SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Open Internet advocates are criticizing European Union member states' passage of the Copyright Directive. (Photo: SaveYourInternet.eu)
Greenlighting 'Censorship Machine,' EU Adopts Controversial Copyright Rules
"This is a deeply disappointing result which will have a far-reaching and negative impact on freedom of speech and expression online."
Apr 15, 2019
European Union member states were accused of threatening freedom of speech and online expression--and ignoring the will of millions of people--after they adopted controversial new copyright rules.
Six member states--Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Finland, and Sweden--voted against the proposal. Three others--Belgium, Estonia, and Slovenia--abstained. Nineteen voted in favor.
The completion of the final hurdle of the new Copyright Directive comes after the European Parliament passed the rules last month--a move German MEP Julia Reda called a "dark day for internet freedom."
"With today's agreement," European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said Monday, "we are making copyright rules fit for the digital age. Europe will now have clear rules that guarantee fair remuneration for creators, strong rights for users, and responsibility for platforms."
Not so, says the Save Your Internet campaign, which argues that the overhaul "only benefits big businesses."
The devil is in two provisions, which the Wikimedia Foundation summed up last month. They are Article 15, which was formerly called Article 11, and Article 17, formerly called 13.
Article 15 will require certain news websites to purchase licenses for the content they display. As a result, many websites that helped people find and make sense of the news may choose not to offer this type of service, making it harder to find high-quality news items from trusted sources online. Article 17 will introduce a new liability regime across the EU, under which websites can be sued for copyright violations by their users. This will incentivize websites to filter all uploads and keep only "safe" copyrighted content on their sites, eroding essential exceptions and limitations to copyright by making platforms the judges of what is and isn't infringement.
The end result, says the Save Your Internet campaign, is detrimental to users, creators, and competition:
- Users will have access to less content and will be unable to share their content with others, even when it's legal. Moreover, any complaint mechanisms will be easily bypassed if blocking is done under the pretense of a terms and conditions violation, rather than as a result of a specific copyright claim.
- If platforms become directly liable for user uploaded content they will arbitrarily remove content based on their terms and conditions. As a result, many creators will see their content get blocked too. And, as less platforms survive the burden of this provision, creators will have less choice on where to share their creations
- Only platforms with deep pockets will be able to comply with the Article 13 requirements and even if small enterprises get an exemption from its scope, this simply means they are not allowed to scale up and compete with the big U.S. platforms, under the motto 'in Europe, small is beautiful'!
Given such impacts, Catherine Stihler, chief executive of the Open Knowledge Foundation, said the adoption of the rules is "a deeply disappointing result which will have a far-reaching and negative impact on freedom of speech and expression online."
"We now risk the creation of a more closed society at the very time we should be using digital advances to build a more open world where knowledge creates power for the many, not the few," she said.
Still, Stihler said that all hope is not lost.
"The battle is not over," she said. "Next month's European elections are an opportunity to elect a strong cohort of open champions at the European Parliament who will work to build a more open world."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
European Union member states were accused of threatening freedom of speech and online expression--and ignoring the will of millions of people--after they adopted controversial new copyright rules.
Six member states--Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Finland, and Sweden--voted against the proposal. Three others--Belgium, Estonia, and Slovenia--abstained. Nineteen voted in favor.
The completion of the final hurdle of the new Copyright Directive comes after the European Parliament passed the rules last month--a move German MEP Julia Reda called a "dark day for internet freedom."
"With today's agreement," European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said Monday, "we are making copyright rules fit for the digital age. Europe will now have clear rules that guarantee fair remuneration for creators, strong rights for users, and responsibility for platforms."
Not so, says the Save Your Internet campaign, which argues that the overhaul "only benefits big businesses."
The devil is in two provisions, which the Wikimedia Foundation summed up last month. They are Article 15, which was formerly called Article 11, and Article 17, formerly called 13.
Article 15 will require certain news websites to purchase licenses for the content they display. As a result, many websites that helped people find and make sense of the news may choose not to offer this type of service, making it harder to find high-quality news items from trusted sources online. Article 17 will introduce a new liability regime across the EU, under which websites can be sued for copyright violations by their users. This will incentivize websites to filter all uploads and keep only "safe" copyrighted content on their sites, eroding essential exceptions and limitations to copyright by making platforms the judges of what is and isn't infringement.
