Will YouTube remain as we know it?
At a time when Russians are trying to fight against the isolation of the RuNet, residents of the European Union go to rallies with demands to stop the adoption of laws governing the use of the YouTube platform. At the same time, the main slogan at the demonstrations is “No censorship on the Internet.”
The deputies of the European Parliament are planning on 03/27/2019 the adoption of laws designed to change the current copyright law, making it, in their own opinion, relevant to modern realities. The planned changes will concern three articles: 11, 12 and 13. It was around article 13 (Artikel 13) that the main discussion unfolded. It is about her and will be discussed in this article.
The main idea behind this law is copyright protection, which, in the opinion of European parliamentarians, is mercilessly violated by such monsters as YouTube, Facebook, etc. According to deputies of the European Parliament, it is a massive copyright infringement by YouTube that allows it to earn billions, and content creators are left with nothing. It is worth noting that the numerous questions of critics of the law, what percentage of copyright infringements, and how many artistic people went bankrupt due to YouTube, did not respond.
')
The planned law should act simultaneously in three directions:
The first item caused the most heated discussions. The idea of ​​content filtering (Upload Filter) is associated with censorship and nothing else. Intellectual property protection itself is a good thing, but the law does not define the parameters, saying only that the service provider must obtain permission from the copyright holders. If we talk about the resolution, then it should be almost everything that is captured on video. For example, I shoot a video of a dog in an apartment. A dog walking along the corridor passes by Nike sneakers, next to it is an adidas sports bag, on the nightstand are the keys to a BMW car, next to which is an iPhone, well, let's say a picture hangs on the wall. Well, the worst thing is that the phone sounded, the ringtone of which is a popular melody.
So, according to the new law, this video contains four trademarks, a photo of the “unknown master” and the melody of a popular artist. As you can see from the above, my video has no chance of being uploaded, since all of the listed items are protected by copyright law.
The problem is also aggravated by the fact that in some EU countries, it is also a violation to post photos and videos of art objects in public places. Since the new law should take into account national laws, an attempt to download materials with the above elements should be blocked.
In fact, all portals that provide the ability to download content (music, video, photos) must enter into a legal agreement with all copyright holders. For example, in Germany, intermediaries often act as the legal owner, such organizations as GEMA , for which the new law promises a significant increase in income. It is these organizations that act as the most ardent supporters of this law.
YouTube is required to create an ever-populating database containing sample materials in order to prevent leakage of unlicensed content. All this should significantly exceed the volume of ContentID currently used.
From Youtube and Co. they also expect an unprecedented level of intelligence, since according to the authors of the law, it is still possible to use criticism or irony, for example, and the system should be able to separate irony or criticism from the original content. So, if, while viewing the Filter Filter meme, he laughed, then all is well. If the filter missed the material on which the complaint of the copyright holder was received, then the YouTube employee takes over the further consideration, and he should do it within 48 hours.
The way the supporters of the law assess the possibilities of AI, on the one hand, cause sympathy, and on the other hand, concern. Such experts state the following: “Artificial intelligence can recognize faces, preferences, and even self-park a car. And as a result, it should be easy to distinguish the original from parody. ”
In order to avoid accusations of censorship, Upload Filter in the texts of the law is replaced by the phrase “best efforts”, and the interview uses the phrase (recognition software) for recognition programs. At the same time completely denying the fact that a filter is used to separate one from the other, be it a filter for a vacuum cleaner (air from dust) or a sieve for sand.
According to opponents, from the adoption of such a law in the first place lose those for which it is created to protect, namely, people of art. Since they will be forced to transfer management rights to organizations like GEMA.
The estimated costs of creating such filters are estimated at 100,000,000 euros. Thus, small platforms are overboard, or they will be forced to rent filters from leading players. For many, renting such a filter would be an unbearable burden.
According to article 13, an exception is made for platforms with the following simultaneous parameters: age less than 3 years, annual turnover below 10 million and the number of unique visitors does not exceed 5 million. What does the platform do for placing photos existing for more than 10 years but having 200,000 views in month? Is she able to conclude an agreement with each user who uploaded the photo into her? Will a similar hobby platform filter rental from YouTube?
But even the presence of a filter does not guarantee quality. I think many people are familiar with the case of downloading Bach's score on Facebook. Facebook blocked the download according to Sony Music’s claims to own this piece of music, basing its claims that “their” musician was also played by Bach. Due to public pressure, Sony abandoned its claims.
Based on the foregoing, a huge segment of the Internet is almost under the control of American concerns such as Google and Facebook. At the same time, all European lawmakers do all the dirty work of cleaning up the Internet from small competitors.
A downloaded picture, music or video file in the YouTube database allows him to decide whether to skip a remix or a parody of an existing file. Thus, under the sauce of copyright protection, censorship will be veiled.
In order not to risk, the platforms will screen out all potentially problematic materials. And maybe everything will be very simple, download from European IP will be simply blocked.
This day will be a vote on this law. There is hope that it will be sent for revision. Against article 13 made a huge number of musicians, popular bloggers, professors of law, and the German Wikipedia in protest on 03.22.2019 was not available. The petition created at change.org has collected more than 5 million signatures. Well, then deja vu, reminiscent of the current presidential elections in one of the former Soviet republics. The initiators of the law, the faction of the Christian Democratic Party (the authors of the bill) announced the signatories of the petition bots (including me). But this time not Russian, but American. But that's not all. The participants of the demonstration on March 23, 2019 (according to various estimates, up to 40,000 participants) in Berlin were also not real, but extras bought by American concerns, which received up to 450 euros for participation.
It only remains to hope for the prudence of the deputies! And I will inform you about the voting results in addition.
