6 ms·

They have learned. 2 decades worth of learning from the failed dmca, which basically granted Google immunity from copyright violation. Why should companies lik

They have learned. 2 decades worth of learning from the failed dmca, which basically granted Google immunity from copyright violation. Why should companies like Google be allowed to profit off content creators' work without complying with those content creators' licenses?

giancarlostoro 8y ago
> Why should companies like Google be allowed to profit off content creators' work without complying with those content creators' licenses? If only it were the actual content creators and not corporations that publish the content for the content creators.
- yeahitslikethat 8y ago
  This does not in any way diminish my point. If I contract a publisher to print my book or movie is still not right for Google to steal that book or movie and put ads on it. I don't know why society let's them get away with that.
  - c3o 8y ago
    It doesn't, though. They are obligated to immediately remove this as soon as they attain knowledge of the infringement. You, however, are cheerleading an obligation to somehow prevent anything infringing on anyone's rights from appearing online in the first place – which is just practically impossible, and any forced attempt is bound to massively cut into free speech. After all, there's no registry of copyrighted content. Everything creative is copyrighted automatically. If I take a photo of a tree and send it to you, according to Article 13 a service like Instagram now has to (a) make best efforts to acquire a license for that photo from me and (b) prevent you from uploading it there – how on earth should they do either? Making platforms directly liable for all posts/uploads in practice just means they can no longer accept posts/uploads – not that artists will magically get rich.
    - yeahitslikethat 8y ago
      You gave instagram a license to share your content. I'm pretty sure, neither Adam Curtis nor the BBC gave Google a license to share Hypernormalization or sell ads on it. If I buy the DVD of it and show it with a protector outside for free on a summer evening for anyone to watch I could be arrested. That world makes no sense to me. It's unfair and wrong.
      - c3o 8y ago
        You could be taken to court and ordered to pay damages if someone reports you – but not the owner of the garden you're projecting it in. And you definitely don't have copyright cops show up at your door pre-emptively everytime you turn on your projector, without whose approval nothing will even play, do you?
      - ttmb 8y ago
        > You gave instagram a license to share your content. No, in the scenario you're responding to, someone sent you a photo that is not and has never been on Instagram. Instagram is now required by law to prevent you from uploading it, because you are not the copyright owner of the image. How does that make sense?
        yeahitslikethat 8y ago
        I see, yes I misunderstood, then if the image is reported as a infringing it should be taken down. Nowhere am I suggesting prescreening material.
        ttmb 8y ago
        Right. So, Article 13 apparently requires prescreening material. That's specifically why people are up in arms. Everyone is pretty much on board with the necessity for providers to take down content in response to infringement reports, albeit with a side argument about how current implementations of this favour big money over small creators.
      - 8y ago
rhn_mk1 8y ago
They shouldn't. No one should also be forced to comply with law that requires the impossible to comply. Abuse by Google is bad, but this is throwing the baby out with the bath water.
- yeahitslikethat 8y ago
  It's not impossible. Bookstores do it. Libraries do it. I just don't understand why OSPs get a free pass while brick and mortar content curators have to obey the law while struggling to pay the bills.
  - sharpneli 8y ago
    This is more like owner of a noticeboard being liable of things posted there. Either have a human verify everything nailed (the upload filter) or just remove the noticeboard. Which one will happen? Libaries and bookstores are more comparable to online shops. I have no qualms for Steam being liable for selling a pirated game. Shops should have verification on products being sold.
Asooka 8y ago
Copyright is theft. It is theft of people's natural right to expression and sharing. We've seen that if you give publishers an inch, they'll take the whole 9 yards and sue you for there not being 20 yards, because their accountants predicted a 30 yard profit. At this point I don't think I can honestly support any kind of copyright law. Some limited author's right law, one that cannot be reassigned, sublicensed, etc. might work, but I have my reservations for that as well.
- mcv 8y ago
  Big Content is certainly making a strong case that copyright law is incompatible with the internet, and arguably with any kind of freedom of expression.
baxtr 8y ago
The problem with this thinking is that google et al will profit! They have the resources to deal with this. Smaller companies will not be able to deal with this so easily. Thus, we are subsidizing people with the help of google at the expense of smaller competitors (incl those in Europe). That’s a though trade-off
- yeahitslikethat 8y ago
  If Google were forced by law to pay the content creator (all revenues from ads on pirated content) times (1+0.1 times (the number of reports of infringement - 1)) and the random people on the Internet who reported the infringement 1USD per report, how long do you think until infringement stops? How many minutes would you guess? I think less than 100 minutes.
  - netheril96 8y ago
    > how long do you think until infringement stops? And how long do you think until innovation stops?
    - yeahitslikethat 8y ago
      Innovation will never stop. Innovation existed long before Google and will continue long after. Imagine the innovation we would see in copyright violation detection if there were an incentive to do so.
      - hkeide 8y ago
        How do you propose a bot will ever understand copyright exceptions such as fair use and political speech?
        candiodari 8y ago
        This. People need to understand that the root cause of life being as terrible as it was under Soviet rule was not so much the atrocities that got reported (that, of course, had to do with it too, but it was not the direct cause of daily life being so unbearable). But day to day, what really killed every initiative, every improvement, every little bit of relief that might have been is that bureaucrats controlling the platforms were forced to take a 0.00000001% chance of terrible personal consequences every time they said "yes you can do that". The result was: no to EVERYTHING. Absolutely every, every, everything. This law works the same way. Youtube will be forced to do deny everything. So will facebook, reddit, ycombinator, ... Copyright can only exist if ALL the rest of society is constantly on the lookout for violations. Sorry, but that's just not worth it.
mcv 8y ago
> Why should companies like Google be allowed to profit off content creators' work > without complying with those content creators' licenses? If it's about profit, simply having YouTube pay all revenue from infringing videos to the real owner, might be a much better idea than to block all content. The process might work like this: A publishes something, gets revenue from it. B claims copyright. YT suspends payment to A until the issue is settled. When B turns out to be right, B gets all the withheld revenue plus however much YT already paid to A, either to be paid by A, or to be withheld by YT from other payments to A.
- yeahitslikethat 8y ago
  The 1st paragraph is sounding close to something I can agree with.
  - c3o 8y ago
    In one vote in the EP, something similar was proposed as an alternative: * Make (big) platforms provide APIs with which rightholders can check new posts for their copyrighted content and request either removal or monetisation * Give uploaders 48 hours to contest removal requests before they are honoured, during which their uploads stay online, but may be removed from search results * Once an infringement is identified and not contested, all earned revenue goes to the rightholders That's rather sensible. However, it was voted down in favor of just making platforms legally liable for all uploads. https://juliareda.eu/2018/09/copyright-showdown/ https://juliareda.eu/2018/09/copyright-showdown/ (The "EPP group" proposals won – that's the Parliament position, not to be confused with the Council's, which are yet to be fully reconciled).
    - mcv 8y ago
      I'm strongly considering voting straight Pirate Party for the EP from now on. Copyright and internet freedom seems to be by far the most important concern for the Europarliament these days. The big problem is to get the majority of voters on board.

