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

[Lach1230]

12 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.

I think what your missing is that if the copyrighted content even makes it onto the platform they get fined.

 

400/hrs of content every second uploaded to YT, and you think they want to take the risk that people in europe aren't uploading copyrighted material?

 

The risk financialy out classes the reward here.

 

I mean shit simply removing the upload button/permission from users in the EU probbaly isn't a very hard thing to do tbh.

 

Human curation? Lets assume that their bots get half of the content as its being uploaded.

They would need over 720k employees working 24/7 to curate the other half, then you would have to account for errors that they, and the bots make.

 

Still sounds like a larger financial outlay then removing the ability to upload, watching everyone flame meps and then have the bill scrapped.

[JupiteL]

It's Youtube 2018, everything major has to be tied up with ONE gaming / whatever channel.

[williamcll]

you could always be on twitch

[Misanthrope]

I think that the far more interesting part of this story is "Youtube now running their own ads" full stop.

 

Think about it: they don't get paid for that ad space but they have full control of exactly who gets served this "ad". This won't raise any alarms since this is probably something most of you won't object on principle (Most objections are pragmatic about whenever they're affected that seriously or not, which is fair) but this is basically youtube using their own platform to mold politically charged opinions to serve THEM mostly.

 

This is a very worrying precedent in my opinion because yes this is something nobody will fault them for but they can later use their reach and take advantage of the platform both advertisers and content creators are largely responsible for to basically influence opinions to their liking.

 

They should not be in the business of doing this directly.

[vorticalbox]

17 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

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.

We need a lager scale backlash of both public and companies before anything will happen to reverse.

 

Nothing changes policy like wide scale vote changing outrage

[Fitsun]

4 hours ago, williamcll said:

you could always be on twitch

It until the article 13 doesn't take it away from EU people.

[voiha]

6 hours ago, williamcll said:

you could always be on twitch

Streaming/recording gameplay , has always been on the edge. There is just not clear law that restricts it....but that can change.

[kilgore_T]

for or against aside....youtube(a US corp) using their immense online presence in peoples homes(outside the US) to push a political agenda is incredibly unsettling to me

 

 

[Princess Luna]

22 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

PewDiePie might not be able to upload content if Article 13 is passed.

Is this supposed to make me want or not want Art. 13? I'm confused 'D:

[Rupe]

25 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

Is this supposed to make me want or not want Art. 13? I'm confused 'D:

Are you saying, maybe it's good this passes so content from that one guy I don't like can be taken down, cas you may have missed the point, whether you like or dislike PewDiePie is kinda irrelevant 

[Princess Luna]

Just now, Rupe said:

Are you saying, maybe it's good this passes so content from that one guy I don't like can be taken down, cas you may have missed the point, whether you like or dislike PewDiePie is kinda irrelevant 

I'll /s just for you mate!

[Rupe]

4 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

I'll /s just for you mate!

What you said was not obviously sarcasm

[AlTech]

1 hour ago, Princess Cadence said:

Is this supposed to make me want or not want Art. 13? I'm confused 'D:

Not want. It has the potential to restrict what "risky" people upload

[Sauron]

11 hours ago, Lach1230 said:

I think what your missing is that if the copyrighted content even makes it onto the platform they get fined.

Please, quote me the part of article 13 that says that.

11 hours ago, Lach1230 said:

400/hrs of content every second uploaded to YT, and you think they want to take the risk that people in europe aren't uploading copyrighted material?

 

The risk financialy out classes the reward here.

Only if what you said above were true, but it isn't.

11 hours ago, Lach1230 said:

Human curation? Lets assume that their bots get half of the content as its being uploaded.

They would need over 720k employees working 24/7 to curate the other half, then you would have to account for errors that they, and the bots make.

Human curation of major channels is perfectly possible - regardless, article 13 doesn't call for it. It only demands for an automated system.

11 hours ago, Lach1230 said:

Still sounds like a larger financial outlay then removing the ability to upload, watching everyone flame meps and then have the bill scrapped.

Hah, as if they would respond positively to blackmail.

