The Court of Justice of the European Union issued the long-awaited a few days ago decision on the compatibility of the content filtering requirements of the EU Copyright Directive with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The ruling recognizes the conflict between copyright filters and the right to freedom of expression, but does not prohibit content filters.
Under Article 17 (formerly Article 13) of the controversial EU Copyright Directive, large companies technology they must ensure that potentially infringing content is not available on their platforms or they may be held liable for it. Given this legal risk, platforms will inevitably rely on error-prone automatic upload filters that undermine legitimate online freedom – as Poland pointed out in its legal challenge
There are no alternatives solutions in filtering tools, but strong safeguards
The Court has recognized that the obligation under Article 17 to review the content constitutes de facto requirement for the use of automatic recognition and filtering tools and considered that such mechanisms would in fact constitute an interference with users' rights to freedom of expression. However, as with last year opinion of the Advocate General of the Court, the judges concluded that the guarantees provided for in Article 17 were sufficient. Because these safeguards include the obligation to ensure the availability of legal content downloads, an automated system that cannot "adequately distinguish between illegal content and legal content" will not be applicable under EU law.
The Court also stressed the responsibility of rights holders to provide to the platforms «undoubtedly relevant and necessary information " for illegal use of copyrighted material. Platform providers may not be required to "monitor" users' content in general to check the legality of the content. This also means that they can not be asked to conduct an "independent evaluation" of the content. If a platform ends up removing legal content, users can rely on the Directive's "grievance and redress" mechanisms.
Content Blocking or Not?
The court's focus on interpreting copyright exceptions and restrictions in a way that preserves fundamental rights is commendable and follows proposals of the EFF itself. According to the court criteria, platforms can argue that they are required to use upload filters only in obvious cases . This, in turn, could trigger the requirement for many EU member states to review them applications of the EU Copyright Directive (which ignores her previsual of fundamental rights). The decision means that national governments must pay much more attention to user rights.
However, the Court amanaged to configure to help platforms decide when and when not to exclude content. Worse, skip the key issue - if automated tools can When to be reasonably applied. It is difficult to see how the measures implied by this decision can really ensure that measures of censorship of freedom of speech are "strictly targeted". In the judgment, the Court explained the limits of content monitoring referring to Glawischnig-Piesczek case against Facebook , a case involving the removal of defamatory content. But this reference does not tell us much: the Court in the case Glawischnig-Piesczek on Facebook ignored the latest technology and functions in the real world of “automated tools searchand technology tools' and underestimated how control efforts by platforms could easily become excessive, undermining users' fundamental rights.
Article Source: https://www.eff.org/
https://openstandards.ellak.gr/2022/05/05/i-odigia-tis-ee-gia-ta-pnevmatika-dikeomata-exakolouthi-na-afora-ta-filtra-logokrisias-periechomenou-alla-to-anotato-dikastirio-tis-ee-periorizi-ti-chrisi-tous/
