Of Roberto Pecchioli
Source: Heretically
The EU Copyright Directive was approved by the European Parliament with 348 votes in favour,274 antonyms and 36 abstained. Once again the community institutions have proven to be enemies of the concrete freedom of citizens and shameless servants of large interest groups. The commitment of the large political-popular groupings is not surprising, socialists, liberals – in favor of the new legislation, much less the unanimous enthusiasm of the so-called "big press", whose publishers are the biggest beneficiaries of the new legislation. It is worth remembering that EU directives do not immediately become law in the Member States, who are given time to adapt their respective legislation. The compact opposition to the League and Five Star directive, in addition to that of various exponents of other orientations, leaves some faint glimmer of hope in the Italian Parliament.
Julia Reda is right, German deputy of the Pirate movement, leader of the opposition to the legislation, when he states that these are dark days for internet freedom. Let us therefore try to orient ourselves in the labyrinth of controversies that have accompanied the path of the directive. The declared objective, shareable, is to reform and modernize the rules relating to licensed content circulating online (copyright, intellectual property, ecc.). The directive establishes a series of measures the result of which will be prohibition, making them impossible, some daily habits of internet users: share news on social networks or post “memes”, content created by users, if subject in whole or in part to licenses or rights. The privatization of the network for the benefit of a few large companies is a done deal, with all the consequences in terms of limitation of freedom.
The controversy mainly affects two articles. The article 15 establishes the payment of a sum, already defined link tax, to be able to share content through links to other sites. That is, you are obliged to pay to disseminate content; the result will be that extracts and many contents will no longer be able to be shown (and sites) or they will cease to be available. The article is even more controversial 17, which forced large social media (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Youtube) and search engines to establish filters to automatically block everything covered by copyright. According to many experts, the imposition of the link tax is absurd, especially if referring to the content of the media, who in many cases are the most interested in the dissemination and sharing of their news. Others, such as the Platform in Defense of Freedom of Expression, underline the negative impact on information pluralism, today insured almost exclusively by the network, due to the dependence of the entire communication system on the oligarchic domes of power.
The interested media, starting with Google, will make extensive use of so-called "loading filters", very expensive complex instruments available to few, powerful artificial intelligence software tasked with inspecting immense amounts of data. Although the legislation exempts subjects with modest turnover from the obligations, this will expel from the market those who are unable to carry out the prescribed checks. They will remain active, as in all other economic sectors, the giants, in the face of the totem of competition and the free market. The most obvious risk, already manifested in numerous episodes starring Facebook, is that censorship – since that is what it is about – is not carried out by human subjects, but by algorithms, mathematical equations and models.
Industry professionals admit that large tech corporations, the usual Google, Facebook, Apple, will make extensive use of what they call “false positives”, or they will exercise maximum censorship at the slightest doubt to avoid lawsuits and requests for compensation. The directive recognizes a certain freedom in the context of simple citations, but it is very difficult for the nuances of judgment to reach the mathematical models, which will end up generating automatic blocking mechanisms. The machine has only one interest, recognize the content in which extracts covered by rights appear. The legislation provides that it is possible to appeal against "technological" censorship, but indicates as responsible the managers of services that allow content to be shared, effectively forcing them to put in place cancellation filters, that is, practicing gigantic censorship. Only supervision will be a human responsibility, so the outcome is obvious: closing first, then the request for intervention following a complaint from the "banned" user. Result, less freedom, closed spaces for the "little ones", ostracism of opponents.
The first opinion polls indicate strong irritation, Seven out of ten Europeans interviewed believe that the European Parliament has used intellectual property as an excuse to cut off freedom of expression. Intellectuals have moved, teachers, scientists, common citizens. An open letter was signed by over one hundred and thirty leading managers, convinced that the new provisions will end up damaging the economy. Between them, the name of David Kaye stands out, United Nations rapporteur on freedom of expression. The truth is that the text voted for is a clever compromise on our skin between the digital giants and the lobbies of copyright holders, licensing and intellectual property.
