What Does Article 13 Mean for EU Copyright

[@catface101]

KZbin already ignores fair use tho. Ad revenue gets siezed, audio gets muted or the video gets removed entirely.

[@rerorerobert]

KZbin is not a judge to decide that the claim is frivolous or not. They do the bare minimum required to stay in the save harbor, the rest is on the users and corporations

[@op4000exe]

@@rerorerobert Well apart from the part which recently came out about how they might actually be blocking content ID claim disputes of some corporations IP. They might also find themselves in serious hot water due to this fairly soon.

[@anlumo1]

It's impossible to automate fair use detection, and so fair use is a thing of the past with this new copyright law anyways.

[@soteriawallet8055]

Fair use is a doctrine in the law of the United States Article 13 is European law. When talking about KZbin and EU stop saying "Fair Use" it doesn't exist in EU. European Union has typically been staunchly against considering frameworks resembling Fair Use.

[@xway2]

Yeah, this is the thing. KZbin can get punished if they let stuff through that isn't allowed, but there are no consequences for blocking stuff that IS allowed. So of course they're going to play it safe and block more content than they need to.

[@freibier]

still wondering how an automated system should be able to detect criticism/review/caricature/..., when even humans sometimes have difficulties with that...

[@seban678]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the only kind of system that would be able to do that would have to be an artificial general intelligence. So basically the EU wants tech companies to solve the ultimate problem of computer science, along with the philosophical questions of intelligence and consciousness, so that copyright holders can stop throwing hissy fits whenever a teenager uploads a cover of 'their' song to their 4 youtube subscribers.

[@kiradotee]

@@seban678 The only thing left is for the EU to release a directive saying all fish that are unable to climb trees are against the law.

[@remethtiamat7950]

Oh, that's really very simple. They will not even *try*. Being run by a company with the sole goal of making money it'll simply delete any false positives to avoid any lawsuits against it's owners.

[@michdem100]

Well - to be fair The directive says "best efforts to..." And current filters are not doing great job (arguably more harm then good) So it would be perfectly within the directive intent not to do upload filters and even scale back some current content filters

[@arnoldhau1]

They will not.They will just block it. Censoring Content ist not a big deal for youtube and the others, they will just do it. They will not put the effort in to manually check that, even if you complain, you will most propably have no chance, it will just all get blocked.

[@RKNGL]

Don't act like the Music industry or their lobby represent artists or musicians or "sustainability" in the slightest. These music lobbies actually campaigned against infrastructure spending arguing that if faster internet were available it would encourage piracy. These people either don't know or simply don't care about the internet.

[@angelic8632002]

This channel never did that. They quoted

[@256shadesofgrey]

The lobbyists want the government to put the boot deeper into average citizen's rectums than it already is, and the demented boomers leading the EU cheer it on. Fucking disgusting maggots all of them eating away at all the principles that the EU supposedly stands for.

[@0xCAFEF00D]

I'd love to get a good source for the music industry lobbyists arguing against internet infrastructure.

[@Kj16V]

I have copyrighted the word "OOOORDAAAAA" You now owe me one Bijillion dollars.

[@Keket-the-baguette]

I use the version with 2 more A.

[@janpeternelj2309]

Nice try Dr. Evil.

[@ancientswordrage]

I have copyrighted the word "Bijillion"....

[@LudvigIndestrucable]

Copywritten

[@ancientswordrage]

@@LudvigIndestrucable copywright

[@TheCatBehind]

It's very suspect that the two copyright holders that have been mentioned are part of the most aggressive industry that copyright strikes sometimes even without good reason... Of course they'd like more power than they already get. The music industry is disgusting. Big publishing labels are sharks, they need to be restrained more not let abuse the public more...

[@louislux]

It's really hard to see the side of the music industry and independent artists when youtube's copyright system is so often abused by dishonest third party companies hired to maximise profits.

[@jcdg6288]

MysteryEgg based on my understanding, this gives more rights to artists and creators. Not sure if know, Most of the copyright from songs Paul McCartney wrote for the Beatles are not owned by him. I believe this directive would prevent that from happening. And that is why artists and creators (not just big industry labels) like McCartney and Sheeran not only support this directive but even campaigned and lobbied for its passing.

[@TheCatBehind]

Patrick DE GUZMAN I don't know McCartney's copyright issue, but I would be hard pressed to believe that the reason why he didn't own copyright to The Beatles songs was because of social media platforms - which former Article 13 is trying to influence. Also music labels lobbied hard for this article to be put forward. And knowing how generally scummy the music industry is, I would find it very easy to believe that music labels pressed and/or gave compensation to the musicians/managers they employ to make Article 13 seem more righteous. Not to say that is what happened, but I don't trust the opinions of people who stand only to gain from this proposal. Independent creators will never be able to make 100% sure that their content is not being infringed upon, even under this article. There will have to be a new library of copyrighted content on platforms like KZbin and I do not believe independents will be prioritised. Copyright is a difficult issue, especially in the information era. This will probably prove to be a terrible way to deal with the issue, but we will just have to wait and see.

[@DaRkJ4ck]

@@louislux do you really think these music companies don't make enough money already?

[@HDreamer]

I've read several small content creators complaining, that this will force them to join a big name "traditional" publisher, when they could just upload their own stuff online before. Might be an unjustified fear on their part, but a lot of them seem to see this as an attack by big corporations, who don't want to be cut out of the flow of revenue, by content creators directly interacting with their audiences.

[@MaZe741]

"Best effort" is a terrible concept my ISP does "best effort" when providing me Internet, but if its down for unlimited time, its still their "best effort". Its literally a non-rule pretending to be a rule.

[@Carl-hs420a]

"Its literally a non-rule pretending to be a rule." That's a neat summary of the EU and its legislation. But some people still voted for us to remain part of that club because they didn't want the hassle of filling out a visa every other decade. I say: whoever hates A13, but voted to remain the EU; you made your own bed. Now lie in it.

[@HDreamer]

@@Carl-hs420a Looking at how Britain voted for this, chances are you would have had a similar law 5 years ago if not for EU process slowing it down. xD

[@davianthule2035]

What that means is it’s a case law/rule, a judge will make a decision on if it was the “best effort”, Eu judges tend to be more pro consumer then not by the way

[@hax007]

The "meme exception" does not explain how an algorithm is supposed to distinguish between memes / satire / critique and other, copyright protected content.

[@renerpho]

@Gerben van Straaten And they cannot be accountable for filtering them, which will be the safer option (for them). Given the copyright holders are more likely to sue than those who upload. Hence, it would only be logical to play "better safe than sorry", and remove anything that looks like copyright material, with best efforts to identify material that may be fine. "Best effort" in this context can only mean to allow the optimal amount/kind of material that makes the platform the most money while costing the least in law suits. An approach that drastically lowers the diversity of the platform, but may be the financially most viable option.

[@CellGames2006]

@@renerpho have you encountered such "best efforts" removal?

[@lainiebug2173]

CellGames2006 it sounds like the platform has no choice but to do that unless they change it to make it so they have some other way to defend themselves that’s fair for everyone

[@DaviddeKloet]

Wasn't it worth mentioning that Article 13 would have been voted out but that people got confused by the vote being presented in the wrong order and accidentally didn't vote against?

[@MrAndi1281]

True! Just another trick they pulled to get this law passed. Also: they run through this voting like hell, normally they are not even half as fast.

