP -- were trashed in the recent elections, largely because very few young people voted for them. The German Greens, by contrast, had their best results yet.

One person who may have helped to bring that about is the YouTuber Rezo. Shortly before the EU vote, he released a 55-minute "personal rant" entitled, "The destruction of the CDU" (in German). In its first week, it had been viewed over 12 million times, and attracted over 180,000 comments. Despite its title, it is not just an anti-CDU polemic, but details the failure of all the mainstream German parties to address key issues -- notably the climate crisis, but also poverty, German support for US militarism, and Article 13. It urged German viewers to vote -- but not for the CDU, CSU, SDP or the extreme right-wing AfD. A few days later, over 90 fellow YouTubers joined Rezo in making the same call in a shorter video (in German).

The general view seems to be that the action of these top YouTubers probably caused many more young Germans to think and talk about the issues raised by the elections for the European Parliament, and then to go out and vote, than anything in the country's history. Against a background of general cynicism and lack of political engagement in the EU, you might expect this initiative to be celebrated as an amazing achievement, and something to be emulated in future elections.

Nope.

Here's what Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, leader of the CDU, said about those YouTubers who offered their views on which party people should vote for:

What would actually have happened in this country, if a group of 70 newspaper editorials had made a joint appeal two days before the election: "please do not vote for the CDU or the SPD". That would have been a clear case of spin before the election, and would have led to heated debates in this country. And the question arises with regard to the issue of spin: what exactly are the rules from the analog domain, and which rules apply to the digital sector, yes or no? That's a question we will discuss. And that's why this discussion will be very aggressive.

In other words, how dare these impertinent youngsters criticize what their elders and betters are doing? Let's bring in some new rules for the Internet to stop that happening again.

But this isn't cynical "spin": it's just Rezo offering his opinion -- take it or leave it. It's what newspaper editorials and columnists do every day, and everybody accepts that as a useful and valid part of political discourse. What Kramp-Karrenbauer is really complaining about is the fact that YouTube represents an alternative to the established media outlets she knows how to handle. Frighteningly for the CDU, YouTube is not only a medium that it and the other parties can't control, employing the usual political and economic levers, it's one they struggle even to understand. For example, as the Guardian reported, one CDU supporter tweeted about Rezo: "This young man is spreading an endless stream of fake news and is populist down to the tips of his blue hair" (original in German). But Rezo's video is not only a brilliant demonstration of how to use YouTube in an extremely persuasive way, it also comes with a Google document containing hundreds of references and citations of scientific literature backing up his claims, making it the diametric opposite of "fake news".

It's clear the traditional politicians and their old friends in mainstream media simply don't know how to counter this kind of sweary but fact-based attack, using a powerful medium that costs practically nothing to produce and that can reach and influence a million people in a few hours. So, in order to discuss this troubling new high-tech threat that contributed to the humiliating drubbing her party received in the European Parliament elections, the CDU's Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer has organized a meeting of her most trusted political advisers.

The invitations were sent by fax.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter, Diaspora, or Mastodon.

Filed Under: afd, annegret kamp-karrenbauer, cdu, csu, eu, eu parliament, germany, rezo, sdp, videos, voters, youtube
Companies: youtube

EU Parliament Votes To Require Internet Sites To Delete 'Terrorist Content' In One Hour (By 3 Votes)

from the eu's-ongoing-attack-on-the-internet dept

A bit of deja vu here. Once again, the EU Parliament has done a stupid thing for the internet. As we've been discussing over the past few months, the EU has been pushing a really dreadful "EU Terrorist Content Regulation" with the main feature being a requirement that any site that can be accessed from the EU must remove any content deemed "terrorist content" by any vaguely defined "competent authority" within one hour of being notified. The original EU Commission version also included a requirement for filters to block reuploads and a provision that effectively turned websites' terms of service documents into de facto law. In moving the Regulation to the EU Parliament, the civil liberties committee LIBE stripped the filters and the terms of service parts from the proposal, but kept in the one hour takedown requirement.

In a vote earlier today, the EU Parliament approved the version put for by the committee, rejecting (bad) amendments to bring back the upload filters and empowering terms of service, but also rejecting -- by just three votes -- an amendment to remove the insane one hour deadline.

Since this version is different than the absolutely bonkers one pushed by the European Commission, this now needs to go through a trilogue negotiation to reconcile the different versions, which will eventually lead to another vote. Of course, what that vote will look like may be anyone's guess, given that the EU Parliamentary elections are next month, so it will be a very different looking Parliament by the time this comes back around.

