back to article YouTube supremo says vid-streaming-slash-piracy giant can't afford EU's copyright overhaul

YouTube, a company "completely sustained by pirated content" according to Google executives prior to its 2006 acquisition, is warning that a proposed revision of Europe's copyright directive could spell the end of online video sharing as we know it. YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki in a blog post on Monday denounced changes being …

  1. LDS Silver badge

    So what?

    Even selling stolen goods at 10% of the price would bring many customers to any shop. Just, it's illegal. Or any TV station that could broadcast any content without paying the owners while selling ads would become rich quite soon.

    And I really don't believe people watching less pirated video and more original contents on YouTube is a issue - but for Google and its profits.

  2. whitepines Bronze badge
    Unhappy

    Re: So what?

    It's not like the rights holders have made it easy or convenient to pay for and access their work.

    YouTube: Search, play, enjoy, move on

    Movie studio: Sign up for monthly rental payments, agree to onerous legal mumbo-jumbo, sit through various threats and advertisements for stuff you don't care about, then watch the work in low quality on specific approved hardware devices under strictly controlled conditions.

    In the stolen goods analogy, it would be more akin to having to engage in an inner city drug deal to buy the legitimate product. Sorry, but this mess is all on Hollywood's shoulders.

  3. Duncan Macdonald Silver badge

    Re: So what?

    I watch a lot of YouTube videos - and as far as I am aware none of them are pirated. A badly thought out copyright rule may remove one of my best forms of entertainment (certainly better than the rubbish on TV). There are also a lot of instructional videos on YouTube - if they are removed because of the EU copyright rubbish then that will harm a number of people who use them.

    A number of media firms use extracts or single songs on YouTube to advertise their products (Sony and UMG are among the companies doing this).

    YouTube is also the shop window for a number of media companies who use videos on YouTube to show their capabilities to potential new clients.

    There is also a lot of performances of out of copyright songs uploaded by the performing artist.

    There is an old rule in law which should be applied - it is better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be jailed.

    (Most of the current commercial films and music is so bad that there is no point in pirating it - even party political broadcasts are better!!!)

  4. msknight Silver badge

    Re: So what?

    Sorry Duncan, I have to disagree.

    Shed loads of content on YouTube is pirated. I see it frequently. Channels go down, and new ones come up to replace them. That includes music piracy, and piracy of other people's videos. There is a lot of copyrighted content on YouTube.

    YouTube actually have sod all control of their platform. Remember Alex Jones whose supposed to be banned from the platform? I'm currently tracking... fourteen channels re-broadcasting his live streams. Hang on, one channel just got banned outright. Thirteen.

    YouTube actually have a very poor control of their platform, and I'm wondering how long it will be, before advertisers wake up to this, and that YouTube's comforting words about advert placement and figures, are actually worth nothing.

    Also, as a creator, the false positives are sickening. I'm getting false copyright claims from their bots (and I know it's the bots because the videos are hit with strikes before they are published) and then I've got a battle to get those claims revoked. The YouTube content scanning system, from where I'm sitting, is a blunderbus that isn't even pointed at the barn door.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Re: So what?

    All my YouTube videos are categorised as "unlisted" - so they only get viewed a few times by family and friends who want to see my various seasonal decorations.

    So it was a surprise to see that one from earlier in the year had been marked as "monetised by copyright holder". It identified a piece of music that was unknown to me.

    It was a short video of my neighbour playing with her kids in the snow taken from my window. She wanted it uploaded so that she could send the link to her parents.

    The copyright issue was because the lounge radio in the background happened to be tuned to Classic FM. Fortunately YouTube provided an option to remove the audio track - and at some point the video will be deleted when my neighbour decides all her family have seen it.

  6. Headley_Grange Silver badge

    Re: So what?

    @whitepines.

    It's not like the shops have made it easy or convenient to buy stuff

    Shoplifting - search for stuff in shop, put it in pocket, move on.

    Shopping - search for stuff in shop, queue to pay, find wallet, put credit card in machine, tap PIN, wait for receipt, pay credit card bill, etc.

    Sorry, but this shoplifting mess is all on the shops' shoulders.

  7. Pascal Monett Silver badge

    @ msknight

    "Shed loads of content on YouTube is pirated"

    I do not disagree. Take it down and be done with it.

    But SciShow, PBS Space Time, Brainy Dose and shedloads of others are perfectly legitimate and very interesting.

