YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki Opposes EU Article 13 Copyright Legislation

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
22,120
YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki has written a blog post discussing the impact that the Article 13 legislation that recently passed the EU Parliament would have on creator content found on platforms such as YouTube. She says that the law could block content creators from uploading content to the service and YouTube could be forced to block the EU from viewing current videos on the service. YouTube would be forced to only accept content from large companies as the risk of liability would be too great to allow smaller creators a voice on the platform. She urges content creators to voice their concerns on social media with the hashtag #SaveYourInternet .

Article 13 as written threatens to shut down the ability of millions of people -- from creators like you to everyday users -- to upload content to platforms like YouTube. And it threatens to block users in the EU from viewing content that is already live on the channels of creators everywhere. This includes YouTube's incredible video library of educational content, such as language classes, physics tutorials and other how-to's.
 
It'd be interesting to see if a company would take such a gamble, betting that public backlash would overturn a less favorable law.

If they were to implement such a system (blocking individuals in EU, allowing only authenticated corps), I can imagine one of two things would happen. A company with a "don't give a f" attitude would step in to fill the market gap (driving these content creators to other channels) daring the EU to firewall them off or the public would get seriously pissed off.

My guess is, she's overreacting (to get the public to oppose the law before it goes to vote) and they have a mitigation strategy thought out as to not surrender the marketshare. Look what Google did for China with their DragonFly search index, they won't surrender the terroritory. The blog post seems targeted at content creators, so the play here seems to be to use them to disseminate the information to as wide of an audience as possible as they'll surely take to their channels with anti-13 videos.
 
Last edited:
In other words, it interferes with YouTubes ability to serve more ads.

Fair, but just because their motivation is selfish, it doesn't mean their position is wrong. The EU may have stumbled into doing some good in the near-term, of late, but the urge to control everything will inevitably beckon forth the wrath of the Law of Unintended Consequences. (Thanks, Paul.)
 
Last edited:
Fair, but just because their motivation is selfish, it doesn't mean their position is wrong. The EU may have stumbled into doing some good in the near-term, of late, but the urge to control everything will inevitably beckon forth the wrath of the Law of Intended Consequences.
I think you meant the Law Of Unintended Consequences.
 
It's funny how American companies become more civilized once they start operating in Europe.
 
In general I've been pleased with many of the EU's decisions to hold tech companies to some standard of behavior as to benefit the citizenry (ie GDPR, the suit against Google for anti competitive practices etc), but I'd have to look more closely into these worrisome elements such as Article 11 and Article 13. Its possible these are really harmful to free and open speech and could require hosts to curate / basically kowtow to copyright cartels etc. If this is the case they need to be rewritten as copyright is often used as a club to silence dissent or allow those in power to keep and maintain control / profit long after when it should have passed into the public domain (ie see: everything Disney has ever done).

I'm skeptical of Google / YouTube given their recent attitude towards the EU which as akin to a toddler who is angry after being given a time-out (such as the "Oh so you like privacy? Well then, we're going to stack on some additional $40 licensing fees to Android devices with Google apps in the EU to make up for not being able to exploit people anymore!" threat), but this doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong this time. Legislation that makes hosts culpable or places undue proactive requirements on them to filter for content - especially copyright - is rarely in the best interest of the populace and free expression.
 
Well, content creators have something they can make a video about now that won't be randomly demonitized.
 
Let's see, whose stock do I want to short... Theirtube's? Twittless's? Facepalm's? Hmmm, not crazy about any of them:

Article-13-meme-ban-1022148.jpg


At least they'll still have their meme's:

vpn-companies-after-the-eu-passed-article-13-add-they-36271420.png
 
I just read the YouTube blog, as linked, and dug pretty deep, and I'm really not seeing an explanation of _how_ this law actually works, beyond just a high level description, which could just be an interpretation.

We need more info as to how it is written before we can objectively be sure this is problematic in fact, or just YouTube trying to rally in their own interest.

I'm not going to take a position till I know what this really is, and YouTube isn't doing a proper job on that. Not entirely surprised the YouTube CEO is having communication problems here...
 
I just read the YouTube blog, as linked, and dug pretty deep, and I'm really not seeing an explanation of _how_ this law actually works, beyond just a high level description, which could just be an interpretation.

