6 ms·

Because politicians are stupid. If you look at the pros and cons of this law, Europe has nothing to gain. Not for the people, not for the companies. This is a

Because politicians are stupid. If you look at the pros and cons of this law, Europe has nothing to gain. Not for the people, not for the companies. This is a law that works to mainly serve the big copyright holders, and in a second degree, impacts the big tech multinationals (=read US companies) less than the smaller ones. It makes no sense at all. Especially since all member states will have their own law. "Does our filter comply with Belgium law? Also with Luxemburg? And what about Slovenia?". It's a big farce, that can only be approved by total morons that don't even bother to listen to people who actually know what they're talking about.

ABCLAW 8y ago
This isn't a law that serves multinationals; quite the opposite. The proportionality requirement in the text of Art. 13 is more onerous to larger corporations. If you're a tiny blog with a banner ad or two, you're not getting slapped off the internet for having a comments field, because it isn't proportional to require cost and complexity increases of multiple orders of magnitude to police your comments section. Unless someone comes up with Compliance.ly & Co. which does the work for you at a price-point that is reasonable, in which case we've just opened up a new industry which hopefully results in Content ID going the way of the Dodo. After some litigation occurs in which the boundaries of proportionality are set, we'll be in a better position to analyze the impact of this law.
- fhrow4484 8y ago
  When reading comments like this it feels like: there's no ambitious startup in Europe to become one of the large companies. Because now a startup has less than 3 years to add this content filtering, which provided as a service or not, is going to cost €€€. Do you think Spotify would be able to grow if it was created on March 27 2019 instead of 2008? A successful Content filtering as a service (compliance.ly & co. In your example), assuming it gets adopted by all major websites, seems like it would shift the problem to an even bigger gatekeeper than YouTube, how is this a good thing?
  - ABCLAW 8y ago
    >Because now a startup has less than 3 years to add this content filtering, which provided as a service or not, is going to cost €€€. Not really? This isn't a flat 'you need to pay 10k a yr regardless of your size' imposition. Proportionality is important. The articles, as written, are interesting because they already mention a ton of the balancing considerations. All of those are completely absent in these conversations. Do you know why that's an issue? Because sometime soon people are going to start getting bullshit copyright trolling demand letters, and all this furor about how the internet is dead is going to convince them to close up shop or cave instead of saying 'nah, serve me your originating documents, this is a bogus claim'. And that's how the internet will die. >Do you think Spotify would be able to grow if it was created on March 27 2019 instead of 2008? If the competitive landscape was the same? Yes. In fact, Spotify's arc is exactly what this law is attempting to encourage. As they grew, they became a quasi licensing clearinghouse instead of another Napster or Limewire. That's the entire point. >how is this a good thing? Because you don't end up with 1 compliance service, and you can litigate against the compliance service if they're inappropriately killing your content creation business. As it stands now, if you try to fight YouTube or the content delivery pipeline itself on the basis of their filters, you die. That's not necessarily the case if there's a healthy competitive filter ecosystem. Whether or not we get to that point is another question, though.
    - koonsolo 8y ago
      > Not really? This isn't a flat 'you need to pay 10k a yr regardless of your size' imposition. Proportionality is important. In practice, it will all be up to the judge: 1. Was your AI filter adequate enough to properly filter the content 2. If not, how high can the fine be? There is 1 easy solution to all of this: incorporate outside of the EU.
      - ABCLAW 8y ago
        >In practice, it will all be up to the judge That's the case for any piece of legislation. The test isn't 'if your AI was good enough'. For the majority of people the most important part is: 'is it proportional to even use AI at your size?' To which the answer is no. If you're running a stream or youtube channel of self-created content, the cost of moving dramatically exceeds the total cost of legal risk you're eating in staying put.
- koonsolo 8y ago
  > If you're a tiny blog with a banner ad or two I'm sure everyone is dreaming of having a "tiny blog"</irony> Meanwhile in the real world, the European streamers and content creators, who make a living from their content, are looking on how to escape the EU so their content doesn't get filtered out.
  - ABCLAW 8y ago
    In the real world, people are being fed misinformation about what's going on by people who didn't read the actual text of the article. That's the point. I did. I've followed every public draft of the language as its developed. The article does not do what people are claiming it does. The internet is not dead. Small content creators are not being wiped out. The big tech giants are not creating yet another regulatory moat. There are plenty of real problems with Article 13 that deserve discussion and elaboration so that when the first cases come out, they get decided properly, but this isn't a nuclear bomb that blows up the net and makes it a corporate-only zone.
    - oska 8y ago
      I keep on seeing you say how you're better informed than most people in this thread but I've yet to see you make any concrete points drawing from the actual text of the law.
      - ABCLAW 8y ago
        Sorry, I'm confused. Did you not notice that almost every post of mine is referring to specific limiting provisions - that everyone else is ignoring in creating their doomsday scenarios - in the text?
    - koonsolo 8y ago
      > I did. I've followed every public draft of the language as its developed You clearly didn't. From the text itself: "for less than three years and which have an annual turnover below EUR 10 million" Do you see the "and" there? This means that ANY business that is older than 3 NEEDS to comply with filters. I read the text, because it directly impacts my platform. The solution is: start a foreign corporation. Your comments here, and in your other posts where you think that streamers have "legal" problems, clearly indicate that you have completely no clue what you are talking about. Small content creators will be filtered out, and small platforms will need to comply to all the different laws of each EU country. This is crazy.
llcoolv 8y ago
The point with the complexity is a very funny one. Actually those people in Brussels are almost exclusively humanitarian degree students who haven't built even a doghouse during their lifetimes. They see overcomplexity not as a problem, but as a source of pride and a major bragging point. It is actually a massive clash of cultures even though they come from the same place as the people they are trying to govern.

