The members of the European Parliament Julia Reda wants to prevent adoption of the new copyright law. The freedom of the Internet could suffer from article 13, she says in an Interview with Deutsche Welle.
The EU institutions – Commission, Council and Parliament have reached agreement in negotiations on a draft law for the protection of authors on the Internet, mainly in Germany, great resistance. This weekend there are demonstrations of network activists, especially against the article 13. The grants authors the right of the free Upload of your content on platforms. In order to check such content, could be platforms, such as Youtube automated Upload of-use Filter. The computer programs that check whether, for example, in a Video, the upload, the copyrighted Material was used, and then lock. A red cloth for power of politicians, and politicians such as Julia Reda of the pirate party.
Deutsche Welle: wife, Reda, can you give a practical example of how the article 13 in the new EU copyright law, freedom of expression on the Internet would restrict?
There are many platforms for the benefit of the creators, but nevertheless, large quantities of copyrighted content. For example, there are platforms such as Patrion, which are used to pay for copyright. As the authors upload their work via Crowdfunding, you will be paid for by the Fans. Such platforms would need to use in the future Upload Filter and you would have to try, for all sorts of copyright-protected content, licenses to obtain, although there are only extremely rare copyrights are violated. This would mean that the operation of such platforms is considerably more costly and, actually, Creative for less money.
We take a great platform like Youtube, which the normal user controls. It is not understandable if they say, you can everything Possible to upload what you want, but nothing that is protected by copyright. That’s why you have to take care of it?
Julia Reda
It is already illegal to violate Youtube copyrights. Article 13 prescribes that Youtube needs to prevent in the future, even technically. It is impossible to meet without a lot of legal content. Music Youtube tried to do this today with its Content ID, a license application by the right holder. For example, there is a Video of an Anti-article-13-Demonstration in Berlin was classified as a violation of copyright: In the Background was heard on a car in the Demonstration of techno music and Content ID thought it would be a copyright violation, although it is entirely legal. To such problems occur in the future, with article 13 of the much more common.
Why is it legal if you use this music?
In Germany, there is an exception to copyright for minor accessories. If journalists in the public space movies and listen to music in the Background or hang a painting on the wall, then you don’t have to pay for it. This is also very important for the freedom of the press, because otherwise it would be extremely difficult to make documentaries and the like. If, therefore, article 13, would also be threatened, such copyright exceptions, such as the unessential accessories or quote, and you would have to pay for it, although such exceptions are, for good reason, free of charge.
If article 13 is not suitable, how can you protect the copyright?
We represent the principle: remunerate instead of prohibit. I think no one has something about it that Youtube, for example, GEMA should pay fees. While we have something: That upload must the filter be used, because article 13 says very clearly, that each holder of a right may request that his content be blocked. While we are is that platforms are affected, have no interest in that copyright to happen violations, and that such platforms could not be used in the future for sure.
Watch the Video 01:22 Share
Copyright: skepticism defies majority
Facebook Twitter google+ send Tumblr VZ Xing Newsvine Digg
Permalink https://p.dw.com/p/17ooc
Copyright: skepticism defies majority
The European Commission has disappointed me with your design for copyright reform extremely. At the beginning you said it was a matter of making the copyright of European and easier. That would have been very useful, because there are still large differences between countries, what is legal and what is not. Instead, many media companies have been able to bring in their Lobby-wish-list in this proposal. The opinion of the civil society and of experts has been ignored. We have, in the meantime, officer Statements against article 13 from the UN representative for freedom of the press, by the Federal data protection by many scientists. The have already incorporated years ago in this debate, but were ignored.
What have you achieved since then, in five years of work here in the European Parliament?
I think it is a great success that these protests against article 13 will now take place prior to the adoption by the European Parliament, and not afterwards, when the whole will be translated into national law. Very often, governments of unwelcome laws secretly, quietly claim, in Brussels, by pressing and then later: “Yes, we can do nothing to it. Since Brussels is to blame.” I think I’ve managed that this debate is taking place at the right time. We can put a stop to article 13 in the final vote.
Julia Reda (32) since 2014 member of the European Parliament for the German pirate party. The political scientist and publicist in Bonn as a member of the Committee on legal Affairs, above all to network policy and copyright reform.
The conversation Bernd Riegert.