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

    1. 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...

      1. 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.

        1. graeme leggett

          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.

          1. 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'.

            1. 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?

              1. 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....

                1. 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.

            2. 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.

        2. 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".

          1. graeme leggett

            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?

            1. 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.

            2. AdamWill

              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!

          2. 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'.

        3. 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?

        4. 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.

          1. Shirazmatas

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

            In the beginning youtube wasn't bringing in profits, I don't think they want to return to that. auto contentID is already really tough against legitimate content using fair use and this will just make them have "Company only" mode in europe as the hassle of going through every video is expensive or the AI will try to be on the + side that the content isnt containing any copyright (even if it follows fair-use) so bye bye to covers, parodies, satire, news reports, and other user generated content

        5. 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]

          1. 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.

          2. 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.

            1. 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.

              1. 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?

            2. 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.

              1. 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?

                1. 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.

        6. 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.

          1. 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...

        7. 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....

        8. 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?

      2. 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?

        1. 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.

        2. 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...

      3. 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.

        1. 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.

          1. #define INFINITY -1 Bronze badge

            @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).

            1. 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.

            2. AdamWill

              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.

          2. 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.

            1. 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.

              1. 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

              2. 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.

            2. 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.

              1. 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?

            3. 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.

              1. 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...

              2. 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),.

          3. 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.

        2. 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

    2. 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...

      1. David 164 Bronze badge

        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.

    3. 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/

  2. LDS Silver badge
    Big Brother

    That shows how much Google (and others) became dangerous.

    They have accumulated an enormous propaganda firepower, and will use it anytime they like. Not surprisingly, they are turning facts upside down to sustain their business based on exploitation of someone else's production - and they are also exploiting the fake "pretty face" they built, and most media contributed to spread.

    These companies are very dangerous now, much more dangerous than any company that focused only in selling software ever was. These are no longer IT companies. They're turning into mind-controlling ones - and even the dirtiest tricks are OK to increase profits.

  3. bombastic bob Silver badge
    Childcatcher

    actually driving a teenager to threaten suicide?

    well, that little emotional outburst must've been a cry for attention.

    but yeah when you aim doom/gloom at children, you can expect that kind of thing. now if we could just hammer this point home for what THE 'EDUCATION' SYSTEM has been doing for DECADES, making every kid "feel" like the world is gonna end tomorrow from "made made whatever" and it's UP TO THEM to _CHANGE_ everything [by pressuring parents into voting for people who want to take freedom away, and doing the same thing when they're old enough to vote], like good little sponges of whatever social[ist] agenda the "teachers" are trying to cram into their soft, malleable minds, when you REGULARLY accept this kind of mass manipulation as if it's "normal"... you can EXPECT emotional extreme outburst responses like that one kid's "cry for help" suicide threat for LOSING YOUTUBE [oh my freaking dieties, the entire world is going to collapse into a quantum singularity, OMG,OMG,OMG,OMG,OMG!).

    So yeah Google going with the SAME flow as their politics, stirring up 'the children' through some kind of manipulative tactic, for the young are easily manipulated/motivated and used like minions, aren't they Mr. Alinsky?

    1. LDS Silver badge

      Re: actually driving a teenager to threaten suicide?

      Actually, I put the blame on parents - raising children is a difficult task, and you can't "offshore" it to other people, or the government (which immediately will try to take advantage of it). You can't expect teachers to teach them what is wrong and what is right - that's is up to parents. Schools have been overburdened by bad parents - expecting they will fill in for their lack of commitment.

      If you don't have time to spend with your children, avoid to have them - they can't be a proof you can reproduce only.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: actually driving a teenager to threaten suicide?

      you sound like somebody with no experience of any of the things you've mentioned in your post.

    3. Cynic_999 Silver badge

      Re: actually driving a teenager to threaten suicide?

      "

      So yeah Google going with the SAME flow as their politics, stirring up 'the children' through some kind of manipulative tactic,

      "

      And? Two wrongs do not make a right. If Google's propaganda was *countering* political propaganda in some way then I may decide it was providing some sort of balance and so a good thing.

      But it isn't - it is making propaganda to further its commercial interests and so we are being bombarded with (at least) two different streams of alternate reality.

    4. LucreLout Silver badge

      Re: actually driving a teenager to threaten suicide?

      well, that little emotional outburst must've been a cry for attention.

      Presumably social services will be scheduled for a visit, along with a shrink. Her poor parents must be mortified, worried, and thoroughly embarrassed.

