During the 15th edition of our Out Of Office we discussed the recent developments concerning the ongoing copyright reform in Europe. The discussion most notably revolved around a controversial proposal by the commission to introduce mandatory measures like content recognition technologies for Internet Society Service Providers. In short, the Commission proposes forms of content filtering. Kennisland has been arguing against this proposed article ever since it was published in ++Our first reaction to the ProposalRead our first reaction to the Proposal for Copyright in the Digital Single Market here.. Our main speaker, member of the European Parliament Julia Reda, shared her perspective on this issue.
Reda gave an overview of the current state of the proposed directive on copyright in the Digital Single Market that contains the controversial article 13 (the video below explains article 13 in one minute). The current legislative process has led to multiple amended versions of article 13 supported by small coalitions in the EP. However, it remains unclear whether any of the amended versions would get enough support to pass in the ParliamentReda herself is, like us, very critical of the proposed article 13. .
Reda herself is, like us, very critical of the proposed article. She argues that the Internet promises to democratise society but seems to be increasingly centralised arounding major hosting providers. She sees content filters as a means to put the Internet back into the era of the television, where a small set of parties – large content producers – can control what can be seen.
Reda does not see how filtering technologies can work in relation to our fundamental ++Filtering needs to be regulatedSee also our opinion on this type of filtering as a whole., like the freedom of expression and the limitations and exceptions to copyright and related rights. The proposed filtering measures will be unable to recognise content that is protected by the right to parody or quote, and would therefore unjustly filter important cultural expressions from platformsFiltering measures will be unable to recognise content that is protected by the right to parody or quote, and would therefore unjustly filter important cultural expressions from platforms.
Even one of the very latest version of article 13 that completely overhauls the article does not address these fundamental issues. Rather, Reda argues, it is a bad codification of recent CJEU decisions. The codification takes ++New definitionsConcepts like ‘Communication to the public’. out of context so that they expand into fields where they should not belong.
Participants in the discussion like professor Bernt Hugenholtz argue that the article should be deleted, he quips that in the current form the article is not doing anything for anyone except for the lawyers. Hugenholtz argues that instead we should focus on a remuneration right for creators.
Hugenholtz is supported by professor Visser who also argues in favor of the need for fair remuneration for creators, especially in relation to large online intermediaries such as YouTube. The current laws would possibly already enable direct claims against large intermediaries that have filter technologies, such as Content ID, in place. This does not happen because no one has been able to successfully enforce these claims. Nobody dares to take YouTube to court.
In our subsequent discussion with singer-songwriter Rita Zipora and artist / journalist Rufus Kain we discussed the artist’s perspective on the controversial proposal. Kain explained that the argument should not be about compensation for infringement but should focus on how creators and intermediaries can fairly divide the profits that are made from content hosted on Internet platforms like YouTube.
Artists, like Zipora, are entrepreneurs who need to make a living from their work and their productions. While they like seeing their works on large platforms, they do not like to see that their creativity is not rewarded.While artists like seeing their works on large platforms, they do not like to see that their creativity is not rewarded. Both artists, however, see no merit in extensive mandatory filtering measures and see more value in internet-ready remuneration rights for artists.
That this possible fundamental change of the Internet by article 13 could becomes reality soon, is very alarming. Luckily, the lively discussion of this evening is part of a long public debate that continues to happen on other fora. If you want to stay up to date of the most recent developments, check www.communia-association.org.
Check all the pictures here: