BRUSSELS – As a European copyright proposal which has been under development for nearly two years nears a committee vote, critics of the measure are renewing and intensifying their opposition to it.

Among other things, the proposed Directive for Copyright in the Digital Single Market contains language which would require websites which permit users to upload content to use automated content identification and filtration technology designed to prevent copyright-infringing materials from being uploaded.

Article 13 of the proposal states “(i)nformation society service providers that store and provide to the public access to large amounts of works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users shall, in cooperation with rightholders, take measures to ensure the functioning of agreements concluded with rightholders for the use of their works or other subject-matter or to prevent the availability on their services of works or other subject-matter identified by rightholders through the cooperation with the service providers. Those measures, such as the use of effective content recognition technologies, shall be appropriate and proportionate.”

While couched in somewhat confusing language, critics say the upshot of Article 13 is websites and other online platforms would be required not only to use automated content filtering technology, but to foot the bill for the use of the technology, as well.

In a blog post published last year, Jan Gerlach of the Wikimedia Foundation voiced the organization’s strong opposition to the proposed directive.

“As currently written, Art. 13 would harm freedom of expression online by inducing large-scale implementation of content detection systems,” Gerlach wrote. “For many Europeans, Wikipedia is an important source of free knowledge. It is built by volunteers who need to be able to discuss edits with other contributors without opaque interference from automatic filters. Therefore, we urge the European Parliament and the Council to avert this threat to free expression and access to knowledge by striking Art. 13 from the proposed directive.”

In a letter sent this week to Antonio Tajani, the President of the European Parliament, dozens of signatories, including internet pioneers Vint Cerf and Tim Berners-Lee, acknowledged that Article 13 is “well-intended,” but also argued it represents an “imminent threat” to the internet.

“By requiring Internet platforms to perform automatic filtering all of the content that their users upload, Article 13 takes an unprecedented step towards the transformation of the Internet from an open platform for sharing and innovation, into a tool for the automated surveillance and control of its users,” the letter states. “

The letter’s signatories further argue Europe has been “served well by the balanced liability model established under the Ecommerce Directive,” and warn that by “inverting this liability model and essentially making platforms directly responsible for ensuring the legality of content… the business models and investments of platforms large and small will be impacted.”

“The damage that this may do to the free and open Internet as we know it is hard to predict,” the letter continues, “but in our opinions could be substantial.”

Both Gerlach and the group of internet trailblazers took aim at the high cost of deploying content filtration technologies – and the detrimental impact Article 13 could have on smaller companies and individual webmasters by forcing them to adopt such technologies.

“Automatic content detection systems are very expensive,” Gerlach wrote. “YouTube spent USD 60 million to develop ContentID. Requiring all platforms to implement these filters would put young startups that cannot afford to build or buy them at a tremendous disadvantage. This would hurt, not foster, the digital single market in the European Union, as it would create a tremendous competitive advantage for platforms that already have implemented such filters or are able to pay for them. The result would be diminished innovation and diversity in the European interior market and less choice for European internet users.”

The proposal is not without support, however – particularly among European publishers, who appreciate being recognized as rightsholders under the proposal.

“The introduction of a publisher’s right at EU-level is a necessary and historically important step in guaranteeing media pluralism as an essential basis for freedom of opinion and democracy in the digital world,” the European Magazine Media Association said in a statement issued shortly after the directive was first proposed in September 2016. “The Commission’s proposal takes into account the unsatisfactory situation whereby the high-quality content produced by press publishers contributes to the success of many online platforms that do not make a significant contribution to the content, while publishers do not benefit from an appropriate share of the value produced.”

The Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament is set to vote on the proposal June 20. A vote by the full Parliament reportedly will take place either in July or September.