UN Human Rights Expert Warns EU Not To Pass Article 13

from the it-will-be-bad dept

The UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression has put out another warning that the EU’s move towards approving the EU Copyright Directive, and Article 13 in particular, is inconsistent with human rights standards. That’s the polite way of saying that it’s going to trample all over the public’s rights, and especially rights concerning free speech.

?Europe has a responsibility to modernise its copyright law to address the challenges of the digital age,? said the UN?s Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression ahead of a critical vote on the Directive. ?But this should not be done at the expense of the freedom of expression that Europeans enjoy today.?

?Article 13 of the proposed Directive appears destined to drive internet platforms toward monitoring and restriction of user-generated content even at the point of upload. Such sweeping pressure for pre-publication filtering is neither a necessary nor proportionate response to copyright infringement online.?

Kaye rightly notes that the proposal, as it stands today, would also entrench the biggest internet companies, rather than enabling real competition:

?In the long run, this would imperil the future of information diversity and media pluralism in Europe, since only the biggest players will be able to afford these technologies.?

He also calls out the fact that this proposal is vague where it needs to be specific, and yet stupidly specific in situations where the drafters clearly don’t understand the technology or the nature of expression on the internet:

In the absence of specific requirements on platforms and Member States to defend freedom of expression, it is far from clear how either will comply with the Directive?s proposed safeguards, such as the requirement that ?quotation, criticism, review? and the ?use [of copyrighted works] for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche? be protected, the Special Rapporteur said.

?Even the most experienced lawyers struggle to distinguish violations of copyright rules from exceptions to these rules, which vary across Member States,? Kaye added. ?The lack of clear and precise language in the Directive would create even more legal uncertainty.?

?Misplaced confidence in filtering technologies to make nuanced distinctions between copyright violations and legitimate uses of protected material would escalate the risk of error and censorship. Who would bear the brunt of this practice? Typically it would be creators and artists, who lack the resources to litigate such claims.?

It’s the last point above that’s most important. Even as some content creators are supporting Article 13, the real impact on them will be incredibly damaging. As tons of YouTube creators have learned over the past few years, automated filters frequently create more headaches than they’re worth. Legitimate content is regularly taken down, and it’s extra difficult for independent creators to make themselves heard. And this will become much worse in a post-Article 13 world, where you have less competition, since only a few internet giants can deal with the requirements of the law.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “UN Human Rights Expert Warns EU Not To Pass Article 13”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
FlatZOut (profile) says:

And Yet Here We Are

It amazes me how the big media companies are still lobbying for this new directive, and yet they don’t understand that it will backfire on them.
They won’t be able to upload their content online because of the filters that they wanted to be put into place, even if they own the content. Warner Bros won’t be able to share its movie trailers online, and the music industry won’t be able to release their music on the internet.
Then, because of this, they lose lots of money because a beneficial way to connect with viewers was ultimately shut down.
In a way, all of this lobbying for the directive will come back to haunt them.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: And Yet Here We Are

We’re talking about religious fanatics and of people whose paycheck depends on not listening nor understanding.
…and, looking at how often copyright enforcement leaders go down in court over tax evasion, fraud, embezzlement, etc, a great number of weasels who find copyright lobbying and/or enforcement a legal extension of their usual trade of fraud.

This will indeed come back to bite them. And they’ll blame pirates and/or tech companies when it does.

PaulT (profile) says:

"It amazes me how the big media companies are still lobbying for this new directive, and yet they don’t understand that it will backfire on them."

Oh, didn’t you hear? Plenty of those companies have changed their minds now that they’ve realised the negative effects. It might just be too late to stop the momentum of their original demands

For example: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190301/22225341713/major-labels-split-support-article-13-as-music-publishers-whine-that-they-cant-make-money-parodies.shtml

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: So what's not to like?

The ultimate goal of copyright maximalists is to shut down the internet and all PC’s capable of copying files. Every copy is a lost sale, it must be stopped!

Oh not all of them, just all of them they don’t control. I’m sure they’d be perfectly fine with platforms and devices where they were in full control and/or made money each time they were used.

Anonymous Coward says:

I find it utterly amazing that in a form, the web, where every possible violation of people’s rights takes place by big internet companies that such a mundane concept as intellectual property takes center stage. Why does the masses have no interest in the internet social media, communication,and police surveillance issues in the continued attempts to establish a world totalitarian system dominated by a select group of elitists but everyone has issues with the media giants removing their Saturday night sports program.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Why does the masses have no interest in the internet social media, communication,and police surveillance issues

Maybe because they are well aware that total surveillance never works, and has never worked. A repressive regime applies labels to people so that they can act, and do not care if the label is accurate or not. Repressive/ authoritarian regimes do not like systems where people can talk to each other outside their control, and intellectual property is a way that they can gain effective control over the Internet.

