Article 13 In Eu Options

[Storm Linnebjerg]

I guess this is bordering on a political debate, so I'm not gonna take sides:



As far as I can tell, in EU it means no more playing on backing tracks that you haven't made yourself, no more cover videos, no more videos that use any copyrighted music in a creative way.

Hmmm....

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

[Adam]

By trying to protect creativity, they will kill it. Sad but true. Many of artists begin to exist by doing covers of existing pieces. Those who want to become famous don't usually mind being "pirated" and those already famous will be fine anyway. I've read a few interviews and bands are mostly aware that vast majority of their income comes from live shows and merch.

How does it look for GMC's REC program etc.?

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

[Todd Simpson]

Good question. Usually this type of thing is a question of enforcement. It's mostly going to be an issue for big platforms like youtube/facebook as content creators whose work gets used for posts that get lots of views could be missing out on significant advert revenue. It always comes back to money. Sadly.

I'm sure Kris will know more.

By trying to protect creativity, they will kill it. Sad but true. Many of artists begin to exist by doing covers of existing pieces. Those who want to become famous don't usually mind being "pirated" and those already famous will be fine anyway. I've read a few interviews and bands are mostly aware that vast majority of their income comes from live shows and merch.

How does it look for GMC's REC program etc.?

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

[Kristofer Dahl]

From what I understand of this so far, this will not have any impact on GMC.

However it will have a major impact on those who want to make a living music/Internet. For example, US people will loose a huge market share of ad revenue given that the whole EU won't be able to access a big portion of youtube content.

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

[klasaine]

Typically hysterical USA business video propaganda put out by a company (Alphabet/Google) that has more fucking money than Hadrian.

1) It's only a proposal.
2) Even if it becomes law, it will have at least a 2 year grace period to "work out details".
3) Even as it stands now, it would only be on disputed or partially disputed copyright information. Key word: disputed. Videos get taken down now all the time for copyright infringement. I've had two warnings (and resolutions).
4) I can guarantee you that no 'cover' or mashup artists will be hurt in this legislation.

The bottom line is that Youtube, like most businesses, wants to pay out as little as possible. So they're gonna try to scare you into thinking that your cover of whatever will be blocked. Spotify, Pandora, etc. pay artists and let the public enjoy a 'free' tier. They don't pay much in royalties but they do pay - both from the free steams and the paid streams. Youtube has, up until very recently, been a completely FREE (to you) platform. Now they're trying, unsuccessfully, to get folks to pay a little. I don't think Youtube TV is as popular as they hoped it would be (duh). *When you only give your shit away - for like 10 years - you can't expect folks to start paying. Youtube makes it's money on ads. They'll pay some royalty money, which will be 'negotiated' to be minuscule, to have their platform content in the EU if they have to. The ad revenue will far outweigh their payout monies.

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

This post has been edited by klasaine: Nov 23 2018, 05:12 PM

[Todd Simpson]

It seemed like this is how it would play out when I started reading about it. This type of legislation is always focused on revenue so if there is blood in the water, (any content with lots of eyeballs and thus lots of ad revenue) it provides a nice hammer to swing in order to get ad revenue. For any content without a huge view count, I doubt it will have much impact. Some vids may just get blocked in europe as you mentioned. that seems the limit of things to worrry about. But we shall see
TOdd

Typically hysterical USA business video propaganda put out by a company (Alphabet/Google) that has more fucking money than Hadrian.

1) It's only a proposal.
2) Even if it becomes law, it will have at least a 2 year grace period to "work out details".
3) Even as it stands now, it would only be on disputed or partially disputed copyright information. Key word: disputed. Videos get taken down now all the time for copyright infringement. I've had two warnings (and resolutions).
4) I can guarantee you that no 'cover' or mashup artists will be hurt in this legislation.

The bottom line is that Youtube, like most businesses, wants to pay out as little as possible. So they're gonna try to scare you into thinking that your cover of whatever will be blocked. Spotify, Pandora, etc. pay artists and let the public enjoy a 'free' tier. They don't pay much in royalties but they do pay - both from the free steams and the paid streams. Youtube has, up until very recently, been a completely FREE (to you) platform. Now they're trying, unsuccessfully, to get folks to pay a little. I don't think Youtube TV is as popular as they hoped it would be (duh). *When you only give your shit away - for like 10 years - you can't expect folks to start paying. Youtube makes it's money on ads. They'll pay some royalty money, which will be 'negotiated' to be minuscule, to have their platform content in the EU if they have to. The ad revenue will far outweigh their payout monies.

