Why A 'Clever Hack' Against Nazis Shows How Upload Filters Have Made Copyright Law Even More Broken
from the cloak-of-invisibility dept
As Techdirt has pointed out many times, one of the biggest problems with the EU Copyright Directive's upload filters is that they will necessarily be automated, which means they will inevitably be flawed. After all, it can take the EU's top judges weeks to decide complex questions about whether something is copyright infringement or not. And yet Article 13/17 expects software to do the same in microseconds. This kind of collateral damage from clueless algorithms is already happening, albeit on a small scale. Boing Boing has an interesting new twist on this problem. Cory Doctorow writes about an idea that RJ Jones mentioned on Twitter:
My friend gave me a tip! If you need to drown out fascists, bring a speaker & play copyrighted music at their rallies cause it will be easy to report their videos & get them taken down for copyright.
Once the EU's upload filters are in place, it won't even be necessary to report the videos: they will almost certainly be blocked automatically by algorithms that don't know about fair use and the like. But Doctorow points out a big problem with this idea:
The thing is, as much as it's a cute way to sabotage Nazis' attempts to spread their messages, there is nothing about this that prevents it from being used against anyone. Are you a cop who's removed his bodycam before wading into a protest with your nightstick? Just play some loud copyrighted music from your cruiser and you'll make all the videos of the beatings you dole out un-postable.
As this underlines, using copyright material in the background creates a kind of cloak of invisibility for the foreground actors -- both good and bad -- that makes certain videos impossible to post to the Internet if upload filters are in place. This is not what copyright is supposed to do. It shows how far copyright has been perverted from its original purpose -- "the Encouragement of Learning", as the 1710 Statute of Anne puts it. The problem arises from the use of dumb algorithms that don't understand the context of the copyright material they are filtering. It confirms once more what an incredibly stupid idea it was for EU lawmakers to allow Article 13/17 to pass.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter, Diaspora, or Mastodon.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: censorship, copyright, filters
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Visible response versus the source that caused it
The problem arises from the use of dumb algorithms that don't understand the context of the copyright material they are filtering.
Not quite, the source of the problem is those that are either ignorant or indifferently malicious and pushing for/mandating those things.
Remove the politicians and groups that are constantly pushing to put The Holy Copyright ahead of anything and everything out of the equation and a whole slew of problems go away, including the one mentioned here, whereas if you just removed the filters they'd come up with some other boneheaded 'solution' to screw things up.
Filters are a problem, but they are not the source of the problem, that honor goes to the fools that are used to push such rubbish and the greedy and/or corrupt individuals and groups that do the pushing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Visible response versus the source that caused it
"Not quite, the source of the problem is those that are either ignorant or indifferently malicious and pushing for/mandating those things. "
Most likely ignorant. Copyright holders are losing a lot of revenue, even if you use conservative accounting methods, rather than counting each play as a lost sale. And the volume of uploads is too big to police without some form of automation. And that doesn't even get into the game of Whack-a-mole copyright holders have to play with the real pirates.
On the other hand, applying automation that merely satisfies the 80/20 rule creates havoc for the people in the 20% of false positives and violates due process for everyone (at least in the US). And the problem still exists even if you get to the proverbial "kills 99.9% of germs/pirates on contact" threshold. With hundreds of millions of hours of uploads per day, that still 100,000's of inaccurate copyright claims.
This gap between copyright law and the inability of copyright holders to enforce their claims on social media platforms is what leads law-makers and lawyers to try to find a solution, any solution to fill the gap. The lawyers tried blanket John Doe searches on IP addresses, but that got shot down, the law makers are trying to circumvent or weaken section 230 so that copyright holders can at least hold someone accountable. And in the EU, we're getting government mandated filters that can easily be misused for censorship.
The one bright spot, if you can call it that, is that at least the power of censorship is in the hands of individuals doing things like putting a speaker out during events that they don't want publicized and not solely in the hands of the government. But that certainly isn't what I have in mind when I think of freedom of speech and the marketplace of ideas.-
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Visible response versus the source that caused it
Do you have any actual evidence of that?
Then, who cares about the copyright holders? It's the creators that everybody cares about, and the 'big' copyright holders who spearhead all of this nonsense are not creators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Visible response versus the source that caused it
"Copyright holders are losing a lot of revenue"
In their dreams they are. You can not lose something you never had.
I can make up numbers too, but I do not lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Visible response versus the source that caused it
Intellectual Property claims are explicitly excluded from Section 230 protection already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Visible response versus the source that caused it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Visible response versus the source that caused it
How about another argument..
For all the people Google has to have Scanning videos..
