CC BY 2.0 – Pixabay
The European Parliament has recently approved the second reading of the proposal for a new directive on digital copyright. The aim of the directive seems simple enough: updating the existing rules on copyright in an era where technological change takes place at an incredible speed – often outpacing current laws. The effect, however, could be the opposite of what lawmakers want to achieve.
The two most controversial proposals in the new directive directly involve limitations to freedom of expression despite them being presented as mere adjustments of the balance between the cultural industries and technology firms. The first aims to force platforms such as Google to pay publishers when they link to their content. The second aims to establish filters to ensure that user-generated content uploaded to platforms such as YouTube does not violate copyright law.
Forcing Google To Pay Publishers Won’t Work
By forcing search engines like Google to pay, publishers (who have lobbied for the new directive) hope to stop them from generating revenue by exploiting content that was created by others (in other words: by the publishers themselves). The rationale behind this is simple. The ambition of every publisher is that readers get the news from their own website. Only by luring audiences to one’s homepage, money through advertising can be made. Yet, whether the proposed “link-tax” would work is a different question.
Users increasingly like to get their news through social networks or messenger services such as WhatsApp. And previous attempts to force Google to pay haven’t ended well. Germany and Spain had already implemented amendments to their intellectual property law before the new directive was agreed upon. The result, however, was questionable. In Spain, Google simply shut down Google News – to the detriment of the media.
The new directive will also not solve the problems of outlets and publishers desperately in search of a new business model. On top of that, the new regulations could also have a devastating effect on democracy. If news by professional outlets is harder to find, users could be tempted to fall back on other, more dubious sources, thus aggravating the problem of dis- and misinformation spreading online.
Policing User-Generated Content Through Algorithms Could Stifle Freedom Of Expression
The new directive poses yet another problem. To understand why, we have to take a look at Article 13 of the new directive.
Cultural industries and technology firms have different interests when it comes to user generated content. The former want to protect their copyright. The latter profit when copyrighted content is shared on their platforms. Article 13 now tries to establish a balance between both sides, forcing Internet firms to employ algorithms to ensure that user-generated content does not infringe copyright.
YouTube already pays royalties to the owners of the content when someone uploads, for example, a song by Beyoncé. Its filtering system, ContentID, establishes that a piece is copyrighted and asks its owner what to do with it. It can either be left on the net for free, it can be deleted or monetised through advertising – all thanks to an algorithm that compares the uploaded file with a reference file.
The problem is that YouTube only pays a small, non-negotiable amount of its advertising revenue to the owner of the copyright – be that a record label, a film studio or an independent artist. For the cultural industry, it would be ideal if they could negotiate the rate as they do, for instance, with Spotify and similar services. The difference, however, is that in comparison to Spotify et al., it is not YouTube which uploaded the content in the first place, but some user. Therefore, YouTube is not responsible a priori for possible copyright infringements.
It took YouTube a decade and millions of dollars to develop ContentID. The idea of the new EU copyright directive is that all similar services must implement a technology that works in roughly the same way. Yet, it is obvious that only a few companies have the financial muscle and technological capacity of YouTube and its parent company Alphabet to develop a comparable tool. As weird as it seems this means that the new rule could spectacularly backfire. Instead of curtailing YouTube’s power to exploit other people’s content – generating what the cultural industry calls a value gap – YouTube could be (further) consolidated as a monopoly.
In The Name Of Copyright
A no less serious problem is that algorithmic filtering is imperfect. Intellectual property has exceptions such as quotations or parody (and others which are even less clearly defined). Simply using a copyrighted image – for instance, to illustrate an article such as this – is forbidden, but using it to make a parody is allowed. But even here the situation is not entirely clear as the questions of what is parodied and what the relationship of the text with the parodied thing is, also factor into the decision. In court, these questions would be discussed with the help of expert reports and by discussing the limits of the applicable law. The algorithm, however, does not know or care for expert reports, subjective appraisals or legal tricks. Ultimately, the automation of copyright control will end up becoming a form of censorship that will systematically eliminate content that has, based on existing law, a right to circulate.
In court, these questions would be discussed with the help of expert reports and by discussing the limits of the applicable law. The algorithm, however, does not know or care for expert reports, subjective appraisals or legal tricks.
