Author Archive

Fake News Kills – 29 Deaths from Measles in Europe Last Year

Tuesday, July 2nd, 2019

Measles is back in Europe. More than 8,000 cases were reported in 2018. Twenty-nine people died after catching the disease, which until recently was all but eradicated through childhood immunisation. Social media companies are blamed for amplifying scare stories by anti-vaccination campaigners—the so-called “anti-vaxxers.”.

Italy has banned non-vaccinated children from attending school and threatens non-compliant parents with fines.

The current measles outbreak coincides with a drop in the rate of vaccination. According to the European Centre for Disease Control (ECDC), based in Stockholm, most countries fail to meet the required standard of 95% full vaccinations. That provides “herd immunity.”. It makes it most unlikely that anyone would catch or transmit a disease and protects vulnerable groups, such as very young babies who cannot be vaccinated. Only Hungary, Slovakia, Portugal, and Sweden have achieved this.

ECDC spokesperson Niklas Bergstrand comments: ”It is unacceptable that children and adults in EU countries die from complications of vaccine-preventable diseases… If the goal of eliminating measles in Europe is to be reached, vaccination coverage needs to increase in a number of countries.“

The ECDC has not tried to curb false news. Instead, it provides Train the Trainers courses to address “vaccine hesitancy.”. US public health officials are more proactive. The CEO of the American Medical Association, James L. Madara, has written to all internet platforms, urging them to change the algorithms that amplify anti-vaxxer content.

Crowdfunding platform GoFundMe responded positively to a similar request. Dublin-based owner Rob Solomon has removed all appeals from anti-vaccinationists. Now, if you type “anti-vax” into the search box, GoFundMe offers the opposite: people raising money to vaccinate teenagers whose parents refused when they were babies, and a pro-vaccine man who is denouncing anti-vaxxers on tour across the United States.

In an editorial in Science journal urging a task force to tackle vaccine hesitancy, Heidi J. Larson and William S. Schulz call for more emotion and fewer dry statistics in pro-vaccine messages.

A rare example of this is the open letter by children’s author Roald Dahl to his seven-year-old daughter Olivia, who had measles.

“One morning, when she was well on the road to recovery, I was sitting on her bed showing her how to fashion little animals out of coloured pipe cleaners, and when it came to her turn to make one herself, I noticed that her fingers and her mind were not working together and she couldn’t do anything.

“Are you feeling all right?” I asked her.

“I feel all sleepy,” she said.

In an hour, she was unconscious. In twelve hours she was dead.“

Dahl’s appeal to parents to immunise their children still circulates on social media. But only people who are already convinced are likely to see it because of the filter bubble effect: the networks automatically provide more of what we like and approve.

Fake news and “hesitancy” are not the only causes of the current measles epidemic. Experts at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine’s Confidence in Vaccines Project reckon it may have its roots in the war in Ukraine. Faulty Russian vaccines and the civil conflict that interrupted vaccination programmes played a part. Power outages meant the refrigeration that keeps the vaccine fresh may not have maintained the correct temperature. Close proximity to Ukraine might also explain the high incidence of measles in neighbouring Poland and Romania.

Israel also has a measles epidemic, and Orthodox Jewish visitors to New York City have been blamed for spreading it. So fake news spawned an evil twin: anti-Semitic hate speech.

Europe’s own anti-vaxxers are less strident. The European Forum for Vaccine Vigilance says it is pro-choice and warns that newly-vaccinated people pose a risk of infection since they carry small doses of a live virus. EFVV’s Sally Fallon Morell advocates, “Health officials should require a two-week quarantine of all children and adults who receive vaccinations to prevent transmission of infectious diseases.”

Official ECDC statistics do not include Germany, but the Robert Koch Institute says they are lagging behind the rest of Europe. Cinemas in some German cities recently screened the 90-minute film Vaxxed, made by disgraced British doctor Andrew Wakefield. His 1998 press conference claiming to have established a link between the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccine and a new form of autism is believed to have affected the public perception of the triple vaccine and vaccines in general. A Sunday Times investigation by journalist Brian Deer revealed that Wakefield and his wife planned to set up a business supplying single vaccines, which he maintained were “safer” than the triple doses favoured by the medical establishment.

BBC investigative reporter Janet Trewin scrutinised the evidence before immunising her own two children. She says: ”The controversy was immense and, even for a working journalist, confusing. We were both frightened at the prospect of not vaccinating at all. Our research suggested that, if there was any problem at all to a baby, it was most likely to come from the child’s system having to handle all three at once. Consequently, we gave all the injections but with many weeks in between to allow the body to overcome the onslaught.“

Meanwhile, Andrew Wakefield was struck off the General Medical Council register and banned from practicing medicine in the UK. He relocated to Texas. A number of parents of autistic children worked with him on Vaxxed. The fact-checking service Snopes has investigated this and found them false.

Andrew Wakefield has allies in politics and Hollywood. Donald Trump met him on the 2016 election campaign trail, and since he became president, Trump has repeatedly tweeted his support for separate vaccines and sympathy for parents of children with autism.

Medical studies in Denmark, Ireland, and the UK have all failed to establish a causal link between MMR and autism.

However, it is an undisputed fact that some people are badly affected by vaccination, either because of a faulty vaccine, wrong dose, allergy, or other misadventure.

In Europe, this was established in the European Court of Justice on 21. June 2017 by the family and lawyers of Mr. J.W., an adult who contracted multiple sclerosis after a Hepatitis B injection and died five years later. The case had been dismissed by all the lesser courts in France. But the EJC ruled the vaccine manufacturer Sanofi Pasteur was liable in this case. The judgement makes it clear that whatever the general medical research, the cause and effect in this case are demonstrated by the short time it took after the vaccination for MS to develop, Mr. J.W.’s previous good health, and his lack of family history of MS. This does not only count in France but throughout Europe. Yet similar cases are rare. In response to a Freedom of Information request in 2017, the UK Department of Health revealed that 759 claims had been made from 2008-2017 and 11 were successful.

