Caveats on the EU Directive on Digital Copyright

The EU directive on digital copyright  

The new directive by the European Union on digital copyright material has caused a good deal of controversy. The European Union Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, aims to protect artists, by ensuring that they do not loose out on revenue. Too often, third parties, who use material without authorisation, make a profit at the expense of the author. 

Article 13 is particularly contentious because it makes service providers, such as Google and Facebook, responsible for policing their platforms for copyright violations. Per se, this is not bad. The problem is, as the saying goes, "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

What will go wrong  

The problems are manifold, but more may creep out of the woodwork as the directive is put into practice. First, the directive will certainly limit the sharing of information and artistic creations like music and film. People like Sir Paul McCartney and Debbie Harry, who supported the move, may become richer because of it, but for the millions of people who have to prioritise food and rent before art, it will constitute a great loss.

Second, the directive will inhibit creativity. Picasso had said that "good artist copy, great artists steal." People will be limited with regards what material they can and cannot use. Even the News Links section of this site could be at risk, because the headlines that lead to the links may be considered a violation. Another example could be filming part of an event, such as a football match, since the filming rights may have been sold.

What could go wrong  

Third (and fourth), the only way these providers will be able to monitor their platforms is through expensive filter programmes. This may adversely affect smaller providers and lead to the big players becoming bigger still. However, what is even more dangerous is that these filters are brainless. When Tumblr took the ridiculous decision to ban nudity on its site, its filter proved to be a total nightmare. Anything vaguely resembling a nude was obliterated. This included abstract art and even certain landscapes. Michelangelo did not stand a chance! Memes, GIFs and parodies could be exempt, but how will the filter decide? We can expect another Tumblr debacle. And how will it work for authors who are happy to have their material shared? 

Conditioning  

Whether we like it or not, these programmes alter the way we operate. They bully us to put commas after every "so" that we write, or to spell according to the default language of the computer, which often keeps reverting back to US English, whether you like it or not. More sophisticated checkers will wrap you on the knuckles if your sentences or paragraphs are considered too long, or your use of the passive voice, too frequent. This directive will be implemented according to the interpretation of each member state. Only time will tell what sort of homogenising effect it will have on how we create and share information. The best we can do is to stay alert...