EU Pass Article 13 and Article 11 taking yet another step towards their ideal model for the future. An anti democratic Chinese style super state without democracy and under total control.
Perhaps the most far reaching corporate centric piece of EU legislation has been passed through the EU Parilament with barely a whimper in mainstream media channels. Where is the outrage from the online community that reacted so effectively to oppose SOPA in the US and ACTA here in Europe.
Why did European Citizens just agree to cut themselves off from the world wide web, and why?
First, one has to recognise that these are not small amendments to previous legislation or just a nip at the heels of internet freedom. In the last major change in copyright law in 2001 the EU Copyright Directive, legislators were quite cautious in over legislating the internet. Afraid to be seen as limiting freedom and siding with corporate interests, legislators made relatively minor, more or less balanced changed to enhance copyright legislation and make it fit for the digital age.
Article, 13 and 11, are nothing like that. This is a sweeping change against which some of the foremost tech experts in the world have spoken out as disastrous. According to some legal comentators, it also directly contradicts passed rulings made in European Courts.
Article 13
Article 13 completely changes the responsibilities of website operators in a fundamental way when it comes to enforcing copyrights. Particularly those which rely on user supplied content and uploads. Broadly speaking, in the past, operators were entitled to ‘fair use’ protection in its broadest interpretation. This meant that, in general, prosecutions for copyright were only involved in serious cases. However, articles 11 and 13 are completely the opposite, imposing draconian automatic filtering, controls and a guilty until proven innocent ideology.
This now means that far more owners and operators will need to dramatically reduce content available within the EU or employ expensive technology or an army of individuals to police material. Experts say that this could affect up to 20% of all websites, many of them far less obvious than you might think. The obvious losers here would seem to be YouTube and similar sites but this could go extremely far beyond that, affecting almost anything you upload.
At the very least, fair competition is adversely affected in a variety of forms. Another obvious example of the fallout from this poorly thought out and badly written legislation (unless your intention was always to turn the EU into China) is that EU students and researchers may soon find themselves at a serious disadvantage as content available for study may no longer be available to them. This puts European Universities and students at a severe disadvantage and more generally, creates an anti competitive environment benefitting only the current monopolies. As has often been the case, this is another decision made within the EU that would seem to directly contravene the very mantra of EU ideology, unless you count, under ‘four freedoms’ is your freedom to leave and take your enterprise, talent or investment with you to find a safer harbour. The language in the discussion of Article 11 and Article 13 are the very language of opporession and the restriction of idead. It is control. The deployment of the brute force technology of oppression directly opposed to a functional democracy.
Perhaps the worst aspect of this legislation, if one wanted to defend any aspect of it, is that despite being so cataclysmic in terms of scope, it is exceptionally poorly written. It is almost impossible to point to one aspect of the legislation and say, “this bit right here is horrific”. Because it is so broad and so horrific all the way through. It could literally cover almost anything. If one wanted to subjugate a state or region, you would need to stop dangerous ideas and you would need powerful allies to do it. Builting perimeter around your nation to stop influence by other dangerous ideas and keep your own people in the dark concerning international development would be essential. The same technologies which can be introducted to police draconian censorship laws, provide a perfect cover as they are the same tools you need for persecution, censorship, and the silencing of free unbiased media as it has been in China. One state with idea policing infrastructure and an immovable undemocratic elite in government which can never be removed. Surely, every Eurocrat’s dream.
Despite a letter signed by 70 of the world’s leading experts in the field of technology (link below) The bill was supported by a massive majority in the EU parliament with not even the most minor suggested amendments suggested by those objectors who wanted something less open to abuse of all kinds. Proof if ever one needed it that there is something very wrong in the European Union.
The reality is, that this goes far beyond the internet and can be used to undermine basic freedoms enjoyed by all citizens in day to day life.
Cory Doctorow of the Electronic Freedom Foundation has been a long time critic of the plans and has spoken extensively of how this will result in a far less diverse, far more corporate driven internet in which only those with the monopoly can survive. Doctrow estimates that This will add hundreds of millions to the cost of operating an online platform meaning that only Big Tech’s winners will never face serious competition and will rule the internet forever’.
So how far does this go? Well, let’s say you go to a sporting event and post a “selfie” of you in the stadium watching the game? This can be blocked under article 13. What if you make a comment, or a moment online when watching the game. You do not own the rights to that game. You could well have much of your current communication blocked by unknowingly commenting upon something which is copyrighted not even having shown the material itself.
This effectively kills off free media , critical analysis of current events and is a very effective tool for silencing criticism of organisations like the EU.
If your post or message gets caught by an automatic blocking / filtering tool, you would have to go through a lengthy unblocking escalation process. Whereas, many favoured corporations and officials will have a hotline, or other quick response remedy ensuring that the public are completely at a disadvantage by corporate and government interests. This is a very bad day for EU citizens and perhaps, the world in general. One thing is sure, it tells you everything you need to know about the European Union’s commitment to even some facile form of democracy.
It should be noted that many experts proposed and argued for changes to this legislation that would filter genuine issues of copyright far more effectively than current proposal. However, the EU refused ANY of even the most minor changes. Make no mistake, this has global implications, however, EU Citizens are going to be suffer most. Isolated from the sort of information and services available to anyone else on the planet.
In fact, even services such as YouTube have already raised the alarm concerning these changes. It has been warning European content creators that it could change the platform forever and greatly limit their ability to create content. Worse, the filters that will run these changes, are very easily used to simply stop access to all and any ideas which the EU may disagree with. A cynic may say that Article 13 wording is NOT poorly written and so broad in scope that it could mean anything by accident.
