On Thursday, the European Commission posted – on its official Medium
page – an astoundingly juvenile and obnoxious post, lashing out at
those who have complained that Articles 11 and 13 in the EU Copyright
Directive will be destructive. The post was snide and condescending, and
suggested that most of the opposition was fake and “astroturfed” and
that anyone who really believed that the EU Copyright Directive was a
problem was brainwashed by Google and Facebook. It was… quite a post.
On Friday evening, I wrote up a (mostly) line-by-line response to its
utter nonsense and planned to post it this week once people were back in
the office to review it. However, on Saturday, after widespread
criticism, the EU Commission “removed” the post without an apology –
but with the standard cop out of someone who did something bad but can’t
admit it:
We have removed this article as it has been understood in a way that doesn’t reflect the Commission’s position.
“… it has been understood…” Not “we wrote an insulting, misleading
and condescending article that we shouldn’t have posted.” Not, “we’re
sorry that we lashed out at the public we’re supposed to represent.” No,
it’s all your fault in that you “misunderstood” our obnoxious, snide remarks to be both obnoxious and snide.
Given that so many people missed it and that I already had this post written with much of the original quoted – what follows is my original post.
This is quite incredible. Earlier this year, we wrote about the
Legislative Affairs Committee of the EU Parliament putting out a “Q and
A” page about the EU Copyright Directive that was so full of wrong
that it was insulting. However, now it appears that the EU Commission
has decided to one up its colleagues in the Parliament by posting an
article to Medium of all places (one of the many sites that will be
massively harmed by the Directive) insisting that you’re all fools
for thinking that anything bad might happen, and that it’s all the
fault of Google/Facebook. Thankfully, for at least the time being, I am
free to quote large parts of their article and respond to it without
having to “buy a license” from the Commission, so let’s take advantage
of that remaining bit of freedom.
Take this test: Type in ‘EU Copyright Directive’ into the search box in
Youtube. The majority of results in the top 20 will be passionately
against it. Here’s some of the headlines, if you’re not sure:
‘Shocking update on the Copyright Directive.’ ‘Today Europe lost the
Internet’ ‘How the new copyright laws will destroy the internet’
‘Censorship machines’, ‘EU to end the internet’ or ‘Europe to ban all
memes’
Of course, we know from recent elections and referendums that simple
memorable slogans — however untrue or unobtainable — can go a long way
to winning over hearts, minds and voters. And so it was, that the wholly
inaccurate phrases ‘ link taxes ’ and ‘ censorship machines ’ started
to be part of the campaign against the proposed Copyright Directive.
Never let the truth get in the way of a catchy slogan.
Note the opening here is dripping with condescension, suggesting that even though basically everyone
is not only against this law, but speaking out against it, they’re all
just silly fools, tricked by a slogan. Note that this does not respond
to any of the massive problems many, many experts have raised about the
approach in the Copyright Directive – especially on Articles 11 and 13.
It just sneers about what it says are inaccurate phrases (spoiler
alert: those phrases are not inaccurate).
The idea behind the Directive is to bring copyright rules into the 21st
century. The current rules are very analogue and designed for the world
before the web. Things have changed. Search and social media platforms
largely define the way we enjoy content today, but their market
dominance has now tilted the balance in their favour and away from those
who design and create original things.
This is hogwash. The “laws” they are trying to change include things
like the EU’s E-Commerce Directive that was (oh, look at that) passed in
the 21st Century, when the web was already around and thriving. Second,
the idea that search and social media platforms have “tilted the
balance… away from those who design and create original things” is
ludicrous. As we’ve shown for years, the internet has given a massive boost to content creation – enabling more creation in nearly every single category. It has made it easier to create, produce, release, distribute, share, build a fan base and to make money than at any time in history. The internet has enabled more people than ever before in history to not just create, but to make money from their creations.
If you want to know who it’s tilted the playing field against, it’s the legacy gatekeepers:
the old record labels, movie studios and publishers, who used to
operate in an oligopolistic world, with little competition, where they
could demand all of the rights from creators in exchange for a small
chance of success – and if success came, those gatekeepers would still
suck up nearly all of the rewards. Can anyone tell me if Return of the Jedi is profitable yet? Has Lyle Lovett’s record label paid him a dime yet? Meanwhile, artists who are embracing the internet are finding that it can pay off massively.
The world of Article 11 and 13 is a move towards going back to the old
system. To force artists and creators into the arms of a small group of
gatekeepers who decide if you can even post your content online at all,
let alone try to make money from it. For the EU Commission to repeat a
completely made up myth that artists are somehow worse off today is not
just revisionist history bullshit, it’s insulting.
As it stands, big internet platforms such as Facebook or Google make a
lot of money from ads that appear on their sites alongside copyrighted
material such as music or clips. The more people view, the more money
platforms can earn from those adverts.
Very little of the content appearing on Facebook and Google is infringing. Yes, both sites will send a lot of traffic
to content elsewhere, and make money on ads from that service, but
that’s different. Meanwhile, both Google and Facebook have spent many
millions of dollars on automated filters to block out infringing content
(or to allow copyright holders to monetize that content). So if the
idea is to attack those companies with a new law requiring such filters,
how does this law “improve” anything?
Answer: it does not. The new law is designed to ramp up the liability
even higher – such that when such filters fail (and they always fail
because it is impossible to get right), the fines will be catastrophic.