Either way, this whole concept is a very poorly thought out knee-jerk moral panic from people scared of the internet and who don't understand how it works. Actually implementing this in law would be disastrous for the EU and for internet security. The only way, for example, that we could comply with the law would be to hand over backend access to our servers to strangers in the EU and empower them to delete whatever they wanted. This is crazy and not something we would ever agree to do. It is unclear how any company -- other than the largest companies -- could possibly even pretend to try to comply with the one hour deadline, and even then (as the situation with the Christchurch video showed) there is simply no way for even the largest and best resourced teams out there to remove this kind of content within one hour. And that's not even touching on the questions around who gets to determine what is "terrorist content," how it will be abused, and also what this will mean for things like historical archives or open source intelligence.

This entire idea is poorly thought out, poorly implemented and a complete mess. So, of course, the EU Parliament voted for it. Hopefully, in next month's elections we get a more sensible cohort of MEPs.

Filed Under: censorship, eu, eu parliament, free speech, one hour, takedowns, terrorist content, terrorist content regulation

Enough MEPs Say They Mistakenly Voted For Articles 11 & 13 That The Vote Should Have Flipped; EU Parliament Says Too Bad

from the well-that's-messed-up dept

Earlier today we wrote about the terrible vote by the EU Parliament to approve the Copyright Directive including the dangerous Articles 11 and 13. As we noted in the original post, the key vote was whether to allow amendments that could have deleted those two articles. That vote failed by just five votes, 317 to 312. Unfortunately, soon after the vote was finalized, a few of the MEPs who voted against the plan for amendments -- Peter Lundgren and Kristina Winberg -- said they voted incorrectly and meant to vote for the amendments in order to get rid of Articles 11 and 13. Apparently, someone changed the vote order which threw them off:

What happened was that in the middle of a sitting meeting, it was decided to make an adjustment in the order of voting in itself. This did not appear in a clear way where the President was also somewhat confused.

Indeed, soon after that some others admitted to voting incorrectly, believing they were voting for something else.

A few hours later, the EU put out the official voting record which includes an astounding 13 MEPs who said they voted incorrectly. Ten of them said they meant to vote for amendments. Two of them said they wanted to vote against it. And one did not want to vote. As you can see in the screenshot below, everyone next to the "+" would have voted for the amendments if they had actually realized what they were voting on.

All told, that would have shifted the vote and allowed for a vote on amendments. By a slim majority, the law would have been opened up to deleting Articles 11 and 13. In other words, whoever changed the order of the vote pulled a fast one and got the EU Copyright Directive approved... despite the EU Parliament not clearly agreeing on that. If you're wondering what can be done now... the answer is not much. According to the EU:

MEPs may still issue corrections to their vote in case of mistakes, which will however not change the outcome

The vote the clicked on is the vote they got. It is frustrating beyond all belief that we ended up killing the open internet through tricking a bunch of MEPs by switching the voting order. Incredible.

Filed Under: article 11, article 13, changed votes, copyright, eu, eu parliament, votes

EU Puts An End To The Open Internet: Link Taxes And Filters Approved By Just 5 Votes

from the a-sad-day-for-the-open-internet dept

Well, it was a nice run while it lasted, but the EU Parliament has just put an end to the open internet. By the incredibly thin margin of just five votes, the Parliament voted against any amendments to the proposal -- which was a necessary step to fixing or deleting Articles 11 and 13. After that, they voted to approve the EU Copyright Directive, including the terrible versions of both Article 11 and 13. This is an inauspicious day and one that the EU will almost certainly come to regret. While we now need to see how each of the member states will implement the actual laws put forth in the Directive (meaning the damage in some states may be more mitigatable than in others), on the whole the EU Copyright Directive requires laws that effectively end the open internet as an open communications medium. Sites that previously allowed content creators to freely publish content will now be forced to make impossible choices: license all content (which is literally impossible), filter all content (expensive and failure-prone), or shut down. Sites that used to send traffic to news sources may now need to reconsider, as doing so will inexplicably require payment.

At best, the EU--for all its complaints about Google and Facebook--has just locked both companies into a dominant position. They can afford this. Others cannot. And, the legacy gatekeepers in the media and entertainment business will quickly pivot to seeking to export this model elsewhere.

