I would argue that controversial laws have to be at least delayed in order for all the points to be address.
I would rather not change anything instead of risking broken legislation that does more harm than good.
> Google, youtube, eBay, etc., etc. have been doing this for years without "killing the internet".
Google has the infrastructure and resources to do so with YouTube, going out of its way to detect copyright infringement and to react automatically to take down notices. Smaller players don't have Google's resources.
This is not the same issue as with GDPR. Even if companies need to invest resources in being GDPR compliant, it can be argued that business models relying on the ignorance of users are criminal enterprises and that GDPR-style consent should have been asked for without having a law for it, being common sense in a world where people don't understand the repercussion of their actions when using technology.
But copyright? That's a government granted monopoly and like all government granted monopolies it can do more harm than good. It can be argued that copyright is flawed, especially given the forever extending duration, currently being life plus 70 to 120 years, which is absolutely ridiculous. Give us 20 years, like patents and then we can discuss about extra protections otherwise fuck media companies lobbying for even more protections.
> > Google, youtube, eBay, etc., etc. have been doing this for years without "killing the internet".
> Google has the infrastructure and resources to do so with YouTube, going out of its way to detect copyright infringement and to react automatically to take down notices. Smaller players don't have Google's resources.
Worse, even Google sucks at it. There are so many original creators whose youtube video get slapped ads on because someone else used their music in a Youtube video before the original author did. Google wrote a fully automated, non-appealable copyright judge and jury. This is scary shit! I don't understand how anyone can look at stuff like that and think "wow, awesome, we need more of that!"
I'm not sure the analogy extends that far. Sure, Google auto-vaporizes accounts and that's terrible, but they'd do that too if they didn't have Content ID. It's not very related to copyright anymore, just to The Google Suck.
I am not a big fan of government meddling, but when companies are so crucial for so many people I am starting (maybe it's me getting older) to think it would be a good thing if there would be special rules made for companies like that. If 100s of millions of people use your product, it kind of be becomes a common good; I don't say it should be gov owned, but some law that they cannot, without recourse other than expensive trials which you won't win, remove something of yours and then not answer the phone. I know too many people who gambled on facebook, google, oracle(yes...) and others for their livelihood; invested their time and money into it just to get tossed out by a not very good algorithm. I am one of those, but in hindsight I am actually happy about it; it taught me never to have anything depend on any company where I cannot directly contact the CEO or CTO for business. It helps my current company a great deal to work like that; every company we work with, I can pick up the phone and call a c-level exec. Guess what; we almost never have to.
That's interesting! If I may ask, where do you host your email? And where do you hose your product? And do you use services like Intercom, GitHub, Basecamp, Trello, whatever?
Like I said, I really dislike current copyright law as it exists in most countries, so you wont find me arguing in favour of extending copyright powers at all.
But article 13 does not seem to represent an extension of copyright powers since it looks weaker than any of the existing national laws.
> Google has the infrastructure and resources to do so with YouTube, going out of its way to detect copyright infringement and to react automatically to take down notices. Smaller players don't have Google's resources.
I've read this argument and it doesn't really convince me. Google and the rest run sophisticated copyright infringement detection not because they CAN or have the resources, they do it because they are obliged by US copyright law. The same US law applies to smaller players and it doesn't seem to have broken the internet in America. Try launching an app that allows streaming video torrents for example - even a teenager
working from a bedroom has to comply if they are going to offer such a service.
> Google and the rest run sophisticated copyright infringement detection not because they CAN or have the resources, they do it because they are obliged by US copyright law.
No, they are not obliged to do so. The DMCA obliges people to remove infringement on request of the copyright owner, i.e., it requires that websites be reactive instead of proactive. This is notable because Content ID is actually more restrictive than what the DMCA requires (particularly with regards to fair use exceptions).
Some of these sites, like Google's Youtube, have made deals with copyright holders to do more than the law requires. In the US, a site only needs to take down user content in response to DMCA demands.
I would rather not change anything instead of risking broken legislation that does more harm than good.
> Google, youtube, eBay, etc., etc. have been doing this for years without "killing the internet".
Google has the infrastructure and resources to do so with YouTube, going out of its way to detect copyright infringement and to react automatically to take down notices. Smaller players don't have Google's resources.
This is not the same issue as with GDPR. Even if companies need to invest resources in being GDPR compliant, it can be argued that business models relying on the ignorance of users are criminal enterprises and that GDPR-style consent should have been asked for without having a law for it, being common sense in a world where people don't understand the repercussion of their actions when using technology.
But copyright? That's a government granted monopoly and like all government granted monopolies it can do more harm than good. It can be argued that copyright is flawed, especially given the forever extending duration, currently being life plus 70 to 120 years, which is absolutely ridiculous. Give us 20 years, like patents and then we can discuss about extra protections otherwise fuck media companies lobbying for even more protections.