Quote:
Originally Posted by FrustratedReader
This forum polices copyright infringement of uploads. Why should Facebook and YouTube be allowed to ignore it?
|
Did you read the quotes or follow the links?
YouTube *does* police uploads.
With a sledgehammer.
Hence the false positives vastly outnumbering the true violators.
(Look at the examples. White noise gets flagged.)
The issue isn't will, it is technical and economic: Google and the other "eeevile" big tech companies can afford to implement filters but the tech isn't anywhere near good enough, at any price, to be precise and accurate. But Google and co can afford to shrug off the damage they do to smaller companies. If anything, the filters *help* the big platforms because the added cost would cripple smaller companies, killing them outright or driving them to big hosting companies. Note that neither AWS nor IBM, Microsoft of Wordpress (among many) complain about article 13, only article 11. That's because they run web hosting services and crappy, expensive, but mandatory filters can be a cash cow ontop of their existing hosting cash cows.
It is no different from internet sales tax initiatives in the US.
Amazon fought them tooth and nail while they were small and barely profitable. Once they got big and profitable enough they forgot about principle and switch to supporting a federal online sales tax for everybody, presence or not, because they already have presence in all states and thus have to collet sales tax. So an internet sales tax won't hurt them but it will hurt their smaller, agile competitors. And "curiously" the WalMarts and Targets that usedto be so gungho for internet taxes when Amazon was smaller no longer care now that they can't hurt Amazon that way.
These lobbyist-driven political initiatives aren't driven by a desire to help consumers or creators, only to satisfy the demands of the politically connected middleman multinationals.