I've just noticed something when reading the EU copyright reform. It actually all sounds pretty reasonable. Now, hear me out, I swear that this will make sense in the end.

Article 17p4 states the following:

If no authorisation [by rightholders] is granted, online content-sharing service providers shall be liable for unauthorised acts of communication to the public, including making available to the public, of copyright-protected works and other subject matter, unless the service providers demonstrate that they have:
(a) made best efforts to obtain an authorisation, and
(b) made, in accordance with high industry standards of professional diligence, best efforts to ensure the unavailability of specific works and other subject matter for which the rightholders have provided the service providers with the relevant and necessary information; and in any event
(c) acted expeditiously, upon receiving a sufficiently substantiated notice from the rightholders, to disable access to, or to remove from, their websites the
notified works or other subject matter, and made best efforts to prevent their future uploads in accordance with point (b).

Article 17p5 states the following:

In determining whether the service provider has complied with its obligations under paragraph 4, and in light of the principle of proportionality, the following elements, among others, shall be taken into account:
(a) the type, the audience and the size of the service and the type of works or other subject matter uploaded by the users of the service; and
(b) the availability of suitable and effective means and their cost for service providers.

That actually does leave a lot of room for interpretation, and not on the lawmakers' part.. rather, on the implementer's part. Say for example devRant, there's no way in hell that dfox and trogus are going to want to be tasked with upload filters. But they don't have to.

See, the law takes into account due diligence (i.e. they must give a damn), industry standards (so.. don't half-ass it), and cost considerations (so no need to spend a fortune on it). Additionally, asking for permission doesn't need to be much more than coming to an agreement with the rightsholder when they make a claim to their content. It's pretty common on YouTube mixes already, often in the description there's a disclaimer stating something like "I don't own this content. If you want part of it to be removed, get in touch at $email." Which actually seems to work really well.

So say for example, I've had this issue with someone here on devRant who copypasted a work of mine into the cancer pit called joke/meme. I mentioned it to dfox, didn't get removed. So what this law essentially states is that when I made a notice of "this here is my content, I'd like you to remove this", they're obligated to remove it. And due diligence to keep it unavailable.. maybe make a hash of it or whatever to compare against.

It also mentions that there needs to be a source to compare against, which invalidates e.g. GitHub's iBoot argument (there's no source to compare against!). If there's no source to compare against, there's no issue. That includes my work as freebooted by that devRant user. I can't prove my ownership due to me removing the original I posted on Facebook as part of a yearly cleanup.

But yeah.. content providers are responsible as they should be, it's been a huge issue on the likes of Facebook, and really needs to be fixed. Is this a doomsday scenario? After reading the law paper, honestly I don't think it is.

Have a read, I highly recommend it.

  • 0
    @elcore not all copyright holders. That's the point I'm trying to make. Only those who explicitly want to take the copyright on their work. So for example if my rant here is reposted on Facebook, Facebook should 1) provide the means to me to find it, and 2) provide the means for me to get it expeditiously removed if it does violate my rights as a copyright holder. Seriously, read the paper, it's really interesting.
  • 1
    @elcore I guess we'll have to wait and see... I used to be extremely against this law (to the point where I even lobbied against it), and still am against upload filters or censorship of any kind. The law paper has been through several revisions if memory serves me right. This is the final one, and quite honestly.. I can't see where upload filters as in "upload whatever and make the service compare it against every possible piece of work that could ever be copyrighted in any way, ever" would come in.

    I'm just taking my information from the horse's mouth. And I honestly really regret not having informed myself sooner. This law isn't a bad one, and one that the Internet needs.

    YouTube channels like Kurzgesagt and SmarterEveryday and Veritasium complained about freebooting on Facebook so much, and this law solves it in (IMO) a really elegant way. Make it possible for creators to find their content, prevent UMG-style abuse, ensure that users can appeal against copyright claims towards human platform operators, and in general get issues resolved quickly. This law does all of it.
  • 0
    @elcore I don't ask you to. But I've just finished the article 17 bits of the paper and am continuing with the whole title 4 of that paper. Actually in the beginning of that part, there is an explicit mention of hyperlinks and short excerpts being excluded. So no link tax, no bullshittery on sharing stuff. Just not copy-pasting the whole thing.

    The more I read this paper, the more I realize how misled I was. All I wish for is for other people to inform themselves from primary sources as well.
  • 0
    Don't forget wonton corruption, because that is absolutely a thing, and acts as an exponent on any and all negative effects.
  • 0
    @elcore well.. how'd you define an excerpt? Given a great enough sample size of existing excerpts to base a number on. How'd you even determine the number? Characters? Too prone to error. Words? That's about the same as those 200-word essays that were so dreaded in schools. Sentences? Maybe, but that can be bypassed by making the sentences longer.

    I guess it's up to interpretation to the people involved then? Rightsholder, sharer, platform operator, maybe law enforcement. And sure some people can act like dicks at times, but that's what we've got escalations to higher-ups for.

    I dunno man... It seems for all intents and purposes to allow linking, thumbnails and excerpts and doesn't seem to have been contradicted anywhere I've seen so far...
  • 1
    @Root what's wonton corruption? I tried looking it up but couldn't find anything about it.
  • 1
    @Condor Wanton*
    Autocorrect 😕
  • 1
    @Condor A "very short excerpt" if I remember correctly. In Germany (where Art. 16 is already in place), this means about a few (5-8 or so) words.
    I'll try to find a court result for that.
  • 1
    What about memes?
  • 1
    @Gregozor2121 nobody is claiming the memes as their own and currently they're regarded as public domain pretty much. So unless the creator of a meme goes to social media sites and says "hey this is mine", it doesn't seem like this law will affect them in any way.
  • 2
    @Root @Condor wonton corruption is when you drop your wonton on the floor and it gets dirty
  • 2
    "This leaves a lot of room for interpretation"

    And that is one of the problems and why many people call it a bad law. A law should be as explicit as possible because otherwise it depends on luck - whether the judge agrees with you or the other party
  • 1
    @moars42 That is definitely true, it is a real problem when that happens. Personally I'd assume that judges are.. what's it called again.. lawful good? and rely on that for the most part. But there is definitely a point to be made in that lawyers, definitely those legalese bastards, could misuse that.
Add Comment