Future Of Internet: Article 13 Law Implication

Article 13, part of the EU's new copyright directive, has sparked controversy online. The directive requires online platforms to filter or remove copyrighted material from their websites. Critics claim that it will have a detrimental impact on creators online, while proponents argue that it will ensure creators are paid properly for their work. The UK has stated that it will not implement the directive, but the remaining 27 EU states are still covered by the regulations.

The impact on creators and users

The impact of Article 13 on creators and users is a highly debated topic. Some argue that it will limit freedom of expression and content sharing online, while others believe it will ensure that copyright holders are paid fairly for their content.

For creators, Article 13 could have a detrimental impact on their ability to share content online. They may have to bear the responsibility of guaranteeing the legitimacy of all content shared across their platforms. This includes existing content, which would have to be reassessed. Critics have pointed out that this legislation could affect educational use, media commentary, criticism, and the 'remixing' of existing content. Covers, satirical sketches, and memes are all at risk.

Users will also be impacted, as they will have access to less content and their power to protect the content they enjoy will decrease significantly. They may also have to pay premium prices for content that they are used to consuming for free or at a minimal fee.

On the other hand, Article 13 is supported by many in the entertainment industry as it will hold websites accountable if they fail to license material or take it down. This means that copyright holders will be paid properly for their content.

Overall, the impact of Article 13 on creators and users is complex and multifaceted. While it may ensure fair compensation for copyright holders, it may also limit freedom of expression and increase costs for users.

The future of memes and GIFs

The law would require these sites to actively filter or remove copyrighted material, and many argued that the only way to do this would be through the use of automated filters. However, the European Commission has specifically confirmed that internet users will be able to use memes and other copyright works in certain circumstances. Memes and similar parody creations are protected as forms of quotation, criticism, review, caricature, and pastiche.

The directive was designed to protect the livelihoods of creative professionals by ensuring they are fairly compensated for their work. Musicians, journalists, actors, and authors will now have a legal standing to demand payment if their works are published on sites without their permission. The directive also aims to direct money from 'tech giants', who profit from user-generated content, towards the artists who own the copyright to the works.

While the future of memes and GIFs was initially thrown into doubt, it seems that they will still have a place online under the new laws. However, it remains to be seen how effectively tech companies will be able to enforce this rule with a blanket filter.

The role of algorithms and automated filters

Article 13 requires online platforms to prevent their users from uploading copyrighted content and to obtain licenses for copyrighted material. However, obtaining licenses for all user-generated content is an impossible task, leaving platforms with no choice but to implement automated filters to detect and block copyrighted material.

The use of algorithms and automated filters has been met with concern due to their potential for making mistakes and blocking legitimate content. Additionally, developing and implementing these filters can be costly, particularly for small companies and start-ups. There are also concerns about the concentration of power among a few large tech companies that can afford to develop and rent out these filters, leading to a potential "internet oligopoly".

Despite these concerns, some argue that algorithms and automated filters are necessary to enforce copyright laws and protect the interests of creators. Proponents of Article 13 claim that it will hold websites accountable and ensure that creators are properly compensated.

In conclusion, while algorithms and automated filters may play a significant role in the implementation of Article 13, there are valid concerns about their accuracy, cost, and potential impact on competition and free expression.

The effect on small companies and start-ups

Article 13 of the EU's new copyright directive has sparked huge controversy, with many arguing that it will negatively impact small companies and start-ups. The directive requires online platforms to filter or remove copyrighted material from their websites, which critics say will be too expensive for small companies and start-ups to implement.

The new directive will require content-sharing services to license copyright-protected material from rights holders. If that is not possible and material is posted on the service, the company may be held liable unless they can demonstrate that they made "best efforts" to get permission from the copyright holder, ensure that the material was not made available, and acted quickly to remove any infringing material. These rules apply to services that have been available in the EU for more than three years or have an annual turnover of more than €10 million.

Developing and implementing this type of filter is expected to be costly and complex, with critics arguing that it will be too expensive for small companies and start-ups to bear. Google has stated that YouTube has invested more than $60 million in Content ID, its proprietary system of content recognition, and that this system is only usable for video content. The cost of developing similar technology for other formats, such as audio or text, would be substantial.

In addition, there is a risk of 'over-filtering', where companies may filter out too much content to avoid being held liable for copyright infringement. This could frustrate users and make it difficult for small content start-ups to compete with larger platforms. The technology for content filtering is also not yet advanced enough to filter content adequately, and there is a risk that legitimately used content could be taken down.

The new copyright directive could also impact the wider start-up funding landscape, with some arguing that it will reduce the willingness of investors to invest in new platforms. The directive may also make it more difficult for small companies and start-ups to enter the market, as they will have to compete with larger companies that have more resources to develop their own tools in-house.

Overall, the effects of Article 13 on small companies and start-ups could be significant, with potential consequences including reduced competitiveness, inhibited innovation, and a negative impact on the emergence of new start-ups.

The UK's stance on the law

The UK's stance on Article 13 is that it will not implement the EU Copyright Directive after leaving the EU. This was confirmed by Universities and Science Minister Chris Skidmore. The UK was initially among the 19 nations that supported the law in its final European Council vote in April 2019. However, Prime Minister Boris Johnson criticised the law, claiming it was "terrible for the internet".

Article 13 of the EU Copyright Directive states that services such as YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter could be held responsible if their users upload copyright-protected content, such as television programmes and movies. This has sparked fears over the future of memes and GIFs, which rely on copyrighted scenes from TV and film. However, specific tweaks to the law in 2019 made memes safe for purposes of "quotation, criticism, review, caricature, parody, and pastiche".

The law has faced criticism from several companies, including Google, which argued that the changes would "harm Europe's creative and digital industries" and "change the web as we know it". YouTube also opposed the law, with CEO Susan Wojcicki warning that it could “shut down the ability of millions of people to upload content to platforms like YouTube".

Despite the criticism, the European Council voted to adopt the copyright directive into EU law in April 2019. However, the Polish Prime Minister's office announced it would bring a court case against Article 13 to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Frequently asked questions