Hacker News Reader

Comment by pbhjpbhj | Hacker News Reader

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?

View on HN

The issue is that YouTube, or any other video host, becomes liable for copyright violations of their users. They lose the safe harbor of just being a middle man and must actively prevent unlicensed redistributions.

This means you not only need a ContentID system in the first place, you also need to be ready to handle the financial & legal consequences of inevitably not being perfect.

Ah OK, it was written as if it was a primarily technological cost to perform the "filtering" that was prohibitive.

They mean then they can't afford the system if their anticipated penalties are imposed && if they fail to catch unlicensed works && are subsequently sued successfully for large amounts && can't recover those costs from the uploader.

How many microseconds would it be after such a regulation passed that media mega corps would pull the trigger and kill the goose-that-laid-the-golden-eggs.

>you not only need a ContentID system //

How does the Directive specify that, I'm afraid I haven't read it yet.

> In the absence of the authorisation referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 1, Member States shall provide that an online content sharing service provider shall not be liable for acts of communication to the public or making available to the public within the meaning of this Article when:

> (a) it demonstrates that it has made best efforts to prevent the availability of specific works or other subject matter by implementing effective and proportionate measures, in accordance with paragraph 5, to prevent the availability on its services of the specific works or other subject matter identified by rightholders and for which the rightholders have provided the service with relevant and necessary information for the application of these measures;

So basically if the rightsholders can convince the courts that they could have done more to proactively prevent copyright infringement, they're liable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com