undefined | Better HN

0 pointsderriz7y ago0 comments

Like I said, I really dislike current copyright law as it exists in most countries, so you wont find me arguing in favour of extending copyright powers at all.

But article 13 does not seem to represent an extension of copyright powers since it looks weaker than any of the existing national laws.

> Google has the infrastructure and resources to do so with YouTube, going out of its way to detect copyright infringement and to react automatically to take down notices. Smaller players don't have Google's resources.

I've read this argument and it doesn't really convince me. Google and the rest run sophisticated copyright infringement detection not because they CAN or have the resources, they do it because they are obliged by US copyright law. The same US law applies to smaller players and it doesn't seem to have broken the internet in America. Try launching an app that allows streaming video torrents for example - even a teenager working from a bedroom has to comply if they are going to offer such a service.

0 comments

2 comments · 2 top-level

jcranmer7y ago

> Google and the rest run sophisticated copyright infringement detection not because they CAN or have the resources, they do it because they are obliged by US copyright law.

No, they are not obliged to do so. The DMCA obliges people to remove infringement on request of the copyright owner, i.e., it requires that websites be reactive instead of proactive. This is notable because Content ID is actually more restrictive than what the DMCA requires (particularly with regards to fair use exceptions).

spacenick887y ago

I suspect it's actually their contracts with music producers and large content providers that forced YouTube to implement these filters.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse