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.
YouTube can just block all of the EU and watch the hilarity.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Block Youtube, where instead it takes you to a page where you can write an angry letter to the people responsible for YouTube being blocked.
It would be really interesting to see what effect blocking YouTube had on a modern society. Riots? Mass adoption of VPN? Meh?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Or youtube can stop stealing everyone's music, streaming it for free, and making all of the copyright infringement profit for themselves.
For some reason youtube is the only company that can outright steal everyone's stuff, and sell it all for their own profit.
If I did that at the swap meet with burned CD's I'd go to jail.
No-one above the law. Look at this example: "Although YouTube has agreements with multiple entities to license and pay for the video, some of the rights holders remain unknown. ".
Yeah, that's the same with abandonware. Or even in hobbyist music I wrote which I can't release for exactly this reason. Same rules for everyone. Either campaign to remove those rules for everyone, or suck it up and comply. One or the other.
The EU is in the process of strangling its own economy with rules that the rest of the world would go broke trying to comply with. Enjoy your GMO-free, music-free, Internet-free existence. We will gladly honor your right to be forgotten.
YouTube (Alphabet/Google, actually; stop kidding yourselves) — and the rest of the Valley monsters — have demonstrated that they are entirely capable of precisely moderating the content they host. They do so every day as their finely honed wrongthink detectors isolate every case of "offensive" content. So the argument that this EU requirement is some insurmountable burden is farcical. Unlike the deplorables they enthusiastically hunt down 24/7 with no complaint whatsoever about the financial feasibility, they are simply uninterested in enforcing EU copyright laws.
Well too fucking bad. You people made yourselves the universal go-to moderators in your crusade to safe space the Internet. Content owners won't let you pretend you're not capable of applying the same facilities in service of protecting their IP.
And this aggressive push for extreme IP polices coming from the EU should be no surprise to anyone. Consolidating power in Brussels could only amplify this rent seeking behavior. People heard the warnings of exactly this and pretended otherwise because damn all knuckle-draggers that don't want a giant all-caring all-providing European super government.
Well, here you go motherfuckers. Enjoy.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
...if copyrights only lasted a sane amount of time, say, 10 years or so, with a couple of optional 10 year extensions. Then the long tail of potential rights holders in a given work would dramatically reduce, making systems such as this much more feasible to manage.
Boo.
> 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.
See for example Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994) regarding transformative fair use. Also many earlier rulings.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/sup...
There is a big difference between criticism and parody in fair use law. One can criticize something without copying it. Parody by it's very nature requires the characteristic elements of the work. Therefore, a criticism does not necessarily have a fair reason to copy; a parody does because the parody cannot exist without copying.