We need more info as to how it is written before we can objectively be sure this is problematic in fact, or just YouTube trying to rally in their own interest.

I'm not going to take a position till I know what this really is, and YouTube isn't doing a proper job on that. Not entirely surprised the YouTube CEO is having communication problems here...

It's been well reported. The way the Internet works now, is the USER is responsible for any copyrighted content they post. So for example, if I were to link a copyright protected video in these very forums, Hardocp wouldn't be liable. Under the proposed new law, it would be Hardocp that would be liable for content that I posted. As a result, Hardocp would need to either hire a much larger moderator pool to police against such actions [costing them a significant sum of money], or shut down the forums entirely to protect themselves from liability.

What I fully expect to happen is for the law to pass, and pretty much every major website to outright block the EU as a result, forcing them to give this one up. There's simply too much potential liability to allowing users to post content for companies to even bother risking it.
 
It's funny that they have no qualms about trying to "shut down the ability of millions of people -- from creators like you to everyday users -- to upload content to platforms like YouTube" when it comes to censoring people they disagree with...
 
YouTube would be forced to only accept content from large companies as the risk of liability would be too great to allow smaller creators a voice on the platform.

Huh, if only there were some large, multinational corporation with the money and power to defend these smaller content creators from litigation. These smaller content creators could use it as a distribution platform, and the multinational corporation could make money off of inserting ads into the videos!
 
"original content" is now a meme itself. nuff said

...and yea, what happened to all the money youtube was going to put in their original programming....
 
It's been well reported. The way the Internet works now, is the USER is responsible for any copyrighted content they post. So for example, if I were to link a copyright protected video in these very forums, Hardocp wouldn't be liable. Under the proposed new law, it would be Hardocp that would be liable for content that I posted. As a result, Hardocp would need to either hire a much larger moderator pool to police against such actions [costing them a significant sum of money], or shut down the forums entirely to protect themselves from liability.

What I fully expect to happen is for the law to pass, and pretty much every major website to outright block the EU as a result, forcing them to give this one up. There's simply too much potential liability to allowing users to post content for companies to even bother risking it.

If it really boils down to how you explained it here, then it sounds like a horrible legislation aimed at destroying the argument.

However, your last paragraph suggests to me that you're:
a. lying
b. trolling
c. childishly naive

In other words, I see no reason to trust your statement.
 
So the EU is just chosing to be a content wasteland.... I say let em.

That's more bandwidth for others lol.

Maybe they'll have more commercials as a result, wouldn't that be fun?
 
Only YouTube is allowed to censor YouTube users, not the EU.

The hypocrisy is real.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Meeho
like this
Copyright laws are badly in need of revision, especially as it keeps getting extended to far beyond the original intent. It WAS to protect the creator - now it protects the corporations. This EU proposal is a step int he wrong direction. Again.

That said, in the end I predict this is all just lip service from YouTube. They will cave and do whatever they have to. Just going by past history.
 
I was born in Europe (mom is European) then moved to the States in my early 20s. I love it here but Americans do like getting fisted in the ass with no soap by corporations and the government.

USA USA. Not to mention we pay the company, many more times other countries, *for* the soap they use to roto root our buttholes!
 
To be fair this would be nothing new. Germany's copyright laws made 90% of youtube unavailable for viewing already. So basically they'd just extend that net to the entire eu. I'm not saying it's OK, I'm saying the people don't have a say in this. I doubt 80 million germans don't have the voice to oppose it.

I was against brexit, but recently it seems the EU is hell bent on proving the brexiters right.
 
It's funny that they have no qualms about trying to "shut down the ability of millions of people -- from creators like you to everyday users -- to upload content to platforms like YouTube" when it comes to censoring people they disagree with...
It's hysterical.
 
However, your last paragraph suggests to me that you're:
a. lying
b. trolling
c. childishly naive

In other words, I see no reason to trust your statement.
It wasn't a statement, it was an expression of one's own expectation. So unless he's lying about his own expectations I'm not sure what do you mean, by not trusting it / a. lying

Second your points are not arguments. Lying? About what? Trolling? Explain what is trolling about it? It is not an unreasonable expectation. Many US based outlets choose to block EU countries as a result of GDPR already. Naive in what way? What is naive about it?
 
