YouTube now running their own ADs warning users of proposed EU Copyright bill | PewDiePie might not be able to upload videos if passed?

[AlTech]

TheVerge reports that YouTube is now running their own ADs on their platform to warn users of the dangers of the EU copyright proposal which is going to be voted on in January 2019.

 

The ADs mainly consist of popup ADs which would usually be occupied by the AD for getting YouTube Premium.

 

Here's an example:

 

 

Quote

Multiple YouTube users in Europe noted coming across the pop-up while watching certain videos. Many viewers praised the company for its attempt to communicate with users about the copyright directive, which will see a final vote in January 2019.

 

YouTube has more recently stated that some YouTubers such as PewDiePie might not be able to upload content if Article 13 is passed.

 

Quote

YouTube’s communications team has spent weeks aggressively tweeting from its main channel and its subsequent YouTube Creators account in an attempt to raise awareness about the copyright directive. A Q&A last week with creators and users on Twitter led the company to admit that if the copyright directive passes, some European channels will be blocked from playing in the United States. Certain users could also be prevented from uploading videos at all.

Take someone like PewDiePie, YouTube’s biggest creator with more than 70 million subscribers. His entire channel relies on uploading and responding to user-generated content and incorporating in copyrighted work. Under the Fair Use Act, PewDiePie is fine because his videos provide additional commentary and are transformative enough to be considered original. Currently, if a copyright holder files a complaint against PewDiePie, YouTube can remove the video or demonetize it. Under the EU’s proposal, the company says the financial burden placed on the platform to ensure that copyright content isn’t uploaded at all is too big, and the easiest way to prevent it would be to stop videos from being uploaded in the first place.

 

While I do appreciate YouTube's efforts to raise awareness of this, they should be calling up European MEPs to have Article 13 cut out.

[cj09beira]

is lobbying a thing in the EU, i thought it wasn't 

[Bananasplit_00]

but its not really that bad though, it feels like youtube are fightning this for some other reason and riding the Article 13 hate wave. Youtube should be perfectly fine from Article 13 so it feels like they havent even read the latest versions and are just going "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE"

[AlTech]

1 minute ago, cj09beira said:

is lobbying a thing in the EU, i thought it wasn't 

Well the least they could do is call up European MEPs and tell them how important it is for them to vote the right way.

[LukeSavenije]

Just now, Bananasplit_00 said:

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" 

sounds kinda like youtube in general

[AlTech]

1 minute ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

but its not really that bad though, it feels like youtube are fightning this for some other reason and riding the Article 13 hate wave. Youtube should be perfectly fine from Article 13 so it feels like they havent even read the latest versions and are just going "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE"

Basically YouTube says that Article 13 would mean they can't take business risks like allowing some creators like PewDiePie to upload videos at all.

[Ashleyyyy]

this is a good thing. 

[Bananasplit_00]

Just now, AluminiumTech said:

Basically YouTube says that Article 13 would mean they can't take business risks like allowing some creators like PewDiePie to upload videos at all.

but they arent even impacted by Article 13, they arent an indexed hub with the main purpose of distrubuting copyrighted content for profit. they are so extremely excluded from article 13 that it might as well say "youtube isnt impacted by this part". content ID is another way they are even further removed for impact if they are somehow ruled that the maiin purpose of yt is to be a pirate hub where they make money. 

[Shally]

Wow their siding PewDiePies side. I was sure they were out to get him. 

[Shally]

Just now, VegetableStu said:

 

"I'm studying Animation" <- "oh, Disney/Pixar/Dreamworks?"

"I'm making videos on Youtube" <- "oh, Pewdiepie?"

 

look, when you say you're a fisherman, do I go "oh, Long John Silvers?"

 

/rant

It's not a conversation, it's just an example. 

[AlTech]

2 minutes ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

but they arent even impacted by Article 13, they arent an indexed hub with the main purpose of distrubuting copyrighted content for profit

Yes they are?

 

That's pretty much exactly what YouTube is. The difference being usually people upload copyrighted content they have permission to upload such as their own copyrighted content.

 

[Sauron]

Quote

His entire channel relies on uploading and responding to user-generated content and incorporating in copyrighted work. Under the Fair Use Act, PewDiePie is fine because his videos provide additional commentary and are transformative enough to be considered original. Currently, if a copyright holder files a complaint against PewDiePie, YouTube can remove the video or demonetize it. Under the EU’s proposal, the company says the financial burden placed on the platform to ensure that copyright content isn’t uploaded at all is too big, and the easiest way to prevent it would be to stop videos from being uploaded in the first place.

That's not a problem with PDP or article 13. It's a problem with youtube's lack of human curation. They could very easily monitor what the largest creators upload manually, if they wanted to. Article 13, the way I understand it, doesn't require omniscience on the platform's part - just that it does what is in its power to prevent copyright infringement when possible.

 

As for stopping European creators from uploading... seriously, as if that would cost them less than just complying with the regulation... there are problems with article 13, but I have no sympathy for the tears of a megacorporation that's too lazy to monitor its main sources of income.

 

But hey, cheer up! At least you'll get content from british creators... unless the UK bundles youtube in with their pr0n card.

[rcmaehl]

But how will Pewds defeat T-Series now? ATTENTION ALL YOUTUBE MEMERS. PEWDIEPIE NEEDS YOUR HELP TO DEFEAT THE EVIL T-SERIES

 

[EG!]

Last vote I sent mails to a couple of MEP's from Belgium and the right winged politicians are against this article and responded that they would vote against the bill as is and the left (of course) said they'd vote for the bill and explained why but then I replied again that they represent us not themselves or their party and then she stoped responding. So I don't think there is anything that megacoorporations like YouTube can change about the vote as most people don't even know what the EU parliament does or care for it. Pewdiepie lives in the UK so I don't think he'll have to comply to EU rules.