Wikipedia page March 23, 2019:
Article 13
The deputies of the European Parliament are planning on 03/27/2019 the adoption of laws designed to change the current copyright law, making it, in their own opinion, relevant to modern realities. The planned changes will concern three articles: 11, 12 and 13. It was around article 13 (Artikel 13) that the main discussion unfolded. It is about her and will be discussed in this article.
The main idea behind this law is copyright protection, which, in the opinion of European parliamentarians, is mercilessly violated by such monsters as YouTube, Facebook, etc. According to deputies of the European Parliament, it is a massive copyright infringement by YouTube that allows it to earn billions, and content creators are left with nothing. It is worth noting that the numerous questions of critics of the law, what percentage of copyright infringements, and how many artistic people went bankrupt due to YouTube, did not respond.
')
The planned law should act simultaneously in three directions:
- Require the platform to filter all downloadable content for the presence of an unlicensed component. When finding such components, video download should become impossible. Under the platform refers to an Internet service that contains a large number of works or other materials.
- Platforms that host content are solely responsible for copyright infringement.
- Content creators should be rewarded for their creativity.
The first item caused the most heated discussions. The idea of ​​content filtering (Upload Filter) is associated with censorship and nothing else. Intellectual property protection itself is a good thing, but the law does not define the parameters, saying only that the service provider must obtain permission from the copyright holders. If we talk about the resolution, then it should be almost everything that is captured on video. For example, I shoot a video of a dog in an apartment. A dog walking along the corridor passes by Nike sneakers, next to it is an adidas sports bag, on the nightstand are the keys to a BMW car, next to which is an iPhone, well, let's say a picture hangs on the wall. Well, the worst thing is that the phone sounded, the ringtone of which is a popular melody.
So, according to the new law, this video contains four trademarks, a photo of the “unknown master” and the melody of a popular artist. As you can see from the above, my video has no chance of being uploaded, since all of the listed items are protected by copyright law.
The problem is also aggravated by the fact that in some EU countries, it is also a violation to post photos and videos of art objects in public places. Since the new law should take into account national laws, an attempt to download materials with the above elements should be blocked.
What do the authors of the law expect from Youtube and Co.
In fact, all portals that provide the ability to download content (music, video, photos) must enter into a legal agreement with all copyright holders. For example, in Germany, intermediaries often act as the legal owner, such organizations as GEMA , for which the new law promises a significant increase in income. It is these organizations that act as the most ardent supporters of this law.
YouTube is required to create an ever-populating database containing sample materials in order to prevent leakage of unlicensed content. All this should significantly exceed the volume of ContentID currently used.
From Youtube and Co. they also expect an unprecedented level of intelligence, since according to the authors of the law, it is still possible to use criticism or irony, for example, and the system should be able to separate irony or criticism from the original content. So, if, while viewing the Filter Filter meme, he laughed, then all is well. If the filter missed the material on which the complaint of the copyright holder was received, then the YouTube employee takes over the further consideration, and he should do it within 48 hours.
The way the supporters of the law assess the possibilities of AI, on the one hand, cause sympathy, and on the other hand, concern. Such experts state the following: “Artificial intelligence can recognize faces, preferences, and even self-park a car. And as a result, it should be easy to distinguish the original from parody. ”
In order to avoid accusations of censorship, Upload Filter in the texts of the law is replaced by the phrase “best efforts”, and the interview uses the phrase (recognition software) for recognition programs. At the same time completely denying the fact that a filter is used to separate one from the other, be it a filter for a vacuum cleaner (air from dust) or a sieve for sand.
How do opponents of the law see the future?
According to opponents, from the adoption of such a law in the first place lose those for which it is created to protect, namely, people of art. Since they will be forced to transfer management rights to organizations like GEMA.
The estimated costs of creating such filters are estimated at 100,000,000 euros. Thus, small platforms are overboard, or they will be forced to rent filters from leading players. For many, renting such a filter would be an unbearable burden.
According to article 13, an exception is made for platforms with the following simultaneous parameters: age less than 3 years, annual turnover below 10 million and the number of unique visitors does not exceed 5 million. What does the platform do for placing photos existing for more than 10 years but having 200,000 views in month? Is she able to conclude an agreement with each user who uploaded the photo into her? Will a similar hobby platform filter rental from YouTube?
But even the presence of a filter does not guarantee quality. I think many people are familiar with the case of downloading Bach's score on Facebook. Facebook blocked the download according to Sony Music’s claims to own this piece of music, basing its claims that “their” musician was also played by Bach. Due to public pressure, Sony abandoned its claims.
Based on the foregoing, a huge segment of the Internet is almost under the control of American concerns such as Google and Facebook. At the same time, all European lawmakers do all the dirty work of cleaning up the Internet from small competitors.
A downloaded picture, music or video file in the YouTube database allows him to decide whether to skip a remix or a parody of an existing file. Thus, under the sauce of copyright protection, censorship will be veiled.
In order not to risk, the platforms will screen out all potentially problematic materials. And maybe everything will be very simple, download from European IP will be simply blocked.
03/27/2019
This day will be a vote on this law. There is hope that it will be sent for revision. Against article 13 made a huge number of musicians, popular bloggers, professors of law, and the German Wikipedia in protest on 03.22.2019 was not available. The petition created at change.org has collected more than 5 million signatures. Well, then deja vu, reminiscent of the current presidential elections in one of the former Soviet republics. The initiators of the law, the faction of the Christian Democratic Party (the authors of the bill) announced the signatories of the petition bots (including me). But this time not Russian, but American. But that's not all. The participants of the demonstration on March 23, 2019 (according to various estimates, up to 40,000 participants) in Berlin were also not real, but extras bought by American concerns, which received up to 450 euros for participation.
It only remains to hope for the prudence of the deputies! And I will inform you about the voting results in addition.
Wikipedia page March 23, 2019:
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/445090/
All Articles