Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube CEO says EU regulation will be bad for creators

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 121 posts

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

#61

Post by DanBC »

brainwad wrote: post #26
dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #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…

The EU directive incentivises web platforms to take an extremely copyright-holder-friendly position, since there are massive penalties for allowing content that is found to be infringing, but no penalties for refusing to host content that is not infringing. People (and companies they work for) respond to incentives.

What massive penalties?

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

#62

Post by feri339 »

shady-lady wrote: post #42
knaik94 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the fact that so little has human oversight and no direct way of disputing with a human is probably how they can handle it.

Exactly. So the solution YouTube has isn't appropriate. They should invest in a better solution even if that involves having more humans in the loop for review/approval. That's the true cost of their business. They'd just like to portray it as the law being an ass rather than their solution being inadequate for the laws. It's a clear case of "Our machines aren't humans and we don't want to have to comply with laws th…

How would you ever manually review 400 hours of video per minute (likely much more by now). It's just impossible. And who is to say that the human reviewers would make no mistakes. It's not always a clear cut decision I'm guessing.

So either you have an automated and overzealous ContentID system or you limit upload capabilities for smaller creators (which would be the death of the internet).

Obviously the best solution would be to burden the copyright owners with prooving that they own certain content. So just DMCA pretty much. The copyright system is just so broken really. It only favors big content owners and middle men.

This whole shitty EU law comes down to this: Old media/distributers were asleep at the wheel for 20 years. Now they realize they're being replaced. So they fight back the only big slow incumbents know how. Legislation and law suits.

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

#63

Post by pluma »

simias wrote: post #32
nkkollaw wrote: post #13

The EU has passed this law so that it can be there waiting to be used to shut down dissidents. It doesn't make sense otherwise. These are smart people. With mostly bad ideas IMHO, but smart. They know what they're doing. This law has too many issues to be good for regular people.

The EU has passed this law because of the lobbying of the record industry, movie industry etc... There's really no need to search for some Big Brother conspiracy theory. Maybe the law can be abused that way but I doubt that's the main motivation.

The record and movie industry? No, Europe has a different industry lobbying these issues that Americans tend to be oblivious about: newspaper publishers. A lot of the regulation is lifted verbatim from laws newspaper publishers lobbied for in Germany. This is why the regulation deals with issues like citing news stories -- a direct result of newspaper publishers going after Google.

The content filter however seems to be the logical result of YouTube's impasse with collecting societies like GEMA and its ilk -- not quite the equivalent of the RIAA because of the complex legal situation surrounding its licensing requirements (tl;dr: in some situations you can be subject to GEMA licensing fees without actually using GEMA registered music).

In a nutshell: RIAA is infamous for going after teenagers who illegally fileshared a few MP3s, GEMA is infamous for going after small businesses and non-profit events for publicly playing or performing music without permission. They're both problematic but in very different ways.

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

#65

Post by jobigoud »

danso wrote: post #31
ilikerashers wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was surprised when the best way to watch UFC 229 (PPV) was simply typing it into YouTube and watching full HD quality. YouTube won't do anything unless government action forces them to.

Content ID seems pretty robust* for non-live content. I uploaded a copy of one of the few wide-release U.S. movies in the public domain ("His Girl Friday" [0]) and was hit with a takedown notice instantaneously as the upload finished. I didn't contest it at the time, and I wonder if it's because Content ID was triggered by the Columbia Pictures fanfare/logo in the opening. [0] https://archive.org/details/his_girl_fri…

> Content ID seems pretty robust* for non-live content.

It's overly aggressive and has tons of false positive.

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

#66

Post by mrweasel »

pjc50 wrote: post #35

Just so we're all on the same page, this is article 13.1: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL... "Information society service providers that store and provide to the public access to large amounts of works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users shall, in cooperation with rightholders, take measures to ensure the functioning of agreements concluded with rightholders for the use of the…

I think it would be pretty good for YouTube, as you say, if it wasn't for:

> The service providers shall provide rightholders with adequate information on the functioning and the deployment of the measures, as well as, when relevant, adequate reporting on the recognition and use of the works and other subject-matter.

If I hold the right to any video, or music, YouTube is now required to tell me how their system for identifying copy-right violations work. I suspect this is the part they don't like, because their system does in fact not work particularly well. It works as well as any technical person would expect, but a lawyer at Sony or Disney will have unreasonable expectations about the correctness of Content-ID.

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

#67

Post by leereeves »

tzs wrote: post #60
kibwen wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be happy to cheer them on if there were any indication that this represented a legitimate change of heart. But we all know that as soon as they get their way in Europe, their concern for creators will mysteriously and instantly evaporate. I believe that favoring small players over large ones is a benefit to society, so I will continue to dismiss YouTube's outright hypocrisy until such time as they have earned the…

Because they have some policies that are unfriendly in some circumstances to creators, it is hypocritical of them to oppose the imposition of other policies that are more unfriendly and/or unfriendly in different circumstances to creators?

It's hypocritical of them to claim they care about creators while treating creators badly.

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

#68

Post by gotocake »

feri339 wrote: post #62
shady-lady wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. So the solution YouTube has isn't appropriate. They should invest in a better solution even if that involves having more humans in the loop for review/approval. That's the true cost of their business. They'd just like to portray it as the law being an ass rather than their solution being inadequate for the laws. It's a clear case of "Our machines aren't humans and we don't want to have to comply with laws th…

How would you ever manually review 400 hours of video per minute (likely much more by now). It's just impossible. And who is to say that the human reviewers would make no mistakes. It's not always a clear cut decision I'm guessing. So either you have an automated and overzealous ContentID system or you limit upload capabilities for smaller creators (which would be the death of the internet). Obviously the best soluti…

Maybe if you can’t manage your platform, the problem is that your platform shouldn’t be so big? In the same way that the answer to packing a club that can safely hold 100 people with 1000 people isn’t to shrug and say “well, of course we can’t safely manage this many, what did you expect?”

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

#69

Post by okyougotmenow »

sctb wrote: post #58
okyougotmenow wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zucc, bless his heart, is only Jewish. Wojcicki is both Jewish and female, and therefore has an innate 4x resistance to criticism.

We don't need unsubstantive troll comments here, so please don't post them. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

It was a humorous but perfectly substantive comment to me. I give you some credit for at least responding.

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

#70

Post by inetknght »

tialaramex wrote: post #56
pluma wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem isn't DMCA. The problem is Content ID, which allows rights holders to take down other creators' content automatically. YouTube goes out of its way to grant rights holders a level of control that wouldn't be possible with a strict interpretation of the DMCA because an illegitimate DMCA takedown request would be a felony whereas an illegitimate Content ID claim goes unpunished. EDIT: Note however that Artic…

> an illegitimate DMCA takedown request would be a felony No. DMCA takedown requests go like this "I represent Bozo Media, they own all sharks wearing hats, and this video is infringing on their rights, take it down" The only part that's under penalty of perjury (a felony) is the claim that you represent Bozo Media. If you do, you have not committed a crime regardless of whether the rest of what you wrote is obvious…

A DCMA request should also include a statement claiming truthiness at penalty of perjury, shouldn't it?
Post reply on HN