Study Shows That Copyright Filters Harm Creators Rather Than Help Them
from the filters-are-just-bad dept
The EU Copyright Directive contains one of the worst ideas in modern copyright: what amounts to a requirement to filter uploads on major sites. Despite repeated explanations of why this would cause huge harm to both creators and members of the public, EU politicians were taken in by the soothing words of the legislation’s proponents, who even went so far as to deny that upload filters would be required at all.
The malign effects of the EU Copyright Directive have not yet been felt, as national legislatures struggle to implement a law with deep internal contradictions. However, upload filters are already used on an ad hoc basis, for example YouTube’s Content ID. There is thus already mounting evidence of the problems with the approach. A new report, from the Colombian Fundación Karisma, adds to the concerns by providing additional examples of how creators have already suffered from upload filters:
This research found multiple cases of unjustified notifications of supposed violation of copyright directed at content that is either part of the public domain, original content, or instances of judicial overreach of copyright law. The digital producers that are the target of these unjust notifications affirm that the appeal process and counter-notification procedures don’t help them protect their rights. The appeals interface of the different platforms that were taken into account did not help resolve the cases, which leaves digital creators defenseless with no alternative other than what they can obtain from their contacts. This system damages the capacity of these producers to grow, maintain and monetize an audience at the same time that it affects the liberty of expression of independent producers as it creates a strong disincentive for them. On the contrary, this system incentivizes the bigger production companies to claim copyright on content to which they hold no rights.
As that summary notes, it’s not just that material was blocked without justification. Compounding the problem are appeal processes that are biased against creators, and a system that is rigged in favor of Big Content to the point where companies can falsely claim copyright on the work of others. The Fundación Karisma report is particularly valuable because it describes what has been happening in Colombia, rounding out other work that typically looks at the situation in the US and EU.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter, Diaspora, or Mastodon. Post originally from Walled Culture.
Filed Under: copyright, copyright filters, creators, eu copyright directive, fundacion karisma, upload filters
Comments on “Study Shows That Copyright Filters Harm Creators Rather Than Help Them”
Other shocking reports…
Water Wet
Fire Hot
Ice Cold
But the reptilian corporate brain can’t think of another course & will keep promising that THIS time the same thing that failed 1000 times will work.
Copyright Filters Harm Creators Rather Than Help Them.
Because Copyright itself harms creators rather than helps them.
Re:
Links.
Re: Re:
Too many to count but the most recent involves an alternative take on the Joker that should have played at the Toronto International Film Festival.
Re: Re: Re:
Bad example. The Joker is a Batman character, so any works involving him are derivatives requiring permission unless they clearly fall under an exception to the copyright laws of the country of production.
Re: Re: Re:2
It’s a parody which would have been protected under fair use- or fair dealing, for those in Canada. But since DC’s parent company Warner Bros. provides a significant amount of funding to the Toronto International Film Festival, they can use the threat of withholding said funding as leverage to keep “The Peoples’ Joker” from airing. Watch it on YouTube before it gets censored by copyright bots.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UL4bCYIiOuQ
Re: Re: Re:
Again, links. You’ve made an assertion, so now you need to provide evidence of it.
Re: Re:
https://www.bestnettech.com/
Re: Re: Re:
AC requested actual links, anti-copyright troll, not links to the homepage of any website.
Re: Re: Re:2
Someone who understands what the link represents would never make a reply to my link as stupid as that one, yet here you are.
Re: Re: Re:3
Someone who understands what a request for links represents would never make a reply to it as stupid as your original comment, yet here you are again with another.
Re: Re: Re:4
Hey Bayside fanboy, how’s that Bayside Advisory fund coming along?
Re: Re: Re:2
I’m sorry you’re too lazy to actually read the site.
I’m even more sorry you apparently can’t read the damn article before responding.
I’m even more sorry you appear to not even have 2 braincells to rub against each other, or you’d have figured out the connection i stead of responding to stimuli.
Re: Re: Re:3
Why are you talking to yourself like that? Self-flagellation is so medieval.
Re: Re: Re:3
The fact you’ve resorted to an ad hom attack shows you’ve no real argument you can make. I wonder why that is?
Re: Re: Re:4
…would say nobody literate, ever.
Re: Re: Re:5
…would say nobody literate, ever.