Why cant we demand this of the RIAA/MPAA..
Screw the Computer algorithm..
OR, we can create our own industry or Watcher/listeners.. to Scan it all..and catch 90% of the stuff.
AS well as another agency that has the LIST of who has what rights, so Fakes cant be used..
WOW, I just created a whole new Business..
NOW lets add to this, that we do this in each state and get unemployed people to do it, and the State/Fed pays for it..
NOW Im Corporate.
Lets add a few Copyright Lawyers and Judges to help us SCAN THE CRAP out of the Data base..(its worth the money)(we have backup that we are RIGHT, and the CR registry is wrong in making the CR)
YEA, we are fully protected and everything else..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it really clever, if it also works for MeToo and Black Lives Matter rallies? Or if the fascist rally goes violent, and you would want to expose that, but now can't?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is clever like Blitzkrieg - thinking created a tactic which itself gives an edge even if it can be used against good or for evil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Pssst...
Something many dont know about..
Microphones are wide range...they can pick up sounds we dont hear.. Also if not Tuned, certain sounds/tone are louder then others... Its Exactly like tuning a speaker.. you can play something in the background and they may never hear it, and every mic will pick it up.
Fun isnt it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yeah it is fubn. ill test htis at trne next commie rally :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"If you need to drown out fascists, bring a speaker & play copyrighted music at their rallies"
Ways this can fail:
It shouldn't be that hard to create a filter that will sift out the music from the speeches and slogans. Processing the videos with this filter before posting avoids a takedown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"It shouldn't be that hard to create a filter that will sift out the music from the speeches and slogans. Processing the videos with this filter before posting avoids a takedown."
If that were so easy, one might think they would've done so earlier than this .. unless there is an ulterior motive here.
Busted at a protest for playing music ... never thought I would see this sort of silliness but these days who knows anymore, it's like I woke up in bizarro land and can not escape.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Playing copyrighted music in a public space without license is not allowed AFAIK. The fascists will be eager to point that out to the cops."
AIUI, Cops don't typically enforce copyright, courts do. It's a civil offense, not a criminal one. So they could contact the rights holder who could then attempt to sue the person who played the music, but that's going to take a while to get through the courts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The USA has had criminal copyright law for a while now, but in practice cops never arrest people for using radios in public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You should look that up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Police arresting for copyrighted music
I'm sure once it comes up as a justification to arrest counter-protesters to far-right marches, they'll start. With boots and truncheons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Police arresting for copyrighted music
Stop beating your head into the toe of my boot!
You are assaulting me by getting blood on my uniform!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Excerpt from 1847. CRIMINAL COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT -- 17 U.S.C. 506(A) AND 18 U.S.C. 2319
"In order to sustain a conviction under section 506(a), the government must demonstrate: (1) that a valid copyright; (2) was infringed by the defendant; (3) willfully; and (4) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain."
While you are correct that criminal copyright infringement exists, it does not apply in this scenario, as the fourth requirement is not met.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What if I have a license and I blast it? The filters won't know nor care I had one. You are right the fascists could try to make you leave but that would require them to know about this and actively try to stop it. Finally, I've not heard of any software that can remove only specific sounds from a video. This isn't like a recording where it has multiple tracks that can be edited individually.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The big problem is, the mainly middlemen, who think that they should be able to control, and if profitable, license, all uses of copyright material.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The problem is,some people are greedy little shits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh the irony. The real fascists in this story are the people attempting to get speech "taken down".
Say what you want of the people with whom you disagree, but shutting down perfectly legal speech. That's exactly what the Nazis did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There is a difference between removing speech you disagree with, and removing people who are of a difference race or creed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I agree with you in principle, but it's not clear what your point is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The "real Fascists" are those who hold to fascist ideologies, promoting the importance of Nation and/or Race over all other things. White Power rallies, propping up the importance and superiority of the White race, trend to the fascistic. Exhortations to support governmental leadership, regardless of whether you agree with them or not, simply because they are governmental leaders, is fascistic.
If someone espousing such ideologies has their right to speak trampled upon, that does not mean they are no longer fascist. It just means they are a fascist who had their rights violated.
That said the constitutional right only prevents the government from making a law that says you can't speak. If an actor who is not the state drowns you out with their own speech, no constitutional right has been violated, as it is not possible for a private citizen or non-state actor to violate your first amendment right. Them drowning out your speech because they don't like what you say does not make them fascist.
Put simply, simply trying to shout someone down, or use a problematic aspect of current law to get speech you don't like taken down, is not in and of itself fascistic. You have to have the right ideology behind it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except:
If you are using governmental (example: copyright) power to suppress the speech of people are arguing against the government, or criticisng it (fascists in this case) is (at least according to dictionary.com) an aspect of fascism itself.
