Eu article 13/17/...

Can anyone post a link to summarized explanation what these are? I'm on mobile so long texts won't do

tia

13: a fuckup

@monzrmango Ha, they an the French and the Spanish and the Italian and... you know... all of the lobby guys.

Looks like Wikipedia has an article on it.. I was on the lookout for that as well a little while back. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

@Condor thank you.

However.. Is this wiki's summary not mentioning something? Bcz I don't really see anything that horrifying to complain... Why is everyone so triggered by copyrights in commercial web?

In short: more censorship on the internet. Providers like youtube will have to implement a filter to block copyrighted content from being uploaded.

Smaller players will have a harder time to adjust.

@netikras because the only technical solution for that law is upload filters, and to be on the safe side, they will yield so many false positives that user uploaded content is practically banned in the EU.

@Haxk20 so wiki does not cover these points... Bcz I understood it as:

- if you have a looooot of external links, you might be required to make an agreement with related parties [do agreements must define >0$ fees? I think it's in both parties interest to spread the word]
- art-in-background thing has been around for quite some time already. Youtube videos get deleted, fb photos removed, etc.
- did not see anything about streams..

@mpie copyrighted content already gets removed from youtube. How is that smth new?

@irene most? Care to elaborate? In what way? Who is paying for what contents?

I might not be sure on what a 'commercial website' is... Is it like Oracle, where you can buy goods, or is it like expertecxchange, where you have to pay to see contents?

@irene well I for one wouldn't mind if pirated content went away :)

@netikras the biggest issue is the change on who is the responsible party.

Previously if a person uploaded a video with copyrighted material he/she would be liable for copyright infringement and YouTube would take down the video so that they, now that it is actively known, actively distribute unauthorised material.

With article 13. YouTube themselves will be liable for all material they allow to be uploaded on their platform, and not the uploader.

@Thizizmyname I see.

Is that a bad thing anyway? To us, mortals, the users? It sucks for services/bussineses, that's for sure. But I struggle to see how it affects me, an average Joe

@netikras you will notice it once you try to upload stuff and you can't although it would be perfectly legal.

@netikras Imagine being a startup.
You create a great website with user generated content, but suddenly, a lawsuit gets slapped in your face and you have to pay a ton of money because one of your users uploaded something copyrighted.

See the problem for small companies?

@Fast-Nop hmm.. But blocking legal content is bad for business. I bett neither youtube nor fb or any other service would like to lose their users for such a silly reason. Call me naive but I trully believe that will not be a problem :) either that or services will provide some sort of a workaround to make the upload posdible

@PrivateGER and then EU politicians wonder why there is no European Facebook, Ebay, Twitter, Instagram, Apple, Microsoft, Google and whatnot.

But hey, paper magazines and petrol burning cars, that's the future.

@PrivateGER a lawsuit just like that..? :) well of all the lawsuits I've been an either party in I can tell it's not that sudden. First there are warnings, communications, requests to address the alleged problem and take a particular set of actions to remediate the issue. If, and only if these requests are not addressed within a predefined period of time the case can then be turned into a lawsuit.

I'd be genuinely surprised if these regulations allowed immediate lawsuits :)

@netikras Yeah, I admit that was a bit exaggerated, but you have to consider that companies are now treated as the violators of copyright.
With gigantic networks or small companies, that will definitely cause a lot of problems.

@netikras unrealistic. Filters are by far not able to do that reliably, and you buy a low false-negative rate with a high false-positive one. That's just tech reality. However, filters are the only way to fulfil the requirement to prevent uploading similar content.

So the platforms either piss off users or run into expensive law proceedings.

Well, OR, Google says "fuck it" and shuts down YT for EU citizens. After all, YT doesn't really make much profit anyway: sorry, this platform is not available in the European Union.

Oh and forget about running a forum. You can block uploading images, videos and audio, but even written content can be copyrighted. So you're in for ruin when running a forum. Who will do that?

@Fast-Nop oh come on... This has been a problem for decades already and forums, soc networks and others were quite good at coping. Moderators, administrators, users' reported copyright violations, content approvals, etc...

Every law has some room to stretch. I bet this one also has it. After all, at least wiki mentions 'best effort', which makes things much easier :)

I'm not saying this article is all-goody, but I do not see the horses of aragedon everyone is crying 'bout :)

@netikras no, this has not been a problem for decades. Until now, it was OK if content was removed after take down notice. And in general, it was the user who was responsible, not the platform operator.

Now if similar content gets uploaded again, you're in for a hefty fine, that is new. There is no communication, no notice, no grace time anymore. The platform operator is in for a fine.

@netikras
About the "commercialness" of a website: Any profit oriented website, providing access to a "large" amount of user uploaded content.

Or in short: A forum with ads or a small social network with a supporter program (like this site).

How to evade being liable: You have a license for uploaded content. This can be VERY expensive. Unless you are YouTube, it is currently impossible to get an "all inclusive for everything for every purpose" license. Legally you have to try your best to get a license.
Copyright owners are _not required_ to give you a license. Resulting, you must _prevent uploading_ stuff if the _copyright owner says so_. Of course, you still have to take down any unlawful content but _further prevent future uploads_. Obviously those filters might have a false positive rate, especially on parody or (legal) excerpts.
In the end the platform _has to proof_ they did what they could or they are liable. This is the reverse of "innocent until proven guilty".

