To protect authors of the rights to their content – against the suggestion, nobody will be able to reasonably argue. Only: Are the ancillary copyright and especially the expected upload filter, which will be voted on tomorrow by the European Parliament, really the solution? In particular, smaller digital companies could not be assigned tasks to master, many believe. In addition, censorship is feared among the general public, and thousands have been taking to the streets in recent months in Munich, Hamburg and Berlin.
With the reform the EU wants to adapt the copyright to the digital age
For this Internet platforms should be made to make content on their pages accessible, for which the authors have not licensed. Particularly controversial is Article 13 of the Directive: Already when uploading content to ensure that it is not copyrighted works. Even if the so-called upload filters are not mentioned in the text of the directive – in practice they are considered to be unavoidable in order to comply with the regulations.
It would be idle to enumerate who has already spoken out against upload filter – even the Catholic Church opposed the project in person of the media bishop Gebhard Fürst. In the German startup scene, we asked how an upload filter would specifically affect different business models.
For example, with Messenger Wire you can see the privacy of users at risk:
“The danger is that only large providers such as Google or Facebook can offer such an upload filter and thus the entire traffic would first have to be routed through their filters. In the end, this would mean that these companies already know all the content before they have received it. […] If such a filter is required for platforms such as Wire, we certainly endanger the privacy and security of our users.
We would need a lot of resources to develop an upload filter. At the same time, it would be up to us to set up contracts with rights holders as to whether we can set links. … [The digital scene is] facing a mammoth task, to pay attention to all facets of the upload filter. Legal consequences regarding the topic ‘link control’ and our range of functions are hardly predictable today”.
But it’s not just the costs that cause the young digital companies to get upset.
In the flea market app Shpock expresses above all an expected image loss on the mind:
“The variety of content created by users themselves is what makes an online marketplace. An essential aspect of the platform – bringing buyers and sellers together – would be replaced by scrutiny. […] ALL content provided would be considered questionable in the future and must be reviewed. This ‘general suspicion’ has a negative effect on the perception of Shpock by our users”.
The provider Nextcloud was actually set up as an alternative to offers such as Google Drive or Dropbox. Although he sees himself not affected because the users store their own data in their own home and thus have to ensure compliance with the copyright directive. Although the company appreciates the intension, it criticizes all the more violently the poor implementation of the project:
“Although the directive makes many exceptions. However, these are so vague that it will take years before you can say what they really mean. […] Articles 13 and 11 will do great economic damage and not achieve what their advocates believe”.
Instead of opposing the superior power of big US tech companies, the reform is exactly the opposite
“Google has […] a big incentive to offer a free filter. It allows the company to collect more data and earn money with them. And European companies will use the filter because it will be easy to use, will be free and because there is no direct risk involved. […] Amazon or Alibaba might be able to build a comparable offer. But which European company can do that – and then offer it for free? ”
The social network Jodel has pointed to the problem, already at the end of last week, what would mean an upload filter for the users: Most threads remained empty.
Whether the startup could handle the obligation to upload filter? The makers are not sure
“Unfortunately, the law is very vague, so the full impact is difficult to assess. However, should it happen that contents have to be checked before uploading, the consequences would be catastrophic. Not just for yodelling. […] It also threatens our concept of uncomplicated, direct and immediate communication with people in the area. How and if Jodel could bear the costs is unclear”.
So what about the EU project? The startups have also thought about this: Wire has addressed an open letter to all Members of the European Parliament, discussing the negative effects of Article 11 and Article 13. This letter was also sent to the MEP by e-mail. The same way you went at Shpock. Another open letter from Nextcloud has been signed by more than 200 companies, according to the startup.
Tickaroo calls on his hobby sports correspondents to join the Change.org petition
Over five million people have already voted against Article 13 here. Jodel supports local demonstrations across Europe by providing its local infrastructure for informational purposes.
It is not often that people and companies are so intensively concerned with a US law
Perhaps it is because many politicians, especially in connection with the peaceful demonstrations, gave a bad picture. For example, the commission called the reform critics a “mob”, a CDU politician alleged that the demonstrators were “bought”.
Actually it was supposed to be the objectification of the discussion. Instead, the demonstrators seem unheard and the open letters remain unread. Despite all the good intentions of the copyright reform, many find that if tomorrow’s Tuesday’s proposal was approved by the EU Parliament despite growing criticism, that would not be in the European spirit.