Footage of vaccine-damaged children evokes enormous sympathy, whatever science says. Yet emotive disinformation needs only a small dose of fact to puncture its appeal. Europe’s award-winning anti-fake news campaign, Lie Detectors, describes the effect of its school visits: in the words of founder Juliane von Reppert Bismarck, “It’s like an immunisation. Just a short, sharp wake-up that sensitises young people and makes them question what they see.” As European Immunisation Week gets under way, the authorities are hoping for a similar effect in parents, too.

The Surveillance Capitalist’s Secret Sauce

Tuesday, June 11th, 2019

A how-to explanation in four minutes, including a review of Harvard-sociologist Soshana Zuboff’s latest book

Soshana Zuboff’s book “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism” has received an enormous amount of praise from prominent voices even before it was published. “From the very first page I was consumed with an overwhelming imperative: everyone needs to read this book”, claims author Naomi Klein, herself well-known for her criticism of corporate globalization. Not too many people will follow that advice, probably: Zuboff’s book contains almost 700 pages. (If you are asked to write a review: “From the very first page” sure is an interesting approach, demanding not too much reading.) The book’s size is a problem. The message is buried in too many pages, too many topics and asides. If there’s something like “surveillance capitalism”, and it is really different from the form of capitalism we’ve got used to in the last decades and centuries, it should be worth explaining it somewhat more to the point.

So here’s the recipe for surveillance capitalism, in brief. As always, Google leads the way. From the very start in 1997 Google collected data on users’ search behavior as a byproduct of the query activity. Initially, these data were treated as mere waste. Then the company realized that data related to search activities could be used to improve the search engine. A surveillance capitalist would say: Google re-invested all the data-revenues from search to improve its service. But the more interesting step followed later, when the company discovered that it could market the behavioral data in other areas than search. This was when Google started to build its advertisement business, which relies heavily on the data from search. That’s the trick: Offer a free internet search engine (or whatever) to create a surplus of behavioral data. Then make your money with that data surplus!

It’s misleading to say that people “buy” search and pay for this with giving away their data. Nothing is sold or bought. There are no customers.

The first takeaway from this is: Surveillance capitalists have a hidden agenda. They are notoriously obscuring their real ambitions to their customers and society. Concerning this point, Zuboff is really clear. It’s misleading to say that people “buy” search and pay for this with giving away their data. Nothing is sold or bought. There are no customers. We – the users “are the source of free raw material that feeds a new kind of manufacturing process”, says Zuboff.

What’s in it, economically?
That’s evil. But from the viewpoint of a surveillance capitalist, your question should be: “What’s in it, economically?” Zuboff is eager to point out that the new business model is not only about advertising, but about predicting and, finally, steering people’s behavior. Surveillance capitalists convert the “behavioral surplus” (which is the data created, by but not used by the original service) into “prediction products” which are sold on “markets for future behavior”. Surely you want to know: Where are these markets?

Data have become the new gold or the new oil, some people say. Economists calculate that in the US, the market for data amounts to 130 billion Euro a year. Sounds a lot. But then, Google alone generates 80 Billion dollar a year by revenues just from digital advertising. Is the “new oil” basically just advertisement – annoying things that pop up on our screens? If you read into the details of the story on the “new oil”, you will find that much more of data-related value is realized within companies. That’s fine – but far away from a marketplace for future behavior where you could sell your prediction products.

Here’s an answer: The market which is the surveillance capitalist’s playground is the infrastructure of everything. Cars and roads, for instance. “Google and Amazon are already locked in competition for the dashboard of your car, where their systems will control all communication and applications. (…) Google already offers applications developers a cloud- based ‘scaleable geolocation telemetry system’ using Google Maps”, Zuboff explains. In the near future, Google will not only be able to run our automated our autonomous vehicles and to deliver smart traffic management. It will be in a position to run our cities – much better than city governments who do not possess the relevant data (and who are forced by open data policy-guidelines to give away the data they produce or possess themselves to Google & Co). Insurers, to mention another field, see Google “as a potential rival and threat because of its strong brand and ability to manage customer data”, says Zuboff. Insurance too, has potential to innovate. Just think of an insurance contract which includes not only close observation of your driving behavior, but actual interventions in the driving process, such as an automatic speed-limit which is activated as part of the insurance policy that you opted in? Medicine would be another field: the use of big data improves diagnoses and treatment. Learning analytics. And many other fields. (It’s a pity that Zuboff isn’t interested to work out what the “markets for future behavior” she mentions again and again really could look like and how it is functioning economically.)

The value of data is mostly realized within companies. Big companies. “Surveillance capitalism” will be about Google, Amazon (and maybe a few others) running our cities, our homes, or hospitals – everything.

There really are fantastic options out there. But they are not up to you and me. There is no “market” for prediction products. Again: the value of data is mostly realized within companies. Big companies. “Surveillance capitalism” will be about Google, Amazon (and maybe a few others) running our cities, our homes, or hospitals – everything. That is the real secret sauce. They will do this following their own agenda and interests. Parts of that agenda will overlap with the concerns of customers and citizens. Other parts will follow the surveillance capitalists’ urge to gather more and more data – with the expectation that new products and services (which then can be sold for money) will be invented one day or another.

A further attribute of surveillance capitalism, which is not part of the economic mechanism, is worth mentioning in this context: its’ disentanglement with society. Surveillance capitalism basically works without the kind of social relations that still are part of a great part of the old-fashioned capitalist economy – be it with customers or employees. In the book, there is a whole chapter on this aspect. “Mass production”, Zuboff points out, “was interdependent with its populations who were its consumers and employees. In contrast, surveillance capitalism preys on dependent populations who are neither its consumers nor its employees and are largely ignorant of its procedures.”

