back to article YouTube fight gets dirty: Kids urged to pester parents over Article 13

Members of the European Parliament have condemned Google's role in encouraging children to pester their parents about EU copyright legislation that the corporation fears will hurt its profits. YouTube's most recent campaign against Article 13 of the EU's Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, which would make the …

  1. Tomato42 Silver badge

    Isn't it bad?

    Isn't Article 13 the same Article 13 that both Cory Doctorow and the Electronic Frontier Foundation consider "extinction-level incident"?

    yes, Google is a corporation, but that doesn't mean that their priorities can't align with priorities of regular citizens

  2. LDS Silver badge

    Re: Isn't it bad?

    No. Article 13 is fine. Sure, the ideological anti-copyright crowd will fight it. No surprise Doctorow and Stallman people are there. They want to give away their work for free? Fine, it's a right of theirs. Other wish to be paid for their work, and it's a right of theirs too. Is the price too high? Avoid their work. But trying to force people to abdicate their rights is a totalitarian mentality. And trying to get stuff without paying is a greedy one.

    Still, Google is threatening that cat videos and other silly stuff on YouTube will go away, and that's a plain lie.

    Only the copyrighted contents for which Google has no right will go away, which incidentally are those that make Google rich because it can have the cake and eat it...

  3. Spazturtle Silver badge

    Re: Isn't it bad?

    "Still, Google is threatening that cat videos and other silly stuff on YouTube will go away, and that's a plain lie."

    No it isn't, Google will have no choice but to block Europeans from accessing Youtube if Article 13 passes.

    Article 13 will require Google to watch and vet every video before it can be put on Youtube, that is impossible for Google to do, they simply can't afford to hire enough people to do that.

  4. LDS Silver badge
    Big Brother

    "Google is a corporation, but that doesn't mean their priorities"

    BTW, can't you see that "useful idiots" like Doctorow just help Molochs like Google to become bigger, richer (without doing much work on their own, but exploiting others'), more arrogant, and thereby more dangerous?

    Do you really believe it will bring more freedom for the "regular citizens"? Do you really believe Google priorities and citizen ones are aligned? Or do you really believe the actual definition of "panem et circenses" - "music and videos" - is all that "citizens" need?

    Remember what Orwell in 1984 uses to keep quiet the "proles", and distract them from what is really happening...

  5. graeme leggett Silver badge

    Re: Isn't it bad?

    "that is impossible for Google to do, they simply can't afford to hire enough people to do that"

    That's an interesting statement because I'm sure Google/Alphabet have implied before now that they are masters of AI and search. Do they need humans, or is it sufficient that show they have made a reasonable attempt to vet content.

    Also, that a company is unable to exercise its legal requirements without going bust is not a pre-requisiste to letting a company off its legal obligations.

  6. Andrew Orlowski (Written by Reg staff)

    Re: Isn't it bad?

    It's worth pointing out that Google filters *almost* every video already for copyright violations with ContentID. But they only turn it on for you if you sign up to their advertising network.

    Perhaps Article 13 is not the way I'd plug the UGC loophole, or the way you'd want to either, but to pretend (as you just have) that Google doesn't already filter for copyright violations on a vast scale is disingenuous. It manages to do this apparently impossible task "without blocking Europeans from YouTube".

  7. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

    Re: Isn't it bad?

    "Article 13 will require Google to watch and vet every video before it can be put on Youtube, that is impossible for Google to do, they simply can't afford to hire enough people to do that."

    Using that same logic, the police should just leave organised crime alone because forcing them to go legal would be too difficult and affect their profits so much that they can't really afford to do it?

  8. graeme leggett Silver badge

    Re: Isn't it bad?

    I don't think I was implying that. But I see a lot of of copyright material on youtube and the impression I get is that if youtube wanted to they could throw tech at the problem.

    What woudl the knock on effect be if the averager user uploaded a video and it took 5 minutes or 50 minutes for the system to "validate" it?

  9. Spazturtle Silver badge

    Re: Isn't it bad?

    "or is it sufficient that show they have made a reasonable attempt to vet content."

    No that isn't sufficient, they will need humans to watch each video before it can be put on Youtube. Having ContentID scan it is not enough.

    "Also, that a company is unable to exercise its legal requirements without going bust is not a pre-requisiste to letting a company off its legal obligations."

    If a law is impossible to follow then it is a bad law, what if we made a law that required drug companies to cure cancer in the next 12 months and then prosecuted them when they failed to do so, would you still say 'well they should have followed the law'.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Re: they simply can't afford to hire enough people to do that

    correction: they simply aren't willing to afford to, etc. etc.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Re: Isn't it bad?

