A way out of the Brexit morass?
09 May 2019 – 14:15 | No Comment

Brexit-bound Britain will participate in this month’s European Parliament (EP) election, unless UK prime minister, Theresa May, and opposition leader, Jeremy Corbyn, manage to push the thrice-rejected EU withdrawal agreement through the House of Commons …

Read the full story »

Energy & Environment

Circular Economy

Climate Change


Home » Copyright

Europe’s copyright plan: Why was it so controversial?

Submitted by on 11 Sep 2018 – 17:30

As European parliamentarians are set to vote on a controversial copyright law that some critics believe could stop people from sharing memes and articles online, Catherine Stihler MEP writes about the controversy surrounding the reform

The digital revolution has created monumental challenges for copyright law. Fast technological developments and market evolutions have produced radical changes in the way copyrighted works are created, produced and distributed. Given the transformation, it is widely accepted across Europe that urgent reform is required.

As a result, we have the European Commission’s proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, designed to simplify licensing practices, ensure wider access to content for consumers and protect authors’ and performers’ contracts and remuneration.

It was — and is — a laudable aim. Within the European Parliament, we are all united in our shared mission to protect artists and cultural diversity in Europe.

So why did copyright reform become so controversial?

In summary, the plan to protect copyright owners is so blunt and restrictive that it could have a detrimental effect on freedom of expression. Rather than finding the right balance for the new digital age, it has become a crackdown on consumer rights.

When the inventor of the World Wide Web, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, raises concerns, we all have a duty to listen – not to mention the fact that nearly one million Europeans have signed a petition demanding we “save the internet”.

In practical terms, under the current proposals, anything which could be seen as a copyright breach risks being automatically deleted from websites such as YouTube, Google, Twitter or Facebook.

That could include memes because the uploader doesn’t own the original photo, karaoke videos because the uploader doesn’t own the original song, and online newspaper articles because the uploader doesn’t own the original piece.

The rules proposed in Article 13 would be enforced by often error-prone and hypersensitive algorithms, which are designed to “play it safe” and remove anything that could pose a risk to the online platform.

A separate article — Article 11 — would have an impact on news reporting. In an era of “fake news,” where children are taught how to differentiate between conspiracy theories published on blogs and genuine news articles, we shouldn’t do anything which places restrictions on professional media.

A large proportion of news providers on the internet are financed by page impressions and the resulting advertising income, which is generated by people visiting their site via external links.

If an online platform is not willing to pay the licensing fee, those page views don’t happen.

When similar copyright rules were introduced in Spain, traffic to websites of small and medium sized news publishers fell by up to 30 percent, impacting local journalists. Google News largely withdrew from the market. If that happens elsewhere in Europe, it could put journalism at further risk and allow the spread of fake news.

It could even mean that simply quoting text is declared a copyright infringement.

That is why I have consistently argued that the introduction of a press publishers’ right under Article 11 — requiring online platforms to pay publishers a fee if they link to their news content —lacks sufficient justification. There are potentially more effective ways of promoting high-quality journalism and publishing via tax incentives, instead of adding an additional layer of copyright legislation.

Article 11 also risks placing restrictions on what can be included in academic research, which is why so many university experts are opposed to it.

More widely, Article 13 could have a major negative impact on the digital economy and the internet freedoms of consumers.

I firmly support the principle that creators and rights-holders should receive a fair and balanced compensation from online service providers for the exploitation of their works. However, the stringent requirements outlined in Article 13 could act as a barrier to market entry for new and emerging businesses, while the use of filtering potentially harms the interests of web users. There are many legitimate uses of copyrighted content that filtering technologies are simply not advanced enough to accommodate. In 2017, in my role as spokesperson on copyright for the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, I proposed a series of amendments for the Committee on Legal Affairs.

In our committee, we were able to reach a broad compromise that makes meaningful progress on the value gap while at the same time safeguarding the rights of European internet users, SMEs and start-ups.

Unfortunately, in June, the Legal Affairs Committee did not take our position into account and voted to approve Article 11 and Article 13. In the Strasbourg plenary, however, MEPs voted to reject this mandate, allowing a broad, fact-based debate in September.

We owe it to the experts, stakeholders and citizens to give this directive the full debate necessary to achieve broad support. Quite simply, we must get this right.