    What is asked is not to close YouTube, it's to clean it up. And as I pay for my films, I see no problem in outing the pirates. On the other hand, I see a very big problem in the rampant abuse of the DMCA that YouTube exerts absolutely no control over. So out with the fucking DCMA and in with proper copyright control.

  8. Sampler

    Re: @ msknight

    I'd like proper copyright control, the DMCA auto flag stuff is ridiculous, I've had several video's flagged at the moment of upload for non-copyright violations but the code has decided otherwise.

    My last one was a bicycle event, I was cycling along with some friends on the Sydney to 'Gong 90k ride, not even four minutes of a nice down hill and interaction with friends, happened to be near someone with a bluetooth speaker playing a song barely audible in the background, in fact, I had to watch the video a few times with the sound cranked to eleven to even pick it out.

    It's all a pain in the ass as the monetise or disable something or other. I actually watch a fair bit of original content on YouTube and don't recall watching anything pirate, but then, I'm also in Australia so not affected by this, but, would welcome a change to how copyright is handled as apparently it's not working to prevent copyright infringement and the false positives are very annoying even for us casuals so god knows what it's like for a professional..

  9. whitepines Bronze badge

    Re: So what?

    Nah, I think you miss the point. Let's update that analogy for an industry that actually adapted:

    Go to Amazon. Click on item to buy. Puchase item with same day delivery. Get item that's all yours and you can do whatever you want with it.

    For that matter, buying music tracks. Click, click, download, plays anywhere. Even if it's slightly easier to pirate music, why have the police on your tail (major inconvenience, jail!)? That's where having a product that is easy to buy (and for multimedia, actually own a copy of) helps cut down on piracy significantly.

    Just try that with video....and then remember that for many people piracy, for all its downsides (and illegality) is still a more convenient way to view something. Now that's an industry that just won't adapt no matter what happens!

  10. Diogenes

    Re: @ msknight

    It was funny when NASA had its Mars landing videos flagged for DCMA violations by umpteen hundred news organisations for footage that it supplied the news organisations, & which, because it was NASA was actually in the public domain.

  11. onefang

    Re: So what?

    "YouTube actually have a very poor control of their platform,"

    They don't even have good control of their adverts. Youtube always shows me adverts in Russian, for goods and services available in Russia as far as I can tell. I'm not in Russia, I'm not Russian, I don't speak Russian. All those adverts are entirely wasted on me.

    "The YouTube content scanning system, from where I'm sitting, is a blunderbus that isn't even pointed at the barn door."

    In my case, for the advert system, the barn door isn't even on the same continent.

  12. msknight Silver badge

    Re: @ pascal monett

    The problem for YouTube is that cleaning it up, will destroy their business model.

    They get more adverts from a bootleg of the latest music hits, than they do from a video of me repairing a walkman. If they clean it up... then the income goes down the pan. That's the problem.

    Personally, I'm also on Vimeo, where I pay for the privilege of having a channel. THAT is the proper business model, I believe. What should happen, in my eyes, is that every channel on YouTube should be charged for its existence, and rely on its viewers paying for the higher tier content.

    Like I do now... I am a patron of a few channels. What I pay is affordable to me, and I get access to extra content which the non-subscribers don't see. I also get access to non-video content like subscriber blogs, etc. - the combined number of people like me, enables a living income for the content creators.

    YouTube's current model actually penalises creators who use other platforms for income at the moment. That stifles the creators and limits them to video.

    The whole model is selfish, inflexible, unpoliceable and doomed to fail.

  13. jason_derp

    Re: So what?

    I wholeheartedly agree! I can't wait for the day where I can just pick up my stuff and leave, or when I can get my groceries delivered so I don't have to even bother with the headache of a store!

  14. Rattus Rattus

    Re: So what?

    YouTube has ads? Huh.

  15. LDS Silver badge

    "YouTube: Search, play, enjoy, move on"

    False argument. YouTube is easy exactly because it doesn't give a damn about who uploads what, all it needs to tracks are its ads and your habits.

    It's far easier to run an illegal business than a legal one, sure, to run a legal one you have to follow the rules, and it implies some overhead.

    And if you talk about quality, YouTube is the lowest quality. Still most people prefer stolen low quality stuff for free than pay for better ones. After all, the whole Google business is built on giving away low quality stuff for free (the only exception the search engine, designed well before they understood what model worked for them).