    "And trying to get stuff without paying is a greedy one."

    no it's not. assuming no crime is being committed - why would you pay for something you can get for free? who does that?

  12. DavCrav Silver badge

    Re: Isn't it bad?

    "If a law is impossible to follow then it is a bad law"

    It's not impossible to follow, as it requires you to stop doing something rather than to do something, like your straw man does. Close down your business is quite easy to follow actually, just you won't like it.

    It would be impossible for a tobacco company to follow a ruling that bans tobacco without closing, but that wouldn't in and of itself make it a bad law. Laws that force certain businesses to close or vastly reduce in size happen regularly. Normally it happens because we consider the effects of the business to be deleterious enough to require their cessation. For example, Viagogo might well be hacked to pieces soon because it is flouting consumer protection laws. The result of the reduction in FOBT stakes to £2 will cause betting shops to close. The opinion is that the harm that the businesses cause outweigh their good, so they are forcibly changed by law.

    Social media is ripe for such regulation. At the moment social media causes massive harm to society, but gleefully runs away with its piles of cash the moment that anyone tries to press them to solve the problems they have created. Facebook is going to be forced to change its business practices at some point, probably soon.

    It seems quite possible that glysophate will be banned, or its use severely curtailed, over the next few years. Putting arguments over the science to one side, and assuming it was actually found to cause cancer, should we allow Monsanto/Bayer to continue to sell Roundup, because not doing so would harm their business?

  13. DavCrav Silver badge

    Re: Isn't it bad?

    "no it's not. assuming no crime is being committed"

    But the offence of copyright infringement has been committed. Google managed to buy enough politicians and judges to get an exemption from the law. So while the one crime has technically not been committed by them, the crime of corruption has been committed.

  14. LDS Silver badge

    "why would you pay for something you can get for free?"

    Evidently I was talking about stuff that isn't available for free legally...

  15. LDS Silver badge

    Re: Isn't it bad?

    Just look at those who made a lot of money extracting and manufacturing asbestos... how many products became forbidden as soon it was demonstrated they were highly dangerous? Someone had to sustain the economic impact of such changes "for the greater good" - even if the business was legal when it was started. Would you like to work or live nearby an asbestos plant today?

    In Google's case, it was never legal to upload and distributed copyrighted contents without an agreement - Google took advantage of a loophole to avoid accountability. Business models built on wacky foundations could collapse easily.

    Then, if someone believes the sheer size of a company puts it above the law, and asserting of being unable to comply on a system it created itself is a good excuse, well, I've a bridge to sell you could be interested in....

  16. Frank Bitterlich

    Re: Isn't it bad?

    "Google will have no choice but to block Europeans from accessing Youtube if Article 13 passes." [citation needed]

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Re: Isn't it bad?

    "But trying to force people to abdicate their rights is a totalitarian mentality. And trying to get stuff without paying is a greedy one."

    This is a circular argument in disguise. Intellectual property is a "right" only insofar as the law says it is. Wanting to change the law to limit/remove that right is fair game. Being opposed to laws that expand that right -- in the process infringe on the rights of others -- is also fair. It's not totalitarian in the least.

    Imagine a law that says you aren't allowed to light a candle by holding it up to another lit candle. You must use a brand new match every time. The match manufacturers deserve fair compensation, you see. The flame on that candle only exists because of their hard work, so illegally copying the flame is a violation of their rights. Not to mention greedy -- how dare you try to get fire for free? You want your own? Get two pieces of wood and put some effort into it! No freeloaders!

    IP is not a natural right. I'm sick of seeing it treated as such. It's a constructed economic arrangement, like tax codes or traffic laws. Wanting the speed limits increased isn't a moral failing.

  18. ratfox Silver badge

    Re: Isn't it bad?

    The funny part is that half of comments complain that YouTube will have to close down, and the other half says that's a good thing.

  19. David 164

    Re: "Google is a corporation, but that doesn't mean their priorities"

    More freedoms, no but we do get to keep the ones we have today.

  20. LucreLout Silver badge

    Re: Isn't it bad?

    Article 13 will require Google to watch and vet every video before it can be put on Youtube, that is impossible for Google to do, they simply can't afford to hire enough people to do that.

    I'm not sure which of your misunderstandings to correct first....

    Ok, the money one, because its easiest. Google can afford to hire enough people to vet the content in real time - they make billions upon billions of profit per year, while employing some of the smartest people on the planet, and that is why I am a Google shareholder.

