EU Lawmakers Push for Broader Debate on Copyright Revisions

The European Parliament nixed a plan to start immediate talks on a proposed copyright revision measure, seeking instead fuller debate in September. The 318-278 vote Thursday rejected a negotiating position proposed by the Legal Affairs (JURI) Committee, meaning the draft copyright directive won't go to "trilogue" discussions with the Council and European Commission but will be open to full legislative debate and amendment, parliament said. The JURI approach, by Member of the European Parliament (MEP) Axel Voss, of Germany and the European People's Party, supports the EC's controversial calls for a new right (Article 11, the "neighboring" right, also called the "snippet tax") for online news publishers, and for large platforms to filter users' uploads to prevent copyright breaches (Article 13) (see 1806200011).

The draft copyright directive sparked intense lobbying on both sides, which has gotten much worse, several MEPs said before the vote. Voss defended his report, saying it means the end of the exploitation of European creators on the internet by U.S. companies such as Google and Facebook. He slammed the fierce campaign against Articles 11 and 13, saying it's "based on lies." MEP Catherine Stihler, of the U.K. and the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, however, said the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee are united in wanting to safeguard European creators but have concerns about the impact of Article 13. Given the "huge controversy" about the methods proposed, "something's not right here," she said.

A JURI explanatory note about Article 11 and 13 attempted to counter criticisms. It noted that giving press publishers a neighboring right would only allow them to choose whether to seek remuneration for the digital use of the publications by information society service providers. The directive wouldn't cover hyperlinks and would have no impact on individual users because private and non-commercial uses of press publications aren't included, it said.

Article 13, which opponents say seeks to impose filtering obligations on platforms, would make such providers accountable, but only if they're "online content sharing service providers" whose main purposes are to give access to the public to copyright-protected works, JURI said. The provision would exclude noncommercial services such as encyclopedias and open source software development platforms, and there would be no general filtering measures required. It says measures should be proportionate and strike a balance between users' and right holders' fundamental rights, the document said. Article 13 "will not lead to censorship of the entire internet," it said.

This is the first time that a "tech file" has been sent to a full plenary vote, so it's groundbreaking, emailed Hogan Lovells (London) intellectual property attorney Alastair Shaw. It will be interesting to see what amendments are floated before that vote, which could come Sept.10-13, he said. Since the vote was fairly close, the shape of the overall package emerging from parliament in the long run "is still far from certain," Shaw said. After that comes the inter-institutional negotiation, and "it's possible that may get so bogged down that the directive is not passed at all before the end of the EU elections next May," he said. "If that happens the whole package could wither on the vine."

Strong Reactions

Press publishers and content creators blamed the vote on underhanded lobbying tactics. It's "disgraceful that a handful of powerful vested interests can get away with using misleading scare tactics and exaggerated false claims (that they know to be untrue) to interfere with the democratic process," said the European Publishers Council, European Magazine Media Association, European Newspaper Publishers' Association and News Media Europe. Lawmakers "gave in to the aggressive pressure put on them by digital platforms and the opponents to copyright instead of listening the European authors" whose earnings are suffering in the digital era, said Society of Audiovisual Authors Executive Director Cécile Despringre. Before the vote, lawmakers and citizens "were subjected to a disinformation campaign on a scale rarely seen before," said the Independent Music Companies Association. It accused opponents of trying to manipulate the press and threatening public shaming.

Opponents, however, cheered the outcome. MEPs have "understood that the proposed upload filters and the 'link tax' would unduly limit how users can participate and express themselves online and serve only special interests," said MEP Julia Reda, of Germany and the Greens/European Free Alliance: Voss' "attempt to dismiss well-founded criticism as 'fake news' has failed." Lawmakers "heard the grave concerns of the online sector, civil society and academics," said Computer & Communications Industry Association Senior Policy Manager Maud Sacquet. The vote "happened because people stood up and demanded better legislation," said European Digital Rights Senior Policy Advisor Diego Naranjo. The legislative debate on copyright reform "urgently needs re-direction," said European Consumer Organisation Director General Monique Goyens. MEPs now have a chance to "correct a heavily unbalanced report and make copyright work for both consumer and creators."

Lawmakers also approved a nonbinding resolution Thursday urging the EC to suspend trans-Atlantic personal data transfer program Privacy Shield unless the U.S. meets its commitments by September (see 1806120007). CCIA urged caution before rushing to a suspension of the agreement. "Privacy Shield has extended EU privacy standard globally while safeguarding international data flows which European firms and Europe's economy rely on," said CCIA Europe Senior Manager Alexandre Roure.