Article 13 reasons why... we agree with EU, nods Britain at Council of Ministers The UK, the Republic of Ireland, France and Germany were among the 19 nations that today gave the thumbs-up to the EU's Copyright Directive, meaning it should get pushed through the day after tomorrow. The Directive – a refreshing of European copyright law last updated in 2001 – is widely regarded as an attempt to curb the …
. . cut YouTube's prime revenue stream and ensure that films no longer be hosted in full outside of paid-for streaming services where actual copyright holders could stand to make a living.
Sorry, i don't see the problem. Oh, I see that YouTube is going to lose a fucking fortune, that I do.
It's time YouTube stops making a fortune off other people's efforts.
Yeah, I like the idea of someone getting paid for their work and I dislike people profiting off other's people work - as well as those who cut in line. So sue me.
I personally have not seen any full new movies available to stream on Youtube for a long time. Any YT videos claiming to have the latest movies are clickbait designed to get people off Youtube onto dodgy websites.
I admit you can find old or foreign films on there but these would often be ones that are hard to find on paid for streaming sites or just filler than are shown on rinse and repeat on TV channels at 2am several times a month so there is probably not much revenue left in these anyway.
Where I do see an issue with this new law is that Facebook, Google etc are now going to be extra cautious about whether to block the upload of a video where there might be slight possibility of copyright content. Even if you have the right to use it under the exemptions of the law, that is no good if the AI bots block the video, photo etc when you try and upload it because it hits some copyright flag.
Well, you may be right about movies but there is a lot of TV shows, full episodes right now on YouTube. It is where I watch most British TV shows I like. Just do a Search for Time Team full episodes or Monty Python's flying circus full episodes and you will find most of the full episodes.
If you watch any of the episodes you will see how the uploader of the content beats the algorithm that is used to catch and remove the copyrighted material by slowing down or speeding up the episode or anding the first fifteen minutes of the show to the end so the length is changed. Others shrink the size of the video down and play it in front of a screen saver or a static background. So yes there is a ton of copyrighted material that slips by their AI bots.
The only way to truly stop copyright infringement on YouTube is to have a real person review every uploaded video which is simply not possible because of the amount of content uploaded daily. It will fundamentally change how both Facebook and YouTube operate in the EU if they do at all.
re Monty Python.
I don't know for certain (daredn't google it, oh no) but i suspect that some of the MP stuff dates back over 50 years to 1968, It really ought to be in the public domain by now.
Interesting how many people call for the "creators" to keep being remunerated when, in the vast majority of cases, they are not the copyright holders, with some never being remunerated in the first instance.
ps Why should i worry anyway, i've exited the EU twice now.
Monty Python's Flying Circus aired from 1969 to 1974. Under UK law it will start emerging from protection on 1 January 2020. Of course there is some older Python material, but not much - Flying Circus is generally regarded as their golden age.
On the other hand, both companies haven known since the beginning that they have been skirting around existing laws and hiding behind being a "provider" to get around their duty of care. They could have built up a system to do this from the get-go and scaled it up as they went. Now they are gnashing their teeth, because their revenue will drop off and they will have to implement this system at scale.
"The only way to truly stop copyright infringement on YouTube is to have a real person review every uploaded video which is simply not possible because of the amount of content uploaded daily. It will fundamentally change how both Facebook and YouTube operate in the EU if they do at all."
.... coming soon: "Thank you for uploading your video. As you are in the EU we need to review this video for potential copyright infringments before making it available to view. Your video has been added to a queue and we expect that it will be reviewed in approximately 52843.89 hours time. Please click this link if you wish to pay for one of the fast-track review options"
It is up to Google/Youtube, Facebook & Co. to come up with a method for pre-clearing content (E.g. YouTube "stars" can pre-declare that the content they are uploading falls within the law and the content is theirs alone or they have the electronic rights to distribute the material.
Maybe some sort of digital certificate from the content producer - if they want to ensure they get paid, they have to do some work as well and issue valid, traceable digital certificates, which the uploader attaches to the video. If the copyright holder then see a misuse of the content, they can revoke the certificate and the video will be automatically "pulled" on all services that use it.
The uploaders could digitally sign an afidavit that the content is theirs and they have the rights to upload the content. Of course, it would mean uploads over anonymous accounts would have to still be vetted. But "legitimate" sources (podcasters, Youtube stars, influencers (yeuch, what a horrible word!) etc.) can ensure that they are taking responsibility for the upload and their videos can be uploaded straight away or just subjected to random sampling.
That is just a couple of "simple" ideas off the top of my head. The idea is simple, how easy it would be to implement is another idea, but YouTube and Facebook have earnt billions from "illegal" content over the last decade, so the funding for implementing a scheme has already been, illegetimately, earnt.
I don't think the full movies are a big source of revenue for YouTube; I believe that is mostly music videos and gameplays.