Fascism is bad. However using Fascism to fight fascims is probably worse, because it is fascims, while pretending to not be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe you missed the point that was made?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Probably.
@AC that responded to me: using an aspect of government that is fascistic against those espousing fascist ideologies is, yes, a fascist action.
However, in order to be a fascist you need to actually espouse a fascist ideology or take consistent fascist actions. One act on its own does not turn you into a fascist.
I agree with you that abuse of the copyright overreach to prevent this speech from being broadcasted is unethical, but the whole point of my post was to rebut the assertion that the "real" fascists are the ones trying to drown out fascist speech. That assertion carries with it a corollary that the ones actually espousing fascist ideologies in their speech are somehow not fascist, which I won't let stand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe this is not what you are intending, what I hear you saying is "People who disagree with fasicsts can't themselves be fasicts"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe this is not what you are intending, what I hear you saying is "People who disagree with fasicsts can't themselves be fasicts"
I did not read it that way.
I think the point is ... there is more than criteria that must be met before one is considered to be fascist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I never attempted to say it was fascist, just that it was an example of one of the key traits of fascism (suppression of speech that dissents against the government).
And I'm going to straight up say that that particular trait of fasicm is bad in and of itself
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You, I have no issue with. You're just calling out the tactic as fascistic, which honestly it kind of is.
Jason, on the other hand, was the one calling people the "real fascists" for trying to shut up fascist speech via fascistic tactic, which then implies that the fascists who were speaking aren't fascist. That's a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The amusing irony of the hypothetical
If it's hypocritical to use fascism to suppress fascism, is it also hypocritical to the liberties allowed in a free state (say freedom of speech) to promote fascism?
A fascist speaking openly in opposition to the current regime is engaging in action contrary to fascism to promote his ideology.
This reminds me of a flyer once handed to me in Berkeley No Free Speech For Fascists! I saved it for years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe this is not what you are intending, what I hear you saying is "People who disagree with fasicsts can't themselves be fasicts"
That is not the thrust of the argument, and it's a poor representation of what I am saying. Granted, it is, in fact, possible for that statement to be true. After all, fascism is all about the nation above all (simplified, because the full definition has already been given) - if someone disagrees with this ideologically, then they are, by definition, not fascist.
This does not mean they are not an asshole, nor does it mean they are always justified in their actions.
It is, however, possible to disagree with a fascist while remaining a fascist. After all, American fascists are all about America first ... meanwhile Chinese or German fascists are all about China or Germany first. They will naturally disagree with each other, since any other nation having power threatens their own.
The entire point (and I am seriously wondering why this requires such detailed explanation) is that to be a fascist, you must espouse fascist ideology, or consistently take fascist actions.
You should not call someone fascist based on a single instance of them trying to shut someone up. You should consider whether they are actually fascist based on ideology and the history of their actions.
I've said the same thing three times now. Let makes it four:
Fascism is determined by espoused ideology and the full history of action, and not by a single action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The nazis also shot plenty of people both in the heat of battle and in executions but that doesn't mean shooting them wasn't the right thing to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They missed Hitler.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
He did die from a shot wound.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Too late
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Failing to kill Hitler
As is typical with leaders, Hitler hid in a bunker and yes, chose to kill himself before being captured and his body burned (partially before taken by Soviet soldiers, according to some legends). He was afraid of his corpse being dragged through the streets of a cheering Berlin, a very valid fear.
But he also dodged over thirty assassination attempts, so not for want of trying.
Truth to tell, Hitler was a predictable and not-too-bright commander-in-chief, so the Allies were glad to have him alive, rather than someone smarter taking his place. It was the Germans not wanting to be invaded and torn asunder that wanted to replace him and make a deal with the Allies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Full Circle
Looks like we may be going back to the age of silent film. Who needs "talkies" anyway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair Use
Incidental sounds are fair use - something that automated filters can't distinguish. Context is important and filters have no way of evaluating this.
