Free internet at risk due to new European copyright

Video clips, cartoons and other creative material must first be screened before they can be put online. That was decided by the European Parliament on Tuesday, March 26th. The approval of the reformed European copyright is the culmination of many years of discussions, and the controversial articles 11 and 13 are now law. MEP Anneleen Van Bossuyt is not surprised, although she is disappointed: “The mandatory filtering system is a modern censorship machine. There will be masses of videos that we will from now on no longer get to see, because the filters are not capable of recognising exceptions such as parodies and so will hold them back by way of a precaution. A treasure trove of creativity is going to be lost in this way. This seriously endangers not only the free internet, but also freedom of expression.”

Publisher’s right restricts access to news

The second article that has provoked huge debate is the new publisher’s right (article 11). 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.

Written to suit American companies

Although the new rules do provide exceptions for small businesses, they are far from adequate. MEP Anneleen Van Bossuyt says: “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.”

Many questions due to vague legislation

Aside from all these specific points, 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.