The MEPs who voted for this are up for election in two months, and hopefully the EU shows them the door, but in the meantime, today is a sad day for the open internet. I am sure that some will be celebrating on the false belief that this will magically "help artists." It will not. You just handed more power to giant companies, and took it away from creators. In time, one hopes, those who mocked the protesters and activists and actual experts will come to realize just how much they destroyed today.

Filed Under: article 11, article 13, censorship, closed internet, copyright, eu, eu copyright directive, eu parliament, filters, free speech, link tax, open internet

A Century Ago We Killed The Radio Commons; Don't Let The EU Do That To The Internet

from the a-history-lesson dept

As the EU gets set to vote on the EU Copyright Directive, it seemed like a good time for a little history lesson. Many people don't know this, but in the early days of radio, it was not just considered a broadcast media. It was considered an open commons for anyone to use. The airwaves were the public airwaves, and the public was free to use them:

It’s easy to forget that the broadcasting airwaves are—and once were treated as—a commons, owned by citizens, not powerful media companies.

At the dawn of the broadcasting era, the free market prevailed. The government set no rules. The 1912 Radio Act authorized the federal Commerce and Labor Department to issue radio station licenses to U.S. citizens upon request. Which it did...

Admittedly, as that article notes, this created some amount of chaos, mainly because the spectrum got too crowded, and there was widespread interference between different signals that made the whole space a mess. Over time, laws were put in place to "regulate" the wild west, but what happened was we turned what had been an open commons into a locked up space where only giant media companies could prevail. The US, at the very least, decided that the way to deal with this wild west was to treat spectrum as a property right that could be "licensed." And in doing so it set things up such that large broadcasters could collect many licenses and dominate markets.

What had been the open spaces of the public to use for a variety of creative endeavors turned into a locked down space for giant corporations.

While there are some notable differences, the attempt by the EU to pass Article 13 is truly an attempt to replay this unfortunate scenario nearly a century later. There was a good rationale for radio regulations in the past -- dealing with all of the interference that made using radio difficult -- and as one 1927 academic so succinctly put it: "highly annoying and almost destructive."

But, of course, we lost something when we went from an open radio system for the public to use to one that was locked up among just a few corporations. And the wonderful thing about the internet was that we didn't have the same limitations. There is no "interference" like there is with more limited radio spectrum. And while there are reasonable questions about companies dominating parts of the internet, others are not completely locked out as they were in radio.

Unfortunately, the entire design of the EU Copyright Directive is an attempt to do the same sort of thing to the internet: to lock it down. The EU Copyright Directive -- in particular Articles 11 and 13 -- are designed to make the internet a bland corporate broadcast medium dominated by a few giant companies. This dismisses the roots of the internet as a commons-based communications medium that anyone can use.

The very structure of Article 13 makes this clear. The demand that everything must be "licensed" on internet platforms makes no sense. Do you "license" content in order to communicate with your friends? Do you license a song to sing? Do you license it when you quote from a book? Licensing is not necessary for communication -- it is only necessary for "broadcast." This is the core problem that the legacy gatekeepers have with the internet. It's a communications medium, and they come from the broadcast era. Their entire structure is built off of licensing to broadcasters. And rather than recognize that everything has changed, their only play is to try to shove the internet into a similar broadcast structure.

We killed off the open commons of radio nearly a hundred years ago. Hopefully the EU chooses not to do the same to the internet this year.

Filed Under: article 11, article 13, broadcast, commons, communications, copyright, creativity, eu, eu copyright directive, eu parliament, gatekeepers, radio

Tell The EU Not To Wreck The Internet

from the last-chance dept

As we noted earlier this week, a bunch of sites are taking part in an internet blackout today and urging their visitors, especially those in the EU to contact their MEPs, asking them to sign the pledge not to vote for Article 13. As the page notes, Article 13 is bad for the public, bad for creators and bad for innovation.

Because this is being pushed (misleadingly) as being good for creators, I wanted to go into a bit more depth as to why that's wrong and why this will be bad for most creators. Over the past two decades, contrary to what some lobbyists will tell you, the internet has been an incredible boon to creativity and creators. The internet has made it easier to create, to promote, to distribute, to build a fan base, and to monetize your works than ever before in history. The idea that the internet has somehow harmed creators is a laughable myth. What the internet did do was change the model by which creators could make money. Historically, outside of the absolute fringes, it required you to get "accepted" into the club by a giant gatekeeper -- a giant gatekeeper most creators couldn't even get in front of, let alone sign a deal with. And, since that was the only path to success, those gatekeepers signed creators to insanely bad deals. They would own your copyright, not you. They would be in charge of what you created. They would be in charge of the relationship with fans. They would control how the content was distributed. You might have some input, but it was theirs now.