Corporate Copyrights trump free speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fair Use
"Incidental sounds"
Like the song of birds in the wild?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A way around copyrighted background music
It's still possible to post the video of the cop and his beatings. Just drop the audio from the recording (and possibly replace it with your own narrative describing what's happening). No nasty copyrighted stuff getting caught by filters then. Of course the neo-nazis might do the same thing as well, just re-add whatever speech they give at their rallies after the fact, thereby eliminating the background music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A way around copyrighted background music
The people playing music better hold up Mickey Mouse posters just to be sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem of the tactic is that it can be used by... Anybody. I'd do even better, I'd use at every single public event held by any politician. Until they review the stupidity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
punching "nazis"
Cory Doctorow (along with other Boing Boing writers) has frequently advocated another, much more direct approach -- punching "nazis" -- as he candidly admits "I freely acknowledge the atavistic, visceral pleasure in doing so."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: punching "nazis"
Cory Doctorow (along with other Boing Boing writers) has frequently advocated
Yes, and you advocate following the Nazi party. Enjoy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who gives a shit? They’re Nazis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nazis (the real kind) were German nationalists who hated Russians, Poles, and other European ethnicities. The American activists who are commonly but inaccurately referred to as "nazis" are none of those things. Some, like the Proud Boys, are even multi-racial, philo-Semitic, and LGBTQ-friendly.
The term "fascist" is similary misused, but that's another lesson for another day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's some funny shit right there!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Some, like the Proud Boys, are even multi-racial, philo-Semitic, and LGBTQ-friendly.
Proud Boys - the domestic terrorist group, linked to violence, led by proud bigot Van Dyke??
That is the hands down funniest thing I've heard all day - you got my "LOL" vote!
https://www.popehat.com/?s=Van+Dyke
But yeah, we get it - you love white power. It makes you feel important.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The most violent and unhinged of the Proud Boys is probably Tusitala "Tiny" Toese, who was reportedly the second in command. But being a Samoan, they can't just kick him out, even despite his outstanding arrest warrant for assault, or they'd surely be [once again] accused of racism (but this time, with a grain of legitimacy).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: have you tried digging up?
Keep going bro! This is some funny shit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Way to go numbnuts
You sir have both my lol and flag vote for being the funniest dumbshit here. I’m sure you were totes serious, which just makes it so much better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm all in favor of socially shaming, shunning, and boycotting Nazis, and where they start advocating for violence taking legal actions, but the notion that someone ought to be punched for holding or expressing views in public is dangerous. Free speech means nothing if a mob can attack people for expressing their views, no matter how bigoted and offensive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Violence also breeds more violence. That's been true throughout history and it's just as true today. Recently-birthed right-wing activist groups such as the Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer sprang up in direct reponse to Antifa street violence and the lack of police presence (allegedly due to "stand down" orders) in cities such as Portland and Berkeley that gave these masked marauders carte blanche to assault people at will without legal repercussions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Recently-birthed right-wing activist groups such as the Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer"
Just renamed themselves - yeah?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dig up stupid!
“Recently-birthed right-wing activist groups such as the Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer sprang up in direct reponse to Antifa street violence”
Bro, who were antifa being violent against before Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer “sprung up”?
They weren’t beating up Boy Scouts. But hey if you lie enough times, someone might actually believe some of your bullshit. Either way you’re entertaining the shit out of us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: violence as an effective "deplatforming" tool
Antifa violence had targeted conservative speakers on university campuses, as well as the people who showed up to attend. Anyone wearing a red "maga" hat was considered fair game for assault.
One of the more infamous examples of Antifa violence happened at the Milo Yiannopoulos event on 1 February 2017 at UC Berkeley. Windows were smashed, vehicles set on fire, and numerous innocent people maced and beaten with clubs and bike locks, all while the police stayed back. Members of the organization By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) also participated in the violence
But Antifa's violence worked. The event was canceled, Milo had to be extracted from the building by a phalanx of police officers, and was essentially banned from ever speaking on campus again. The message was clear: conservative speakers (and their supporters) risked life and limb if they ever dared to show up at Berkeley again. Antifa -- not police -- were in control of the streets.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/02/02/trump-slams-berkeley-violence-lah-pkg.cnn
After that UC Berkeley riot, a series of right-wing "free speech" rallies were held in the city of Berkeley, but with a major difference. Participants were fully expecting violence from Antifa, and many came armed and ready for battle. After the Berkeley police banned face masks, Antifa was notably absent, as was violence at these Antifa-less free-speech events.
The main battleground since then seems to be Portland, which still allows masked protesters, and where Antifa and the Proud Boys/Patriot Prayer have had numerous street battles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And pray tell, who went around instigating those “street battles”?
(Also: “Street battles”? Really? It’s a bunch of assholes beating each other up, not a fucking war.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds familiar
Sounds a lot like the deplatforming of Anita Sarkeesian at the Utah State University in 2014 by gamergater-associated terrorists (who later became an established wing of the Alt-Right).
Double standard?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When will we learn
Whats the old saying about karma, any weapon we create will eventually be used by our own enemy's against us, gun, bomb, law, exception, strategy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So basically all we need to do to shut down blue's heroes is play their copyrighted music and they'll never speak again.