giancarlostoro 8y ago

> Why should companies like Google be allowed to profit off content creators' work without complying with those content creators' licenses? If only it were the actual content creators and not corporations that publish the content for the content creators.

yeahitslikethat 8y ago
This does not in any way diminish my point. If I contract a publisher to print my book or movie is still not right for Google to steal that book or movie and put ads on it. I don't know why society let's them get away with that.
- c3o 8y ago
  It doesn't, though. They are obligated to immediately remove this as soon as they attain knowledge of the infringement. You, however, are cheerleading an obligation to somehow prevent anything infringing on anyone's rights from appearing online in the first place – which is just practically impossible, and any forced attempt is bound to massively cut into free speech. After all, there's no registry of copyrighted content. Everything creative is copyrighted automatically. If I take a photo of a tree and send it to you, according to Article 13 a service like Instagram now has to (a) make best efforts to acquire a license for that photo from me and (b) prevent you from uploading it there – how on earth should they do either? Making platforms directly liable for all posts/uploads in practice just means they can no longer accept posts/uploads – not that artists will magically get rich.
  - yeahitslikethat 8y ago
    You gave instagram a license to share your content. I'm pretty sure, neither Adam Curtis nor the BBC gave Google a license to share Hypernormalization or sell ads on it. If I buy the DVD of it and show it with a protector outside for free on a summer evening for anyone to watch I could be arrested. That world makes no sense to me. It's unfair and wrong.
    - c3o 8y ago
      You could be taken to court and ordered to pay damages if someone reports you – but not the owner of the garden you're projecting it in. And you definitely don't have copyright cops show up at your door pre-emptively everytime you turn on your projector, without whose approval nothing will even play, do you?
    - ttmb 8y ago
      > You gave instagram a license to share your content. No, in the scenario you're responding to, someone sent you a photo that is not and has never been on Instagram. Instagram is now required by law to prevent you from uploading it, because you are not the copyright owner of the image. How does that make sense?
      - yeahitslikethat 8y ago
        I see, yes I misunderstood, then if the image is reported as a infringing it should be taken down. Nowhere am I suggesting prescreening material.
        ttmb 8y ago
        Right. So, Article 13 apparently requires prescreening material. That's specifically why people are up in arms. Everyone is pretty much on board with the necessity for providers to take down content in response to infringement reports, albeit with a side argument about how current implementations of this favour big money over small creators.
    - 8y ago

