The Dark Side of Article 13: Why It's Worse Than Article 11

When discussing the EU Copyright Directive, two articles often stand out in the minds of both copyright holders and web publishers: Article 13 and Article 11. While Article 11 puts a moderate burden on news publishers to obtain licenses for linking to news articles, Article 13 takes a much more daunting step towards content regulation. In this article, we will delve into why Article 13 is indeed worse than Article 11 in terms of its impact on the internet.

Resolving the Issue Under Article 11

From a practical perspective, Article 11 sets a clear requirement that can be documented and managed. Essentially, websites need to obtain a license to link to news articles from publishers. This requirement does not completely reverse the government's position or impose an unmanageable burden on web publishers, as the law and its enforcement currently are still within the realm of moderation and licensing.

The Overreaching Nature of Article 13

On the other hand, Article 13 radically alters the status quo by requiring web publishers to implement sophisticated content-matching technologies to prevent the upload and sharing of copyrighted content. This approach is fraught with challenges and risks.

The main issue with Article 13 is its overreaching nature. Prior to the implementation of Article 13, web publishers, such as YouTube, had a relatively clear and manageable responsibility. Under the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) safe harbor, they were not held responsible for the content uploaded by users as long as they took prompt action to remove it upon a takedown notice.

Content-Matching Technologies: A Double-Edged Sword

Article 13 shifts the onus entirely onto web publishers to pre-screen and filter all the content before it is posted. This requirement goes beyond mere takedown notices and demands an extensive review of content before it goes live. While platforms like YouTube have shown that automated content filtering is technically possible, it is far from infallible. Misinterpretations and false positives can lead to the removal of legitimate content, thereby stifling free speech and creativity.

Stripping Away the DMCA Safe Harbor

By stripping away the DMCA safe harbor, Article 13 makes web publishers fully responsible for user-uploaded content. This burden is akin to placing the responsibility of a copyright police force on web publishers, which is a monumental and unrealistic task. It not only complicates the legal landscape but also inevitably leads to an increase in complaints and lawsuits, as content creators and users alike look for redress.

The Consequences of Overzealous Regulation

The biggest challenge with Article 13 lies in its potential to suppress fair dealing and creative works. Concepts such as parody, satire, and transformative works would be at risk under the stringent-matching technologies. Content that falls under fair dealing would be unfairly targeted, leading to an environment that hinders innovation and free expression.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while both Article 11 and Article 13 aim to address issues with copyright infringement on the internet, Article 13's approach is far more detrimental to the principles of free speech and the efficient management of content online. It overreaches in its legal requirements and undermines the foundation of social media and news aggregation, leading to potential censorship and a chilling effect on creativity. Therefore, Article 13 is indeed worse than Article 11, and its implementation poses significant risks to the internet as we know it.

Note: While this article aims to provide a balanced perspective, it is important to seek legal advice from a licensed attorney before making any decisions that may affect your rights. Quora users who provide responses to legal questions are intended third party beneficiaries with certain rights under Quora's Terms of Service.