I watch a decent amount of YouTube, but if it went away, I don’t think that it would be a net loss to humanity given what YT shows to children [0], and how YT radicalizes viewers [1]. It’s actually Patreon that pays my favorite creators, not YT, so they could protentially distribute videos via any other site. A new site for discovery would likely rise up, if Patreon didn’t do that themselves.
This is the entire platform vs publisher argument that tech companies have been hiding under for years. No one is responsible for content, and look what that’s gotten us. I would shed no tears if YT ended operation in the EU, where I live.
You're severely downplaying the amount of educational content that it has to offer. If youtube went down overnight, it -would- be a huge loss.
If you give your children unfettered access to youtube, that's your own fault as a parent. Youtube should be better about handling this but I think it's more of a communication issue.
Youtube is essentially a medium unto itself. A LOT of people use it so there's going to be good, and there's going to be bad. You can make the case of "radicalizing people" for just about any other medium that people consume.
In the end, it's basically what you make of it. You can find a wealth of diverse channels to watch and grow from, or you can watch drivel.
It isn't any different than the trash on tv or in pulp novels, except that individual people have more power and freedom to create things. If you think differently then you're just looking at older mediums with rose-tinted glasses.
I don't watch children's videos, so I'll leave that factor aside. All your citations are to opinion pieces written by people with an agenda to push, i.e. not fact, not by a long shot. I watch YouTube for education and entertainment. The loss of all the educational content, by itself, would be a massive loss to humanity. If YouTube were to go down, some educators will re-upload their content to other places. Moreover, radical activists would be the among the first to adopt YouTube's replacements, thereby solving nothing.
> No one is responsible for content, and look what that’s gotten us.
I suspect your views are coloured by the kind of things you watch. YouTube's algorithms have adapted to your viewing profile. Most of my recommendations are for science, math, and music pedagogy. From where I stand, YouTube has gotten us to a great place.
I think it would be a huge loss. I couldn't live without the educational content on Youtube. Sure, they could move it elsewhere. But, Youtube has enabled this network to thrive. It's the single biggest library of visual edu content. Channels like Ted-Ed,Crash Course, Physics Girl,Vsauce, Engineering Explained, Khan Acad, MITOCW, a16z, freecodecamp, 3blue1brown,asapScience, SciShow,Computerphile,Numberphile,Hak5,LiveOverflow, How stuffworks, Jacob Clifford, Derek Banas, sentdex,Corey Schafer,Minute physics,Tinkernut, Tom Scott, Y Combinator, oh and 2 Minute Papers.
Youtube bascially played a major role in democratizing creation of content :educational, creative etc.
And by the way, it's still not clear how much profit YT makes. The infra costs etc are huge. It's Google's $$$ which subsidizes YT content. personally, when I see the amount of value I am deriving, I think I owe a decent amount of money to YT. I am a student right now, but will start giving creators money asap.
Of course, it would have been better if Youtube had started their Donate option sooner. I think they have failed to creatively monetize users and compensate creators. (i know about ads, not creative,but it works)
The Alternative Influence Network thing is based on outright fabricated data by the way. Becca Lewis draws direct links between people who have never collaborated or appeared on eachother's channels (the criteria described for the linkages), to draw the absurd conclusion that Richard Spencer and Tim Pool are part of some conspiratorial "network".
Anyone who takes the AIN report seriously either hasn't verified the claims, or agrees that these people should be misrepresented and smeared.
Your view of YouTube is myopic, and ignores the immense cultural resource that exists there. You have no idea what would be lost if the EU chased it away, but you're willing to find out just to spite some people you resent; and you resent them based on false information you accepted because it fit your lens.
This is like saying that all the smut in libraries is ruining society and the world would be better off if all the libraries closed. Those educational books would still be available elsewhere, etc etc.
I use YouTube all the time to learn to do things around the house. My wife and I recently completed a bathroom renovation and the only thing we didn't do ourselves was the plumbing, including completely replacing the tile and patching the walls. It looks fabulous.
Sure, I could probably have eventually found that information elsewhere, but it was almost all on YouTube and very easy to find. I looked up multiple videos on each task and figured out what the best advice was and even got to see it done multiple ways.
Losing YouTube at this point would be a huge loss.
