« Topics
12
noggin14,119 posts since 26 Jun 2001
Because that's Brexit day. After that, we won't automatically be taking on any of the EU's new laws, and can freely change existing ones. Which means if they pass a similar law to this anyway, it'll be the fault of our elected representatives, not the unelected guys from Brussels. And they'll feel the wrath of the electorate!


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.)
TIGHazard357 posts since 3 Jan 2014
Tyne Tees Look North (North East)
Quite frankly I find it disturbing how Google/YouTube have mobilised their audience and gotten them to believe so deeply in their propaganda without even considering opposing viewpoints and why Google/YouTube would want to push so much against this legislation.


What do you think is the case for the directive?


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

Quote:

All this appears to have inspired, in an extreme case, one German teenager to threaten suicide. In a segment shown by German public broadcaster ZDF, she vows: "They can't steal our future. If they close YouTube – so many suicides – I will be the first."

"Don't fool the kids and their parents," responded Green MEP Hegla Trudel. She urged YouTube not to create an atmosphere of "hysteria"


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.
AlexEdohHD13663 posts since 25 Jul 2014
London London
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.
The Ten O'Clock News from the BBC with Huw Edwards.
Neil Jones4,900 posts since 23 Dec 2001
Central (West) Midlands Today
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.


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.
2
AJ and Woodpecker gave kudos
Justin361 posts since 9 Oct 2014
BBC World
Quite frankly I find it disturbing how Google/YouTube have mobilised their audience and gotten them to believe so deeply in their propaganda without even considering opposing viewpoints and why Google/YouTube would want to push so much against this legislation.


What do you think is the case for the directive?


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


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.
Quote:
Take the global music hit "Despacito”. This video contains multiple copyrights, ranging from sound recording to publishing rights. Although YouTube has agreements with multiple entities to license and pay for the video, some of the rights holders remain unknown. That uncertainty means we might have to block videos like this to avoid liability under article 13

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.
Last edited by Justin on 30 December 2018 9:51am
New Zealand isn't that far away!
2
VMPhil and noggin gave kudos
bilky asko5,296 posts since 9 Sep 2006 Recently warned
Tyne Tees Look North (North East)
Quite frankly I find it disturbing how Google/YouTube have mobilised their audience and gotten them to believe so deeply in their propaganda without even considering opposing viewpoints and why Google/YouTube would want to push so much against this legislation.


What do you think is the case for the directive?


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

Quote:

All this appears to have inspired, in an extreme case, one German teenager to threaten suicide. In a segment shown by German public broadcaster ZDF, she vows: "They can't steal our future. If they close YouTube – so many suicides – I will be the first."

"Don't fool the kids and their parents," responded Green MEP Hegla Trudel. She urged YouTube not to create an atmosphere of "hysteria"


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.


What legal reason do you have to post that copyrighted material, in a way that would pass under that mechanism?
Upload TV168 posts since 17 Nov 2017
UTV Newsline

What do you think is the case for the directive?


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

Quote:

All this appears to have inspired, in an extreme case, one German teenager to threaten suicide. In a segment shown by German public broadcaster ZDF, she vows: "They can't steal our future. If they close YouTube – so many suicides – I will be the first."

"Don't fool the kids and their parents," responded Green MEP Hegla Trudel. She urged YouTube not to create an atmosphere of "hysteria"


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.


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.
tesandco986 posts since 28 Sep 2001
Granada North West Today
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.
Last edited by tesandco on 21 January 2019 7:23am - 4 times in total
TV Whirl - Still covering UK idents, presentation, teletext and programmes after 17 years
2
Woodpecker and bilky asko gave kudos