Article 13 - The EU's Meme Ban
On September 12th, 2018, the European Parliament voted in favor of the Directive on Copyright in the Single Digital Market, a motion meant to modernize copyright laws for the digital age to ensure that license holders and content creators would be fairly compensated when other people used their content and creations. Since the vote in September, the bill has undergone Trilogue Discussions to get formally approved and signed into law, all while facing massive controversy relating to two key components: Article 11 and Article 13.
But what exactly are Article 11 and 13 and what will their implications be? Due to the complexity of this topic, I will cover these two pieces of legislation over the course of two blog posts. In this blog post, I will be covering the far more controversial part of the EU's new copyright directive: Article 13. I detailed the content and consequences of Article 11 in an earlier blog post, which can be found here: globalconnections2018lahs.blogspot.com/2018/12/article-11-consequences-of-european.html
Article 13, dubbed the "Meme Ban", has faced far more backlash over recent months than even already controversial Article 11. While Article 11 is unlikely to affect much beyond the competitiveness of small websites, Article 13 threatens the Meme Culture and online communities that have been developing over years on the internet. But to truly understand the full implications of Article 13, it is important to understand how copyright law currently functions.
Currently, the use of copyrighted content is regulated by two primary principles: Fair Use and Safe Harbor. Fair Use allows people on the internet to freely use copyrighted content without the permission of the content's owner as long as a set of conditions are met. Conditions include but are not limited to: using the content for satire, commentary, parody, and/or education, using only a small portion of the copyrighted material, and using the content such that it doesn't devalue the original work. If all of these conditions are met, then the usage of the content falls under Fair Use and can not be taken down by the owner of the copyright holder. This is what allows movie reviewers on YouTube to play clips of the movie they are reviewing or for people to post SpongeBob memes without facing legal repercussions.
The other guiding principle for current copyright law is called Safe Harbor. While Fair Use mainly applies to people using websites, like YouTubers or people posting memes, Safe Harbor is the guideline for the websites hosting the copyright content. Under Safe Harbor, websites can allow copyrighted content to be uploaded, regardless of whether or not they fall under Fair Use. However, if the content is later found to be in violation of Fair Use, it is the obligation of the website to take down the content. This prevents websites like YouTube from being overwhelmed by having to check all the content on its website falls under fair use before being uploaded. Instead, it falls under the responsibility of the copyright holder to report illegal uses of their copyrighted content for the website to take down.
While Article 13 leaves Fair Use mostly unchanged, it all but eliminates Safe Harbor. Whereas before, websites were able to allow copyright content to be uploaded regardless of legality and would only be obligated to take it down if it was later discovered to be in violation of copyright law, Article 13 requires websites to stop content in violation of copyright law from being uploaded altogether, lest they face massive fines.
While the new guidelines for Article 13 sound good on paper, they are near impossible for websites to meet. Right now, websites like YouTube have so much content uploaded that it is impossible for humans to be able to check all of the content, so they have to rely on AI algorithms. However, the algorithms on these websites are far from developed enough to be able to accurately tell whether or not content violates any policy - not just copyright laws. This insufficiency is most clearly seen in YouTube's "adpocalypse" last year. After YouTube implemented stricter content guidelines, thousands of content creators had their videos wrongly demonetized - meaning that ads didn't play on their videos so they couldn't make money - by YouTube's algorithm. In its current state, algorithms just aren't ready to be able to properly distinguish the difference between content that is protected by fair use and content that isn't protected by fair use.
In the past, whenever YouTube or another major social media platform has been pressured to keep certain content off of their website, they have always taken a "better safe than sorry" approach. In the past few years, YouTube dealt with several major controversies, like PewDiePie making a Nazi joke and saying n*****, as well as the discovery that several videos on the YouTube kids add contained sexual and mature content, with many people criticizing YouTube for allowing people to profit off of this content by having ads play on them. In response to this YouTube banned several types of content from being monetized, including any content that "contained profanity". Despite many content creators changing their content to match these guidelines, they still frequently had their content demonetized, thus resulting in the aforementioned adpocalypse.
But while the adpocalypse was devastating to many YouTubers, forcing some to quit YouTube entirely, the pressure YouTube faced then is nothing compared to what they will have to comply with under Article 13.
