UK won't implement Article 13 law

[DiapDealer]

That it might be "hard" to protect ones own copyright is of absolutely no concern to me.

This forum polices its own uploads for copyright infringement (and has always done so, even before any laws that told it it must) because it chooses to. Because it doesn't want to be associated with piracy, and because it honors copyright. We choose to try and stay on top of things from day to day because it ensures that we will be able deal with potential take-down request situations expediently.

I have no beef with anyone who chooses to ensure their own little corner of the internet strives to comply with copyright. I only have a beef with those who insist all others must be legally forced to do so (beyond what they are already required to do, RE takedown notices, etc...).

Who pays for this enforced policing of the contract between copyright holder and society?

[shalym]

Originally Posted by FrustratedReader

This is nonsense. Almost EVERY forum has rules on uploading. Why should the most profitable & biggest companies on the Internet have an exemption?
Most of safe harbor is just to suit big US Companies and it's flawed, broken law dishonestly being used by some big companies.
Also like slurping private data for targeted ads, the "It's the only way the internet can actually work." is a lie promoted by Facebook and Google.
You Tube would make a LOT less money. Maybe longer video would need a subscription.
Ending data slurp and targeted adverts would only reduce Facebook and Google income a little. It's fake snake-oil to get advertisers to switch from TV and paper, but that incentive is no longer needed.

What is nonsense? Are you implying that google/youtube doesn't have rules on what can be uploaded? If so, you're wrong...they definitely do, and they have a system in place that scans for copyrighted material (if you read the first post in this thread, this is talked about in detail)

Shari

[fjtorres]

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.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

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.)

What they are doing is matching to existing YouTube videos.
Which by definition will never prevent violations for works that the copyright owner doesn't want uploaded to YouTube.

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.

Amazon already have the code and process in place to identify copyright violations by streamers. They already do identify them. But all they do with the information is mute VODs. They could, right now, force their streamers to stop playing copyright music or lose their accounts. They don't, because noone is forcing them to, and there is no financial benefit to doing so.

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.

Exactly the same is true for Google's lobbying against them.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by shalym

What is nonsense? Are you implying that google/youtube doesn't have rules on what can be uploaded? If so, you're wrong...they definitely do, and they have a system in place that scans for copyrighted material (if you read the first post in this thread, this is talked about in detail)

Shari

Youtube not only scans for pirate uploads (and brings most down within hours) they also have very arbitrary and constantly changing rules about what they will allow. Some small channels get demonetized or totally shut down for doing something the bigger companies are allowed or they were allowed to do for years...until they started making to much money. (Of course, ad money that gets taken away ends up in Google's picket.)

It is hard enough for small players to survive without adding to their problems by mandating an ineffective non-solution.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

What they are doing is matching to existing YouTube videos.
Which by definition will never prevent violations for works that the copyright owner doesn't want uploaded to YouTube.

.

No.

https://www.fastcompany.com/3062494/...ersial-feature

Content ID matches against "fingerprints" and watermarks in large existing databases from the outside.

That is where the bulk of the false positives come from: they flag anything "similar enough" where "enough" is extremely wide. They purposefully chose false positive over accuracy.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I like the vault in a volcano in an alternate universe better.

Found an online image of MobileRead's secret headquarters:

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Found an online image of MobileRead's secret headquarters:

Is that imagine copyrighted?

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Is that imagine copyrighted?

I'll claim fair use, within the United States.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I'll claim fair use, within the United States.

Ultimately, that is the problem with upload filters.
There is no way to code filters to recognize fair use.

They can't even recognized licensed content, as pointed above.
They are (barely) usable at flagging full pirate uploads but legal snippets and compilations will trip the same flags as full pirate uploads.

A non-harmful filter would have to scan and *comprehend* the full upload and that would require true AI, not just pattern matching.

[fjtorres]

The electronic frontier foundation explains why filters are incompatible with Fair Use:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/0...itute-fair-use

Content ID works by having copyright holders upload their content into a database maintained by YouTube. New uploads are compared to what’s in the database and when the algorithm detects a match, copyright holders are informed. They can decide whether to monetize someone else’s video for themselves, mute the audio, or take it down. Users whose videos are hit with Content ID can dispute the match—chancing the claim being converted to a strike—or alter their video in some way that releases the claim.

Content ID makes matches based on seconds of matching audio or video. In other words, it doesn’t just make matches when a whole thing has been copied and uploaded. It makes matches when just a short clip is found. And short clips are often present in videos making fair use.

Videos critiquing a film or song are going to include clips from that video or song. It makes the point stronger. In the same way that high school English classes teach students to put quotes in their essays to make their point stronger, people working in visual and audio formats do the same thing.

Moreover, fair use gives people the legal right to use copyrighted material for purposes like commentary and criticism without having to get permission or pay the copyright holder. And fair use isn’t bound by a specific number of seconds. It’s bound by whether what was used was needed for the point being made.

Thefe are legal standards for what is and isn't Fair Use but the standards are based on context and rationality; things whether the content use is transformative, whether it can substitute for the full product, the intent behind the use, etc.

Some cases are easy to indentify but many will challenge even educated, intelligent lawyers and judges. Few if any are reducible to easily coded algorithms.

With today's tech, you can have Fair Use or you can have automated filters.
Not both.