The Copyright Directive reshapes the open web, creating a different version of the internet for Europe and for everyone else

In the wake of last week’s unfortunate decision by the EU Parliament to vote for the terrible EU Copyright Directive, Casey Newton over at the Verge has a thoughtful piece about how this could lead to the internet splitting into three.

For months now we’ve all heard the refrain: Article 13 (now Article 17) of the EU Copyright Directive would not require filters. We all knew it was untrue. We pointed out many times that it was untrue, and that there was literally no way to comply unless you implemented filters (filters that wouldn’t work and would ban legitimate speech), and were yelled at for pointing this out. Here’s the MEP in charge of the Directive flat out insisting that it won’t require filters last year:

Shortly after vote on amendments, 13 MEPs asked for vote to be recorded differently

The European Parliament has voted in favor of the final text of the Copyright Directive, controversial new legislation that redefines copyright in Europe for the internet age. Articles 11 and 13 — the ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’ — were both approved by European politicians

Sites including Reddit, Twitch, and PornHub are also encouraging users in the EU to contact local politicians

After years of thrashing out the text of the proposed update to the EU Copyright Directive, we have come to what is almost certainly the final vote, in the European Parliament plenary early next week. You might think at this stage that it would be all over, with nothing new emerging, and most people simply accepting things as they are. Nothing could be further from the truth. The last few weeks have seen some of the most dramatic developments in the already fraught passage of the Directive through the legislative process.

Experts warn about EU law that could change the architecture of the internet, forcing websites to install flawed and expensive filters that would block satirical content like memes and lead to digital monopolization.

David Kaye, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, has raised the alarm over the EU’s proposals for Article 13 and its de facto filtering requirements. ‘Such sweeping pressure for pre-publication filtering is neither a necessary nor proportionate response to copyright infringement online,’ Kaye warns.

Senator Elizabeth Warren held a campaign rally in Long Island City, Queens, on Friday. She announced a plan aimed at breaking up some of America’s largest tech companies, including Amazon, Google, Apple and Facebook.

Copyright overhaul could effectively mandate automated content filtering.

In a previous editorial, I pointed out that at the heart of Article 13 in the proposed EU Copyright Directive there’s a great lie: that it is possible to check for unauthorised uploads of material without inspecting every single file. The EU has ended up in this absurd position because it knows that many MEPs would reject the idea of imposing a general monitoring obligation on online services – not least because the e-Commerce Directive explicitly forbids it. Instead, the text of Article 13 simply pretends that technical alternatives can be found, without specifying them. The recently-issued “Q and A on the draft digital copyright directive” from the European Parliament then goes on to explain that if services aren’t clever enough to come up with other ways, and use upload filters, then obviously it’s their own fault.