    3,504,000 hours per year roughly if they vetted everything, but they don't need to because inane annoyances such as most of their contributors don't upload copyrighted material - they upload (un)original nonsense.

    The amount of material that would need to be viewed manually is tiny. You've assumed there's no technical solution when there is - shazam manages to identify music mostly accurately and so you can clearly have a bot scan the audio at upload time. Same thing for the video data.

    The solution is readily automatable, its just that Google doesn't want to do it - presumably to protect its collective interests; legislators are well known for salami slicing their way towards what would have been an unachievable goal if asked for in one lump, so the only way to resist them is to fight against every slice.

  21. Spazturtle Silver badge

    Re: Isn't it bad?

    "[citation needed]"

    Every 1 minute there are 24000 minutes of video uploaded to Youtube, so at any one time they will need to have 24k people watching Youtube videos to check them for copyrighted content, if these people saw something with suspected copyrighted content they would have to flag it for a 2nd team to review.

    So for 3 * 8 hour shifts (with no breaks and working 7 days a week all year) Youtube would need to hire at least 72000 employees for simply watching the videos + a currently unknowable amount for verifying the content that gets flagged up.

    72k employees at £18k salary is £1.3 billion a year. Youtube has a annual revenue of £10b globally, they don't publish a breakdown other then saying that 20% (£2b) comes from the US. But as a whole Youtube makes a loss most years.

  22. LucreLout Silver badge

    Re: Isn't it bad?

    No that isn't sufficient, they will need humans to watch each video before it can be put on Youtube.

    I must have missed that part of Article 13. Please can you provide a citation?

    If a law is impossible to follow then it is a bad law, what if we made a law that required drug companies to cure cancer in the next 12 months and then prosecuted them when they failed to do so, would you still say 'well they should have followed the law'.

    You're assuming they'd fail at the challenge. There's simply no way of knowing for sure what would happen if the entire industry was forced into a farm bet on a single outcome - certainly more progress would be made more quickly than in any other scenario.

  23. LucreLout Silver badge

    Re: Isn't it bad?

    72k employees at £18k salary is £1.3 billion a year.

    Just hire cheap offshore staff instead. Hell, you could monetize it and sell preview access to the millennials who'd sign up in droves to watch such utter garbage before anyone else had seen it.

  24. LDS Silver badge

    "Intellectual property is a "right" only insofar as the law says it is"

    Sure, even life, freedom, property are rights "insofar the law says it". There was a time when the law said some people had no right to their own lives and freedom, nor could have any property.

    Now we do believe there are some basic rights that belong to all people. As society shifted from only "material" properties to "immaterial" ones, the notions of property itself had to evolve. For some people, their most valuable property is not the land, it's their intellect and skills. Why they should be at disadvantage with those who own other properties, like lands, buildings, money or gold? Intellect is a scarce resource as well.

    Just like feeding a herd would be useless if everybody would be allowed to steal newborns, allowing to take advantage of someone's IPs would make people far less willingly to work on, or share them.

    Before IP was protected, any new idea was jealously guarded (like Google search engine...) to avoid someone could steal it and profit from it without any effort. Many of them were lost and had to be rediscovered again, maybe centuries later. Hindering progress a lot.

    The idea of IP protection stems from the idea that is far better to allow them to become public, with a level of protection that ensure the owner can have a reasonable gain from them.

    Sure, the entertainment industry is not nicer than Google, and can easily overprice contents as long as it finds enough gullible people who can't live without. Just, the only difference is you pay directly - but the money Google makes from ads still comes from you, what do you believe?

    Article 13 doesn't expand copyright. It closes a loophole some used to avoid to pay people's work, but at their own terms. Just like ancient kings who could tell you at what price you had to surrender your properties to them, or else.

    And asking people to surrender their rights is totalitarian.

  25. David Webb

    Re: Isn't it bad?

    Every 1 minute there are 24000 minutes of video uploaded to Youtube, so at any one time they will need to have 24k people watching Youtube videos to check them for copyrighted content

    No. They will need to have automated filtering for copyright content, and once notice has been served that copyright infringements have occurred the filter must update so if anyone else tries to upload that copyrighted material the system will automatically flag it.

    Why doesn't Google like this? Look at the thousands or millions of videos that use copyright material. Every single rickroll video on YT would be removed due to a copyright claim from RA, once a video is uploaded the system rejects it so YT gets no advertising money from the video, channels whose entire identity is based on using other peoples content will vanish, some of them have millions of subscribers so millions of adverts served that dents YT's profits.

