From a point of view of a creator who's had there work copied for someone else's profit,
I created some music for cats. It was a bit of fun really, you wouldn't like it, but your cat might,
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKWUX7aMnlEK3edghsEnSyBU7FjosH0qd" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKWUX7aMnlEK3edghsEnS...</a><p>anyway, occasionally my music is copied and monetised on other youtube channels without me knowing.
While this annoys me, YouTubes approach to this is very good,
If I report this copyright infringement, YouTube allows me to enter an agreement with the copyright infringer for shared revenue or other.
I balance this multi tiered approach as very good, since this other channel may be getting better views than me, and the cost of marketing is so high, and this other user is effectively endorsing my brand and creating awareness for me, and to waiver their violation, I can enter a shared revenue agreement with them. This is a win/win for me as I get another opportunity to profit, and my music is shared in more places than just the places I manage to manually put it myself or pay someone to.
> Make platforms directly liable for all copyright infringements by their users, and then offer that they can avoid that unreasonable liability if they can show they’ve done everything in their power to prevent copyrighted content from appearing online – namely, by deploying upload filters (Article 13, paragraph 4). Which remain totally optional, of course! Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.<p>I have some personal story about this. A while ago a certain person decided to scan some books copyrighted by me and put it on Scribd. Every few weeks he'd scan one and upload it, saying that information should be free. I contacted Scribd and my experience was overly negative. Yes, they would wait a few days, then answer and remove the book. Then this person would reupload it, and the story repeated itself. Basically, the book was longer on rather than off Scribd. I repeatedly asked Scribd to take it more seriously, and, for example, remove the offending account, but they refused. They did it in the end after some weeks. Of course the same day that person uploaded all books again under another account. It all looked like a joke, as if the copyright law was some boring invention that they only pretended to observe.<p>Now, this was a few years ago, and maybe things changed since, I don't know. But at that time it felt like Scribd was cooperating more with the offender than with me.
I hope someone could explain <i>who</i> is supposed to check content, <i>under which conditions</i> and <i>how</i>. If this applies to anybody running a web site or offering hosting services I simply fail to see how this can be realistically implemented at all. I don't even understand the primary goal of this proposal for a law, and thus question it's adequateness (which gives rise to appeal before court). Criminal persecution is the police's/attorney's job; offloading these duties to private entities prompts the question why we need those institutions in the first place.
The proposal should also consider the product placement business model. For example, I create a movie, and I get some funding from a trusted advertiser because I said my famous hero actor will wear your shoes, use your earphones, use your phone, drive your car, shoot your guns, flash your badge, wear your glasses and drink your drink on film and at all press events. I say, I think I can get millions of views using clever marketing techniques. I won’t need to spend anything on distribution and promotion. I get the money and I release the film on pirate bay. I even cry my film was copied by the North Koreans and the Russians since the BBC is so eager shove it in people’s faces as they eat breakfast. Win/Win. The people can share and copy my film as much as they want, I still own the original copyright, and I would have monetised the product placement better than anybody else.
This article is a gloss on a more original source, which was submitted at <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17164244" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17164244</a>.
This sounds Orwellian to me.<p>We should not give in to so called "content producers". Their privileges are not more important than peoples rights.
The internet wayback machine is one of the biggest copyright thiefs in my opinion. I hope the proposal considers how that business model works and why it should be immune from prosecution
The EU is just a disaster in general.<p>Unless you believe corporatist technocracy is the future of civilisation.<p>This proposal is just another example of that process.
Related discussion<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17164244" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17164244</a><p>HN, unfortunately, seems biased towards laws like the GDPR and somehow believes that start-ups can no longer self regulate or Do-no-evil. I hope I am wrong regarding this.<p>Self-regulation was once the gold standard on boards like HN.<p>Imagine creating the Google search engine in 2018 without the new proposed EU copyright law in place. Seems difficult right? Most websites have anti-scraping techniques in place if you are not Google-bot. Now imagine, creating the next Google after laws like the new EU copyright law go live.<p>Laws like the GDPR are red tape and are poison to start-ups. Self regulation is the way to go and we need industry bodies who can stand up and talk to government bodies like the EU to come up with meaningful regulations which help both the industry and the end user.
> Make platforms directly liable for all copyright infringements by their users, and then offer that they can avoid that unreasonable liability if they can show they’ve done everything in their power to prevent copyrighted content from appearing online – namely, by deploying upload filters<p>I guess that's okay, as long as the EU provides those upload filters. Or a machine-readable specification of one. And as long as the EU is penalized for false positives.