UN Human Rights Expert Warns EU Not To Pass Article 13

from the it-will-be-bad dept

The UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression has put out another warning that the EU’s move towards approving the EU Copyright Directive, and Article 13 in particular, is inconsistent with human rights standards. That’s the polite way of saying that it’s going to trample all over the public’s rights, and especially rights concerning free speech.

“Europe has a responsibility to modernise its copyright law to address the challenges of the digital age,” said the UN’s Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression ahead of a critical vote on the Directive. “But this should not be done at the expense of the freedom of expression that Europeans enjoy today.”

“Article 13 of the proposed Directive appears destined to drive internet platforms toward monitoring and restriction of user-generated content even at the point of upload. Such sweeping pressure for pre-publication filtering is neither a necessary nor proportionate response to copyright infringement online.”

Kaye rightly notes that the proposal, as it stands today, would also entrench the biggest internet companies, rather than enabling real competition:

“In the long run, this would imperil the future of information diversity and media pluralism in Europe, since only the biggest players will be able to afford these technologies.”

He also calls out the fact that this proposal is vague where it needs to be specific, and yet stupidly specific in situations where the drafters clearly don’t understand the technology or the nature of expression on the internet:

In the absence of specific requirements on platforms and Member States to defend freedom of expression, it is far from clear how either will comply with the Directive’s proposed safeguards, such as the requirement that “quotation, criticism, review” and the “use [of copyrighted works] for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche” be protected, the Special Rapporteur said.

“Even the most experienced lawyers struggle to distinguish violations of copyright rules from exceptions to these rules, which vary across Member States,” Kaye added. “The lack of clear and precise language in the Directive would create even more legal uncertainty.”

“Misplaced confidence in filtering technologies to make nuanced distinctions between copyright violations and legitimate uses of protected material would escalate the risk of error and censorship. Who would bear the brunt of this practice? Typically it would be creators and artists, who lack the resources to litigate such claims.”

It’s the last point above that’s most important. Even as some content creators are supporting Article 13, the real impact on them will be incredibly damaging. As tons of YouTube creators have learned over the past few years, automated filters frequently create more headaches than they’re worth. Legitimate content is regularly taken down, and it’s extra difficult for independent creators to make themselves heard. And this will become much worse in a post-Article 13 world, where you have less competition, since only a few internet giants can deal with the requirements of the law.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “UN Human Rights Expert Warns EU Not To Pass Article 13”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment

And Yet Here We Are

It amazes me how the big media companies are still lobbying for this new directive, and yet they don?t understand that it will backfire on them.
They won?t be able to upload their content online because of the filters that they wanted to be put into place, even if they own the content. Warner Bros won?t be able to share its movie trailers online, and the music industry won?t be able to release their music on the internet.
Then, because of this, they lose lots of money because a beneficial way to connect with viewers was ultimately shut down.
In a way, all of this lobbying for the directive will come back to haunt them.

Scary Devil Monasterysays:

Re: And Yet Here We Are

We’re talking about religious fanatics and of people whose paycheck depends on not listening nor understanding.
…and, looking at how often copyright enforcement leaders go down in court over tax evasion, fraud, embezzlement, etc, a great number of weasels who find copyright lobbying and/or enforcement a legal extension of their usual trade of fraud.

This will indeed come back to bite them. And they’ll blame pirates and/or tech companies when it does.


"It amazes me how the big media companies are still lobbying for this new directive, and yet they don?t understand that it will backfire on them."

Oh, didn’t you hear? Plenty of those companies have changed their minds now that they’ve realised the negative effects. It might just be too late to stop the momentum of their original demands

For example: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190301/22225341713/major-labels-split-support-article-13-as-music-publishers-whine-that-they-cant-make-money-parodies.shtml

That One Guysays:

Re: Re: So what's not to like?

The ultimate goal of copyright maximalists is to shut down the internet and all PC’s capable of copying files. Every copy is a lost sale, it must be stopped!

Oh not all of them, just all of them they don’t control. I’m sure they’d be perfectly fine with platforms and devices where they were in full control and/or made money each time they were used.


I find it utterly amazing that in a form, the web, where every possible violation of people’s rights takes place by big internet companies that such a mundane concept as intellectual property takes center stage. Why does the masses have no interest in the internet social media, communication,and police surveillance issues in the continued attempts to establish a world totalitarian system dominated by a select group of elitists but everyone has issues with the media giants removing their Saturday night sports program.



