Article 11 and 13

Article 11 and 13

Student’s Name

Instructor’s Name

Course

Date Article 11 and 13

The world has gone through a lot of transformations over the past years. One of the major transformation that the world has experienced in the development of technology. The development of technology has turned out to be an important element in different areas. There are various features of the technology that have been developed, and they can be used in various areas to make work easier. The internet is one result of technology which entails the different interconnection networks. The presence of the internet has led to availability if different types of information on various issues. As much as the internet has been significant in the current world, certain shortcomings are associated with it. Since there is a lot of information on the internet, many people tend to edit other people’s work to make it their own. As a result of this vice, copyright law has been established for the internet. The copyright law ensures that information that has been created by another person cannot be used without his or her permission. Within the law, various clauses have been established to help to guide copyright law. An example of these laws includes the article 11 and 13 (Carrier 2012). Significant changes have been made on these laws to change the copyright laws that have been in place for more than 20 years. Therefore, this paper will look at how article 11 and 13 have affected derivate work and social media sites.

Before the development of Article 11 and 13, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Google used to share different kinds of information which made them become the most renowned internet giants. However, with the establishment of article 11 and 13, these social media sites were affected. These sites were used sharing a lot of information. In some cases, these sites shared information that had been established by other people without giving than anything in exchange. Voting on this matter was done in Strasbourg, and the MEP voted in favor of the change in article 11 and 13 (Joyce et al. 2016). The high vote means that the power of the internet giants that is Google, Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube would be cut down and the amount information that they were sharing will be regulated so that they cannot share other people’s work without their knowledge. The development of article 11 and 13 will help in the enhancement of media ethics. The media ethics will be enhanced in the sense that information that has been created by other people will be protected. Therefore, one has to ask for permission before he or she uses information that belongs to another person.

Article 11 is believed to be one of the most controversial laws that the European government has passed about the new copyright measures(Joyce et al. 2016). Article 11 has been referred to as the Link tax, but it does not have anything to do about the hyperlinks. This article will affect the derivative work and social media sites because it will prevent companies that are known to feature the snippet of other people context without giving them anything in exchange. Therefore, the presence of this law will ensure that companies have to be careful. These companies have to develop come with their ideas if they are not ready to pay other people for using their content. Article 11 affect various companies in several ways. Other companies might have their content, but they do not know how they will put it. Therefore, some of these companies will look for information that had been established by other people. These companies will then use the pieces of information to create their headline as well as the first paragraph text (Joyce et al. 2016). According to article 11, this activity means that the copyright of an individual has been infringed. Therefore, such companies are expected to come up with a way that they can pay the original owners of these works so that they can avoid violating the law. Not only will these companies be affected but also individuals. Several people post information on social media for various reason such as blogging. Most of the information that these individuals use are derived from the internet. Some people will use information that he or she has found without changing anything. This approach is an act of copyright infringement. Therefore, such individuals have to be keen when they are looking for information. In the event they use someone’s work to come up with information, they should give that person credit, or they should pay them some in exchange. This law has helped to reduce the amount of information that is being shared on different social media sites because many people or companies fear that they may share something that could have been created by someone else thus landing a person into trouble of paying the original owner of particular work.

Since article 11 was established, it has been hard on various companies and individuals concerning the derivative work on social media. However, it was softened in last year September. Before article 11 was softened, it focused on individual works in a sentence as part of the copyright laws, and it was harsh because words could be easily used in a different situation (Stamatoudi and Torremans 2014). In the developed law, single words that form part of a sentence were ruled out from these rules. Therefore, when websites used individual words from other websites, they will not be charged for the violation of copyright law. Also, most websites were supposed to pay a person when they linked back to his or her work. Under the revised article 11, individuals will not be expected to pay a person when they linked back to his or her work. When someone’s work is linked on a website, it is a sign that credit has been given to it.

The presence of this law has been advantageous to the original content creator because they will be paid for their works and they will be given credit that will make many people visit their work. However, this law has had tremendous effects especially on social media websites such as the search engines. Since Google focuses on sharing information from other sites, it protested that it would remove the google new services from Europe because they will have to pay for a lot of information(Stamatoudi and Torremans 2014). The development of article 11 has resulted in great fears, and the main one is that most search engines will stop displaying a lot of content. The search engines depend on information from different places so that it can provide to its users. Article 11 will require that it pays a lot of money since the amount of information that it shares is also high. Therefore, this law will result in these companies reducing their content so that they can avoid paying a huge amount of money. On the bad side, this issue will derive people the right to access information within a click. Therefore, the derivative work will be affected by this law because many people will avoid using other people work because the amount can be high for them to afford.

Article 13 was created alongside article 11, and it has had some positive as well as negative effects on the derivative work and social media sites. The main focus of article 13 is on the contents being uploaded on different social media sites (Fromer 2014). In the past years, individuals would upload anything on social media sites, and they would be free. In some cases, some people would re-post information from other people exactly how it is. Such individuals would then benefit from these works more than the original creators. Many people found this issue to be unfair, and they welcomed the development of the copyright law that would protect their work, and other people earn from their work. The development of article 13 will have to bother positive and negative impacts. The positive effects that will be experienced as a result of this rule is that the works of many people will be protected. Any person who would want to use information that is not theirs would then obtain copyright right by paying the original creator of the information (Walker & Depoorter 2014). As a result of the development of article 13, most technology companies were given a huge task to undertake. These companies allow their users to post the information over the social media and it means that they can monitor any piece of information being uploaded over their network. Therefore, article 13 required that these companies should act as police and follow up on the contents being uploaded over their sites. These companies were made to develop the mechanisms that would be used to filter different types of contents that are being uploaded. Through this means of filtering, these technology companies will be able to scan the information being posted by each of their users. Scanning will help these technology companies to identify any work that has violated copyright rules(Walker & Depoorter 2014). As a result, any work that violates any rule will not be successfully uploaded. The presence of this article has reduced derivative work because people nowadays cannot derive other people’s work for their benefit since it will be flagged down.

