8 ms·
According to some, YouTube's copyright filters / markers aren't good enough to satisfy the EU directive. It's insane. The DMCA is bad enough already. Copyright
by pitaj 8y ago
According to some, YouTube's copyright filters / markers aren't good enough to satisfy the EU directive. It's insane. The DMCA is bad enough already. Copyright should be loosened, not tightened. Then maybe we'd see some competition in video hosting.
- avs733 8y agoI've always felt like false assertion of copyright should cause the loss of copyright. Seems like a fair balance for me. And before someone gets on me...I realize that these are automated filters that are rarely asserted by the actual copyright holder.
- ben_w 8y agoI agree with the sentiment, but I think in practice that would lead to something like patent trolls — organizations designed no face no threat from the normal consequences. Plain old money based fines should work. Even a tiny fixed fee of $50 per error might be enough, given the scale of the internet.
- adjkant 8y agoI really like the per error idea - allows for large cases to have no barrier to contest but for the whole thing to not become like patent trolling. Maybe also some sort of threshold for mass cases, like a progressive taxation: If you're right 95% of the time, you get a discount. If you're wrong 50% of the time, you pay the full fee. Who would be in charge of setting these?
- tylll 8y agohttps://bit.ly/2JTdt8x https://bit.ly/2JTdt8x
- glenneroo 8y agoOr what about a system like they use in Finland to deal with speeding tickets - the fine is based on your income. The local paper has a weekly list of top offenders, which is amusing to say the least.
- scroogly 8y agoSorry to hijack the thread slightly, but is only to introduce some visibility to the fact that this particular issue is nothing to do with the EU, or content ID, or anything like that. Google is blackmailing the Blender foundation to try and get them to enable adverts. https://www.blender.org/media-exposure/youtube-blocks-blender-videos-worldwide/ https://www.blender.org/media-exposure/youtube-blocks-blende... edit - and Blender have now got https://video.blender.org/ https://video.blender.org/ in testing already. I didn't think they'd be the ideal people to issue ultimatums to on video hosting, given their technical specialities. A situation like this triggered the development of git, (after the licence to use bitkeeper was withdrawn from the linux kernel team) so I will be watching the fallout with interest.
- hknd 8y agoApparently Blender had more than 2 years to sign an updated contract - a contract which every partner had to sign to comply with updated legal regulations. Their existing contract would not work anymore (legal reasons?). The Blender team never did that, and also never reacted to any youtube support mails.
- natch 8y agoThat doesn't map onto the Blender account of what happened. They said YouTube was requiring them to enable ads, but the ads checkbox was grayed out. Among other issues. Not that they wanted to enable ads on a not for profit site. But just taking this one issue, it's not clear how they could have possibly complied with Google's requirement, when Google keeps the checkbox UI element grayed out and unchangeable.
- cabalamat 8y ago> Even a tiny fixed fee of $50 per error might be enough If the fine went to the person who uploaded the work, this would be good because it would force the filter to be robust in the face of adversarial attacks.
- ben_w 8y agoI’m no lawyer, but deliberately performing adversarial attacks to get rich from being automatically and incorrectly fined feels like it ought to be somewhere between fraud and hacking (in the Computer Misuse Act sense rather than thr hackernews sense).
- dotancohen 8y agoThat would create a cottage industry of borderline-infringing works designed to trigger the filter but win in court.
- DennisP 8y agoI.e. they would trigger bad copyright takedowns that weren't legally justified, forcing companies to stop doing those. If it's possible to trigger those intentionally, then it's likely that it's also happening accidentally, and this policy would make that stop.
- larkeith 8y agoOr for a minimum starting point, the accusers should be obligated to compensate the victims for lost profits, as well as time cost. The current system of penalty-free reckless false assertions is insane.
- taneq 8y ago> I've always felt like false assertion of copyright should cause the loss of copyright. Which copyright should be lost, if the assertion was false?
- josephcooney 8y agoI'm guessing here, but if you claim that work Y infringes your copyright of X. If it turns out to be false you lose copyright of X.
- colordrops 8y agoThe one that is falsely being infringed upon.