Not too great of an outlook? Maybe Soshana Zuboff will talk about suitable approaches for intervention in her next book. In “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism”, she doesn’t.

Who Ate the Copyright Reform?

Wednesday, April 10th, 2019

Who Ate the Copyright Reform?

Bland Cricket: UK and EU Initiatives on Fake News Fall Short

Tuesday, December 11th, 2018

Clear evidence has been presented to the UK government that Facebook and Twitter have been used to spread fake news created by fake users. The effects are toxic—sometimes deadly.

Meanwhile, MEPs have been in Silicon Valley receiving reassurances and support for digital media literacy initiatives to immunise internet users against fake news.

Evidence presented to the UK Media Select committee shows the massacre of hundreds of Rohingya Muslims in Burma (Myanmar) is directly linked to Facebook’s policy of giving “Free Basics” to Burmese people to enable them to get online for the first time. They get basic internet with access to a limited number of websites and apps, including Facebook. MPs on the Media Select Committee heard testimony explaining how the social media platform spread untrue statements about Rohingya and whipped up religious hatred in the comments under fake posts. The Committee’s Interim Report urges the UK government to publicly condemn Facebook for allowing these interventions. It points out that Britain’s aid program to the country, which has just emerged from years of isolation under a military dictatorship, has been undermined by the killings of Rohingya. However, the government response, published on October 22, 2018, with replies to all 38 of the Committee’s recommendations, is non-committal.

Twitter’s role in spreading anti-Muslim hate and threats has emerged from the think tank Demos, which analysed a dataset of tweets from the year October 2017 to 2018. It tracks the emergence of fake accounts or bots, believed to have been created by Russian state actors at the Internet Research Agency, a Kremlin-backed “troll factory” in St Petersburg.

Bots Under the Radar Playbook

At first, the bots operate ‘under the radar’, attracting almost no attention in terms of re-tweets or replies. Then they start to tweet about fitness and diets—popular themes that are not directly connected with politics or religion. Next, the fake account holders start to include a large number of names and Twitter handles in their tweets to make it look as though they have many online friends and followers. Then, at times of heightened tension between religious communities, for example, after the terrorist outrages at London Bridge, Manchester Arena and Westminster, the fake accounts become very active and achieve thousands of re-tweets.

Demos concludes from its study that the fake accounts originate in Russia. It considers the possibility that their real target is the US audience, since the number of tweets referring to specifically British events, such as the Brexit referendum, is relatively small. Once again after the Brexit vote, the fake users’ comments are anti-immigrant and anti-Islamic in tone and content.

Even more threatening for the democratic discourse in Great Britain is the role played by Facebook and Cambridge Analytica in collecting personal data and micro-targeting voters in the 2016 United States presidential election and the Brexit referendum. MPs on the Select Committee note that in the United States, the Robert Mueller inquiry has been pro-active in examining and punishing these distortions to the democratic process. It calls on the UK government to engage with Facebook, restrict microtargeting, demand full transparency of political advertising online and enforce the election spending rules.

In the bland manner of the English Civil Service, the responses all deflect the MPs’ demands—like a cricketer who whacks each successive ball into a different part of the field or over the fence into the long grass.

The government replies that it must not pre-empt the deliberations or duplicate the activities of:

  • The Election Commission,
  • Committee on Standards in Public Life,
  • National Crime Agency,
  • Helsinki Centre for Hybrid Threats,
  • White Paper on Online Harms,
  • Cairncross Review of the sustainability of quality journalism,
  • Work of the enhanced Office of the Information Commissioner (ICO),
  • Defence, Science and Technology Lab,
  • Digital Charter,
  • Consultation on Protecting the Debate: Intimidation, Influence and Information
  • The planned UK Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation,
  • Freedom Online Coalition of 30 national governments,
  • “Any future Industry Code of Ethics”,
  • Bringing media literacy education into the curriculum for state schools

In addition, MPs are assured that the UK government “regularly engages with Facebook”.

No New Legal Category for Platforms

government does not accept the MPs’ recommendation that a new category of “tech companies” should be created in relation to regulations on tax, competition, freedom of expression and data protection. This proposal aims to get around the vexed question of whether Google, Facebook, Amazon, et al are platforms or publishers. Such a new classification would oblige them to act ethically by taking responsibility for the role they play, irrespective of whether or not the laws governing media outlets should apply to the tech companies.

In response, the UK government warns that any new legal position must not damage the UK’s own ‘vibrant’ tech industry. And it hides behind the current EU definitions as set out in the eCommerce Directive: “mere conduit”, “cache” and “host”. It notes that most tech companies are treated as “hosts,” which means they are not liable for abuses committed on their online platforms if they “act expeditiously” to remove harmful content when they become aware of it.

At the EU Commission, months of fractious meetings by the High Level Expert Group (HLEG) on Disinformation (they reject the term ‘fake news’) have resulted in recommendations. Cricket is not played much in Brussels, but the tenor of EU findings is the same as in Britain: bland and uncontroversial, emphasising quality journalism and media information literacy.

But not all members of the HLEG were happy with that. Reporters Without Borders (RSF), a respected civil society group that has advocated for press freedom for over 30 years, insisted its dissenting statement was included in the final report. It expresses concern that the EU commission is too soft on the tech companies, distorts priorities and threatens regulation ( or “self regulation”) that could damage media freedom.

“The main leverage to limit the distribution and monetisation of falsehoods, propaganda and disinformation rests with platforms in their exclusive role as information intermediaries,” says the RSF minority report.

However, those intermediaries—Facebook, Twitter, Google and Mozilla—were also represented on the High Level Expert Group, vastly outnumbering RSF’s lone voice. So it is hardly surprising that they did not press for tougher regulations and fines on themselves or a new definition of their status.