    None of this is about content creators, the content creators are the ones with the copyright claims, this is about money, money and more money.

  26. #define INFINITY -1

    @LDS Re: "Intellectual property is a "right" only insofar as the law says it is"

    "And asking people to surrender their rights is totalitarian."

    Have we all suddenly become fans of patents (because isn't that a clear example of IP)?

    The debate around intellectual property has certainly taken some rather unexpected twists (and I would challenge anyone to make the bold claim they saw this coming 20 years ago).

  27. cornetman

    Re: "Intellectual property is a "right" only insofar as the law says it is"

    > Before IP was protected, any new idea was jealously guarded (like Google search engine...) to avoid someone could steal it and profit from it without any effort. Many of them were lost and had to be rediscovered again, maybe centuries later. Hindering progress a lot.

    No it was not. Before IP was protected, noone even considered that ideas should be siloed or partitioned off. That's the worst kind of historical revisionism. Artists survived through patronage, an idea that is interestingly coming back in a rather big way. What was old is now new.

    It's only fairly recently that the west has embraced the idea that mere ideas could have value that could be harvested since manufacturing took a dive to the cheaper labour countries.

    The only people truly interested in perpetuating this myth that the world would collapse without copyright are the large media companies.

    A case in point: look at the mess that IP rights have made of popular franchises like Star Trek. When studios start to stomp on fan-made movies because they challenge the formulaic crap that the studios churn out, you realize how f*cked up things are getting.

    In the US at least, "...to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts...". My arse.

  28. cornetman

    Re: "Intellectual property is a "right" only insofar as the law says it is"

    > Many of them were lost and had to be rediscovered again, maybe centuries later.

    Well, many older works are being lost to history because their republishing is banned by publishing houses that hold the copyright. There is no money in it for them to issue reprints, but anyone wanting to see those works are prevented unless they can find an ancient copy in a book shop somewhere.

    There is an immense quantity of orphaned works that are seriously in danger of being lost forever because publishers are not interested in reprints and copyright allows them to hold the works well past a reasonable time period. Remember, copyright is a social contract. Is says as much at least in the US constitution. Works that exist but are not available do not further the public good.

  29. LDS Silver badge

    "Have we all suddenly become fans of patents"

    I never had nothing against patents or copyright. The issue isn't patents or copyright - the issue may be the many silly patents USPO now issues.

    Patents rewards inventors (and investors) for the time, effort and expenses made to create something new. Copyright rewards a different kind of creations. Without incentives, many may not spend the effort and money needed. And sure, the dream of becoming rich is an incentive. Didn't Page and Brin became rich thanks to their patent too? How would have they felt if someone robbed them of the idea, and all the money they got? And there are news Google is robbing people of their ideas at interviews too...

    Nobody forces you to patent or copyright your creations.

    If you feel it's right to let them free, it's a right of yours. It's not your right to exploit others' work if the prefer to be paid for that.

  30. LDS Silver badge

    "No it was not. Before IP was protected, noone even considered that ideas should be siloed"

    You're utterly wrong. Craftsmen, architects, "engineers" protected their knowledge and technology closely to avoid to give anybody else an advantage, transmitting it only to their heirs - or bringing them into their tombs. Corporations and guilds were created to keep secrets inside a restricted circle, and avoid competition. Punishment for infringers could have been severe.

    Scientists didn't publish and exchanged many of their researches - again, to get an advantage. Many of their ideas were found in their papers only after their death.

    Musician could not write music down, for fear someone would use it at their own advantage.

    Sure, artists could find someone to sell their work to. Often they were even paid. Sometimes, they weren't, or paid nuts. And they weren't free to create - they had to please their master.

    Sure, there has been some time like the Hellenistic period when some ideas, especially abstract ones, flowed more freely - but if you look at the past 2,000 years, it didn't happen most of the time.

  31. cornetman

    Re: "No it was not. Before IP was protected, noone even considered that ideas should be siloed"

    > Craftsmen, architects, "engineers" ....

    Were paid for their work.

    > ...protected their knowledge and technology closely to avoid to give anybody else an advantage, transmitting it only to their heirs - or bringing them into their tombs.

    Just like Microsoft, Apple and many others *still do* despite them also getting copyright protection. Your point?

    > Scientists didn't publish and exchanged many of their researches - again, to get an advantage. Many of their ideas were found in their papers only after their death.

    Were paid for their work

    > Musician could not write music down, for fear someone would use it at their own advantage.

