4 ms·

>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

by 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.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- c3o 8y ago
  There's another independent criterion that will cause lots of trouble/legal uncertainty: 1b. Regardless of (1), can you prove you made "best efforts" to acquire licenses for the content that was later found on your platform. It's not specified who you should be seeking deals with, how you're supposed to know ahead of time what a user will upload, how you're supposed to identify the true rightsholders of an uploaded work, etc. That criterion must even be fulfilled when you're less than 3 years old, by the way!
- danielscrubs 8y ago
  You are forgetting that parody is legal. So this means the AI will have to understand the difference, which not even humans can do.
AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> Not really? This isn't a flat 'you need to pay 10k a yr regardless of your size' imposition. Proportionality is important. The problem is the proportionality requirements are poorly designed. It would be one thing if requirements increased solely with revenue, but increasing with time or user count is purely destructive. Plenty of small services will hit the time limit before they're big, and then the costs destroy them before they have a chance to be. And the fact that that's likely to happen will keep many people from even trying to begin with. And user count doesn't mean anything if the profit per user is low. Many side projects have a million users, that doesn't mean it's making any money that could be used to spend on filters -- many of them are lucky to even pay for all of their own hosting costs. > 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'. That's a different problem. If there were real penalties for making false copyright claims then there wouldn't be so many fraudulent demand letters. I don't think as many people would be objecting to "copyright reform" if it did that.
- ABCLAW 8y ago
  >The problem is the proportionality requirements are poorly designed. I don't think this is the issue. The requirements aren't set out in detail, and will largely be fleshed out by the courts. This is where the reality of Art. 13 will be set - in the rulings which follow. Also, elements in a test don't react linearly in court judgements. Scaling from 100 users to 200 isn't going to suddenly mean that it's proportional for you to implement Content ID from scratch or that an applicable fine doubles. The mental calculus I see here just doesn't take into account how courts work. >That's a different problem. If there were real penalties for making false copyright claims then there wouldn't be so many fraudulent demand letters. I don't think as many people would be objecting to "copyright reform" if it did that. I think most people can agree that the cut and dry abuse of copyright and copyright-adjacent systems should be penalized. But it is. Just not at the scale of individual content producers. If someone tried to extort you by placing false copystrikes on your work and you had proof, you would have a few torts or more general omnibus civil code provisions to use in most jurisdictions. But the cost and hassle of doing so might be higher than your expected return. Justice doesn't scale linearly, which is a very, very big problem -- but not one that's unique to the Art 11/13 debate.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Natanael_L 8y ago
The problem is that there's absolutely nothing in there that explains how to balance anything. There's nothing in favor of moderate regulation. Also: https://torrentfreak.com/german-data-privacy-commissioner-sounds-alarm-over-upload-filter-oligopoly-190301/ https://torrentfreak.com/german-data-privacy-commissioner-so...
- ABCLAW 8y ago
  I agree that there's an obvious risk here, but this is a burden for the courts to bear. The concern over data-use at filtering service companies is new to me and interesting but substantially mitigated if they are compliant with GDPR. I haven't seen this argument before, so I'll have to take a look. Thanks!

by ABCLAW 8y ago

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.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
c3o 8y ago
There's another independent criterion that will cause lots of trouble/legal uncertainty: 1b. Regardless of (1), can you prove you made "best efforts" to acquire licenses for the content that was later found on your platform. It's not specified who you should be seeking deals with, how you're supposed to know ahead of time what a user will upload, how you're supposed to identify the true rightsholders of an uploaded work, etc. That criterion must even be fulfilled when you're less than 3 years old, by the way!
danielscrubs 8y ago
You are forgetting that parody is legal. So this means the AI will have to understand the difference, which not even humans can do.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago

> Not really? This isn't a flat 'you need to pay 10k a yr regardless of your size' imposition. Proportionality is important. The problem is the proportionality requirements are poorly designed. It would be one thing if requirements increased solely with revenue, but increasing with time or user count is purely destructive. Plenty of small services will hit the time limit before they're big, and then the costs destroy them before they have a chance to be. And the fact that that's likely to happen will keep many people from even trying to begin with. And user count doesn't mean anything if the profit per user is low. Many side projects have a million users, that doesn't mean it's making any money that could be used to spend on filters -- many of them are lucky to even pay for all of their own hosting costs. > 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'. That's a different problem. If there were real penalties for making false copyright claims then there wouldn't be so many fraudulent demand letters. I don't think as many people would be objecting to "copyright reform" if it did that.

ABCLAW 8y ago
>The problem is the proportionality requirements are poorly designed. I don't think this is the issue. The requirements aren't set out in detail, and will largely be fleshed out by the courts. This is where the reality of Art. 13 will be set - in the rulings which follow. Also, elements in a test don't react linearly in court judgements. Scaling from 100 users to 200 isn't going to suddenly mean that it's proportional for you to implement Content ID from scratch or that an applicable fine doubles. The mental calculus I see here just doesn't take into account how courts work. >That's a different problem. If there were real penalties for making false copyright claims then there wouldn't be so many fraudulent demand letters. I don't think as many people would be objecting to "copyright reform" if it did that. I think most people can agree that the cut and dry abuse of copyright and copyright-adjacent systems should be penalized. But it is. Just not at the scale of individual content producers. If someone tried to extort you by placing false copystrikes on your work and you had proof, you would have a few torts or more general omnibus civil code provisions to use in most jurisdictions. But the cost and hassle of doing so might be higher than your expected return. Justice doesn't scale linearly, which is a very, very big problem -- but not one that's unique to the Art 11/13 debate.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Natanael_L 8y ago

The problem is that there's absolutely nothing in there that explains how to balance anything. There's nothing in favor of moderate regulation. Also: https://torrentfreak.com/german-data-privacy-commissioner-sounds-alarm-over-upload-filter-oligopoly-190301/ https://torrentfreak.com/german-data-privacy-commissioner-so...

ABCLAW 8y ago
I agree that there's an obvious risk here, but this is a burden for the courts to bear. The concern over data-use at filtering service companies is new to me and interesting but substantially mitigated if they are compliant with GDPR. I haven't seen this argument before, so I'll have to take a look. Thanks!