The Copyright Directive's Article 13: An Orwellian Nightmare #SaveYourInternet

On January 2018, the European Council didn't convene to discuss what was supposed to be the last round on the discussions around reforming the Copyright Directive. This outcome indicates that the final adoption of this law will likely be delayed. Good news considering the  disastrous consequences of the adoption of Articles 11 and 13. Policy-makers are starting to doubt that the adoption of the Directive will happen before the upcoming European elections, in May 2019.

After the Council's results and public opinion pressure, Greens/European Free Alliance German MEP Julia Reda announced the outcomes of the Council's reunion saying that it is "less likely" that the controversial Articles 11 and 13 will be adopted. However, Reda let the alarm on, stating that these two articles are not dead either. The S&D British MEP Catherine Stihler told the EUobserver that the "meme ban" is still on the table in the EU copyright bill. "My kids look at that and think: how can you possibly even thinking about banning memes," said Stihler.

Do you enjoy scrolling around 9GAG? Forget it as it is under Article 13. Below is one of the countless memes all over the web. They are fruit of the work of independent creators who just want to banter around. Banning memes on the web it's almost like banning stand-up comedy shows George Carlin-style. It's outlawing and suppressing the magnificent art of using word play, opinions, exaggeration, irony, sarcasm and another comic themes to playfully humiliate. And according to Julia Reda, it's incompatible with existing EU law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The adoption of these two catastrophic articles would drastically change the internet as we know it while imposing a gloomy cut on our freedoms of expression. Simple acts like linking a source in an article would not be allowed under Article 11. As for Article 13, it would basically censor indiscriminate content using bots and algorithms. How scary is this?

Julia Reda's announcement on Twitter, January 2018:

Hopefully, the meaning of the recent non-adoption of this bill implies that internal disagreement is shaking things around, and Articles 11 and 13 are at the core of this contention. As Green MEP Julia Reda put on her blog: "national governments failed to agree on a common position on the two most controversial articles, Article 11, also known as the Link Tax, and Article 13, which would require online platforms to use upload filters in an attempt to prevent copyright infringement before it happens." 

A total of 11 countries voted against the compromise text proposed by the Romanian Presidency: Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Finland, Slovenia, Italy, Poland, Sweden, Croatia, Luxembourg and Portugal.

How did the parties in the European Parliament vote under the Copyright Directive in July and September 2018?

September 2018

July 2018

Both in July and September 2018, the European Parliament voted different set of rules that, according to digital activists, will entirely change the internet as we know it. As we see it, the majority of the Conservatives were in favour of ban content as well as a slight majority of the Socialists. The most controversial articles under the Copyright Directive include the already mentioned Article 11, also known as the Link Tax and Article 13, or Upload Filters.

After the Romanian presidency cancelled on January 18 the supposedly final negotiation of the Copyright Directive between the Council, the Commission and the Parliament, it will be up to the Romanian presidency - chairing the presidency of the Council of the EU since January 2019 - to draft a new text in order to gain a qualified majority. The adoption is not foreseen to happen before the European elections in May.

Expert Opinion regarding Article 13 (via Julia Reda)

• Article 13 takes an unprecedented step towards the transformation of the Internet, from an open platform for sharing and innovation, into a tool for the automated surveillance and control of its users. – 70 internet luminaries including World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee and Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales 

• This [law] will lead to excessive filtering and deletion of content and limit the freedom to impart information on the one hand, and the freedom to receive information on the other. – 57 signatories representing fundamental rights organisations, including Human Rights Watch and Reporters without Borders 

• States and intergovernmental organizations should refrain from establishing laws or arrangements that would require the “proactive” monitoring or filtering of content, which is both inconsistent with the right to privacy and likely to amount to pre-publication censorship. – United Nations Human Rights Council report

Expert Opinion regarding Article 11 (via Julia Reda)

Independent academics unanimously criticise the proposal:

• “A bad piece of legislation … would likely impede the free flow of information that is of vital importance to democracy … likely to harm journalists … likely to exacerbate existing power asymmetries in media markets … no protection against ‘fake news’ … no sound economic case for the introduction of such a right” –169 scholars working in the fields of intellectual property, internet law, human rights law and journalism studies 

• “There is independent scientific consensus that Article 11 […] cannot be allowed to stand.” –Leading European centres researching IP and innovation law 

• “Unnecessary, undesirable, would introduce an unacceptable level of uncertainty and be unlikely to achieve anything” –37 IP professors and scholars 

• “An interference with freedom of speech”, “may well set back the function of the press as public watchdog” –Prof van Eechoud 

• “Contrary to the objective of creating a Single Digital Market”, “detrimental for authors’ interests”, “a negative impact on small publishers”, “risks having undesired repercussions for the acceptability and legitimacy of the copyright system as a whole” –Uni Strasbourg 

• ”Will not foster quality journalism”, ”adversely affects authors economically”, ”directly affects the online communication of the European population”, ”will not create additional revenues for press publishers” –Prof Peukert 

• “will ultimately privilege large incumbent (US-based) online news providers, such as Google”, “Small (European) entities and startups will be prevented from entering this emerging market” –European Copyright Society 

• “The final result … may … be further market concentration and less information diversity.” –Prof Senftleben 

• “We [advise] that the press publishers’ right be abandoned” –Directorate General for Internal Policies of the Union on behalf of the European Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee 

Several stakeholders who are supposed to benefit from the proposal have rejected it:

• “would be a serious blow for investigative journalism and present a giant step backward in the fight against misinformation” –Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project 

• “An attack on innovation” … “unhelpful, counterproductive and not in the interest of all publishers” … “bad for competition, media pluralism and for internet users” … “Serious negative effects on the quality of the press, freedom of opinion and freedom of expression” –European Innovative Media Publishers (also here) 

• “Such proposals make it harder for us to be heard, to reach new readers and new audiences. They create new barriers between us and our readers […] It will be harder for us to be present, discovered and accessed by our readers online. It will be harder for our readers to engage with our stories online, to share links or our headlines with their friends. It will be harder for us to grow, develop new sources of information and innovate in our business.” –Alliance of independent publishers, including the publishers of 900 periodicals in Spain and 155 local newspapers in Italy 

• “[The plan] will stifle and drown the process of digital transformation” –Major Spanish daily El País 

• “[The plan] risks […] putting all EU-based publications at a competitive disadvantage.” –71 independent publishers 

• Many more quotes from industry insiders here

Don't feel powerless. If you want to raise your voice against this unconstitutional law, join the struggle and tell your MEP to STOP COPYRIGHT CENSORSHIP here.