Article 13: Killing the Internet or Saving the Artists?

Posted By: VenangoExtra.com February 2, 2019

By DYLAN LU

Student contributor

Article 13 has been a hot topic for this year, invoking fear into a large portion of internet users, from the young teenager who makes memes on the bus ride to the higher ups at the megacorporation, Google. Though making sure artists get credit for their hard work is important, there are many ways that they can use this extremely ambiguous law to contort and warp the lush internet of today into a dystopian wasteland in the coming future. Gathering opinions from a few of our teachers at Cranberry Area Jr. Sr. High School, interesting perspectives emerged:

Article 13 can be found at http://www.americasfreedom.com. (Photo by Dylan Lu/Student Contributor)

Jason Kosmiski, our grade 9 English and Creative Writing teacher, felt that even though the content creators deserve their due credit and money, he thinks this law is excessive and ridiculous. He is baffled by how they even tried to pass a law like this, especially considering that it will stifle the flow of news and information, causing fake news and misinformation to run rampant on their proposed solution to the web-wide problem of content theft. He also stated that people should be able to borrow photos for digital items such as memes and that this law will damper free speech if they actually find a way to properly implement it. As for us in the United States, he is confident our government will neglect to attempt to push a law this vague and hard to enforce unless it miraculously works, also noting that the recent revocation of net neutrality is the more pressing issue for us.

Patrick Irwin, our grade 10 History and Psychology teacher, speculated that this law is interesting, as it will help artists, a group of people often stolen from indirectly. He hopes that this would stop this issue and help them acquire what they have earned rather than leaving them nameless and poor, but the issue is that the points outlined by Article 13 are extremely vague and potentially extremely abusable. He pondered that it would be very hard to enforce and discern what should be covered by this incredible ambiguous law, pointing out that it will make life especially difficult for journalists, as what they can or cannot share could quite possibly become constricted, potentially putting us in a swamp of unreliable fake news assuming that it would restrict what we could do to research and follow up on what we have read.

Christopher Bost, our Grade 9 History Teacher and one of our Grade 8 English Teachers, concluded that this is an attempt for the law to refocus its views on technology. Technology has always evolved faster than laws, causing many debates quite similar to the one presented here. He reasoned that platforms such as YouTube and Facebook are starting to have other regulations put on them, and Article 13 could be the next restriction in a long line of succession. He isn’t quite sure this law will impact much because it is just so ambiguous and difficult to enforce. Hopefully there won’t be a 24/7 copyright taskforce to crackdown and arrest offenders, but aside from that, what can they do to enforce decisions leaving a bountiful fray of loose ends for the EU to tie up. His idea of what will come for us depends on the effectiveness of this law. If the European Union finds a reasonable and consistent way to enforce this decree while artists and predictably, some politicians, are reaping lavish amounts of money, we can anticipate that the United States Government will aspire to resolve an edict that is equivalent to Article 13, but if the EU fails, the U.S. government wouldn’t even consider it.

There are a few ways to think about to the perilous balance of giving recognition to artists and allowing for freedom of use and expression. You could likely understand the rationale of a virtuoso creating their magnum opus, the piece that would immortalize their name in our culture, and then seeing complete strangers utilizing their life’s work wherever they please. It could be pleasant for them seeing how much those people adored their work, but consider how bitter they’d be when the general public neglected giving them commendation or payment for their days of work, weeks of trial and error, months of planning. But also consider being an average Joe, how deprived of the arts your life would be if most artists decided to bandwagon onto these kind of laws, likely demanding substantial sums of money to allow the use of their work. Sympathize with the common man trying to find the sources or further information on an article flaming a major politician. Imagine being a teenager on a family road trip without their comic books or music. It isn’t very hard to discern the motives of either side, but unfortunately, we haven’t found an agreement that is acceptable for both sides, and it will probably be a long time until we do.

Do you believe that the artists should earn more for their work or do you see yourself preferring the internet how it is today than the proposed additional fees of the potential net of tomorrow? Personally, I would keep my eyes open and see how this effects the European Union because I believe this is something that our government may try and install, but even if they don’t, being educated is never a downside. Regardless of your beliefs, always keep watching, listening, and learning.