In September 2017 the European Parliament voted on an amended version of the EU copyright law.
Overall, the directive intended to find a balance between rights holders (record companies or publishers) and platforms such as YouTube.
Article 13 of this EU’s new Directive on Copyright is very controversial. The fact that platforms will be liable at the moment of upload for any copyright infringement can be a real issue for Youtube.
Firstly, one of the problems Youtube is facing is the fact that it will be forced to delete many contents if it wants to implement this new European directive. As a result, this means that some of the videos shared online around the world may no longer be accessible in Europe.
Then, Article 13 will oblige Youtube to negotiate agreements with rightholders, which means that they will, for example, have to check that a video does not share a song or copyright content.
To respect the directive, the platform will have to set up a filtering system that blocks the broadcasting of this type of video if it violates the copyright law.
So, the risk with this new directive is that Youtube will have to check every video before it’s released to see if the creator owns everything (from songs to visuals). Many YouTubers argued that the time before publication will therefore be longer, leaving little room for spontaneity (No more Youtube video reaction to actuality?)
Then, it will let little room for creativity. For example, if you watch a simple video of a youtuber speaking in front of his camera and behind him there is a Disney plush, it will be blocked.
YouTube is fighting against this directive by trying to convince Internet users to share #SaveyourInternet to protest.
On the other hand, music industry companies are supporting this new copyright law, arguing that it will protect the rights of artists on their creation
What do you think? Do you think Article 13 will be a good way to protect copyrights? do you think this will impact the creativity of content creators too much?
More generally, what balance should be find between creativity and copyrights?
The directive: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P8-TA-2018-0337+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRYSxIYHS0w
https://www.youtube.com/intl/com/saveyourinternet/
https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/will-article-13-really-kill-youtube-read-it-for-yourself-its-only-240-words-long/
By OP’s description, I don’t think Article 13 strikes the right balance between creativity and copyright protection. I have three main concerns with Article 13’s approach.
First, it delegates a responsibility too great to platform operators. The filtering process would likely be both costly and inefficient, because content creators themselves are usually the most motivated and thus (arguably) in the best position to seek out copyright infringement. They would likely outperform an army of disinterested Youtube interns any time of the day. This inefficiency indirectly imposes a cost on everyone. Moreover, the administration of such a system is almost quasi-judicial. I’m not sure whether a company operating in the private sphere should ever be asked to carry out such duties.
Second, by making platforms liable (or maybe more likely liable than before), it forces platform operators to err on the side of caution, inducing them to favour a censorship-happy approach. This takes a toll on creativity and expressions.
Third, sometimes a case may be difficult and it’s better to let the public have the opportunity to judge, rather than let a selected few make decisions behind the curtains. Although I haven’t checked but I am certain that there are defenses available to copyright infringement (in Canada, we have fair dealings such as research, private study, parody, satire, criticism, review, etc.), I would wager that the internet, including the original content creator, (which comprises of a vast range of people/users with variety of interests) can identify the nature of an uploaded video much faster than any platform operators can. And conceivably, the nature of an uploaded video may occasionally be very difficult to determine. I think it would be very unfortunate if the public never gets a chance to form their own opinions if everything goes through the black-box of Youtube’s own censorship board. Sometimes, an original creator might even want a 3rd party spin-off to be available on the platform if it directs traffic to the original. Overall, I just think it would be a poor choice to be less transparent.
“On the other hand, music industry companies are supporting this new copyright law, arguing that it will protect the rights of artists on their creation” I’m not sure implementing Article 13 would actually help the music industry. I’d like to see more fleshed-out arguments from this side, especially regarding how the Youtube is hurting them and what Article 13 could do to help them.
By OP’s description, I don’t think Article 13 strikes the right balance between creativity and copyright protection. I have three main concerns with Article 13’s approach.
First, it delegates a responsibility too great to platform operators. The filtering process would likely be both costly and inefficient, because content creators themselves are usually the most motivated and thus (arguably) in the best position to seek out copyright infringement. They would likely outperform an army of disinterested Youtube interns any time of the day. This inefficiency indirectly imposes a cost on everyone. Moreover, the administration of such a system is almost quasi-judicial. I’m not sure whether a company operating in the private sphere should ever be asked to carry out such duties.
Second, by making platforms liable (or maybe more likely liable than before), it forces platform operators to err on the side of caution, inducing them to favour a censorship-happy approach. This takes a toll on creativity and expressions.
Third, sometimes a case may be difficult and it’s better to let the public have the opportunity to judge, rather than let a selected few make decisions behind the curtains. Although I haven’t checked but I am certain that there are defenses available to copyright infringement (in Canada, we have fair dealings such as research, private study, parody, satire, criticism, review, etc.), I would wager that the internet, including the original content creator, (which comprises of a vast range of people/users with variety of interests) can identify the nature of an uploaded video much faster than any platform operators can. And conceivably, the nature of an uploaded video may occasionally be very difficult to determine. I think it would be very unfortunate if the public never gets a chance to form their own opinions if everything goes through the black-box of Youtube’s own censorship board. Sometimes, an original creator might even want a 3rd party spin-off to be available on the platform if it directs traffic to the original. Overall, I just think it would be a poor choice to be less transparent.
“On the other hand, music industry companies are supporting this new copyright law, arguing that it will protect the rights of artists on their creation” I’m not sure implementing Article 13 would actually help the music industry. I’d like to see more fleshed-out arguments from this side, especially regarding how the Youtube is hurting them and what Article 13 could do to help them.
Latest headline – it’s a mess….https://juliareda.eu/2019/01/copyright-hits_wall/