We are now in a new episode of a race where copyright regulations are constantly strengthened while new tools and audience practices erode the ideas of authorship and control. Many voices have warned that little by little we are changing the internet, eliminating its potential to create more participatory, innovative, creative and democratic societies – all in the name of copyright. But is it worth it?
A more detailed study of the value gap problem and algorithm filtering by the author can be found here.
You might also be interested in The Publisher’s Patron: How Google’s News Initiative Is Re-Defining Journalism.
Sign up for the EJO’s regular monthly newsletter or follow us on Facebook and Twitter.
How The EU Directive On Copyright Could Hamper Freedom Of Expression
October 1, 2018 • Comment, Media and Politics • by Hector Fouce
CC BY 2.0 – Pixabay
The European Parliament has recently approved the second reading of the proposal for a new directive on digital copyright. The aim of the directive seems simple enough: updating the existing rules on copyright in an era where technological change takes place at an incredible speed – often outpacing current laws. The effect, however, could be the opposite of what lawmakers want to achieve.
The two most controversial proposals in the new directive directly involve limitations to freedom of expression despite them being presented as mere adjustments of the balance between the cultural industries and technology firms. The first aims to force platforms such as Google to pay publishers when they link to their content. The second aims to establish filters to ensure that user-generated content uploaded to platforms such as YouTube does not violate copyright law.
Forcing Google To Pay Publishers Won’t Work
By forcing search engines like Google to pay, publishers (who have lobbied for the new directive) hope to stop them from generating revenue by exploiting content that was created by others (in other words: by the publishers themselves). The rationale behind this is simple. The ambition of every publisher is that readers get the news from their own website. Only by luring audiences to one’s homepage, money through advertising can be made. Yet, whether the proposed “link-tax” would work is a different question.
Users increasingly like to get their news through social networks or messenger services such as WhatsApp. And previous attempts to force Google to pay haven’t ended well. Germany and Spain had already implemented amendments to their intellectual property law before the new directive was agreed upon. The result, however, was questionable. In Spain, Google simply shut down Google News – to the detriment of the media.
The new directive will also not solve the problems of outlets and publishers desperately in search of a new business model. On top of that, the new regulations could also have a devastating effect on democracy. If news by professional outlets is harder to find, users could be tempted to fall back on other, more dubious sources, thus aggravating the problem of dis- and misinformation spreading online.
Policing User-Generated Content Through Algorithms Could Stifle Freedom Of Expression
The new directive poses yet another problem. To understand why, we have to take a look at Article 13 of the new directive.
Cultural industries and technology firms have different interests when it comes to user generated content. The former want to protect their copyright. The latter profit when copyrighted content is shared on their platforms. Article 13 now tries to establish a balance between both sides, forcing Internet firms to employ algorithms to ensure that user-generated content does not infringe copyright.
YouTube already pays royalties to the owners of the content when someone uploads, for example, a song by Beyoncé. Its filtering system, ContentID, establishes that a piece is copyrighted and asks its owner what to do with it. It can either be left on the net for free, it can be deleted or monetised through advertising – all thanks to an algorithm that compares the uploaded file with a reference file.
The problem is that YouTube only pays a small, non-negotiable amount of its advertising revenue to the owner of the copyright – be that a record label, a film studio or an independent artist. For the cultural industry, it would be ideal if they could negotiate the rate as they do, for instance, with Spotify and similar services. The difference, however, is that in comparison to Spotify et al., it is not YouTube which uploaded the content in the first place, but some user. Therefore, YouTube is not responsible a priori for possible copyright infringements.
It took YouTube a decade and millions of dollars to develop ContentID. The idea of the new EU copyright directive is that all similar services must implement a technology that works in roughly the same way. Yet, it is obvious that only a few companies have the financial muscle and technological capacity of YouTube and its parent company Alphabet to develop a comparable tool. As weird as it seems this means that the new rule could spectacularly backfire. Instead of curtailing YouTube’s power to exploit other people’s content – generating what the cultural industry calls a value gap – YouTube could be (further) consolidated as a monopoly.
