3 ms·

> the Presidency has worked hard in order to make the proposal for the new copyright Directive even more harmful than the Commission’s original proposal, I rea

by adekok 9y ago

> the Presidency has worked hard in order to make the proposal for the new copyright Directive even more harmful than the Commission’s original proposal, I read that as "corporations can enforce copyright... I can't" See Youtube drama of a news organization using someone's video without attribution or payment... and then filing automated copyright claims against the original, because parts of the "copyrighted news broadcast" appear verbatim in the video.

quuquuquu 9y ago
Completely agree. When corporations are allowed to enforce the rules, they bend them so that the corporation profits. They also then 1984 the whole situation by using double-speak to explain the situation. I once worked for a company that announced they were doubling our conmission rates from 5 to 10 percent. They couldnt be happier to tell us all about how they were going to pay us more, so we quickly suspected something weird was going on. Well that all was slowly revealed when 3 months later, commissions on deals were being "denied" in full. "Deal is too large." "Deal is not in your territory." "Deal is not on a commission elligible product." So the rates were doubled. But 2x of $0 is still $0.
TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago
I think there's also a serious risk of infringing on fair use/fair dealing and even remixes and so on here. An algorithm can't tell whether you're using content for piracy or for criticism. As you point out, YouTube's Content ID system has given us a fantastic preview of the potential problems here.
- icebraining 9y ago
  Their solution seems to be mandating providers to offer a mechanism for redressing grievances and having the rightsholders explain themselves in a reasonable time period. It seems to be just for PR (it doesn't seem to provide any mechanism in case the explanation is ridiculous), but it could provide an interesting venue for DDoSing copyright holders.
digi_owl 9y ago
The basic problem with copyright is that it was basically from day one aimed at being between large entities (authors, backed by the state, vs publishers/printers). But in recent decades, as technology has made it easy for individuals to produce copies, this has shifted into a couple of large entities vs the individual. The first few moves in that direction (copiers, analog tape recorders) were largely ignored or papered over by exceptions because policing them were a practical impossibility. But with the net every home have a implacable snitch. And thus there is a policing potential emerging that may well make STASI look like keystone cops.

by adekok 9y ago

quuquuquu 9y ago

Completely agree. When corporations are allowed to enforce the rules, they bend them so that the corporation profits. They also then 1984 the whole situation by using double-speak to explain the situation. I once worked for a company that announced they were doubling our conmission rates from 5 to 10 percent. They couldnt be happier to tell us all about how they were going to pay us more, so we quickly suspected something weird was going on. Well that all was slowly revealed when 3 months later, commissions on deals were being "denied" in full. "Deal is too large." "Deal is not in your territory." "Deal is not on a commission elligible product." So the rates were doubled. But 2x of $0 is still $0.

TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago

I think there's also a serious risk of infringing on fair use/fair dealing and even remixes and so on here. An algorithm can't tell whether you're using content for piracy or for criticism. As you point out, YouTube's Content ID system has given us a fantastic preview of the potential problems here.

icebraining 9y ago
Their solution seems to be mandating providers to offer a mechanism for redressing grievances and having the rightsholders explain themselves in a reasonable time period. It seems to be just for PR (it doesn't seem to provide any mechanism in case the explanation is ridiculous), but it could provide an interesting venue for DDoSing copyright holders.

digi_owl 9y ago

The basic problem with copyright is that it was basically from day one aimed at being between large entities (authors, backed by the state, vs publishers/printers). But in recent decades, as technology has made it easy for individuals to produce copies, this has shifted into a couple of large entities vs the individual. The first few moves in that direction (copiers, analog tape recorders) were largely ignored or papered over by exceptions because policing them were a practical impossibility. But with the net every home have a implacable snitch. And thus there is a policing potential emerging that may well make STASI look like keystone cops.