The “Mob” and Its Opposition to the European Union’s Copyright Directive

It has been 18 years since the European Union(EU) developed an EU-wide copyright law platform. Following implementation ofthe General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)in 2018, EU lawmakers began working on new regulations within intellectual property.Of the 24 articles in its new copyrightdirective, Article 13 has caused the most controversy.

Article 13, in essence, is designed to hold large information service providers, like Google and YouTube accountable for preventing copyright infringement, ultimately in the name of protecting the copyrights of rightholders or content creators. The article itself states that “[i]nformation society service providers that store and provide to the public access to large amounts of works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users shall, in cooperation with rightholders, take measures to ensure the functioning of agreements concluded with rightholders for the use of their works or other subject-matter or to prevent the availability on their services of works or other subject-matter identified by rightholders through the cooperation with the service providers.”

Ultimately if similar policies are adopted in the United States, copyright law may soon look very different than in the past and a “mob” may once again rise up.

Ultimately, internet platforms that hostcopyrighted content must engage in agreements with rightholders before allowingsuch material to be posted online. This cooperation celebrates more protectionsof copyright in favor of rightholders, but has many wondering if the regulationwill hinder free access on the internet. Many believe this cooperative processbetween rightholders and content sharing platforms will take much more time forcompanies than current procedures and may not prove sustainable in thefast-paced world of the internet.

In February 2019, EU Commission leaders released a messagedenouncing those against the directive and calling them members of a “mob.”The Commission later had to release an apology for the post, noting that the “language and title were not appropriate.”

Many individuals, as a result, have come together toprotest the directive both through petition and on the streets.Some internet platforms have even gone dark, including Wikipediain some countries. culminating in a “Dayof Action” on March 23, 2019. Numerous companies such as Google have alsoopposed the directive. Many companies view the article as requiring them toinstitute content filters to find and locate copyrighted material posted bynon-rightholders, something that small businesses in content sharing wouldcertainly not be able to do. Even large corporations such as Google would haveto make major changes in order to adapt. YouTube, for example, would have tospend significant time and resources to check every uploaded video. Newinnovation in this space, such as YouTube’s “Content ID” platform, an artificial intelligence-based analyzer ofcopyrighted material, would be necessary to make implementation of Article 13even slightly practical.

In contrast, MaryHoneyball, a British Labour Member of the EuropeanParliament who supports Article 13, argues that the article does not demand“upload filters.” She asserts that the article only requires content platformsto either license or remove copyrighted material. While Article 13 may notexplicitly require such filters, many believe they will be inevitable in orderto enable compliance, and will involve significant changes in the directions ofmany companies. Despitethe EU’s view, this process may not be so easy to implement and involves manyuncertainties. Providing notice and takedown of the wrongful use of copyrightedmaterial may then become a minimal part of copyright law. As front-loading of copyright law willbecomes a necessity, preventative measures will be the name of the game.

The European Parliament’s final approval vote hearing for the copyright directive will occur on March 26. That day, copyright law could see a dramatic change in its effects upon companies and consumers. Ultimately, if similar policies are adopted in the United States, copyright law may soon look very different than in the past and a “mob” may once again rise up.

Ashle Page, 18 March 2019