[Bananasplit_00]

1 minute ago, AluminiumTech said:

Yes they are?

 

That's pretty much exactly what YouTube is. The difference being usually people upload copyrighted content they have permission to upload such as their own copyrighted content.

 

either way content ID and them removing videos when the copyright owner wants them too, like they do now, pretty much made them imune acording to what it said in there last time i read through it though i dont have the latest copy anywhere right now and the versions i can find are the original drafts before they changed a lot of things for the better

 

[Doobeedoo]

I've seen Pewdiepie talking about this. I mean I really can't see this staying, it's quite a bs though. Like how are we going toward more censure and restriction times. And all the 50+y old people voting on these things should just be replaced.

[mlitttler89]

Not Pewdiepie. What a tragic loss

[Mihle]

YouTube again using article 13 to try to get people on their side.

 

YouTube already does what article 13 wants companies to do, to work on a automatic filter to stop copyrighted stuff to be uploaded. The only thing that they would have to do is continue to try to make the filter better, but as far as I know, they are already doing it.

 

I bet Facebook would be affected much more than YouTube is? As far as I know, if they have a filter, it's worse than YouTubes?

 

The article that would actually hurt YouTube/Google the most is Article 11. It wouldn't let Google news copy hole news articles without give anything to the creators of the news articles. Google earns money on that and takes money away from the news sites. Article 11 tries to stop that, and that's what will hurt Google most.

 

It just happens to be it's easier to get people on their side with article 13, and pretend that something they are already doing is too expensive to do and therefore close down in EU.

 

That's my understanding from this case at least.

 

One thing question tho, would closing uploads from EU even make them not need to follow the law? Wouldn't they have to block EU citizens to watch too?

[suicidalfranco]

Assuming the EC acts democratically and our voices count for something

[Nicnac]

grrrrr DONT DELETE PEWDIEPIE 

[Nicnac]

3 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

transformative enough to be considered original.

Also he'd be happy to hear that lmao

[Invenitive]

4 hours ago, Sauron said:

That's not a problem with PDP or article 13. It's a problem with youtube's lack of human curation. They could very easily monitor what the largest creators upload manually, if they wanted to. Article 13, the way I understand it, doesn't require omniscience on the platform's part - just that it does what is in its power to prevent copyright infringement when possible.

 

As for stopping European creators from uploading... seriously, as if that would cost them less than just complying with the regulation... there are problems with article 13, but I have no sympathy for the tears of a megacorporation that's too lazy to monitor its main sources of income.

 

But hey, cheer up! At least you'll get content from british creators... unless the UK bundles youtube in with their pr0n card.

The concern isn't with the largest creators, though. It's with the extreme amount of content uploaded every day. Some smaller channel could upload an entire movie to YouTube, and before YouTube's copyright system could find it, YouTube could then be held liable for having that on their platform.

 

If YouTube wished to fully comply with Article 13, they would need to block all videos before they're published, scan them for copyrighted content, ideally then have a human check as well, then allow it to be published. The issue with this is that to allow videos to be published in a reasonable amount of time after the creator uploads, YouTube would really need to invest a ton Copyright ID program. Money that YouTube most likely does not have.

 

Even with all those checks in place, things would still get through the cracks. Then, not only would the user get some sort of Copyright penalty, but as would YouTube itself.

[Master Disaster]

5 hours ago, cj09beira said:

is lobbying a thing in the EU, i thought it wasn't 

Attendance isn't really a thing in the EU parliament and you can't lobby people who aren't there.

[Sauron]

23 minutes ago, Invenitive said:

The concern isn't with the largest creators, though. It's with the extreme amount of content uploaded every day. Some smaller channel could upload an entire movie to YouTube, and before YouTube's copyright system could find it, YouTube could then be held liable for having that on their platform.

No, as long as they could show they were doing all they reasonably could to prevent it.

24 minutes ago, Invenitive said:

If YouTube wished to fully comply with Article 13, they would need to block all videos before they're published, scan them for copyrighted content, ideally then have a human check as well, then allow it to be published. The issue with this is that to allow videos to be published in a reasonable amount of time after the creator uploads, YouTube would really need to invest a ton Copyright ID program. Money that YouTube most likely does not have.

That's not what article 13 says. Article 13 only demands that the content is scanned before being uploaded with an automated system, which youtube pretty much already does. If doing it with absolutely every video makes the upload process a bit slower, so be it - I'm sure they can prioritize large content creators if necessary.

28 minutes ago, Invenitive said:

Even with all those checks in place, things would still get through the cracks. Then, not only would the user get some sort of Copyright penalty, but as would YouTube itself.

You're confusing article 13 with what already is law. Youtube cannot legally host this stuff if they know it's there. That's nothing new. Article 13 doesn't change it in any way. The problem with article 13 is that it's hard to enforce for small platforms, but this doesn't affect youtube.

[Techstorm970]

10 minutes ago, Sauron said:

No, as long as they could show they were doing all they reasonably could to prevent it.

That's not what article 13 says. Article 13 only demands that the content is scanned before being uploaded with an automated system, which youtube pretty much already does. If doing it with absolutely every video makes the upload process a bit slower, so be it - I'm sure they can prioritize large content creators if necessary.

You're confusing article 13 with what already is law. Youtube cannot legally host this stuff if they know it's there. That's nothing new. Article 13 doesn't change it in any way. The problem with article 13 is that it's hard to enforce for small platforms, but this doesn't affect youtube.

THANK YOU FOR CLEARING SO MUCH OF THIS CRAP UP!!!  I was getting really confused earlier...