ABCLAW 8y ago

This isn't a law that serves multinationals; quite the opposite. The proportionality requirement in the text of Art. 13 is more onerous to larger corporations. If you're a tiny blog with a banner ad or two, you're not getting slapped off the internet for having a comments field, because it isn't proportional to require cost and complexity increases of multiple orders of magnitude to police your comments section. Unless someone comes up with Compliance.ly & Co. which does the work for you at a price-point that is reasonable, in which case we've just opened up a new industry which hopefully results in Content ID going the way of the Dodo. After some litigation occurs in which the boundaries of proportionality are set, we'll be in a better position to analyze the impact of this law.

fhrow4484 8y ago
When reading comments like this it feels like: there's no ambitious startup in Europe to become one of the large companies. Because now a startup has less than 3 years to add this content filtering, which provided as a service or not, is going to cost €€€. Do you think Spotify would be able to grow if it was created on March 27 2019 instead of 2008? A successful Content filtering as a service (compliance.ly & co. In your example), assuming it gets adopted by all major websites, seems like it would shift the problem to an even bigger gatekeeper than YouTube, how is this a good thing?
- ABCLAW 8y ago
  >Because now a startup has less than 3 years to add this content filtering, which provided as a service or not, is going to cost €€€. Not really? This isn't a flat 'you need to pay 10k a yr regardless of your size' imposition. Proportionality is important. The articles, as written, are interesting because they already mention a ton of the balancing considerations. All of those are completely absent in these conversations. Do you know why that's an issue? Because sometime soon people are going to start getting bullshit copyright trolling demand letters, and all this furor about how the internet is dead is going to convince them to close up shop or cave instead of saying 'nah, serve me your originating documents, this is a bogus claim'. And that's how the internet will die. >Do you think Spotify would be able to grow if it was created on March 27 2019 instead of 2008? If the competitive landscape was the same? Yes. In fact, Spotify's arc is exactly what this law is attempting to encourage. As they grew, they became a quasi licensing clearinghouse instead of another Napster or Limewire. That's the entire point. >how is this a good thing? Because you don't end up with 1 compliance service, and you can litigate against the compliance service if they're inappropriately killing your content creation business. As it stands now, if you try to fight YouTube or the content delivery pipeline itself on the basis of their filters, you die. That's not necessarily the case if there's a healthy competitive filter ecosystem. Whether or not we get to that point is another question, though.
  - koonsolo 8y ago
    > Not really? This isn't a flat 'you need to pay 10k a yr regardless of your size' imposition. Proportionality is important. In practice, it will all be up to the judge: 1. Was your AI filter adequate enough to properly filter the content 2. If not, how high can the fine be? There is 1 easy solution to all of this: incorporate outside of the EU.
    - ABCLAW 8y ago
      >In practice, it will all be up to the judge That's the case for any piece of legislation. The test isn't 'if your AI was good enough'. For the majority of people the most important part is: 'is it proportional to even use AI at your size?' To which the answer is no. If you're running a stream or youtube channel of self-created content, the cost of moving dramatically exceeds the total cost of legal risk you're eating in staying put.
koonsolo 8y ago
> If you're a tiny blog with a banner ad or two I'm sure everyone is dreaming of having a "tiny blog"</irony> Meanwhile in the real world, the European streamers and content creators, who make a living from their content, are looking on how to escape the EU so their content doesn't get filtered out.
- ABCLAW 8y ago
  In the real world, people are being fed misinformation about what's going on by people who didn't read the actual text of the article. That's the point. I did. I've followed every public draft of the language as its developed. The article does not do what people are claiming it does. The internet is not dead. Small content creators are not being wiped out. The big tech giants are not creating yet another regulatory moat. There are plenty of real problems with Article 13 that deserve discussion and elaboration so that when the first cases come out, they get decided properly, but this isn't a nuclear bomb that blows up the net and makes it a corporate-only zone.
  - oska 8y ago
    I keep on seeing you say how you're better informed than most people in this thread but I've yet to see you make any concrete points drawing from the actual text of the law.
    - ABCLAW 8y ago
      Sorry, I'm confused. Did you not notice that almost every post of mine is referring to specific limiting provisions - that everyone else is ignoring in creating their doomsday scenarios - in the text?
  - koonsolo 8y ago
    > I did. I've followed every public draft of the language as its developed You clearly didn't. From the text itself: "for less than three years and which have an annual turnover below EUR 10 million" Do you see the "and" there? This means that ANY business that is older than 3 NEEDS to comply with filters. I read the text, because it directly impacts my platform. The solution is: start a foreign corporation. Your comments here, and in your other posts where you think that streamers have "legal" problems, clearly indicate that you have completely no clue what you are talking about. Small content creators will be filtered out, and small platforms will need to comply to all the different laws of each EU country. This is crazy.

llcoolv 8y ago

The point with the complexity is a very funny one. Actually those people in Brussels are almost exclusively humanitarian degree students who haven't built even a doghouse during their lifetimes. They see overcomplexity not as a problem, but as a source of pride and a major bragging point. It is actually a massive clash of cultures even though they come from the same place as the people they are trying to govern.