2 out of those 5 are beliefs. 3 is a fact, 4 is the letter of the law, and we don't really know what 5 means.
"best efforts" can mean anything
10. As of …[date of entry into force of this Directive] the Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, shall organise stakeholder dialogues to discuss best practices for cooperation between online content-sharing service providers and rightholders. The Commission shall, in consultation with online content-sharing service providers, rightholders, users' organisations and other relevant stakeholders, and taking into account the results of the stakeholder dialogues, issue guidance on the application of this Article, in particular regarding the cooperation referred to in paragraph 4. When discussing best practices, special account shall be taken, among other things, of the need to balance fundamental rights and of the use of exceptions and limitations. For the purpose of the stakeholder dialogues, users' organisations shall have access to adequate information from online content-sharing service providers on the functioning of their practices with regard to paragraph 4.
Bolded the part that applies to paragraph 4.
Here's paragraph 4 btw, section B is the big one that's gonna be under debate in paragraph 10 above.
4. If no authorisation is granted, online content-sharing service providers shall be liable for unauthorised acts of communication to the public, including making available to the public, of copyright-protected works and other subject matter, unless the service providers demonstrate that they have:
(a) made best efforts to obtain an authorisation, and
(b) made, in accordance with high industry standards of professional diligence, best efforts to ensure the unavailability of specific works and other subject matter for which the rightholders have provided the service providers with the relevant and necessary information; and in any event
(c) acted expeditiously, upon receiving a sufficiently substantiated notice from the rightholders, to disable access to, or to remove from, their websites the notified works or other subject matter, and made best efforts to prevent their future uploads in accordance with point (b).
I didn't forget them, I didn't consider them relevant. Youtube literally doesn't have to change a thing about its Content ID system to have it be compliant with Article 17. Which means they already are compliant with A17 without it even being in force yet.
There's also a qualitative difference between the resources large companies have available to spend on becoming compliant, vs what small companies do.
We also know that teenagers in vocational school today make image recognition systems as hobby stuff or school projects. These filters aren't that weird, just do the same but add on a way for legitimate content owners to add their content to the pool of "I don't want my creation shown in places without my knowledge" and you're done.
I guess the core fundamental issue here is that I'm technically fine with Content ID as a concept, so long as it's user friendly. The current form of A17 that was passed gives more power to smaller creators so they can't be taken advantage of by large sharing sites, and getting fair remuneration for their content being used.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
