3 ms·

This is very true and the main point people brought against the EU's article 17(the "upload filter") mandating a scan of all user-generated content for copyrigh

by meibo 6y ago

This is very true and the main point people brought against the EU's article 17(the "upload filter") mandating a scan of all user-generated content for copyrighted material that was put in place by oh so many very well paid(and not just by the EU), conservative MEPs that have no clue about technology. Countries are struggling hard to put this into local law right now since it has to be by July this year - and as it turns out, to the surprise of no one, it's basically impossible to do so. The worst part must be that the law is retroactive, so a lot of old content will be removed and I'm sure no one will bother putting in a counter-notice for a six year old video. I'm very curious how small services like Peertube instances will handle this. Something funny from an iteration of the law in Germany: You are allowed to use 128x128 images of copyrighted content for "fair use"/without running into the chance of it getting taken down automatically, so good luck making quality content :)

idownvoted 6y ago
Retroactive Laws, at odds with reality, put into legislation by MEPs who are mostly even less able then their domestic parliament's party-colleagues and whose "consituency" usually doesn't even know who they are – Another example of the inherent flaws of the European Union. Guess VPN-Serversi within the evil Brexit Kingdom are going to be in high demand.
- meibo 6y ago
  I'm very concerned for e.g. YouTube and the vast amount of content already on there, since they will most likely apply the more aggressive filtering worldwide - maybe solutions like Peertube instances that are clearly labeled "not for EU citizens" will become a thing if it really pans out the way it looks to be at the moment.
doh 6y ago
> it's basically impossible to do so. Well, not true. I built whole company that does exactly this. It's disappointing that YouTube is used as the standard of what technology can do and how these systems can work. We built system with the creator as a first class citizen. This means they are able to claim exceptions (as defined by law) before any action is taken. They are also able to utilize outside arbiters (WIPO, ...) free of charge to make independent decisions when there is an issue. This are just few highlights. But the reality is that just because YouTube built shitty system doesn't mean the whole Internet has to copy it.
- meibo 6y ago
  It's nice that there's ways to make this friendlier for creators, but wouldn't most bigger services rather block and build a cheap system in-house than rely on a SaaS/b2b product, if you don't give it away for free or price very competitively? Are they actually open to implement better systems? Hope it's alright to ask this, it's obviously a very important thing that will be coming up for all of us in the future. Good luck with your work!
  - doh 6y ago
    > Hope it's alright to ask this Absolutely! We need to be held accountable. > It's nice that there's ways to make this friendlier for creators, but wouldn't most bigger services rather block and build a cheap system in-house than rely on a SaaS/b2b product, if you don't give it away for free or price very competitively? The biggest innovation of our company is not its technology but the business model. We in fact do give it free to all platforms, rightsholders and creators equally. How do we make money? When there is monetization occurring on the platform, we take %. It's literally the same model of VISA, where cards are free (ok, not all of them) but you pay for the transaction. Some platforms will still try to build their own internal system, similarly to YouTube's Content ID. However as it stands right now, they are not complaint with EUCD and even they do become complaint, they are retaining extreme liability. We, on the other hand, created a setup where we are able to take this liability from the hands of the platforms while providing best service possible. We also aligned our incentives with the success of everyone involved. If rightsholders over block, we don't get paid. If platforms can't attract creators because the system is too intrusive, we don't get paid. If creators don't benefit from our system, we don't get paid. We intentionally built this way. We made it free to allow widespread adoption. We can scale much further than CID (currently can process 1,100 hours of content a second, or 66,000 hours a minute; while guaranteeing 5 second response time with full license being issued) but we also spent last two years working with civic societies, copyright scholars and others to help us build balance system with processes that don't favor one side over the other. We have still long way to go, but I believe we are on a good path.
    - jfrunyon 6y ago
laurent92 6y ago
For those who want to keep tabs on the topic: Julia Reda, German EU MEP, is quite a critic reference on this topic – a good blog to follow. https://juliareda.eu/eu-copyright-reform/censorship-machines/ https://juliareda.eu/eu-copyright-reform/censorship-machines...
- Kbelicius 6y ago
  This is outdated. That is for article 13 which became article 17 in the text that was voted on. Article 17 contains this paragraph: "The application of this Article shall not lead to any general monitoring obligation.". That line, as I interpret it, makes the whole blog post that you linked invalid.
swiley 6y ago
The past few EU laws had some modicum of reason and I thought people blocking the EU were stupid. But for this one, if I were running a Peertube instance I would block EU IPs and tell people to use TOR or at least ssh to a lineode if they wanted to see things.
- Kbelicius 6y ago
  Why would you block EU? Article 17 explicitly states that its application shall not lead to any general monitoring obligation?.
Kbelicius 6y ago
> This is very true and the main point people brought against the EU's article 17(the "upload filter") mandating a scan of all user-generated content for copyrighted material How can that be your interpretation of article 17 when it literally says : "The application of this Article shall not lead to any general monitoring obligation." in it.