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

[Storm Linnebjerg]

From what I was reading in several places there's a chance it will unfold to having your account banned? 3 strikes and you're out? At least that seems to be the consensus amongst the musicians I know from europe.

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

[Storm Linnebjerg]

https://saveyourinternet.eu/?j=15360&sf...002038&jb=5

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

[Storm Linnebjerg]

Really don't want this law passed through. Twitch are warning their users and trying to make people take a stand against it.

And from YouTube on Facebook:

Q: How would creators be impacted if the European Parliament version of Article 13 passes?
A: Creators would be especially hard hit. Videos that could be blocked include: educational videos, large number of official music videos, fan music covers, mashups, parodies and more.

Q: How would creators be impacted if the European Parliament version of Article 13 passes?
A: Creators would be especially hard hit. Videos that could be blocked include: educational videos, large number of official music videos, fan music covers, mashups, parodies and more.

Q: What would be the impact if the European Parliament version of Article 13 passes?
A: The risks associated w/accepting content uploads w/partial or disputed copyright information would be far too large for platforms such as YouTube.

Q: What changes with Article 13?
A: Proposed version of Article 13 would eliminate the existing notice-and-takedown system currently in place to protect rightsholders and platforms. This would make platforms liable - at the moment of upload - for any copyright infringement.

Q: What’s the status of Article 13?
A: On 9/12 the European Parliament voted to move forward w/Article 13. However it's not yet law. This language could be finalized by the end of the year, and EU member states may have up to two years to make the directive into national law.

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

[Rated Htr]

Here are some notions I have about the whole matter:

When the online platforms make statements that they will not even allow the upload of content if it appears to have copyrighted content, it makes sense to believe that statement. No company is gonna jeopardize having to pay money when they can avoid it. It can be said that the money they'll pay is just the add money that the creator of the video would get but when there is law involved, people can demand more money for various reasons.

When it is mentioned that this is to protect content creators, it really isn't. This will disincentivize people from creating more quality content or from resorting to available means of content. Plus, content that is not copyrighted at this moment will surely be so when people see they can make a profit from people making an error.

It is apparent that the majority of creators that have been "robbed" out of their "deserving" wages are the offline media.

Does this mean that I don't support the idea of protecting user content? Of course not. But this isn't the way.

What will happen, from my point of view is:
- Companies will make a system that prohibits anything that seems fishy and they won't promote systems with more improved AI (because there isn't any without major financial loss atm). Therefore, they'll take the safe route and just flag everything. This destroys the "immediatism" that comes from social platforms.

- Creators will make simpler content because most of them won't be bothered to create their own stuff to replace copyrighted content that they use.

- The creators that will make their own 100% content, are the ones who already have the means and capabilities for it. That means that it destroys the entrance of new potential talent that could rise from those platforms in numerous categories.

- Considering less content might be made and more reserved and with less audience due to the prohibitions or lower speed of delivery, the revenue will be less so even if the system were to be implemented, the owners would always get less than what people are making now.

I know that most of what I said is, in its very right, an interpretation. But it's difficult for me to see this as a benefit to us all, both consumers and content creators. My guess is that this a lobby for offline media to get back attention since it's being beaten by a new futuristic way of consuming content.

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

[Storm Linnebjerg]

Here are some notions I have about the whole matter:

When the online platforms make statements that they will not even allow the upload of content if it appears to have copyrighted content, it makes sense to believe that statement. No company is gonna jeopardize having to pay money when they can avoid it. It can be said that the money they'll pay is just the add money that the creator of the video would get but when there is law involved, people can demand more money for various reasons.

When it is mentioned that this is to protect content creators, it really isn't. This will disincentivize people from creating more quality content or from resorting to available means of content. Plus, content that is not copyrighted at this moment will surely be so when people see they can make a profit from people making an error.

It is apparent that the majority of creators that have been "robbed" out of their "deserving" wages are the offline media.

Does this mean that I don't support the idea of protecting user content? Of course not. But this isn't the way.

What will happen, from my point of view is:
- Companies will make a system that prohibits anything that seems fishy and they won't promote systems with more improved AI (because there isn't any without major financial loss atm). Therefore, they'll take the safe route and just flag everything. This destroys the "immediatism" that comes from social platforms.

- Creators will make simpler content because most of them won't be bothered to create their own stuff to replace copyrighted content that they use.

- The creators that will make their own 100% content, are the ones who already have the means and capabilities for it. That means that it destroys the entrance of new potential talent that could rise from those platforms in numerous categories.

