New European copyright opens the door to censorship

“Authors must be compensated fairly, but this legislation will not make that happen. What it does do, however, is restrict internet freedom and prevent low-threshold access to information.” MEP Anneleen Van Bossuyt does not see the benefit in the modernisation of copyright that will be voted on by the European Parliament next week. “Next week is a crucial week for internet freedom. The stakes are high: do we want a free internet with no upload filters or are we opening the door to censorship?”, Anneleen Van Bossuyt wonders out loud.

Freedom of expression

European copyright has for quite some time now been the subject of lively debate. One of the causes is the compulsory filtering of uploads to media platforms such as YouTube. All videos must pass a filter test to determine whether they are protected by copyright. Only then can they be put online. According to MEP Anneleen Van Bossuyt, this is not possible without resorting to censorship: “Computer systems cannot make judgements about a specific context. Neither can they recognise parodies or understand memes. If they do that anyway, then it will be at the cost of masses of videos. This seriously endangers not only the free internet, but also freedom of expression.”

Free internet

In addition, the new publisher’s right is a cause for concern. Online news aggregators will have to pay fees to press publishers to use links to original articles that are freely available elsewhere on the internet. For news aggregators above all, this is a severe financial blow. In Spain and Germany, the use of such systems has already led to several bankruptcies. “Low-threshold access to news, facts and sources must be facilitated, not restricted. Here too, the free internet is at stake,” Anneleen Van Bossuyt responds.

Small players left high and dry

Although the new rules do provide exceptions for small businesses, they are far from adequate. “The fundamental problem with this new legislation is that it has been written entirely to suit large American companies. The concessions for small businesses are so narrowly defined that most of them are left high and dry. On top of this there is also the competitive disadvantage for European companies, because there’s a good chance that the necessary filtering technology will be American-made,” argues MEP Anneleen Van Bossuyt.

Many questions, few answers

Aside from all these specific points, the MEP is of the opinion that the text is also much too vague and leaves too much room for interpretation. “This is no example of good legislation. On many points, it creates an even greater lack of clarity than was already the case. For example, the publisher’s right would not apply to short snippets from press publications, but nowhere is it specified what exactly this means. A number of words, a sentence, a few sentences, a paragraph? And what is fair compensation? Or what about: can you still take a photograph of a public building when travelling and post it on Facebook? Many questions, few answers. It could all have been done so much better,” Anneleen Van Bossuyt concludes.