      1. The Nazz Silver badge

        Re: actually driving a teenager to threaten suicide?

        re "Presumably social services will be scheduled for a visit, along with a shrink. Her poor parents must be mortified, worried, and thoroughly embarrassed."

        Parents SHOULD be worried if they are scheduled for a visit from Social Services.

        It's not like they have a good track record (no pun intended) on good interventions, is it?

    5. Clunking Fist Bronze badge

      Re: actually driving a teenager to threaten suicide?

      "or what THE 'EDUCATION' SYSTEM has been doing for DECADES, making every kid "feel" like the world is gonna end tomorrow "

      Yep, in th '80s, we were bused enmase to the cinema to watch some movie about nuclear winter. A few months later our English teacher asked us why we had become all apathetic and lazy since the start of the year. She was speechless when we explained to her about how the world was going to end and so test scores didn't seem to matter much. Many teachers aren't willingly part of any post-modernist drive to destroy western civilisation, so it is a bit of an eye-opener for them when they realise they may be implicated nonetheless.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    on the (unrelated) subject of low payouts from Youtube to artists

    This kerfuffle has notthing to do with the Youtube Music app being touted when I visit the Youtube site?

    Would that just be licensed content, or were they going to be making money off videos of LPs on record players going round and round...

  5. Rich 2

    Google

    Google do seem to be doing a fine job lately of pointing out what a truly reprehensible, money-grabbing, privacy-invading, despicable, above-the-law company they are.

    Do they have any redeeming qualities left? No, I didn't think so.

    1. Korgarath

      Re: Google

      Would that be the same Google who gave away their operating system for free to phone manufacturers, never tried to lock their customers into one paid ecosy.stem, the same Google who most online features have always been offered for free? No doubt recently they have been after profits but anyone who's enjoyed internet content and parodies for as long as I have can see how Article 13 is a bad thing. Companies like Disney and Sony et al have obviously lobbied the EU hard for this as all they care about is profits, you look at their behaviour and tell me Google are bad in comparison...

      1. LDS Silver badge

        Re: Google

        You mean the operating system that infringed Java copyright and was made putting together many pieces developed by many others? Which incidentally was needed to ensure Google's dominance in data slurping - keeping proprietary all basic services?

        The company who offers some basic free services to lure more data slurping, while keeping very closely secret all its internal money-making software? Why doesn't Google make open source its search engine, if it's so against IP and copyright? Because releasing its code will kill its business, maybe?

        Try too look beyond the finger Google is using to poke into your eyes... Google is not a charity....

        1. David 164 Bronze badge

          Re: Google

          Actually it doesn't, google was found not guilty.

          1. LDS Silver badge

            "Actually it doesn't, google was found not guilty."

            Sorry, yours is fake news:

            http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-1118.Opinion.3-26-2018.1.PDF

            That's the last decision insofar - and Google was found infringing Java copyright.

      2. David Nash Silver badge

        gave away their operating system for free?

        Are you naive enough to think that wasn't a business decision like any other?

        And did they actually "give it away for free" or were there conditions attached?

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Google

        "never tried to lock their customers into one paid ecosy.stem, the same Google who most online features have always been offered for free?"

        You never tried switching Android phones without using a Google account, have you? Because that's simply not possible without a lot of applications losing data, which can't be anything else than by design.

        And "free" here is really in the eye of the beholder - maybe your privacy has no value to you, and you give it away to whomever hands you a shiny lollipop.

        Mine has value.

        1. David 164 Bronze badge

          Re: Google

          Google can't force other people to develope solutions to easily enable users to switch phones, not even Google is that powerful. It has built it own solution and suit its and majority of users needs. Various manufactures have provided their own solutions as well.

          If you want a free open source way to do it, build your own, you could even use youtube as the beginning of the road to learn how to that.

  6. Korgarath

    Just goes to show what a good job the lobbyists for Hollywood/the record companies in Brussels are doing bribing the MEP's in Michelin starred restaurants, and people are blaming Google pfff. Just another great reason for Brexit. Google should just force the EU to use their own region locked version of Youtube and then Great Britain & America along with the rest of the world can continue enjoying our parodies.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    If they're gonna squeeze your money, threaten to shoot hostages.

    European copyright legislation in its currently published form means that Alphabet would be legally obliged (under European law) to provide fair remuneration to content providers for use of their intellectual property.

    Wahhhh... nibbles into their vast profits. Don't want that.

