Slashdot Mirror
YouTube CEO Says EU's Proposed Copyright Regulation Financially Impossible (googleblog.com)
YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki has again hit out at proposed new European Union copyright rules which she claims is impossible for a platform like YouTube to comply with, and if done so, could harm the creative industries. Wojcicki said the European Parliament's vote in favor of an overhaul to copyright law two months ago is "unrealistic" because owners often disagree on who owns the rights to online material. In a blog post, she wrote: Take the global music hit "Despacito." This video contains multiple copyrights, ranging from sound recording to publishing rights. Although YouTube has agreements with multiple entities to license and pay for the video, some of the rights holders remain unknown. That uncertainty means we might have to block videos like this to avoid liability under article 13. Multiply that risk with the scale of YouTube, where more than 400 hours of video are uploaded every minute, and the potential liabilities could be so large that no company could take on such a financial risk.
The consequences of article 13 go beyond financial losses. EU residents are at risk of being cut off from videos that, in just the last month, they viewed more than 90bn times. Those videos come from around the world, including more than 35m EU channels, and they include language classes and science tutorials as well as music videos. We welcome the chance to work with policymakers and the industry to develop a solution within article 13 that protects rights holders while also allowing the creative economy to thrive. This could include more comprehensive licensing agreements, collaboration with rights holders to identify who owns what, and smart rights management technology, similar to Content ID.
The consequences of article 13 go beyond financial losses. EU residents are at risk of being cut off from videos that, in just the last month, they viewed more than 90bn times. Those videos come from around the world, including more than 35m EU channels, and they include language classes and science tutorials as well as music videos. We welcome the chance to work with policymakers and the industry to develop a solution within article 13 that protects rights holders while also allowing the creative economy to thrive. This could include more comprehensive licensing agreements, collaboration with rights holders to identify who owns what, and smart rights management technology, similar to Content ID.
It doesn't sound like they are looking for an exemption.
It's quite clear that YouTube is saying the proposed rules don't make sense, and shouldn't be implemented for anyone.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
Did you even read the summary? Even for videos licensed from the music publishers themselves YouTube is at risk of copyright suits from unknown rights holders.
> Too long to be fair use, and it's the centre point of the music anyway.
You're thinking of one type fair use. If you're writing a research paper, you can use a short section from another research paper. "A short section" is only ONE of several types of fair use though.
Two other fair use elements are "transformative" and, most importantly, market for the original work. If you made a rave song, using sampled audio from a newscast, that's probably okay because it's completely transformative. You can use the ENTIRE original work and it can still be fair use. See Kelly vs Arriba and other cases.
Another element, probably the most important, is the effect of your use on the market value of the original work. Will people buy your song INSTEAD OF buying the TV show? If not, that has two effects:
It makes it probably fair use.
It means actual damages* would be $0 anyway, so it doesn't *matter* if it's infringing.
If your song parodies or comments on the show, if it says something about contemporary culture as exemplified by the show, that may be fair use.
There are many factors to consider for fair use. If the show was a stand-up comedy skit and you used most of it to make a comedy song, that would probably infringe. I'd bet that you're aong is transformative enough that it doesn't compete with the prior work or damage its market value, though.
* Statutory damages are a thing. I won't go into that here.