You have seriously confused things, the EU copyright law isn't targetting YT, it's targetting all platforms that users are able to publish their own content, so you really aren't left with alternatives for content creators to switch to paid by Patreon supporters or not. Even Hacker News is targetted under the law and has to pay link tax when linking to content. So you should reconsider your nonchalant attitude.
I think that the educational content on YouTube can definitely outweigh any and all of its issues, as long as we are seeing YouTube for what it is. I am incapable of describing the breadth of knowledge that can be accessed on that site, so I will not. I can definitely see the argument that YouTube is a net-harm for children under some circumstances, but I would definitely be sad to see that amount of useful information be unavailable for everyone because it is bad for children. It is not a babysitter, and no one should trust it to be. I reject these "think of the children" arguments for something that is not designed for children to begin with.
> I watch a decent amount of YouTube, but if it went away, I don’t think that it would be a net loss to humanity given what YT shows to children
The good old "think of the children" argument used by authoritarian puritans.
> and how YT radicalizes viewers
As opposed to TV? Cable news? Newspapers? Or any other media?
> No one is responsible for content, and look what that’s gotten us.
Where has it gotten us?
> I would shed no tears if YT ended operation in the EU, where I live.
As an american, I feel the same way. Why don't you guys create your own youtube and stop trying to censor everyone else? Oh you can't because of the EU onerous regulations. How ironic.
I hate the pro-censorship lobby that has reared its ugly head on hacker news. Everyday, there is a barrage of comments sneakily supporting and defending censorship. Strange.
And your "sources" are highly biased at best and "fake news" at worst. It's like asking the telegram company what they think of telephones or the horse what they think of cars.
Market leaders are generally in favor of regulation, for that exact reason. Sometimes they'll play the protest game in public, but privately they are happy to see regulation.
If YouTube is actually lobbying against this both in public and in private, then I would personally consider that extremely strong evidence this is really bad. However, I have no inside info on their private position.
What are they supposed to be affording that's actually required in the Directive, like explicitly. Does it say "content must be scanned" or is it more "carriers must ensure content is licensed". If it's the later what's to stop them just adding a "is this licensed" tick box [aka check-box] to the upload form; which IIRC YouTube already have?
They, YouTube, keep mentioning science videos and such but I can't work out what they mean, why would that be any more blocked than cat videos, or videos of people falling over, or whatever else YouTube is hosting -- is quality content somehow more at risk or is that just YouTube's attempt to spin/market their opposition?
I'm curious: are there any supporters of the copyright regulations around HN that can provide some thoughts on the "pro" side of this? I'm trying to get my head around both sides of the argument, and I just can't see why it might be a good idea - but I may be biased by the strong "against" views from HN posters.
A newspaper curates their content and is legally liable for any copyright violations along with civil liability in the US. Many platforms like YouTube are curating content, but don't want to have the responsibility. It gives these platforms a unfair advantage, to the detriment of media outlets and because of the pseudo monopoly status of them has a chilling effect on diverse ideas. Many, who are experts on the law also feel that it is going beyond the "good samaritan" allowance of section 230 the way they are currently being performed.
I am not particularly big on the overreach our copyright system has. Chasing down people supporting orphaned works or trying to fix stuff for personal use, or whatever else is not cool, and our copyright system has a lot of problems, mostly because of the House of Mouse.
But things like posting current, paid content does hurt the businesses that create that content, and short-term, relevant copyright is there for a reason, and beneficial. Without some form of copyright, the movie and TV industry would not exist. And YouTube channels commonly post full episodes of Game of Thrones or Last Week Tonight the same day of, and often go unchecked for months or years before YouTube takes action.
I'm opposed to this EU proposal, but maybe not quite as strongly as many others...
The general sense I get is that people are completely indifferent (at best) to the interests of creators. This leads, unfortunately, to rather shallow discussions. You may, for example, see complaints about "artificial scarcity", and I actually share their opinion that the deadweight losses of copyright are rather terrible.
What you won't see is any appreciation or consideration or even interest in the reason for the existence of copyright, except for lazy clichés of all politicians being corrupt.
That's a shame, because it precludes this community (and most of the wider tech community) from being a meaningful source of improvements. It also renders its opposition somewhat meaningless, because reasonable people who may be open to arguments tend to stop listening when they encounter the first platitude.
I think if people were less entrenched in this mindset, you'd see far more ideas for better solutions being generated in the comment. Just imagine a threat like this, but with an obtrusive law trying to prevent, say, lawnmower-related accidental deaths: You'd see a litany of ideas, some of which may actually not involve the blockchain.
One example very close to this copyright law is, well, this copyright law's other well-known provision establishing a new sort of IP for news publishers. It's similarly broad, and full of practical difficulties. But when/if it becomes actual law, the tech community will shoulder (part of) the blame for it. Because over the last decade or so, it has watched, or even cheered, the destruction of journalism. The early 2000s' glee of a future of independent bloggers replacing professional journalism has thankfully passed because nobody can still cling to that fantasy with straight face, except Clay Sharky (or whatever his name is; the self-appointed expert that looks like Tom Hanks). Today most seem to have adopted the alt-right's propaganda against "mainstream media", or at least lost interest in anything beyond oneself's short-term comfort.
Case in point: I think you could make an ad blocker that blocks 100% of ads that are annoying, dangerous, or tracking you, yet let unobtrusive ads pass. Something like that would likely block maybe 20% of ads, leaving 80% (and journalism's business model) intact while almost completely giving the users what they want. But the tech community sees no possible value in such a compromise, and ad blockers singularly compete on their ability to hurt creators (see, for example, the ad blocker that proudly proclaimed they would remove affiliate codes from amazon links: absolutely no difference for the reader, except possibly the joy of seeing others suffer).
It's quite obvious that the "other side" of the copyright debate isn't blameless. Perpetual extensions of copyright are a travesty, and so is the loss of appreciation of the value of "fair use". Personally, I believe copyright of maybe 5 years on movies, 10 on music, and two days on newspapers would, once again, deliver 80% of the upside (incentive to create) while also activating the potential of re-use, and generally making these works available for a far larger audience.
You run a site. On this site, copyright infringing material is available and distributed. This is criminal. Is the excuse "Someone else put it there" valid? No, because you allowed them to put it there. Essentially, it is exactly the same legal issue that has already been settled my The Pirate Bay trial. Note that there is nothing like the DMCA nor the Fair Use Act in the EU.
The legislators in the EU are an example of what happens when the clueless, make law. Their GDPR has apparently only benefitted Google, with Facebook taking the smallest hit of the rest.
Many want these behemoths to get less power but these EU guys give them more.
Now this.
One answer it to ghettoise Europe and block them from receiving your content. For one thing that would get rid of those stupid "we use cookies things".
I so hate the cookies thing. It's led me to have to actually read popups rather than immediately close them, and sometimes I end up accepting something that I thought was a cookie popup but was something else.
Absolutely infuriating. Most every site uses cookies, I know that, I don't need to be told that, and your average user doesn't even care.
Some sites are doing this. I logged into my Slickdeals account on vacation and they had an automated system that locked my account and forced me to affirm that I didn't live in Europe or else they would close my account.
I regularly see a number of videos of clearly copyrighted content that have been up for years, with several million views, for fairly mainstream search terms and that would be relatively easy to filter algorythmically (real example - via the characteristic sound & image of the HBO intro in a pirated tv episode). Hard to look at that and believe that Google is doing everything it can to bring them down. That they reject copyright violation reports that come from anyone other than the actual rightsholders (sure, they’d have to make sure someone is not reporting by mistake - it is not a perfect, but still a valuable signal, and if they really wanted to they could encourage it) is further evidence. Further, where these specific videos are not monetized via ads, they bring traffic to YT which is then monetized in other videos, therefore this pirated content is being used commercially, even if indirectly. Like many here I’m no fan of copyright law, but that is no excuse for a multi-billion listed company to make a fortune deliberately flaunting it and then play coy.
I'm not following. By your example, HBO content is being shared and Content ID can trivially determine it's HBO content. Do you have evidence that HBO wants those videos gone, but isn't capable of filing the request? Isn't it just more likely they are getting royalties instead?
How do you know the copy-write holder has not claimed the revenue for that video? Taking the video down is only one of the options for copy-write holders.
Good luck with filtering algorithmically. There was a recent stupidity that Sony was claiming all to rights, to all performances of the work of long dead, famous composers. Now if they got hit with a few billion bucks for such blatant nonsense this thing might work...
or just have little guys publish their own, decent laws about fair use and no Internet behemoths getting in the way.
YouTube's objection seems to be primarily a business model problem - they assume consent and then provide original content creators with a share of YouTube's profit from that work. It's no surprise that they wouldn't want to have to get permission first.
