Lobbying on the up as Silicon Valley feels the regulatory squeeze

The internet giants have started filing their lobbying reports with the Center for Responsive Politics with records being shattered all over the place.

Each quarter US companies are legally required to disclose to Congress how much has been spend on political lobbying. Although the figures we are about to discuss are only for the US market, international players will certainly spend substantially more, it gives a good idea of the pressure which the internet players are facing. Governments are attempting to exert more control and Silicon Valley doesn’t like it.

Looking at the filings, having spent $4.9 million in the final three months, Google managed to total $21.2 million across the whole of 2018, a new high for the firm. This compares to $18.3 million spent across 2017.

Facebook is another which saw its lobby bill increase. In its latest filing, Facebook reported just over $3 million for Q4, and totalled almost $13 million across the year. In the Facebook case it should hardly be surprising to see a massive leap considering the scale and the depth of the Cambridge Analytica scandal which it has not been able to shake off.

More filings will be due over the next couple of days, the deadline for the fourth quarter period was January 22, though the database search tool is awful. What is worth noting is this is set to be the biggest year for internet lobby spend, however it is still nothing compared to the vast swathes which are spend elsewhere.

Lobby tableIn total, the internet industry might have spent a whopping $68.7 million on lobbying Washington over 2017 (2018 data is still not complete), but that is nothing compared to more mature industries. The Oil and Gas segment spent $126 million, while Insurance pumped $162 million into the lobbyists pockets, but the winner by a long was the pharmaceutical industry spending an eye-watering $279 million on lobbyists across the year (see image for full list).

As you can see, the ceiling has been set very high for lobbying and it will almost certainly increase over the next couple of years. All around the world governments and regulators are attempting to exert more control over the internet industry, and while the lobbying process isn’t necessarily attempting to block these new rules, the aim will be to get the best deal possible.

In comparison to other industries, the internet specifically and technology on the whole is relatively new. You have to take into account the internet as a mass market tool is only in its teen years and is demonstrating the same rebellious tendencies as young adults do. New ideas are being explored and boundaries are being pushed; with some breakthroughs rules do not exist, while the emergence of new business models means companies fall into the grey areas of regulation. The internet has been operating relatively untethered over the last few years, though this is changing.

2018 was a year where it all started to hit home. Countless data breaches demonstrated the digital world is one where security has not been nailed, while data privacy scandals have shown how dated some regulations are. It doesn’t help that Silicon Valley seems to operate behind a curtain which only the privileged few are allowed to peak behind, but even if this barrier was thrown open, only a small percentage of the world would actually understand what was going on or how to regulate it effectively.

GDPR was a step in the right direction in handing control of personal information back to the user, but this only applies to European citizens. Other countries, such as India, are learning from these regulations with the ambition of creating their own, but it is still very early days. The rules and regulations of the digital economy are being shaped and the internet giants will certainly want to influence proceedings to ensure they can still continue to hoover up profits in the manner which they have become accustomed to.

Looking at where money has been spent, data privacy and security concerns is a common theme with all the internet players who want to protect their standing in the sharing economy, though mobile location privacy issues is another shared concern. With data getting cheaper, more people will be connected all the time, opening the door for more location-based services and data collection. This could be big business for the internet giants, though it has been targeted by privacy advocates looking to curb the influence of Silicon Valley. Other issues have included tax reforms, antitrust and artificial intelligence.

So yes, a remarkable amount of cash is being spent by the likes of Google and Facebook at the moment, but this will only grow in time as regulators and legislators become more familiar with the business of the internet and, more importantly, how to govern it.

France fines Google for being vague

The French regulator has swung the GDPR stick for the first time and landed it firmly on Google’s rump, costing the firm €50 million for transparency and consent violations.

The National Data Protection Commission (CNIL) has been investigating the search engine giant since May when None Of Your Business (NOYB) and La Quadrature du Net (LQDN) filed complaints suggesting GDPR violations. The claims specifically suggested Google was not providing adequate information to the user on how data would be used or retained for, while also suggesting Google made the process to find more information unnecessarily complex.

“Users are not able to fully understand the extent of the processing operations carried out by Google,” the CNIL said in a statement.

“But the processing operations are particularly massive and intrusive because of the number of services offered (about twenty), the amount and the nature of the data processed and combined. The restricted committee observes in particular that the purposes of processing are described in a too generic and vague manner, and so are the categories of data processed for these various purposes.”