Side-stepping the Issue

Instead, they emphasize the large financial contribution they are making to numerous initiatives across Europe. Google’s Digital News Initiative, the Mozilla information Trust Initiative, Facebook’s International Fact-Checking Network, Twitter’s #fact-checking hashtag, Facebook’s “about this website” pop-up information service… there are numerous ways in which the tech companies are trying to prove their corporate social responsibility and convince policy makers that new laws are not required.

Meanwhile, Facebook is collaborating with an NGO—Correktiv!—in order to better police the content, which may be culturally specific and have hidden meanings.

 The Hoaxmap

Some Correktiv! journalists also work on a separate project, the hoaxmap.  The map plots the geo-location of false news stories, mainly reports claiming that immigrants and asylum seekers are committing crimes. The Hoaxmap displays the true facts behind each rumoured crime, including a small minority that are true.

Fake news circulating in social media often produces violent reactions in Germany. Racist attacks, arson at asylum reception centres, mass ‘funeral marches’ by neo-Nazis and right-populists and aggression against journalists have become commonplace. They are usually opposed by even greater counter-demonstrations and tightly controlled by hundreds of police in riot gear, mounted on horses, driving water cannons or armed with tear gas. The European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF) has its own map of truth. It plots and verifies attacks against journalists arising from the right-populist attitude that the media are “liars” who spread “fake news”.

ECPMF Founder and  Editor of Special Projects at Germany’s Stern magazine, Hans-Ulrich Jörges, commented at a public meeting on 29. October that these days Russia does not need to send in the tanks—the online attack is achieved with just a click. He cited the case of “Lisa,” a teenage girl in Berlin who was falsely reported as a rape victim, as an example of Russian interference in Germany’s social media.  Jörges insisted that mainstream journalism is capable of re-building trust without any new laws. “We just have to do our jobs and remain independent,” he said. And he admitted that he himself does not take part in social networks “I don’t want to waste my time with this wave of hatred”.

The Power of Independence

Remaining independent in this atmosphere presents challenges. One of Europe’s new media literacy programmes, the Lie Detectors, has turned down offers of funding from Google and other tech companies.

Founder Juliane von Reppert Bismarck explains: “We get our funding from a wonderful organisation called the Woods Foundation in the US, which normally deals with land conservation”.

She insists she would not compromise the project’s independence by accepting grants from Big Tech. It operates by training journalists to present fact-checking sessions in their local primary and secondary schools in Germany and Belgium. Reppert Bismarck admits that a Lie Detector lesson is only a tiny pin-prick in the great scheme of information overload. Yet she hopes it will provide a sort of “immunisation”.

”We can’t beat disinformation. There are too many commercial and political gains to be made from circulating wild conspiracy theories, blatant lies and cleverly splicing truth and fiction. We need to take the thorn out of it. There were always wild stories—alien landings in Utah and God knows what! We need to be able to just acknowledge that stuff as entertainment and then leave it there”.

She emphasises that “pre-bunking” is more effective in combating false assertions than de-bunking because falsehoods presented as facts are often received as facts—especially by adults who may lack the curiosity of the younger generation.

Indeed, new research at the US Pew Research Centre indicates that young Americans aged 16-49 are significantly better at telling facts from opinion and recognising truth from fiction than the over-50s. And psychologists at the University of Western Australia have found that over the age of 65 people are far more likely to continue to believe a myth—even after they have been told that it is untrue. Both groups of researchers find that repetition reinforces trust and belief.

So the viral messages that appear online feed the human tendency to believe what we want to believe and to belong to a group of fellow believers—as well as driving the business model for tech companies that rely on millions of clicks to support their advertising revenue.

What will this mean as the next round of elections gets underway, with the European Parliament election in the spring of 2019 ? Studies in both the US and France indicate that people will still vote for their original choice—even when fact-checking proves that their statements are not true.

Even without troll factories and hostile state actors, it’s a vicious circle.

However, the furore caused by the Mueller inquiry’s revelations about fake news from Russia did at least provoke a bigger turnout than usual in this year’s mid-terms.

If even millennial popstar Taylor Swift has noticed that an election is going on, there may still be hope for democracy. Swift has declared her support for the Democrats and urged her millions of Twitter followers to go and vote in the midterms with the words “Don’t sit this one out”. Perhaps pop music will save democracy? After all, the lyrics don’t have to be true…

Footnote: On Dec 6th, Lie Detectors—mentioned in this story—was awarded the 2018 EU Digital Skills Award

It’s Time for YouTube to Take its Share of Responsibility Towards Filmmakers

Saturday, December 8th, 2018

YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki is the protagonist in a propaganda war about the new EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. One of the directive’s stated aims was to ensure that hosting sites such as YouTube step up to their responsibility to discourage the uploading of creative copyright content without the authorization of those who created and prodCiné-@uced it.

In a recent critique of the draft legislation, Wojcicki sought to defend her company’s opposition by claiming, “Creativity has long been a guiding force in my life.”

Uh, really? As actual creative professionals in a film industry that is under siege by out-of-control internet platforms like Wojcicki’s YouTube, we found her choice of words to be disturbing, as did many of our peers.

“We” are Philippe Carcassonne, a French producer of dozens of films, including Coco Before Chanel and The Illusionist, and Ruth Vitale, the former co-president of Paramount Classics. In 2002, our release of the acclaimed independent drama Man on the Train grossed nearly $8 million globally—a healthy number for a French-language drama.

Today, it is almost impossible to finance a film like Man on the Train and expect it to recoup its financial investment.

Primary culprit is the global piracy ecosystem and the unauthorized redistribution of our content.

Why? The primary culprit is the global piracy ecosystem and the unauthorized redistribution of our content. Piracy has drained the profits out of our business and funneled them to the online platforms that facilitate unauthorized sharing of our content . . . in exchange for advertising revenues.

If left unchecked, piracy and unauthorized sharing of our content is projected to cost the film and television industries $52 billion by 2022. Those ongoing losses threaten the entire film industry and deal an especially severe blow to smaller independent films. Yet while independent filmmakers bleed from streaming piracy, YouTube makes billions of advertising dollars from people watching the content that we have spent blood, sweat, tears, and money to create.

The proposed compromise betrays the original intention of Article 13 – to effectively end the availability of unauthorized content on YouTube and similar platforms.

Wojcicki claims that YouTube’s Content ID tool can stop the widespread piracy her platform enables.  With Content ID, certain uploaded content can be scanned for infringement and automatically taken down. But this feature is only available at YouTube’s discretion and only to content owners of a certain size. Most independent creatives do not qualify.

Wojcicki specifically attacks Article 13 of the draft Copyright Directive, which was initially intended to require that online service providers “cooperate in good faith in order to ensure that unauthorized protected works or other subject matter are not available on their services.” This is a legitimate collective concern for all copyright content sectors.

While Big Tech attacks Article 13, compromises are being floated. One idea on the table would require YouTube and similar providers to obtain a paid-for “license” from rights holders who willingly agree to let others post their content on the platform.  In exchange for this license, YouTube would enjoy extended protection from liability for content being uploaded illegally.

This approach may possibly work for some sectors, whose model consists in licensing huge repertoires through collective rights’ management organizations in exchange for payment. But it does not work at all for us filmmakers. Our business relies heavily on pre-licensing rights to our projects on an individual film-by-film basis for each market, including online platforms.  This is how we raise the considerable investments required to make quality film and TV. We can’t undercut this complex financing and recoupment model by granting YouTube licenses when our content is uploaded without our authorization. One broadcaster recently noted that the revenues gained from distributing content on YouTube constitute little more than “a tip.”.

The proposed compromise betrays the original intention of Article 13—to effectively end the availability of unauthorized content on YouTube and similar platforms. Moreover, it will eliminate all responsibility from the likes of YouTube to prevent the illegal uploading of our works. We will still bear the huge cost and efforts required to contain this persistent form of online piracy, while YouTube will have the legally sanctioned privilege of looking the other way.

YouTube and other companies that stand to benefit from weakened copyright protection have unleashed armies of lobbyists and “digital activists” to spread the lie that making them more accountable for copyright infringement will “break the internet.” It’s not true, but it’s the same song and dance we hear any time governments try to strike a balance between the interests of internet platforms and creatives.

The EU Copyright Directive should require hosting sites and platforms to take their fair share of responsibility for preventing online piracy and unauthorized sharing of copyright content.

Wojcicki writes that “the creative economy is under threat.” She’s right—but not for the reasons she claims. Big internet platforms can easily do more to protect creative copyright content. Their ability to host user-generated content is not at risk. But their ability to attract huge advertising revenues around the unauthorized use of commercially valuable creative copyright content is. And it’s those revenues, not “the creative economy,” that YouTube really wants to protect.

The EU Copyright Directive should require hosting sites and platforms to take their fair share of responsibility for preventing online piracy and unauthorized sharing of copyright content. That would not break the internet. It would enrich it by preserving creativity and investment.

Protecting creativity should be the guiding force in public policy, not protecting YouTube’s immense power in the cultural marketplace.


Philippe Carcassonne is the co-owner and general manager of Ciné-@, a French film production company established in 1986. In a career spanning over 30 years, Philippe has produced or coproduced 67 feature films. Additionally, he has held a number of official positions within the French film industry, including the Cinémathèque Française and the ACE Ateliers du Cinéma Européen (ACE). Philippe also chairs the Producers’ Committee of the national film export agency Unifrance.

Ruth Vitale is the CEO of CreativeFuture, a nonprofit coalition promoting the value of creativity and strong copyright protections in the digital age. Her films have won three Oscars® and received 16 nominations, as well as 18 Golden Globe® nominations and two wins. Her films include The Girl on the Bridge, Man on the Train, Intimate Strangers, The Virgin SuicidesSunshineYou Can Count on MeThe MachinistMad Hot BallroomHustle & FlowShineDirty Dancing, and Gummo.

Get Messy!

Wednesday, November 28th, 2018

Book Review: Tim Wu. The Curse of Bigness. Antitrust in the New Gilded Age (2017)

In March 2019, the next elections for the European Parliament will take place. If you think about what you could wish from your MEP, the new book by Columbia law professor Tim Wu might give you some hints. The Curse of Bigness is about controlling big business, especially in the digital sector. Written from an US-perspective, it also is a pointer to what is missing in EU-politics.

Antitrust is about fighting inequality

For us Europeans, one of the most telling passages of the book is the where Wu explains why, in his opinion, antitrust law-enforcement, which had a glorious tradition in the US, has lost momentum from the 1960s onward. The enemies of antitrust, he writes, had

won the culture war, by convincing a vast middle comprising practicing lawyers and judges seeking respectability with the appearance of rigor.

That’s it: a culture war. Not fought over issues, but over the method of making policy. Those responsible for interpreting and enforcing the law, according to Wu, were moved away from antitrust because enacting antitrust to them just seemed too messy a business.

A culture war. Not fought over issues, but over the method of making policy

Here’s the background: In the original phrasing, the intention and justification of US-antitrust-legislation was to fight inequality – “inequality of condition, of wealth, and opportunity”, thus the words of Senator John Sherman, initiator of the famous Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. Trusts, and big business in general, Sherman claimed – following the famous Supreme Court judge Louis Brandeis – created a “a kingly prerogative, inconsistent with our form of government.” Antitrust, therefore, was regarded not only as a watchdog for the efficient functioning of markets, but as an instrument to ensure the balance of power. For lawyers, judges and politicians, this created ample room for interpretation. In other words: messiness! This kind of messiness, according to Wu, just was at odds with the more scientific or technocratic style of policy-making that emerged in the 1960s. To put it differently: Professional ethos and career ambitions of state lawyers dealing with antitrust paved the way for a policy more favorable to big business.

