4 ms·

> The proposal will force platforms, like YouTube, to prioritize content from a small number of large companies. That's orthogonal to what the Article 13 real

> The proposal will force platforms, like YouTube, to prioritize content from a small number of large companies. That's orthogonal to what the Article 13 really says. If anything, it will "force" the platforms to prioritize original content over remakes.

AllegedAlec 8y ago
It's orthogonal to the intention, perhaps. However, in implementation, it's much easier to make a few deals with large companies, rather than to ensure that each of the tens of millions of nobodies with 10 subscribers completely adheres to the letter of the law.
- cinquemb 8y ago
  Part of me just thinks this will be bad for youtube in the long run, not content creators as they (and their audience) will find other outlets.
  - Jyaif 8y ago
    The outlets will be production studios that will eventually monetize the money on youtube. All that this regulation does is (surprise!) add intermediaries, reducing the amount of money youtube and content creators get, and increasing the barrier of entry for new creators. Less creators means the customers get less creative content.
- dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
  All the better - it would be great if YT finally started to have some serious competition.
  - AllegedAlec 8y ago
    How would this lead to competition? Any competition would have exactly the same problems.
  - cinquemb 8y ago
    The only competition I see for sites like YT are things like peertube in the long run, not necessarily a win for EU regulators or YT.
  - de_watcher 8y ago
    YT has become really bad for gamers for example, so now it's twitch+patreon+discord.
nkkollaw 8y ago
Big companies can just make deals and use whatever they want. Independent content creators don't have the resources to go to EMI and cut a deal for using their music as soundtrack for their videos. In addition, for a big company being sued is part of business, while for a regular guy it can mean bankruptcy. Taking the risk of using other people's stuff--even if it should obviously be considered fair use--might be too much of a gamble for most people. This is of course bad because the quality could go down and it makes the whole process more frustrating, but most importantly it makes reviewing stuff risky, specially for negative reviews where it's not unusual for the author of the reviewed item to sue for defamation (and now for using footage without permission) if a negative review becomes popular.
- Moru 8y ago
  Maybe the royalty free music will get a well deserved upswing? It can be very cheap to buy non-exclusive music to put on your videos if that is what you need. And less exposure for the EMI-branded music in the process. Win win.
  - nkkollaw 8y ago
    Sure, maybe! YouTube also offers royalty-free music, but it doesn't always go well. I made a few videos in the past, and bought music from iStockPhoto. The problem of being sued to shut down negative reviews remains, though.
qubax 8y ago
> That's orthogonal to what the Article 13 really says. It's not orthogonal at all. What the CEO said lines up precisely with what Article 13 says. > If anything, it will "force" the platforms to prioritize original content over remakes. Your wording is very peculiar. "remakes" can be original content. Like the remake of "A Star is Born" is original content. Youtube's issue isn't about "remakes". It's about critism and fair use. The only thing EU regulation is meant to due is to stifle discussion, criticism, artist creation, etc in favor of multinational corporations and of course the political elite. It's not about "original content", but the ability of the media conglomerates to suppress smaller creators and take their money. It's about using law, money and regulation to bully and intimidate and silence. Youtube already does this to a limited degree as media companies have subsidiaries that pretty much mark everything as a copyright violation and force independent creators to prove their innocence. When in a fair society, things should be reversed. Innocence should be assumed and the guilt has to be proven.

AllegedAlec 8y ago

It's orthogonal to the intention, perhaps. However, in implementation, it's much easier to make a few deals with large companies, rather than to ensure that each of the tens of millions of nobodies with 10 subscribers completely adheres to the letter of the law.

cinquemb 8y ago
Part of me just thinks this will be bad for youtube in the long run, not content creators as they (and their audience) will find other outlets.
- Jyaif 8y ago
  The outlets will be production studios that will eventually monetize the money on youtube. All that this regulation does is (surprise!) add intermediaries, reducing the amount of money youtube and content creators get, and increasing the barrier of entry for new creators. Less creators means the customers get less creative content.
dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
All the better - it would be great if YT finally started to have some serious competition.
- AllegedAlec 8y ago
  How would this lead to competition? Any competition would have exactly the same problems.
- cinquemb 8y ago
  The only competition I see for sites like YT are things like peertube in the long run, not necessarily a win for EU regulators or YT.
- de_watcher 8y ago
  YT has become really bad for gamers for example, so now it's twitch+patreon+discord.

nkkollaw 8y ago

Big companies can just make deals and use whatever they want. Independent content creators don't have the resources to go to EMI and cut a deal for using their music as soundtrack for their videos. In addition, for a big company being sued is part of business, while for a regular guy it can mean bankruptcy. Taking the risk of using other people's stuff--even if it should obviously be considered fair use--might be too much of a gamble for most people. This is of course bad because the quality could go down and it makes the whole process more frustrating, but most importantly it makes reviewing stuff risky, specially for negative reviews where it's not unusual for the author of the reviewed item to sue for defamation (and now for using footage without permission) if a negative review becomes popular.

Moru 8y ago
Maybe the royalty free music will get a well deserved upswing? It can be very cheap to buy non-exclusive music to put on your videos if that is what you need. And less exposure for the EMI-branded music in the process. Win win.
- nkkollaw 8y ago
  Sure, maybe! YouTube also offers royalty-free music, but it doesn't always go well. I made a few videos in the past, and bought music from iStockPhoto. The problem of being sued to shut down negative reviews remains, though.

qubax 8y ago

> That's orthogonal to what the Article 13 really says. It's not orthogonal at all. What the CEO said lines up precisely with what Article 13 says. > If anything, it will "force" the platforms to prioritize original content over remakes. Your wording is very peculiar. "remakes" can be original content. Like the remake of "A Star is Born" is original content. Youtube's issue isn't about "remakes". It's about critism and fair use. The only thing EU regulation is meant to due is to stifle discussion, criticism, artist creation, etc in favor of multinational corporations and of course the political elite. It's not about "original content", but the ability of the media conglomerates to suppress smaller creators and take their money. It's about using law, money and regulation to bully and intimidate and silence. Youtube already does this to a limited degree as media companies have subsidiaries that pretty much mark everything as a copyright violation and force independent creators to prove their innocence. When in a fair society, things should be reversed. Innocence should be assumed and the guilt has to be proven.