The Final Version of the EU's Copyright Directive Is the Worst One Yet

[OpportunityCost]

Yes, that is how it should be, otherwise you start trampling on people's freedom of expression and consumer rights. They have ways to monetize, however it is up to them to find the best way to do that.

We have seen this with every piece of copyright legislation, no matter where it comes from, copyright holders want more powers to go after "infringement" but in reality it means giving them the power to censor criticism of them or those they support or just extort money. It also usually places a massive unreasonable burden on content hosts. You can see what would happen on places like YouTube, companies take down or take over videos they do not even have the rights or have no right to claim for no reason other then they can or it criticizes them.

"Extort" money for their own work?

Your argument centers on criticism of the work, but you aren't offering any proof. The just want to get paid for their work, they aren't extorting a damn thing, no one needs to look at it. They make a choice. YouTube, Google, FaceBook have made billions by controlling other people's creative efforts and not paying for them. How long did you think that would last?

 

[Carjosse]

"Extort" money for their own work?

Your argument centers on criticism of the work, but you aren't offering any proof. The just want to get paid for their work, they aren't extorting a damn thing, no one needs to look at it. They make a choice. YouTube, Google, FaceBook have made billions by controlling other people's creative efforts and not paying for them. How long did you think that would last?

Have you ever heard of the concept of patent trolls? That exists with copyright as well, expect all the major copyright holders participate in it. On YouTube they do it all the time, two YouTubers I watch have been victims of this luckily they both could afford to hire lawyers to fight it.

Let's use History Buffs, a channel that reviews historical movies, he created a review of Agora, a positive one at that. It got taken down by the studio that owns the movie, this is the point where most people would just give up because there is no way they can afford a lawyer to take on an legal team from a movie studio, however Nick, the guy who runs History Buffs, has a family wealthy enough to hire an IP lawyer to threaten legal action and he got his video back however in the meantime he lost all the ad revenue from that video. They simply took down his video because they could and they know the vast majority of people do not have the resources to fight back. You have musicians creating original music having their music taken down or monetized by copyright claims from a major music labels because the music labels just let a bot run rampant and know that most cannot fight it. Then there are companies claiming content they do not even own. Copyright holders have way too much power online, they can request something be taken down or take the revenue through legal threats and most of the time they do not have to prove anything, and they know the vast majority do not have the resources to fight it.

Imagine what would happen if you let news organizations run rampant in the same way.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Have you ever heard of the concept of patent trolls? That exists with copyright as well, expect all the major copyright holders participate in it. On YouTube they do it all the time, two YouTubers I watch have been victims of this luckily they both could afford to hire lawyers to fight it.

Let's use History Buffs, a channel that reviews historical movies, he created a review of Agora, a positive one at that. It got taken down by the studio that owns the movie, this is the point where most people would just give up because there is no way they can afford a lawyer to take on an legal team from a movie studio, however Nick, the guy who runs History Buffs, has a family wealthy enough to hire an IP lawyer to threaten legal action and he got his video back however in the meantime he lost all the ad revenue from that video. They simply took down his video because they could and they know the vast majority of people do not have the resources to fight back. You have musicians creating original music having their music taken down or monetized by copyright claims from a major music labels because the music labels just let a bot run rampant and know that most cannot fight it. Then there are companies claiming content they do not even own. Copyright holders have way too much power online, they can request something be taken down or take the revenue through legal threats and most of the time they do not have to prove anything, and they know the vast majority do not have the resources to fight it.

Imagine what would happen if you let news organizations run rampant in the same way.

Run rampant by having positive control over their own work? By putting some teeth into copyright laws, it could become easier to catch and prosecute scumbags that latch onto material that doesn't belong to them and by prosecute I mean fine them into the ground and reimburse the originator.

 

[Carjosse]

Run rampant by having positive control over their own work? By putting some teeth into copyright laws, it could become easier to catch and prosecute scumbags that latch onto material that doesn't belong to them and by prosecute I mean fine them into the ground and reimburse the originator.

I would personally call that extortion, when they can demand money or remove content with no burden of proof. Copyright holders have way too much power, currently it is guilty until proven innocent and the most people do not have the legal resources to prove that.

What powers do you think copyright holders should have? Let's use a YouTube video for example.

 

[OpportunityCost]

I would personally call that extortion, when they can demand money or remove content with no burden of proof. Copyright holders have way too much power, currently it is guilty until proven innocent and the most people do not have the legal resources to prove that.

What powers do you think copyright holders should have? Let's use a YouTube video for example.

YouTube doesn't handle copyright disputes legally. Their system leaves them wide open to fraud suits if someone had deep enough pockets to pursue it for long enough. YouTube is using the legal system to tangle up disputes in the legal system until people give up. Do you feel that is equitable?

 

[Carjosse]

YouTube doesn't handle copyright disputes legally. Their system leaves them wide open to fraud suits if someone had deep enough pockets to pursue it for long enough. YouTube is using the legal system to tangle up disputes in the legal system until people give up. Do you feel that is equitable?

So you think YouTube's system still doesn't give copyright holders enough power? What is enough for you, what powers should copyright holders have? You didn't answer my question.

How is it unreasonable to expect that copyright holders must a) prove they own the content they claim is being infringed and b) prove actual infringement before action can be taken?

 

[OpportunityCost]

So you think YouTube's system still doesn't give copyright holders enough power? What is enough for you, what powers should copyright holders have? You didn't answer my question.

How is it unreasonable to expect that copyright holders must a) prove they own the content they claim is being infringed and b) prove actual infringement before action can be taken?

