You are here

PRS copyright reforms

Page 2 of 2

Re: PRS copyright reforms

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 3:05 pm
by Guest
CS70 wrote:Thank you, valid points both.

As a content creator I am still of the opinion that the benefits outweight these issues, but now I understand better the reasoning.

Appreciated!

Thank you for that - it really is a difficult question. As a creator yourself you could certainly tell if someone was being creative or a shyster. Unfortunately when lawyers get involved it's another question entirely and for me that is the root of most copyright problems.

Re: PRS copyright reforms

PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2018 1:56 pm
by blinddrew
Still Vibrations has covered a lot of the key stuff from a creative point of view, my comment about the domination of the big three is from a practical point of view.
Article 13 requires pre-filtering. That means any company that might host any content has to be able to identify and block infringing content before it goes up. Which means for any operation at scale, this needs to be automatic. As we've mentioned before, algorithms can be taught to be good at identifying bits of content, but there are two flaws in the plan:
1) Who has the complete list of copyrighted content that must be filtered?
Answer: no one. No one person or company has a database of copyrighted content. This makes building your filter very difficult because you need to cross reference multiple databases, with different rules in different territories (and different rights owners).
2) Algorithms don't do context. This means lots, and I mean lots, of legitimate speech and use will be censored.
Both of these factors mean that companies will need huge teams of human resource to handle appeals, counter-notices, partial matches etc.
The only companies who have the skills and resources to create these kinds of filters are the established big players. A start-up, which may want to offer a much better deal to creators, can't compete in this legal space. The requirement is too onerous and the risk of non-compliance is too costly. They won't get funding or insurance.
So what we're effectively doing is outsourcing our European web censorship to a small collection of large American companies.
I'd be very surprised if that's what people think they'll be voting for.

Just to be clear though, there are a lot of really good suggestions and approaches elsewhere in the act, but sections 11 and 13 are terrible.

Re: PRS copyright reforms

PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2018 2:18 pm
by Folderol
@blinddrew
You have zeroed very precisely on my greatest concerns. Ones that I think outweighs all the benefits.

Re: PRS copyright reforms

PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2018 4:18 pm
by blinddrew
It is enormously frustrating. Copyright needs reform to bring it inline with the reality of how people work, share and create - and there's some really good stuff in the rest of the proposals. But key to the modern creative process is an open web. The double whammy of this in the EU and the net neutrality repeal in the US have a very real threat of pushing the web back to a publishing platform for big business rather than a place for everyone to share.
To be frank, a free and open web had done far more for me as a creator than copyright ever has - but I accept that's not going to be the case for a lot of the people on this forum. :)

Re: PRS copyright reforms

PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2018 6:33 pm
by CS70
blinddrew wrote:A start-up, which may want to offer a much better deal to creators, can't compete in this legal space.

Appreciate the reasoning, but here I think where it's incorrect. Or, at best, a speculation.

No start up would ever offer a better deal to creators - not a startup that survives very long at least.

Business works exactly the opposite way: the largest you are, the better condition you can give to customers and supply chain partners, so long there's enough competition (which is why is so critically important to have strong, continent or world-wide governmental organizations which can produce and enforce anti-monopoly laws.. but that's for another thread).

Small companies are extremely unlikely have the will and the capability to offer any better condition to anyone. Look at Spotify... that is a exactly a startup for you. Better conditions for the creator are the last thing they care for.

A large company can be challenged in court, if necessary, and cannot fly under the radar. If there is any possibility of getting better conditions for recorded music, it will happen with big companies, good laws and powerful courts which have the wherewithal to enforce them. That a Far West situation could be better in any way, it seems like a totally illogical position to me (I get the romance of course: who doesn't like a good western, but from the comfort of one's sofa?).

So what we're effectively doing is outsourcing our European web censorship to a small collection of large American companies.

This is an over-dramatization built over a misunderstanding. The whole business model of Facebook, Google, YouTube Twitter and companies such as these is to not discriminate. That's why they have ended up in trouble in the last months! They don't care what political side you are, which tastes you like, which music you do - whatever content attracts public, the better - as it drives advertisement revenue and data collection that can be re-sold for profit. It's the new radio, the new TV, the new supermarket membership card.
In other words these companies have a very, very strong built-in incentive to let pass as much content they can. The less regulation there are, the happier they are. That's why they 've been fighting with their nails to avert this kind of legislation. They only exercise censorship when they are compelled to by a disgusted general public.

If you do think that Fb and Google are too dominant, it makes no sense to oppose the only thing that can rein them in.