 

It doesn't matter how much people whine if they show they don't have any understanding of what article 13 actually says. You're complaining for all the wrong reasons. The problem with article 13 is the burden it places on small platforms, not the slightly stricter demands it makes of mega corporations. Companies like youtube (and more so facebook) fight it because they partially rely on stolen content to make a profit.

[TheDankKoosh]

https://edri.org/files/copyright/copyright_proposal_article13.pdf

 

This seems to bring a lot of light to what the article is fully proposing, and it honestly seems that anyone providing a social-type website or internet service will essentially have to enact a sort of censorship filter to be fully compliant with the law, or just pull out altogether. This is a complete counter to fair use, and the law behind it is too vague, to the point where these "creators" could bend the law to their will if they have a good enough lawyer. I don't support this sort of mass censorship, and it just seems like another way for the EU to lash out at a small issue that they've turned into a big deal. Article 13 will be the beginning of EU conversion into a more Chinese internet, with mass surveillance and mass censorship being at its head.  

[Thaldor]

After reading few articles and checking the real article, I can understand why YouTube would be this scared of the article 13.

 

Thing is, article 13 isn't going to stop memes. It doesn't even make it any harder to make reviews or affect how YT works (content ID is already probably a good example of "as good as possible" automated content checker). There's two possible things that YT is scared: 1) Article 13 may state that any content uploaded to YT and YT aquires that way license to use it, also grants license to use that content for the users of YT. 2) This one is very very iffy, article 13 may also grant content creators more control over their own content because YT needs to cut down what rights they demand from the content creators.

 

The first thing is very clear hit under the belt for YT, because it would drive any pay-to-view content out of the YT because anyone can 100% legally reupload that content because every YT user has the same rights as YT over that content. Second thing basicly stems from this, YT cannot demand full rights to the content because then users would have full rights to that content also, so YT must cut down what rights they demand from the uploaders to minimize the hit for some companies that create pay-to-view content and so the basic users control over their content gets better also. It might very well go as far as YT need to start paying even for the smallest content creators because they use their content just as well as they use PewDiePies or Universals or any other bigger "content creators" content and pay them for that (this stems from that YT holds all rights to use content uploaded and just "out of charity" share ad incomes with content creators crossing certain line, if they were to change that to something like YT pays to the bigger content creators part of the ad income for the rights to use their content which would basicly mean that not all YT users get the rights to use any content on YT, they would also need to change that to touch the smallest content creators).

[mynameisjuan]

1 hour ago, Thaldor said:

After reading few articles and checking the real article, I can understand why YouTube would be this scared of the article 13.

They are scared because if any copyright content does make it through, youtube will be hit directly, not the creators. This could cost youtube billions if their ID doesnt catch something which is often does not. Also "automated systems" dont count in Article 13.

 

Not sure how you missed that. That is the biggest reason youtube is trying to fight this, hell, not just youtube either, instagram, facebook, imgur, twitter, etc....

 

This puts full blame and all fines and lawsuits directly on the websites.

[Thaldor]

7 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

They are scared because if any copyright content does make it through, youtube will be hit directly, not the creators. This could cost youtube billions if their ID doesnt catch something which is often does not. Also "automated systems" dont count in Article 13.

 

Not sure how you missed that. That is the biggest reason youtube is trying to fight this, hell, not just youtube either, instagram, facebook, imgur, twitter, etc....

 

This puts full blame and all fines and lawsuits directly on the websites.

No. Article 13 puts blame on services, but only if they don't have automated content checking and if they don't remove material right holders want removed (DMCA already did the last part). YTs Content ID will be probably used as an example for the best content checker and quite probably the bar will be a lot lower and probably dependable on the size of the company (they don't expect some startup to have same kind of sophisticated bot as YT has but Facebook, Vimeo or any other multi(b/m)illion company doesn't have any excuses why they don't have at least something close to it.

 

Because this article isn't aimed at YT at all. It's mainly aimed at Openload, Mega and other services that doesn't have any kind of automated content checking and don't comply with DMCA take downs. Only things different from DMCA is that article 13 demands services to have automated content checking and companies can be hold accountable for the content if they don't do anything they can to minimize the amount of copyrighted material uploaded illegaly (which IMO is kind of a good thing, just like companies should be hold accountable for poor datasecurity, like there's no excuse why something like Yahoo wouldn't have money to hire some expert to say them "You know, storing passwords in plain text is definedly very bad thing" and come up with something far more better and have resources to do that).