The end result, says the Save Your Internet campaign, is detrimental to users, creators, and competition:
- Users will have access to less content and will be unable to share their content with others, even when it's legal. Moreover, any complaint mechanisms will be easily bypassed if blocking is done under the pretense of a terms and conditions violation, rather than as a result of a specific copyright claim.
- If platforms become directly liable for user uploaded content they will arbitrarily remove content based on their terms and conditions. As a result, many creators will see their content get blocked too. And, as less platforms survive the burden of this provision, creators will have less choice on where to share their creations
- Only platforms with deep pockets will be able to comply with the Article 13 requirements and even if small enterprises get an exemption from its scope, this simply means they are not allowed to scale up and compete with the big U.S. platforms, under the motto 'in Europe, small is beautiful'!
Given such impacts, Catherine Stihler, chief executive of the Open Knowledge Foundation, said the adoption of the rules is "a deeply disappointing result which will have a far-reaching and negative impact on freedom of speech and expression online."
"We now risk the creation of a more closed society at the very time we should be using digital advances to build a more open world where knowledge creates power for the many, not the few," she said.
Still, Stihler said that all hope is not lost.
"The battle is not over," she said. "Next month's European elections are an opportunity to elect a strong cohort of open champions at the European Parliament who will work to build a more open world."
European Union member states were accused of threatening freedom of speech and online expression--and ignoring the will of millions of people--after they adopted controversial new copyright rules.
Six member states--Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Finland, and Sweden--voted against the proposal. Three others--Belgium, Estonia, and Slovenia--abstained. Nineteen voted in favor.
The completion of the final hurdle of the new Copyright Directive comes after the European Parliament passed the rules last month--a move German MEP Julia Reda called a "dark day for internet freedom."
"With today's agreement," European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said Monday, "we are making copyright rules fit for the digital age. Europe will now have clear rules that guarantee fair remuneration for creators, strong rights for users, and responsibility for platforms."
Not so, says the Save Your Internet campaign, which argues that the overhaul "only benefits big businesses."
The devil is in two provisions, which the Wikimedia Foundation summed up last month. They are Article 15, which was formerly called Article 11, and Article 17, formerly called 13.
Article 15 will require certain news websites to purchase licenses for the content they display. As a result, many websites that helped people find and make sense of the news may choose not to offer this type of service, making it harder to find high-quality news items from trusted sources online. Article 17 will introduce a new liability regime across the EU, under which websites can be sued for copyright violations by their users. This will incentivize websites to filter all uploads and keep only "safe" copyrighted content on their sites, eroding essential exceptions and limitations to copyright by making platforms the judges of what is and isn't infringement.
The end result, says the Save Your Internet campaign, is detrimental to users, creators, and competition:
- Users will have access to less content and will be unable to share their content with others, even when it's legal. Moreover, any complaint mechanisms will be easily bypassed if blocking is done under the pretense of a terms and conditions violation, rather than as a result of a specific copyright claim.
- If platforms become directly liable for user uploaded content they will arbitrarily remove content based on their terms and conditions. As a result, many creators will see their content get blocked too. And, as less platforms survive the burden of this provision, creators will have less choice on where to share their creations
- Only platforms with deep pockets will be able to comply with the Article 13 requirements and even if small enterprises get an exemption from its scope, this simply means they are not allowed to scale up and compete with the big U.S. platforms, under the motto 'in Europe, small is beautiful'!
Given such impacts, Catherine Stihler, chief executive of the Open Knowledge Foundation, said the adoption of the rules is "a deeply disappointing result which will have a far-reaching and negative impact on freedom of speech and expression online."
"We now risk the creation of a more closed society at the very time we should be using digital advances to build a more open world where knowledge creates power for the many, not the few," she said.
Still, Stihler said that all hope is not lost.
"The battle is not over," she said. "Next month's European elections are an opportunity to elect a strong cohort of open champions at the European Parliament who will work to build a more open world."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.