    Latch on to Article13-kills-the-video-star and hold a gun to the heads of those in their thrall who use ink by the barrel and voila: Parliament bought.

    At least that's their hope.

  8. Teiwaz Silver badge

    Reminds me of a Doctor Who Christmas epsiode

    Google managed to manipulate a portion of the population onto ledges on high buildings...

    I suppose the next trick will be manipulating some to accuse Googles enemies of being witches (or pedophiles - the modern version of witch-scare).

    1. Tomato42 Silver badge

      Re: Reminds me of a Doctor Who Christmas epsiode

      Unlike the publishers that have manipulated the other side of the argument?

      And I underline publishers, it's not the authors that reap the benefits

      1. Sandtitz Silver badge
        Stop

        Re: Reminds me of a Doctor Who Christmas epsiode

        "And I underline publishers, it's not the authors that reap the benefits"

        Well, they certainly won't benefit from Youtube according to the article.

        Do you think Napster was in the right side of law since they just made a nice P2P platform for everyone to publish their songs? Napster didn't upload any of the music. Does Youtube really differ from Napster?

  9. Mycho Silver badge

    Surprised it has taken so long.

    I've been anticipating a Christine Chubbuck for the Youtube generation for years now. Although I used to figure it would need a script to hit upload after the gunshot. Livestreaming now takes that away.

  10. Martin Summers Silver badge

    And pester they bloody have. My 12 year old constantly going on about the death of memes and YouTube. I finally had enough yesterday and educated him to the fact that YouTube are hardly going to go out of business because of this. I hope I've got through to him as it pissed me off that YouTube have managed to do this via him. Same as this bloody subscribe to Pewdiepie bollocks.

    1. David 164 Bronze badge

      Of cause not, more likely they block your son from the site and restrict EU residence from using it, you are going to have fun then!

      1. LucreLout Silver badge

        Of cause not, more likely they block your son from the site and restrict EU residence from using it, you are going to have fun then!

        The children would get over it. Even the best TV series come to an end one day.

        1. David 164 Bronze badge

          Tell that to firefly fans they still haven't got over it .

          1. Sandtitz Silver badge
            Thumb Up

            Firefly?

            Sure. But I'm still waiting for season four of Robin of Sherwood. And season 3 for Tripods. Perhaps even another season for the Tales of the Gold Monkey.

            1. Mycho Silver badge

              Re: Firefly?

              Hang in there. We got Mad Max 4 eventually.

    2. LucreLout Silver badge

      Same as this bloody subscribe to Pewdiepie bollocks.

      After their little tantrum on here earlier in the week, I've voted the other way and subscribed to t-series. I still don't know or care what they do as I'll not be watching their videos either way.

  11. mark l 2 Silver badge

    I really don't see how this article 13 benefits anyone other than the big media companies who are trying to grab every opportunity to try and make money no matter how small of a portion of copyright work is used.

    I have already found that the content ID filter on Youtube will pick up the slightest bit of copyrighted music when you upload a video. I tried to upload a video which was recorded on the spur of the moment and had the radio on in the background, the music can hardly be heard when watching the video but never the less I end up getting a copyright flag for about 20 seconds of the audio in a 4 minute video. Your then faced with the options to accept to have ads on the video with money going to the copyright holders or remove the copyrighted audio portion completely. Removing the audio portion doesn't work if there were people speaking or other sound in the video in that audio portion you want to keep though.

    So I hardly see how people are using Youtube to upload loads of copyrighted stuff at the moment when I cant even upload a video with a tiny bit of music without it being detected.

    Usually when you see videos on Youtube being the latest movie or TV show, they are actually fake videos trying to direct you to another website to download the file rather than actually hosting it on Youtube itself. And I doubt article 13 will change that.

    1. LDS Silver badge
      Facepalm

      "I have already found that the content ID filter"

      If you're reading ElReg long enough, you'll know that content ID works only for those authors who entered into an agreement with Googles at Google's terms only - which means it will pay far less than any other platform.

      Otherwise Google will exploit your work (hiding behind the finger of user uploaded contents) and will do only the least it could to remove them without breaking the law.

      It's a kind of blackmailing and bullying - mafia style.

