Article 13: The New Copyright Law That Everyone's Talking About

Abstract 

For years since the internet has become part of our daily lives, it has never been regulated or successfully regulated by government (Lessig, 2006). More specifically, the copyright law has been turned into a mere hearsay. Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, and more businesses, including Internet Service Providers has let copyrighting run rampant because of the mass amount of users. This paper will focus on the new proposed copyright law, Article 13, in Europe and why this proposed law is needed in the Internet World, not just Europe. 

Introduction 

Many laws have been created in the past to help combat copyrighting in the age of the Internet. Beginning with the Revision of the U.S Copyright Act in 1976, which allowed people to create copies of books, articles and more so that they may use it for teaching purposes, to 1990, when Congress ensured that there were labels on CDs which warned copyrighting computer software was illegal (Kennedy, 1996). Lastly, the case of Religious Technology Center versus Netcom which occurred in 1995 is directly related to the new proposed law, because it was the first case of its kind where an ISP (internet service provider) was held accountable for their users’ use of copyrighted materials. The conclusion to this case though, was in favor of the internet service provider; stating they did not really allow any copyright infringement to occur (Association of Research Libraries, 2018). If imposed will place more responsibility on websites where copyrighted materials are shared than only on the owners of the copyrighted materials (Reynolds, 2018). 

II. Content: 

(1) Article 13 

(a) What is it? 

Article 13 was formulated alongside Article 11 as part of EU’s new copyright directive. Article 13 is popularly known as the meme ban because it will reshape copyright law in the digital age. The law enforces tighter regulation on the protection of online content such that copyright holders will have more power (Asia Pulse News, 2007). According to the article, online platforms such as Google, Twitter and YouTube should, “take measures to ensure the functioning of agreements concluded with rights holders for the use of their works or other subject-matters…” Article 13 will hold online platforms more accountable for the content shared on their platforms through stringent measures (Reynolds, 2018). The article proposes appropriate and proportionate measures. The law mandates platforms to provide rights holders with adequate reporting on recognition and use of their works. 

Article 13 is related to Article 11 famously known as the Link Tax. Article 11 charges news outlets to pay other publishers for displaying their content. For example, an internet user can search about Grammy awards, and Google brings up the winners of Grammy Awards. Article 11 requires that Google gives credit to the author or the website that displayed the content. Article 11 is not clear because similar information gets posted online on many websites, and online platforms will be required to pay them just like in Article 13 (Satariano, 2018). Article 13 is not limited to music or video content only, parodies, memes, pastiche, and caricature are treated as content. 

Technology platforms such as Google and YouTube will be required to filter and remove copyrighted audio, videos, pictures, memes and GIFs and other content. When online platforms fail to filter, they will be liable for copyright infringement yet other users are the ones who shared the copyrighted material. Platforms will be legally responsible for the action of the users; thus they will need to restrict content. The platforms will upload filters or “content recognition technologies” to raise flags on copyrighted material. YouTube is already using Content ID, but it tends to flag explicit and controversial material rather than copyrighted material. 

(b) Who is affected? 

Article 13 will affect all internet users, content creators, and online platforms. The primary intention of the article is to prevent streaming and sharing if pirated music, videos, images, audio, video, compiled software, code and written word (McGlynn, 2018). The parties will be required to operate as per the provisions of the legislation. Currently, copyright holders are responsible for enforcement of copyrighted material. They take action against individuals or websites when they use their content without their consent. With the passage of article 13, websites will be required to crack down on copyrighted material circulating their platforms. 

Social media platforms, particularly Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram will be affected by the legislation because users share memes, viral videos, and audio content and other forms of material through the platform. The article has been widely criticized because it will end the meme culture where individuals share funny pictures and captions over the internet. Social media users will no longer be able to share content anyhow or without the permission of the content creators. Social media marketers and content creators will also be affected by the new law. Their content will not reach the intended audience if they are using copyrighted material such as memes and viral videos. 

Artists and content creators will benefit from the legislation. Artists have complained about the unfair payment system adopted by YouTube. YouTube pay $0.0006 per play, which is only 10% of the payout from other platforms such as Apple Music, Spotify, and Pandora. Additionally, artists compete with illegal uploads of their songs and content since anyone can post on YouTube. With the changes in copyright law, artists will be the only ones who can upload their work on YouTube. 

(c) How will it be implemented? 

Article 13 is an EU directive designed to limit the sharing of copyrighted material on online platforms. EU directives are legislations setting objectives for member states to achieve, thus since Article 13 was passed, EU member states will be required to pass their own versions of the legislation according to the terms of Article 13 (Burgunder, 2007). The article is a controversial article, and it will take some time before all the EU members can implement it. Many have opposed it because they interpret the article to a ban on memes and viral videos. For the last decade, EU has been creating laws to hold internet companies accountable for their actions, but they are yet to be fully implemented. Article 13 will drastically change how the internet works, particularly important platforms such as Google and YouTube that rely on content from internet users. 