Would say nobody with good reading comprehension, ever.
Re: Re: Re:4
I’ll spell it out for you.
The site you are commenting on has a TON of articles explaining why copyright hurts creators.
The article you are commenting on is one of those articles.
Have you put one and one together yet?
Re: Re: Re:5
I’ll spell it out for you.
The site you are commenting on has a TON of articles explaining why copyright hurts creators.
This makes an example of any single point particularly hard to find.
Have you put one and one together yet, or are you as dumb as you’re making AC out to be?
Re: Re: Re:6
How to know if someone is a dishonest and trollish asshole, use other peoples nym’s but that just goes to show that you are so lazy and unoriginal you can’t even come up with your own.
FFS, can someone on TD fix the fucking gravitars so they are sticky again?
Re: Re: Re:7
lol fuck no. It’s funny as fuck masquerading as people you already mock anyway.
Re: Re: Re:3
“i stead”
Protip cowboy. When insulting others intelligence, best not to make a spelling error. Makes you look like a fucking idiot.
Re: Re: Re:4
Not as much as being copyright maximalist.
Re: Re: Re:5 Past time to put the pipe down.
You seem confused bro.
'If they were real creators they'd be on our payroll.'
Clearly the problem is that the filters aren’t sure if those are genuine creators, since as any major company will tell you the real creators are the ones who are signed up under their umbrella.
As such the solution is simple, if someone wants to create something and share it with the world they just need to sign it over to a major company who will ensure it is properly protected.
Copyright filters are not intended to help the creator, they are intended to help the publishers.
It’s always nice to have hard data to back up the obvious, but unfortunately this only matters to people who care about facts. And they’re not the ones pushing for content filters in the first place.
Re:
Nor the ones calling for a complete end to copyright. No, I don’t support maximalism. I’m only a member of the oft excluded middle.
Re: Re:
Ah, don’t lie to yourself chumley.
On the contrary, this system incentivizes the bigger production companies to claim copyright on content to which they hold no rights.
But we’ve been long beyond that for a while. The systems are so tilted that the proxy “rights protection” rackets can claim anything, as well as any jackass pretending to be a rights holder. This works in filtering just as well as i-file-dmca-lol.
Re:
It reminded me of when Mike recounted an anecdote how after his CwF+RtB TED-esque talk, a Record Label exec came up to Mike, looked over both his shoulders and when the coast was clear, he would whisper to Mike “I agree with you! It’s just that everybody else in the RIAA would have my head on a platter if I publicly said what you just did!” (Mike, if I’m misrepresentating anything, please say so)
The MPA and RIAA really are a mob.
It’s not even that the problems lie with filters or copyright, the problem has always been the fact that any system available to smaller entities will always be easily leveraged and abused by larger ones, purely because they have more resources to not only commit the abuse, but also weather attempts at preventing or enforcing against said abuse.
On the other hand, creators like Maria Schneider do themselves no favors when allying with questionable enforcers like Pirate Monitor, with substandard quality of copyright infringement evidence and a complete lack of transparency to their claims. When your antipiracy enforcement would rather dismiss their own case and yeet themselves from a suit against YouTube, it harkens back to the time when Prenda Law collectively plead the 5th Amendment.
Copyright legislations typically are about enriching copyright landlords and creators at the expense of consumers and society. What shock that the dogs are eating each other this time instead of the consumers and society, lol. Like the copyright landlords and creators are going to be faithful political allies, lol. Copyright cultists will be copyright cultists. Don’t you know its all about the Almighty Dollar? Publishers, creators , copyright holders, Big Copyrightz all them are about carving bigger economic pies for themselves from the consumers and society. and from each other. Boo hoo smalltime creators are getting a bad break. Bigger dogs get to eat the little dogs in the dog world that is modern Copyright. In the pecking order, smalltime creators is just above the consumers down on the bottom. Big money trumps small money in politic. Nothing is new about it.
TLDR version: Copyright’s about the $$$ not about humans. Hence whining about people not getting “fair” shares of the $$$ is not going to stop ever.
You say this is one of worst ideas in modern Copyright? Let me tell you what I think is the worst idea of modern Copyright? modern Copyright itself!