But as much as we will effectively be suffering from an EU centric propaganda network in Europe, it is also bad news for our friends in the US and elsewhere in the world. Where BIG TECH in the US have driven the development of using our lives as the product, Europe used to sell the idea of more privacy and better protection of citizens rights.
Not anymore, it seems that this decision by the EU is essentially, a collusion between the EU to sell the internet to Big Tech in return for censorship on their behalf. So, in return for a further stranglehold on freedom of expression and the media by the EU and its apparatus, the EU ensure that the Big Tech companies are unassailable in a market where it is almost impossible to engage in something that might represent competition. So, while these services will actually be less valuable to us, the people, than ever, we will have no market driven chance for competition to emerge to give us what we want. Ideas, will be more restricted than ever, criticism of mainstream media and bad ideas more difficult than ever.
This is a blatant removal of the right to free speech under the freedom of expression and also completely ignores the Highest European Court. Which has already rules in case C-360/10 that; Social networks and other web hosting providers cannot be required to monitor and filter activities that occur on their sites to prevent copyright infringement. This would be a breach of freedom of expression and privacy.
So this is not only an attempt to silence the citizens of Europe and keep them away from wrong thinking. It is illegal under the judgement of Europe’s Highest Court. Of course, the EU can just change the laws if they do not like them, but they have not even been honest enough to stop pretending that they are at war with freedom of expression.
You can see here which corrupt, highly ignorant an infective British MEPs voted for this legislation and vote against their party if you object to your rights being stolen from you.:
Do write to them to express your thoughts. Beware of woolly, well crafted lies which hide the facts. Please do feel free to send me your responses for our forthcoming ‘Rogues Gallery’.
Article 11
So, Article 13 has effectively given the authorities a Chinese style firewall against free speech and innovation, while helping out their buddies in the Big Tech firms. Can it get any worse?.
Well, the new European counter insurgency army isnt in place yet. So if you do make a joke about Junkers, drunken antics or the manic fanaticism of other EU leaders then you won’t get dragged outside for re education following a vigorous boot based massage just yet. They are probably still working on the training course.
However, there is indeed more horror buried in the form of this seemingly innocuous Article.
Article 11 is usually called the link tax. On the surface of it, the EU claim that this mitigates the power of say, Facebook, or Google etc, despite having done exactly the opposite with Article 13. It is a new set of rules which mean that there is now a copyright rule for simply linking to a news site or quoting a story. Now, an online site has to pay a license to link out to new sites and publishers. The claim is that this will help support publishers that are helpful to public information and force more people to visit their pages.
In the western world, for the first time in history, the credibility of the mainstream media is lower than it is for politicians. If you understand democracy, you will know that the development of the free press was a major world change in politics and was a tool for democracy, forcing politicians to a greater level of scrutiny and accountability. Yet this has not been true now for almost a decade.
It is widely known to the general public that national news organisations work in collusion with government to support the narrative of the rich and powerful and to obfuscate, bury or spin events to suit a political agenda. In Europe, this agenda is the EU agenda. Hence this legislation.
Worse, Article 11 seems to be almost designed to be open to abuse as it contains no relevant definition. Leaving the door wide open to use as a censorship mechanism. Most states are will implement it in different ways depending on what they think that they can get away with as the article is not formulaic about how members comply. This is nearly always the case with much EU legislation which ends up causing legal confusion, misunderstanding and panic compliance. But in this case, it means that those sites operating in the EU will probably adopt the most rigid and uncompromising stance when it comes to compliance rather than employ seperate rules and compliance processes in each member state. The developers of the legislation must have known this. So the reason that the definition of compliance isnt in there is to give member state governments a means of avoiding accountability for it. They are now able to deny culpability and point the finger of blame at the big internet monopolists which they just sold the EU internet to. These controls in return, re-enforce a mainstream media news monopoly and make it far harder for independent news sources to prosper. To critique a false narrative, you have to be able to cite the narrative to which you object.
But it is the comments of Mr Alex Voss, the German MEP behind this legislation which is most telling. For example, the sentence ‘Angela Merkel meets Theresa May’ could not currently be construed as protected by copyright. As it is a statement of fact, not a a creation. However, he want the legislation to interpret even factual statements of copyright. Think about the almost insane ramifications of that. This would be devastating for human development which cannot thrive without the discussion of ideas and events. Indeed, the development of European society itself would have been impossible under the terms of such censorship. These articles are both legislation created and passed with the intention that they stifle the discussion of ideas and reduce the democratic rights of citizens. Welcome to the Europe’s key step towards totalitarianism. A massive power grab right under the noses of EU citizens, and they got away with it. This should tell you much about how far they have already gone in eroding democratic process.
Where was the reporting on Article 13 and article 11 and the terrible harm it could do in European mainstream media this time around? Despite it being far far more far reaching and dangerous. Exactly, it barely appeared at all and then, in no meaningful factual way that informed the public of more than the poster answer.
See:
You can learn more as well as how to fight this latest piece of legislative insanity here:
Find out which of your national MEP’s are incompetent or corrupt enough to vote for this and let them know how you feel about it. I am sure that those who did support your interests would love to hear from you as well:
(Elecrtonic Frontier Foundation action page)
https://act.eff.org/
Gizmodo article:
https://gizmodo.com/the-end-of-all-thats-good-and-pure-about-the-internet-1826963763
Interview and article concerning those MEPs who voted for it including key proponent, Alex Vox, a German MEP that barely seems to know what he voted for on any given day but which was vocal about something he clearly knows very little about.