Since article 13 was developed, it became the most debated issue among the whole copyright directive. Many people have emerged and claimed that that the presence of this last would bring an end to memes which are jokes that are always shared over the social media. The other problem that is associated with this rule is that it will kill the freedom of expression of many people only social media (Savola 2014). Many people are going through various situations, and sometimes they feel the need to express themselves so that they can find a solution to their problems. Such individuals might opt for social media to express themselves. These individuals might go ahead and use information that has been created by other people for expression. However, these people will suffer a set back because they will not be able to express themselves using other people’s content because social media sites will prevent information.

Since these technology companies have been mandated by the law to monitor their contents, they are the ones who will be responsible in the event an instance of violation of this copyright law will be identified. The enactment of this law has been effective for companies such as YouTube which is Google owned. This company has put in place measures to filter the content from various users thus preventing incidences of copyright violation. This issue will affect social media websites because they will have a lot of work to regulate information and they will then post limited information on various elements. As a result, YouTube has managed to gain a competitive advantage over other technological companies. However, this approach does not imply that YouTube is pleased with this approach. The CEO of Google has argued that these measures are unrealistic. These measures were termed to be unrealistic because the majority of the owner of these websites are often at loggerheads on who is the rightful owner of the information that is posted online. As a result, this element has put in much pressure on these social media websites to determine who is right or wrong.

This article will affect the derivative work because people will no longer be using content that they find on the social media to create their own because they understand that they will be flagged down and their content will not be posted (McKendrick 2014). Many parties rely on derivative work to come up with different issues. One such party is the textbook publishers who rely mostly on content found online to develop their work. Some of their works are then sold online as eBook or journals. The presence of article 13 will affect the publishers in the sense that when they post these eBooks or journals, they will be removed because they have some content that matches online information. The publishers would have to concentrate on the piece of information that they and they might not provide quality work to their audience if they had used the contents found online. Therefore, they might go at a loss for seeing substandard materials to their customers. The other effect that will be evident from the presence of Article 13 is that there will be limited access to online content as compared to the current situation. Article 13 will provide options whereby most of the content that will be available from large companies. The large companies will then take advantage of this issue by forcing most of its users to pay a lot of money so that they can access the contents that they are providing.

Concluding, it is evident that the development of article 11 and 13 have affected the derivative work and the social media in various ways. The development of these two rules as a result of the advancements that have been experienced in technology over the past few years. The rise in technology has been on the major transformation that the world has experienced over the past few years. Technology has come along with numerous impacts on the daily lives of human beings because it has helped in how they are done. There are various features of the technology that have been developed, and one of the major ones is the internet. The internet is the interconnection of the global computer networks that are used to share different types of information from various sources. The internet has come up with different website whereby information can be found easily. However, there are certain incidences whereby individual might use the works that have been created by other people. The vice has been deemed unfair because some people have benefited greatly from using other people’s work to create their content. This factor has led to the establishment of copyright laws. The presence of copyright laws have been effective because people will be paid for their work or they will be given credit. These copyright laws have been existence for close to 20 years. Changes have been made, and article 11 and 13 have been established within the copyright law. The presence of article 11 and 13 will enhance the ethical media issue because it will help to protect other people’s work and that no one will benefit from what he or she did not create. Article 11 became one of the most controversial law within the copyright measures. This rule advocated for companies that feature snippets that have been created by other people should pay them. When this law was softened it, technological companies were allowed to use links on their websites that would direct other people to the information contained in them. Article 13 was developed alongside article 11 whereby it focuses on the filtering of contents uploaded over their media. The development of this law called for the technological companies to screen information upload to ensure that original works are protected. Article 13 has turned out to be one of the most debated copyright rules compared to Article 11. Many critics have emerged saying that the use of this article will kill the culture of meme many people use information that is available to create their content. This element will affect the freedom of expression as well as satire. Also, the development of this rule will force most technology companies to be responsible for the content that is found within their sites for the first time in history. This development of these two laws has had both negative and positive effect on the derivative work. Derivative work involves obtaining information from another place to create content. Several parties that depend on the derivative work will be affected. An example of the affected groups will be textbook publishers. Most textbook publishers rely on information that is found only to produce their materials. These companies may then decide to post some of their materials inline in the form of e-books or journals. Since most of the information contained in these materials were obtained from different websites online, they will be removed. Therefore, they will not be able to sell their content.

References

Carrier, M. A. (2012). SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, TPP: An Alphabet Soup of Innovation-Stifling Copyright Legislation and Agreements. Nw. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop., 11, iii. Retrieved from: https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/nwteintp11&section=5

Joyce, C., Ochoa, T. T., Carroll, M. W., Leaffer, M. A., & Jaszi, P. (2016). Copyright law (p. 542). Durham: Carolina Academic Press.

Stamatoudi, I., & Torremans, P. (Eds.). (2014). EU copyright law: A commentary. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Fromer, J. C. (2014). An Information Theory of Copyright Law. Emory LJ, 64, 71.

Walker, R. K., & Depoorter, B. (2014). Unavoidable Aesthetic Judgments in Copyright Law: A Community of Practice Standard. Nw. UL Rev., 109, 343. Retrieved from: https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/illlr109&section=14

Savola, P. (2014). Blocking injunctions and website operators’ liability for copyright infringement for user-generated links. European Intellectual Property Review (EIPR), (5), 279-288. Retrieved from: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2432248

McKendrick, E. (2014). Contract law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press (UK).