Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

YouTube CEO Says EU's Proposed Copyright Regulation Financially Impossible (googleblog.com)

Posted by msmash on from the their-views dept.

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.

9 of 142 comments (clear)

  1. That's fine by ArchieBunker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    YouTube can just block all of the EU and watch the hilarity.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:That's fine by PPH · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's as if millions of cats cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:That's fine by bobstreo · · Score: 4, Funny

      YouTube can just block all of the EU and watch the hilarity.

      I have a better idea.

      Create servers for EU IP ranges.

      Fully license and redirect every video link to a certain Rick Astley video with an announcement to contact the EU if they have any problems with copyright protection.

  2. Or youtube can stop stealing everyone's music by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Tough by mccalli · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Tough by sl3xd · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.
    2. Re:Tough by mccalli · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Thanks for the question. It's because I can't identify all the rights holders, so cannot publish due to the risk of being sued for copyright later. I've tried - I contacted the BBC (it's a BBC programme from 1982), I contacted Getty who now administer it...everyone. They told me who might have a right and confirmed that others had rights than those I had already identified. But they couldn't tell me who, only that it would be breach of copyright to publish without identifying.

      Oh, and Getty also wanted to charge me £500 to use it, after first insisting they would only deal with corporations anyway and not individuals like me. That would be £500 for one set of rights - the BBC. They then told me I would need to individually contact the presenter who read the script, and the scriptwriter. They also couldn't identify the scriptwriter.

      Result? Impossible to publish. Financially a non-starter but let's assume for a moment it wasn't, and that I had some sure-fire hit that easily justified paying three sets of people at minimum £500 each after individually tracking down all contact details...still I couldn't publish, because I wouldn't know where the rights for the script were held. I assumed the BBC. Apparently not.

  4. Re: One better by c6gunner · · Score: 4, Funny

    Amazingly enough, China's demands are much more reasonable and straightforward than those of the EU.

  5. Re:Brussels flies up its own colon by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We will gladly honor your right to be forgotten.

    Yes you will. And you will bend over backwards to keep content coming our way while doing so. Just like companies bend over backwards to appease Chinese censors. Some markets are too big to ignore, and as often is with empty threats, those markets are usually worth far more than the cost of compliance despite the ensuing bitching and moaning.