by meibo 6y ago

idownvoted 6y ago

Retroactive Laws, at odds with reality, put into legislation by MEPs who are mostly even less able then their domestic parliament's party-colleagues and whose "consituency" usually doesn't even know who they are – Another example of the inherent flaws of the European Union. Guess VPN-Serversi within the evil Brexit Kingdom are going to be in high demand.

meibo 6y ago
I'm very concerned for e.g. YouTube and the vast amount of content already on there, since they will most likely apply the more aggressive filtering worldwide - maybe solutions like Peertube instances that are clearly labeled "not for EU citizens" will become a thing if it really pans out the way it looks to be at the moment.

doh 6y ago

> it's basically impossible to do so. Well, not true. I built whole company that does exactly this. It's disappointing that YouTube is used as the standard of what technology can do and how these systems can work. We built system with the creator as a first class citizen. This means they are able to claim exceptions (as defined by law) before any action is taken. They are also able to utilize outside arbiters (WIPO, ...) free of charge to make independent decisions when there is an issue. This are just few highlights. But the reality is that just because YouTube built shitty system doesn't mean the whole Internet has to copy it.

meibo 6y ago
It's nice that there's ways to make this friendlier for creators, but wouldn't most bigger services rather block and build a cheap system in-house than rely on a SaaS/b2b product, if you don't give it away for free or price very competitively? Are they actually open to implement better systems? Hope it's alright to ask this, it's obviously a very important thing that will be coming up for all of us in the future. Good luck with your work!
- doh 6y ago
  > Hope it's alright to ask this Absolutely! We need to be held accountable. > It's nice that there's ways to make this friendlier for creators, but wouldn't most bigger services rather block and build a cheap system in-house than rely on a SaaS/b2b product, if you don't give it away for free or price very competitively? The biggest innovation of our company is not its technology but the business model. We in fact do give it free to all platforms, rightsholders and creators equally. How do we make money? When there is monetization occurring on the platform, we take %. It's literally the same model of VISA, where cards are free (ok, not all of them) but you pay for the transaction. Some platforms will still try to build their own internal system, similarly to YouTube's Content ID. However as it stands right now, they are not complaint with EUCD and even they do become complaint, they are retaining extreme liability. We, on the other hand, created a setup where we are able to take this liability from the hands of the platforms while providing best service possible. We also aligned our incentives with the success of everyone involved. If rightsholders over block, we don't get paid. If platforms can't attract creators because the system is too intrusive, we don't get paid. If creators don't benefit from our system, we don't get paid. We intentionally built this way. We made it free to allow widespread adoption. We can scale much further than CID (currently can process 1,100 hours of content a second, or 66,000 hours a minute; while guaranteeing 5 second response time with full license being issued) but we also spent last two years working with civic societies, copyright scholars and others to help us build balance system with processes that don't favor one side over the other. We have still long way to go, but I believe we are on a good path.
  - jfrunyon 6y ago

laurent92 6y ago

For those who want to keep tabs on the topic: Julia Reda, German EU MEP, is quite a critic reference on this topic – a good blog to follow. https://juliareda.eu/eu-copyright-reform/censorship-machines/ https://juliareda.eu/eu-copyright-reform/censorship-machines...

Kbelicius 6y ago
This is outdated. That is for article 13 which became article 17 in the text that was voted on. Article 17 contains this paragraph: "The application of this Article shall not lead to any general monitoring obligation.". That line, as I interpret it, makes the whole blog post that you linked invalid.

swiley 6y ago

The past few EU laws had some modicum of reason and I thought people blocking the EU were stupid. But for this one, if I were running a Peertube instance I would block EU IPs and tell people to use TOR or at least ssh to a lineode if they wanted to see things.

Kbelicius 6y ago
Why would you block EU? Article 17 explicitly states that its application shall not lead to any general monitoring obligation?.

Kbelicius 6y ago

> This is very true and the main point people brought against the EU's article 17(the "upload filter") mandating a scan of all user-generated content for copyrighted material How can that be your interpretation of article 17 when it literally says : "The application of this Article shall not lead to any general monitoring obligation." in it.