Article 13 puts in place will be far stricter than anything these websites have ever seen and the adpocalypse, these websites will likely take a "better safe than sorry" approach and Because these websites don't have the technology to be able to accurately determine whether or not content is in violation of fair use, their only option will be to block all content that might violate copyright law from being uploaded altogether, lest they face massive fines.
This means that anything on any major social media website - not just YouTube - with copyrighted content is at risk of being taken down, regardless of how badly it actually violates the law. Anything ranging from something as harmless to a SpongeBob meme to a full re-upload of a blockbuster movie will be blocked, thus changing the way the internet is used forever. This doesn't just affect the European Union. As a result of the connectivity of the internet, copyrighted content uploaded or created in another continent, like North America, can easily find its way into the EU, thus costing these social media websites more money. Because of this, it is highly likely that the changes in policy enacted as a response to Article 13in the EU will also carry over to the rest of the world.
Since the inception of the internet, the ability to use copyrighted content protected under fair use and safe harbor has allowed countless communities on the internet to thrive. YouTubers and other content creators have been able to use copyrighted soundtracks and media footage to make their own creative works, like music videos and parodies. Millions of memes have been made from movies and TV shows, thus creating a thriving meme culture. But by eliminating safe harbor and fining social media websites for any copyright infringement, Article 13 threatens to bring it all to an end - not just in Europe, but around the world.
Sources:
https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/12/17849868/eu-internet-copyright-reform-article-11-13-approved
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/eu-article-13-passed-meme-war
https://www.alphr.com/politics/1009470/article-13-EU-what-is-it-copyright
https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2018/06/20/european-union-youtube-article-13/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2017/09/18/adpocalypse-2017-heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-youtubes-demonetization-troubles/#50a06a7b6c26
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/12/can-youtube-survive-the-adpocalypse.html
https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html
https://www.thebalancesmb.com/what-is-a-safe-harbor-law-or-provision-398457
But what exactly are Article 11 and 13 and what will their implications be? Due to the complexity of this topic, I will cover these two pieces of legislation over the course of two blog posts. In this blog post, I will be covering the far more controversial part of the EU's new copyright directive: Article 13. I detailed the content and consequences of Article 11 in an earlier blog post, which can be found here: globalconnections2018lahs.blogspot.com/2018/12/article-11-consequences-of-european.html
Article 13, dubbed the "Meme Ban", has faced far more backlash over recent months than even already controversial Article 11. While Article 11 is unlikely to affect much beyond the competitiveness of small websites, Article 13 threatens the Meme Culture and online communities that have been developing over years on the internet. But to truly understand the full implications of Article 13, it is important to understand how copyright law currently functions.
The other guiding principle for current copyright law is called Safe Harbor. While Fair Use mainly applies to people using websites, like YouTubers or people posting memes, Safe Harbor is the guideline for the websites hosting the copyright content. Under Safe Harbor, websites can allow copyrighted content to be uploaded, regardless of whether or not they fall under Fair Use. However, if the content is later found to be in violation of Fair Use, it is the obligation of the website to take down the content. This prevents websites like YouTube from being overwhelmed by having to check all the content on its website falls under fair use before being uploaded. Instead, it falls under the responsibility of the copyright holder to report illegal uses of their copyrighted content for the website to take down.
While Article 13 leaves Fair Use mostly unchanged, it all but eliminates Safe Harbor. Whereas before, websites were able to allow copyright content to be uploaded regardless of legality and would only be obligated to take it down if it was later discovered to be in violation of copyright law, Article 13 requires websites to stop content in violation of copyright law from being uploaded altogether, lest they face massive fines.
While the new guidelines for Article 13 sound good on paper, they are near impossible for websites to meet. Right now, websites like YouTube have so much content uploaded that it is impossible for humans to be able to check all of the content, so they have to rely on AI algorithms. However, the algorithms on these websites are far from developed enough to be able to accurately tell whether or not content violates any policy - not just copyright laws. This insufficiency is most clearly seen in YouTube's "adpocalypse" last year. After YouTube implemented stricter content guidelines, thousands of content creators had their videos wrongly demonetized - meaning that ads didn't play on their videos so they couldn't make money - by YouTube's algorithm. In its current state, algorithms just aren't ready to be able to properly distinguish the difference between content that is protected by fair use and content that isn't protected by fair use.