It will take some time before article 13 can be implemented because there are many aspects of the law that need to be clarified. Technology platforms such as Google and Facebook are opposed to the law because they will be required to track user IP of content creators and filter the content so that other users can not share them. Online platforms will put in place stronger AI filters and removal tools capable of distinguishing what a parody is an actual infringement. YouTube is the only platform that already has content ID in place. YouTube build its content ID for approximately $60 million, and yet the system has been criticized for being ineffective in certain cases. Tech giants will oppose article 13 for as long as they can because they are not ready to dedicate a significant portion of their budgets into building content IDs that will do a tiny fraction of what article 13 suggest filters must do. Article 13 proposes that online platforms use many filtering technologies to get rid of any copyrighted content. 

(2) Article 13 – Pro-Government 

(a) How will article 13 help regulate the internet? 

EU members of parliament passed article 13 with the intention of regulating the internet. After the legislation was rejected, legislators made amendments to the bill with the support of individuals who felt that the internet should be regulated. The internet operates in a free manner, where anyone can share a video, audio, or a picture without acknowledging. The same picture will be shared by the friends of the person who shared it, and eventually, it becomes a viral sensation. It is easy to access any content, either a book or a song on the internet through many sites that share them freely (Lessig, 1999). YouTube shares music freely and pays very little to the musicians. Authors take years to write books only for their books to be accessed freely on Google scholar and other literary websites. 

Article 13 aims to regulate the internet so that content creators will get the credit they deserve and pay for their work, and not just anyone who shared their work. Online platforms will use filters to block copyrighted material to prevent other users from sharing them. Aside from protecting the rights of content creators, EU is seeking to regulate the internet more so that internet platforms will be held responsible for the information on the internet. 

(b) Artists and content creators will get paid fairly 

The online revolution changed the shape of sharing content, thus affecting the way in which content creators, mainly writers get paid. The Society of Authors wrote an article asking its members to write to MEPs urging them to pass article 13. According to the Society of Authors, authors and artists feel that they are not rewarded for their work. Musicians, authors and content creators have complained about their work being shared freely on the internet. 

Article 13 aims to increase transparency such that websites will have to acknowledge the authors and content creators before sharing their work. The websites will not only recognize, but they will pay them for sharing their content (The Economist, 2003). The article is a dispute resolution mechanism that empowers content creators such that they will no longer be after anonymous internet users as the platforms are legally liable. In the infamous Roger versus Voltage case, the courts sided with Roger Communications ruling that companies pursuing copyright violators should reimburse service providers for the effort in identifying the subscribers (Clyde, 2018). Rogers Communications and many ISPs were tired of being implicated in copyright violation cases. Thus, Rogers Communication retrieved the information and agreed to disclose it to Voltage at a fee of $100 per hour, but since Voltage Pictures wanted to access information on tens of thousands of violators, Voltage Pictures would pay a lot of money to Rogers. With Article 13, Rogers Communication and other online platforms used to pirate the movie will be held liable and they will be required to share information. 

(c) Article 13 only targets commercial websites 

The supporters of the law argued that the legislation targets platforms that make money off unlicensed copyrighted content. Nonprofit platforms such as Wikipedia, Dropbox, and Tinder will not be affected by the legislation. Individuals who want to continue freely sharing their content can use websites that will not be affected by the bill. Content creators are also free to upload their content with the authorization allowing viewers to share the content. Google, YouTube, Facebook among other commercial sites make a lot of money from enabling users to share copyrighted material (Giles, 2011). While Facebook itself does not share the material, it has a platform where users can share them without respecting copyright or even acknowledging content creators. Meanwhile, Facebook benefits from adverts targeting users who keep sharing copyrighted material at the expense of the authors. 

(3) Unintended consequences of DMCA 

(a) Inhibiting free speech 

Article 13 has received backlash from internet users across Europe, mainly because it will inhibit free expression. The legislation empowers internet giants to take “appropriate and proportionate” measures to prevent user-generated content the infringe copyright. Tech giants will put in place automated filtering systems, and the systems are likely to filter non-copyrighted material. Internet users will be subjected to stringent filters because internet giants do not want to be held liable for the content shared online. 

Proponents of article 13 argue that the legislation will amount to censorship. The use of copyrighted material for commentary or parody is the norm in the internet age, hence the popularity of memes. Memes rely on copyrighted images or pieces of videos which are edited by internet users and shared for entertainment and social commentary. Memes will be easily censored as tech giants do not know how internet users will use them if they access them. While copyright is essential, free speech is also important, and individuals should be allowed to exercise they freedom by commenting or making fun of the content they see online, otherwise, why did the content creators share them in the first place? 

With the implementation of article 13 dubbed “censorship machine,” social media users will no longer upload videos of themselves singing or dancing to their favorite tunes because the sight will be liable for copyright infringement (Ball, 2018). Platforms will be required to have licenses to share copyrighted material, and since they cannot get licenses for all content, they will implement algorithmic filters to prevent copyrighted or suspicious material from being shared on their platform. 