Lessons from history

In the US, the new policy went along with a different interpretation of the legal heritage. In Europe, in contrast, the more business-friendly approach is already enshrined in the very idea of the Union, which has committed itself to deal with matters of economic policy only. When it comes to antitrust and merger law, the EU legal framework (Regulation No 139/2004) explicitly limits the rationale for legal action to ensuring “dynamic competition”, “growth” and “standard of living”. Balance of power? Never heard of.

In the European Union, we do not have a legal and political tradition that we could refer to as a glorious past such as Tim Wu does in The Curse of Bigness. That’s a pity, as any reader of Wu will instantly recognize. But what still counts are the lessons from history and the arguments Wu puts forward to make his case.

History – that’s the so-called Gilded age. To put it in a single sentence:

By the early 1900s, nearly every major industry in the United States was either already controlled by, or coming under the control of, a single monopolist.

The monopolist’s name: John D. Rockefeller. Owner of Standard Oil, US. Steel, railroad monopolies in the West and the Northeast and the Atlantic shipping giant International Mercantile Marine Co.

Risks of concentrated economic power

The argument: Big business, Wu claims, poses a threat to democracy because of its’ lobbying power – resulting in a situation where the majority (among them ordinary citizens) lose basically any chance to have their interests served in the legislative process. The mechanism that is responsible for this is simple:

Concentration of economic power also yields the danger of accumulated political power.

Collective action is hard to organize because of the problem of free-riding. Big business, on the other hand, is organized already – and thus has a tremendous advantage. A simple calculation demonstrates the case:

A middle-class tax cut might save each member [of a group with 100 million members] $500 year. However, it might also require someone to invest 50 million to lobby and ensure passage of that tax cut.

Each member would have to contribute just 50 cents in order to gain $500. The problem: Organizing a collection among 100 million people is difficult. And from an individual perspective, there is no need to contribute: if others will, that’s fair enough.

Concentration of economic power also yields the danger of accumulated political power. Antitrust-policy in the postwar period, Wu emphasizes, arose in the United States and Europe in reaction to the role big business played in stimulating the rise of fascism.

In the words of US-lawyer Thurman Arnold: “Germany became organized to such an extent that a Fuehrer was inevitable; had it not been Hitler it would have been someone else.”

Should we be worried? The idea that we are steering towards a new Gilded Age does not seem to be so far-fetched. In a recent discussion paper, the McKinsey Global Institute points out that only 10 percent of the 6,000 of the world’s largest public and private firms capture 80 percent of economic profit, whereas the top 1 percent of the Top 6,000 account for 36 percent of all economic profit within the group.

When government tries to remodel the economy for the sake of efficiency, it has amassed a mixed record. When government uses its power to achieve clear moral ends, it has a strong record.

Concentration of business happens in all branches of the economy. One sector, though, is especially apt for concentration: the digital sector. Network effects, which play a dominant role in digital business, are responsible for the predominant winner-take-all-economy in the whole field. Today, seven out of eight of the world’s most valuable companies belong to the digital economy: Apple, Alphabet (Google), Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, Tencent and Alibaba. All of them are platform companies. All of them hold enormous power not only because of their lobbying capacities, but also because they provide services that constitute the very backbone of today’s economy and society, including the communication sector. (Just remember how Facebook recently discredited critics by linking them, via the Facebook social network, to the politically seemingly unwelcome George Soros). Network effects are not the sole reason for the giant size of these companies. All of them gained their position also through a great extent by mergers and acquisitions. (For Facebook, again, the list of acquisitions comprises already 70 entries).

Not too healthy a prospect for a democracy. What we urgently need is a conception of antitrust and a European merger policy aiming not merely to secure the efficient functioning of markets, but at putting checks and balances to power – be it political or corporate power. In principle, government is in a good position to do so. To echo the words of Franklin Foer, long-time editor of the renowned US-magazine The New Republic, from an older Netopia-review:

When government tries to remodel the economy for the sake of efficiency, it has amassed a mixed record. When government uses its power to achieve clear moral ends, it has a strong record.

That’s the message for your MEP: Get moral on big digital platforms. Get messy. Make policy. Campaign for an amendment or a clarification of regulation 139/2004!

Time to Close Safe Harbor

Friday, November 23rd, 2018

Last month marked 20 years since President Bill Clinton signed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) into law which introduced “Safe Harbor” for Internet Service Providers. In combination with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, it meant that YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Gab or Instagram later could not be held liable for any content posted on their platforms. In due time, Europe followed the U.S. lead in giving these companies the same Safe Harbor liability protection.

The aim behind the revision is to allow rights holders to negotiate and be remunerated for the use of their content by tech companies.

Now on both sides of the Atlantic regulators are re-examining the wisdom of these laws. This time the EU is taking the lead by revising its Copyright Directive. Meanwhile Google is using all its power to spread disinformation that this law will “break the internet”.

Recently, the CEO of YouTube Susan Wojcicki published an opinion piece claiming that the “creator economy” is under threat because of the EU’s efforts. To creators, re-branding the problems YouTube has caused sounded more like intimidation than concern about the future of creation.

Ms Wojcicki’s claim was quickly dispelled by the European Commission, who explained that the new rules will in no way target YouTube or other platform users. The aim behind the revision is to allow rights holders to negotiate and be remunerated for the use of their content by tech companies.

The “creator economy” is not under threat by Article 13, as Ms Wojcicki claims.

The “creator economy” is not under threat by Article 13, as Ms Wojcicki claims.

It is instead under threat from the Google and Facebook’s monopoly – both companies own 88 cents of every dollar spent on advertising in the US. YouTube financially profits in the form of advertisements from providing access to copyright protected content, while strong-arming rights holders into submission.

Ms Wojcicki proudly declared that YouTube paid content owners across the EU more than €800m. Sounds impressive, but it’s a tiny fraction of the value Google extracts by exploiting other people’s works. In 2017 alone, Google brought in $110 billion in revenue. 84% of that was ad revenue. It made $ 12.7 billion in profit. Currently for one million clicks on Apple’s music platform, artists get $900,000, while for the same amount of views on YouTube, they currently get only $900!

