Adapt copyright law to the internet … NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND !!!!
On Wednesday of this week, the EU’s Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) approved the so-called Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, a monstrous proposal worthy of the copyright lobbies, with articles mysteriously introduced at the last moment through irregular procedures, and that, if approved by the European Parliament, would be a catastrophe for the internet as we know it. Experts from around the world have spoken out against this proposal and have written letters to the President of the European Parliament about it, but for now, the sinister measures look set to come into law in a final plenary vote set for either December 2018 or January 2019.
What’s the problem, you might ask? How about Article 13? This forces sites to become copyright police, monitoring everything we upload through automated systems such as YouTube’s ContentID, to make sure it doesn’t infringe somebody’s copyright. Imagine all that this entails in terms of false positives, errors, rights of reasonable uses such as parody or academic use, etc., along with problems of all kinds for users, because the legislation essentially treats us as criminals and is designed to make the major copyright owners happy. Can you imagine trying to upload a meme to the network that might contain a photograph, a logo or any other element taken from a site, meaning the platform blocks it? Or a video with a few bars of a song heard from a car with the window open? Think of the thousands of errors committed by YouTube in this regard over time… a platform that, from a technical point of view, is reasonably professional. What will happen when this becomes widespread? How do you explain irony, parody, quotes, academic use, etc., to an algorithm?
Another ominous article, the 11th, consecrates the link tax disaster, already sadly known in Spain for having prompted Google News’ exit, turning my country into the only democracy in the world without the service. If approved, even the smallest fragments of articles and news published would require explicit permission, applicable to the reproduction of links anywhere for 20 years. This is the same as charging us for commenting on the news in a bar or at the dinner table, and it’s not going to save any newspaper from going under, and imposes a profoundly retrograde, inflexible, Taliban interpretation of copyright. Bad news for free speech. Protests and demonstrations are already being organized, although, sadly, we know pretty well from previous episodes how much do the copyright lobbies care about protests.
For the press barons to make a profit, the internet needs to be closely monitored and anything that links to their news must generate them a payment. But instead of telling them to look for another business model, the European Parliament is instead considering nothing less than changing the nature and functioning of the internet. In short, Europe intends not to adapt copyright to the Internet era, but change the internet to accommodate a copyright model dating back to the Statute of Anne in 1710.
If one thing is clear it’s that this concept, anchored in the idea of ”charging for a copy”, makes no sense in the internet age, when every click involves making a copy and every search results in a download. The belief that copyright law remain the same and that the internet be brought to heel, changing the essence of such fundamental realities such as the hyperlink or sharing on social networks proves that most members of the European Parliament are completely out of touch with reality and have allowed themselves to be swayed by copyright lobbies that, far from working for the common good or to protect artists and creators, are in instead protecting at all costs business models long past their sell-by date.
(En español, aquí)
