Author: Joel Baccas

Copyright protection for EU citizens

Are the EU intending to ban memes, as had been claimed with the new draft copyright directive? The answer is a resounding no. It’s about as close to the truth as the now infamous myth that the EU was banning bent bananas!    

Nearly 10% of the working population in the EU are employed in the arts or media. It’s a major employer and these creative people are seeing the large internet platforms like Facebook, YouTube and others using their material without paying for it.

In reality it is the EU protecting EU citizens from the abuses of major corporations!

The draft directive intends to make large internet platforms like Facebook, YouTube etc to pay creators of content such as artists, musicians, news houses and their journalists what is genuinely owed to them. Performers need more than just a stage now to make a living.

The expectation is that the draft directive will push the online platforms to finally roll out a policy to fairly remunerate all those from whose work they make their money. It is therefore entirely reasonable to introduce regulation to social media. It will not target the ordinary user.

The goal to be achieved by this Directive is not to ban memes as has been wrongly reported in order to make the EU look bad. The goal and rather boring reason but very important reason is to stop online platforms from earning money  from content created by other people without fairly compensating them.

There is no requirement to have in place ‘upload filters’ which are currently already being used. If these become abused as a result of the Directive it will be the fault of the platform providers. The parody clause will protect our rights such as being able to share memes and GIFs in our typical everyday situations. The platform providers will have to put in place effective complaint procedures that we can use to complain and challenge a decision to take down a meme.

You need only go to the draft text at Article 17 (formally the infamous Article 13) paragraph 7 which requires Member States of the EU to ensure that users i.e. us can rely on the already existing exceptions and limitation originally found in an older Directive (2001/29/EC) which allows for user generated content for the purposes of for example caricature, parody or pastiche.    

Nor is it about censorship! Censorship is not the goal of this legislation. Companies must pay for the material they use to make a profit from; which is entirely reasonable.  

‘All this means that users will have the right to post parodies and criticize and quote from others’ content, and that platforms cannot unduly prevent this. If they do—for instance, if they overblock—they might find themselves in a position in which they are financially liable toward users for infringing their rights. In this sense, the expression “censorship machine” seems hardly to capture the essence of what is now Article 17 of the directive: Users will have rights that they could enforce against platforms that would unduly “censor” their speech.’

Is this just the EU’s reaction to Brexit?

Although this directive predates Brexit, that event and other events around the EU have highlighted the need for this directive.

The spread of misinformation did undoubtedly contribute to the UK vote to leave the EU. Had this directive been in place the result might have been different. The negative reporting (a lot of it online, like on YouTube) about the EU has been fuelled further with the controversy of this Copyright Directive. It is not perfect but when you look into the detail it is very easy to see that the EU possesses no malice intent towards us the citizens of the EU like many would like you to believe. When presented with the facts – the real news finds its way. This will protect EU citizens rather than make their life more difficult.

Further reading:

Joel Baccas can be contacted here. Images used under license from Storyblocks.

EU looks out for consumers, not just big business

Some critics of the EU claim the EU only looks out for big business and therefore don’t benefit individual citizens. However, the EU’s competition law actually benefits citizens as consumers by encouraging firms to cut costs and innovate.

 

It is illegal under EU competition law to enter into any agreement, either written or unwritten, that is anti-competitive. The sorts of agreements this applies to are covered in Article 101 TFEU, and it essentially boils down to anything that would prevent, restrict or distort competition within the EU’s single market.

This includes, for example, price fixing, bid rigging and attempts to limit or control production, markets, technical development or investment.

By prohibiting such agreements, the EU can better tackle cartels – a very serious form of anti-competitive behaviour. In this context, a cartel is described as an informal association or arrangement between two or more firms, in which firms share confidential commercial information about their own businesses and come to some kind of agreement about how to do business in the future in a way that reduces the competition between themselves. This increases prices so they all benefit from increased profits, while on the face of it appearing to compete. That is effectively cheating us, the consumers.

Taking on the tech giants

Another bit of EU competition law, Article 102 TFEU, prohibits firms that hold a “dominant position”. This is when a firm enjoys such economic power that it can behave, to a large extent, independently of effective competition pressures from its rivals. Again, this can lead to things like charging unfair prices, limiting production or refusing to innovate – all to the detriment of consumers.

The prime example of firms like this in the 21st century are the tech giants. The EU is leading the way in challenging these corporate behemoths.

 

Take the example of Google, which began pursuing an anti-competitive strategy for its comparison shopping service. Its dominance in general internet searches meant Google could make sure that its own shopping service was given more prominence over competitors.

The European Commission has the power to investigate possible breaches of the law and fine companies a percentage of annual turnover. For Google, this resulted in a fine of £2.1 billion.

Making anti-competitive behaviour illegal and standing up to corporate titans shows the EU putting its citizens first.

Entrance of building where Google and its subsidiary Deep Mind are located at 6 Pancras Square, London, UK.
Adapted from an article by Joel Baccas originally published on 21.02.2019 by InFacts.org. Joel Baccas can be contacted here. Photo of Google in London by Gciriani, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.

Sign up

Login