3 ms·

I am 90% this means nothing and I disagree this won't affect big companies and will only affect small startups like some of the other comments here. The law ba

I am 90% this means nothing and I disagree this won't affect big companies and will only affect small startups like some of the other comments here. The law basically says that the company has to try it's best to prevent copyrighted material. If you're a small company, you can put together some simple algorithm and claim that's all you can really do. Big shots like youtube have the capital to be proactive and pay for things like real people to monitor claims. They're at a bigger risk for not doing enough. Either way, the bar would be high enough that I don't think anyone is really going to be affected by this.

ocdtrekkie 8y ago
Indeed. And as with most laws of this sort, action will almost certainly be taken against large, abusive parties, rather than going after little guys who are being honest and doing their best. The Internet will survive, and perhaps even thrive in an environment where big companies are no longer able to run roughshod over everyone else's content.
llaqb 8y ago
That is very arbitrary. You can claim you're doing as much as you can. Who is going to determine how much you are really able to do? What if the judge decides you could've done more and decides to fine you anyway?
yummybear 8y ago
My hunch tells me this will be used as a tactical weapon by rights holders and PR companies to bury negative publicity in lawyer fees. You can argue that you are using some content fairly and you did your best to prevent it in court while paying 500$/hr to your layer, or you can simply remove it. But yeah, that won't be a problem for 95% of companies and startups - but it will be for some.
- preommr 8y ago
  I wonder about that, because I don't think there are many european countries that follow the "American rule" system where each party pays it's own fees. In the "English rule" system the losing party pays for the legal fees so a rich person can't just arbitrarily spam law suits. But then again, I am making a lot of assumptions here (but then again it seems like so is everyone else here) so I don't know about the exact legal details that could change things.
bengale 8y ago
There is an exemption from any charges arising from the legislation for those who earn less than 5 million euros per annum.

ocdtrekkie 8y ago

Indeed. And as with most laws of this sort, action will almost certainly be taken against large, abusive parties, rather than going after little guys who are being honest and doing their best. The Internet will survive, and perhaps even thrive in an environment where big companies are no longer able to run roughshod over everyone else's content.

llaqb 8y ago

That is very arbitrary. You can claim you're doing as much as you can. Who is going to determine how much you are really able to do? What if the judge decides you could've done more and decides to fine you anyway?

yummybear 8y ago

My hunch tells me this will be used as a tactical weapon by rights holders and PR companies to bury negative publicity in lawyer fees. You can argue that you are using some content fairly and you did your best to prevent it in court while paying 500$/hr to your layer, or you can simply remove it. But yeah, that won't be a problem for 95% of companies and startups - but it will be for some.

preommr 8y ago
I wonder about that, because I don't think there are many european countries that follow the "American rule" system where each party pays it's own fees. In the "English rule" system the losing party pays for the legal fees so a rich person can't just arbitrarily spam law suits. But then again, I am making a lot of assumptions here (but then again it seems like so is everyone else here) so I don't know about the exact legal details that could change things.

bengale 8y ago

There is an exemption from any charges arising from the legislation for those who earn less than 5 million euros per annum.