- garmaine 8y ago> I've always felt like false assertion of copyright should cause the loss of copyright. Seems like a fair balance for me. I don’t understand. I put out a takedown request for something I don’t have the copyrights to and as a result the real copyright holder loses their copyright? How is that fair?
- avs733 8y agoI hold copyright on the song "I OWN THE COPYRIGHT ON THIS SONG" You use my song in a fair use way I claim you are infringing my copyright you challenge, I fail to prove my case I lose copyright on the song and it enters the public domain.
- barrkel 8y agoNo, that's not what's being argued will happen. I own the copyright on the song X. Person A uses the song X in a fair use way. Person B claims A is infringing. Person A challenges and wins. Then I lose my copyright, without any involvement?
- henrikeh 8y agoYou are replying to the person who proposed the “lose copyright” idea.
- barrkel 8y agoThat's exactly right. The person repeated the concept, in a comment dated later than the other replies to the original; I tried to clarify why it wouldn't work.
- detaro 8y agoWhy would you lose your copyright in that case? Person B loses their (non-existent) copyright to the song. This would only fail if it'd be literally "all copyright on song X gets wiped, without looking at who owns it", which as you pointed out is obviously a non-workable interpretation of the proposal.
- mrmr1993 8y agoThe complexity here is that there are multiple parties involved: the copyright holder, who suspects there may have been an infringement; the uploader of the potentially infringing content; and the host, who wants as little to do with copyright claims as they can. The DMCA strikes a balance for the copyright holder and the host, by letting the host avoid any liability for the copyright infringement, as long as they enforce valid requests by no longer hosting the content. The new EU law builds on this principle, giving hosts more responsibility to check whether copyright might be being infringed. I'm strongle against the idea, but I can see the logic that the host is best-placed to actively monitor all uploaded content. A big issue I have, both with the DMCA and this new legislation, is that there's no balancing in the direction of the uploader. Aggressive solutions like your proposal do address this imbalance, but they don't do anything to address the actual concerns each side has. If we want more reasonable copyright laws in this arena going forward, we should also be pushing for an uploader's right to appeal, as a balance against the rights of and affordances for the other two parties: * There should be an 'appeals'/'counterclaim' process for content uploaders to take responsibility for the content. Presumably, to balance against the copyright holder's needs, they should submit their name and address when they claim that their content is non-infringing. * From the host's side, the uploader following this process should remove all responsibility for that content from them, so they have no concern about liability and can re-enable access to the content. * From the copyright holder's side, they need to be able to seek recourse if they still think the content is infringing. This can be done by taking the uploader to court, using the details they have provided. I desperately hope this new legislation fails, but I think you were spot-on about aiming for a 'fair balance', and even acheiving that would be a great improvement.
- AlanSE 8y agoI don't think your proposal would do anything to reduce the rates of false negatives, because there's no incentive to avoid them. Many false negatives will never get identified in the first place, because if a side-project pedestrian creator wasn't going to make any money off a creative work, why would they expose themselves to a possible court summons?
- 8y ago
- stcredzero 8y agoI've always felt like false assertion of copyright should cause the loss of copyright. Seems like a fair balance for me. I'd say that a pattern of such behavior should trigger a penalty. It's not a single claim that's the problem. It's patterns of such claims en masse.
- catach 8y agoVideo competition certainly exists already [0]. But I agree that copyright terms are trending in the wrong direction. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_hosting_services https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_hosting_services
- eulers__number 8y agowhat are you talking about copy right needs to be abolished
- shados 8y agoYeah, things like this will have similar effects as certain highly regulated sectors in the US, where software is 20 years behind the time and built for billions of dollars by huge contracting firms because it's so difficult/expensive to make anything compliant with the rules. No one can build filters that are good enough beyond the big tech cos. They can build these libraries and hopefully open source them for everyone to use...but if they don't...
- vetinari 8y ago> No one can build filters that are good enough beyond the big tech cos. They can build these libraries and hopefully open source them for everyone to use...but if they don't... It is backwards: nothing but whatever can be build by big tech companies is good enough, because their lobbying and interests define what's good enough. It's also obvious, why it wouldn't get open-sourced then. Kicking the ladder and so on.