According to some, YouTube's copyright filters / markers aren't good enough to satisfy the EU directive. It's insane. The DMCA is bad enough already. Copyright should be loosened, not tightened. Then maybe we'd see some competition in video hosting.
And before someone gets on me...I realize that these are automated filters that are rarely asserted by the actual copyright holder.
Plain old money based fines should work. Even a tiny fixed fee of $50 per error might be enough, given the scale of the internet.
If you're right 95% of the time, you get a discount. If you're wrong 50% of the time, you pay the full fee.
Who would be in charge of setting these?
Google is blackmailing the Blender foundation to try and get them to enable adverts.
https://www.blender.org/media-exposure/youtube-blocks-blende...
edit - and Blender have now got https://video.blender.org/ in testing already. I didn't think they'd be the ideal people to issue ultimatums to on video hosting, given their technical specialities.
A situation like this triggered the development of git, (after the licence to use bitkeeper was withdrawn from the linux kernel team) so I will be watching the fallout with interest.
The Blender team never did that, and also never reacted to any youtube support mails.
They said YouTube was requiring them to enable ads, but the ads checkbox was grayed out. Among other issues. Not that they wanted to enable ads on a not for profit site. But just taking this one issue, it's not clear how they could have possibly complied with Google's requirement, when Google keeps the checkbox UI element grayed out and unchangeable.
If the fine went to the person who uploaded the work, this would be good because it would force the filter to be robust in the face of adversarial attacks.
If it's possible to trigger those intentionally, then it's likely that it's also happening accidentally, and this policy would make that stop.
Which copyright should be lost, if the assertion was false?
I don’t understand. I put out a takedown request for something I don’t have the copyrights to and as a result the real copyright holder loses their copyright? How is that fair?
You use my song in a fair use way
I claim you are infringing my copyright
you challenge, I fail to prove my case
I lose copyright on the song and it enters the public domain.
I own the copyright on the song X.
Person A uses the song X in a fair use way.
Person B claims A is infringing.
Person A challenges and wins.
Then I lose my copyright, without any involvement?
That's so disproportionate that you might as well just abolish copyright.
Also, most of the world doesn't have fair use like the US does, though many places have similar but weaker provisions in some respects. US fair use law is somewhat controversial, because it arguably doesn't comply with international obligations.
Ideally that's what we would do.
The DMCA strikes a balance for the copyright holder and the host, by letting the host avoid any liability for the copyright infringement, as long as they enforce valid requests by no longer hosting the content.
The new EU law builds on this principle, giving hosts more responsibility to check whether copyright might be being infringed. I'm strongle against the idea, but I can see the logic that the host is best-placed to actively monitor all uploaded content.
A big issue I have, both with the DMCA and this new legislation, is that there's no balancing in the direction of the uploader. Aggressive solutions like your proposal do address this imbalance, but they don't do anything to address the actual concerns each side has.
If we want more reasonable copyright laws in this arena going forward, we should also be pushing for an uploader's right to appeal, as a balance against the rights of and affordances for the other two parties: * There should be an 'appeals'/'counterclaim' process for content uploaders to take responsibility for the content. Presumably, to balance against the copyright holder's needs, they should submit their name and address when they claim that their content is non-infringing. * From the host's side, the uploader following this process should remove all responsibility for that content from them, so they have no concern about liability and can re-enable access to the content. * From the copyright holder's side, they need to be able to seek recourse if they still think the content is infringing. This can be done by taking the uploader to court, using the details they have provided.
I desperately hope this new legislation fails, but I think you were spot-on about aiming for a 'fair balance', and even acheiving that would be a great improvement.
Expecting a solution that covers everything first time -- and trying to persuade people that the special cases are necessary without seeing the system in action -- is a great way to achieve slow/no progress.
I'd say that a pattern of such behavior should trigger a penalty. It's not a single claim that's the problem. It's patterns of such claims en masse.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_hosting_services
No one can build filters that are good enough beyond the big tech cos. They can build these libraries and hopefully open source them for everyone to use...but if they don't...
It is backwards: nothing but whatever can be build by big tech companies is good enough, because their lobbying and interests define what's good enough. It's also obvious, why it wouldn't get open-sourced then. Kicking the ladder and so on.