[@Marcusjnmc]

@@MrAndi1281 they were trying to get it through before EU elections because they knew a lot of people coming in will have came in being asked by the people they represent to vote against

[@matthiase3287]

And how many of the people that are against it actually know about what they are against? The Article 13 conversation is so much like the brexit conversation. You have one side that explains how the evil EU is about to ruin the UK/KZbin and the other side. I think the problem is that from the laws perspective, youtube is basicly the same as megaupload. Both provide a platfrom and explain that they have no responsibilty for the content that gets uploaded and it is not their problem if the content is against the copyright law. But discussing that would be a hard conversation that people dont want to have. So we end up exactly like brexit.

[@mrsomeone846]

No, that was just an attempt by politicians who only realised what they’d done after voting to cover their asses.

[@256shadesofgrey]

@@matthiase3287 And that's the right approach. There is a reason why we distinguish a platform and a publisher. If anything, this distinction should have been strengthened, but instead the EU decided to blur it. I don't remember the last time they did anything that wasn't backwards.

[@jasonmann2902]

Any recent law passed concerning the internet can be summed up as; "Huge, unintended side-effects"

[@jcdg6288]

Jason Mann the internet itself is a huge unintended side-effect as well as anything that came out because of it.

[@Lycaon1765]

Nope, these effects are very much intended.

[@musaran2]

You forgot "Open invitation to abuse".

[@benjaminnelson5455]

My concern is the barrier to entry this law erects. If you're KZbin or Facebook or Twitter, you've just been guaranteed that you'll never have to compete with anyone for at least the life of the EU (which may or may not be very long). Copyright infringement is wrong, but so are legislatively enabled monopolies. It mystifies me that the people complaining about graft and cronyism and the concentration of corporate power so often respond by supporting laws that directly exacerbate those problems.

[@graham1034]

And by artificially limiting competition, this will lead to the large sites having more power to dictate worse terms to content owners.

[@sandraodell9441]

About the life part regarding the EU itself... yeah, I don't think their superstate project gonna last even 15-18 months at best and ultimately when their precious Eurozone collapses, the EU will be going to hell with it...

[@JuiceExMachina]

So it was really youtube that pushed for article 13 to come into existence 0.o * puts on tinfoil hat *

[@benjaminnelson5455]

@@JuiceExMachina Not necessarily. So far as I'm aware theres not any credible evidence of that, certainly not on the level of other laws (*cough* ACA insurers *cough*). I didn't suggest that there was either, though since you bring it up I do feel compelled to point that being aware of the potential for backroom deals and/or indirect action is not (of itself) donning the tin foil hat. We know those happen surrounding legislation, and there's some (presently anecdotal, and so not especially weighty) evidence that Facebook may have done something of the sort. What I was saying is that Google, Alphabet, Facebook, et. al. had no motivation to oppose this law. For them it wasn't "We need to get this law passed so that a protective wall is erected around us", but rather "Those idiots are building us a protective wall, let's not get in their way."

[@JuiceExMachina]

@@benjaminnelson5455 was mostly meant to be a joke ^^ your last paragraph seems to be the most likely scenario though. I also wonder if youtube with its current ,,copyright protection setup" might actually not have to change a lot to fulfill what the new law demands. Im pretty sure it is the system that comes closest at the moment.

[@-haclong2366]

I don't understand the obsession with maintaining a monopoly on intellectual property, to some extend it should exist, but not for decades. Music from the 1930's still isn't in the public domain yet, yet the billionaires who profited off of these songs for decades still have want to sue you if you play 10 seconds of it today. We should completely reform copyright © laws.

[@256shadesofgrey]

I think a 5 year protection on creative goods is sufficient. It's long enough to make profit off of it, and it makes sure that the artists are motivated to keep producing those goods rather than sit back and just collect the money for decades and allowing their children and grandchildren to do the same.

[@Robbedem]

@@256shadesofgrey I wouldn't even mind 20 years. But the current is indeed far too long. However, that's not the EU's fault, it's the US fault. (and many of these laws are governed by international law) Maybe the EU and the Chinese could work together to change it. (chinese really don't like copyright ;) )

[@matteste]

@@Robbedem It's pretty much Disney's fault. Heck, one Copyright extension law gained the nickname the Mickey Mouse law (or something along those lines) simply cause they wanted to extend it so that Mickey didn't enter the public domain.

[@polyroguegames5820]

Makes you wonder as to whether those who write and support these laws have any kind of technical background or common sense. Programming isn't magic. Do they not realise that even massively expensive detection software wouldn't work amazingly? Completely out of touch from those who actually use the internet.

[@Execuor]

They do not most of them literally believe that Programms can magically solve any problem perfectly

[@anlumo1]

They have stated publicly that they have no idea about this Internet thingy and they're proud of that fact.

[@stianberg5645]

It is magic to them. Soon they will burn us at the stakes for practicing witchcraft

[@VictouffeVideos]

to be fair, the author of the law never asked for a program that would detect that. It's just the interpretation that is being made, with YT claming that it is the only solution. I think you can compromise with an automated program, and people reviewing in case of false postives. But employing people to do a job is not something YT wants to do.

[@anlumo1]

@@VictouffeVideos Back when this copyright directive passed, on reddit somebody calculated the amount of people that would be required for a non-automated system. It was somewhere in the six digits. KZbin is making a loss as it is right now, what do you expect them to do?

[@wombatpandaa9774]

It baffles me how incompetent lawmakers are when it comes to writing laws involving technology. The Article as it currently stands is so vague that it will end up doing nothing but giving big businesses one more weapon against rightful fair use. This law would have been great if it had been written specifically to protect small businesses and rights holders, but the EC is either too ignorant or too paid off to bother. And one more thing: the internet was created for the open distribution of ideas. No law that encourages rampant corporate censorship supports an open or fair internet. I fully agree that we need protections for small businesses and right holders. This is not it. This is not a compromise, it is a concession. The wording is too vague and the principles are too exploitable to ever protect the little guy.

[@simaopereira3697]

Its not incompetent lawmaking. The article is vague to give the member states a big area of freedom in implementing the directive on their juridical systems.

[@wombatpandaa9774]

@@simaopereira3697 that's a good point -- but I would argue it still defeats the purpose of a law. A vague law cannot be followed, and that vagueness, while it allows for greater freedom among European nations, will also allow for unnecessary overcomplications on issues that are remarkably simple, all because they won't say what they really want. Of course, I'm not a lawyer or a politician. I'm just a guy who tries to keep track of things he cares about and generally keeps a level head. I could be totally wrong, and I hope that you're right. I guess I'm jaded by American lawmakers.

[@sualtam9509]

@@wombatpandaa9774 Extremely late reply: It's not a law but a directive (to make a law). Best efforts is vague to allow an ongoing debate on what's "best".

[@VoxStoica]

The problem we face is the age old issue of concentrated benefits dispersed costs; copyright groups stand to gain so lobby governments to extend copyright laws. Consumers don't have the same impetus to lobby the reverse, so copyright lobbies keep winning. Even outside of Article 13 copyright itself is already too powerful imo. In the UK a book remains copyrighted for 70 years after the death of the author. That means something written today by someone in their 30s won't be out of copyright until ~2140! The purpose of copyright is to encourage people to create content, not to allow corporations 100 years from now to continue to profit from it. Having copyright run 70 years after your death does nothing to encourage you to write something now, but it does stifle our culture as works written a hundred years ago are still not allowed to be redistributed.