      1. Tomato42 Silver badge

        Re: "I have already found that the content ID filter"

        there's also the other side of ContentID, the one that flags videos that include CC0 and public domain music for copyright infringement. The one that gives you no way to really escalate it when the claimant "disputes" your claim that using CC0 music really isn't copyright infringement.

        requiring ContentID on everything only gives power to people that can hire a lot of lawyers – publishers – not small content creators

  12. Voland's right hand Silver badge

    The favourite weapon of the 21st century

    The favourite weapon of the 21st century - the social network driven mob. Feed them some convenient "partial truth" and they will not leave a stone unturned supporting your cause.

    It is one game where the corporations have a HUGE head start too.

    1. David 164 Bronze badge

      Re: The favourite weapon of the 21st century

      If the EU can justify the law then they should justify the law , they can't because they know this law is written to further enrich already very rich corporations and individuals and deny the rights of there own citizens to use that content in parodies or to share videos of events on the web such as wedding, birthday parties, street parties.

      Which is the real reason they don't like the campaign Google and co are launching against them because it expose who they are really working for in this case an it not the people who pay their wages. An why they spend their time attacking Google instead of spending their time explaining the law to their own citizens and how the new law actually change things. As far as most citizens are concerns new laws should improve things for them, this law clearly doesn't. Even hated laws are accepted eventually if they lead to real improvements for normal citizen.

      So come on EU explain how this law improves things for normal, no copyright holding individuals, exactly what benefits do we gain from it.

      1. LDS Silver badge

        "deny the rights of there own citizens to use that content in parodies"

        Not true at all - "fair use" is in the copyright law. Still, "fair use" has limitations, true.

        "share videos of events on the web such as wedding, birthday parties, street parties"

        Same as before - unless the music in a wedding party is not in the background, but it's a clean soundtrack added later. Or if you use the video in a commercial way - in movies even background music has to be licensed.

        BTW, you know I can't sell a photo I take of you at a street party (or any other situation) without your consent? Would you like I could?

        And really, it's not your birthday party authors are worried about. Sure, the "dancing toddler" was a huge mistake done by the music industry - and that's why Google used it at its own advantage.

        1. gyaku_zuki

          Re: "deny the rights of there own citizens to use that content in parodies"

          Sorry, that's wrong. If I take a photo of you in a public place, I can sell it all I like - street party or not.

          Do you think Getty reporters at a protest got every protester to individually sign a waiver before they sold it to Getty?

    2. Colabroad

      Re: The favourite weapon of the 21st century

      Best way around getting your videos being flagged by Content ID is the copyright deadlock.

      http://www.thejimquisition.com/copyright-deadlock-the-jimquisition/

      TL:DR, stop ads getting put on your video by purposefully infringing multiple copyrights!

    3. The Nazz Silver badge

      Re: The favourite weapon of the 21st century

      I agree entirely with your first point, and long term it's gonna be frightening how it plays out.

      However, as regards you second point, ha ha bloody ha ha. It's largely the same mob that have been educated, educated and educated some more since 1997 by the current educational system, also subject to the propaganda and social programming that the BBC have churned out. Maybe the corporations head start isn't that great.

      Not that our current, or recent, MP's haven't had skin in the game in at least one of, if not both, those processes.

  13. David 164 Bronze badge

    Why shouldn't children, who are generally even more up to date with technological issues pester their parents and get their parents help to campaign about article 13 and more importantly why is the EU so frightened about it citizens being inform about article 13?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Having seen the crap that Kids want to watch on YouTube, I did the regulators job for them and blocked YouTube from our house.

      Suddenly Article 13 doesn't matter at all.

      1. David 164 Bronze badge

        So you did that instead of showing you children the tonnes of educational content that is on Youtube or showing them how they can use youtube to learn how to do new stuff.

        This week I learnt from youtube, learnt how plaster a small wall, rewire a plug and one the video show what I was doing wrong when I was trying to animate some things in Unity 3D and I be looking at some recipes for the christmas bake off we are having at my workplace and not to long ago how move a rose bush (I think I did something wrong because my rose bush look like it dying! ). I know my brother law learnt to use to replace a mobile screens, use to see how to repair cars, my niece to apply makeup, my nephew use it to learn maths because his maths teach is rubbish according to him and he started to use to learn about how to fix his own PCs and replace parts in it.

        It not Youtube that the problem, it that you didn't teach your kids to seek out this knowledge instead of watching pewdiepie and other stuff on Youtube. I will admit entertainment pay the bills at Youtube but it the educational content that give Youtube it useful purpose in the world.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          "This week I learnt from youtube"

          Think, people did it even before YouTube. Often interacting with live people.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: "This week I learnt from youtube"

            Think, people did it even before YouTube. Often interacting with live people. <---- Absolutely this.