This seems to be the most prominent issue raised by the CNIL. Google was being too vague when obtaining consent in the first instance, but when digging deeper the rabbit hole become too complicated.

Information on data processing purposes, the data storage periods or the categories of personal data used for the ad personalization were spread across several pages or documents. It has been deemed too complicated for any reasonable member of the general public to make sense of and therefore a violation of GDPR.

When first obtaining consent, Google did not offer enough clarity on how data would be used, therefore was without legal grounding to offer personalised ads. Secondly, the firm then wove too vexing a maze of red-tape for those who wanted to understand the implications further.

It’ll now be interesting to see how many other firms are brought to the chopping block. Terms of Service have been over-complicated documents for a long-time now, with the excessive jargon almost becoming best practise in the industry. Perhaps this ruling will ensure internet companies make the legal necessities more accessible, otherwise they might be facing the same swinging GDPR stick as Google has done here.

For those who are finding the NOYB acronym slightly familiar it might be because the non-profit recently filed complaints against eight of the internet giants, including Google subsidiary YouTube. These complaints focus on ‘right to access’ clauses in GDPR, with none of the parties responding to requests with enough information on how data is sourced, how long it would be retained for or how it has been used.

As GDPR is still a relatively new set of regulations for the courts to ponder, the complaints from NOYB and LQDN were filed almost simultaneously as the new rules came into force, this case gives some insight into how sharp the CNIL’s teeth are. €50 million might not be a monstrous amount for Google, but this is only a single ruling. There are more complaints in the pipeline meaning the next couple of months could prove to be very expensive for the Silicon Valley slicker.

Privacy champion Max Schrems is back with another lawsuit

The man who is largely credited with the downfall of Safe Harbour has re-emerged from the shadows to take eight of the internet giants to court over GDPR violations.

As user privacy increasingly seems to be an alien concept to Silicon Valley and the other internet players, Austrian data privacy champion Max Schrems has jumped into the limelight once again. This time he is challenged eight internet companies and their data privacy practices, suggesting they are violating Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Through a filing with the Austrian Data Protection Authority, by Schrem’s non-profit NOYB, the complaints focus on the ‘right to access’ enshrined in Article 15 GDPR and Article 8(2) of the Chart of Fundamental Rights. Amazon, Apple, DAZN, Filmmit, Netflix, Sound Cloud, Spotify and YouTube are on the receiving end of the lawsuit, with the potential penalties ranging from €20 million through to €8 billion.

“Many services set up automated systems to respond to access requests, but they often don’t even remotely provide the data that every user has a right to,” said Schrems. “In most cases, users only got the raw data, but, for example, no information about who this data was shared with. This leads to structural violations of users’ rights, as these systems are built to withhold the relevant information.”

GDPR is supposed to hand control of personal data back to said individual. Its aim is to hold the digital society accountable to their actions and provide a certain level of justification for holding onto, and potentially monetizing, an individual’s personal information. Several clauses are also aimed at transparency to ensure the user is fully informed, or at least offering the user the opportunity to be, about how these software and services providers commercialise data.

In addition to what raw data is being stored, individuals do now also have the right to know where this data was sourced, the recipients and also the purpose. This is where a few of the complaints are focusing specifically, as this is the information which was absent from some of the responses.

If privacy is an alien concept, then transparency is a dirty, inconceivable word to the internet players. It seems former habits have been hard to shake.

NOYB Snip

As you can see from the table above, Schrems has tested out how some of the internet players have reacted to the introduction of GDPR. Progress has been made, except in the case of Sound Cloud and DAZN, but that is irrelevant. The introduction of GDPR on May 25 2018 was not the starting line to gradually move yourself through to compliance, day one was a hard introduction of the rules. There are some circumstances where companies can avoid penalties, but these are scenarios where non-compliance would be seen as out of the control of the company, or best efforts have been made.

This is where these firms might find themselves in a bit of hot water. An automated response which offers up some information but not all which is required through the new regulation should not be considered good enough. The pair ignoring the requests completely should be very worried about the repercussions. And finally, the Austrian regulator will also have to decide whether four weeks is an appropriate response time or too long. None of these firms are in a safe place right now.

Another interesting aspect will be the readability of the data. In the complaint, Schrems notes the raw data was provided in what would be considered cryptic form for the general public. Users would not be able to read the data therefore it is not being made accessible by the company. Whether this is taken as a violation of GDPR remains to be seen, though Austria could set precedent.