[@VictouffeVideos]

But A13 does not strengthen copyrights. It just makes the platform liable, and not just the uploader.

[@-haclong2366]

The public doesn't lobby against it because they are being told that it is in their interest as well, "¿don't you want to keep the rights to YOUR work?" and as long as they are selling to everyone the idea that everyone can make it big because of these laws the people won't actually think about it. Personally I would want to see a system where there is "a window of profitability" of 25 years in which something is copyrighted, for technologies this should be even less, Motorola (in the form of Google), Nokia, Samsung, and Apple are still suing people left and right for making basic smartphones because they own the copyrights to certain parts and/or designs. Our world is so expensive because almost everything has a patented design which stifles other people's chances of getting into the market unless they can afford the legal fees.

[@VoxStoica]

@@VictouffeVideos I know. My point is that the lobby pushing for such things is stronger than the resistance.

[@VictouffeVideos]

@@VoxStoica I don't really see it as "lobby vs resistance" but as "lobby vs lobby". This is "copyright holders" vs "big internet companies". Both are strong lobbies. Sure the copyright holders pushed a lot in the EU parliament (and google cannot because europe don't trust them after their tax thingy). But KZbin pushed a lot on the content creator. I know some french youtubers that are usually ignored by YT that were suddenly approached by them to campaign against A13.

[@jcdg6288]

VictouffeVideos thank you. Someone who actually read, listen, comprehend and even see the truth about the directive. KZbin is such a lazy pig it wants to eat all money for itself and its investors but never to invest back to the internet community by making the platform better and protecting its creators’ and artists’ works and rights from where the company’s business is heavily dependent on. They only think about the viewers as consumers. They don’t even pay their taxes for God’s sake how is that as an example. They want to get rid of the directive instead of actually investing money to follow it. Thank God Europeans do not care about what KZbin says and this has not become such a big issue here. I am worried about creators though. They seem to be very easily swayed and persuaded by KZbin. The law gives them more rights on their works and their money they earned (that KZbin takes half of which YT doesn’t deserve) but they’d rather protect KZbin. No wonder people talk about when and not if KZbin will fall.

[@Technodreamer]

This is a step in exactly the wrong direction. Copyright needs to be weakened and made more brief, not the reverse.

[@jrgenb8107]

Why can’t KZbin send every video that involves copyrighted material to the company that holds the copyright? That would give the industry 3 choices: 1: Say yes to «everything» 2: Say no to «everything» 3: invest an absurd amount of money to actually check every video. If they say no to everything, their content would loose tracktion. If movies/songs etc. is talked about, it will generate more interest :)

[@Marcusjnmc]

musics rightsholders already abuse the system around proper fair use and even original works at every opportunity, obviously they welcome greater opportunity to wrongfully obtain money from others

[@powderuuf]

true

[@BatteredWalrus]

It's a shame the UK government helped back it so it'll likely carry over after brexit. This is the one thing i don't understand about brexiteers: "oh we don't like the EU so let's leave" , while ignoring the fact that our own goverment is often far worse supporting most of these bad bits of legislation and then some (just look at the new porn laws). Our government is far worse than the EU in many regards. If we leave we'll be worse off as the Government won't be held accountable if they decide to strip stuff like the human rights act which many of the torries, UKIP, Lib Dems and even some Labour ministers want gone as soon as we leave.

[@whoknew2273]

The ERG are behind the Brexit as they don't want to be in the EU due to the taxes

[@judychurley6623]

Why is it bad to give the benefits to he CREATORS of content, rather than to those who suck the teat but produce nothing?

[@Capt.Thunder]

The difference is that they will no longer be able to pass the buck. Like many leftist remainers, you seem to be perfectly fine with the EU implementing left wing policies that our elected officials had barely any input on, and they can then shrug their shoulders and blame Brussels for it. It's not a very democratic way of doing things, you have to admit, even if you agree with the content. And it's not a good look to be anti-democratic. Brexit will cause them to stand on all of their own policy positions. Remember when May stood on fox hunting, the ivory trade, porn ban, internet censorship (where she praises f***ING China as a bastion of good internet regulation), and the dementia tax, and the Tories got shafted in the election as a result, as Corbyn cleverly made brexit a non-issue. They were forced to abandon much (although sadly not all, because labour are just as censorious and also hate porn because they're usually ugly sex-negative feminist women who are jealous). The Tories only listen to the people when the people put a gun to their head and say: if you don't do this, we're voting third party. We need to encourage competition for that very reason. While brexit imo is a step in the right direction (limiting it to just our bastards, rather than ever increasing undemocratic layers of bastards that we cannot vote on - EU parliament doesn't propose legislation and doesn't have any accountability for individual MPs because the party controls the list, and everything above the EU parliament level are little more than appointed technocrats, not to mention that the Eurocrats have delusions of grandeur and have openly said that they want to build a European empire "of the good" that they can rule over and start projecting power throughout the world, ostensibly against everyone, including the United States - doesn't that sort of rhetoric concern you?) I will admit that reform doesn't stop there. But at least it will be "our sh**hole" to make until we sort it out, and that motivates actual reformers to step forward, as things are much easier to change if parliament is sovereign. Ultimately taking our destiny in our own hands is a gift, you need to have a bit more faith in people. And democracy. I wish we didn't have a dishrag for a constitution that can mean whatever people want it to mean, but maybe we can eventually fix that too. The EU's idea of a constitution is a poor taste joke, so again, it's a step away from the wrong direction.

[@judychurley6623]

@Templar Royston Of Vasey If you are so concerned that those who create work can profit from for long term, explain why should those who don't produce the work profit from it at all?

[@buggs9950]

" "oh we don't like the EU so let's leave" , while ignoring the fact that our own goverment is often far worse " Oh yeah they're rubbish. But you know what the difference is? We can vote for or against them. OK it's a nonsense voting system, the Tories got in with only, I think, 37% of the vote for example. But we have no meaningful sway over the EU except by pulling out, and now they're listening. Look, we'll be screwed over either way whether we're in the EU, the EC or the flipping AA. In the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter and it won't effect any of us half as much as the drum banging drama queens in the media would have us believe. You and I are just numbers to those in power and whether we voted in or out we mean nothing to them unless they need us, get used to it.

[@pekojounin]

According to music companies: fait internet=more money for rich peolple. Interesting to know.

[@RoScFan]

I agree that big copprations like youtube should pay more to small artists. But lawmaker should always err on the side of freedom not on the side of economics. If article 17 still has "problematic" parts... maybe it should have gone through quite a few more iterations. Maybe the EP rushed to judgement.

[@MitoseNorikoFan]

The current copyright system is what's screwing over small artists. They get copyright claimed by literally random people for THEIR OWN MUSIC THAT THEY OWN. Large artists and music labros are the only winners of article 13.

[@HDreamer]

Honestly, article 17 might be less of a problem, that the copyright laws in general.

[@matteste]

They did rush it, but it was very intentional. Big corporations paid them out and made them try to get it out as fast as possible precisely so that they can abuse the result, and that they got it out before the EU elections which would swing things away from Article 13's favor.

