EU proposals for the "modernisation of copyright to increase cultural diversity in Europe and content available online" turn out to be an implementation of the old copyright industries' wishlist, with little that addresses online users' needs.

As expected, the proposed Copyright Directive will give news and magazine publishers—described by the EU as "press publishers"—a new 20-year "ancillary copyright" over and above the normal copyright. Although it is not yet clear how this will work in practice, the intent is to enable press publishers to control the use of online snippets drawn from "daily newspapers, weekly or monthly magazines of general or special interest and news websites."

The commission said: "As [press publishers] will be legally recognised as right holders for the very first time they will be in a better position when they negotiate the use of their content with online services using or enabling access to it, and better able to fight piracy." In fact, they are already able to do that, since journalists generally assign the copyright to them.

The likely result of the new ancillary copyright, if implemented, is that far fewer snippets will appear online because of a fear of being sued under new laws whose exact contours have not been established. Publishers are likely to suffer, since fewer snippets means less traffic to their sites. When a similar law was introduced in Spain, local publishers saw a 10 percent to 15 percent reduction in the number of online visitors.

Similarly, a German snippets law was so disastrous that publishers there ended up giving Google a free licence to their content to regain lost traffic. It's hard to understand why the European Commission thinks that an EU-wide snippet tax will work when it has failed spectacularly not once, but twice.

Automatic for the copyright people

Another worrying aspect of the planned Copyright Directive is that video platforms such as YouTube and DailyMotion "will have an obligation to deploy effective means such as technology to automatically detect songs or audiovisual works which right holders have identified and agreed with the platforms either to authorise or remove."

Leaving aside the limited accuracy of such automatic detection systems, this effectively turns Internet firms into the copyright enforcement arm of media companies, and forces them to monitor their users constantly. There is no mention of judicial oversight or checks and balances, which suggests that copyright companies will simply be able to order Google and other online companies to remove content without further ado—a process that is likely to lead to mistakes and abuse.

While the European Commission has apparently given the copyright industries pretty much everything they wanted in key areas, it has not even thrown a metaphorical bone to Internet users in the form of granting a panorama exception to copyright, which many had hoped for.

That's a curious omission, since granting it would have been an easy win. It would have provided a high-profile example of the commission listening to the public, and not just to the industry and its lobbyists. Apparently, that wasn't an important concern, leaving the law on taking photos and videos of buildings and sculptures permanently located in a public place fragmented and ill-defined across the EU. The commission has also failed to grasp this opportunity to sort out the copyright levy system in the EU, which dates back to the pre-Internet world of audio cassettes.

No more teacher's dirty looks

More positively, the commission is proposing a new copyright exception "to allow educational establishments to use materials to illustrate teaching through digital tools and in online courses across borders." It also wants to bring in "a new mandatory EU exception which will allow cultural heritage institutions to preserve works digitally, crucial for the survival of cultural heritage and for citizens' access in the long term." Both are long overdue, and will be widely welcomed.

The European Commission has listened to researchers' call for a new right to carry out text and data mining of copyright materials:

The proposed Directive will also make it easier for researchers across the EU to use text and data mining (TDM) technologies to analyse large sets of data. This will provide a much needed boost to innovative research considering that today nearly all scientific publications are digital and their overall volume is increasing by 8-9 percent every year worldwide.

However, businesses in the EU will be disappointed that it doesn't apply to them—only to "research organisations acting in the public interest"—even if they have paid for access to the underlying text and data. That means the proposals will do nothing to foster EU startups in what many see as a promising area.

Under the new copyright plans, the Marrakesh Treaty to "facilitate access to published works for persons who are blind, have other visual impairments or are otherwise print disabled," is finally being implemented in the European Union.

This follows over 30 years of discussions, during which time the copyright industries have repeatedly blocked and delayed action for fear that helping the visually impaired might "establish a precedent" for treaties that laid down limitations and exceptions to copyright, rather than those which constantly extended and strengthened it. That reluctance to grant rights to the public is still evident in the industry-focused proposals unveiled by Brussels' officials on Wednesday.

Poky room, no sea view

Even though the European Commission says that it is proposing "modern EU copyright rules for European culture to flourish and circulate," the emphasis throughout is on making things easier for the copyright industry, rather than helping actual creators.

For example: "we propose a legal mechanism for broadcasters to obtain more easily the authorisations they need from right holders to transmit programmes online in other EU Member States." Another proposal is that members of the 28-state bloc should set up "negotiation bodies to help reach licensing deals, including those for cross-border services, between audiovisual rightholders and VoD platforms."

The one area that represents a genuine win for creators is a new obligation for publishers and producers to be transparent and inform authors or performers about profits they made with their works. Too often creators are not provided with details about how much revenue their works are generating for copyright companies. The proposed framework will go some way to rectifying that situation.

Despite being billed as "EU copyright rules fit for the digital age," these proposals are anything but.

They entrench the power of the traditional publishers at the expense of the online world. They provide almost no significant benefits for the public, while granting new copyright powers that are likely to be abused just as has happened with older ones.

Given the one-side nature of the European Commission's plans, we can expect a fierce fight by public interest groups and digital rights activists against them as the proposals pass through the EU's legislative system. The fact that the commission has taken no steps to minimise the outrage—for example, by at least offering a panorama exception—suggests that it is either completely out of touch with what online users want and need, or that it knows but simply doesn't care.