Many of the internet giants have resisted the calls from data privacy advocates and governments around the world, but GDPR is supposed to be a stick to keep the segment in line. These are companies which will want to avoid giving too many details away as the power and depth of the data sharing economy has the potential to spook large swathes of the general public. Too much light shed on data processing and exchanging practices would also offer more ammunition to the blood-thirsty politicians, many of whom are on a PR crusade to make heads roll.

Ultimately this will give us a good indication as to how sharp European regulators’ teeth actually are. In passing GDPR, the European Commission has offered a stick to the pro-privacy regulators, but how hard they swing it remains to be seen. The dreaded ‘up to’ phrase is present when looking at potential fines, so let’s see whether these regulations have the stones to dish out appropriate punishments.

Mission Difficult: Cleaning up Zuckerberg’s image

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has promised a quest down the digital highways to make himself more visible as the PR machine attempts to save the company’s brand.

Posting on his own Facebook page, Zuckerberg has stated he will host a series of discussions and debates concerning the role of technology and the internet in tomorrow’s society. Each of the events will be hosted on one of Facebook’s platforms, taking place every couple of weeks, as the usually publicity shy CEO attempts to reverse a very damaging 12 months for the brand.

“This will be intellectually interesting, but there’s a personal challenge for me here too. I’m an engineer, and I used to just build out my ideas and hope they’d mostly speak for themselves,” said Zuckerberg.

“But given the importance of what we do, that doesn’t cut it anymore. So I’m going to put myself out there more than I’ve been comfortable with and engage more in some of these debates about the future, the trade-offs we face, and where we want to go.”

Facebook’s impact on 2018 has been highly publicised and, more often than not, negative. For all the influence which the platform has on today’s society, the nefarious, ignorant and abusive side was showcased more than anything else. Whether it was executives knowingly pushing unethical features onto the consumer, suspect influences on incredibly important elections or failing to uphold promises to user privacy and data protection, 2018 was not a good year for the business.

Perhaps one of the most interesting chapters in this story has been Zuckerberg’s role of inaction and inaccessibility. Just when Facebook needed an influential figure to stand tall and confront the difficulties faced, Zuckerberg retreated to the shadows, compounding the problem. To date he’s refused to attend certain meetings with politicians and avoided taking responsibility for his company’s failings to the general public and the transformation of society.

There is of course nothing wrong with being shy or not enjoying being the centre of attention, but it comes with the territory when you are leading one of the most influential companies on the planet. Zuckerberg’s inability to tackle problems head on, sending minions instead or just not turning up at all, escalated the criticism and was a PR disaster.

By refusing to be accessible, Zuckerberg completely undermined and contradicted the concept of Facebook as a platform. He’s also damaged his relationship with rule makers at a critical time. Rules and regulations will be changing over the next couple of years as governments look to take more control over the OTTs. With millions being spent on lobbyists every year to try and encourage a more favourable regulatory landscape for Silicon Valley, Zuckerberg seems to be undermining these effort by antagonising politicians.

If Facebook is to return to yesteryears image of admiration and respect, not only does it have to clean up the platform, ensure data privacy and better protect its users, it has to ensure its CEO is sending the right message and its business practises are more transparent.

Not many people trust Facebook on the whole today and Zuckerberg’s reputation has been damaged. Something need to be done and this is certainly a step in the right direction.

Aussies question whether Google and Facebook are overstepping boundaries

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is shining the light of concern on Google and Facebook, seemingly one of the first steps towards regulatory overhaul.

Of course, there is no question the internet giants should be under greater regulatory scrutiny, though creating the red-tape maze does take time. The Digital Platforms Inquiry Preliminary Report released by the ACCC is just the first bureaucratic step in the dance which will take place over the coming months. Google and Facebook are in the crosshairs, though how long it will take to overhaul the dated and swiss-cheese like rules is anybody’s guess.

“The ACCC considers that the strong market position of digital platforms like Google and Facebook justifies a greater level of regulatory oversight,” said ACCC Chair Rod Sims.

“Australian law does not prohibit a business from possessing significant market power or using its efficiencies or skills to ‘out compete’ its rivals. But when their dominant position is at risk of creating competitive or consumer harm, governments should stay ahead of the game and act to protect consumers and businesses through regulation.”

There are several issues which are being raised through the report, though the important one seems to be the breadth and depth of influence which the internet players can wield. These are platforms which did begin their journey as curators or hosts of information, and despite pleas this position continues, their role in society has evolved at the same rate at which their bank accounts have grown. The ACCC is suggesting these platforms have an incredible influence on society, which they of course do, and this should be reflected in future regulation.

