Videographers, YouTubers, Twitterits etc say Article 13 is the Devils work, preventing their freedom to upload videos containing music that’s not their own. They’re pretty adamant of their right to freely use music lifted from the internet.
_So Article 13 is a good thing for musicians, right? _
Am I missing something , because there’s a lot of opposition to it from every corner of the internet.
Apparently the swedes pushed the wrong button😂
Funny thing that I really do feel that the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ buttons on the elektron devices are the wrong way round!
You tubers in danger! Satan is going to get them ! 
The problem here is the length of copyright.
Basically protecting the first apparition of Mickey Mouse, it’s now 99 years in the States.
This is clear abuse of the initial copyright concept, the aim of which was to create the public domain.
Of course IP should be protected. But a hundred years is ridiculous.
How will “fair use” be judged?
IMO such Article 13 is not about protecting the musicians interests and art in general. It’s about protecting MPAA interests.
After watching Nate Harrisson’s “Can I get an Amen?” and read Lawrence Lessig’s “Free Culture”, it feels like illegal sharing is a reaction to copyright abuse…
To me it looks simple, create original content and than you don’t have to think about mickey mouse and the davel. Or, ask - pay, permissions.
And hopefully i will create something worthwhile.
This whole internet idealism about freedoms and whatnot is twisted imo. We all have freedom to create original content. I see and i hear same old things all over and over again, on all official channels, i am happy if it stops on alternative channels.
And google should start paying the damn content creators.
It’s absurd because it’s unenforceable, clearly written with good intentions by people who have no idea how the internet works. Right now pretty much anything can be uploaded to Facebook, YouTube etc- it’s an open platform but copyright material can be taken down if the owner requests it. This new directive shifts responsibility to the hosting platform itself, asking that they identify and take down unauthorised copyright material as soon as it goes up or face huge fines (apparently memes are exempt, lol)
Since this is literally impossible to do, what’s going to happen is that either EU IPs are going to be blocked from uploading anything to most of the internet, or the directive is going to be reversed as soon as our clever MEPs realise what they’ve done.
The internet needs to be free, open and neutral, and any attack on that needs to be strongly opposed.
Decent overview here
You only have to have a quick search of YouTube to see how bad these companies are at dealing with copyright claims under the current system.
This new legislation is completely impossible to live up to without basically banning everything the instant it’s uploaded to the internet.
Goodbye youtube content creators, reddit and memes.
As Anfim correctly said, the whole thing is just a giant clusterf*ck made possible by good intentions paired with absolute ignorance.
One of the main guys lobbying for this, Axel Voss, is SO EXTREMELY CLUELESS about internet/technology, that he was trying to “prove” that Google has a way of automatically (!) distinguishing Parody (=fair use) from copyrighted IP with a screenshot of a google image search about his own name and circled the word “meme” (that google suggested as a further search term, not a ‘automated parody filter’) in his screenshot. *
that´s the type of buffoons we send to decide in our best interestes - which they don´t understand.
*needless to say, he now IS a proper meme b/c of this ^^
I am already thinking of ordering a bunch of popcorn
Disallowing unauthorized copyright use is aight by me, as it will add value to original content over mashupping/recycling, and in the best case scenario add value to cultural products overall. But if it will result in the inability to upload anything, hmm… Maybe people will need to go back to web 1.0 with their own hosted webpages and their own FTP servers? That could be interesting.
Personally, I can live without youtube, facebook, all of that. Less clutter, like going back to the 90s.
Ok. Now I get it. Opponents think it’ll break the internet and/or prevent their freedom of expression (to use other peoples media).
I’m just trying to get my head around it. Two videographers I work with think it’s the end of the world, which to them is YouTube 
and they say I should be worried about it too. But I had no freaking idea what the problem was.
depending on who you ask, it´ll be the end of the world, yes.
youtube is more than likely not going to be affected more than it is subject to this now, assuming you film/record your own content.
except for people that are just re-uploading someone else´s material and “commentary” audio over it - well those guys are fucked.
basically what we are talking about here is AUTOMATIC filtering of previously copyrighted content.
the danger here is that this is not actually technically possible in a precise way without heaps of false alerts - and that is where opponents freak out (and they are right).
another problem people are often citing is that this law will enforce paywalls for newspaper websites etc., since nobody else is allowed to re-link/copy+paste news articles (for example like google does on the results page for some news-related searches).
but, personally I think this will all balance itself out eventually, the law will get adapted a couple of times until it actually gets applicable… and at its core, it´s a necessary protection of IP, yes.
I don’t care, it won’t affect me as I only listen to tapes, plus the internet is just a fad anyway - CB radio anyone?
Bit too fancy and modern, breaker, breaker - I reckon we need to go right back to semaphore.
Or we need to go back to paying for the original content to the owner of the same. And stop polluting the media with stolen and recycled goods. " oh, nice, i like it, ill just take it and call it a day. " oh, boy, ill miss that content a lot.
It’s not that easy.
Music history is full of iconic samples that were used in twisted ways to give new material.
Thinking about the famous Amen Break, but you could think about All Along the Watchtower or jazz standards…
Culture is borrowing from others and making your own.
I don’t think it’s that black and white.
Besides the main reason for copyright being endlessly extended is for Disney to keep Mickey Mouse untouched. Funny when you know that Mickey appeared first in a parody of a movie with Buster Keaton, and that a large part of their catalog is inspired by tales from Grimm brothers, Perrault and more traditional ones…
Public domain needs protection. Today it’s all about IP.
What if travelling in motion pictures had been locked by IP ?
Ok, i get that, but one thing is borrowing a theme from folk music for your opera against making YouTube video and using bbc footage or bjork song in it . Yes, there is a difference and we have to learn how to bring the balance back to this new media. The content creator always steal ( in a way, if you stretch that term ), but lets make that hard for them so they do it in a more creative way…
Everything should be be free! Burn the money! Nobody owns anything! 
#ShareEverything 
#HippyNaut 
It is a complicated issue for sure, and as old as the hills.
It does seem the more time goes on the less people are willing to pay for things that they value, and as always the large companies always seem to profit no matter what.
Music sales are getting increasingly less common, soon it will be other entertainment content as well, like film and games, I don’t think it bodes well for creators, and as we have seen in the past 10 years they will have to adapt and compromise going forward.
Yes, selfishness is on the max online.
