Swedish MEPs Announce Support For Article 13, Demonstrate Near Total Ignorance Of What It Actually Entails

Failures

from the not-a-good-sign dept

As MEPs get ready to vote on the EU Copyright Directive — and specific amendments concerning Articles 11 and 13 — many have not yet said how they are going to vote. However, two Swedish MEPs, Jytte Guteland and Marita Ulvskog, who many had believed would vote against the plan, have suddenly switched sides and say they plan to vote for it. In a rather astounding interview with reporter Emanuel Karlsten the MEPs reveal their near total ignorance of what Article 13 does and what it would require.

Guteland spoke to Karlsten by phone, and he asked all the right questions. It’s worth reading the entire conversation, but here are a few snippets with my commentary. When Karlsten pointed out the problems with filters, Guteland insisted that Article 13 doesn’t mean filters:

It is not a filter, it?s more about the sites taking reasonable steps, some of which can be free or cheap

That is… utter nonsense. The directive would require sites to block re-uploads of reportedly infringing material, and that means it requires a filter. There is no other way to do this. And there are no “free” filters. Currently, there aren’t even any “cheap” filters. Karlsten asks about this and Guteland changes the subject.

What do you mean when you say ?free or cheap? ways to take the measures needed to stop copyrighted material from being distributed?

?You shouldn?t need to commit to expensive technical solutions, but measures taken must be proportionate and reasonable based on the content you have. If you?re a commercial player with huge amounts of content, then you?ll need to implement other solutions?.

Got that? You shouldn’t need filters, but… if you’re a company then obviously you can afford expensive filters.

From there, the interview gets even worse. Karlsten points out that lots of speech will certainly get taken down, especially since filters can’t determine what is parody or otherwise exempt, and Guteland’s response — I kid you not — is basically first “well, they can appeal their censorship” and when it’s pointed out that this could lead to content being censored for a long time, retorts that it’s somehow magically in the best interests of tech platforms not to censor the content too long:

There shouldn?t be lengthy court proceedings. Even big platforms have an interest in avoiding long court proceedings

“Shouldn’t be.” Apparently Guteland is unfamiliar with what has happened for years with notice-and-takedown regimes that are a lot less onerous than the ones that will be implemented post-Article 13. When pressed on this, she appears to give the Swedish equivalent of “Nerd harder, nerds.”

I see before me a mechanism being developed that doesn?t exist today, where now we have recognition technology, but no appeal process. In the future it should become second nature for platforms to examine whether content is satirical, so that it can be reposted quickly. That means it?s about recognition becoming a two-stage process where today it?s only one. That way it becomes easier to make judgments.

Full employment for satire-detectors! Also, the rest of this paragraph is utter nonsense. She acts as if there’s no current appeals process for content taken down today. There is and it’s a disaster that doesn’t work well at all. And under Article 13 it will be even worse, because the liability and penalties for leaving up the wrong content are much more severe than in the past. And that’s why she’s totally and completely wrong in saying that platforms will be quick to put this content up. Indeed, the only thing she’s right about is that they have incentives to “avoid long court proceedings.” And the way you do that is by KEEPING DOWN any content that might be questionable to avoid the liability.

It’s disappointing, especially as the vote is coming in just a few hours, that those supporting Article 13 still seem completely ignorant of how any of this works.

Filed Under: article 13, copyright, eu, eu copyright directive, fair use, filters, intermediary liability, jytte guteland, marita ulvskog, satire