What stops YouTube from doing cursory scans and then relying on a user agreement to protect themselves from liabilities, like "you agree to pay to us sums sufficient to cover all legal costs including any copyright charges, fines, etc., arising as a result of uploading this work"??
However, the Wikipedia page on the Directive [1] mentions that Art.13 :
>"extends any licenses granted to content hosts to their users, as long as those users are not acting "on a commercial basis".
That would be massive as videos uploaded to YouTube would then be able to be downloaded, and even shared, as works for [personal] non-commercial use. This would be a huge change in favour of the people and against copyright rights holders -- perhaps Wikipedia editors misinterpreted?
The article mentions the "Fair Use Act", what's that a reference too? The para it's in is about EU, and the USA Fair Use Act never survived. We don't have a Fair Use in Europe.
It would really help to know which companies are trying to push this and what specifically they're trying to protect from??
Europe just can't stop making dumb regulations to punish American Tech giants. They created the stupid cookie law and now half the sites have an annoying cookie notice ... and nothing got better. GDPR is shaping up as a boondgle that is either going to be (is) ignored or result in blacklisting Europeans. And now this poorly thought out regulations will continue this 'winning' streak.
Ironically, in the US pressure is mounting for content platforms to police "fake news" which is a moralistic mission, rather than enforce something fairly obvious like massive content piracy and systemic copyright violation as a service.
Even in 2018 it seems that Youtube is being funded by the "Napster model" of allowing de facto circumvention of copyright law.
Or, put another way, Youtube is profitable mainly because of vastly imperfect enforcement of laws.
Funny how they threat cutting Europeans and at the same time want to comply with Chinese laws so they are able to enter the market. Is it really impossible Google?
If youtube doesn't have the resources to handle these regulations, then imagine a start-up trying to. Ironically these draconian laws help youtube have a monopoly. They have billions to absorb any mistakes/law suites, etc...draconian laws always help the entrenched large corporations and destroy start-ups.
Youtube could continue to exist just fine without "youtubers". I miss the good old days when thumbnails weren't curated, and it was random users with a day job uploading videos instead of today's career spammers.
So, Youtube, who _still_ make a large amount of money from infringing other people's copyright, are not keen on being held liable for what they allow on their website?
With current state of things YouTube will be toast virtually with any copyright regulation. Huge amount of popular content on YouTube is stolen and retrofitted for your viewing pleasure. This is a raving cottage industry on YouTube and unthinkable just couple of decades ago when studios were going crazy over copyright infringement. You can find several old TV series, movies etc posted by others and comfortably ripping of ad revenue.
The same problem again - disconnected from reality humanities majors and liberal arts academics trying to regulate ecosystems they do not comprehend or understand.
They are guided by abstract nonsense instead of careful judgements based on the scientific method (measure, make and test your hypothesis).
Hilariously the Verge website doesn't like me blocking all their trackers.
It was supposed to be a choice, not just "I accept". I rather type out this comment than take the 10 seconds to open this article in an unmodified browser.
[+] [-] consumer451|7 years ago|reply
This is the entire platform vs publisher argument that tech companies have been hiding under for years. No one is responsible for content, and look what that’s gotten us. I would shed no tears if YT ended operation in the EU, where I live.
[0] https://www.wired.co.uk/article/youtube-for-kids-videos-prob...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/10/opinion/sunday/youtube-po...
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/youtube...
https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside-youtubes-far-right-radi...
[+] [-] intertextuality|7 years ago|reply
If you give your children unfettered access to youtube, that's your own fault as a parent. Youtube should be better about handling this but I think it's more of a communication issue.
Youtube is essentially a medium unto itself. A LOT of people use it so there's going to be good, and there's going to be bad. You can make the case of "radicalizing people" for just about any other medium that people consume.
In the end, it's basically what you make of it. You can find a wealth of diverse channels to watch and grow from, or you can watch drivel.
It isn't any different than the trash on tv or in pulp novels, except that individual people have more power and freedom to create things. If you think differently then you're just looking at older mediums with rose-tinted glasses.
[+] [-] lake99|7 years ago|reply
> No one is responsible for content, and look what that’s gotten us.
I suspect your views are coloured by the kind of things you watch. YouTube's algorithms have adapted to your viewing profile. Most of my recommendations are for science, math, and music pedagogy. From where I stand, YouTube has gotten us to a great place.