As such, the entire point of Articles 11 and 13 is to be so ridiculous
and so draconian, that Google and Facebook would have no choice but to pay up
to avoid getting hit with tons of lawsuits. It’s an extortionate plan,
put together by the EU bureaucrats, to favor legacy gatekeepers.
Just as Google and Facebook are being rewarded financially for all their
hard work in producing amazing software, clever algorithms and exciting
designs, we think authors, film-makers, journalists and musicians
should also be rewarded for their endeavours too. At the moment the
balance of power in who gets paid for such royalties resides
overwhelmingly with the big Californian companies — who are worth around
$1 Trillion.
This implies – totally falsely – that “authors, film makers,
journalists and musicians” are not being rewarded today for their
endeavors. They are. Some successfully. Some unsuccessfully. Demanding
that EVERY INTERNET COMPANY that hosts content (not just Google and
Facebook) cough up massive sums of money to gatekeepers (who have a
history of not paying actual creators) doesn’t seem like a smart path
forward. It sounds like an utterly corrupt one.
The Copyright Directive is an attempt to create a level playing field
where everyone can gain from the amazing options that the new
technologies offer. Musicians, artists, video producers and the whole
creative sector will benefit by having a fairer negotiating position.
“Everyone can gain”? By making platforms no longer work? By making it
impossible to post and share content? By forcing small companies out of
business? By killing off the ways in which many independent creators now
earn their livings? The EU Commission is so bizarrely disconnected from
reality.
Journalists and online publications will have more money to keep on
financing quality research and news. Despite what you might read, the
Copyright directive supports a free press and could enable journalists
to get some money when their articles are shared online. Good journalism
costs money and without a free press there is no democracy.
Remember, Article 11 has already been tried in both Germany and Spain,
and failed in both places. It did not lead to more money for journalists
or publications. It did not help support a free press. It actually harmed a free press. How the EU Commission can just push out blatant lies without people laughing at them is beyond me.
Fair remuneration for and from the platforms and a fairer market place
is what we want. We cannot achieve a real European digital single market
which makes us all better off, if copyrighted material is misused or
poorly remunerated. Because if creative people don’t get paid, they
can’t afford to be creative. No Mon = No Fun
Define “fair”? Is it “fair” that Return of the Jedi never made a profit
and people who were supposed to share in its profits never did so? Is it
fair that Lyle Lovett never received any royalties? It does seem fair
that artists who build up a strong fan base, like Amanda Palmer, are
able to earn a really nice living supported by her fans. It will be too
bad when the platforms that helped her do so – like Patreon and
Kickstarter – find that they are unworkable under Article 13. That
seems… unfair. And again, right now more artists than ever before are getting paid. And that’s happening because of the internet that Article 13 will fundamentally change.
And, uh, “no mon = no fun”? Isn’t this the same damn post where the EU
Commission itself was mocking “slogans”? But let’s be clear here: there
is currently both more “mon” and more “fun” based on literally
every single study of the market place today. The internet has enabled
wild creativity – but also tremendous remuneration. The real problem
that the EU Commission has is that this is now being spread around much
further, and the old gatekeepers with their strong lobbying
relationships aren’t able to capture as much of it.
The EU Copyright Directive is corrupt cronyism at its worst.
Just like everyone else, the EU loves culture, cinema, art and music. We
have no intention in restricting young people’s access to all these
wonderful things on- or offline. Oh and by the way, no matter what some
people (and paid-for campaigns) may tell you, you will never be
prevented from having a laugh online. WE ARE NOT BANNING MEMES. On the
contrary, there will be a guarantee that platforms respect your right to
self-expression. That includes pastiche, critique and parody.
They keep saying this and it is nonsense. They demand filters – and
then say that platforms will have to “nerd harder” to figure out how not
to use those filters to block memes. What they ignore (purposefully,
because this has been explained in great detail) is that no filter can
understand the context to recognize what is a “meme” or what is parody.
Indeed, popular memes have been at the center of multiple copyright cases.
Nonetheless, it appears as if the largest search and video platforms in
the world are afraid of regulation — despite having overwhelming
dominance on the internet.
This might be the only accurate statement in this whole damn article.
They may very well be afraid of regulation. And maybe for good reasons
– because such regulation will massively and fundamentally change the
very nature of the internet – not just for themselves, but for everyone
else as well. That’s the concern.
Furthermore, there is ample evidence from respected sources, here and here and perhaps here or here or indeed here that ‘Big Technology’ has even ‘created’ grassroots campaigns against the Copyright Directive in order to make it look and sound as if the EU is acting against the ‘will of the people’.
Over at Change.org there’s a petition protesting this with nearly 5 million signatures, making it the largest petition in Change.org’s entire history.
You don’t fake that. People are angry. And with good reason, when the
bureaucrats, who are supposed to represent their interests, are spewing
utter nonsense along these lines.
And the most incredible part? Right after totally dismissing the views
of the vast majority of the public, these numbskulls state the
following:
That’s another myth. Unlike Google and Facebook, the EU is answerable to the public and to democratically elected politicians.
Answerable to the public? You just pretended the views of the public
weren’t legitimate. You ignored the largest petition in history. You are
not representing the interests of the public, but rather a very small
legacy industry which failed to adapt. The whole thing is completely disgusting.