    Performed for money

  32. Tom 35 Silver badge

    Re: Isn't it bad?

    You are going to compare people suffering a slow death from Asbestos to Sony being upset that someone uploaded a video of their kid dancing to some pop song on the radio?

    Like maybe what people are calling a loop hole was the intended way it should work even if corporations would like 100% control.

  33. Tom 35 Silver badge

    Re: "No it was not. Before IP was protected, noone even considered that ideas should be siloed"

    "Musician could not write music down, for fear someone would use it at their own advantage."

    LOL sure. Lucky there was no one who could transcribe music by ear way back then.

    Then there are all those people who "work for hire" and have no rights, it all belongs to the boss. Even after you are long dead.

  34. The Nazz Silver badge

    Re: Isn't it bad?

    Apologies for pushing in, bad form i know, but i saw this it thought it apt.

    https://xkcd.com/956/

  35. John Lilburne Silver badge

    Re: Isn't it bad?

    "What woudl the knock on effect be if the averager user uploaded a video and it took 5 minutes or 50 minutes for the system to "validate" it?"

    It wouldn't they can detect stuff within seconds, and in many cases it can be detected as it is being uploaded.

    https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/how-does-youtube-copyright-detection-work.312779/

    There are edge cases where classical music gets wrongly tagged but the world ain't going to end if it takes a day or so to fix the glitch of a Bach fugue played by some one being rejected because it is reminiscent of some prior recording.

    There are also cases where some usage is indeed fair-use but those are few and far between. It wouldn't actually take much to sort them out.

  36. John Lilburne Silver badge

    Re: Isn't it bad?

    "Intellectual property is a "right" only insofar as the law says it is."

    Real property is also a "right" only iIntellectual property is a "right" only insofar as the law says it is.

    While it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from Nature at all ... it is considered by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no one has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land ... Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society.

    Thomas Jefferson

    All property, indeed, except the savage's temporary cabin, his bow, his matchcoat and other little Acquisitions absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the creature of public Convention. Hence, the public has the rights of regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the quantity and uses of it. All the property that is necessary to a man is his natural Right, which none may justly deprive him of, but all Property superfluous to such Purposes is the property of the Public who, by their Laws have created it and who may, by other Laws dispose of it.

    Benjamin Franklin

  37. Someone Else Silver badge
    Flame

    @Spazturtle -- Re: Isn't it bad?

    Article 13 will require Google to watch and vet every video before it can be put on Youtube, that is impossible for Google to do [...]

    Yeah...comma...suuuuure it is....

  38. AdamWill Silver badge

    Re: Isn't it bad?

    "What woudl the knock on effect be if the averager user uploaded a video and it took 5 minutes or 50 minutes for the system to "validate" it?"

    Approximately sod fucking all?

    It's *Youtube*. We got by for several tens of thousands of years without it. No-one'd die if it disappeared entirely. This isn't going to kill it, but even if it did, society would somehow stumble on. It doesn't have an absolute right to exist which utterly trumps anyone else's right to control of their creative works.

    It'll probably lead to things being taken down by algorithms which probably didn't actually need to be taken down. Whether this is a bigger problem than the ability of people to just upload other people's creative works to Youtube with the original creator having very little in the way of recourse is basically the *genuine* debate here, but when you put it that way it sounds pretty dull, doesn't it?

    Google doesn't have an absolute right to host a video service containing anything it wants, and no-one has an absolute right to have any video they like hosted by Google. So long as copyright is a thing and people who have copyrights don't want their content being uploaded and hosted by others, someone somewhere has to draw up some kind of rules, trying to balance the interests of various parties as best they can. That's politics!

  39. AdamWill Silver badge

    Re: @LDS "Intellectual property is a "right" only insofar as the law says it is"

    Nothing particularly wrong with patents per se. Patents on abstract ideas or "like this other thing, but on a computer" are the problem.

  40. heyrick Silver badge

    Re: Isn't it bad?

    "You've assumed there's no technical solution when there is"

    There very definitely is, but it's availability seems to be for a select few.

    A few years ago I made a video review of OSMC on a Pi. I played a cat video recorded on my phone, and to demonstrate streaming I had a still frame of a scene from the trailer (on YouTube) of Kick Ass 2. This was not video, or sound, it was a single frame. Viewed through an LCD monitor, recorded with a phone.

    It got rejected on upload due to "that" copyrighted material.

    So, they can scan pretty damn effectively when they want to...

  41. heyrick Silver badge

    Re: Isn't it bad?