For instance , how does this Copyright legislation help with promoting innovation and art? Was that goal ever considered in this? I seriously doubt it. This is not an outlier but a typical legislation among the legislations that make up modern Copyright. Like, were the legislations that made modern Copyright about the welfare of society or promoting innovations and art? Like since 2000’s ? nope. It’s just the same old news. It’s always about screwing over the consumers and society. That is modern Copyright for you. Full of bad ideas. like for example the length of copyright? 70 years after author’s life? How is that but a big Fuck You to consumers and society? Dead authors or their estates don’t create. So why are we paying them? (If you think that help spurs on more creations by the live creators, I think you are living in a fantasy world like other copyright cultists. How about instead going on faith of your cult, see what empirical data says on that?)
TLDR version: modern Copyright is about $$$ for some humans, not about human society. Hence bad idea.
This Copyright legislation like many before should clearly demonstrate to the intellectually honest that modern Copyright really is being designed for the purpose of fattening the wallets of copyright landlords. As opposed to being designed for the claimed goal that supposedly justify what it takes away from society. What claimed goal is that? It’s like everyone is forgetting- the goal of enriching society with creations by inducing creators to work hard. If Copyright today is not about that claimed goal anymore then how do we justify the governmental suppressment of free speech in which the courts choose not factor in the First Amendment just because it’s in the name of Copyright? If Copyright is not anymore about that claimed goal, how do we morally justify the persecution of people for speech that is deemed to infringe Copyright?
TLDR verson: modern Copyright is bullshit. It has no moral standing.
Creators or copyright landlords getting less don’t always correlate to less creations. That’s just copyright cult math, not actual reality. So that should not matter a lot. Copyright cult ideology is not based on empirical data, but on political interests. If we are to be honest, if we agree Copyright should be just about achieving its purported goal then it should not revolve around the merely enriching of creators and the copyright landlords. How do this make sense with if the goal is about promoting innovations and art? It should be about actually inducing them to work hard for society, innovating and creating. Overpaying a socioeconomic class of people to work less is damn economically ineffective and is cheating society of economic value. And if we must have a classist system to ensure innovations and art happen then at least we need to think about how much power and incentives we are giving to the “stakeholders” and how much that corresponds to productivity and value to society in terms of innovations and art. At least lets do that if we are not going to care at all about our liberties that we are giving up for them. If we have to give up liberties for them then we should ensure we get value for it from them.
TLDR version: If we must have Copyright, stop making it all about the creators and copyright landlords, but about us, the rest of society, the ones who give up liberties to make Copyright “works”. It should pay well for us as well besides them.
Re:
It’s not even that small-time creators are dogs getting eaten by bigger dogs; they’re like the schmucks in pump and dump schemes thinking they’re part of the “pump” and anticipating a massive windfall, when really they’re part of the “dump” – they’re going to be the ones holding onto all the costs, not the profits. They genuinely think that acting on behalf of copyright maximalists will pay off in the end, when history strongly indicates that they won’t.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Said the minimalist.
Re: Re: Re:
Oh, it’s you again. Don’t you have a Bayside Advisory to simp for or something?
Re: Re: Re:
… said nobody mentally competent, ever.
Re: Re: Re:2
Said nobody outside of a mental institute ever.
Re: Re: Re:3 The irony is too intense to look at directly.
Oh looks it’s the man with so little creativity he can only “borrow” previously used comments, commenting on an article, and indeed a website that mainly talks about tech and creatively.
Re: Re: Re:4
Oh, look. It’s the person with so few smarts they have no idea of correct punctuation, never mind grammar and sentence flow.
Re: Re: Re:5 Sorry bro the "oh look" saying is copyrighted
Oh look resorting to criticizing minor spelling errors cause you have can’t actually come up with an original comment to save your pathetic life.
Re: Re: Re:
You say that like being a copyright minimalist is a crime punishable by death.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
According to many on BestNetTech, being a copyright maximalist should be punishable by the death penalty. Since one extreme is as bad as the other…
Re: Re: Re:3
Why don’t you go write Tero Pulkinnen a love letter? I’m sure he needs the moral (high horse) support.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
If that’s what you believe, then you go do it. But believe me, that guy needs no support for his crazy, especially not from you.
Re: Re: Re:5
That’s because Tero is what copyright maximalism looks like, and it deserves to be called out and routinely mocked, not lived in fear of.