It wasn't a statement, it was an expression of one's own expectation. So unless he's lying about his own expectations I'm not sure what do you mean, by not trusting it / a. lying

Second your points are not arguments. Lying? About what? Trolling? Explain what is trolling about it? It is not an unreasonable expectation. Many US based outlets choose to block EU countries as a result of GDPR already. Naive in what way? What is naive about it?

I do not believe that google is to abandon the market. Even if it's just youtube. I guess I don't believe the world is going to be divided again.
 
I do not believe that google is to abandon the market. Even if it's just youtube. I guess I don't believe the world is going to be divided again.
I don't expect them to completely abandon the market either. But I do foresee a whole lot of blocked content if they can't work out something in a backroom deal with the eu.

It depends on how they choose to enforce article 13, as it is almost impossible to fully enforce. It would basically kill the internet as we now know it. If everyone was only allowed to post their own content. This basically means you cannot share a link on this forum even. So this is much bigger than youtube. [H] often uses german sites as news sources. That would be impossible if they enforce article 13, unless they pay ridiculous referral fees.
 
I think we need to move to a data-decentralized or protocol-decentralized internet so who is hosting or downloading what cannot be tracked. The bs control we are allowing govt and corporations is just enabling them to abuse their positions of power.
 
I hear almost no one talking about the REAL content creators. These are the people whos art is being infringed upon. Currently they often have almost no course of action to hold pirates accountable. So what would your solution be? If youtube is going to make money off of everyone who posts videos to me it only seems fair that they should at least have to pay what they do make to the original content creator. Instead the creator is forced to try and go after some nebulous person who may or may not be trackable in any way. Any random person can just upload your song, make money off of it, then get it taken down. Or they can just upload your song and youtube can make money off of it and you get nothing.
 
I hear almost no one talking about the REAL content creators. These are the people whos art is being infringed upon. Currently they often have almost no course of action to hold pirates accountable. So what would your solution be? If youtube is going to make money off of everyone who posts videos to me it only seems fair that they should at least have to pay what they do make to the original content creator. Instead the creator is forced to try and go after some nebulous person who may or may not be trackable in any way. Any random person can just upload your song, make money off of it, then get it taken down. Or they can just upload your song and youtube can make money off of it and you get nothing.
Money from the copyrighted content already goes to the owner.
 
I don't expect them to completely abandon the market either. But I do foresee a whole lot of blocked content if they can't work out something in a backroom deal with the eu.

It depends on how they choose to enforce article 13, as it is almost impossible to fully enforce. It would basically kill the internet as we now know it. If everyone was only allowed to post their own content. This basically means you cannot share a link on this forum even. So this is much bigger than youtube. [H] often uses german sites as news sources. That would be impossible if they enforce article 13, unless they pay ridiculous referral fees.

In the short term, sites where users can upload content (we'll keep using Youtube as an example) will and are expected to implement much more stringent automatic filtering. The automatic filters already have a reputation of flagging legit content; this problem will get significantly worse as Youtube will need even stronger filters due to the increase in liability on their side. This in turn will result in a lot more people fighting to get their (often legitimate) content restored, costing both time and money. Plus there's the liability for every video that makes it through the filters. Over a long enough period, the economics simply don't make much sense.

It depends on how they choose to enforce article 13, as it is almost impossible to fully enforce. It would basically kill the internet as we now know it. If everyone was only allowed to post their own content. This basically means you cannot share a link on this forum even. So this is much bigger than youtube. [H] often uses german sites as news sources. That would be impossible if they enforce article 13, unless they pay ridiculous referral fees.

There's a reason why the phrase "link tax" has been thrown around, since that's essentially what would happen if Article 13 were enforced. Want to post a link to an overseas article? You have to pay them for it.
 
There's a reason why the phrase "link tax" has been thrown around, since that's essentially what would happen if Article 13 were enforced. Want to post a link to an overseas article? You have to pay them for it.
Whatever we call it it is bullshit. If that law is enforced. It's not that you have to pay for it as the uploader. if I post a link to an article hosted in the EU on this forum, the EU will force [H] to pay for it. Obviously that won't work. Same for youtube, or facebook, or twitter. To them it would cost billions, that's why they'll outright ban all links from the eu, there is no other way. Unless the law remains unenforced and used as a means to censor undesirable content only. Which is still bad, and shady, but at least doesn't break the net.
 