    While I have little sympathy for most of the movie and music industry, still taking advantage of and making profits from someone else work is theft. If you don't like how Hollywood & C. sell their stuff, avoid them fully. There isn't anything you can't live without. Just hope someone will steal your work one day and greatly profits from it, and let's see how you will feel...

  16. LDS Silver badge

    "A badly thought out copyright rule may remove"

    Why? You assert you don't watch pirated contents. Any video that isn't pirated will stay there, and you will be able to keep on watching it. Instructional videos that don't infringe copyright - and remember there are a lot of fair use exceptions - they will stay there, just like any promotional video uploaded there with full rights, so what are your you talking about?

    Or do you mean that without pirated contents YouTube is not a viable business and will collapse?

  17. Giovani Tapini

    Re: So what?

    @AC even a few seconds of music can attract the bot blunderbuss, even if it is incidental as in your case. It makes posting anything involving gaming, out at the fairground or shopping, night out etc almost impossible.

    How many public spaces now have background muzak in the background. The blunderbuss does not work, nor is it identifying real pirated content. I've seem TV programmes simply modified with a picture frame to avoid the controls.

    To be fair on google they will probably always be behind in the arms race, copyright holders should also not insist on nitpicking a few seconds of background in otherwise entirely non violating content.

    I can't see either side reaching a satisfactory conclusion though.

  18. LDS Silver badge

    "I'd like proper copyright control, the DMCA auto flag stuff is ridiculous"

    That shows exactly how the YouTube model is broken - copyright laws have fair use exceptions, but of course YouTube is not interested in allowed only original contents which could contain fair use.

    They prefer to hide their big revenue streams from plain copyright violations behind a finger, letting companies chase dancing toddlers and protecting big violators.

  19. LDS Silver badge
    Facepalm

    "Just try that with video."

    Order a Blue-Ray on Amazon?

    If for "convenient" you mean "I don't have to pay for it" - you're right.

  20. Michael Habel Silver badge

    Re: So what?

    It maybe "Better", but it hardly means that we don't lock up innocent People who #dindunuffen

  21. Michael Habel Silver badge

    Re: So what?

    Bless Alex, and his Gay Frogs, may he croke forever!

  22. NotAnotherAccount

    Re: So what?

    Except brick and mortar is suffering for this very reason. Amazon and other online retailers are decimating the high street exactly because it is more convenient.

  23. rmason Silver badge

    Re: @ msknight

    @Pascal Monett

    YouTube all but admitted they wouldn't be able to keep the lights on without the pirated stuff. It is *the* primary use for youtube for massive sections of society.

    IF 80%+ of all YouTube content disappeared, it follows that so would a large percentage of users, because they are there to consume that content. Teenagers use it for music with no payment required, entire seasons of TV shows are available as well as movies etc.

    The advertisers are playing for those eyeballs, those eyeballs are, mostly, only there to view the stuff that would be removed.

  24. big_D Silver badge

    Re: So what?

    @Duncan McDonald, sorry, every video you watch has copyright. It is automatic assigned to the creator for new material.

    If you watch a "compilation" video of snippits from other people, that is an infringement of copyright, unless the compiler has received a waiver from every single film maker who's clips he has used - and yes, that means Vine compilations, dashcams, pop videos, silly accidents, sports coverage etc.

    If a person hasn't uploaded original content that they themselves have filmed or for which they have bought the copyright or a license to reproduce, that video is in breach of copyright.

    YouTube knows this, Google knows this, most people making the videos know this - and legitimate vloggers get permission, before they include other people's clips in their videos. But it is a lot of work for Google, because they let YouTube build up its volume on the back of copyright infringement, instead of finding a way at the beginning to vet content and scale that up with the service.

    No they are faced with running an illegal service and they can't be arsed to do anything about it, so they are threatening to throw their toys out the pram.

    And, yes, I do watch about half a dozen YouTube channels, but they all show their own original content.

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Re: it is better that 10 guilty men go free

    it's great for google to live off the back of this noble premise, for ever.

  26. steviebuk Silver badge

    Re: So what?

    And purchase a DVD or BluRay and sit and watch the Anti-piracy warnings, despite you having purchased said movie/TV Show. Yet pirate it & all that is removed. When a pirate gives a better quality service than the content providers, you'll always going to have an issue.