YouTube says to musicians “Your music is going to be on YouTube, whether you want it or not.” Sure, you can file a ‘takedown notice.’ About 2 million per day are filed against Google and YouTube. But within days the song will be back up from another user. Because of the privilege of YouTube to enjoy Safe Harbor, they are under no obligation to keep your song off of YouTube even though they have the tools to do just that.

Google’s YouTube platform has been the largest purveyor of hate speech, neo-Nazi music videos, and Jihadi propaganda. It also has wrecked the livelihood of many musical artists. But not only have the unregulated social networks provided a platform for hate and terrorism, they have also destroyed the business models of both journalism and entertainment. We have to acknowledge that social networks as they are currently configured and regulated represent a cancer on our society.

We need to make platforms responsible for the content on their networks. It’s time to close the Safe Harbor.

The EU is currently examining the responsibility of the digital platforms in both the areas of copyright fairness and their damage to democracy. The EU should be able to declare that Google, YouTube, Facebook and Amazon are no longer protected by Safe Harbor, as they are not “neutral platforms”.

YouTube would have to make the same kind of licensing agreement with music companies that Apple Music and Spotify have. Facebook would have to screen their content for defamation, invasion of privacy, false light, and public disclosure of private facts. Newspapers would have some leverage to get paid by the platforms that display their content. Much of the fake news epidemic would be curtailed. We cannot wait for the platform monopolies to ‘self-regulate’.

We need to make platforms responsible for the content on their networks. It’s time to close the Safe Harbor.

Jonathan Taplin, former tour manager for Bob Dylan and The Band and film producer for Martin Scorsese, Wim Wenders and Gus Van Sant.  Author of the book Move Fast and Break Things: How Google, Facebook and Amazon Cornered Culture and Undermined Democracy. You can tweet him @JonathanTaplin

The Honesty Box – Why the Copyright Vote Can Save Us

Tuesday, September 11th, 2018

If I had the chance to decide on the new EU Copyright Directive, I would vote in favour. Copyright is like a Fair Trade label on our coffee or chocolate. It is important to know who produces the cultural products we love – music, movies, news, and so on – and that the producers get a fair deal when they are enjoyed and shared online. In my world (media), copyright enables makers of quality journalism, photography, investigative reporting and documentary film-making to be paid for their time, their talents and their tenacity. It means the companies that risk their investment to bankroll, publish and distribute these products can be properly compensated, too.

Music composers and performers must sing for themselves. Sir Paul McCartney and Ennio Morricone are already doing it. They have backing singers from the music publishers and rights collection societies and they are doing a great job. But music is not vital for democracy, and quality journalism is.

We live in a world of loud populism and fake news that can skew elections and referenda. In the run-up to the European Parliament election in May, MEPs should recognise that they need to support top-quality independent and investigative journalists and documentary-makers. The GAFA gang (Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon) are making profits out of European digital citizens’ data. Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg has been called to account in Brussels. The EU Competition Commissioner Margarethe Vestager has attempted to fine Google. Germany and Spain are using national laws to control what can be shared online. At every step, the Big Tech giants are pushing back. Why? These companies are so vehemently opposed to the new EU Copyright Directive that they are spending millions of dollars and euros lobbying against it. The internet platforms’ role in recent elections (Trump, Brexit) casts doubt on their desire and ability to support democratic processes. So there must be a commercial incentive…

As Dr Bjorn Rupp of GSMK and Chaos Computer Club observed back in 2013, “If you’re not paying, you are not the customer”. That means that we – our data and our cultural choices – we are the products they collect, mine and sell. We get free stuff for sharing our personal private details, so it may feel like a good deal. But it’s a business model. And Big Tech is being disingenuous when it promotes the conspiracy theory that the upload filters foreseen in Article 13 of the new EU Copyright Directive constitute a so-called “censorship machine”.

Is it a censorship machine or an honesty box?

Artificial Intelligence-powered recognition tools are available which can identify material that is being uploaded by someone who did not create it. When they spot a copyright infringement they will flag up that this content should be paid for or licensed.

Factbox

Examples of filters in common everyday use:-

  • TurnitIn the academic anti-plagiarism filter used by many universities
  • Lizenzhinweisgenerator which picture desk editors use to check whether photographs are rights-free
  • Audible Magic and Shazam which recognise music and audio, used by SoundCloud et al.

The purpose in these cases is to ensure there is no cheating: students do not rip off other people’s academic work in order to get higher grades without studying themselves, YouTube does not rip off film producers, documentary makers and musicians and news organisations do not rip off photographers. Just as a farmer might leave surplus apples by the roadside with an ‘honesty box’ where passersby can pay for them, the recognition software provides an opportunity to pay for new cultural products.

They are not new but already in use as Sean Sullivan of Finnish cyber security company F-Secure explains:

“There are two different methods: in the signature way of doing it, copyrighted material is uploaded or identified by its owner, and a digital signature is created that the platform uses to identify the material whenever anybody uploads it. So for example, Sony Music has identified its catalogue with YouTube, and if you were to upload a karaoke video with Sony’s music… the ad revenue (if any) will be sent Sony’s way and not yours. Google, YouTube and other tech companies already use upload filters. Other companies use third-party services. The signatures are “fuzzy” and there can be lots of false positives… like if you were to upload a video of your dog doing something cute and there’s some music on the radio in the background.

 There are also child exploitation materials that are very strictly signature based. (Naturally, you cannot upload such material.)

 In the second way, machine learning is used to identify likely copyrighted material and offensive material. It can be used to “teach” algorithms that can identify material that looks like the same, even if it hasn’t seen it before. False positives are a problem. A lot of pink skin in a video could be pornography… or it could be a bunch of pigs. (That was a true story, from years ago, related to Google Images search, I think. It’s difficult to completely automate).”