rhn_mk1 8y ago

They shouldn't. No one should also be forced to comply with law that requires the impossible to comply. Abuse by Google is bad, but this is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

yeahitslikethat 8y ago
It's not impossible. Bookstores do it. Libraries do it. I just don't understand why OSPs get a free pass while brick and mortar content curators have to obey the law while struggling to pay the bills.
- sharpneli 8y ago
  This is more like owner of a noticeboard being liable of things posted there. Either have a human verify everything nailed (the upload filter) or just remove the noticeboard. Which one will happen? Libaries and bookstores are more comparable to online shops. I have no qualms for Steam being liable for selling a pirated game. Shops should have verification on products being sold.

Asooka 8y ago

Copyright is theft. It is theft of people's natural right to expression and sharing. We've seen that if you give publishers an inch, they'll take the whole 9 yards and sue you for there not being 20 yards, because their accountants predicted a 30 yard profit. At this point I don't think I can honestly support any kind of copyright law. Some limited author's right law, one that cannot be reassigned, sublicensed, etc. might work, but I have my reservations for that as well.

mcv 8y ago
Big Content is certainly making a strong case that copyright law is incompatible with the internet, and arguably with any kind of freedom of expression.

baxtr 8y ago

The problem with this thinking is that google et al will profit! They have the resources to deal with this. Smaller companies will not be able to deal with this so easily. Thus, we are subsidizing people with the help of google at the expense of smaller competitors (incl those in Europe). That’s a though trade-off

yeahitslikethat 8y ago
If Google were forced by law to pay the content creator (all revenues from ads on pirated content) times (1+0.1 times (the number of reports of infringement - 1)) and the random people on the Internet who reported the infringement 1USD per report, how long do you think until infringement stops? How many minutes would you guess? I think less than 100 minutes.
- netheril96 8y ago
  > how long do you think until infringement stops? And how long do you think until innovation stops?
  - yeahitslikethat 8y ago
    Innovation will never stop. Innovation existed long before Google and will continue long after. Imagine the innovation we would see in copyright violation detection if there were an incentive to do so.
    - hkeide 8y ago
      How do you propose a bot will ever understand copyright exceptions such as fair use and political speech?
      - candiodari 8y ago
        This. People need to understand that the root cause of life being as terrible as it was under Soviet rule was not so much the atrocities that got reported (that, of course, had to do with it too, but it was not the direct cause of daily life being so unbearable). But day to day, what really killed every initiative, every improvement, every little bit of relief that might have been is that bureaucrats controlling the platforms were forced to take a 0.00000001% chance of terrible personal consequences every time they said "yes you can do that". The result was: no to EVERYTHING. Absolutely every, every, everything. This law works the same way. Youtube will be forced to do deny everything. So will facebook, reddit, ycombinator, ... Copyright can only exist if ALL the rest of society is constantly on the lookout for violations. Sorry, but that's just not worth it.

mcv 8y ago

> Why should companies like Google be allowed to profit off content creators' work > without complying with those content creators' licenses? If it's about profit, simply having YouTube pay all revenue from infringing videos to the real owner, might be a much better idea than to block all content. The process might work like this: A publishes something, gets revenue from it. B claims copyright. YT suspends payment to A until the issue is settled. When B turns out to be right, B gets all the withheld revenue plus however much YT already paid to A, either to be paid by A, or to be withheld by YT from other payments to A.

yeahitslikethat 8y ago
The 1st paragraph is sounding close to something I can agree with.
- c3o 8y ago
  In one vote in the EP, something similar was proposed as an alternative: * Make (big) platforms provide APIs with which rightholders can check new posts for their copyrighted content and request either removal or monetisation * Give uploaders 48 hours to contest removal requests before they are honoured, during which their uploads stay online, but may be removed from search results * Once an infringement is identified and not contested, all earned revenue goes to the rightholders That's rather sensible. However, it was voted down in favor of just making platforms legally liable for all uploads. https://juliareda.eu/2018/09/copyright-showdown/ https://juliareda.eu/2018/09/copyright-showdown/ (The "EPP group" proposals won – that's the Parliament position, not to be confused with the Council's, which are yet to be fully reconciled).
  - mcv 8y ago
    I'm strongly considering voting straight Pirate Party for the EP from now on. Copyright and internet freedom seems to be by far the most important concern for the Europarliament these days. The big problem is to get the majority of voters on board.