  27. msknight Silver badge

    Re: So what?

    There is, actually a contract section which applies. Unfortunately, there are two terms of service documents for YouTube, and I'm not really sure which of the two versions are actually in force. (EDIT - they might have sorted this out, finally)

    https://www.youtube.com/t/terms

    https://www.youtube.com/static?gl=CA&template=terms

    Part of 6.c. of the second link ... " You also hereby grant each user of the Service a non-exclusive license to access your Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such Content as permitted through the functionality of the Service and under these Terms of Service."

    The trick is the, "through the functionality of the service".. so if you download the video in order to then use it in one of your videos which you then upload... you're out of 6.c. because you've gone outside the service in order to mash up the video. So none of this is very straightforward.

    I recorded a video on the problem here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ABqh04n8lo - but it does appear that they might... finally... have actually synchronised the two terms of service.

    ie. even though your uploaded work is copyrighted the instant you upload it... the simple act of uploading it to youtube, automatically grants every other youtube viewer the ability to use and reproduce it.

  28. codejunky Silver badge

    Re: So what?

    @ msknight

    "Shed loads of content on YouTube is pirated"

    Shed loads of content on the internet is pirated. I wonder how long until the sledgehammer comes down on that

  29. jmch Silver badge

    Re: So what?

    "YouTube actually have a very poor control of their platform"

    Absolutely this. Not because they can't, but because they have no incentive to do so. With multibillion $$ revenues they can afford to hire an army of human analysts who can double-check on videos flagged up be their algorithms. They could easily slap down vexatious claims that against 'fair-use' scenarios. They can quickly identify and ban content illegal that is constantly re-uploaded. Yes, it's a whack-a-mole but if that's the way the platform works, that's what YouTube needs to do to keep it clean.

    But they don't, because right now more views = more income and they are screwing both advertisers who have no idea how many real people are viewing their ads, AND the copyright holders who get a blackmailed to accept a pittance for their material (otherwise we won't take down anything breaching your copyright) AND original content creators who can't even monetise any hits on their videos unless they have huge volumes (and even then Google passes on a pittance compared to what it collects from ads). Policing their platform properly would not only cost them money, it would reduce their income so of course they won't do it.... UNLESS they are forced to by making them truly liable for content. So good on the EU for clamping down on them.

  30. Zakhar

    Re: "Just try that with video."

    ... Which blue-ray I cannot watch on my Linux machines with VLC because of stupid DRMs.

    I used to watch DVD I legally borrowed at my local DVD Shop... not anymore with Blu Rays, which makes the points of this argument.

  31. gnarlymarley

    Re: So what?

    Shed loads of content on YouTube is pirated.

    There maybe lots of pirated junk on youtube, but there are some of us folks that do not have the time to seek it out, so we do not see it. All of the youtube videos that I see, all make some sort of comment about copyright and attempt to silence videos or blur background pictures. This means that I do not see the content.

    Now back in the day when I would see something of interest, I would attempt first to see out a legitimate channel before finally giving up and going to the reupload. Any more these days youtube has raised the cap on how many viewers needed before you can "monetize" your videos, so it should no longer be worth it unless you can nab enough stuff to get youtube to pay you money for it.

  32. gnarlymarley

    Re: So what?

    I watch a lot of YouTube videos - and as far as I am aware none of them are pirated. A badly thought out copyright rule may remove one of my best forms of entertainment (certainly better than the rubbish on TV). There are also a lot of instructional videos on YouTube - if they are removed because of the EU copyright rubbish then that will harm a number of people who use them.

    Sorry Duncan, I have to agree with you.

    There have been a number of original youtube artists that I watch that have been labeled as copyright violations. In the firewall world, there are two kinds of packets, false-positives and false-negatives. One means you get a copyrighted video through and the other means you block something that is not copyrighted. If as msknight says we will have a fine line that will never have any false catches (and I mean either direction), then the blocking would be okay. The problem is that there are always false catches and some of us that completely avoid the copyright music, pictures, or videos, keep getting caught in its cross hairs.

    Also, I have to partially disagree with msknight. Mainly because the above where I note that catch all rules everything, youtube would need to hire 24,000 people (400 hours of video uploaded each minute) just to track all the videos. Also, due to human error, might need to double that so we can have atleast two people check every video. Now you can argue that they need blocked until otherwise specified, but that would mean the end of live streaming, even from Alex Jones as one would not be able to trust that he himself is not uploading "copyrighted content".

