Live data from Hacker News

YouTube CEO says EU regulation will be bad for creators

theverge.com

1–10 of 121 posts

Re: YouTube CEO says EU regulation will be bad for creators

#5

> The proposal will force platforms, like YouTube, to prioritize content from a small number of large companies. That's orthogonal to what the Article 13 really says. If anything, it will "force" the platforms to prioritize original content over remakes.

It's orthogonal to the intention, perhaps.

However, in implementation, it's much easier to make a few deals with large companies, rather than to ensure that each of the tens of millions of nobodies with 10 subscribers completely adheres to the letter of the law.

Re: YouTube CEO says EU regulation will be bad for creators

#8
This is even better:

> The burden of copyright proof will be too high for most independent creators to instantly demonstrate.

If I record a video, and YT bans it because their faulty algorithm triggered a false alarm, how exactly the "burden of copyright proof" should be "too high" for me?

First of all, they should prove that someone else owns the copyright. If they're mistaken - because of copyright trolls or faulty algorithms - it should be their burden, not the authors'.

Re: YouTube CEO says EU regulation will be bad for creators

#10

> The proposal will force platforms, like YouTube, to prioritize content from a small number of large companies. That's orthogonal to what the Article 13 really says. If anything, it will "force" the platforms to prioritize original content over remakes.

Big companies can just make deals and use whatever they want.

Independent content creators don't have the resources to go to EMI and cut a deal for using their music as soundtrack for their videos.

In addition, for a big company being sued is part of business, while for a regular guy it can mean bankruptcy. Taking the risk of using other people's stuff--even if it should obviously be considered fair use--might be too much of a gamble for most people.

This is of course bad because the quality could go down and it makes the whole process more frustrating, but most importantly it makes reviewing stuff risky, specially for negative reviews where it's not unusual for the author of the reviewed item to sue for defamation (and now for using footage without permission) if a negative review becomes popular.

Post reply on HN