I'm still waiting to hear an explanation of what exactly Google will be forced to pay for links. From what I read, the new article is derived from the 2013 German law on ancillary copyrights, and Google is paying diddly-squat to German publishers.
The problem is that it is very easy for Google to say: "We propose to pay you nothing. Is nothing good for you?" And there is basically no other options for the publishers. It is in the interest of every single publisher to accept nothing, especially when their competitors are refusing — free traffic! And even if they all band together and refuse, Google will probably just close down the service, like they did in Spain. Part of the traffic will go to other countries, and the publishers will lose again.
I don't know what the solution is, but this does not seem to me like it can work.
@ratfox
"And even if they all band together and refuse, Google will probably just close down the service, like they did in Spain. Part of the traffic will go to other countries, and the publishers will lose again."
This is the interesting part of the problem. People complained that this Google service existed, only to complain when it vanished. That would suggest google is not the problem but those wanting google to do it for free.
Its as amusing as the argument against facebook using a persons data to show them ads that the person signed up for the account and gave the data. That person being the greedy one expecting the service but for free.
I'm not sure there are many Romanien, Polish or Czech news sources outside of their respective countries.
For the UK and Spain, that is easier, for Portugal and France it is more difficult and the rest, who don't have (many) (ex-)colonies, it will be difficult to find external news sources...
"Sorry, i don't see the problem"
Yeah? Liability in all cases regardless of how serious the effort was? It's not a threat to Google it's a threat to Google's competition and OH LOOK it's EU law helping the big boys dominate their market position again - presumably so they can fine them on the back end too.
I was trying to think if the EU had ever written good law.. Got nothing.
No youtube video?
It would have been fun to see that, a good morale boost for a cold, grey, blustery Monday.
If you'd made it inflammatory enough, you might have been put in the naughty corner, which would have been well worth a story of its own.
Not that I've any axe to grind here of course.
So that the big copyright cartels can grab even more money.
Over 90% of the videos on YouTube are uploaded by their creators (or copyright holders for VEVO etc).
But because people might watch YouTube instead of Sky/Netflix/Disney etc, the copyright cartels are trying to kill it by legislation rather than by producing good content that people might be prepared to pay to see.
People uploading their own shit on YouTube are welcome to keep doing it. But you know very well that a lot of the most-viewed videos are nothing but cheap rips of broadcast material.
The greatest con trick that publishers pulled off in the past half-century was painting copyright as something between creators and consumers. In reality, copyright was always meant to manage the relationship between creators and publishers. In the internet age the whole class of "publishers" have pretty much written themselves out of the legal picture, and it's high time they were put back there.
Disney are running out of public domain fairytales and the music industry has driven its product into the ground trying to make it ever cheaper and ubiquitous.
With Facebook hemorrhaging users, twitter running weekly "hilarious reasons to ban people" programs, and google embracing the "something must be done" crowd's request to keep people safe from online documents, YouTube is joining in by attacking its independent creators with demonitisation, demonization and deranking. They have already gone corporate.
Has anyone noticed Facebook begging for regulation? Adding legal responsibilities to an industry kills upstarts. That's useful if you're becoming geocites and are worried that you may not be able to keep buying up every possible competitor.
The kings of older media fight with the kings of Silicon Valley and the peasantry pay the price.
If we could vote and change things, that would be nice. Sadly it appears Prince John, er, May and the Sheriff of Nottingham and Cronies are reneging on their promises of a local representative council.
Time to storm the castle and hold them to account, methinks.
Fair Maid Boris! Will you risk your political future to free all England from this tyranny?
Drinking the Farage Kool-Aid again sir?
You do realise you DID actually vote for your EU representative in the same way that you voted for your Parliamentary Representative. That doesn't mean you control everything they do. Anyone who can't understand that fundamental part of democracy certainly shouldn't be, or have been, given a frickin' ballot paper...
None. The EU is a representative democracy. Just like every other democracy on Earth. If you don't like it, feel free to start a movement to change it (but I'm afraid you're going to need a revolution or three).
Until then, you get to vote at EU Elections every five years, and the guys you vote get to vote at stuff like the Copyright Directive. If you don't like how they voted, then find someone who promises to undo the Copyright Directive, and vote for him next time.
If your problem is that the people you like keep losing the elections, then you should think really, really carefully on why and how is that, before asking for direct democracy.
Doesn't anyone with a clue add new articles AFTER the existing ones, instead of (apparently) adding some before existing ones? Did they do this deliberately to sow confusion amongst those who were against the potential effects those articles could have?
I think you're right. From memory, several of the MEPs who voted for "17" and "15" were voting for the *old* 17 and 15, not the new ones. When they found out, they tried to withdraw their votes, but were told they couldn't.
I don't remember the exact numbers, but "several" would have actually swayed the vote in the other direction.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2023