Talk about hoisting one on their own petard. Or in blue's case, retard!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A bit of trivia ... petard (or pétard) is derived from an even older French word, péter, meaning fart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you are using tricks to drown out people makes you fascist
Using tricks like this isn't drowning out fascism, it is fascism. Changing the meaning of words doesn't change that you are doing evil. Refusing to allow other viewpoints to be voiced is the definition of fascism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If you are using tricks to drown out people makes you fascis
Many things are not by themselves fascist, censorship for example.
In order to clear the bar for actually being fascist, one needs to meet more than criteria. How do you know that some random person who uses said tactic meets this criteria?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fascists have the absolute right to speak their mind. No one should dispute that fact. But the law doesn’t give fascists the right to be heard. The law doesn’t give them the right to an audience or the use of someone else’s platform. If antifascists or people taking antifascist action drown out the speech of fascists, that is not fascism — that is the antifascists using their speech to counter fascist speech.
And I thought that was the whole point: We counter “bad” speech using “good” speech instead of using fascist tactics such as, say, physical violence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hei dude nice idea. But did you notice the other end of the stick? it is the same one as the one you are pointing in direction of the people you lament nazis and white radicals.. only it points at you..
So thaNnks guYz for the hack to stop leftist rallies from uploading their wideos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OMG, speech tactics used by people from “my ‘side’ ” can be used equally by people from “the other ‘side’ ”? I had no idea that could happen~!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
U.s.u.a.l.y n.o.w .t,h.a,t.s t.h,e c,a,s.e. :D s,o,m,e,h,o,w the a,u,t,h,o,r d,i,d, no,t th,i,n,k o,f ,t,h,a,t b.e,f,o,r,e, p,o,s,,ti,ng th,.is. a.,rt,i;cl.e
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Flagged for spam.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright holders are losing revenue ,
how much are they losing,who know,s
When they send dmca notice,s on videos that contain seconds of background music .
People can just post a video with the sound muted .
or put in a new soundtrack .
Music companys revenue is increasing as people pay for streaming service,s
like spotify ,apple music.
Youtube filters music and video clips by using samples sent in by major ip holder,s of their own music and tv shows.
hbo has shown if you offer a quality product at the right price people
will pay for it.
In 2 years times european websites will have to filter every image, photo, audio /video clip to check is it licensed .
Theres no section 230 in europe .
it seems like stupid politicians are happy to throw away the right to
fair use or free speech to satisfy the copyright lobby .
fIlm and tv companys have the chance to make more revenue
by getting new customers by using apps and streaming service,s .
The music companys make millions by putting videos on youtube,
they also use it as a service to find the next big pop star .
Any one who has takent is putting music on soundcloud and youtube .
If someone gets a million views on youtube they will get offered a recording contract .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Copyright holders are losing revenue"
Is this more hollywood accounting going on here? How do you determine said loss?
One can not lose what one never had.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mute
Obviously this completely sidesteps the whole point of the article, but this 'clever hack' is defeated by muting and replacing with subtitles... ... not exactly a great way to get around it, but folks who want to be 'heard' don't need audio to do so.
Besides... that's a messed up way to disagree with what someone says. Even if I violently disagree with someone may be saying, they shouldn't be subjected to petty attempts to silence them... find an intelligent way to 'fight back' against stupid... like try educating folks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The more complex the rules, the easier it is to find creative uses for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Creative use of rules complexity
And that is the twenty-first century corporate business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YouTube already has a tool to remove Copyrighted songs
YouTube already has a tool to remove Copyrighted songs. I made a Fallout 4 video and even though I had music turned off, some radio I came across in the game still played a song. My video got a copyright hit, but I used the free tool to remove the copyrighted material. I was talking and my voice was unaffected and the background music was gone.
Here is a link to a short video I made showing how easy it was to remove it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwIRRncT9u8
Here is the spot in the video where it was removed and you wouldn't even know there was a song there: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdPf_VXBY6c&t=17m30s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Abject stupidity!
"After all, it can take the EU's top judges weeks to decide complex questions about whether something is copyright infringement or not"
So automated filters don't work now about a simple test? If a human can't do the job and explain in a concise manner how it's done it can't be automated! As there's is no detonation of hate speech beyond 'hate speach==speech I hate' it's impossible for an ordinary human to filter it and there is no chance of automation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You Ignorant/Unethical Invention Will Be Used Against You
Just, self absorbed people are too mentally broken to realize it until it happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You Ignorant/Unethical Invention Will Be Used Against You
Seems you skipped reading the last paragraph, perhaps read the whole article before posting next time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]