>> If you want a quick example of why this is bad take a look at fair use and YouTube. Article 13 would make YouTube liable for copyrighted content on its service.
What exactly is wrong with that? Seriously.
What exactly is wrong with that? Seriously.
If the new product was produced in the US and references material from the EU, should YouTube allow the content to go public? According this and GDPR, the EU has the ability to cross territorial boundaries. So YouTube now has to ban such a work in the US even though our legal system allows it.
Essentially, YouTube will have to create a new process where by all content must go past the censors, who are probably people and not machines. Otherwise YouTube will quickly die due to death by a thousand fines. So much for a free and open exchange of ideas.
It in no way prevents anyone from creating content and publishing it on their own website.
You make it sound like the youtubes of this world are necessary for content creation.
If you are arguing that massive content consolidation platforms such as Youtube do not have a highly significant impact on content creators as a group though, then I do not know what to say to that.
Put simply, if you're a US (or Australian, or Brazilian, or Japanese, etc) service: tell the EU to go fuck itself. US courts will laugh at their attempts to enforce EU law over US law.
Keep your servers in the US, if that's where you're located. If you have no need to do business in the EU, then you have almost nothing to worry about. The EU's reach largely stops at its borders unless you're operating in their jurisdiction.
For my service as a US operation, EU copyright law is meaningless. I'll continue to allow EU users to sign up, and entirely disregard EU law.
Ultimately the only way the EU can truly enforce their backwards policies against a global Internet, is to set up a Chinese firewall and hold EU persons as captives of that creeping authoritarianism.
I'm not sure it's reasonable to conflate ripping off creators by enabling massive commercial use of unauthirized copies of their original content with actually creating something.
> YouTube will have to create a filter that covers their liability
I believe they already did that for some years now.
Nobody wants to engage in the secondhand market because of the massive liability. Sure you own it but can you prove it to their satisfaction? You could be lying and that is mo excuse on their part. You try to sell crafts you made yourself instead but nobody can be sure you didn't just steal them because you aren't a big name crafter. Big corporations can sell directly but small manufacturers and businesses are SOL. And worse yet this includes petitions and pamphlets too!
That is exactly what secondary liability does.
This law requires websites to /know/ the copyright to be covered. And that is an impossible task if no false negatives are accepted. Old usenet pirates would use base64 strings to spread contents and there are countless ways to obfuscate to algorithms while remaining human recognizable. Which means to remain safe one needs to not even accept and display text input from users.
Copyright databases would be of no help here given both automatic copyright and the ease of dodging hashes. And a complete set would be massive and hillariously defeat the point by giving any implenter all of the media in the world.
Given that it is inevitable that it will have a bad outcome. Even if it is left to rot on the books it becomes a tool of tyranny via selective enforcement.
Here's an example: What about movie review channels like Wisecrack, Film Theorist, Cinema Sins, Filmjoy etc.? While discussing movies, they naturally have to show excerpts: short clips of the movie that relate to their explanations. Those guys are absolutely "creating something". And if anything, they're driving more people to watch those movies. A five-minute analysis of a movie is usually not a valid substitute for watching the actual movie.
I imagine that many of these channels will become unavailable in the EU in the near future. Time to get a US-based VPN.
How can YouTube check that?
In practice, this constitutes the abolition of the "fair use" doctrine on the internet.
rightly, they're going after the newspaper.
it's disingenuous to suggest youtube only makes tools for video content distribution whilst omitting the fact that they are the only consumers of those tools.