[Sakkura]

On 11/23/2018 at 8:43 AM, TheDankKoosh said:

https://edri.org/files/copyright/copyright_proposal_article13.pdf

 

This seems to bring a lot of light to what the article is fully proposing, and it honestly seems that anyone providing a social-type website or internet service will essentially have to enact a sort of censorship filter to be fully compliant with the law, or just pull out altogether. This is a complete counter to fair use, and the law behind it is too vague, to the point where these "creators" could bend the law to their will if they have a good enough lawyer. I don't support this sort of mass censorship, and it just seems like another way for the EU to lash out at a small issue that they've turned into a big deal. Article 13 will be the beginning of EU conversion into a more Chinese internet, with mass surveillance and mass censorship being at its head.  

That pdf is quite outdated. The proposal has changed since then (and may still change again before the final vote).

 

The "censorship filter" is effectively just the same ContentID system Youtube already uses. FYI, a private company blocking copyright infringement is not censorship.

 

As for fair use, that's an American legal concept that has nothing to do with EU law. There are various similar protections in the EU, and the proposal does at least specify that these new measures should be designed not to interfere with those kinds of uses. The practicality of that is debatable, of course; sites may just block it anyway to be on the safe side.

 

Comparing it to China is outright laughable. This is very much the opposite of how China works; they have a tradition for mass breaches of copyright, whereas this is a very pro-rightsholder proposal. And none of it is enforced by the government.

[mynameisjuan]

5 hours ago, Thaldor said:

Because this article isn't aimed at YT at all.

Yes it is. He is a sum Film theory just posted.

 

 

This is aimed at all internet sites but mostly social media.

 

Openload and other file sharing sites are not the concern. Copyright is when you take other content and make profit off from it. You dont make money off file sharing sites, thats just piracy. This applies to every social media site.

 

So again, you are looking at this wrong. 

[Theminecraftaddict555]

Can someone briefly explain to me what article 13 actually is besides this "banning memes" controversy?

[mynameisjuan]

24 minutes ago, Theminecraftaddict555 said:

Can someone briefly explain to me what article 13 actually is besides this "banning memes" controversy?

Banning memes is just to the extend article 13 covers. 

 

TLDR: Any copyright claim now is filed against the site owner. So if somoene uploads a video or their video includes a copyrighted image, youtube now takes the fine directly and any legal actions will be taken on youtube. (replace youtube with any site). Fair Use and Safe Harbor are now gone as the US will likely follow suite. 

[Sakkura]

31 minutes ago, Theminecraftaddict555 said:

Can someone briefly explain to me what article 13 actually is besides this "banning memes" controversy?

Sites where users can upload content, like Youtube, currently have an exemption from liability for copyright infringement for user uploads, as long as they comply with takedown requests etc.

 

Article 13 would require the sites to check for copyrighted content when people upload, so they can block copyrighted content right away. If they don't check like that, they can be liable for copyright infringement.

 

There are a lot of exemptions from this new requirement - it doesn't reply to smaller companies, or to sites like Wikipedia and Github etc. The requirement is also just for the site give its "best effort" to filter copyrighted content - honest mistakes won't make Youtube etc. liable.

 

1 minute ago, mynameisjuan said:

Banning memes is just to the extend article 13 covers. 

 

TLDR: Any copyright claim now is filed against the site owner. So if somoene uploads a video or their video includes a copyrighted image, youtube now takes the fine directly and any legal actions will be taken on youtube. (replace youtube with any site). Fair Use and Safe Harbor are now gone as the US will likely follow suite. 

That is not correct. For starters, fines are not involved in copyright litigation.

[mynameisjuan]

2 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

That is not correct. For starters, fines are not involved in copyright litigation.

Fines/penalties, same thing

[BuckGup]

On 11/21/2018 at 7:31 AM, firelighter487 said:

this is a good thing. 

Yeah killing online content creators?