YouTube gives an overwhelming amount of leverage to whoever files the first claim, even if they are not the originator of the material. YouTube shouldn't be making that decision as they also are involved in the money being made, it should lie with a fact finder and arbiter, with possibility of court appeal. YouTube's process is flawed.

 

[Carjosse]

YouTube gives an overwhelming amount of leverage to whoever files the first claim, even if they are not the originator of the material. YouTube shouldn't be making that decision as they also are involved in the money being made, it should lie with a fact finder and arbiter, with possibility of court appeal. YouTube's process is flawed.

That doesn't solve the problem I expressed about abuse and extortion. Copyright holders can still very easily extort people for money with that system.

 

[OpportunityCost]

That doesn't solve the problem I expressed about abuse and extortion. Copyright holders can still very easily extort people for money with that system.

It belongs to the copyright holders. If they want to get paid for the use of material they create, that's their business. You don't have an ounce of care to the rights of creators, its astounding.

 

[Nap]

The Final Version of the EU's Copyright Directive Is the Worst One Yet | Electronic Frontier Foundation

How will these changes affect a site like DP?

Looks like this is intended to kill off alternative news sites like TYT, Mediate, Daily Wire, etc. I'm curious how would they go after people outside the EU on this and possibly fact checking sites.

 

[Carjosse]

It belongs to the copyright holders. If they want to get paid for the use of material they create, that's their business. You don't have an ounce of care to the rights of creators, its astounding.

And I don't understand why you support giving copyright holders free reign to silence criticism of the work and extort money.

 

[OpportunityCost]

And I don't understand why you support giving copyright holders free reign to silence criticism of the work and extort money.

Because its their property. You aren't showing the least respect to that. I don't support giving them free reign to silence criticism or extort money but for those that want to use their work be made to pay for that work, not steal it.

 

[Carjosse]

Because its their property. You aren't showing the least respect to that. I don't support giving them free reign to silence criticism or extort money but for those that want to use their work be made to pay for that work, not steal it.

And you have yet to provide any suggestions for a system under which they can do that without trampling on people's rights.

 

[OpportunityCost]

And you have yet to provide any suggestions for a system under which they can do that without trampling on people's rights.

People don't have the rights to someone else's work. You don't need to provide large excerpts to provide criticism.

 

[Oborosen]

So you think YouTube's system still doesn't give copyright holders enough power? What is enough for you, what powers should copyright holders have? You didn't answer my question.

How is it unreasonable to expect that copyright holders must a) prove they own the content they claim is being infringed and b) prove actual infringement before action can be taken?

Yeah, even if your video has a disclaimer at the beginning to display either fair use rules, or to even validate what the video is for. You're still most likely going to get a copyright strike for either the music, or whatever video you're currently playing.

 

[Renae]

Yeah, even if your video has a disclaimer at the beginning to display either fair use rules, or to even validate what the video is for. You're still most likely going to get a copyright strike for either the music, or whatever video you're currently playing.

I got dinged by twitch because my wife was listening to music in the background and my mic picked up enough to trip their copyright strike rules.

 

[Carjosse]

People don't have the rights to someone else's work. You don't need to provide large excerpts to provide criticism.

Actually consumers do have the right to use it in certain ways and there are many factors in determining that. You need context to discuss something.

Like I said it is up to the creator to find ways to monetize their product, not have legislation give them wide ranging powers over all content on the internet related to them.

 

[Carjosse]

I got dinged by twitch because my wife was listening to music in the background and my mic picked up enough to trip their copyright strike rules.

According to OpportunityCost you are basically stealing food from the mouth of the artist of that song.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Actually consumers do have the right to use it in certain ways and there are many factors in determining that. You need context to discuss something.

Like I said it is up to the creator to find ways to monetize their product, not have legislation give them wide ranging powers over all content on the internet related to them.

Sigh, what do you think copyrights are but legislated powers for creators over their products?

 

[OpportunityCost]

According to OpportunityCost you are basically stealing food from the mouth of the artist of that song.

Not if he paid for it and not if he uses it to make money in some way. Which is why Twitch dinged him, they don't want the headache of multiple claims on a stream the artist and the user can both make money from.

 

[Carjosse]

Sigh, what do you think copyrights are but legislated powers for creators over their products?

There is a difference between creating a framework for copyright disputes over infringement and giving the copyright holders power themselves.

 

[Carjosse]

Not if he paid for it and not if he uses it to make money in some way. Which is why Twitch dinged him, they don't want the headache of multiple claims on a stream the artist and the user can both make money from.

It is Twitch streamers make money, are they making it form the music, no. This is the perfect example of overreach as a result of extortion on behalf of copyright holders.

 

[OpportunityCost]

There is a difference between creating a framework for copyright disputes over infringement and giving the copyright holders power themselves.

Yes, I know it prevents ****ed up systems like the one used by YouTube from completely favoring trolls that monetize indy artists and lock out artists from making money on their own work, because YouTube has a duty to follow the law instead of their bottom line.

 

[OpportunityCost]

It is Twitch streamers make money, are they making it form the music, no. This is the perfect example of overreach as a result of extortion on behalf of copyright holders.

No. Reproduction of music without consent to make money is in the agreement for Twitch. You need permission to reproduce a song and/or accredit it.

You don't seem to have any respect for anyone's work...

 

[Carjosse]

No. Reproduction of music without consent to make money is in the agreement for Twitch. You need permission to reproduce a song and/or accredit it.

You don't seem to have any respect for anyone's work...

See I this is what I mean you believe that copyright holders should have unlimited power over their work, no matter what. They are not making money from the music, it is fair use, if it can be considered use at all.