Re: Re: Re:6
Pirates like you are what enable copyright maximalism. You brought down death upon yourselves. I’d rather get on my knees and suck off Tero than stand with you.
Re: Re: Re:7
You maximalist apologists really are the most basic bunch of useful idiots, aren’t you?
Re: Re: Re:8
Projection thy name is Jhon Impotent Smith.
Re: Re: Re:7
I avoid works from publisher who do not trust their customers and insist on using DRM, and entertain myself with works made freely available. Given the amount and breadth of work available on the Internet, I have no need to resort to piracy, and take offense at you taring people who disagree with you with that brush.
Re: Re: Re:7
Nah, greedy execs sitting on their golden thrones made from the blood of their content creators, since the 50s (and quite possibly earlier), enabled copyright maximalism, and at least in the 17th century, the precursor to copyright maximalism, the Stationer’s Company.
On a technicality, you also want to enable publishers and related entities to be state censors as well. And the Stationers actually resoted to violence to maintain their fucking monopoly/cartel.
So, get fucked. And not in the good way.
Re: Re: Re:7
I’m not sure what’s funnier. The people like you who lie about people like me about being pirates, or the low balance in my bank account that came from supporting filmmakers who were’s idiots.
I’ll just sit back and imagine what life would be like if people who hallucinated were not also voters.
Re: Re: Re:7 Get suckin
Tero will happily give you his address Jhon.
Re: Re: Re:3
Links or STFU
We know you will do neither though.
Re: Re: Re:2
Many on BestNetTech believe copyright maximalism should be punishable by the death penalty, and since one extreme is as bad as the other…
Re: Re: Re:3
[citation needed]. And I don’t mean that in the sense of people reacting negatively towards acts of copyright maximalism. I mean actual citations of people in no uncertain terms working towards making the death penalty a legitimate outcome for copyright maximalists.
[Hallucinates facts not in evidence]
Re:
(The above was in reply to BDAC’s “According to many on BestNetTech, being a copyright maximalist should be punishable by the death penalty.” whole-cloth derangement)
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Ah, so you don’t like to face up to reality.And then you have the cheek to imply others are mentally deranged.
Re: Re: Re:
All you’re doing is doubling down that I’m 100% correct in observing your total detachment from reality.
Re: Re: Re:2
Could you tell me more about that mirror you’re sitting in front of? It clearly needs to be replaced so you can see it’s yourself you’re actually talking to.
Re: Re: Re:3 Look at you doing your thing like a shouty street corner hobo
Oh look it’s the whatabout guy.
Re: Re: Re:4
We know you are. You keep showing up just to project that particular accusation, and I suspect it’s in response to your own posts sometimes.
Re: Re: Re:5 If the boot fits hon
“We know you are.”
Which personality of yours is projecting this at present?
Re: Re: Re:
I’d ask you for links, but I think we all know how that would turn out.
Re: Re: Re:2
Because it’s uniquely impossible for BDAC to link any evidence that proves they have ever once made a truthful claim here.
Re: Re: Re:3
So you sockpuppet as an AC? Good to know, thanks for the admission.
Re: Re: Re:4
Poor stupid and delusional is no way to go through life bro.
Re: Re: Re:5
So why do it then?
Re: Re: Re:6 Sorry thats MR Imrubber
Imrubberyourglue man strikes again!
Re: Re: Re:2
They’ll be provided, but you’ll keep sealioning? Seen it so often before.
Re: Re: Re:3
If you consider the differentiation between actual legal precedence and hyperbole in Internet comment speech to be sealioning, there’s genuinely no helping you. You’re keen on painting everyone who disagrees with you as a minimalist.
Re: Re: Re:2
“I’d ask you for links, but I think we all know how that would turn out.”
People laughing at how obviously fake the things you posted were, and asking for evidence that would pass a kindergarten session?
Re: Re: Re:
“so you don’t like to face up to reality”
Reality involves facts, which can be backed up be evidence. Where’s the stuff you’re basing your claims on?
Re: Re: Re:2
Too much to link to directly, so here.
Re: Re: Re:3 Also guilty
The evidence being, Toom likes to make fun of idiots and you falling into that demographic, isn’t quite the Perry Mason moment you think it is bro.
Re: Re: Re:3
So you admit you’re projecting lies as ever and always.