Skip to main content

EU decides to save Wikipedia and internet memes, for now

Members of the European Parliament voted to strike down a controversial copyright law that could have broad implications on internet memes, Wikipedia, and news content. In June, the bill passed the European Union’s Legal Affairs Committee, known as Juri, but Members of Parliament (MEPs) voted 318 to 278 against the proposed copyright legislation on July 5. The bill will be sent back to committee for revision ahead of a newly scheduled September vote.

At the center of the controversy of the bill are two articles. The first provision, known as Article 13, would require internet companies to install content filters to prevent unauthorized uploads of copyrighted materials, a proposal that could have legal implications for memes. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), academics, researchers, and even Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, had written an open letter to European regulators ahead of the June committee vote urging them to not support the copyright directive.

“By requiring Internet platforms to perform automatic filtering of all of the content that their users upload, Article 13 takes an unprecedented step toward the transformation of the internet from an open platform for sharing and innovation, into a tool for the automated surveillance and control of its users,” the EFF letter stated, noting that the burden of monitoring falls squarely on the shoulders of small European businesses and startups. The EFF argued that larger American companies could afford to bear the cost of compliance.

While supporters of the Copyright Directive argued that the rules would have given publishers, copyright owners, and artists more control over their content, opponents said the laws would stifle creativity and innovation on the internet. Numerous music labels and artists such as Sir Paul McCartney urged MEPs to vote in favor of the changes, noting that Article 13 “would address the value gap and help assure a sustainable future for the music ecosystem and its creators, fans, and digital music services alike.” Following the vote, BPI Music, a group that represented the interest of music labels in the UK, said that they will work with MEPs to “explain how the proposed directive will benefit not just European creativity, but also internet users and the technology sector,” the BBC reported.

Opponents argued that the changes could jeopardize the free spirit of the internet — and more importantly — memes. Given the use of artificial intelligence in content filtering, systems would not be able to distinguish parody, satire, and memes in fair use cases against copyright infringement. Creative Commons chief Ryan Merkley said that “if the Beatles had uploaded the cover songs they played in their early days today, the proposed upload filters would likely have blocked them.”

The second controversial provision of the legislation is Article 11, which opponents categorized as a Link Tax. Article 11 requires companies like Facebook and Google to buy licenses from publishers before linking to their stories. These articles essentially reverse earlier precedents set by EU courts. In a 2016 decision, the court ruled that simply linking to copyrighted materials does not count as infringement. In a separate 2012 ruling, the EU court in Luxembourg said that sites should not be compelled to install or otherwise operate content filters to check for privacy.

Opponents to the copyright directive claimed online organizations such as Wikipedia and GitHub would be at risk of shutting down because of the Link Tax. “If the proposal is approved, it may be impossible to share a newspaper article on social networks or find it on a search engine,” opponents, including Berners-Lee, had collectively argued in the open letter from June. If the bill is passed in a September vote, the EU law could have implications for future legislation in the US.

Editors' Recommendations

Chuong Nguyen
Silicon Valley-based technology reporter and Giants baseball fan who splits his time between Northern California and Southern…
No, streaming Netflix in HD won’t kill the internet right now
streaming netflix high definition wont kill the internet featured image unsplash

As social distancing becomes the norm due to the COVID-19 pandemic, thousands of people are suddenly turning to streaming services like Netflix to keep themselves occupied while isolated. According to Verizon, video streaming in the U.S. was up 12% last week over the week before, and all signs suggest that number will continue to climb.

With all those people streaming video in high definition, along with increased web conferencing as people work from home, can internet infrastructure handle it, or will our broadband grind to a halt?

Read more
European customers can save 10 euros on Disney+ if they pre-order now

Disney's streaming service, Disney+, launched last year in countries including the United States, Canada, the Netherlands, Australia, and New Zealand. But customers in other European countries have had to wait for the service to launch in their areas. The service will be expanding to the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, and Spain on March 31, 2020, and now Disney is offering 10 euros or 10 British pounds off the price of a yearly subscription for users in these countries who pre-order now.

One the Disney+ website, there's currently an offer to get a year of the service for a total of €59.99 in Euro-zone countries or £49.99 in the UK, which works out to around €5 or £4 per month. Previous pricing was £5.99 or €6.99 per month. Users who sign up before March 23, 2020, will be able to grab this discount.

Read more
Joe Biden’s plan to save democracy would kill the internet
Former Vice President Joe Biden

Joe Biden has been a consistent front-runner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, and with the primaries just on the horizon, he stands a very good chance of seizing the nomination and maybe even the presidency. Social media companies might be sweating at the prospect: In a New York Times interview published Friday, Biden firmly established his belief that Facebook, and founder Mark Zuckerberg in particular, need to be held legally responsible for misinformation on their platforms, saying:
“I’ve been in the view that not only should we be worrying about the concentration of power, we should be worried about the lack of privacy and them being exempt, which you’re not exempt. [The Times] can’t write something you know to be false and be exempt from being sued. But he can. The idea that it’s a tech company is that Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one. For Zuckerberg and other platforms … And it should be revoked. It should be revoked because it is not merely an internet company. It is propagating falsehoods they know to be false, and we should be setting standards not unlike the Europeans are doing relative to privacy.”
Biden is referring to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), a seminal piece of legislation which establishes that “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”

What Section 230 means is that internet services like Facebook, YouTube, Amazon, and so on cannot be sued over content posted by users. This isn't the first time a politician has proposed fiddling with Section 230, but Biden is likely one of the highest-profile people to think it's a good idea. And if Biden gets his wish for it to be revoked, it would break the internet as we know it.
The internet runs on free expression
Section 230 has been essential for the development of the internet as we know it. It allows people to freely converse on social networks like Facebook and Twitter, post creative works on platforms like YouTube and Tumblr, and contribute information to sites like Wikipedia.

Read more