- Considering less content might be made and more reserved and with less audience due to the prohibitions or lower speed of delivery, the revenue will be less so even if the system were to be implemented, the owners would always get less than what people are making now.

I know that most of what I said is, in its very right, an interpretation. But it's difficult for me to see this as a benefit to us all, both consumers and content creators. My guess is that this a lobby for offline media to get back attention since it's being beaten by a new futuristic way of consuming content.

Agreed! Thanks for your concern and input

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

[Rated Htr]

From what I understand of this so far, this will not have any impact on GMC.

However, it will have a major impact on those who want to make a living music/Internet. For example, US people will lose a huge market share of ad revenue given that the whole EU won't be able to access a big portion of youtube content.

Just to give my take on this, it doesn't have any impact on GMC because the content that is being used is owned by GMC. The backing tracks and the lessons themselves belong to GMC and, unless you inserted them into the systems that will be created to see copyright content, they wouldn't be flagged because they wouldn't be considered copyright content by youtube for example.

And even if it was, since it remains in the REC forum, there is no need for absolute immediatism, since the video will still be valid. And when a flag occurs, that means before it is uploaded, the content creator would be informed just like the current youtube system does, the only difference is that the video wouldn't be allowed to be visible until the creator gave permission.

Therefore, it shouldn't be a problem for GMC. Worst case scenario, you get an inbox full of youtube notifications for you to give permission for the videos

Typically hysterical USA business video propaganda put out by a company (Alphabet/Google) that has more fucking money than Hadrian.

1) It's only a proposal.
2) Even if it becomes law, it will have at least a 2 year grace period to "work out details".
3) Even as it stands now, it would only be on disputed or partially disputed copyright information. Key word: disputed. Videos get taken down now all the time for copyright infringement. I've had two warnings (and resolutions).
4) I can guarantee you that no 'cover' or mashup artists will be hurt in this legislation.

The bottom line is that Youtube, like most businesses, wants to pay out as little as possible. So they're gonna try to scare you into thinking that your cover of whatever will be blocked. Spotify, Pandora, etc. pay artists and let the public enjoy a 'free' tier. They don't pay much in royalties but they do pay - both from the free steams and the paid streams. Youtube has, up until very recently, been a completely FREE (to you) platform. Now they're trying, unsuccessfully, to get folks to pay a little. I don't think Youtube TV is as popular as they hoped it would be (duh). *When you only give your shit away - for like 10 years - you can't expect folks to start paying. Youtube makes it's money on ads. They'll pay some royalty money, which will be 'negotiated' to be minuscule, to have their platform content in the EU if they have to. The ad revenue will far outweigh their payout monies.

Of course, this also makes sense but the question here is to see who has the power.

Content Creators and Consumers don't really care if Youtube has to pay 10 euros or 10 million because it doesn't go to them. At the end of the day, everybody is thinking about what's in it for them.

What triggers people is the change of something that they like. Here consumers have no choice but to go with whatever the platforms decide. If Youtube really is a greedy company and decides they don't want to pay, consumers are the ones that suffer the major blow from that, not the platforms themselves. Especially because this only involves the EU, they still have their major market outside of it.

This Article at best, makes them lose some money from having a smaller audience. And they will prefer it that way because, like I said, who on Earth would take a deal that's basically:

"Hey, I'm gonna put this rule where you have to pay more money, invest more in your content control systems and not get anything in return!"

Of course, they're gonna prefer to just put a wall over anything that makes them fork that money. Even if during the grace period the system doesn't get well developed, they will still prefer to pay one or two fees instead of investing a whole lot of money into an infrastructure capable of scanning and analyzing millions of hours of content.

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

[Todd Simpson]

Honestly guys I think we may be getting a bit to concerned on this. We will just have to wait and see how it actually plays out, and how much enforcement ends up being done. Typically, the "Blood in the water" rule applies. If a given video has wads of views, it's likely to get some enforcement as it's got money from Ad rev. Others will probably just get the form letter from youtube saying that the content is owned by someone else.

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

[klasaine]

Honestly guys I think we may be getting a bit to concerned on this. We will just have to wait and see how it actually plays out, and how much enforcement ends up being done. Typically, the "Blood in the water" rule applies. If a given video has wads of views, it's likely to get some enforcement as it's got money from Ad rev. Others will probably just get the form letter from youtube saying that the content is owned by someone else.

Exactly.
Don't start freaking out like paranoid Americans that have incomplete (or non existent) information.

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

[Rated Htr]

It's not a question of freaking out or not.

