Last July 4, this portal warned about the risks of approving a copyright law reform that includes appalling articles like a virtual link tax and an active filter on all content uploads to detect possible copyright violations. At that time, the European Parliament rejected the possibility of moving forward, but only two months have passed, and guess what? The brainiacs ruined everything, and they approved the directive with minimal changes to the most contested articles. At this point it is important to know what the next steps are, but there is one question we cannot avoid: How does this hit us, the users?
438 against 226. 438 votes that completely ignore the basic functioning of the Internet. 438 votes that have left an entire continent on the brink of digital obscurantism, putting at risk the continuity of thousands of portals and services only to obey the interests of higher powers with many zeros in their accounts. After two months that served as a "period of reflection" to process a little more what they were voting on and the potential damage they could cause in the process, the European Parliament approved the copyright law reform, including the famous and controversial Articles 11 and 13, also known as the "link tax" and the "censorship filter". So... what now?
Article 11: The Link Tax
The colleague media have basically identified Article 11 of the directive as a European equivalent to the AEDE canon that led to the departure of Google News from Spanish territory. In relaxed terms, any piece of shared content, from a fragment of text to a simple link or a screenshot, must have a license from the original developer (whether by requesting authorization or making a payment), and its "right" over that content will extend for 20 years from the date of creation. Do you like sharing news on your Twitter profile? Better think twice.
Article 13: The Filter That "Defends" Copyright and Censors at the Same Time
As if Article 11 were not a big enough disaster, the new copyright law includes Article 13, which essentially forces all major platforms (Google, Facebook, etc.) to adopt "content recognition techniques" and "appropriate measures" to verify that content uploaded by their users (parodies, memes, derivative works, the sky is the limit) does not violate copyright. In other words, service providers and portals must activate real-time filters and dynamic censorship resources, in an attempt to monitor at every moment what their servers receive. Now, this is supposed to reach only "big platforms" (the argument of its defenders is that it will work like YouTube's Content ID, which is a horror), leaving out small sites and services, but that installs more doubts than certainties. What are the rules for separating a large portal from a small one? Active users, visits, messages? How and when are those definitions updated? And most importantly: Who regulates the regulator?
Anything Else?
Unfortunately, yes. Remember the conflict over panoramas that involved Wikipedia? Well, the neanderthals (MEPs) decided to prevent at the continental level the approval of protections for Freedom of Panorama, which establish intellectual property exemptions in the case of monuments, statues, buildings, and other historical facades. This block gives free rein to member states to demand all copyright payments they deem necessary.
Torches and Pitchforks?
Not yet. The directive must cross two additional barriers. First, a series of conversations will begin between the Parliament, the Council, and the Commission (the so-called trilogues), which will include closed-door negotiations to agree on a definitive version of the text. Once that is finished, the vote goes to the Plenary of the Parliament, and there it is all or nothing: Either the directive revised by the trilogues is approved, or it falls and goes back to zero.
There is still one bullet left to fire, but it will not be easy to hit the target. In "the name of copyright and the defense of authors' rights", these MEPs seem willing to destroy the Web as we know it today. The new copyright law is a catastrophe in terms of freedom of expression, privacy, and content generation. Each national congress will have to debate and reinterpret the law to apply it locally, and a veritable storm of lawsuits is expected in competent courts. But there is an elementary thing they lose sight of: If the basic conditions for work disappear, the work will go elsewhere. The case of Google News in Spain was conclusive.