Also, destroy the Internet over intellectual property issues, and most people lose the ability to self publish their own intellectual property, and if that happens, they will have no outlet for their political opinions and activism other than local groups.

instafollowerscc (profile) says:

free followers

Are you looking for a fast way to grow your Instagram page? Do you want to gain Instagram followers for free? It’s very simple with our easy-to-use tool that gains followers for you, so you don’t have to do the work. We will NEVER ask you for your password, so you can be sure it’s 100% safe.


Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Older Stuff
09:32 Why Moderating Content Actually Does More To Support The Principles Of Free Speech (76)
09:30 Trumpists Admit That Their Own Social Media Platforms Aren't Much Fun When They Can't Use Them To Own The Libs (79)
15:36 On Elon Musk And Free Speech (164)
12:12 The 'Culture Of Free Speech' Includes Criticism Of Others' Speech; Get Over It (284)
13:30 Cops Who Sued Journalist For Reporting On Their Poor Handling Of A Rape Case Lose Their Defamation Lawsuit (40)
10:48 Jehovah's Witnesses Abusing Copyright Subpoena Process To Unmask Critics (16)
15:35 Devin Nunes Loses Appeal Of SLAPP Suit Against Liz Mair (16)
13:33 First Amendment Group Tells Appeals Court University Officials Shouldn't Have Access To Qualified Immunity (15)
09:32 Appeals Court Smacks Down Unconstitutional Injunction Obtained By A Lawyer To Silence Someone Who Left A Negative Review (13)
10:45 Senator Klobuchar's Next Unconstitutional Speech Control Bill: The NUDGE Act (37)
09:30 EARN ITs Big Knowledge 1st Amendment Problem (40)
13:31 Court (For Now) Says NY Times Can Publish Project Veritas Documents (43)
10:49 Terrible Vermont Harassment Law Being Challenged After Cops Use It To Punish A Black Lives Matter Supporter Over Her Facebook Posts (14)
10:43 UK Government Refreshes Its Terrible 'Online Safety Bill,' Adds Even More Content For Platforms To Police (43)
09:37 Court Grants Qualified Immunity To Officer Who Told Couple To Take Down Facebook Post About Off-Duty Cop Who Shot Their Dog (18)
10:50 Tenth Circuit Tells College Administrator That Ordering A Student To Stop Talking About An Instructor Clearly Violates The First Amendment (27)
06:07 Small Alabama Town's Overzealous Traffic Cops Also Monitored Internet Traffic To Threaten Critics Of The Corrupt PD (43)
10:53 Explainer: The Whole Spotify / Joe Rogan Thing Has Absolutely Nothing To Do With Section 230 (56)
10:56 Governor Inslee Wants To Jail Politicians Who Lie? What Could Possibly Go Wrong? (39)
10:41 Georgia Sees Florida & Texas Social Media Laws Go Down In 1st Amendment Flames And Decides... 'Hey, We Should Do That Too' (65)
13:40 Harrison Greenbaum Latest Trick: Having Paul Levy Respond To Criss Angel's Thuggish Legal Threat (10)
12:12 Small Nebraska Town Pays $16,000 To Resident It Attempted To Sue Into Silence (19)
11:18 Pennsylvania Court Reverses Student's Expulsion Over A Snapchat Post, Reminds School Students Still Have Rights (27)
09:35 Sculptor Of Pillar Of Shame Announces It's Now Public Domain So That Anyone Can Make A Copy, As Chinese Authorities Seek To Destroy It (14)
09:23 Klobuchar's Silly Letter To Facebook Raises 1st Amendment Issues And Only Gives Ammo To Misinfo Peddlers That Facebook Is A State Actor (27)
10:40 Confused Judge Grants Project Veritas' Prior Restraint Against The NY Times (67)
09:31 Robert Reich Loses The Plot: Gets Basically Everything Wrong About Section 230, Fairness Doctrine & The 1st Amendment (95)
11:58 No, The Arguments Against Florida's & Texas' Content Moderation Bills Would Not Block All Internet Regulations (27)
09:33 Canada Strikes Again: Allows Lawsuit Against Twitter To Proceed Over Speech Of Twitter Users (43)
09:20 Rep. Thomas Massie Seems To Have Skipped Over The 1st Amendment In His Rush To 'Defend' The 2nd (95)
More arrow