Why does the masses have no interest in the internet social media, communication,and police surveillance issues

Maybe because they are well aware that total surveillance never works, and has never worked. A repressive regime applies labels to people so that they can act, and do not care if the label is accurate or not. Repressive/ authoritarian regimes do not like systems where people can talk to each other outside their control, and intellectual property is a way that they can gain effective control over the Internet.

Also, destroy the Internet over intellectual property issues, and most people lose the ability to self publish their own intellectual property, and if that happens, they will have no outlet for their political opinions and activism other than local groups.


free followers

Are you looking for a fast way to grow your Instagram page? Do you want to gain Instagram followers for free? It?s very simple with our easy-to-use tool that gains followers for you, so you don?t have to do the work. We will NEVER ask you for your password, so you can be sure it?s 100% safe.


Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Older Stuff
15:51 [UPDATED]: Myanmar's Military Junta Sentences American Journalist To Eleven Years In Prison (8)
12:01 Hong Kong Government Now Directly Censoring Films In Hopes Of Shutting Down Protest-Related Documentaries (21)
10:50 Fifth Circuit Appeals Court Strips Immunity For Officers Who Arrested A Journalist For Asking Questions (16)
10:44 Why Falsely Claiming It's Illegal To Shout Fire In A Crowded Theater Distorts Any Conversation About Online Speech (85)
05:36 Massachusetts College Decides Criticizing The Chinese Government Is Hate Speech, Suspends Conservative Student Group (144)
16:07 Court Says City Of Baltimore's 'Heckler's Veto' Of An Anti-Catholic Rally Violates The First Amendment (28)
12:19 Chicago Court Gets Its Prior Restraint On, Tells Police Union Head To STFU About City's Vaccine Mandate (385)
11:03 LinkedIn (Mostly) Exits China, Citing Escalating Demands For Censorship (24)
12:10 Court Tells Arkansas Troopers That Muting Anti-Cop Terms On Its Facebook Page Violates The 1st Amendment (37)
13:43 Right-Wing Commentator Dan Bongino Runs Into Florida Anti-SLAPP Law, Now Owes Daily Beast $32,000 In Legal Fees (14)
20:41 North Carolina Sued By Flying Dog Brewery Over Regulatory Body Refusing To Allow Sales Due To 'Offensive' Label (19)
09:59 Now Josh Hawley Is Threatening Google Over 1st Amendment Protected Expression (44)
12:08 PETA Sues NIH And HHS Directors For Blocking Comments With 'PETA' And '#StopAnimalTesting' (59)
10:57 Appeals Court Says The First Amendment Protects Minnesota Woman's Right To Be Super-Shitty About Nearby Islamic School (68)
12:00 Elizabeth Warren Threatens Amazon For Selling Books Containing Misinformation; Perhaps Forgetting The 1st Amendment (49)
09:26 8th Circuit's Bizarre Ruling In Devin Nunes' SLAPP Suit Against Reporter Ryan Lizza (13)
10:43 Satire Site Gets Ridiculous Threat Letter From Baseball Team; cc's Barbra Streisand In Its Response (20)
12:12 Commentator Insists That Fact Checking Is An Attack On Free Speech (163)
13:34 Court: Just Because An Anonymous Yelp Reviewer Is Mean, Doesn't Mean You Get To Unmask The Reviewer (26)
12:06 Computer Repair Shop Owner Has To Pay Twitter's Legal Fees Over Bogus SLAPP Suit Regarding Hunter Biden's Laptop (108)
13:36 Report Shows DOJ Engaged In Selective Prosecution To Maximize Punishment For 'Black Lives Matter' Protesters (22)
16:02 Appeals Court Shuts Down Kansas' 30-Year-Old Ag Gag Law (23)
13:39 Ninth Circuit Affirms MSNBC's Anti-SLAPP Motion Against OAN Network's Bullshit Defamation Lawsuit (102)
10:51 Appeals Court Says Iowa's Ag-Gag Law Is About 50 Percent Constitutional (15)
13:45 Nassau County Executive Vetoes Bill That Would Punish People For Making Cops Feel Bad (15)
12:24 Shiva Ayyadurai Drops His Potentially Interesting Lawsuit About Massachusetts Officials Complaining To Twitter About Tweets (33)
12:03 President Of France Sues Citizen Over Billboard Comparing Macron To Hitler (20)
10:44 Top German Court Says Facebook Must Inform Users About Deleting Their Posts Or Suspending Their Account, Explain Why, And Allow Them To Respond (17)
10:44 Superior Court Dumps BS Charges Brought Against New Jersey Homeowner For Her 'Fuck Biden' Signs (20)
03:27 Appeals Court Denies Immunity To University Officials Who Apparently Banned A Christian Student Group Just Because They Didn't Like It (33)
More arrow
This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it