[@modularcuriosity]

What about for educational use? In the US we're getting tons of copyright blocks for content which is clearly within the Fair Use portion of the copyright act of 1976. Imagine going to film school where not only could you not watch movies, but you'd be unable to even act out the scenes or mimic the lighting or sound design of the scene. Or imagine going to music school and not being allowed to play any copyrighted music, or perform it, or analyze it, or transcribe it. This is exactly why Fair Use exists. But in the US corporations, specifically Warner Music Group, are using their legal power to shut down any use of copyrighted music even if it's legitimately used in an educational framework.

[@doorbell8132]

Remember Article 13? Me neither.

[@Goodmans93]

scary when you wake up one morning and you can no longer do something you've been doing for years and you don't know why

[@Kunori]

The existing automated systems already have a large and growing problem with abuse, for example media companies making false claims on negative reviews. The laws need to include specific significant punishments for 'rights holders' who make repeated false claims. And that's just the start. Eventually, the rights holders who are supporting this legislation will realize they've effectively banned almost all mention or discussion of their content and lost more than they've gained in terms of awareness and advertising, and made things a little worse for all of us while they're at it.

[@1121494]

Problem with that realisation is that these kind of people will reject any own responsibility. They will demand compensation from Platform operators for loss of advertising value. The bit about newspaper headline and snippet compensation has been already tried by the media lobbyists in Germany and Spain. The result in Germany was that shortly after delisting and seeing their revenues plummet, publishers came back knocking at google news for relisting, signing them licenses to re-include them in google news for free. This also gave google news a monopoly in news aggregation platforms, as it was the only one with the size to have them crawl back. Then they went to the EU-Level to ask for the same, but this time with a ban on such free licensing. Expecting to this time have the cake and eat it, because what could possibly go wrong with that. Well, it could go like in spain, where google just completely closed google news, publishers suffered from that and yet still don't see any blame on their own, painting responsibility for that entirely on google and other shut down aggregators.

[@kdhlkjhdlk]

Rights holders already have it great, they're able to monopolize on culture, which used to be shared. Now it's not.

[@laszlomeszaros247]

Wow, you just explained Article 13 simply and elegantly where most people failed. Thank You!

[@carlo1081]

can't the sites just asks to sign a form before every upload that ask if the person checked and confirm no copyrighted material is use and the uploader accept responsibility if found in the wrong?

[@ben76326]

That's already the case. When you make an account and upload content you agreeing to that platforms terms and services. One of the core terms is that you are the one legally responsible for the content you upload. For KZbin specifically they first take down your video, when a claim comes in. Then you have a choice to dispute it and put the video back up. But by doing so you are taking full responsibility, and who ever is making that claim can sue you.

[@neocephalon]

You best make sure you have rights to the use of those copyrighted logos in this video

[@TroyVan6654]

Logos usually are protected by trademark laws, not copyright. It is generally allowed to use trademarks to show what you're talking about, e.g. a KZbin logo in a video *about* KZbin itself.

[@jonnydjackson]

The weirdest part about article 13 is the fact that since the EU is such a large entity, it will probably be easier for sites to implement the new copyright features worldwide rather than have a special case for just the EU.

[@s3n5o2l]

Considering it's already pretty hard to even open a VPN website in the UK since they are being suspended, I'd say that no one behind the steering wheel here actually cares about people's freedoms in internet.

[@denzelhorton3280]

s3n5o2l UK must resist

[@lellyparker]

It is sheer lunacy. The only sensible part is that KZbin should remove content if they receive a complaint from the copyright holder. But they already have to do that by law and they already do that very effectively.

[@swanky_yuropean7514]

Thats not the issue here. The problem is that FB and KZbin earn ad revenue on stolen content. They might take it down if they get a copyright notice but as of today, they are not obliged to give up a single dollar earned from stolen content. This new law holds them more accountable in that regard.

[@britishknightakaminininja1123]

Bear in mind that the law has to attempt to be fair and unbiased. Also, that intellectual property, which covers copyrights, but also patents and trademarks, is still relating to property. ALL that article 13 proposed, from the start, was make the internet publishers have to follow the same legal rules as print publishers had always had to. If you were a magazine, a newspaper, or a publisher of novels, even the harshest form of article 13 was only what had always been in place for decades. Why on earth should a small publisher have the responsibility for trawling through the hours of video uploaded each second in order to see if their property has been inappropriately used, which as discussed is a mammoth task even for the company that is profiting from the content, never mind for the small creator or publisher who is not being paid unless they win a case they cannot know they have without spending the next 1,000 lifetimes looking for? The real issue is with the laws of intellectual property themselves. Those state that the owner of any intellectual property MUST protect it. If the owner of intellectual property does not prevent one infringement, then it becomes an argument that future violators might 'reasonably' believe that it was now public domain. Owners of intellectual property are legally bound to actively seek out (and if needed, sue) those infringing their property rights, or they may permanently lose those rights entirely. The law does not allow you to pick and choose, in part, deliberately so that companies who've based huge amounts of their fortune on buying up rights and then suing users, can't make this even more effective by making a thing look like it is public domain, and then cherry picking big financial payouts on just some transgressors.

[@lellyparker]

@@swanky_yuropean7514 That is a debatable argument. The fact is that KZbin gives content providers a lot of free advertising and promotion providing them with a wider audience. So that goes both ways. The problem is that Article 13 is mostly un-workable and will likely hurt content providers as much as it helps them.

[@stianberg5645]

Exactly! They have the right to protect their own IP. That should be enough. Now they are making it the duty of others to protect their IP and at the cost of people's rights to free Speech, not paying any respect to the openness of a democratic internet.

[@swanky_yuropean7514]

@@lellyparker That only counts if you want to be a content creator on KZbin or FB. There are stolen documentaries and movies on those platforms where the original content creator sees not a single cent from it. The only one profiting regardless is the hosting platform.

[@LucifersTear]

Stop defending them! Many many channels on KZbin use a lot of clips from copyrighted content to add their criticism. This is what the EU are being told to combat by content makers... The content makers want a cut from normal people critiquing their work. Not good!

[@RichO1701e]

Nobody is "defending them" dipshit. This video and channel presents the FACTS on any given subject. Sorry if YOU interpret the FACTS as "defending them", but facts don't care about your fweelings.

[@gdlunar3773]

Actually critique is not copyright infrigiment, as the video says.

[@noisecrime]

It really doesn't matter how many or how well written the exclusions are in Article 13, tech and business can simply not take the chance of being seen to be in violation as it will cost them too much. That is the core of the problem. When so many exclusions are based on ill-defined and some might argue impossible to define statements or categories, no one will take the chance. So well Article 13 doesn't directly ban Memes or uploading of material the end result is that they will become effectively banned as no company will be willing to violate it and have to defend their position across potentially thousands of violations from thousands of users.

[@randomquestion7592]

So if a father buys a spongebob tshirt for both himself and his son and they post a picture of themselves posing with those tshirts on facebook it wil get removed? It is terrible how weak willed our politicians are to even comply with these ridiculous demands.

[@TheLycanDragon]

Yep, and yep.

[@forshort6769]

Finally some channel that shows both sides of the debate and doesn't just bash the EU. Indeed the way youtube works could be defined as just stealing content of all kind from creators zo that 2nd hand creators can use it and get money of it. A worst case scenario of this happening is the 'reactors' on youtube that just steal content, all other youtube channels that do to some degree create their own content take music and video samples from other creators without paying them. Look at it this way, if a world of article 13 was the norm, it would be madman speak to change to the way of handling we have now as you would just tell movie/music creators "we can now use your content without paying you, deal with it". But when you look at it from the consumer perspective you don't care about the movie/music creators because watching a free movie clip on youtube is nicer than actually paying for the movie.