And, yes, they might give you an "advance," but it was structured as a loan. You would need to use that advance to pay for everything having to do with the creation of your work -- and then the gatekeeper would bill against that "advance" for any revenue that came in. The amount of money you actually made would be tiny -- and the likelihood of ever actually "recouping" the advance was so slim, that record labels were known to not even keep records because they knew they'd never have to give you another dime.

Compare that to the world today, with the internet. In the modern world, any content creator can just go online. They can create using tools available online. They can upload their content for free at a ton of different sites. They can reach a worldwide audience. They can promote. They can build a fanbase. They can make money from a bunch of different platforms. And they retain their copyright. They retain control. They don't have some giant company telling them what to do or keeping every penny that comes in.

But Article 13 changes how things work. Supporters insist that it will magically make the big internet companies start paying artists more. But that's a myth. The entire structure of Article 13 is designed on purpose to be bad for the internet. The entire setup is to try to pressure internet companies into purchasing licenses, and it does that by basically saying, "if you don't buy a license for every piece of content, you will face crippling and impossible lawsuits."

But that's an impossibility. How do you license every piece of content that anyone might post on your service? There is no way. Supporters of the bill insist that collection societies will step into the void -- but need I remind you of the myriad stories of how nearly every collection society falls prey to corruption, which frequently involves artists simply not getting paid at all?

Even if collection societies do fill the void, how will lesser known artists actually get paid? As we've seen, the answer is they won't. Collection societies collect all the money, and since they can't track what belongs to less well known creators, they just give the money to the successful ones.

And even if they could figure all of that out, most creators would still get screwed. The only way this system works is if there are just a few giant organizations on each side of the negotiations. The giant content creator gatekeepers and the big internet platforms. There is no room for smaller, more innovative internet platforms. There is no place for more targeted, niche communities to spring up, where artists can build closer relationships with their fans. Bandcamp is one of the best tools out there right now for musicians -- and has provided millions of dollars to musicians. How does it survive in a post-Article 13 world? I'm not sure it can. How does that help musicians? I have no idea. Patreon has become an amazing source for crowdfunding for musicians. How does it handle Article 13? Does Patreon really need to license all content? Again, how does it help artists to shut down Patreon?

And even if you still think that it's fine to just have some giant licensing orgs on one side and a few giant internet platforms on the other, if the cost for the internet platforms goes up drastically, how many "free" services will they still offer? Do you remember the bad old days before you had YouTube/Vimeo where you could upload videos for free? You had to do something like set up a "RealNetwork" server -- which cost a ton and didn't work most of the time. And you had to pay for a ridiculous amount of bandwidth to host and stream your own video. YouTube, Vimeo and others made that all totally free. But if they now have to give a massive chunk of money to license-holders, why will they keep providing such services for free?

The end result is that a few gatekeepers regain their position as gatekeepers. A few internet giants get locked into their position without much fear of competition. And artists and creators get totally screwed.

This is not the internet we should want. Tell the EU to reject Article 13.

Filed Under: #saveyourinternet, article 11, article 13, censorship, copyright, eu, eu copyright directive, eu parliament, filters, intermediary liability, licenses

The 2012 Web Blackout Helped Stop SOPA/PIPA And Then ACTA; Here Comes The 2019 Version To Stop Article 13

from the how-to-make-bad-ideas-politically-toxic dept

Remember SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect IP Act)? Back in 2012, they threatened to cause widespread damage to the online world by bringing in yet more extreme and unbalanced measures against alleged copyright infringement. Things looked pretty bad until a day of massive online protest was organized on January 18, 2012, with thousands of sites partially or totally blacked out. Politicians were taken aback by the unexpected scale of the anger, and their support for SOPA and PIPA crumbled quickly. That success fuelled protests in Europe against ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement), which also sought to bring in harsh measures against online infringement. After tens of thousands of people took part in street demonstrations across Europe, many politicians wanted nothing to do with the by-now toxic proposal, and it was voted down in the European Parliament in July 2012.

As Techdirt pointed out last year, the proposed EU Copyright Directive is even worse than ACTA. As such it clearly merits serious, large-scale action of the kind that stopped SOPA/PIPA and ACTA. And it's happening. The German-language version of Wikipedia, the second-largest by number of articles, has announced the following (original in German):

On Thursday, March 21, the German-language edition of the online encyclopedia will be shut down completely for 24 hours. In this way, Wikipedia activists want to send a signal, in particular against the introduction of the controversial Articles 11 and 13 in the [EU's] copyright reform.