Only on the surface is the directive contrary to the interests of the Silicon Valley giants. Let's not forget that a few weeks ago the issue of imposing a tax was postponed to a later date (modest)European tax to be paid by them, the largest tax evaders and evaders on the planet through deterritorialization mechanisms and the creation of business carousels and invoicing rounds that prevent tax collection. The celebration for the approval of Antonio Tajani's directive, the journalist, former Berlusconi spokesperson, who rose to the presidency of the European Parliament, demonstrates the subservience of the major European political forces.
Right, the unprecedented alliance between sectors of non-conformist public opinion and the lords of the web is surprising, but the facts show that the new rules, as well as heavily attacking freedom of expression, therefore critical thinking, they are a new brick in the construction of a totally privatized world, where everything, starting from culture, it is subjected to an obscene property right that superordinates everything. We do not believe in the sincerity of the opposition to Google's directive, Mozilla, Twitter and Wikipedia, but the XNet animators are not wrong, platform specialized in digital rights, to affirm that the one voted in Strasbourg is a technophobic text, tailor-made for copyright monopolists, moreover, it is not capable of guaranteeing the right of authors to make a worthy living from their work. The remuneration, Indeed, it will come to them only to a limited extent, remaining in the hands of the publishers, as the League delegation to the European Parliament observes.
A Twitter spokesperson said: “We maintain our concern about the implications of the vote on the creative nature, open, aimed at the debate, of the Internet". Yes Google, whose Google News platform feeds on external links, they say they are worried about the confusing aspects of the text, destined to generate endless legal disputes. Mozilla, creator of the popular cross-platform browser Firefox, he openly declares that the rule serves to protect the earnings of large rights holders(publishers, majors musicali), to the detriment of the public, with little protection for millions of authors and small and medium-sized businesses.
The level of pessimism is great, and concerns both the impact on users and practical implementation. It is the current opinion that the article contains obvious contradictions, fueling such confusion that we cannot make predictions, if we don't realize that it will profoundly change the way we experience the Internet. The EU offers big search engines and global social networks new power and a grave responsibility, in exchange for money to be distributed to publishers, trademark holders, licenses and copyrights, their large advertising clients. It's a round game, in the end, in which the big technological and economic players sing and play it among themselves. They fight for gigantic profits, such as online advertising sales, in the hands of three quarters of only two subjects, Google and Facebook, they slaughter each other, or pretend to, for dividing the cake, but the product they sell, once again, it's us, with invoice paid by us.
No regard, on their part, for our interests and the right to know, spread, produce content, that is, ideas, knowledge, culture. Within certain limits we can understand it, they are private individuals dedicated solely to profit. What is most outrageous is the servile attitude of those who, the harmful European parliament, has become the internal body of the large lobbies, it should represent the voice of the people, the general interest, the public dimension. We can only hope for the capacity for popular mobilization- which proceeds mainly from the Internet! – and in the voters' punishment of the "system" political forces in the European elections of 26 maggio, such as to call the directive into question. At the Italian level, supports the government's position, to be verified when the rule must become state law, but it negatively affects the almost unanimous favorable European vote of the left-wing deputies, only to chatter sensitive to the issue of citizens' freedom.
Vigilance must be maximum, combined with the most timely information, insured- as long as possible- from those sectors of the Internet whose gag is the final objective of the great centers of power. Of course, dal 26 March 2019 half a billion Europeans are less free and have lost part of the right to free information. On the other hand, oligarchies are stronger, especially the large publishing groups, rib of the domes of power, and the profit-oriented cultural industry. As for the tech giants, will continue to exercise their monopoly, by paying something to the owners of intellectual property rights. They will do the dirty work of power, they will decide for everyone and continue not to pay taxes. The bill, as always, the economic one and that of less freedom, of the censored information, of ideas banned by postmodern loan sharks,it is the responsibility of the people and citizens.