Internet libertarians and their Big Tech backers also complain that upload filters will  ”make us pay for tiny snippets”, “ban memes”, “outlaw parody”, or “allow authoritarian regimes to censor content”. None of these claims is true or relevant.

The Directive only applies to whole works or substantial parts of them. Under existing EU legislation and the US fair ’use’ clause, snippets are already allowed.“ Fair use“ covers clips of up to 30 seconds in duration and this will not change with the new law. “This is made very clear in the text.“ says DG Connect in its FAQs. Satire and parody are already exempted in existing EU legislation and this will not change. Special rates for educational and library use (protecting cultural heritage online) are set out in the new Copyright Directive. An important case giving photographers’ rights extra protection was decided in the Court of Justice of the European Union on 7 August 2018.

The EU Copyright Directive will make it harder for governments (or anyone) to secretly exercise censorship

Of course, any technology can be abused. But repressive regimes do not need technology in order to be repressive. If anything, the EU Copyright Directive will make it harder for governments (or anyone) to secretly exercise censorship. The software works on signatures, as Sean Sullivan explains, and triggers demands for payment. So the person who is to receive the payment must be made known and then you can check whether they are censors or creators.

For example the Azerbaijani government used Muse Music to complain to YouTube in January 2018 about some of Meydan TV’s news footage which, it was alleged, contained copyrighted images. It was easy for Meydan to prove that they held the rights in these images, and their YouTube channel was restored.

The Turkish government uses secret blocking tools to censor its online critics, but the software also exists to track these censorship attempts. Award-winning campaign group Turkey Blocks has developed open source tools that anyone or any organisation can use and adapt free of charge. The internet freedom community already has tools to beat censors.

Of course if the creators want to share their work for free, they can license it under Creative Commons, or just give it away. But we think journalists and publishers who invest in journalism deserve to be paid

Is Google (owner of YouTube) really concerned about censorship? Or is it the fact that the Copyright Directive will require the platforms (not the users) to pay for sharing content that has been created by someone else. Google had already up to 5th July 2018 spent 31 million dollars lobbying against the Copyright Directive, employing 14 staff in Brussels just for this purpose, and this lobbying continued over the summer. EDRI (the European Digital Rights Initiative, one of the most vocal lobbying groups), is funded by Mozilla and Microsoft and a number of software companies, also the Electronic Frontier Foundation (US NGO funded by Silicon Valley).

As Mogens Blicher Bjerregård of the European Federation of Journalists says,

“Of course if the creators want to share their work for free, they can license it under Creative Commons, or just give it away. But we think journalists and publishers who invest in journalism deserve to be paid“.

 

So – the publishers,trade unions and musicians want to get paid for their work that is shared online. The owners of the platforms that make billions of dollars from this sharing process don’t want to pay them. As US President Bill Clinton once said in an election campaign “It’s the economy, stupid“.

The issue has split most political parties. VoteWatch has analysed the parliamentary votes on copyright, and I took part in their webinar to learn the details.

European People's Party group (EPP) European Parliament Voting in EP - 5 July 2018

European People’s Party group (EPP) European Parliament Voting in EP – 5 July 2018

Almost all French MEPs voted FOR and almost all German MEPs voted AGAINST. This seems strange because the Rapporteur Axel Voss is German. Maybe Germany’s controversial national policy NetzDG made them scared..? Spain also has national legislation but so far it has proved ineffective, as Stephane Grusso of the Plataforma por la Libertad de Informacion or PDLI explains: “We have had a national copyright law since 2013. Last year a copyright management entity tried to make a news aggregator web called meneame.net to pay for content it shares, but they refused to pay. Nothing further happened. And also our high court (Tribunal Supremo) took a part of the law down so they have to do it again.”

In general the Greens, Left and Socialists are the most numerous and vocal opponents across the whole parliament and the EPP group (Centre and right) are pro-copyright. The reason why French parties are united in favour of the Copyright Directive seems to be that they are afraid French cultural products (films, music, publications) will lose out to English-language/US competition if the online market is not regulated to reward European cultural creators.

Sitting on the fence, ALDE, the liberal political grouping in the European Parliament sets out a concise summary on its website of the FOR and AGAINST arguments.

 

S&D Group European Parliament Voting in EP - 5 July 2018

S&D Group European Parliament

Liberalness, of course, has freedom at its root. But this English word ‘free’ is a shape-shifter. It prompted the creation of a website in 2014 called “Free as in speech, or free as in beer?”  The ’gratis’ or ’open source’ option it describes is available to software developers. But I believe it is not appropriate for journalistic products and their publishers, because journalists need to be able to work undercover and protect their confidential sources and whistleblowers. And they need to get paid, so that they can remain independent, not beholden to sponsors or advertisers or state handouts.

MEPs should also take time to look at another short read, the European Charter on Freedom of the Press. They might reflect on the fact that the phrase “free-for-all” is defined in the dictionary as “a dispute, or fight open to all comers and usually with no rules: brawl; also a chaotic situation especially in lacking rules or structure”. Yes, I want freedom – but what kind of freedom, and who will benefit?

 

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are strictly those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any agency of the EU or those mentioned in it. Examples of analysis performed within this article are only examples. Assumptions made within the analysis are not reflective of the position of any entity named.

Big Tech Pulling The Strings.

Monday, September 10th, 2018

Big Tech is pulling the strings of a small choir.  When not spamming MEPs, there are voices who incorrectly claim their right to free content is greater than the right to a fair wage and respect for workers’ rights. So long as big tech is funding “dark pattern” astroturfing, the consumer, activists (and clicktivists!) are all equally hoodwinked.

(C) Rodrigo

Save Your Internet

Tuesday, August 28th, 2018

For a hi-resolution PDF version of this Infographic – go here.

Scroll down to view the Infographic.