Beyond that: once upon a time opening a restaurant ment cooking something and have the space to serve it. Nowadays, any restaurant must comply with stringent hygienic rules, storage protocols, seating regulations etc; it is subject to frequent controls, and gets closed if it doesn't pass. The reason for that is that so the likelihood of dying out of food poisoning is much less, which we may agree to is a good thing. Of course that leads to a much bigger cost in running a restaurant than just cooking some food, and precludes some people from opening one! I guarantee that there are many less startups in restoration than there otherwise could be. Doesn't seem to have ever hurt Jamie a little bit. ;-)

There are dozen of other examples, from financial institutions which need quite strict requirements in place to open shop, to garages with security requirements and so forth. Similarly, if you want to deal with copyrighted content on a business basis, it's only natural that you must have in place the machinery to do so - both monitoring and administrative. I'd bloody hope so! :)

Re: PRS copyright reforms

PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2018 8:22 pm
by blinddrew
I recognise your arguments but I disagree with most of them! :)
Fundamentally the internet has grown to be what it is now, good and bad, on the principle that a platform is not liable for the action of its users. This legislation shifts that responsibility and I think that's a bad thing.

Re: PRS copyright reforms

PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2018 11:19 am
by CS70
blinddrew wrote:I recognise your arguments but I disagree with most of them! :)
Fundamentally the internet has grown to be what it is now, good and bad, on the principle that a platform is not liable for the action of its users. This legislation shifts that responsibility and I think that's a bad thing.

Hehe that's the good thing about different people :)

It was the same in the Far West in the US, initially, anyone can buy a rifle and the seller isn't responsible of the user actions..

hold on, it's still like that :D

Re: PRS copyright reforms

PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2018 11:46 am
by Guest
Over past ten years I’ve uploaded a good few vids on my GlobalWarning Youtube channel where, I’ve edited clips from major movies ‘Singin’ In the Rain’ or from say the news coverage of 9/11etc to suit my own music, I put in a lot of hours and wasn’t expecting and am not getting any payment, however I’ve noticed that fairly recently nearly all the stuff I’ve used, Paramount, Warner Brothers etc, Beeb being the exception, are now listed (when I sign in,) as the copyright holders, so there must be some kind of automated system cos I didn’t tell ‘em, other than credit the proper rights holder at end of vid, so it seems there must already be some kind of 'aesthetic' acceptance already operating behind the scenes.

I did it cos I’m a creative little sod and felt that I could learn and achieve something worthwhile as I also think the vid's have entertainment value as minor works of er, art, they also bring those old movies to the attention of those that would normally shun them…

I’m kinda pleased how this worked out cos that is wot I envisaged, I knew I wouldn’t ever get paid, but felt they shouldn’t mind cos I’ve given them something new, and for free and now they get paid not me.

It’s us minnows that need protecting, not the big boys, er sharks.

Us minnows need our own platform, not a multi nationals, an altruistic platform provided by gov’s/tax/charity etc wotever.

However, if one wants to get paid for incorporating others work into their own then one would need to contact copyright holders and seek a licensing contract or similar… it’s the struggling unsigned/unknown artists that need protection not the major players, as, see above, they can look after themselves.

Image

Re: PRS copyright reforms

PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2018 2:12 pm
by Guest
Hmmm, got me finking for all of two sec’s.

Let’s imagine my music/art becomes hugely desirable to many many millions of… not too diff I t’ink you’ll all agree.

So ‘oo, really owns the copyright?

As in, suppose my new-found popularity pulls in punters for Warner et al, do I then deserve some dosh? Can I threaten to pull da plug if’n they don’t cough-up?

Image

YouTube can prob stop me pulling the plug I suppose, Oh Well!

Image

Tough life innit.

Re: PRS copyright reforms

PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2018 6:28 pm
by blinddrew
We build on what's gone before, that's how 'genres' start.
Unfortunately the copyright rules have been driven by quite a small set of stakeholders and only run in one direction.

ContentID on youtube is probably the best content identifying algorithm out there, this is one of the reasons why I say the new legislation will prevent any new challengers entering the market.

Hugely frustrating because there is some good stuff elsewhere in the bill.

Re: PRS copyright reforms

PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2018 6:29 pm
by CS70
LdashD wrote:So ‘oo, really owns the copyright?

If you have borrowed other people's work to create a work and the work starts producing some serious amount of money, you'll quickly find out that it becomes a very tough question indeed - and probably expensive as well.

For sampling, if money is involved it seems the consensus nowadays is to clear permission and fees or percentage cuts beforehand. If no money is involved, generally nobody cares.

And yes, YT has implemented audio fingerprint quite a few years back. It's far from perfect but better than nothing.

Re: PRS copyright reforms

PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2018 7:55 pm
by blinddrew
CS70 wrote:And yes, YT has implemented audio fingerprint quite a few years back. It's far from perfect but better than nothing.
Bit more advanced than that now, it's evolved a lot over the last few years. Which is why it pays out so much.