Article 13 - The End Of Archiving TV Presentation?

That depends on whether we leave, and if we do whether it is with a deal or with no deal.

If we leave with a deal and thus move into a transition period on March 29th, then there are areas of new EU law we will be expected to continue to implement into UK law. Whether Article 13 is one of those, I don't know.

If we leave with no deal then it will be up to UK lawmakers to decide whether to mirror EU laws. There is no guarantee we would chose not to, particularly if we want reciprocal intellectual property protection in EU states to apply to UK content.

(Personally I've always found it a bit odd that Google are able to make money out of content posted on their site that they don't own, and is the copyright content of others.)

Firstly, and this isn't about the directive itself, but YouTube has somehow managed this



Now, my case for it. YouTube already has content ID. Infact I just uploaded some continuity earlier today, it was blocked worldwide by the BBC, I appealed and was immediately declined. So I deleted the video.

However copies I've read of Article 13 specifically require complaints and redress mechanisms and an independent country level organisation to escalate to if the copyright holder declines your copyright appeal. Therefore if A13 was passed, that video may actually be live on YouTube right now.

I am also against Article 13 because I feel it will limit free speech.

In what way will it limit free speech?

It will limit free speech because memes could be removed, memes are part of social media, a part of free speech.

Also, some videos could be removed under article 13 even though, the purpose is for criticism and review.

An internet meme is defined as "an image, video, piece of text, etc., typically humorous in nature, that is copied and spread rapidly by Internet users, often with slight variations". Technically all internet memes are infringements of copyright as you take a segment from a TV show, film or whatever and slap some text on it.

The long standing definition of a meme is "an idea, behaviour, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture—often with the aim of conveying a particular phenomenon, theme, or meaning represented by the meme. A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols, or practices, that can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena with a mimicked theme." (Wikipedia).

None of which has anything to do with free speech. Don't we all technically not have free speech in certain circumstances anyway? If I go into a crowded room and shout "Fire!" and then try to argue I was exercising my right to free speech, those who get trampled on will surely disagree and everybody will consider me to be an complete idiot for shouting "Fire!" in that particular circumstance.

Some of the stuff released by YouTube has been straight-forward scaremongering -- examples that would be on the very edge of worst-case scenarios that are almost certainly not going to happen.

https://youtube-creators.googleblog.com/2018/11/i-support-goals-of-article-13-i-also.html
YouTube is pushing this blog post to all of its European users via app popups. The power they wield has really been left unexamined.

What legal reason do you have to post that copyrighted material, in a way that would pass under that mechanism?

Well if it’s idents it’s quite possible they may be covered by section 30. Criticism, review & news reporting.

Which part of 'Follow us on Twitter or click this link' would you see as the criticism, review or news reporting part under section 30?

As pointed out though a lot of this does come down to Google throwing their toys out anyway. They'll always claim to be on the side of uploaders and only looking out for you. However review and criticism, if it genuinely mattered to them, is a lot easier for them to protect than they make out. Google has spent years building very complicated (and damn good) algorithms for their search engine that can identify context and semantics within textual content, so that they can send you to good quality websites from their search engine rather than just websites with keywords, UK keywords, keywords in the UK. And they also already have all the software that can transcribe this from videos themselves too. It's almost certain they could quite easily have included better automated detection of the context around videos uploaded to the Youtube service and protected genuine review or criticism from their pretty blunt-edged ContentID system. But they've never bothered too much as this would require more investment, and there's never been any real incentive for them to do so as it's the quantity of content that gets people to the site rather than the quality.