It is downright hypocritical for these companies to demand other peoples content while protecting their own with religous zeal.
Europe’s copyright reform process has stalled after a dispute between European commissioners – and reportedly some intense pressure from Silicon Valley’s “Third Senator”, European Commissioner Neelie Kroes. The current reform process got going in May 2011 with a “blueprint” for IP rights reform, kicking off a long and cautious …
This post has been deleted by a moderator
Because the one I use doesn't offer me any expectation of compensation.
On the other hand, a UGC exception would make it easier for me to generate something worth sharing without running the risk of getting my account banned because the video that I shot in a public place includes music in the background from the PA system.
"Because the one I use doesn't offer me any expectation of compensation."
Background music is already licensed, so you are not describing a realistic threat. As the EU concluded, the problem here isn't lawsuits, because there aren't any - it's individuals not realising their rights, and being ripped off.
Internet aggregators rely on people being mugs, and having low expectations. Your probably should be a bit more demanding.
"the right of ordinary people to be paid"
Ah, so fair remuneration for a popular work is "moonwalking". The plebs should just give up!
I think having naively pushed for this for so long, you're now being confronted with the consequences. Which are anything but "fair" or "progressive". So it goes...
I've been a fan of Neelie Kroes and what she's managed to achieve so far, but despite that, I really can't get too exercised about this issue.
As an amateur (the word derives from Latin meaning "done for the love of it"), if I was to make something that went viral on YouTube, I really don't think I would mind too much about not getting paid for it.
It's unlikely that my objective in making it was to get rich - more likely I was just showing off, or having a laugh. The retrospective realisation that I might have earned money from it might make me wish I hadn't given it away, but what the hell, f**k it. If getting rich had been my objective, I would not have uploaded it to YouTube. I'd have gone about the whole thing in a much more calculated manner.
Amateurs who enjoy some success with "UGC" and realise they have a talent they could exploit, might subsequently decide to turn professional, and good luck to them if they can sustain it.
Professionals like Andrew who already make their living from their creativity will obviously see this all from a different perspective, but not every creative person needs or wants to be paid for what they do.
A change in the law would ensure you would never be paid anyway, no matter how popular your work became globally.
Generally it is better to strengthen people's rights, and then allow them to opt-out from being paid if they wish, rather than weaken *everyone's* rights and hope a few people remember to opt-in, before they're ripped off.
In fact, why stop there? Why not make the interest banks pay on your deposits and savings optional, too? Fairly soon with low rates, nobody would expect to get any interest, and most people would forget to "claim" their interest.
The reason why a UGC exception is not needed (at least if the objective is economic growth) is implicit in ScottME's comment: "If getting rich had been my objective, I would not have uploaded it to YouTube."
Most UGC (Downfall subtitled clips etc), however amusing, is of so little value that it is not worth encouraging with an exception. It is on YouTube because it is not exploitable. But it should be up to the creator to decide whether to upload or not, and if you give that right to the creators of derivative works, you can hardly deny it to the creators of the works on which they rely.
The Content ID system has been worth its weight in lobbying gold to Google. Few commentators seem to realise that it is a protection racket.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022