The overriding issue regarding this EU Parliament decision is its threat to free speech.The root of the threat is that it makes Internet platforms liable for their users’ content Making Internet companies the copyright enforcers and effectively content policemen makes no sense given the likelihood that they will err on the side of caution and overblock to avoid any potential penalty.
Content usage oversight and control should be the responsibility of the rights holders. Only they should have the ability and responsibility to take down material. They too can provide the necessary justification for such action.
By allocating liability for user content to the Internet platforms, the emergence and application of automated filters will become commonplace. That is the only means whereby huge amounts of data content can be scanned in line with the EU directive.
There is an inherent problem with this content policing mechanism namely that automated filters are far from perfect. They can recognise copyrighted material but they struggle to comprehend context.
The likelihood of them being able to differentiate between copyright infringement VERSUS fair use of copyrighted material is a critical distinction. One that automated filters fail!
Finally the dispute mechanism leaves many unanswered questions.
A sensible approach would be that rights holders take users to court. Instead we now have a situation whereby users take rights holders to court.
Too often the EU is accused of control freakery and over or mis-regulation.This is a prime example.
What it does of course do is pave the way for Internet usage and application future taxation – just one means ahead for the EU to generate finance.