About #saveyourinternet , the dangers of Article 13, but also scaremongering and half-knowledge.

In principle, this topic is about the reform of copyright law, which is discussed in the so-called trilogue talks (i.e. a three-way meeting between the European Commission, Council and Parliament). These trilogue dates will take place until the end of the year and are scheduled to be coordinated in 2019. However, it is still unclear whether the process can be completed by then.

This is not about censorship in the sense of freedom of expression! The EU copyright reform has absolutely nothing to do with opinions and restricting freedom of expression, but rather it is about curbing copyright infringements. One symptom of this, however, is that content no longer appears if it contains material that violates copyrights.

What the current wave of fear about a possible YouTube closure is essentially about: Article 13 of the EU copyright reform makes platforms such as Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat, Facebook directly responsible for their users' copyright violations. Of course, they don't want that and are now stringing their users (including YouTubers and influencers) into the wagon with #SaveYourInternet, who are sometimes pushing completely crazy videos with half-knowledge into their channels.

In principle, the EU copyright reform is of course controversial and is likely to represent a major turning point in the social media world, as a lot of content is likely to disappear due to copyright restrictions or uploads will be blocked directly.

Current status

The current plans have been in effect since October 2nd. discussed and then the EU Parliament will vote again in spring 2019. The process itself has been going on for years and the individual articles have been changed again and again. The Commission submitted the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the digital single market to the Council on September 14, 2016 .

If there is no consent, this process is repeated. At the moment, a lot is still unclear as to what will come, how and in what form and when.

Julia Reda, who has long been critical of Articles 11 and 13 of the planned EU copyright reform, has presented the current status from her point of view here: juliareda.eu .

Article 11, which is also the subject of much debate, is about ancillary copyrights. So the question is whether Google or Facebook, for example, have to pay money for the preview snippets from newspapers and publishers or not (the so-called link tax). In the worst case scenario, it leads to censorship from the left - and we probably don't want that.

The aforementioned Article 13 in the new copyright law now affects uploads to platforms such as YouTube.

And here there are already disagreements within the EU itself: the EU Council would like an exemption from liability for platforms like YouTube if they use upload filters (as YT is currently doing), the EU Parliament would like to have general liability for copyright infringements.

These upload filters used by platforms are considered particularly critical . According to critics, there is a risk that overly cautious filters will prevent unauthorized content from being published. According to critics, that would be an infringement on freedom of expression. Valid point: how do upload filters distinguish between quotes and copyright infringement, for example? Are programs allowed to decide what content is published?

You also have to understand: It's also a lot about lobbying and a lot of money that content producers smell here (e.g. in the context of sporting events). So here two sides collide in the background, both of which want to make a lot of money.

Will my favorite YouTuber disappear now?

In principle, it would be a conceivable option for YouTube to block channels from the EU in order to prevent any legal violations here. However, we also consider this to be a threatening gesture. It feels as if YouTube is currently setting fire to the influencers operating on the platform, who in turn are instilling fear in users. It is doubtful whether all the channels will disappear.

Statements like individual YouTubers make that they won't be around in the future are nonsense. An upload filter cannot work (unless it works incorrectly) if there is no copyright violation.

[vc_message message_box_color=”grey” icon_fontawesome=”fa fa-info”] You shouldn’t forget: YouTube has been using an upload filter for a long time! [/mk_info]

A second, more realistic possibility: these upload filters will be made more strict in the future, i.e. in case of doubt, they will be blocked/deleted in order to minimize the risk. This actually makes it difficult for a lot of content (the whole “let's play scene” would have to renegotiate this, private reporting of sporting events, fanzines, online flea markets, every form of remix culture, etc). It can happen that you are blocked from your own material ( see here ).

However, the EPP group in the EU Parliament, which also includes the CDU and ÖVP, sees it completely differently and believes that some individuals would not be affected at all ( see here ). By the way, that group is also leading the EU copyright reform and wants to implement it!

What you can fear

It is entirely possible that - if the wishes of the content industry go through - there will be massive changes in the way we can use the Internet.

At this point, you have to note that things that you have become fond of can no longer be practicable: A lot of content is under copyright, which can actually be enforced because at the same time it becomes easier to take action against copyright violations (namely against, for example, YouTube, Google or Facebook directly). Whether you are a blogger, influencer or hobby YouTuber, it is better to use Creative Commons licenses for the material you use.

Basically, you shouldn't forget that there are two fronts: YouTube (Google), which will be held liable for violations in the future, of course want to avoid this and are running campaigns on their own. These platforms still need their traffic and are now using YouTubers and influencers as fearmongers.

On the other hand, there are rights holders (i.e. publishers, musicians, artists) who want to see their rights protected and enforced by Article 13. Lobbying on all sides.

And now?

The problem is that the very dynamic Internet we know has built up its own culture, which in many cases clashes with classic copyright ideas. Third-party content (songs, images or texts) is used in videos (and) on social media without the authors being able to assert their claims. The platform operators haven't been able to care about this so far, but they will have a responsibility in the future.

For users, however, this means a restriction on content.

What can you do if you are dissatisfied with the planned changes? Become active, sign petitions, share information, write to MPs.

Example petition: Petition on Change.org


If you enjoyed this post and value the importance of well-founded information, become part of the exclusive Mimikama Club! Support our work and help us promote awareness and combat misinformation. As a club member you receive:

📬 Special Weekly Newsletter: Get exclusive content straight to your inbox.
🎥 Exclusive video* “Fact Checker Basic Course”: Learn from Andre Wolf how to recognize and combat misinformation.
📅 Early access to in-depth articles and fact checks: always be one step ahead.
📄 Bonus articles, just for you: Discover content you won't find anywhere else.
📝 Participation in webinars and workshops : Join us live or watch the recordings.
✔️ Quality exchange: Discuss safely in our comment function without trolls and bots.

Join us and become part of a community that stands for truth and clarity. Together we can make the world a little better!

* In this special course, Andre Wolf will teach you how to recognize and effectively combat misinformation. After completing the video, you have the opportunity to join our research team and actively participate in the education - an opportunity that is exclusively reserved for our club members!


Notes:
1) This content reflects the current state of affairs at the time of publication. The reproduction of individual images, screenshots, embeds or video sequences serves to discuss the topic. 2) Individual contributions were created through the use of machine assistance and were carefully checked by the Mimikama editorial team before publication. ( Reason )