I can't talk about other countries but in my country, Youtube and Instagram have already started taking measures. People's Insta Stories are being blocked for showcasing copyrighted music.

I am hoping for the best and that everything that's happening is misinterpretations done by us, people who understand nothing about laws. There was a response given by the Portuguese Representative of the European Union in the form of a written letter to the Portuguese Youtubers who launched an outcry and it failed to explain or enlighten people of the events and only served to further fuel a war.

Most offline media in Portugal are showcasing this news with partial standings. Inclusive there is something very alarming that happened when a TV Channel posted news regarding one of the #savetheinternet videos done by a famous Portuguese youtuber than they did an opinion comment saying something in the likes of "can't wait until Article 13 gets rid of these parasites" but forgot to change to the person's private facebook channel so they ended up commenting with the TV Network's own channel.

I still go about my day as normal until this takes effect but if people don't show their concerns about it (in Portugal we have had scheduled manifestations), they will pass it for good and they either own the people a complete justification of how they plan to implement this properly or just disregard it entirely.

If they see the chaos it has brought and see people asking questions, it should be their job to elucidate people and inform them if their point of view is wrong. The fact that they have failed to do so makes people think that what they predict might just be right.

To me, as I've mentioned before, this is what they appear to be saying:

"So, these platforms need to have better systems of reviewing people's content. Either invest in the AI (if it exists) or get human resources to properly review all of this content".

Youtube gets around 400 hours of videos per minute last I heard. It's is impossible for them to have resources to review every single piece of content and the AI, as far as I know, is not at a 100% level to do that level of fiscality.

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

This post has been edited by Rated Htr: Dec 15 2018, 03:53 AM

[Storm Linnebjerg]

Completely agree, Rated Htr. On every point.

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

[jstcrsn]

Completely agree, Rated Htr. On every point.

thats the first thing hitler did , started mediating the information the public got , then started feeding them his propaganda, If you look at Germany , they have gone so far to the left they are starting to police thought and speech and are mirroring almost exactly what Hitler did , Socialism - check, silencing for wrong think- check, jailing dissenting opinions- check ,and the funny thing is is that Germany is basically in charge of europe.
What it will really be used for is not allowing anyone to critic the government , they will shut them down saying that you can't use the news channels copy written material and thus silence their opposition , Like Hitler did

The best lie the devil ever told is that he didn't exist I.E. those that point out how immoral someone is are usually the worst offenders

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

[klasaine]

Yeah, just to bring it back to what "Article 13" is ...
The licensing agencies and publishing companies want to collect usage royalties on their copyrights. Concert halls, TV stations, movie studios, bars, shops, etc., any place that uses published/owned musical recordings - pay those fees and have for decades. *Spotify and Pandora do too. It's Youtube (Google/Alphabet) that doesn't want to pay and they don't want to go through the hassle of figuring out who's violating a copyright so yeah, they'll just use an algorithm to cut anything that flags it. Which is bullshit but that's what they're gonna do. Or, scare you into believing that that's what they'll do. In a wrongheaded and backward thinking, though well intentioned way, the 'article' is actually trying to get artists paid. At least the ones that wrote the songs and own copyrights. Some of those are the actual musicians and songwriters and some of those are big publishing companies as well as other media companies. It'll backfire.

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

This post has been edited by klasaine: Dec 16 2018, 06:29 AM

[Madfish]

Remember that it's not only about YouTube, nor music/videos. If I paste a copyrighted text on this forum, GMC would be liable for that. At least that's how I understand the main idea behind Article 13. IMHO it's close to idiotic. Do we really want to shut down all public discussion boards in EU?
Politicians just don't get the internet. Remember EU cookie regulations that went through nearly 10 years ago? How did that help anyone at all? I am sure we all love these annoying pop-ups. And now they'll just push all EU originating traffic towards VPNs or TOR.

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

[Storm Linnebjerg]

Remember that it's not only about YouTube, nor music/videos. If I paste a copyrighted text on this forum, GMC would be liable for that. At least that's how I understand the main idea behind Article 13. IMHO it's close to idiotic. Do we really want to shut down all public discussion boards in EU?
Politicians just don't get the internet. Remember EU cookie regulations that went through nearly 10 years ago? How did that help anyone at all? I am sure we all love these annoying pop-ups. And now they'll just push all EU originating traffic towards VPNs or TOR.

That's how I understand it and what I hear from a lot "outsiders" or people who seem to not really care that much. "It's only YouTube this or that". From what I understand it is ALL platforms, as you say.

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!