In The Name Of Copyright
A no less serious problem is that algorithmic filtering is imperfect. Intellectual property has exceptions such as quotations or parody (and others which are even less clearly defined). Simply using a copyrighted image – for instance, to illustrate an article such as this – is forbidden, but using it to make a parody is allowed. But even here the situation is not entirely clear as the questions of what is parodied and what the relationship of the text with the parodied thing is, also factor into the decision. In court, these questions would be discussed with the help of expert reports and by discussing the limits of the applicable law. The algorithm, however, does not know or care for expert reports, subjective appraisals or legal tricks. Ultimately, the automation of copyright control will end up becoming a form of censorship that will systematically eliminate content that has, based on existing law, a right to circulate.
In court, these questions would be discussed with the help of expert reports and by discussing the limits of the applicable law. The algorithm, however, does not know or care for expert reports, subjective appraisals or legal tricks.
We are now in a new episode of a race where copyright regulations are constantly strengthened while new tools and audience practices erode the ideas of authorship and control. Many voices have warned that little by little we are changing the internet, eliminating its potential to create more participatory, innovative, creative and democratic societies – all in the name of copyright. But is it worth it?
A more detailed study of the value gap problem and algorithm filtering by the author can be found here.
You might also be interested in The Publisher’s Patron: How Google’s News Initiative Is Re-Defining Journalism.
Sign up for the EJO’s regular monthly newsletter or follow us on Facebook and Twitter.
Tags: Copyright, Eu, EU directive, European Union, Freedom of Express, Google, Internet, Journalism, Link-tax, Links, publishers, YouTube
About the Author
Hector Fouce
Related Posts
The news is fading from sight on big...
The impact of competing tech regulations in the...
Toxic Europeanisation – coverage of the 2019 EU...
The media revolution in Afghanistan
The new tool helping outlets measure the impact of investigative...
October 22, 2023
Audit of British Tory MP demonstrates the power of investigative...
September 13, 2023
The impact of competing tech regulations in the EU, US...
September 12, 2023
Enough ‘doomer’ news! How ‘solutions journalism’ can turn climate anxiety...
August 31, 2023
Student perspective: How Western media embraced TikTok to reach Gen...
August 19, 2023
Lessons from Spain: Why outlets need to unite to make...
July 26, 2023
INTERVIEW: Self-censorship and untold stories in Uganda
June 23, 2023
Student Perspective: Job insecurity at the root of poor mental...
June 9, 2023
The battle against disinformation and Russian propaganda in Central and...
June 1, 2023
Opinion: Why Poland’s rise on the Press Freedom Index is...
May 17, 2023
From ChatGPT to crime: how journalists are shaping the debate...
April 25, 2023
Student perspective: Supporting the journalists who face hopelessness, trauma and...
April 13, 2023
Interview: Why young people in Bosnia and Herzegovina feel they...
March 29, 2023
Humanitarian reporting: Why coverage of the Turkey and Syria earthquakes...
March 8, 2023
How women journalists in Burkina Faso are making a difference...
January 11, 2023
Dispelling the ‘green’ AI myth: the true environmental cost of...
December 29, 2022
New publication highlights the importance of the Black press in...
December 12, 2022
The enduring press freedom challenge: how Japan’s exclusive press clubs...
September 26, 2022
How Journalism is joining forces with AI to fight online...
September 14, 2022
How cash deals between big tech and Australian news outlets...
September 1, 2022
Panel debate: Should journalists be activists?
August 19, 2022
Review: The dynamics of disinformation in developing countries
August 9, 2022
Interview: Are social media platforms helping or hindering the mandate...
July 15, 2022
Policy brief from UNESCO recommends urgent interventions to protect quality...
July 5, 2022
EJO’s statement on Ukraine
February 28, 2022
Study shows European mainstream media ignore humanitarian crises in the...
May 22, 2024
Journalism students see an industry in crisis. It’s time to...
April 18, 2024
Interview: How a summer school is sowing seeds for strong...
March 14, 2024
AI advances have left news publishers fearing for their business...
February 23, 2024
Big comeback for organisation providing invaluable networks to journalism students
January 31, 2024
The new tool helping outlets measure the impact of investigative...
October 22, 2023
Audit of British Tory MP demonstrates the power of investigative...
September 13, 2023
The impact of competing tech regulations in the EU, US...
September 12, 2023
Enough ‘doomer’ news! How ‘solutions journalism’ can turn climate anxiety...
August 31, 2023
Student perspective: How Western media embraced TikTok to reach Gen...