[+] [-] sharcerer|7 years ago|reply
Youtube bascially played a major role in democratizing creation of content :educational, creative etc. And by the way, it's still not clear how much profit YT makes. The infra costs etc are huge. It's Google's $$$ which subsidizes YT content. personally, when I see the amount of value I am deriving, I think I owe a decent amount of money to YT. I am a student right now, but will start giving creators money asap.
Of course, it would have been better if Youtube had started their Donate option sooner. I think they have failed to creatively monetize users and compensate creators. (i know about ads, not creative,but it works)
[+] [-] microcolonel|7 years ago|reply
Anyone who takes the AIN report seriously either hasn't verified the claims, or agrees that these people should be misrepresented and smeared.
Your view of YouTube is myopic, and ignores the immense cultural resource that exists there. You have no idea what would be lost if the EU chased it away, but you're willing to find out just to spite some people you resent; and you resent them based on false information you accepted because it fit your lens.
[+] [-] wccrawford|7 years ago|reply
I use YouTube all the time to learn to do things around the house. My wife and I recently completed a bathroom renovation and the only thing we didn't do ourselves was the plumbing, including completely replacing the tile and patching the walls. It looks fabulous.
Sure, I could probably have eventually found that information elsewhere, but it was almost all on YouTube and very easy to find. I looked up multiple videos on each task and figured out what the best advice was and even got to see it done multiple ways.
Losing YouTube at this point would be a huge loss.
[+] [-] HissingMachine|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mdonahoe|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nradov|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Skrillex|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Pristina|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] taf2|7 years ago|reply
That is because you haven’t watched grubby playing Warcraft 3!
[+] [-] Mauricio_|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sbr464|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scoot_718|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] liftbigweights|7 years ago|reply
The good old "think of the children" argument used by authoritarian puritans.
> and how YT radicalizes viewers
As opposed to TV? Cable news? Newspapers? Or any other media?
> No one is responsible for content, and look what that’s gotten us.
Where has it gotten us?
> I would shed no tears if YT ended operation in the EU, where I live.
As an american, I feel the same way. Why don't you guys create your own youtube and stop trying to censor everyone else? Oh you can't because of the EU onerous regulations. How ironic.
I hate the pro-censorship lobby that has reared its ugly head on hacker news. Everyday, there is a barrage of comments sneakily supporting and defending censorship. Strange.
And your "sources" are highly biased at best and "fake news" at worst. It's like asking the telegram company what they think of telephones or the horse what they think of cars.
[+] [-] mcphage|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jerf|7 years ago|reply
If YouTube is actually lobbying against this both in public and in private, then I would personally consider that extremely strong evidence this is really bad. However, I have no inside info on their private position.
[+] [-] Raphmedia|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eli|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pbhjpbhj|7 years ago|reply
They, YouTube, keep mentioning science videos and such but I can't work out what they mean, why would that be any more blocked than cat videos, or videos of people falling over, or whatever else YouTube is hosting -- is quality content somehow more at risk or is that just YouTube's attempt to spin/market their opposition?
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] s3r3nity|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lgleason|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ocdtrekkie|7 years ago|reply
I am not particularly big on the overreach our copyright system has. Chasing down people supporting orphaned works or trying to fix stuff for personal use, or whatever else is not cool, and our copyright system has a lot of problems, mostly because of the House of Mouse.
But things like posting current, paid content does hurt the businesses that create that content, and short-term, relevant copyright is there for a reason, and beneficial. Without some form of copyright, the movie and TV industry would not exist. And YouTube channels commonly post full episodes of Game of Thrones or Last Week Tonight the same day of, and often go unchecked for months or years before YouTube takes action.
[+] [-] comboy|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] matt4077|7 years ago|reply
The general sense I get is that people are completely indifferent (at best) to the interests of creators. This leads, unfortunately, to rather shallow discussions. You may, for example, see complaints about "artificial scarcity", and I actually share their opinion that the deadweight losses of copyright are rather terrible.
What you won't see is any appreciation or consideration or even interest in the reason for the existence of copyright, except for lazy clichés of all politicians being corrupt.
That's a shame, because it precludes this community (and most of the wider tech community) from being a meaningful source of improvements. It also renders its opposition somewhat meaningless, because reasonable people who may be open to arguments tend to stop listening when they encounter the first platitude.
