The EU should avoid repeating the mistakes it made with the implementation of its copyright directive when enforcing AI, veteran German centre-right lawmaker Axel Voss (EPP) told Euronews in the first of a series of digital-themed interviews for the summer.
Over the past two terms in Parliament, Voss has overseen a range of digital issues, including the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), copyright and artificial intelligence. Voss also suggested that more specialised committees should be created in Parliament to address the digital sector and preserve Europe’s position in the world.
EuronewsCongratulations on your re-election. After 15 years in Parliament, how has your decision-making evolved?
Axel Voss:I think that with the presence of more extremist parties in the House, the situation could be even more different in this legislative period. If they (the far right) focus on serious legislative files, then they could suddenly play a different role. So far, they have not taken the entire legislative process very seriously.
From a legislative perspective, I would say that the situation has been getting worse over the years. When I started in the legal committee (JURI), there were serious legal problems, with the proper checks and balances with the existing laws. In this mandate, even in the serious JURI committee, there are now many activists who no longer see (the proposals for) the dimension of the laws that work.
EuronewsWhat has been your proudest moment as an MEP so far?
Axel Voss:Given the storm that erupted five years ago around copyright, for which I was largely responsible, I would say it was a success. However, if you ask the younger generation, they all hate me (for the Copyright Directive). Probably not so much now, but they still think that Article 13* (now Article 17 of the Directive) is destroying the Internet. They should now know that nothing major has happened, as I said before, but nobody believed me at the time. (…) Also, as far as promoting digital legislation and ideas is concerned, I consider it a personal success that I am considered the right person for digital archives.
*Article 13 of the Copyright Directive makes platforms liable for copyrighted content shared by their users. Concerns about the potential impact on the spread of memes and GIFs sparked protests. Read more about the controversy here.
EuronewsDo you think the European Commission was sufficiently ambitious during its last term?
Axel VossThey did a lot when it comes to digital finance and climate change. We have had the most legislative processes in these areas, even though we also had a COVID-19 pandemic. They were quite ambitious in addressing some digital issues and focusing on combating climate change. However, where I don’t see enough ambition is in digital development itself. They have outlined strategic ideas, but when it comes to executing these strategies, I haven’t seen much action.
EuronewsWhat would be the ideal way to regulate the digital sector at European level?
Axel Voss:I would say that we should create “committees for future challenges”: a committee on migration, another on competitiveness and cutting red tape, and of course on climate change. As far as digital is concerned, it is the same. We need to put forward a committee on how we can continue to survive digitally in the world and in this global race. Currently, there are committees on trade, industry, internal market, civil liberties and legal matters that all play a role (in the digital issue). This is not helpful because each is doing something different.
The same applies to the Commission. Many DGs deal with digital in some way and probably contradict each other, resulting in unclear legislation. This can be avoided by structuring from the outset: one digital DG and one commissioner fully responsible for digital.
Euronews:There was also discussion about creating an AI Commissioner, what do you think about that?
Axel Voss:What we need to avoid and what we should absolutely not do is create the same problems as with the GDPR, when we are giving Member States the opportunity to interpret all the rules on their own. Only in cross-border cases are we getting to full harmonisation of elements of it, but this takes years and we should not start with AI in that way. Therefore, we need some kind of strong AI office that will lead the development of AI when it comes to interpretation and overlaying of laws.
There are some issues missing in AI legislation, such as the status of generative AI and the application of individual rights, copyright, etc. This is something we need to address, so I hope that in this transition period we will have the possibility to start developing some kind of AI law.
EuronewsDo you foresee a review of the GDPR?
Axel Voss:I am in favour of a review of the GDPR, but it could actually include very specific corrections, not in a general way as I would like. My left-wing friends in the House should be more open to integrating more aspects, such as the electronic privacy dimension*, which has been at a standstill for seven years.
We can modernise the GDPR, of course, but to revamp the whole structure we need a majority. That is why I would like to change the structure to say that you can use as much data as you want (as long as you do not touch) the privacy of my citizens.
*Electronic privacy It is the EU’s online privacy law. It came into force in 2002 and was last amended in 2009. Since 2017, the European Commission has been trying to revise the law, but negotiations have stalled due to disagreements between MEPs and EU member states.
EuronewsDo you see an evolution in the way lobbying is done?
Axel Voss:I think that complaints about lobbying are misguided. Without the exchange with those who have to deal with the law, we would not always know, especially in digital matters, how these issues are handled or what the practical structures are. That is why I think we need their (lobbyists’) expertise in digital dimensions, because we are not experts in digital processes.
I know that some of my friends, let’s say on the left, here in the House focus solely on NGO lobbying. For me, it’s different: I talk to them if they are interested in talking to me, but I don’t know who is funding them or what interests they represent. They come up with wonderful ideas about protecting fundamental rights, the environment, etc. However, these initiatives could be funded by, let’s say, one of the big tech companies that are against the law but are trying to push their interests through a new approach.
If you have had experience in lobbying on copyright, other lobbying is unmatched. In the area of data protection, too, there is intense lobbying going on. When it comes to the due diligence file, we have to take the time for bilateral approaches. We invite around 200 interested associations and companies, sit down with them for two hours and ask them about their problems and opinions. It is intense work, yes, but I would say that it is only part of the process.