August 19, 2023
Lessons from Spain: Why outlets need to unite to make...
July 26, 2023
INTERVIEW: Self-censorship and untold stories in Uganda
June 23, 2023
Student Perspective: Job insecurity at the root of poor mental...
June 9, 2023
The battle against disinformation and Russian propaganda in Central and...
June 1, 2023
Opinion: Why Poland’s rise on the Press Freedom Index is...
May 17, 2023
From ChatGPT to crime: how journalists are shaping the debate...
April 25, 2023
Student perspective: Supporting the journalists who face hopelessness, trauma and...
April 13, 2023
Interview: Why young people in Bosnia and Herzegovina feel they...
March 29, 2023
Humanitarian reporting: Why coverage of the Turkey and Syria earthquakes...
March 8, 2023
How women journalists in Burkina Faso are making a difference...
January 11, 2023
Dispelling the ‘green’ AI myth: the true environmental cost of...
December 29, 2022
New publication highlights the importance of the Black press in...
December 12, 2022
The enduring press freedom challenge: how Japan’s exclusive press clubs...
September 26, 2022
How Journalism is joining forces with AI to fight online...
September 14, 2022
How cash deals between big tech and Australian news outlets...
September 1, 2022
Panel debate: Should journalists be activists?
August 19, 2022
Review: The dynamics of disinformation in developing countries
August 9, 2022
Interview: Are social media platforms helping or hindering the mandate...
July 15, 2022
Policy brief from UNESCO recommends urgent interventions to protect quality...
July 5, 2022
EJO’s statement on Ukraine
February 28, 2022
13 Things Newspapers Can Learn From Buzzfeed
April 10, 2015
How Data Journalism Is Taught In Europe
January 19, 2016
Why Journalism Needs Scientists (Now)
May 13, 2017
Digitalisation: Changing The Relationship Between Public Relations And Journalism
August 6, 2015
The Lemon Dealers
June 27, 2007
The new tool helping outlets measure the impact of investigative...
October 22, 2023
Audit of British Tory MP demonstrates the power of investigative...
September 13, 2023
The impact of competing tech regulations in the EU, US...
September 12, 2023
Enough ‘doomer’ news! How ‘solutions journalism’ can turn climate anxiety...
August 31, 2023
Student perspective: How Western media embraced TikTok to reach Gen...
August 19, 2023
Lessons from Spain: Why outlets need to unite to make...
July 26, 2023
INTERVIEW: Self-censorship and untold stories in Uganda
June 23, 2023
Student Perspective: Job insecurity at the root of poor mental...
June 9, 2023
The battle against disinformation and Russian propaganda in Central and...
June 1, 2023
Opinion: Why Poland’s rise on the Press Freedom Index is...
May 17, 2023
From ChatGPT to crime: how journalists are shaping the debate...
April 25, 2023
Student perspective: Supporting the journalists who face hopelessness, trauma and...
April 13, 2023
Interview: Why young people in Bosnia and Herzegovina feel they...
March 29, 2023
Humanitarian reporting: Why coverage of the Turkey and Syria earthquakes...
March 8, 2023
How women journalists in Burkina Faso are making a difference...
January 11, 2023
Dispelling the ‘green’ AI myth: the true environmental cost of...
December 29, 2022
New publication highlights the importance of the Black press in...
December 12, 2022
The enduring press freedom challenge: how Japan’s exclusive press clubs...
September 26, 2022
How Journalism is joining forces with AI to fight online...
September 14, 2022
How cash deals between big tech and Australian news outlets...
September 1, 2022
Panel debate: Should journalists be activists?
August 19, 2022
Review: The dynamics of disinformation in developing countries
August 9, 2022
Interview: Are social media platforms helping or hindering the mandate...
July 15, 2022
Policy brief from UNESCO recommends urgent interventions to protect quality...
July 5, 2022
EJO’s statement on Ukraine
February 28, 2022
Every news operation should have a mission statement
May 30, 2019
Interview with The Economist
November 29, 2013
Being A War Correspondent In “Happy Yemen”
April 26, 2018
Be On All Platforms: An Interview with Tom Rosenstiel
May 14, 2014
Lessons from Wikileaks
August 15, 2010
Operated by
Funded by
Newsletter
Find us on Facebook
Archives
Links