[@greenfox1991]

Ye, all these article 13 haters just dont understand what is for an artist to see people using your stuffs without credit at all. They are used to have things for free.

[@forshort6769]

@@greenfox1991 Indeed, if they only try to see the EU perspective of the matter, they will see that their decision is only a logical and necessary one to take.

[@365techtips]

@ 4:30 - are those conditions AND, or OR? Surely not every website older than 3 years would have to be held to these standards?

[@256shadesofgrey]

No no, every site that fulfills just one of this criteria is liable.

[@FreedomStrider]

Thank you very much for doing a video on this! I emailed you asking and I'm glad you did it, thank you :) - Polly

[@Acier25997]

I think something important to note here is that the EU does NOT have "fair use", neither does the UK, they have "fair dealings" which is a closed list of subjects that can be used as a defence to copyright infringement and are contained explicitly in directives or statute (e.g. parody, caricature, pastiche, educational use, e.t.c) as opposed to fair use, which is a set of guidelines that courts can interpret, which means that things that would be protected in the US, may not be protected in the UK or the EU; all this makes Art 13 even worse for big sites that operate on an international level. Also, I posted this point as a reply to another comment, but will post it here because it is important in showing how impossible this will be to implement, using parody as an example, the definition of parody is NOT the same internationally, the leading EU case on the subject (Deckmyn v vandersteen Case C‑201/13) defines parody under EU law as "that the essential characteristics of parody, are, first, to evoke an existing work, while being noticeably different from it, and secondly, to constitute an expression of humour or mockery"... HTF is an algorithm supposed to determine if a work constitutes an expression of "humour or mockery"? That is 100% subjective, and something only a human could do, even then it sucks, what about bad jokes? If it isn't funny and isn't a mockery, does it matter what the intent was? This definition says no; even the first part is hard to implement, KZbins content ID system proves that. A final note, and probably the most important one, what about freedom of speech, isn't that protected by the European Convention of Human Rights? Yes it is, here's the catch though, it is a "qualified right", there are 3 types of rights under that convention, "absolute", "qualified", and "balanced", absolutes cannot be violated ever, balanced can be justifiably violated if it is proportional to the aim of the violation, and qualified can only be violated in specific circumstances set out under the article if it is "necessary in a democratic society" and proportional. Under Art 10 for freedom of expression, it "may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society", now, you can read the full list for yourself, but the most worrying one is this " for the protection of health or morals"; yes, they can violate freedom of expression if it is "for the protection of health and morals" and is what the EU court deem necessary in a democratic society... I don't know about others, but I find this to be very dangerous, especially in light of Art. 13. (Thank you for reading this block of text, I hope anyone who reads this has a fantastic day!)

[@unazwetschge]

This is the first neutral video about article 13 on YT. Great Work TLDR Team. Love your videos!

[@GtdAquataine]

The only way I can see this being sustainable is the severe curtailing of copyright lifetimes. Currently Copyright is held for 70 years after the author's death. This only helps massive corporations and in no way adds to the public good. Life of the author plus 20 years is more than enough to account for the untimely death of the author so the family can still benefit from the works, without corporations owning the rights to something indefinitely which they seem to be trying to go for. I'm looking at you, mouse.

[@256shadesofgrey]

I think 5 years from the date of publication is already sufficient time to profit from it, and it also makes sure that the artists don't just become lazy if they made one hit in their lives.

[@rileyfenley522]

The original Article 13 sounded like it was written by non tech using 70 year olds. With the revision it sounds like they have brought in people that understand. Unless someone creates a service that smaller websites can run all uploads through for copyright checks article 13 is pretty much ensuring the current giants stay unchallenged. I feel like this is going to just ensure the current tech monopolies stay that way. I feel like there are going to be a decent amount of websites that will just have to block access from the EU. They will fall outside the exceptions and it will be easier to block. It just wont be worth opening them to possible fines.

[@josephevans992]

I'm hoping that for a fee you tube and Google will have an API that allows for the detection of copywriter content, it is basically handing the keys to the competition but they get money for a tool they already have and it's the same as Amazon Web services and Netflix.

[@ten_tego_teges]

The real elephant in the room is that copyright laws are written for the overwhelming benefit of corporations, ESPECIALLY Disney. Copyright on music and art should expire after at most 30 years of publication and it's simply outragous that it holds after the creators death. Why is Presley's music protected under copyright? Why is Winnie the Poo protected under copyright? How about we address that?

[@userPrehistoricman]

Wouldn't Mario be free domain by that logic?

[@ten_tego_teges]

@@userPrehistoricman Possibly, is that bad?

[@userPrehistoricman]

He's still in use in modern titles so I think that he should still belong to Nintendo.

[@ten_tego_teges]

@@userPrehistoricman I doubt anyone would do that, cause few people would buy it. On the other hand, sb else could make Mario maskots and sell them, which is fine with me.

[@ServalBrennus]

Create music, art, book... and let make other people money with your work. We'll see if you agree or not. By the way the copyright has been created during the 18th century then yes it was only to protect Disney !

[@imsmarterthanyou5677]

*This video is unavailable in your country. See: Article 13.*

[@GlamTelevision]

What about Article 11 - the 'link tax'?

[@connla]

that was changed ages ago. There is no 'link tax' it was changed to instead only charge if you quote over X amount of the article. X being set individually by each member state.

[@GlamTelevision]

@@connla so it's now a 'quote tax' article provision?

[@piotrfelix]

@@connla So I guess that X can lim -> +inf ?

[@Woffenhorst]

@@GlamTelevision No it's a "fine for copying someone elses article" If I quote every paragraph of your article and just stick some wordsin between, I have basically plagiarized your article.

[@connla]

@@piotrfelixIn thoery I guess, there might be some bickering it goes against the spirit of the law and it would set a terrible precedent legally so I doubt we'd see any +inf.

[@blackconsevative]

Thank you calling these Tech firms platforms. Wish more people would report this honestly.

[@256shadesofgrey]

That's what they want to be called, that's not what they are. They are publishers at this point, because they heavily control the kind of content that they are allowing to be visible. And the EU just made sure that platforms can't exist in Europe at all. All will either be publishers, or they will be killed by this monstrosity of a directive.

[@thegrandmuftiofwakanda]

*_” Does the EU’s Article 13 Kill Internet Freedom “_* Yes it does. But not here in the UK, because we’re leaving.

[@FreedomLovingLoyalist]

people in Europe if you don't want internet censorship !!!LEAVE THE EU NOW!!! LEAVE THE EU NOW !!!

[@PennyAfNorberg]

It's article 17, it changed name and there is no way stopping it now.

[@matteste]

Actually there is. There are two ways to stop it. Either, they can repeal it after the EU elections, but that is of course if they take the initiative. The other is if someone takes this to EU Court of Justice.

