5 ms·

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.

by 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
        The problem for streamers is not the legal part, it's the filtering part.
        ABCLAW 8y ago
        Let's be precise then. Streamers are already getting abused by Content ID. How does the EU legislation change how that works? It already exists. Edit: Content ID already covers the requirements of Art. 13 under any reasonable reading of the legislation. Things aren't going to get worse because of the legislation. They'll get worse because of pressure from their content partners and because they refuse to spend on human support. Why spend when you can do nothing instead? Your speculation doesn't make legal or business sense.
        koonsolo 8y ago
        Since YouTube itself can be sued now, they will lean towards a stricter false positive filter. If you think Content ID is bad, then this will be way worse. Because letting through copyrighted material can be more costly than disallowing new content. But hey, if you are outside of the EU, no problem. So guess what streamers will do. This is not rocket science you know. This is just simple cause and consequence. Stricter filters for EU citizens. And hey, maybe if we are lucky, YouTube decides EU isn't worth the effort anymore and decide to use the block filter.
- toyg 8y ago
  What? Spotify has no uploading features, all their content comes from licenseholders.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    All the content on YouTube is nominally licensed too. But what happens when someone submits someone else's music without permission?
  - kevingrahl 8y ago
    Strictly speaking that’s not quite true. A user can upload playlist covers and a text description for that playlist. Both the image and text could fall under copyright. In 2013/2014 Ministry of Sound sued Spotify over not removing playlists based on Ministry compilations, created by Spotify’s users. Ministry claimed that its compilations qualified for copyright protection due to the selection and arrangement involved. [1] [2] [1] - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/27/spotify-ministry-of-sound-lawsuit-settlement https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/27/spotify-m... [2] - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/04/ministry-of-sound-sues-spotify https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/04/ministry-...
  - robomc 8y ago
    I could publish someone else's music as my own, on Spotify.
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.

by ABCLAW 8y ago

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
      The problem for streamers is not the legal part, it's the filtering part.
      - ABCLAW 8y ago
        Let's be precise then. Streamers are already getting abused by Content ID. How does the EU legislation change how that works? It already exists. Edit: Content ID already covers the requirements of Art. 13 under any reasonable reading of the legislation. Things aren't going to get worse because of the legislation. They'll get worse because of pressure from their content partners and because they refuse to spend on human support. Why spend when you can do nothing instead? Your speculation doesn't make legal or business sense.
        koonsolo 8y ago
        Since YouTube itself can be sued now, they will lean towards a stricter false positive filter. If you think Content ID is bad, then this will be way worse. Because letting through copyrighted material can be more costly than disallowing new content. But hey, if you are outside of the EU, no problem. So guess what streamers will do. This is not rocket science you know. This is just simple cause and consequence. Stricter filters for EU citizens. And hey, maybe if we are lucky, YouTube decides EU isn't worth the effort anymore and decide to use the block filter.
toyg 8y ago
What? Spotify has no uploading features, all their content comes from licenseholders.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  All the content on YouTube is nominally licensed too. But what happens when someone submits someone else's music without permission?
- kevingrahl 8y ago
  Strictly speaking that’s not quite true. A user can upload playlist covers and a text description for that playlist. Both the image and text could fall under copyright. In 2013/2014 Ministry of Sound sued Spotify over not removing playlists based on Ministry compilations, created by Spotify’s users. Ministry claimed that its compilations qualified for copyright protection due to the selection and arrangement involved. [1] [2] [1] - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/27/spotify-ministry-of-sound-lawsuit-settlement https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/27/spotify-m... [2] - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/04/ministry-of-sound-sues-spotify https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/04/ministry-...
- robomc 8y ago
  I could publish someone else's music as my own, on Spotify.

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.