            It not Youtube that the problem, it that you didn't teach your kids to seek out this knowledge instead of watching pewdiepie and other stuff on Youtube. I will admit entertainment pay the bills at Youtube but it the educational content that give Youtube it useful purpose in the world.

            No, my kids have the entire rest of the internet on which to find things out and to learn (porn / gambling / violence etc filtered of course) and indeed we do that. I worry more for you that you believe the only useful source of information and education on the internet comes from YouTube.

            1. David 164 Bronze badge

              Re: "This week I learnt from youtube"

              Youtube have by far the most free videos and tutorials, other sites have better content but often behind paywalls thinking Udemy here, some manufacturers also have excellent videos but often only specific to their product, these are more often than not hosted on Youtube anyway. Plus we are talking about Youtube here because this effort which is led by Google, using it Youtube platform.

          2. David 164 Bronze badge

            Re: "This week I learnt from youtube"

            Well unfortunately I don't know a plasterer, a electrician or a gardener or anyone who works with Unity3D, so before it would have require me to either pay someone or experiment or read a manual or run down to the library in the hope they got some book there that will clue me in, Youtube speed all of this up by a factor 10 and save me a infinite amount of money on top.

        2. John Lilburne Silver badge

          "So you did that instead of showing you children the tonnes of educational content that is on Youtube or showing them how they can use youtube to learn how to do new stuff."

          There is a library with lots of educational material but to get there you have to walk past the drug dealers, hookers, and step over the dog shit. Do you really want your kid going there?

          1. David 164 Bronze badge

            Some days you have to walk through a similar crowd to get to the local library. It something you kids will have to learn to navigate anyway, may have well start early when they actually let you keep a eye on them than later on in life. An Youtube is nowhere near as bad as the rest of the internet, if anything it one of the tamer places.

            1. Dan 55 Silver badge

              Youtube is nowhere near as bad as the rest of the internet, if anything it one of the tamer places.

              Mexican drug cartels, ISIS beheadings, and sketchy cartoons are tame? Parents, if they do let their kids see YouTube, have to constantly fight YouTube's suggestions?

              Other video platforms are available, there's nothing intrinsically special about YouTube that warrants the current free-for-all and there's a lot to get bothered about. If YouTube were closed down tomorrow, the good parts would find somewhere else.

        3. Dan 55 Silver badge

          The useful stuff is a mere drop in the ocean of shit. Just look at YouTube's front page.

      2. ivan5

        Doing that you will have the MPAA and the big media heavies knocking on your door because you are cutting into their profits.

    2. LDS Silver badge
      Facepalm

      "Why is the EU so frightened about its citizens being..."

      ... DISinformed about article 13"

      Fixed for you...

      Google is only spreading FUD - and moreover exploiting children and teenagers. And children shouldn't be used exactly because are children. It doesn't matter if the use very entry-level technology (playing a YouTube video is not rocket science) better than their parents - they still have a lot to learn and understand to become adults (some, never).

      Nobody would complain about Google objecting to the directive with its objections. But having very little to build upon, it decided just to spread fears using the less equipped to understand it.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I take it that, as usual, the EU decided to prevent citizens of member nations from finding out about Article 13 by publishing proposals, minutes, roadmaps etc on the EU website...

      And in multiple languages.

  14. WibbleMe

    Youtube is a credit to the sum oh human knowledge, yes there are those that upload clips under "Fair usage" terms but the bulk of content it authentic

  15. Patrician

    I'm guessing Disney, Sony et al have been dishing out wads of cash in brown envelopes to some MEP's; the TV and Movie industry is where the music industry was ten years or so ago. They need to take a look at how that worked out rather than desperately trying the same things.

  16. Adrian 4 Silver badge

    Crack

    Imagine a teenager of your acquaintance is told crack cocaine is illegal and she can't have it any more.

    What's your reaction ?

    You could :

    1. Lobby for crack to stay (maybe on prescription)

    2. Fight harder for it to be outlawed (because now you have evidence for harm) , and for help for the desperate teenager to do without it.

    Note that I have deliberately avoided referencing other drugs with a less clear harm / benefit. Substitute some other narcotic (fast cars, social media etc). rather than miss the point and argue for drug tolerance instead.

  17. JulieM Silver badge

    Maybe copyright itself is an idea whose time has been and gone?