  33. gnarlymarley

    Re: @ pascal monett

    The problem for YouTube is that cleaning it up, will destroy their business model.

    They get more adverts from a bootleg of the latest music hits, than they do from a video of me repairing a walkman. If they clean it up... then the income goes down the pan. That's the problem.

    The reason for this is that some people seek it out. Back in the day (a few decades ago) the music industry tried to block MP3s, and when they started to release their content on MP3 instead of CD, mysteriously folks started getting their content from the music industries instead of the pirates. For me, I have no need of anything from the music industry (as I have already purchased any CD that is of interest to me). I imagine that folks will keep doing this as it appears to be the reason why folks upload pirated content up to youtube. One thing that folks have not accounted for is the "free advertising" from those of us would would run across pirated stuff and then seek out the original source.

  34. gnarlymarley

    Re: "A badly thought out copyright rule may remove"

    Any video that isn't pirated will stay there, and you will be able to keep on watching it. Instructional videos that don't infringe copyright - and remember there are a lot of fair use exceptions - they will stay there, just like any promotional video uploaded there with full rights, so what are your you talking about?

    Under the current laws and current system setup, there are instructional videos that fall under fair use that is getting removed. I will name EEVblog as one of them due to some of his video which catch "bad actors" on the fundraiser sites. So are you saying that by adding more laws, we will start having actual fair use treated properly? I think what you would actually see is that more people would abuse your new law to their personal advantage.

  35. David Nash Silver badge

    Re: @ msknight

    There may be shedloads of pirated stuff on YT but there is also shedloads of either original or licensed material and we'll lose a valuable resource if it went away.

    Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

  36. jmch Silver badge

    Re: So what?

    "youtube would need to hire 24,000 people (400 hours of video uploaded each minute)"

    Not necessarily. They can have some automation to flag potentially copyrighted content plus anyone can flag any content they think is their copyright and this would also go for human review. Also if there is a 2-hour movie, it won't take a human reviewer the entire 2 hours to understand that it's copyrighted. So it would require considerably less than 24,000 people to do the reviewing.

    It's not that they can't it's that they choose not to

  37. ukaudiophile

    Re: So what?

    The decimation of the high street will get much, much worse if councils and government don't realise that people have better things to do with their spare time than waste it waiting for uncomfortable, overpriced public transport to get them to shops, or keep treating the motorist like a cash cow to fleece every time they leave the house, get stuck in traffic jams, have speed cameras on every street, only to park in overpriced or heavily time limited free parking whilst predatory traffic wardens are ready to pounce if only a few minutes late.

    Why should I be bothered with this? Why right has the high street to expect to survive with this attitude. Let the high street die, it's outlived it's use. I'll take click and deliver to the door by Amazon any day.

  38. strum Silver badge

    Re: So what?

    >Search, play, enjoy, move on

    I'm no fan of MPAA, but that attitude emphasises the problem - you do not value work that has taken a great deal of time and money to create. You treat a cellphone cat video the same as a $500m blockbuster movie - and vice versa.

    Yo do not have a right to access anything and everything you want. Yes, the producers of commercial material don't make it easy to play by their rules - but they are their rules, not yours.

  39. LDS Silver badge

    "and sit and watch the Anti-piracy warnings"

    Ah, those few seconds really kills you... I don't know how I could really stand them, my god. While Google ads and tracking are sooooooo goooooooood I don't know how I could live without. And those antipiracy warnings were added when pirating became a real issue. They are useless, but are a legal protection to avoid those trying to assert "I didn't know it was illegal, your honor!". Just like writing on a cigarette pack that they kill. Do you smoke?

    Please, tell the truth. You don't want to pay for anything. You like the free stuff, no matter where it comes from.

  40. LDS Silver badge

    "folks started getting their content from the music industries instead of the pirates"

    Are you sure? Youtube is also used to listen to a lot of pirated music.... while there are a lot of legal video streaming services as well.

  41. LDS Silver badge

    "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater."

    Again, you mean Youtube is not a viable business without pirated contents?

    So an illegal operation should be not touched if they have a small legal outlet - i.e. like some mafia activities?

  42. whitepines Bronze badge
    FAIL

    Re: "Just try that with video."

    "Order a Blue-Ray on Amazon?"