[@PennyAfNorberg]

@@matteste I would hope so but didn't they write 5 years before taking up the question again? The court however is a chance

[@matteste]

@@PennyAfNorberg The thing with Article 13 and 11 is that both are on incredibly shaky legal ground and blatantly violates some trade and human rights laws, most notably Article 14 and 15 of the E-Commerce Clause of 2001. Laws that the corporate fossils are now trying to kill precisely cause that they are in the way so that if anyone takes it to court they will have less legal recourse. An act that would violate the CETA Trade Deal and EU Principal Law. What are they gonna do then? Kill those to?

[@matteste]

@@PennyAfNorberg And good news, Poland decided to take the initiative and take this issue to Court. This not only means that there is a good chance that this will strike down the directive due to it now will be forced to be scrutinized in more detail, but will also put a half to any implementation of the directive for as long as this issue remains in court.

[@bluebelle8823]

From an information professionals perspective. This is one of those things that sounds good(ish) at the time but is eventually going to bite someone in the arse. KZbin has become something of a home for content that is still within copyright but whose copyright holders no longer provide access. (Think old TV series no longer available on DVD or Blu-Ray.) It's going to create an access nightmare, it was written from quite a simplistic perspective. Copyright is nasty business in the digital age.

[@nurichniemandsonst9639]

Well, isn't it better to get to it now before the problem gets even nastier?

[@bluebelle8823]

​@@nurichniemandsonst9639 Not possible, in an ideal world maybe. Access and copyright in digital space will always be complicated to a ridiculous level. Unlike hard material where ownership is easier to prove while providing reasonably ready access.

[@YuRaLL]

one correction: this isn't a EU Law. but a guideline for which each member state must implement it's own law. so there will be a different interpretation of this article in each member state making it even more difficult for websites to comply (if for instance France says you MUST have a complete manual viewing before posting, but Belgium finds it OK if it happens automatically within a period after uploading (like Content-id works now). so frankly. it's a mess. and I can see it happen that even KZbin will just not allow viewers from some countries which interpret this article too harshly and make in unprofitable to even implement it. to quote lord buckethead: "it will be a shitshow."

[@angelic8632002]

Exactly. This new directive has so many holes in it it boggles the mind it went through so many iterations and still got approved. *Someone* must have asked an expert in the field...

[@HellDuke-]

Good video. Most people completely blow it out of proportion saying it's the end of a free and open internet without having read the directive or even article 13. What's the point of criticizing it if you don't know what you are criticizing? Hopefully more people will understand where the problems lie. Also, not sure but to me it seems like most sites that are in that kind of business will be exempt from these rules outside of the giants

[@louise102nd]

Biggest concern is the 3 terms that allow you to be exempt from the law as its not meet one or two and you are exempt you have to meet all 3 and as the first one is about how old your site is the other 2 don't mean anything because as soon as the site is too old you are liable

[@HellDuke-]

@@louise102nd as I recall from reading the provisions there was no indication that you had to meet all 3, more like you had to meet at least 1

[@user-xp8nq5mf9y]

*"YoU Got A LIcEnSeS fOR ThAT SoNG MaTE?"*

[@ameyas7726]

No but according to Article the 13th, you are supposed to sue KZbin now, not me!

[@user-xp8nq5mf9y]

@@ameyas7726 yes but I had to make that joke.

[@IslandHermit]

Copyright holders are already able to sue anyone who uploads their content without an appropriate license. However it would be very difficult and expensive for them to do so, so they have lobbied governments to get someone else to foot the bill for them, in this case the platforms.

[@exodud5016]

Now, IIRC, I do believe it is stated somewhere in that text that anything a website gets to be able to use as copyrighted content (for its user(s)) can be used by anyone on said website. Meaning that if, for example, KZbin somehow can convince the British government to let them use parliamentary footage, ANYONE on KZbin could freely use it. Also, one of the biggest questions this article tried to solve is this one : _We need to protect copyrighted content for people to be able to earn money from their intellectual property. However, Internet is wide and (mostly) anonymous._ **So, who should be the one to review Internet content in order to ensure a fair protection of copyrighted content : the private website? or the government?** And side question : How? I would very much appreciate your answer on the bold question (pun intended).

[@thebeststooge]

If any sites get taken down due to 17 it will prove that your interpretation is wrong which invalidates anything you have said prior and henceforth.

[@benhansberry]

Nice to see the channel branching out to non-Brexit topics! One bit of feedback: I found some of the visuals in this one to be so abstract that they were a bit confusing and distracted from the explanation.

[@DominickvdHoff]

i hate article 13, it's the old music industry corporations trying to stop the future. they ned to go broke or change, not try too change the laws.

[@ServalBrennus]

Yes the future is to violate the copyright.

[@hermit4706]

Burn it all down!

[@CodingAbroad]

Like Seth Rollins?

[@hermit4706]

@@CodingAbroad who?

[@MrDavidNichols]

Surely the wording of "best efforts" is exactly what protects smaller sites, since they haven't stated specific measures, and the sites don't have the resources to do all of the things you suggest they can still have easily made "best efforts"

[@klopferator]

I think you have missed several points. 4:30 These exemptions for smaller sites are only available if ALL criteria are met. So a small discussion forum that earns just 50 bucks a year to cover hosting costs via banner ads is still subject to the full requirements of article 17 if it's older than 3 years. In that case it doesn't matter if it only has 200 users, it still has to implement upload filters to prevent users from unlawfully uploading parts of Harry Potter, Star Wars fanfiction, an obscure book that has been self-published 20 years ago by a guy in Australia or even a youtube comment by a Chinese user because nowadays everybody is a creator of copyrighted material. 7:40 Users should be able to upload copyrighted content for quotations, criticisms etc., but it's impossible for upload filters to decide whether the use is permitted or not. So there's no possible way even for big sites to implement both.

[@ThePhobos100]

The UK is not adopting article 13, the uk will be out the EU in a couple of days. This will be a problem for the EU, not the UK.

[@TheBarbarella76]

Small correction: It is not the European Council (Assembly of EU Heads of State) that approves EU laws such as EU Directives. EU Directives like this one are usually have to be approved by both the Council of the European Union ( Represationof the responsible Ministers from the EU Member States) and the European Parliament.

[@TheMarioManiac]

What makes me more worried is other countries will see this as a good thing and try it themselves, I could see America trying this eventually...

[@akirapunk4883]

The terrible issue, like brexit and article 13 is that the always generation ALWAYS rule, and whats terrible is that they don t listen the youngs, more informed, more involed generations. I dont mean to cut out the oldest of course, but a better collaboration will be ESSENTIAL.

[@adderleydezigns]

One extremely important point not touched on in this video is that article 13 will prompt sites like KZbin to negotiate licencing agreements with the rightsholders. Meaning if you want to upload a video with a copyrighted music in and KZbin have negotiated a license for that song you can still monetise it and KZbin have to pay per view out of their pocket to the rightsholder (since they're liable and have the agreement) and you can still be paid as usual. KZbin will definitely negotiate licencing agreements with all major record labels so it means no more copyright strikes, no more videos getting claimed and no more videos getting taken down. If KZbin have a licence for the content it wont be flagged by the content-ID system, fair use or not.

[@johnfoe3574]

Another of the EU laws which is impossible to follow. SAD!

[@Carl-hs420a]

Remoaners are hypocrites. If they love the EU so much, then they should be all for a crapped up internet. After all, the EU knows best, don'tchaknow?

