Why love creators, not their labels.
The European Parliament fights over whether creativity in Europe should be free. Help Europe be colourful, creative and successful!
For over two years now a profound and decisive battle over the future of digital copyright in the European Union has been ongoing. In recent months, it picked up in pace and scale, and advocates of either side aren’t shy of any extreme.
While going up and down the ladder of drama, many stakeholders, including Members of the European Parliament, have gone from lethargy-to-superlatives and back about what might happen or not. The big shortfall of all this has been that a wide range of concerned groups have been completely left out. Civil society groups, individual artists, creatives, creators, open internet advocates, innovators and startups.
That doesn’t mean that they have been quiet. But it means that the copyright reform — rather than being a reform for all — has neglected their interests in favour of those in control of content licences. One article, article 13 mandating filter software on platforms, stands like nothing else for special interest in EU Government. The European Parliament has already once refused to wave upload filters through. This week its Members will decide how the reform will move forward.
This week’s vote is about nothing less than the freedom of creativity.
Before the open internet shelf space for music and media was long limited. Not because of missing demand or offer but because of a tight grip on its channels of distribution. In broadcasting, records and the printed press, a handful of dominating companies and their executives decided what would be the news of tomorrow, your favourite show or the next big hit.
Today users have the liberty to watch what they like most from an endless choice. They can do so when, where and how often they want. Creatives need minimal technical equipment to make their creations — books, videos, music or art available to a global community. This movement of empowerment is in many ways a movement of startups too. Technology has liberated creativity.
“I never liked the bullies” Willard Ahdritz, CEO of Kobalt music said in a documentary by the Economist, when asked about his motivation to found his startup. Kobalt offers musicians not only a fair share on their work, it also gives them insights and control over how their music is listened to. Another example is Choon which uses the ethereum blockchain to distribute income directly rather than going through record labels that keeps 88% of all profits. Yeah, you heard right: musicians only receive 12% of the income they generate from labels.
Startups like Choon or Kobalt are only two of the over 800 startups that democratise and modernise music. Other platforms enable artists to interact more closely with their online communities. Patreon allows literally anyone who does something others are interested in to make a living. Vloggers, bloggers, musicians and authors. Similar to the countless crowdfunding platforms like kisskissbankbank or kickstarter, they bring down barriers between creators and their fans.
Article 13 or the obligation of all platforms that host user content to negotiate licenses is not made for artists. Its made for those who already hold exploitative rights to these artists’ work to continue their bullying behaviour. In a world with article 13 startups will be kept out of the market, artists left with no choice and free and creative speech censored.
This week the European Parliament will decide if artists and creatives will be empowered or kept in chains. Whether startups will be bullied around and driven out of Europe. Parliamentarians can reject the idea that media moguls control the diversity and creative strengths of our continent.
#Copyright4Startups #SaveYourInternet #DeleteArt13 #100EuropeanStartups