    Back In The Day, copyright was invented as a way to encourage the creation of material to enrich the Public Domain. Authors were given temporary exclusive control over their work in return for a promise eventually to share it with everyone after the expiry of the exclusive period.

    Changes in the meantime have affected the practical difficulty of becoming a publisher.

    Is it really too much to suppose that there might actually be another way of rewarding people for sharing their works, besides through a temporary monopoly, that might be more appropriate to today's world?

    1. #define INFINITY -1 Bronze badge

      Re: Maybe copyright itself is an idea whose time has been and gone?

      "Is it really too much to suppose that there might actually be ... "

      Debate seems to be obsolete.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Maybe copyright itself is an idea whose time has been and gone?

      Seventeen (17) years....

      and NOW they want to lock it down so that you can't even think of using fair use within your lifetime.

      These greedy Bstrd have just pushed too far and Europe will suffer for it, again, on its way down the tubes.

      1. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

        Re: Maybe copyright itself is an idea whose time has been and gone?

        Perhaps exaggerating a bit?

  18. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge
    Facepalm

    Perhaps we should

    send a time machine back 20 yrs to the time of napster, and point out to the music companies(and movies too) that if they invested in on-line streaming of their copyright material, inserted a few ads every 30 mins or went subscriber model, they could make a shit ton of cash on their archives.

    Instead they went down the copyright lawyer route which has resulted in the article 13 thing now...

    1. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

      Re: Perhaps we should

      Yeah, well, they weren't obliged to go down any particular route.

      And you or anyone else aren't entitled to anything.

  19. jonfr

    The legal text

    Here is the legal text. Since I don't see it cited anywhere.

    " Article 13

    Use of protected content by information society service providers storing and giving access to large amounts of works and other subject-matter uploaded by their users

    1. Information society service providers that store and provide to the public access to large amounts of works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users shall, in cooperation with rightholders, take measures to ensure the functioning of agreements concluded with rightholders for the use of their works or other subject-matter or to prevent the availability on their services of works or other subject-matter identified by rightholders through the cooperation with the service providers. Those measures, such as the use of effective content recognition technologies, shall be appropriate and proportionate. The service providers shall provide rightholders with adequate information on the functioning and the deployment of the measures, as well as, when relevant, adequate reporting on the recognition and use of the works and other subject-matter.

    2.Member States shall ensure that the service providers referred to in paragraph 1 put in place complaints and redress mechanisms that are available to users in case of disputes over the application of the measures referred to in paragraph 1.

    3.Member States shall facilitate, where appropriate, the cooperation between the information society service providers and rightholders through stakeholder dialogues to define best practices, such as appropriate and proportionate content recognition technologies, taking into account, among others, the nature of the services, the availability of the technologies and their effectiveness in light of technological developments. "

    Then there is article 14/15 that speaks about compensating artist in far way for their work and other such details. Full legal text, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52016PC0593

    Here are adopted Amendments to this new EU law. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P8-TA-2018-0337+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN - I think this is the correct link.

    1. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

      Re: The legal text

      Can't see anything wrong with that.

      That Youtube doesn't want to spend the money is their problem.

  20. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    ISTM that this is dogfight (or would catfight be more appropriate) between two unlovely branches of the media industry. I'm not sure which I want to come off worst.

  21. Kaltern Silver badge

    Money

    I can see this being an issue for people who review things - gaming channels, or probably anything that has a trademark.

    Favourable reviews will be left alone, but the moment someone leaves a bad review, one copyright claim later and it can be removed.

    This doesn't tend to happen right now, as the mechanism for doing so isn't QUITE as easy - although it can still be done. However, I can definitely see this being abused in such a way as to control data flow, rather than restrict it completely.

  22. DeeCee

    considering how companies abuse takedowns to fight opinions they dont like and bad reviews article 13 isnt a good idea

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Go read the article before posting

    FFS so much ignorance on here it's ... ahm... ok normal.

    Article 13 is so much more than Copyright Protection, it's a "D'ya have a license for that content gov?"

    at every turn. No one will be able to safely put anything up without worrying about being ruined. If you think that's hysteria then please go read it of get a you tube accounting of it.

  24. arctic_haze Silver badge

    A problem

    I would pester my father about Article 13 but he is 85 and I'm not sure he would fully comprehend the threat.

  25. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

    Youtube are leeches, pretty much.

    Not that much better than Pirate Bay, or whatever Dot Com was doing.

    Typical of them to start moaning about having to take a bit of responsibility.

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 © 1998–2019