The European Parliament has passed the ultra-controversial Copyright Directive by 348 votes to 274, on what Pirate Party MEP Julia Reda describes as a ‘dark day for internet freedom’.
Article 17 (formerly 13) of the directive has the laudable intention of making content creators such as musicians (and journalists) better-paid, by requiring commercial sites and apps such as Facebook, Google and YouTube to secure licences for copyrighted material uploaded by users.
However, this has been widely seen as introducing a requirement for upload filters – recently criticized by David Kaye, the UN special rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, on the grounds that it would ‘imperil the future of information diversity and media pluralism in Europe, since only the biggest players will be able to afford these technologies’.
In the event, MEPs refused to even consider an amendment deleting Article 17.
One bit of good news for campaigners is that some uploaded material, such as memes or GIFs, are now specifically excluded from the directive. Sharing snippets is also fine – although the directive contains provisions to avoid news aggregators abusing this.
Uploading works to the likes of Wikipedia, or to open source software platforms such as GitHub, will also be excluded, and start-up platforms will be subject to lighter obligations than more established ones.
“This is a directive which protects people’s living, safeguards democracy by defending a diverse media landscape, entrenches freedom of expression, and encourages start-ups and technological development,” says rapporteur Axel Voss.
“It helps make the internet ready for the future, a space which benefits everyone, not only a powerful few.”
There was a massive campaign against the directive from citizens as well as tech companies, with thousands of protesters marching in Germany over the weekend. However, some politicians claimed that these protestors had actually been paid.
“This was not only a crucial decision for creators and our sector, but also sent a strong message to citizens that tactics of intimidation and manipulation from a handful of giant companies will not be allowed to influence European policy making,” warns Véronique Desbrosses, general manager of authors’ group GESAC.
The directive must now be approved by individual member states, after which they will have two years to implement it.
“We can expect media and rightsholders to lobby for the most draconian possible national laws, then promptly march to the courts to extract fines whenever anyone online wanders over its fuzzy lines,” warns Danny O’Brien of the Elecxtronic Frontier Foundation.
O’Brien points out, though, that there may still be a chance for the courts to soften the directive, thanks to a potential paradox in the legislation.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/03/eus-parliament-signs-disastrous-internet-law-what-happens-next
“Article 13 is meant to be compatible with the older E-Commerce Directive, which explicitly forbids any requirement to proactively monitor for IP enforcement (a provision that was upheld and strengthened by the ECJ in 2011),” he writes. “Any law mandating filters could be challenged to settle this inconsistency.”