It is expected that a number of other major sites will be joining in the protest. Meanwhile, another German organization is campaigning against Article 13. In an open letter to MEPs, its supporters write:

We are the operators and administrators of more than 400 German-language discussion forums with more than 18 million members. We are united by the great concern that the EU Copyright Directive will endanger the existence of our forums and thus the discussion culture on the Internet.

The public discussion on the EU Copyright Directive revolves almost exclusively around YouTube and other large US platforms. In doing so, we lose sight of the fact that discussion forums of all sizes will also be affected by the new directive.

That's an important point. Supporters of Article 13 try to give the impression that only deep-pocketed companies like Google will be hit by the new law. As the discussion forum operators point out, their organizations will not be exempt from the requirements of the EU Copyright Directive. Its effects will be devastating:

Because of these uncertainties and the legal and financial liability risk, many discussion forums will close, as small associations or voluntary operators cannot bear this situation. Commercial operators are also endangered in their existence if they have to conclude fee-based licenses and are obliged to install expensive upload filters.

Uncertain regulations for us means years of legal uncertainty, legal risk and potential legal costs, which no operator can afford in the long run as forums usually do not generate a large amount of revenue.

As a result, the discussion culture on the European Internet will be severely impaired, and many citizens will lose their digital home in discussion forums.

Internet startups in the EU will face the same insurmountable problems thanks to Article 13's impossible demands. Many will be forced to shut down. It's an irony that many have already pointed out. A law that supporters claim is designed to tackle the disproportionate power of companies like Google and Facebook will end up entrenching them more deeply, and wiping out much of the EU's own digital ecosystem. Let's hope 2019's big blackout grabs people's attention as the one in 2012 did, and that MEPs drop Article 13 just as they dropped ACTA.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: article 11, article 13, copyright, eu, eu copyright directive, eu parliament, europe, germany, march 21, protests
Companies: wikimedia, wikipedia

News Organization Like Reuters Supporting The EU Copyright Directive Is A Shameful Support For Censorship

from the sad-times dept

A bunch of sites have been reporting on the news that over 200 organizations have signed a letter in support of the EU Copyright Directive, with most of the news reports focusing on the fact that a ton of music collection societies and music industry trade groups are on the letter. The letter itself makes no real argument, it just says "pass this damn thing." Well, since the law hasn't yet passed, I think I can quote the whole thing without getting fined, so here it is:

We, the undersigned organisations, representing authors, composers, writers, journalists, performers and others working in all artistic fields, news agencies, book, press, scientific and music publishers, audiovisual and independent music producers call on the European Parliament to adopt the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market.

This Directive has been long sought to create a much-needed level playing field for all actors of the creative sector in the European Digital Single Market, whilst giving citizens better access to a wider array of content.

This is an historic opportunity. We need an internet that is fair and sustainable for all. This is why we urge policymakers to adopt the Directive quickly, as agreed in trilogue negotiations.

Of course, we've explained multiple times why none of this makes much sense. Nothing in the EU Copyright Directive is about creating a "level playing field" or "giving citizens better access to a wider array of content." Indeed, as written, it will do the exact opposite. It will heavily weight the playing field towards large organizations (both tech and copyright) and massively limit availability to content through mass mandatory filtering.

Anyway, I'm not surprised at all the collection societies signing on to this -- as they know that they'll be in the best position to demand more money from platforms should this become law. What I find most troubling, however, is to see a bunch of news organizations -- including behemoths like Reuters -- signed on. I know that many large news publishers (stupidly) support Article 11, in the false belief that it will magically create a new stream of revenue for them from Google News having to pay to link to them (even though that hasn't worked in Germany or Spain when similar laws passed in both places).

But it's simply stunning that these news publishers -- who often hold themselves up as the supporters of free expression -- are now seen to be supporting the censorship powers of Article 13 as well. This is an incredibly short-sighted position for these news orgs to take. News reporting quite frequently depends on things like fair use and fair dealing -- and the current version of the EU Copyright Directive will make that nearly impossible.

It is disappointing in the extreme to see organizations like Reuters completely toss their principles out the window in hopes of taxing Google.

Filed Under: article 11, article 13, copyright, eu, eu copyright directive, eu parliament, music, news