[@graham1034]

Given that piracy has little impact on actual monetization of content, this seems to me like it would most likely lead to a DECREASE in revenue for creators. This law will discourage competition for content platforms due to the onerous cost of complying with regulation, leading to a small number of massive companies more able to dictate terms to creators.

[@marcusdoe6552]

Stop supporting a closed platform like Twitter and Facebook. Use minds, use gab. Open your content to everyone

[@ladysarcastro8101]

They'll have to comply with the directive too. This will kill off any small/ new platforms. We will need an alt internet soon!

[@marcusdoe6552]

@@ladysarcastro8101 Twitter and Facebook are banning people today, not in your near future. Move platforms now.

[@gdlunar3773]

@@marcusdoe6552 I can't actually make account on Twitter, i filled the nickname and password in the boxes and it just instabanned me for making account.

[@userPrehistoricman]

When music labels already abused copyright takedowns (such as on KZbin), and I could easily go onto kickass torrents to download the shit out of anything I wanted, I don't see how this directive would ever help the situation of copyright abuse.

[@bloojkl4520]

What I don't understand is the new final text does NOT mention filtering systems. I think it even mention "physical persons" have to review the content. So why do people say we'll still have them anyway? I thought that the platforms will be forced to make deals with the rightsholders.

[@uku5840]

There are clauses in article 13 that states that upload filters should be avoided and that avoiding false positives is a legitimate reason to adjust the filter to let more stuff through. It also states that sites, by following this rule. Should not have their user experience affected in any way. Nor the people who make their livelihood on providing online content. Meaning for anyone to sue KZbin, all KZbin has to do is demonstrate false positives with their best current technology and they are immediately exempt from the upload filter rule.

[@uku5840]

The article also specifies what it deems reasonable for a manual filter. And specifically supports using a combination of both, an automatic filter that only bans clear violations and sends all the edge cases to manual review. As well as user generated reports being suggested. Basically the same system that's in use today, possibly even a more lax version of it.

[@lellyparker]

In your Twitter blurb it may be worth considering changing the phrasing a little. Saying "our followers ... aren't that impressive" is a comment on the followers themselves - are they not "influential" enough perhaps? I suspect what you mean to say is something more like "our following is not that impressive" or "the number of our followers isn't very impressive" or some such.

I see this as an opportunity for a company offering a service for copyright checking

[@Vanilla0729]

From the beginning, KZbin, Facebook, and all other major services should have announced that if this ever takes effect, then they will no longer be available in the EU. They will not invest that kind of money for that kind of content id. That would change the debate considerably, if not kill the bill earlier.

[@Sam_on_YouTube]

Leonard French, a copyright lawyer and youtube said about this not to be worried before we see what's actually in Article 13. Then he saw it and said now it is time to be worried. We're already seeing KZbin starting to change in response, with more and more use of automated copyright claims, which is not how copyright claims are supposed to go because it sweeps up a LOT of legitimate creative works in the process that we should be encouraging.

[@ivyiris1]

Help me I wish article 13 never existed...

[@pr0xZen]

The directive *_is not supposed_* to be precise and specific. It is a directive, not a law. An ideological outline if what a law should achieve. The EU doesn't have legislative mandate to dictate specifics in any sovereign nation's laws. Each country must apply their own judgement and technical expect advisors to shape lae that work as intended, and can pass standard democratic process for that nations legislations.

[@thomasvogt2823]

07:34 "In stills and GIFTS." ?? 🤣

[@Snidebark]

3:53 ~ What does “expediously” mean? I’ve tried to find it, but can’t. Should it be “expeditiously”? It is similar, would fit the context and makes sense.

[@drspa44]

What happens if Google refuse to comply and refuses to pay any fines?

[@256shadesofgrey]

They will be forced to shut down their service in the EU. Within a week the EU economy will plummet by 20%, and we'll have to deal with various countries shouting either "repeal the copyright directive" or "leave the EU entirely".

[@drspa44]

@@256shadesofgrey they may be forced to shut down any offices that operate in the EU, but short of copying China and blocking their IP ranges, I dont think we could shut them down.

[@256shadesofgrey]

@@drspa44 You're naive if you think the EU wouldn't want to go that far. They would have done so ages ago if they didn't think it would lead to riots, revolutions and the dismantling of the EU. They just first want to make sure that nobody can pull a UK any more and decide to leave, then get an army to deal with the dissidents.

[@TheWerdna190]

I just wrote a paper on article 13(17) and this video does an extremely good job of explaining it. The revisions made during triologue seemed to make the difference between an act of censorship, and what is now just a change of the power balance away from big platforms, and more towards copyright holders and content creators. Im not stating that that is good or needed, it is just different. Hopefully MS implement this properly.

[@KaneOtonashi]

I guess after all .. it will be up to the eurpean court to decide if there is some kind of censorship at work. But this will only happen after the first strike of that kind. My biggest fear is that there will be people who are going to exploit this in exactly 2 Years like it where with the GDPR.

[@AntonArmsberg]

To protest this law, we should upload long empty videos with no images, videos or music in it.

[@maxfriis]

What an incredibly stupid idea. Have a think.

[@fab006]

And what will that do?

[@xckurcl139_]

fab006 i think what he is trying to get across is that without any of thise that are listed above, videos will become less entertaining , it will also limit creators imagination and creativity , and alsoit will most probably get the message across to viewers that article 13 may or may not cause this, and its a bigger problem than it sounds... hope that helps 😊.

[@jpdoe9005]

If this goes through like this I'm going to move to the UK

[@danny1884]

Our government (they even supported it) are in bed with the EU so it's likely it'll affect UK too.

[@ernestbertoli6279]

No corporation can sustain the number of lawsuits that this will bring.

[@DrSpooglemon]

Thankfully, we're leaving the EU.

[@charlestimko]

Yea, content creators aren't going to get paid more. They now have an excuse - they are going to need to take money away to cover the cost of getting the license for use rights...

[@manorexia1964]

The Article 13 You Tube content ID should be applied To the Irish borders

[@Carewolf]

It is the same kind of magic IT thinking. So it is dishearting that the EU could see the stupidity when the UK suggested it, but not when the media giants did.

[@WAMTAT]

What ever happened to "Fair use"?

[@anlumo1]

Sacrificed at the altar of big corporate money.

[@Carewolf]

For some reason any copyright law update ALWAYS forgets to clarify or update fair use articles... It is ALMOST like they are entirely written by big publishers.

[@alexanderthegreat913]

I hate Copyright. If someone publishes a form of entertainment then let the public enjoy it in every way, regardless of if it’s a meme or a GIF or a theme or a clip. Instead of banning things that are copyrighted the person who created them should just give 3/4 of their profits to the right holders. That way everyone can be happy.

[@scaredyfish]

This isn’t about protecting small independent creators. They’re not eligible for Content ID, and don’t have the means to pursue legal action. This is about big copyright holders using their power to extract money from smaller creators who use the materials for education or commentary.

[@westerncentristrants525]

Is the UK doing anything on Brexit right now?

[@olegat]

9:28 Good summary of Brexit. The EU is making laws which the UK agrees with, therefore the UK must leave to make their own laws... so illogical 😂

[@GruppeSechs]

TLDR 10 minute video. Ain't nobody got time for that!

[@bhaviktibrewala8339]

Love your work soooo much. This vid makes me think why csnt this channel be tldr news europe or atleast u can make vids on major event across europe and thereby expand your coverage radious

[@informitas0117]

Remember that Germany let this bs through when the EU elections starts.