About the link tax (different problem in the same law): While the link itself won't cost something, small content exception will (e.g. article teasers). Will an automated generate teaser to a link (e.g. on Twitter) count as a link or a commercial use?
The law targets large news aggregators (e.g. Google New), but could hit small platforms (again). This law is already in place in Germany. Google got a free license (publishers lost too much traffic), but smaller platforms had to pay.
Luckily, the law does not apply for previous content.

I can only recommend reading the law itself (the text is written okay) and think about what unfortunate situations the vague formulations allow.

@netikras which youtube do you use? There are lots of copyright content on youtube geez

@Fast-Nop It was OK by the law, but it was not OK by internal rules of the environment, be it a forum, YT, etc. Or maybe that's the case with only services I have been using, I dunno. But moderators/admins/reporters/etc. used to do a pretty good job spotting copyrighted contents.

From the first community I've joined the "do not post copiryghted content" rule was always there. And the copyrighted content was none.

The way I see now will be no different, except communities will be obligated by law to do the same thing they were doing before.

@netikras it seems you don't understand the difference between "removing content quickly after the fact" and "having to prove that you have mechanisms to prevent content from being posted in the first place".

@PrivateGER Well.... If you consider companies like thepiratebay.org, linkomanija.net and other similar forefer-running-forever-hiding obvious copyright violators, then yeah, they should be held accountable for their websites' contents.

@mpie How may are there? I'm talking about youtube.com. Half of my uploaded personal videos were removed due to copyright violations. Half of them might have been somewhat valid violators. Others - not so much

@Fast-Nop Quote from wiki:

"acting "expeditiously" to remove them, and demonstrating that "best efforts" have been made to prevent their future availability"

#1 "remove them", meaning they must have been uploaded already. So that's "after the fact"
#2 "best efforts have been made to prevent" -- my best effort might be a hash-check. It counts as an effort and, considering amount of data I might have to process, it might as well be the BEST effort I could do.

At least wiki's explanations does not say anything about 100% bulletproof algo preventing uploads. It says "best efforts". That's why I said earlier that it gives a looooot of room to breathe

@netikras remove them upon first time infringement. Then prevent from ever happening again - not just "deleting them again". And nobody cares what YOUR best effort is.

What is so difficult to understand about this?

@netikras You must filter preemptively if you have been provided with information by the copyright holder.

Oh and it's not just "best effort" but best efforts "in accordance with high industry standards of professional diligence".

Btw. here is a screenshot of it.

@Fast-Nop "What is so difficult to understand about this?"
^^-- I find it difficult to find where does it mention that failure to prevent will be escalated to legal actions ("So the platforms <...> run into expensive law proceedings")

The article clearly states "best efforts to prevent their future uploads in accordance with point (b)" , which refers to " in accordance with high industry standards of professional diligence, best efforts to ensure the unavailability...".

And "Where the average number of monthly unique visitors of such service providers exceeds 5 million <...> shall also demonstrate that they have made best efforts to prevent further uploads of the notified works"

Can you point me, a blind stupid idiot, to the line where it says you *must* ensure the content will not be uploaded or you'll end up in court?

17.5(b) refers that MY best effort, while should meet HI industry standards, must not cost a fortune for my business. So yeah, they DO care what MY best effort is.

@Fast-Nop

As for false-positive blocks, disputing mechanisms are also reglamented as mandatory. So my uploaded content, although ruled as a false-positive offender, MUST be able to dispute and eventually end up online. Which effectively means it is not a blocker.

@netikras well I see it's hopeless. You asked for clarification in your OP, long text won't do (as if), but in fact, you don't want any because you already believe whatever you want to believe.

Nice trolling. I'll remember this and won't fall for another troll posting of yours again.

@Fast-Nop I wasn't trolling, I honestly can't see it...

I appologise If I insult you or hurt your feelings in any way, that was not my intention by any means.

As for "long text wont do" -- I'm already home and I can do long texts. I guess I should have told you, shouldn't I? My bad as well

Anyways, thanks for your insights.. Guess I'll have to keep looking myself for where you found that line :)

@Fast-Nop Yep.

Just ignore netikras. He’s too dumb to shit

@netikras Mandatory disputing mechanisms in a short time are a good idea (in contrast to the 30 days of YouTube).
But even a delay of one or two days may make a difference for the uploader especially if the topic if information of the video is time critical. When you hit this filter multiple times and have to wait two days each times can be highly demotivating.

About the "your are immediately brought to court" part: Obviously not.
But it is much easier for an copyright holder to bring you to court as you are liable unless you can prove your compliance with the law.
While you are not directly brought to court your are more likely to be in general.

About the "where the average number of visitors ..." this is only relevant if you platform has <10 Million € total yearly revenue and an age of < 3 years, isn't it? Otherwise 17.4 is fully in effect (best effort by professional diligence).

@sbiewald yes, your company need to pass all three cases to be exempt from the rule. So if you have a forum of ~500 users but had it for 3+ years, you need to implement some sort of filtering.

Mind you, such a small forum would probably not even be noticed, but that is still not a non-zero chance.

Many people are afraid what the "best effort" will entail, if I create a video platform, would I have implement a filtering system such as YouTube? They kind are the industry standard, but their budget for this task would likely be exponentially higher than my entire startup capital, and their system is not perfect in the slightest.

There are many companies that are hesitant to these rules due to the unclear wording and while their "best effort" should be good enough, the "you could be directly liable for anything on your site, no matter if you allow such content or not" are making companies afraid.

I also know some that are afraid of a new copyright version kind of patent trolls: Anonymously uploading copyrighted material and then force money out of the companies for not implementing a "good enough" filtering system.