For the likes of Google and Facebook, there is another fight on the horizon. These are organizations which have enjoyed a relatively light-touch regulatory landscape, perhaps owing to the fact rule makers are not able to keep pace with the evolution of technology and the digital economy, though the world is starting to wake up. Recent scandals concerning privacy, location tracking, the dissemination of information and the depth of knowledge on the consumer are ensuring governments are taking this segment seriously now.

Looking at the specifics of this report, the ACCC is concerned about echo chambers being created thanks to personalisation algorithms. The lack of transparency is a concern here, as users might be unknowingly led down a biased news feed. Perhaps this would explain the polarised opinions we are seeing nowadays; not enough people are being exposed to both sides of the argument.

Other points raised by the report focuses on the depth of information collected on the user by these platforms, which far exceeds what the user has expressly given permission for, and also the ‘take it or leave it’ approach to T&Cs. The influence of these platforms due to the amount of information collected and the opaque ranking system might well be creating beasts which could favour certain businesses or political parties, a position which might be considered dangerous.

One of the proposals put forward in the report is to prevent Chrome being installed as a default browser on mobile devices, computers and tablets and Google’s search engine being installed as a default search engine on internet browsers. This is one example of how the Australian government is aiming to dilute the influence of Google, though it is important to note this report is not specifically directed at Google alone. Other proposals include modifications to the Privacy Act, which would (in theory) offer the consumer more choice and power.

For any fundamental changes to happen in government there are appropriate and measured steps to take. These steps involve research, consultations, as well (seemingly) endless debates and lobbying. This should be viewed as the first steps towards gaining greater regulatory influence over the internet players who have enjoyed greater freedoms over other businesses.

The world is starting to wake up and realise the internet players cannot be regulated in the same way as traditional businesses. It might be long overdue, but sooner or later the balance of power and influence will shift into a fairer and more sustainable position.

EU divided on digital tax

Fears over a reaction from the US has sent Finance Ministers from Ireland, Sweden and Denmark cowering back to their spreadsheets as the EU digital tax hits an early stumbling block.

While the collective bargaining power and protection afforded by the European Union is certainly useful, the cumbersome nature of the bureaucratic beast and unanimous decision making ensures it is anything but. As with many proposed rule changes in the past, objections from a handful of member states have slammed the emergency brakes on the digital tax, aimed at holding the internet giants accountable.

According to the Guardian, the Finance Ministers of Ireland, Sweden and Denmark have all aired their criticism not on the concept of the tax, but fears over what President Trump might suggest as a retaliation. There’s a pragmatic approach to business and there’s spineless appeasement to a bully, we’ll let you decide which one this is.

Of course, it would be unfair to herd all of the EU member states into the same cowardly-corner as Ireland, Sweden and Denmark. 12 member states are already moving ahead with their own plans to create a localised digital tax, including the UK as was announced during the Autumn Budget, and some are acting somewhat hawkish about it. The French Government has suggested it would like the tax rates on the playing field by the end of 2018, though Germany seems to be favouring a more watered-down version of the rules.

The EU wide tax on those taking advantage of creative tax regimes, would be the best solution however. A united front against the slippery Silicon Valley internet giants, as well as those from other nations around the world, would of course be the best way to claim that 3% of local revenues, but it is becoming more difficult to imagine that a reality.

The fainthearted trio do of course have something to worry about. Despite Trump slapping tariffs on Chinese goods, and threatening to revamp tax laws so Amazon cannot take advantage of the US tax havens, he would most likely take the US tax as an attack on American values and a threat to the borders. The President is a man or rarely recognises consistency and before too long will probably be describing Jeff Bezos as a close family friend who have been relentlessly pursued by the penny-pinching Europeans.

Ireland also has a lot to lose. After proving it was incapable of managing its finances in a responsible way, the technology giants could be seen as somewhat of a saviour to the economy. Apple, Facebook and Google are just a few names who house a considerable base in the country. Ireland certainly has its own interests to protect.

It’s disappointing to see such weak behaviour in the face of an orange-hued, bullying politician, but at least there are some nations who are prepared to go it alone and hold the internet giants accountable to fair taxation.

Connected speakers could refresh smart home euphoria

Enthusiasm for connected devices is on the rise, but it’s taking the buzz away from smart appliances and the smart home category on the whole.

