At the beginning of June 2018, European lawmakers rejected a proposal by the European Parliaments Committee on Legal Affairs (known as JURI) to begin negotiations to update copyright laws for the digital age. The Parliament will now review once again in September.

While the debate surrounding copyright continues to unfold, let’s take a moment to look at the main arguments in this controversial debate. The right of communication to the public under Article 3(1) of the Information Society Directive has been subject to many reviews and over time it has become increasingly complex but hugely important, especially regarding exploitation.

First proposed by the European Commission in 2016, the new amendments aim to ensure that artists, news publishers, authors and performers benefit from the internet in the 21st century as part of the EU’s Digital Single Market strategy. The controversial provision in question has been named Article 13. It would require the likes of Google and Microsoft to install filters to ensure that there are no copyrighted materials being uploaded. They would also be required to pay for the rights to share or link content in what is being called a ‘tax on links’ under what has been named as Article 11. If uncompliant, they could be liable for copyright infringement and legal action.

Currently, the latest rules surrounding copyright date all the way back to 2001 and represent a vastly different online world in comparison to today. To represent modern life, we need a to adapt the law to tackle the challenges we face today, not 17 years ago. In addition, most copyright exceptions in EU law today are currently optional and do not apply across borders. This calls for the need to have an all-encompassing directive that creates equal opportunities across Europe regardless of borders.

The main issue with the current stance is that many artists and publishers are not getting paid for their work, while the bigger powerful online content-sharing platforms and news publishers make a considerable profit. It is this that the new copyright legislation will aim to address. The argument is based on fair pay for work applying whether in the physical or online world, and the proposed amendments would ensure that artists and creators are remunerated for their work.

Proposed changes will address the amount of text that can be shown by others without paying and sharing platforms will have to either pay fees to right-holders for the use of their content (text, images and videos) or ensure that the content material is blocked if the platform will not pay.

So, what are the oppositions arguments, and why do they disagree with the proposals?

In summary, it is believed that the new proposals damage fundamental rights and freedoms, economy and competitiveness, education and research, innovation, creativity and culture.

Many believe the new proposals will restrict access to research and information and threaten an informed and literate society. They also believe that this could see the end of the free internet as an open and innovative platform, and damage what it means to be a democratic society.

Those leading these arguments are academics, internet experts, tech leaders and the likes of Tim Berners-Lee, the creator of the world wide web, and Wikipedia founder, Jimmy Wales who stated that the changes would turn the internet into a tool for surveillance and control. In protest the Italian and Spanish versions of Wikipedia blocked user access for a period in an attempt to highlight the possible results.

It is important to remember that internet giants are against these changes because they are a direct contrast to their business model which relies on a free space that is largely unregulated, with policy-makers trusting their own willingness to self-regulate. Nonetheless, we all as citizens benefit from this model. Access to information is a something that everyone takes for granted and it’s something that we should value. For educational reasons in particular.

While the fair treatment of artists and creators is certainly something that needs to be addressed, the opposing arguments paint a dark picture of what it could mean for the internet. Having said that, those that are involved in the process felt that the criticisms of the copyright law were misleading and that they would not lead to widespread censorship and content blockers.

The problem is, no one appears to know what websites would be affected and how. While the big players like Google and Facebook are a huge part of the internet of course there are countless smaller outlets that we, and legislators, must not forget about. Smaller platforms will have a much more difficult time filtering content, which means they will probably not do such a great job, which may lead then to block as much content as possible to avoid any legal action.

While Article 13 is drawing the greatest debate, it is also important to recognise the possible issues with Article 11. The ‘link tax’ which will impose a tax on platforms linking to other articles will cost publishers huge sums. Members of the European Parliament have suggested that it could boost fake news as legitimate outlets are more likely to enforce the tax while less reliable sources are not.

So, in breaking down the main issues that are being sited, on one hand we have the unfair treatment of artists and content creators and on the other side there could potentially be a widespread restriction of content and access to knowledge and information, and the spread of less reliable news.

While fair treatment is of course a priority, in a society where literacy, education and truth are a basis of a functioning, healthy democracy, any threat to this needs to be taken seriously.

So, while decision-makers go back to the drawing board, there needs to be a clearer idea of what will be done, who it will affect and how they will be affected. While it can be generally accepted that the internet and business models will continue to evolve, as in the case with a society based on technology, the proposals will result in considerable changes to the internet as we know it, and we need to know what we’re in for!