Money from the copyrighted content already goes to the owner.

But the content goes up on youtube whether the owner wants it or not. That fucks up their negotiating position. If they could sue Google for infringing content they'd probably get a better deal.
 
But the content goes up on youtube whether the owner wants it or not. That fucks up their negotiating position. If they could sue Google for infringing content they'd probably get a better deal.

There's already a mechanism to deal with this; that was the entire point of laws like the DMCA: If infringing content is found, a request is put in to take it down. Lawsuits are reserved only for when websites ignore takedown requests. Even then, content creators are complaining that automatic filtering is costing them money due to entire videos being taken down [for example: singing one line of a song is enough to get a video taken down. Even in-game music is often triggering filters].

EDIT

The argument is who is responsible for policing content. The current system puts the user at fault, with websites only required to take down such content when discovered. The proposed system puts the website at fault, which will force them to police user uploaded content in a much stronger way.
 
Oh, poor YouTube, now they will have to pay artist for their work.

Not sure what you read, but that's not the problem with Article 13. The problem is that the way it's worded makes the Platform, ie, youtube, vimeo, facebook, basically any website that has users posting to it, ... take on the legal responsibility of infringing material, not the user.
Basically, if I posted a clip of let's say some European Football TV broadcast to youtube or facebook, they can get sued since it is now on their platform.

The reason it will affect the small users, is that the platforms can't guarantee that the content being posted isn't infringing on any copyrights so in the end will hurt the smaller content creators.
 
But the content goes up on youtube whether the owner wants it or not. That fucks up their negotiating position. If they could sue Google for infringing content they'd probably get a better deal.

I think we all understand that. But you do realize that the proposed system favors people who HAVE MONEY? If google has to become legally liable they will only show content in which the money they spend to vet the content legality can be recouped. This means people with lesser means and followings are fuck out of luck and need to go back into the shadows. If we can't be honest about who really wins and who really loses...then there is no point.

But lets put some context. Youtube pays ~$2000 per 1 million views assuming the viewers actually watch the adds. We know it is much lower...somewhere between 10 and 20%. This means we are down to ~$300 and youtube also takes their cut of that $300 (~50%). Thus if you take at least take a little reasonable faith it will take a "cheap" IP lawyer the time to watch a typical 10 minute video and make snap judgement you are at least looking at $15-$20 to have your video reviewed per 10 minutes of content. This means if I make a 30 minute tutorial on different ways to tie knots and upload it to youtube, I would either have to pay youtube $45-$60 just for a "review" before it could be viewed and I would have to get 300k-400k views just to recover my "review costs".
 
Last edited:
Not sure what you read, but that's not the problem with Article 13. The problem is that the way it's worded makes the Platform, ie, youtube, vimeo, facebook, basically any website that has users posting to it, ... take on the legal responsibility of infringing material, not the user.
Basically, if I posted a clip of let's say some European Football TV broadcast to youtube or facebook, they can get sued since it is now on their platform.

The reason it will affect the small users, is that the platforms can't guarantee that the content being posted isn't infringing on any copyrights so in the end will hurt the smaller content creators.

Pretty much exactly this.

Another example: I post a link to a Youtube video to content that is Copyright protected in the EU here on these forums. [H] can now be sued. How is [H] supposed to police this? Because you know people WILL abuse this to get websites they do not supported sued by posting content they know is protected by EU copyright laws.

The potential for abuse here is simply too great to rely on companies NOT suing to protect their content; this is simply a dumb law that will result in massive content restrictions and the shutdown of many internet forums due to liability concerns.
 
To be fair this would be nothing new. Germany's copyright laws made 90% of youtube unavailable for viewing already. So basically they'd just extend that net to the entire eu. I'm not saying it's OK, I'm saying the people don't have a say in this. I doubt 80 million germans don't have the voice to oppose it.

I was against brexit, but recently it seems the EU is hell bent on proving the brexiters right.
4th Reich. Europe has too many authoritarian lovers. They need to make the step and accept personal accountability. It's attractive to acquiesce blame for your fate in life to higher forces.
 
Back
Top