In the past, whenever YouTube or another major social media platform has been pressured to keep certain content off of their website, they have always taken a "better safe than sorry" approach. In the past few years, YouTube dealt with several major controversies, like PewDiePie making a Nazi joke and saying n*****, as well as the discovery that several videos on the YouTube kids add contained sexual and mature content, with many people criticizing YouTube for allowing people to profit off of this content by having ads play on them. In response to this YouTube banned several types of content from being monetized, including any content that "contained profanity". Despite many content creators changing their content to match these guidelines, they still frequently had their content demonetized, thus resulting in the aforementioned adpocalypse.
But while the adpocalypse was devastating to many YouTubers, forcing some to quit YouTube entirely, the pressure YouTube faced then is nothing compared to what they will have to comply with under Article 13.
Article 13 puts in place will be far stricter than anything these websites have ever seen and the adpocalypse, these websites will likely take a "better safe than sorry" approach and Because these websites don't have the technology to be able to accurately determine whether or not content is in violation of fair use, their only option will be to block all content that might violate copyright law from being uploaded altogether, lest they face massive fines.
This means that anything on any major social media website - not just YouTube - with copyrighted content is at risk of being taken down, regardless of how badly it actually violates the law. Anything ranging from something as harmless to a SpongeBob meme to a full re-upload of a blockbuster movie will be blocked, thus changing the way the internet is used forever. This doesn't just affect the European Union. As a result of the connectivity of the internet, copyrighted content uploaded or created in another continent, like North America, can easily find its way into the EU, thus costing these social media websites more money. Because of this, it is highly likely that the changes in policy enacted as a response to Article 13in the EU will also carry over to the rest of the world.
Since the inception of the internet, the ability to use copyrighted content protected under fair use and safe harbor has allowed countless communities on the internet to thrive. YouTubers and other content creators have been able to use copyrighted soundtracks and media footage to make their own creative works, like music videos and parodies. Millions of memes have been made from movies and TV shows, thus creating a thriving meme culture. But by eliminating safe harbor and fining social media websites for any copyright infringement, Article 13 threatens to bring it all to an end - not just in Europe, but around the world.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/12/17849868/eu-internet-copyright-reform-article-11-13-approved
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/eu-article-13-passed-meme-war
https://www.alphr.com/politics/1009470/article-13-EU-what-is-it-copyright
https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2018/06/20/european-union-youtube-article-13/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2017/09/18/adpocalypse-2017-heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-youtubes-demonetization-troubles/#50a06a7b6c26
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/12/can-youtube-survive-the-adpocalypse.html
https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html
https://www.thebalancesmb.com/what-is-a-safe-harbor-law-or-provision-398457
This post expertly detailed how the attempt at regulating memes and copyright by the EU will affect more than just memes and will increase overall government regulations on the internet as a whole. I also agree that it will go beyond just the EU. Fortunately memes will be very hard to regulate as you stated. From your analysis I concluded that Article 13 basically adds to a trend for government regulations on sources of information. Formerly when the newspaper industry began to become popular, government censorship and regulations came into play whether they turned out successful or not I feel that the EU is attempting something similar and maybe less drastic but nevertheless along those lines.
ReplyDeleteI really appreciate the complexity of this article and how well it was written. While this is a ban on "memes" the name of the ban is a bit misleading. This proposal by the EU is much more dangerous than a simple ban on meme. This is a threat to a lot of social media, and the spread of content and information. The great thing about the internet, is that content from different countries is accesible to people around the world. Websites like youtube are great examples of this principle. The EU "meme ban is posing a grave threat to this principle. I think that people not only in Europe, but in the Unites States should be aware about how our content is limited or suppressed.
ReplyDeleteMy memes!!!
ReplyDeleteI read up on this to clarify, and it seems that although memes and things like that are technically covered by copyright at the moment, as they are in the "parody and caricature" category, that doesn't mean they might not get swept up in the witch hunt for all copyright. I agree with the perspective of the law that these services, like Internet and content providers, ought to have a duty to monitor the content on their sites. But perhaps that could be better directed to cracking down on hate speech, terrorist groups, or the likes. Getting rid of memes and offensive YouTube rants is probably a bit less useful for the world.