[@lellyparker]

So did Great Britain.

[@lellyparker]

@Salterino Kripperino The EU is actually fantastic, especially when it comes to social benefits for lower income people. It is the best thing Britain has going for it (unless you are rich like the people who invented Brexit) and it makes no sense whatsoever to leave.

[@wwewify]

@Salterino Kripperino Have you ever considered having a thought of your own?

[@hawkeye2816]

The problem I have with this is it's going to cause an even harder crackdown over the most ridiculous things. We already see channels getting strikes over literally 4 seconds of their 15 minute video. This could easily drive small channels to just not play any third party music or videos of any kind for any reason for fear of getting a strike. Hell, as a musician, this makes me wonder if I could even upload a video of myself playing a cover of a song I like. Copyright needs to be narrowed, not expanded; it's already being horribly abused every single day.

[@QemeH]

Thank you for including a mention of the british vote. One of the core issues in brexit is people not knowing that "all those idiotic laws from brussels" have not only come into effect with the UK present at the table, but with the UK's express approval. There are only like less than 2% of EU laws that the UK voted "No" on and still had to follow - all others they either said "Yes", they never came into effect or the UK got exemptions... So it's important to say: This is an EU law, but the UK voted FOR it!

[@Jotakumon]

I appreciate that you read the text, unlike most KZbinrs who just spread nonsense fear-mongering rhetoric. Article 17 is by *no means* perfect, and there are changes that could (and should) have been implemented, such as the amendment proposed by the IMCO, to ensure a more balanced implementation of the directive, so that it wouldn't treat users unfairly. That being said, you didn't tackle two provisions that I think are relevant, especially given the criticisms proposed in 6:14 about over-removal of content and the inability of smaller businesses to afford a working system. The provisions I'm talking about are: 5. In determining whether the service provider has complied with its obligations under paragraph 4, and in light of the principle of proportionality, the following elements, among others, shall be taken into account: (a) the type, the audience and the size of the service and the type of works or other subject matter uploaded by the users of the service; and (b) the availability of suitable and effective means and their cost for service providers. 7. The cooperation between online content-sharing service providers and rightholders shall not result in the prevention of the availability of works or other subject matter uploaded by users, which do not infringe copyright and related rights, including where such works or other subject matter are covered by an exception or limitation. 8. The application of this Article shall not lead to any general monitoring obligation. Member States shall provide that online content-sharing service providers provide rightholders, at their request, with adequate information on the functioning of their practices with regard to the cooperation referred to in paragraph 4 and, where licensing agreements are concluded between service providers and rightholders, information on the use of content covered by the agreements. 9. Member States shall provide that online content-sharing service providers put in place an effective and expeditious complaint and redress mechanism that is available to users of their services in the event of disputes over the disabling of access to, or the removal of, works or other subject matter uploaded by them. Where rightholders request to have access to their specific works or other subject matter disabled or those works or other subject matter removed, they shall duly justify the reasons for their requests. Complaints submitted under the mechanism provided for in the first subparagraph shall be processed without undue delay, and decisions to disable access to or remove uploaded content shall be subject to human review. Member States shall also ensure that out-of-court redress mechanisms are available for the settlement of disputes. Such mechanisms shall enable disputes to be settled impartially and shall not deprive the user of the legal protection afforded by national law, without prejudice to the rights of users to have recourse to efficient judicial remedies. In particular, Member States shall ensure that users have access to a court or another relevant judicial authority to assert the use of an exception or limitation to copyright and related rights. You did mention the second part of paragraph 7, which is about exemptions like quotation, criticism, etc. But I think it's important to address the wording of the first part as well. It seems like over-aggressive upload filters can be negotiated to be off the table by that very principle, unless they provide complaint mechanisms to fight back against those (which right now is hardly possible, since against complaint mechanism just results in the rightholders winning the case). I think the only remaining solution (and YT should have gone with that for a while now) is to negotiate licence agreements, which, as I read through the directive the first time, seems to be the thing they're pushing online content service providers to do. Which would also be the simplest and most effective solution, and it seems like YT just can't be bothered to do it.

[@256shadesofgrey]

Fear-mongering? You must have no idea about what "unintended consequences" and "hidden agendas" are. They will wait until people are used to this crap and the technology for content filtering advances a bit more to understand context, and then make another law that bans wrongthink.

[@Jotakumon]

@@256shadesofgrey Yeah, the thing you just did? That's called fear-mongering. And conspiracy theory. You just make up a doomsday scenario without there being any reason to believe it, and push the idea that this is what they're doing. Just use Hanlon's razor. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. Now, in their case I wouldn't say stupidity, as much as a certain degree of incompetence or a gap of knowledge. They're not doing it for any thought-out evil plan to censor things they don't like. This is about copyright. Stick to the facts we have, not some made-up narrative that could or could not be.

[@256shadesofgrey]

@@Jotakumon No, I'm not fearmongering, you're downplaying the issue. This doomsday scenario is more likely than the sunshine and butterflies that you're imagining. They are implementing hate speech laws and are calling basically all political dissidents "alt right" even when they are fundamentally liberal. It's not that far of a reach to assume that they will want to apply the new technology that this law will spawn to solve one problem to the other problem they also want to get rid of. Also, no need to talk about Hanlon's razor. I did talk about unintended consequences. Both things have to be considered, because we're not talking about one person, we're talking about a bureaucratic body consisting of many people with many agendas. Some of them are undoubtedly demented boomers who have no clue what they did, but others are keenly aware of the harm they are doing, and they consider it an acceptable loss on the way to their utopia.

[@Jotakumon]

@@256shadesofgrey Again, nothing to do with hate speech laws at all. If you don't like hate speech laws, attack those directly. Yes, it is a doom-mongering scenario. One that is not even congruent with the actual directive, which you would know if you had read it. Also, I never said that it will be all sunshine, now you're just falling for this false dichotomy where I either agree with the doom-mongering scenario, or I believe the directive is perfect. Even though I specifically called it a sign of incompetence or lack of knowledge in those who made it up, and if I'm not mistaken I said I'm against it in the first comment. The truth is that the directive is a mixed up, far more nuanced than the lazy scenario that a lot of people on YT, push. KZbinrs who - and you know this to be true - have never even read the directive. I also find it odd how you just claim that the worst scenario is more probable than the best scenario. On what basis? The worst case scenario that many content creators are pushing is not even compatible with the directive. And we're talking about a directive, i.e. not law, i.e. open to a lot interpretation. And even then they manage to screw it up. Also, what is the perfect best case scenario in your view?

[@256shadesofgrey]

@@Jotakumon The worst case scenario is more likely due to the incentive structure it creates. It's cheaper for a company to just do a blanket ban on copyrighted material than to figure out if it was parody or not. That way any dissident commentary will be suppressed while both the platform owners and the government will point fingers at each other while secretly celebrating that nobody can legally criticize them any more.

[@rose-ox6kz]

thank you for making this. i was really confused on what it was, and why everyone was going on about it. this was really helpful! thanks!

[@CarlosKTCosta]

The big issue here being that the intelectual property of a review video belongs to the reviewer and not to the creator of what is being reviewed. Any question about this point can easily be clarified by comparing a review of an object to the review of a media work such as a song. Can anyone argue that if I review my coffee maker I should pay the manufacturer for the review?