Copyright protection of #FakeNews

The internet has rendered the protection of copyright complex and the spreading of misinformation easier. Copyright protection and the combating of fake news are often seen as separate subject matters, but there are significant and often overlooked overlaps between the two; conflicts that require that they be discussed in parallel, writes Angel Dzhambazki MEP (ECR, Bulgaria).

Social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Pinterest have made the circulation of misinformation easier than when traditional media was the dominant in our everyday-lives. Many use these services to spread news stories to their friends and followers. One effect of this, now rather common, behaviour is to divert advertising revenue away from publishers and to the social media platforms, resulting in significantly less funding for professional journalism. A second effect is the easier dissemination of fake news. Since fake news reports per definition are independent of facts, such stories are often significantly more sensational, dramatic and shocking than factually correct news by reliable news organizations. For this reason, fake news will have a tendency to "trend" fast and spread widely before being disproved. By this time, it will have manifested itself as “factual news” for the majority of users, despite the efforts of proofing scholars, journalists, or others. Furthermore, as a rule, the truth will be significantly more boring and lack virality. It has always been the case that falsehood is strengthened by haste, a subliminal appetite for drama and uncertainty and truth is confirmed by inspection and delay this, in combination with an increase in the pace of dissemination and without editorial scrutiny, accuracy has dramatically decreased.

The core of the conflict between copyright protection and the combating of fake news reaches far into the issue of the so-called snippets. These are the automatic link previews that social networks generate when users share links – e.g. headlines, thumbnail pictures and short excerpts – that enable the readers to evaluate interest of the link leads to before clicking.

The Commission has proposed that social media platforms be forced to get a license from the original publisher when linking to news articles. The stated intention is to generate income for publishers by enabling them to charge internet platforms for displaying their content. However, this is a bad idea from several perspectives.

Creating a right to charge for snippets would likely be in conflict with the both international treaties and domestic law in several countries. Second, this right has been tried and demonstrably failed in Germany and Spain. Third, and more importantly, such a right would force social media platforms to deny users the ability to share links that include “unlicensed snippets” limiting freedom of speech. Fourth, introducing a cost or administrative burden to license snippets would disincentivize social media platforms from permitting sharing of content from outlets that charge. Since publishers of fake news are financed by other means, such outlets – unlike reputable publishers – wouldn’t charge to license snippets. The visibility of propaganda channels would likely increase. When Spain introduced similar legislation, the effect was to limit and reduce access to information to reliable publishers. Finally, the right to charge for snippets would not only apply only to social media, but also to search engines like Google, Yahoo and Bing; to news aggregators like Feedly, Google News/Reader, Pulse and News360; to media monitoring services like Google Alerts and Mention.com; and to regular bloggers. Underlying this discussion is also the so-called saturation effect, which occurs when users are given extensive ‘previews’ and are no longer interested in going to the original article and possible subscription. This should not be discarded; however, what we may not ignore is the fact, that all these services make it easier to research the truth and spread information from dependable publishers.

Our response to fake news cannot be censorship and strict regulation of views and expressions. That would mean we would sacrifice the values we seek to protect. Fostering a generation of critically-thinking citizens will be hard, but the most effective approach to combat fake news. Another part of the answer lies in political actors becoming more restrained and respectful. Those that dismiss their political opponent with malicious rhetoric or misinformation gravely undermine the notion of polite political discourse and widen the rift between citizens.  Media and journalists also share a responsibility for tackling propaganda. Those publishers that maximize advertising revenue by sensationalizing reporting, driving traffic using 'clickbait' headlines or try to increase readership and online sharing by publishing rumours and ridicules stories undermine the long-term trust of the readers in legitimate journalism.

Citizens crave correct information, it is probably only a matter of time before some news-related start-up invents a new technology, finds new business models, other ways of reaching the readers, or method to fact-check stories that will be effective in combating fake news. Until such a new tool is developed, we should not discourage innovation and experimentation by over-regulating this sector through obtuse copyright reforms or the introduction of neighbouring rights. This will only work to the disadvantage of those that are most likely to bring change.

Copyright is necessary for the financing of reliable journalism and culture. Fake news breaks the relationship of trust between the media and citizens and undermines democracy, freedom of expression and the rule of law. Finding a way to reconcile copyright protection while combating fake news is an important discussion that must be held on all levels and in good cooperation across party lines. It is a discussion of this type that I want to have at the Brussels Summit: A Future for Europe on March 22. This is the reason that ACRE has decided to open its conference to the public and invite speakers and panellists from other parties. We need a vigorous debate on how we can reform the EU.

Share this article: