6 ms·

Why? Google already fulfills Article 13 with Content ID and now every other company that doesn't have such a system will have to buy it from Google.

kevin_b_er 8y ago
Except the notion of safe harbor will die in the EU. Google is then directly liable for any content it hosts all the time. User content is basically impossible in the EU after this.
- elliekelly 8y ago
  There is still a safe harbor - but it's insanely onerous. From Article 13(4) > If no authorisation is granted, online content sharing service providers shall be liable for unauthorised acts of communication to the public of copyright protected works and other subject matter, unless the service providers demonstrate that they have: > (a) made best efforts to obtain an authorization, This would require YouTube to enter into license agreements with artists the same way Spotify does. > and (b) made, in accordance with high industry standards of professional diligence, best efforts to ensure the unavailability of specific works and other subject matter for which the rightholders have provided the service providers with the relevant and necessary information, This means that if Sony Pictures, for example, provided YouTube with digital copies of all of their TV shows & movies that they own YouTube would need to make their best effort to catch violations of Sony Pictures' copyrights via the "upload filter." > and in any event (c) acted expeditiously, upon receiving a sufficiently substantiated notice by the rightholders, to remove from their websites or to disable access to the notified works and subject matters, and made best efforts to prevent their future uploads in accordance with paragraph (b). That means once YouTube receives one takedown notice for content they're expected to include that content in their "upload filter" going forward.
  - raverbashing 8y ago
    True but I guess YT does all that already.
    - anth_anm 8y ago
      and it's horrible.
      - raverbashing 8y ago
        I'm certainly not disagreeing with you!
    - Silhouette 8y ago
      They certainly didn't effectively deal with repeat offenders (as even the DMCA requires) when one such offender was ripping off significant amounts of content from one of my businesses and uploading it over and over again with slightly different titles etc. In fact, they gave no indication of even acknowledging the problem or being at all concerned by it.
      - zyx321 8y ago
        Are you a large movie studio with access to the ContentID system? Then you'd be able to just claim any video you like, with no penalty for false positives...
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  Safe harbor is a mostly ridiculous concept where everyone has agreed tech companies should be able to profit from illegal activity and be exempt from being penalized for doing so. It needs to die in the EU, and it needs to die here in the US. The apocalyptic language you've seen is merely companies upset that they may have to take on... the same responsibility to follow the law as the rest of us. The idea that the whole Internet is going to be illegal and everything you know and love is going to die is silly, and pretty much every single organization claiming such is funded by big tech. If these companies want to continue to make money (they do), they'll figure out a way to make it work.
  - anth_anm 8y ago
    The problem is that where you draw the lines around liability at that point? If I'm running a hosting company should I be liable if someone posts content in violation of copyright? Even if I'm trying to run an honest business and take appropriate steps to remedy the situation? If I'm anti-google should I be able to host copyrighted material on their cloud, hoping that they get sued over it? Eliminating safe harbors seems like a nasty can of worms to open. Especially considering how massively abused any other system (contentid) is.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    It doesn't affect just them, though; something like Sandstorm Oasis or GNU Savannah or public Mastodon servers or the Internet Archive - all of them rely on Safe Harbour provisions just as much as YouTube.
    - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
      I don't agree at all. All reputable law already understands conditions of intent and reasonableness. The issue is that tech companies have not just profited from, but encouraged illegal behavior that ran up their margins, and taken no action to reduce it because it was against their interests to do so. Once these articles hopefully do pass, after the initial run of tech co panic has passed, we'll find the world has not ended, and companies doing legitimately bad things can be effectively punished.
- jsonne 8y ago
  Good. With the amount of curation, censorship, and agenda pushing Google does they're essentially a publisher. They should be treated as such.
judge2020 8y ago
Their official page - https://www.youtube.com/saveyourinternet/ https://www.youtube.com/saveyourinternet/ As I understand it, YouTube, even with the biggest and best content library and matching system, can't take the risk to be held liable when copyrighted content gets through the filters. Especially with Deep Learning leading the system, they likely wouldn't be able to explain how their content ID system works if the EU asks them questions about the specifics.

kevin_b_er 8y ago

Except the notion of safe harbor will die in the EU. Google is then directly liable for any content it hosts all the time. User content is basically impossible in the EU after this.

elliekelly 8y ago
There is still a safe harbor - but it's insanely onerous. From Article 13(4) > If no authorisation is granted, online content sharing service providers shall be liable for unauthorised acts of communication to the public of copyright protected works and other subject matter, unless the service providers demonstrate that they have: > (a) made best efforts to obtain an authorization, This would require YouTube to enter into license agreements with artists the same way Spotify does. > and (b) made, in accordance with high industry standards of professional diligence, best efforts to ensure the unavailability of specific works and other subject matter for which the rightholders have provided the service providers with the relevant and necessary information, This means that if Sony Pictures, for example, provided YouTube with digital copies of all of their TV shows & movies that they own YouTube would need to make their best effort to catch violations of Sony Pictures' copyrights via the "upload filter." > and in any event (c) acted expeditiously, upon receiving a sufficiently substantiated notice by the rightholders, to remove from their websites or to disable access to the notified works and subject matters, and made best efforts to prevent their future uploads in accordance with paragraph (b). That means once YouTube receives one takedown notice for content they're expected to include that content in their "upload filter" going forward.
- raverbashing 8y ago
  True but I guess YT does all that already.
  - anth_anm 8y ago
    and it's horrible.
    - raverbashing 8y ago
      I'm certainly not disagreeing with you!
  - Silhouette 8y ago
    They certainly didn't effectively deal with repeat offenders (as even the DMCA requires) when one such offender was ripping off significant amounts of content from one of my businesses and uploading it over and over again with slightly different titles etc. In fact, they gave no indication of even acknowledging the problem or being at all concerned by it.
    - zyx321 8y ago
      Are you a large movie studio with access to the ContentID system? Then you'd be able to just claim any video you like, with no penalty for false positives...
ocdtrekkie 8y ago
Safe harbor is a mostly ridiculous concept where everyone has agreed tech companies should be able to profit from illegal activity and be exempt from being penalized for doing so. It needs to die in the EU, and it needs to die here in the US. The apocalyptic language you've seen is merely companies upset that they may have to take on... the same responsibility to follow the law as the rest of us. The idea that the whole Internet is going to be illegal and everything you know and love is going to die is silly, and pretty much every single organization claiming such is funded by big tech. If these companies want to continue to make money (they do), they'll figure out a way to make it work.
- anth_anm 8y ago
  The problem is that where you draw the lines around liability at that point? If I'm running a hosting company should I be liable if someone posts content in violation of copyright? Even if I'm trying to run an honest business and take appropriate steps to remedy the situation? If I'm anti-google should I be able to host copyrighted material on their cloud, hoping that they get sued over it? Eliminating safe harbors seems like a nasty can of worms to open. Especially considering how massively abused any other system (contentid) is.
- icebraining 8y ago
  It doesn't affect just them, though; something like Sandstorm Oasis or GNU Savannah or public Mastodon servers or the Internet Archive - all of them rely on Safe Harbour provisions just as much as YouTube.
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    I don't agree at all. All reputable law already understands conditions of intent and reasonableness. The issue is that tech companies have not just profited from, but encouraged illegal behavior that ran up their margins, and taken no action to reduce it because it was against their interests to do so. Once these articles hopefully do pass, after the initial run of tech co panic has passed, we'll find the world has not ended, and companies doing legitimately bad things can be effectively punished.
jsonne 8y ago
Good. With the amount of curation, censorship, and agenda pushing Google does they're essentially a publisher. They should be treated as such.

judge2020 8y ago

Their official page - https://www.youtube.com/saveyourinternet/ https://www.youtube.com/saveyourinternet/ As I understand it, YouTube, even with the biggest and best content library and matching system, can't take the risk to be held liable when copyrighted content gets through the filters. Especially with Deep Learning leading the system, they likely wouldn't be able to explain how their content ID system works if the EU asks them questions about the specifics.