According to research from GfK, products which are geared towards improving connectivity and entertainment are gaining traction in the market, though this is replacing the appetite for smart home appliances which are geared towards efficiency and functionality.

“Take-up of smart home products in the UK continues to rise, with interactive speakers the hot product of the last year,” said Trevor Godman, Divisional Director at GfK. “In contrast however, the level of consumer excitement about smart home as a category has lost momentum somewhat – particularly for smart appliances and smart health products.  As smart home pivots to the mass market, it is essential that manufacturers look at what is holding consumers back and communicate compelling benefits that capture consumers’ imaginations.”

While Godman is taking a rather negative approach to the trends, we do not see it in the same light. The idea of the smart home, and various devices in the kitchen or around the house being connected and programmable is not a new idea. The smart fridge or connected light bulbs have been around for years without stimulating enough momentum for the segment to really take off. A creative spark was needed to engage consumers and offer an attractive proposition, unfortunately, smart energy readers do not offer this. Smart speakers and TVs do however.

For the mass market to embrace new ideas, there needs to be genuine excitement. Being able to switch the light in the living off with your smartphone might be functional and useful occasionally, but the smart speakers capture the imagination of the consumer. These are products consumers would actually want to buy, instead of a central heating system which reacts to the weather outside.

According to the research, the UK smart home market was worth £900 million in 2017, making it the second largest market in Europe. It has also become the fastest growing, increasing by 19% in value from 2016 and 35% by volume. There are now 336 brands offering 3,777 smart home products, while 85% of the UK’s online population now own at least one smart product, and the number owning four or more has grown from 35% last year to 44% this year. The fastest growing segment is smart speakers, though this does seem to be at the expense of other categories.

Manufacturers of smart cookers or connected mirrors might look at these statistics and worry, though GfK suggests consumers who plan to buy a smart device or appliance in the future have their sights set on a wide range of products. The smart home might have failed to deliver over the last couple of years, though the accessibility and entertainment value of smart speakers does seem to open up consumers to new purchases.

The purchase of smart home devices might not be growing across the board, but that isn’t necessarily awful for those who have their eyes on the long-game. Smart speakers are normalising the idea of the connected economy. Once the basic concept has been accepted by the mass market, the opportunity to sell becomes significantly easier as value is more readily realised and accessible.

Philips might preach about the benefits of a smart central heating system, but the frivolous purchases were needed to normalise the segment first. The smartphone ecosystem didn’t explode overnight, there were years of adoption as the touch user interface become second-nature, the same could be said here. Frivolous purchasing is needed before the connected bug can spread throughout the home.

Europe gets tech and ad giants to play ball on ‘online disinformation’

The European Commission’s drive to control what takes place online took one more step forward with the unveiling of a code of practice on online disinformation.

This code has apparently been signed up to by unnamed internet and advertising giants, but in its current form it appears to be nothing more than a set of vague aspirations designed to placate the EC for now. However it will probably be used as the thin end of the wedge to extract further concessions down the line.

It is an important step in tackling a problem which has become increasingly pervasive and threatens Europeans’ trust in democratic processes and institutions,” said Commissioner for Digital Economy and Society Mariya Gabriel. “This is the first time that the industry has agreed on a set of self-regulatory standards to fight disinformation worldwide, on a voluntary basis.

“The industry is committing to a wide range of actions, from transparency in political advertising to the closure of fake accounts and demonetisation of purveyors of disinformation, and we welcome this. These actions should contribute to a fast and measurable reduction of online disinformation. To this end, the Commission will pay particular attention to its effective implementation.”

Voluntary. That’s a good one. You can find out more about this voluntary code on this European Commission site. Disinformation is defined as ‘verifiably false or misleading information’. One good example of this could be describing something as ‘voluntary’ when in fact it was subject to duress. The EC and signatories will presumably argue the toss over what qualifies as ‘misleading’ for a while before everyone moves on.

Twitter wants your help with censorship

Social network Twitter continues to agonise over how it should censor its users and thinks getting them involved in the process might help.

While all social media companies, and indeed any involved in the publication of user-generated content, are under great pressure to eradicate horridness from their platforms, Twitter probably has the greatest volume and proportion of it. Content and exchanges can get pretty heated on Facebook and YouTube, public conversation giant Twitter is where it seems to really kick off.