    And then you have to watch it on an approved player, with an approved TV, and sometimes with an Internet connection to the authorisation servers. Which means buying all that overpriced tat in the first place (which doesn't really work right half the time because of HDCP) when I've got a perfectly good computer with perfectly adequate GPU and screen that is more than capable of playing the same content, DRM-free, in 4K HD. As long as it's pirated, not bought, since Hollywood prevents sale of DRM-free video files and my fancy computing setup is Linux based without ME or PSP.

    Ooops.

  43. whitepines Bronze badge
    Facepalm

    Re: So what?

    "I'm no fan of MPAA, but that attitude emphasises the problem - you do not value work that has taken a great deal of time and money to create."

    On the contrary, I'd pay *more* for a non-DRM encumbered movie file that I could buy *once*, archive, and literally hit play on whatever computer, set top box, etc. I have and have the movie start playing right away in full quality, even if the studio was out of business or the title was "out of print". I've even tried asking the studios directly if I could buy a product like that (basically something like a modern version of the old VHS/BetaMax tape) with no response at all.

    You seem to miss the part where this is not being offered, and that the terms of access to a very large part of our common culture and heritage are, frankly, outrageous. Copyright had balances in place specifically to prevent the permanent destruction of culture, and DRM has blown all those balances to bits.

    When I can buy said DRM free file, play it on my Linux boxes, etc. I will. Until then, printed books are still available and the telly still works with OTA....double oops, that latter one!

  44. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Re: "and sit and watch the Anti-piracy warnings"

    They are useless, but are a legal protection to avoid those trying to assert "I didn't know it was illegal, your honor!". Just like writing on a cigarette pack that they kill. Do you smoke?

    since I place a DVD in my PC and immediately rip it to my server, I have never seen any if these 'trailers, of which you speak....

    I really didn't know it was illegal, your honour...

  45. Teiwaz Silver badge

    Re: So what?

    Search, play, enjoy, move on

    I'm no fan of MPAA, but that attitude emphasises the problem - you do not value work that has taken a great deal of time and money to create.

    Oh, of course, we need to bow thrice at the altar and open vein to sign contract to potentially watch a month or twos worth of streaming content when all is wanted is the one.

    A cellphone cat video is equal to a $500m blockbuster movie if you can't guarantee you connection is not going to stutter through four fifths of it or or force you to wait an extra thirty minutes while the little circle in the middle of the viewer spins around a still image.

  46. Patrician

    Re: So what?

    While I fully agree with you with regards to the high street's eventual fate, I do wonder how you would expect the road systems to handle the traffic if, as you seem to be suggesting, there were to be a traffic/parking free for all in our towns and cites?

    My local county town for instance is a complete nightmare to navigate through, as the road system just cannot handle the numbers of vehicles attempting to pass through it; if parking wasn't strictly regulated and people parked wherever they wanted, there would be gridlock within minutes.

    Parking schemes, in the main, are not there "to fleece" the motorist but to attempt to keep our cities roads, "planned" in times before Mr Ford setup his factories, at least passable and keep modern traffic moving.

  47. David Nash Silver badge

    Re: "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater."

    No, that's not what I was saying. Not sure if previous commenters would agree with you.

    I was just expressing my desire for the non-pirated stuff to continue. I don't see why they can't make it a viable business, perhaps they should move it all to the premium YT service and close the free service. As long as the non-pirate stuff is available and the premium fee wasn't silly, I'd pay, same as I pay for Spotify.

    I've never understood using YT for music anyway, it's really inefficient and who sits there watching the music videos?

  48. msknight Silver badge

    Personally...

    ... I believe they are trying to put the frighteners on. And based on past behaviour, I wouldn't put it past them to go overboard deliberately, in order to stir up the hornets nest.

    To be honest, this was coming someday. If the EU gives in now, then they might as well call it game over and hand over control of government to the corporates.

  49. itzman

    Re: Personally...

    If the EU gives in now, then they might as well call it game over and hand over control of government to the corporates

    The Corporates already run the EU. who else is actually interested in DRM and copyright - the pleb on the street?

    .

  50. LenG

    Too hard

    As I understand it, Google is arguing it shouldn't have to obey the law because it is too difficult. I should try that out next time I get caught for illegal parking - "Sorry, your honour, but it was too difficult to find legal parking". Or maybe I shouldn't.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018