Copyright Leads To Internet Fragmentation

from the copyright-breaks-the-internet dept

The EU Copyright Directive is arguably the most important recent legislation in the area of intellectual monopolies. It is also a failure, judged purely on its own terms as an initiative to modernize and unify copyright across the European Union. Instead, it includes many backward-looking features that go against the grain of the digital world, which are explored in Walled Culture the book (free digital versions available). It has also fragmented digital copyright law, as EU Member States struggle to implement a badly-drafted and self-contradictory text. For example, France’s national law went even further than the Directive in tilting the playing-field in favor of copyright companies. Germany, by contrast, attempted to produce a more balanced approach, recognizing the rights of ordinary Internet users. The result is a patchwork of different laws across the EU – exactly what the Directive was supposed to eliminate.

A post on the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) Web site points out that this is a global problem, particularly with regard to copyright exceptions:

while international copyright law is prescriptive about what minimum rights should be guaranteed, it leaves far more flexibility when it comes to exceptions, and is silent around cross-border working. As a result, there are as many sets of copyright exceptions as there are countries in the world.

The impact of this is just the same sort of uncertainty and caution about cross-border working as characterises other drivers of internet fragmentation.

That is, while minimum rights for the copyright industry have been set in stone globally, rights for everyone else are far from guaranteed, and vary greatly in different jurisdictions. This has practical consequences for key institutions, as the IFLA post explains:

Variance in copyright exceptions not only holds back librarians, as well as archivists and museum workers from cooperating across borders, for example in the context of research collaborations or online and distance learning, but can also be a driver of inequality. If researchers are expected to travel to access a unique source or collection, only the wealthiest are likely to be able to do this.

The result is just another example of internet fragmentation, and a particularly serious one in that it most directly affects key wider drivers of sustainability – education, research and cultural participation.

The IFLA post goes on to offer an example of how that fragmentation has been overcome in the past. The Marrakesh VIP Treaty allows countries to bring in exceptions to facilitate the creation of versions of works that could be accessed by the visual impaired, something that copyright law had often prevented. The Marrakesh VIP Treaty, discussed on this blog two years ago, was undoubtedly an important achievement, and did indeed help to reduce fragmentation in this area. However, it is worth noting that it was adopted in June 2013. A detailed history of the Treaty on the Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) site reveals:

In 1981, the governing bodies of WIPO and UNESCO agreed to create a Working Group on Access by the Visually and Auditory Handicapped to Material Reproducing Works Produced by Copyright. This group meeting took place on October 25-27, 1982 in Paris, and produced a report that included model exceptions for national copyright laws. (UNESCO/WIPO/WGH/I/3). An accessible copy of this report is available here.

That is, it took nearly 30 years of on and off negotiations for a treaty to be agreed, a delay largely the result of fierce resistance by the copyright world, which places the preservation of its intellectual monopoly above all else – even social justice and compassion. In a Walled Culture interview, the director of KEI, and one of the leading campaigners for a treaty, James Love, recalled: “publishers did everything you can imagine to derail this [treaty]”. Attempts to resolve fragmentation of digital copyright in the EU Copyright Directive and elsewhere are likely to meet a similarly fierce resistance, and will probably take as long to resolve.

Follow me @glynmoody on Mastodon. Originally published to Walled Culture.

Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: ifla

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 “Copyright Leads To Internet Fragmentation”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
19 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

Which places the preservation of its intellectual monopoly above all else

More like it place control of creators works via copyright above all else. Failing meaningful reform to copyright, creative commons will still allow global content on the Internet, especially as most self publishers are not reliant on copyright, even if they do not use creative commons, but rather on the willingness of fans to support the creation of the next work.

Ebenezer Scrooge says:

EU Directives are not meant to eliminate a patchwork of different laws. When the EU wants to do that, it issues a “Regulation.” Directives are an attempt to harmonize laws with some wiggle-room for individual variation. I have no competence with IP law, so cannot say whether the EU Directive has been implemented by member states in a satisfactory way. But variation is baked into the galette, or strudel.

MindParadox (profile) says:

Copyright, as with all IP “protections” is basically saying “I invented this, you can’t use/modify/upgrade it unless you pay me”

which honestly probably sounded great originally, before it became the fustercluck it is today.

I do not have a problem with Artists getting paid for their work.
I do not have a problem paying for the things that I OWN.

What i do have a problem with is the fact that there are many things we could have in this world, if it weren’t for shitty companies who deliberately hold back innovation because they have a government granted monopoly on anything and everything to do with an object.

need an example? Find me ONE single laptop that is also a phone. You can’t. they were never made.

Now, Imagine a Surface style tabletish laptop with the voice dial feature that all Sony Ericsson candy bar phones had in the early aughts, connected via bluetooth to your headset, and just hangin out in your backpack.
but we can’t have these things cause “thinnest and lightest!!!!!” = no battery life and no room for innovation.

Why don’t we have a standardized dock that connects to a monitor mouse and keyboard(maybe in the dock is a video card processor and ram, etc) and we just plug our phone into it and TADA! there’s our OS, complete with our desktop and all our files? Why can’t we then plug into our friends dock and yup, there’s our computer setup again, on our friends hardware cause it came with us. Nope, can’t do that, we’ve had the tech to do it for at least 10 years now(i would actually say 20) but won’t ever happen, or it will, but be so boutique no one can afford it, and whatever company will go “oh, no market!” and everyone will give up(see Samsung Active phone series)

Crafty Coyote says:

Copyright will also lead to a situation where writings, movies, songs, and art produced in one country might not be legal in other countries where the laws are more strict. Any historian knows that many of the writings of the Russian dissidents would have been illegal under Soviet law, so they had to defect to the West or have “ghost publishers” to publish there.

It won’t be long before we have writers in freedom-loving countries in Europe have to put disclaimers like “This book was published under the threat of the author’s arrest.” or have them become dissidents. And none of this needs to happen, or should be happening anywhere in the European continent. But with copyright, that’s what is happening.

Ethin Probst (profile) says:

Amendments!

We need to pass a constitutional amendment for copyright that strictly limits the copyright clause so much that the copyright industry gives up. Something that limits copyright to three years, disallows extensions or renewals, immediately transfers works to public domain post-term or revocation, broadly expands fair use rights, prohibits restrictive technological measures, exempts disability adaptations from infringement, applies to existing copyrights at ratification, restricts Congress from extending copyright terms (yes, this is specified twice just so that the idiots in congress get it loud and clear), authorizes Congress to enforce the amendment, permits more generous licensing models like Creative Commons, classifies derivatives of public domain works as public domain, nullifies agreements contravening the amendment, requires transparency in copyright transactions, prohibits anti-competitive copyright use, and mandates literal interpretation without judicial discretion. But somehow, I really doubt that if such an amendment were to be voted “yes” by the people, it’d get anywhere, because the nthe corporations would go “but we’re people too, so we should have a say”.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Norah Jones (profile) says:

Honest Review for Health, Wealth & Relationship

Welcome to Digimascote, where we provide valuable information and resources related to Health, Money and Relationships. We understand that these three areas are crucial to leading a fulfilling and satisfying life, and that’s why we’ve dedicated ourselves to providing you with the best advice, tips, and insights on these topics.

Anonymous Coward says:

This is likely to get worse as various us states make laws that are vary from state to state and set rules for social media websites and age id verification that effect websites and apps like meta x reddit .the app stores on apple and android were designed as if the laws in america do not vary from one state to another

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Coward Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the Techdirt Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...