Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Nous utilisons votre profil LinkedIn et vos données d’activité pour vous proposer des publicités personnalisées et pertinentes. Vous pouvez changer vos préférences de publicités à tout moment.

Alternatives for copyright protection online

174 vues

Publié le

Article 13 of the proposed Copyright Directive is outright bad and should be reconsidered. Here's why and possibly - how.

  • Soyez le premier à commenter

  • Soyez le premier à aimer ceci

Alternatives for copyright protection online

  1. 1. Alternative for copyright protection online Bozhidar Bozhanov
  2. 2. Key aspects ● Effects on freedom of expression ● Cost for small companies ○ Ambiguous interpretations and legal uncertainty ● Distribution of content by rightholders ● Efficiency of content recognition technology ● Actual protection and monetization of copyright
  3. 3. Issues with proposed filters ● Legal uncertainty and increased cost for small companies ● Uncertainty how will content databases for filters be provided ● The content recognition technology is far from perfect ○ False positives ○ Context ○ Exceptions and limitations (or fair use) ● => automatic filtering is a risk for freedom of speech ● Filtering IS NOT monetization ● We risk creating a ContentID-as-a-Service monopoly
  4. 4. Proposal Getting content recognition sytems outside of service providers
  5. 5. Obligations for service providers ● APIs ○ Notification for new published content ○ Pulling the newly published content ○ Request for blocking or monetization ● Appeals procedure ● Transparency ○ Number of blocked works ○ Number of monetized works ○ Number of appeals ○ Results from appeals
  6. 6. ● Easier for applying specific rules ○ “Block for a certain period (Х days after premier), monetize after that” ● Will it scale? ○ 300 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute ○ Will require consolidation of rightholders ● Different rules: ○ For service providers in dominant market position - an obligation to implement filters internally ● Protection of repositories of copyrighted works ● Annotating all works with metadata, including rights for reuse, exceptions of copyright, etc. ● Right of uploaders to claim exceptions ● “Verified uploader” - eID (anonymous credentials) The devil is in the details
  7. 7. ● The choice is not binary - there’s more than just “with” or “without” filters ● The appeals process is key ○ Filtering with delay ● We need more information in order to take decisions ○ More transparency from service providers and rightholders ● Can we solve the fundamental problem - users are used to free content ○ YouTube, Spotify, SoundCloud are barely break-even or even losing money ○ Rightholders claim that they don’t get enough money ○ The advertising industry (that is the main source of money) will be affected by GDPR and the ePrivacy Regulation ○ Where will the money come from? There is no simple solution
  8. 8. My recommendation: back to the drawing board
  9. 9. Thank you

×