    "this is about money, money and more money"

    As is the idea that you can't rip a CD you bought, you should buy a download to put on a phone or other digital media player.

    As is likely everything a politician votes in favour of (thanks to "lobbying").

    As is....... You see where this is going, right?

  42. Clunking Fist Bronze badge

    Re: Isn't it bad?

    But there won't be any real labour cost: employees don't have a DB of copyrighted material in their head, so can't compare what they are watching to anything subject to copyright.

    The solution will be technological: like the Shazam mentioned above. Or closure. Or (Netflix-like) subscription to cover the cost of reviewing. Or more advertising. Or all of the above.

    So much stuff we see on utub is obviously ripped from another user and zoomed or cropped and re-uploaded. Sometimes the uploader states in the description "I don't own the copyright in this material" : perhaps Google could run a filter on that or similar phrases in description, removing all such vids, for a start?

  43. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Re: "Intellectual property is a "right" only insofar as the law says it is"

    ... and in the 18th century when the US started enforcing copyright the terms was only 14 years (with the right to renew for 14 more if the author was still alive), to allow an author's contemporaries to enjoy it as part of the commons. Today, copyrights held by corporations last over a century, which means that nothing created today will become part of the public domain until we're all wormwood. That was definitely not the bargaon struck back when government originally got into thid business, and is a good example of how the system has become corrupted.

  44. Jez Burns

    Re: Isn't it bad?

    Another absurd hypocrisy - if I understand this situation correctly - is that Google seem to be arguing immunity from responsibility for policing copyright infringement (beyond removing content on notification) on the basis of being a platform, not a publisher of content (where the latter would have some editorial or production role in the content). Yet they are using their own platform to editorially direct and produce content opposing Article 13. They are producing content for their own platform on a subscription basis. They are adding their own links to 'factual' information in content producers' videos dealing with controversial subjects. This looks like publishing, smells like publishing and quacks like publishing.. While all visits to their 'platform' benefit them, either through ad revenue or increased market dominance, how can they justify picking and choosing the role of an aggregator when it suits them and being a publisher when it suits them? Their only justification (as far as I can see) seems to be 'the public like it the way it is', and 'we're big so screw you'.

  45. Jez Burns

    Re: "Intellectual property is a "right" only insofar as the law says it is"

    @cornetman: "Artists survived through patronage, an idea that is interestingly coming back in a rather big way."

    I'm not sure the ghosts of Van Gogh, Mozart or the countless other artists who died penniless - perhaps with their best work ahead - of them would be too happy about this.

    It could be argued that if you rely on rich people to fund art, you just end up with the art that rich people want. At times it is culturally fashionable to be curious and enlightened, you might get pioneering work (the renaissance - though I do wonder what the great artists' work could have been if they didn't need to grovel to the church for a living). While rich people need to tighten their belts, or in periods of unilateral conformity or conservatism, you'll get nothing but stagnation and repetitiveness (the renaissance gave us exceptional art because it was an exceptional time).

    If you rely on the generosity of the masses to fund art voluntarily, which a giant mega-corporation are already profiting from, I don't get the feeling many people would want to pay for it.

  46. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Re: ... require Google to watch and vet every video ... that is impossible ...

    That's fine.

    If your business model cannot meet the needs of the law and the content creators then your business model is not possible. Change it. Or stop it. Why should they be exempt from the laws of the market?

  47. heyrick Silver badge

    Re: "Intellectual property is a "right" only insofar as the law says it is"

    "If you rely on the generosity of the masses to fund art voluntarily, which a giant mega-corporation are already profiting from, I don't get the feeling many people would want to pay for it."

    I think the difficulty here must surely be "define art". There are as many genres of music on YouTube as there are paintings and artistic movements; yet the two big stars as far as I can see is a young kid that gets paid silly money to "review toys" and some weird offensive gamer with a nonsense name.

    As for worthy art on YouTube, well, start here and then realise how little of things like that exist on YouTube...and in real life too...

  48. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

    Re: "Intellectual property is a "right" only insofar as the law says it is"

    Youtube is a mega corporation (owned by Alphabet which is basically Google),.

  49. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

    Re: "Intellectual property is a "right" only insofar as the law says it is"

    What makes you think they got it right in the 18th century, and we must be wrong now?

  50. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

    Re: Isn't it bad?

    You can legally rip your own CDs in most countries. And morally you can do it in all countries. As long as it's for your own use.

    There is no slippery slope argument here. Pay and you are entitled. Don't pay and you'll follow the rules.

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