This puts Twitter in a tricky position: it wants people to use it as much as possible, but would ideally like them to only say nice, inoffensive things. Even the most rose-tinted view of human nature and interaction reveals this to be impossible, so Twitter must therefore decide where on the nice/horrid continuum to draw the line and start censoring.

To date this responsibility has been handled internally, with a degree of rubber-stamping from the Trust and Safety Council – a bunch of individuals and groups that claim to be expert on the matter of online horridness and what to do about it. But this hasn’t been enough to calm suspicions that Twitter, along with the other tech giants, allows its own socio-political views to influence the selective enforcement of its own rules.

So now Twitter has decided to invite everyone to offer feedback every time it decides to implement a new layer of censorship. Do date the term ‘hate’ has been a key factor in determining whether or not to censor and possibly ban a user. Twitter has attempted to define the term as any speech that attacks people according to race, gender, etc, but it has been widely accused of selectively enforcing that policy along exactly the same lines it claims to oppose, with members of some groups more likely to be punished than others.

Now Twitter wants to add the term ‘dehumanizing’ to its list of types of speech that aren’t allowed. “With this change, we want to expand our hateful conduct policy to include content that dehumanizes others based on their membership in an identifiable group, even when the material does not include a direct target,” explained Twitter in a blog post, adding that such language might make violence seem more acceptable.

Even leaving aside Twitter’s surrender to the Slippery Slope Fallacy, which is one of the main drivers behind the insidious spread of censorship into previously blameless areas of speech, this is arguably even more vague than ‘hate’. For example does it include nicknames? Or as the BBC asks, is dehumanizing language targeted at middle-aged white men just as hateful as that aimed at other identity groups?

Perhaps because it’s incapable of answering these crucial questions Twitter wants everyone to tell it what they think of its definitions. A from on that blog post will be open for a couple of weeks and Twitter promises to bear this public feedback in mind when it next updates its rules. What isn’t clear is how transparent Twitter will be about the feedback or how much weight it will carry. What seems more likely is that this is an attempt to abdicate responsibility for its own decisions and deflect criticism of subsequent waves of censorship.

 

Europe approves tough new digital copyright position

The European Parliament has voted to adopt a position on copyright rules that opponents inevitably fear will break the internet.

This is an incremental, but significant step towards Europe implementing laws that will impose new conditions on internet companies to compensate rights holders when they share their copyrighted material. The position was initially rejected back in July but in true EU style they decided to keep voting on it again until it went the right way.

“I am very glad that despite the very strong lobbying campaign by the internet giants, there is now a majority in the full house backing the need to protect the principle of fair pay for European creatives,” said Eurocrat Axel Voss.

“There has been much heated debate around this directive and I believe that Parliament has listened carefully to the concerns raised. Thus, we have addressed concerns raised about innovation by excluding small and micro platforms or aggregators from the scope.

“I am convinced that once the dust has settled, the internet will be as free as it is today, creators and journalists will be earning a fairer share of the revenues generated by their works, and we will be wondering what all the fuss was about.”

“Discussions between the co-legislators can now start on a legislative proposal which is a key element of the Digital Single Market strategy and one of the priorities for the European Commission,” said Eurocrats Andrus Ansip and Mariya Gabriel in a joint statement.

“Our aim for this reform is to bring tangible benefits for EU citizens, researchers, educators, writers, artists, press and cultural heritage institutions and to open up the potential for more creativity and content by clarifying the rules and making them fit for the digital world. At the same time, we aim to safeguard free speech and ensure that online platforms – including 7,000 European online platforms – can develop new and innovative offers and business models.

“The Commission stands ready to start working with the European Parliament and the Council of the EU, so that the directive can be approved as soon as possible, ideally by the end of 2018. We are fully committed to working with the co-legislators in order to achieve a balanced and positive outcome enabling a true modernisation of the copyright legislation that Europe needs.”

The usual suspects are appalled at this development with the saveyourinternet.eu site featuring the following statement: “The European Parliament blatantly disregarded your thousands of emails, calls and messages and adopted a horrible version of Article 13 on 12 September. But the battle against Article 13 isn’t over: we must now ask the EU governments to stand up for our rights!”

At its core this seems to be about sharing stuff on the internet and to what extent the owner of the stuff being shared should get some kind of royalty payment every time it’s done. On one hand the internet has wrecked industries like music and journalism by making it so difficult for them to charge people for consuming their products, but on the other the genie is out of the bottle and such sharing is endemic. Either way this debate seems likely to rage for some time yet.