(b) Inhibiting scientific research and fair use 

Another unintended consequence of article 13 is that it will hinder scientific research and fair use of the internet. Everyone has the choice to act as a rights holder and block the rest of the internet users from accessing specific information from the internet (Ball, 2018). With the adoption of extreme filtering, most platforms will be affected scientific research platforms. Online encyclopedias will not be affected, but no serious researcher uses Wikipedia anymore. Critics give an example of the time YouTube Content ID took down a video of birds chirping because there was a copyrighted song on the background to show the extent of how article 13 will limit internet use. 

When scientists cannot access online resources because of the extreme filtering, they will not make progress in their work. Internet restrictions harm the ability to innovate as scientists will not be able to access copyrighted material from the internet and make a comparison. Researchers want to share their documents over the internet with other researchers, but the platforms will not allow them as they will be held liable for copyright infringement. Consequently, the internet will be restricted such that it will no longer be a great research tool for researchers. 

(c) Impeding competition and innovation 

Article 13 will eventually reduce competition and innovation. According to Ball (2018) article, 13 will create more losers than winners in the end. Article 13 forces internet platforms to restrict their content out of fear of copyright claims. Aforementioned, building the filters is expensive as seen in the case of Youtube’s ID content. Building the pre-filters is time-consuming and expensive; thus small-scale websites and upcoming social networks will be discouraged. Existing social media sites and internet giants will retain dominance because they have the resources to build filters and put in place the all the new measures as suggested by article 13. 

The new rule will create many losers and few winners capable of implementing all the suggestions. In the end, article 13 will not be beneficial to people working in the creative industries (Reynolds, 2018). The drive to share content online will no longer be there as many rules are preventing it. Additionally, innovators in the technology industry will face more hurdles in the development of technological products. Ball (2018) argues that article 13 was a move by EU to get more money out of tech giants such as Google, and yet, in the end, European technology industry could suffer more because tech giants such as Google are capable of implementing article 13. 

(d) Interfering with computer intrusion laws 

There are many laws against computer intrusion. Computer intrusion laws are against using devices to acquire a person’s or an organization’s information for financial gain or causing a loss to the affected party. With the passage of article 13, technology platforms have the authority to put in place more filters and go through user information to implement the strict anti-copyright law (Satariano, 2018). Technology companies will increase their surveillance, and yet the information can be easily accessed by malicious individuals. 

According to ball (2018), article 13 changes how the internet operates. Internet companies will be forced to act as copyright police by implementing highly invasive surveillance infrastructure. Government and corporations can easily repurpose the intrusive infrastructure. Article 13 opens room for increased surveillance changing the fabric of the internet without putting in place measures to prevent intrusion. 

Conclusion 

At the root of article 13 is the need to give publishers and the media more power over their work. Online platforms such as Google, YouTube, and Facebook have changed the way of sharing information and news, communication, and reading such that content creators are no longer in control. News channels have become redundant, journalists and artists are no longer appreciated for their work. The internet has positive effects worth considering. There are many authors or content creators who make their money through online platforms such as YouTube, but they are many more who complain that their copyrighted material is shared online. There are many reasons to be worried about the implications of article 13 on the internet; it will change the way popular sites such as Google, YouTube and Facebook operate. While the internet is a place for sharing information, it should not be at the expense of writers and content creators. Online platforms are capable of putting in place filtering tools, the same way they put in place new features to continually attract users. Article 13 is yet to be implemented by EU member states, but it is a step in the right direction for copyright evolution. 

References 

“ A fine balance. (Internet and copyright protection).” (2003). The Economist (US), 366 (8308), 11-13. 

“ Australian legal expert calls for internet copyright laws.”(2007). AsiaPulse News , p. AsiaPulse News, May 2, 2007. 

Ball, J. (2018, Sept. 13). In punishing tech giants, the EU has made the internet worse for everyone. The Guardian. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/13/tech-giants-eu-internet- searches-copyright-law 

Burgunder, L. (2007). Legal Aspects of Managing Technology . South-Western, Cengage Learning. Mason: Ohio. 

Clyde, C. (2018). The Supreme Court Rules In Rogers Communications Inc. v Voltage Pictures, LLC. Mondaq Business Briefing , p. Mondaq Business Briefing, Sept 19, 2018. 

  Giles, J. (2011). Piracy bill walks the plank. New Scientist, 212 (2841), 28. 

Kennedy, C. (1996). Internet Copyright Protection Isn't Far-Fetched. New York Times (1923- Current File) , p. A14. 

Lessig, L. (1999). Code and other laws of cyberspace. Basic Books: New York, NY  

  https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf 

McGlynn, C. (2018). Re-Draft Of Copyright Directive Passed By EU Parliament. Mondaq Business Briefing , p. Mondaq Business Briefing, Sept 23, 2018. 

Reynolds, M (2018, Oct. 7). “What is Article 13? The EU’s divisive new copyright plan explained.” Wired. Retrieved from: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/what-is-article-13- article-11-european-directive-on-copyright-explained-meme-ban 

  Satariano, A. (2018, Jul. 15). Tech Giants Win a Battle Over Copyright in Europe. The New York Times . Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/business/eu- parliament-copyright.html