![]() ![]() He hits out at the “myth of uncontrolled filters as if a fence were being erected online” when “the aim of this directive is exactly the opposite”. Mr Pfennig says a filtering system would only be necessary for content not already covered by copyright contracts with agencies that collect royalties on behalf of rights holders. These concerns are overstated, according to Gerhard Pfennig from Germany’s Copyright Initiative. Ronan Kennedy, law lecturer at the National University of Ireland in Galway, who spent much of the 1990s working as a programmer, analyst and webmaster, says: “For private users, litigation is too expensive, so they will just decide to take the content down.” This will restrict internet freedom by default. ![]() What impact on internet freedom will the EU directive really have? Opponents believe platforms will still need to upload filters to comply with these obligations, and the increased costs and regulatory burden will make it harder for smaller platforms to compete with the internet giants. Rather than being required to implement technical measures to prevent copyright infringement, platforms will instead have to conclude licensing agreements with rights holders for use of their works or use their “best efforts” to uphold copyright through some specified provisions. The bigger problem is article 13, dubbed the “meme ban”, which has also been retained, but imposes weaker obligations upon platforms. However, uncertainty remains around what constitutes a very short extract, which may lead online service providers to wait for further guidance from the Commission or the courts. The compromise struck on article 11, dubbed the “link tax”, is, although retained, it has a carve-out that it will not apply to hyperlinking or the reuse of “single words or very short extracts”. However, not everyone is happy with this either. Despite a vote in favour, trilogue talks between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission resulted in compromise wording that finally passed last month. This raised fears that memes would be effectively banned and platforms would need to pay publishers when people link to their websites. Trouble really kicked off last spring when German MEP Axel Voss, taking over as EU copyright rapporteur, sought to bring back articles 11 and 13, which had previously been put aside. Would the “link tax” and “meme ban” threaten internet freedom? Opposition quickly erupted from various quarters, including the major social media platforms, internet creator Sir Tim Berners-Lee and a raft of NGOs. The reason it has become problematic comes down to two key articles, 11 and 13, which have been drafted in a way that opponents argue may seriously threaten our freedom of expression. However, controversy has dogged the directive these past two years with claims that it goes too far and risks greater censorship, inhibits innovation and curtails internet freedom. To date, the onus has been largely on the copyright holders to enforce their copyright. The draft of the directive places greater responsibility on platforms, the biggest being Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, to ensure copyrighted material isn’t shared illegally online. In copyright, the means to achieve this ambition come in the form of the European Union Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. “To do so, we will need to have the courage to break down national silos in telecoms regulation, in copyright and data protection legislation, in the management of radio waves and in the application of competition law”, thereby ensuring full consumer access in a digital Europe. “I believe that we must make much better use of the great opportunities offered by digital technologies, which do not know any borders,” he said. Speaking at a European Parliament plenary session in 2014, as candidate for president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker set out his agenda. EU regulation puts onus on platforms, not copyright holders Proponents say new rules are needed to break down silos and the objective is to free up digital access. Everyone accepts there is a pressing need to update current regulation to account for the digital revolution, as the law plays catch-up. It’s not a subject that tends to get people’s blood up, but in many quarters there is a clamour of voices objecting to planned regulations. The problem revolves around European copyright rules. However, while the means to engage in the digital world proliferate, there are equally growing concerns that internet freedom is being curtailed by proposed regulation and vested interests. We are in an era of sharing and internet freedom. The internet of things, smart devices, digital assistants, social media and apps are all supposed to bring us, the digital citizens, a new free world. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |