Copyright Content Moderation in the EU: Conclusions and Policy Recommendations (D6.4) (original) (raw)
Related papers
2021
This interim report consists of six chapters. Chapter 1 includes a brief introduction and outline of the Interim Report. Chapter 2 identifies our research questions, sets out our conceptual framework and methodology.The main research question of this Interim Mapping Report is as follows: How can we map the impact on access to culture in the Digital Single Market (DSM) of content moderation of copyright-protected content on online platforms? For the purposes of this Interim Report, we can divide this research question in the following sub-research questions (SQR) .-SQR1: How to conceptualise and approach from a methodological approach the interdisciplinary analysis of content moderation of copyright-protected content on online platforms and its impact on access to culture in the DSM? -SQR2:How is the private and public regulatory framework for content moderation for online platforms structured? -SQR3:How do the various elements of that regulatory framework interact? -SQR4:How are cop...
IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 2023
This Opinion describes and summarises the results of the interdisciplinary research carried out by the authors during the course of a three-year project on intermediaries' practices regarding copyright content moderation. This research includes the mapping of the EU legal framework and intermediaries' practices regarding copyright content moderation, the evaluation and measuring of the impact of moderation practices and technologies on access and diversity, and a set of policy recommendations. Our recommendations touch on the following topics: the definition of ''online content-sharing service provider''; the recognition and operationalisation of user rights; the complementary nature of complaint and redress safeguards; the scope of permissible preventive filtering; the clarification of the relationship between Art. 17 of the new Copyright Directive and the Digital Services Act; monetisation and restrictive content moderation actions; recommender systems and copyright content moderation; transparency and data access for researchers; trade secret protection and transparency of content moderation systems; the relationship between the copyright acquis, the Digital Services Act and the upcoming Artificial Intelligence Act; and human competences in copyright content moderation. Keywords Copyright Á Content moderation Á Intermediaries Á Platforms Á Digital Services Act Á Digital single market 1 This Opinion is a condensed and updated version of a conclusions and recommendations report summarizing the results of the research carried out in the context of Work Package 6 on intermediaries' practices regarding copyright content moderation and removal, as part of the reCreating Europe project, which received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 870626. 2 Quintais et al. (2022b); Schwemer et al. (2023a); Quintais et al. (2022a).
2019
Within the recent European policies and actions on illegal content, a trend towards algorithmic enforcement of content regulation has emerged. Regardless of the nature of the content, hard and soft law provisions more or less explicitly require online platforms to resort to technological systems to comply with the law. The use of technology to enforce the law is certainly not new, especially in the realm of copyright law. Copyright law is indeed the perfect example of how the adoption of technology by online intermediaries has over the time altered the contours of the law itself. The last step in this process is the employment of algorithmic systems to filter content uploaded by third parties and the use of autonomous decision-making to select the content that can appear online. This not only determines a shift from an ex post to an ex ante algorithmic enforcement but also clashes with the current safe harbor regime as, regardless of the wave of legislative interventions that have introduced several new rules on content, the conditional liability regime for online platforms has been left untouched, or rather, uncoordinated. This legislative move towards algorithmically enforcing legal rules and content regulation raises concerns not only as to its consistency with the current legal framework but also-and more worrisomely-as to its impact on individual rights and societal development in general. As to now the solutions proposed in literature and the few safeguards adopted at legislative level do not seem capable to overcome the shortcoming of algorithmic copyright enforcement, and a more coordinated and balanced action ought to be undertaken. For this reason, this paper proposes a regulatory toolkit for a more balanced algorithmic copyright enforcement that could, hopefully, also provide insights for a better algorithmic society overall. The starting point is the adoption of a principle for a more balanced algorithmic copyright enforcement regime, which translates into the need for open record policies and a right to explanation. This in turn is coupled with the obligation of a right-based impact assessment and a right to audit. The regulatory toolkit herein formulated represents a first step towards a more coordinated approach to algorithmic copyright enforcement and it contributes to the current debate on algorithmic enforcement by introducing the discussion on "balance by design", i.e. the engineering of online platforms from their beginning in a way that takes into consideration all the rights involved.
Mediating Surveillance: The Developing Landscape of European Online Copyright Enforcement
Journal of Contemporary European Research, 2013
After a period of relative laissez faire, governments around the world are beginning to attempt to regulate online life, for a variety of reasons, through various mechanisms of surveillance and control. The drive to enforce the respect of copyright is at the forefront of these attempts, a highly controversial topic which pits proponents of the rights of the creative industry against advocates of freedom of speech. Apart from their inflammatory nature, one distinguishing characteristic of most of these schemes is that they are mediated: that is, they are conducted with the help of third parties, most often internet service providers. The mediation of surveillance is something as yet relatively underexplored by the field of surveillance studies, whose theoretical tools are by and large focussed on a two way relationship between watcher and watched. This article seeks to remedy this deficit, by examining the dynamics of mediation in the context of online copyright enforcement. We argue that, far from being a neutral process, the displacement of surveillance to third parties has a crucial impact on the way in which it is conducted. In particular, the expanding capacity of mediators becomes a reason for justifying surveillance in and of itself.
Is EU copyright law a danger to online freedom of Expression
The present paper discusses recent evolutions in jurisprudence on online copyright law enforcement in Europe, emphasizing consequences for freedom of expression. It debates whether free speech is menaced by application of this case law. First, reference is made to the relevant case law at the European level. Secondly, the author refers to injunctions against intermediaries and concludes that the danger to freedom of expression has been identified and taken in account by the court. Finally, the author refers to the parallel jurisprudential evolution of copyright law related to hyperlinks and demonstrates that here the issue of freedom of expression has not been taken enough into consideration, something that may have disastrous consequences.
An analysis of articles 15 and 17 of the directive on copyright in the digital single market
2020
The digital revolution has had a strong impact on copyright-intensive industries. The ease of removing rightholders' information from their works and distributing content in the online environment contributes to the difficulties faced by rightholders seeking to effectively license their rights and obtain remuneration for the online distribution of their works. This has allegedly become a threat to the future production of creative content. While some studies demonstrate that within the copyright industries the sky is rising rather than falling, the emergence of a growing value gap is indisputable. With online platforms gaining more revenue as a result of digitalisation en masse, the European Commission decided that the right step forward is to improve the position of rightholders by placing additional burdens on those that allowed them to thrive. The European Commission introduced the Digital Single Market Copyright Directive with a hope of ensuring that consumers and creators c...
EU Copyright law, an ancient history, a contemporary challenge, 2022
in past evolutions. In the process of establishing modern copyright law, the influence of technological changes appears to be an intrinsic element of the regulation of copyright law. Indeed, rather than being external to copyright law, technology forms an integral part of the very fabric of law. 1 A dialectic relationship between copyright law and technology is generally accepted. Technology poses new challenges to copyright
Fine-Tuning European Copyright Law to Strike a Balance between the Rights of Owners and Users
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2000
Directive 2001/29 (the EU Copyright Directive) aims to repress copyright infringement in the digital environment through the harmonisation of copyright discipline and the safeguard of technological protection measures (TPMs). It claims that this harmonisation is instrumental to the protection of the exclusive rights of the owners while granting protection to the fundamental rights of the public, such as freedom of information and the circulation of culture. The contribution of this paper is twofold. First, by analysing the Directive's national implementation in the 27 Member States of the European Union, it assesses the extent to which the Directive attained the intended harmonisation and whether this is effective to achieve the balance of rights. Secondly, after the identification of areas of dysfunction, the paper proposes an alternative strategy to reach a harmonisation able to strike a better balance between the rights of owners and users.