I think if people were less entrenched in this mindset, you'd see far more ideas for better solutions being generated in the comment. Just imagine a threat like this, but with an obtrusive law trying to prevent, say, lawnmower-related accidental deaths: You'd see a litany of ideas, some of which may actually not involve the blockchain.
One example very close to this copyright law is, well, this copyright law's other well-known provision establishing a new sort of IP for news publishers. It's similarly broad, and full of practical difficulties. But when/if it becomes actual law, the tech community will shoulder (part of) the blame for it. Because over the last decade or so, it has watched, or even cheered, the destruction of journalism. The early 2000s' glee of a future of independent bloggers replacing professional journalism has thankfully passed because nobody can still cling to that fantasy with straight face, except Clay Sharky (or whatever his name is; the self-appointed expert that looks like Tom Hanks). Today most seem to have adopted the alt-right's propaganda against "mainstream media", or at least lost interest in anything beyond oneself's short-term comfort.
Case in point: I think you could make an ad blocker that blocks 100% of ads that are annoying, dangerous, or tracking you, yet let unobtrusive ads pass. Something like that would likely block maybe 20% of ads, leaving 80% (and journalism's business model) intact while almost completely giving the users what they want. But the tech community sees no possible value in such a compromise, and ad blockers singularly compete on their ability to hurt creators (see, for example, the ad blocker that proudly proclaimed they would remove affiliate codes from amazon links: absolutely no difference for the reader, except possibly the joy of seeing others suffer).
It's quite obvious that the "other side" of the copyright debate isn't blameless. Perpetual extensions of copyright are a travesty, and so is the loss of appreciation of the value of "fair use". Personally, I believe copyright of maybe 5 years on movies, 10 on music, and two days on newspapers would, once again, deliver 80% of the upside (incentive to create) while also activating the potential of re-use, and generally making these works available for a far larger audience.
[+] [-] bjourne|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MikeGale|7 years ago|reply
Many want these behemoths to get less power but these EU guys give them more.
Now this.
One answer it to ghettoise Europe and block them from receiving your content. For one thing that would get rid of those stupid "we use cookies things".
[+] [-] ApolloFortyNine|7 years ago|reply
Absolutely infuriating. Most every site uses cookies, I know that, I don't need to be told that, and your average user doesn't even care.
[+] [-] koboll|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alanlamm|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dahdum|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Lapsed|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MikeGale|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pbhjpbhj|7 years ago|reply
What stops YouTube from doing cursory scans and then relying on a user agreement to protect themselves from liabilities, like "you agree to pay to us sums sufficient to cover all legal costs including any copyright charges, fines, etc., arising as a result of uploading this work"??
However, the Wikipedia page on the Directive [1] mentions that Art.13 :
>"extends any licenses granted to content hosts to their users, as long as those users are not acting "on a commercial basis".
That would be massive as videos uploaded to YouTube would then be able to be downloaded, and even shared, as works for [personal] non-commercial use. This would be a huge change in favour of the people and against copyright rights holders -- perhaps Wikipedia editors misinterpreted?
The article mentions the "Fair Use Act", what's that a reference too? The para it's in is about EU, and the USA Fair Use Act never survived. We don't have a Fair Use in Europe.
It would really help to know which companies are trying to push this and what specifically they're trying to protect from??
---
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_on_Copyright_in_the_...
[+] [-] macspoofing|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] resters|7 years ago|reply
Even in 2018 it seems that Youtube is being funded by the "Napster model" of allowing de facto circumvention of copyright law.
Or, put another way, Youtube is profitable mainly because of vastly imperfect enforcement of laws.
[+] [-] xhruso00|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] em3rgent0rdr|7 years ago|reply
Even worse, no individual can take on the risk of self hosting their own videos.
[+] [-] dayaz36|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ronilan|7 years ago|reply
> Kurzgesagt — In a Nutshell recently became the number one channel in Germany by creating videos that help others fall in love with science.
If the number one channel in Germany is in English, then maybe YouTube still has some more fundamental challenges to overcome in Europe.
[+] [-] sam0x17|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kachurovskiy|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] KaiserPro|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tinkerteller|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway487548|7 years ago|reply
They are guided by abstract nonsense instead of careful judgements based on the scientific method (measure, make and test your hypothesis).
[+] [-] Tsubasachan|7 years ago|reply
It was supposed to be a choice, not just "I accept". I rather type out this comment than take the 10 seconds to open this article in an unmodified browser.
[+] [-] dools|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jsmeaton|7 years ago|reply