Quick! If you're someone that lives in the European Union, you only have a limited time to watch this video
Welcome to Psych IRL. My name is Donna.
ARTICLE 13
In one of my previous videos, I mentioned article 13
and the scary part was a lot of you did not know what that was
okay look and I know I may not be the most interesting of topics
BORING
so I will add explosions
but it's a really important topic that could change the way you use the internet
and even if you don't live in Europe, it still does pertain to you
so give me a chance and I'll explain
I promise it's important
game theory and coffee break already did an in-depth explanation of article 13
so I will link their videos down in the description
I'm gonna give you the very simple and jist of what article 13 is
and why you should be very very worried
first of all my channel won't be the only channel that you won't be seeing if article 13 passes
you're also not gonna be seeing channels like cinemasins
Shrek conveniently leaves out the part
where he kills the fish by farting in the pond
Bad lip reading
I touch you
(uncomfortable laugh) Yeah buddy
Cool beans homie.
theory channels, film reviews, and commentary
now what do these channels have in common?
well we used copyrighted material or work that hasn't been created by us
article 13 will ultimately stop this and before you go, "good that's stealing"
the way my channel and these channels use copyrighted work is okay because it lies
under fair use. Fair use states that it's acceptable to use material without the
copyright owner's permission
in works of commentary, criticism, research, teaching, or news reporting
Explosion
this is really vital to free speech. You should be able to critique something
or give your educational take on something and report something happening
For example documentaries often use copyrighted material to showcase
something and discuss an overall important topic. Without fair use
documentaries wouldn't happen but it's not a fair use when you simply upload
a duplicated version of somebody else's work. You must add commentary, criticism
education or some kind of reporting for it to be classified as fair use
it's also good to note that the content must be transformative in nature
so it's also not fair use if you do a video and a song you don't have the license to
is playing in the background
(girl singing)
because it's not transformative in nature, you're simply just doing a video
and you're kind of claiming that the song is yours but if you're breaking
down a song and commenting on each part, that would be fair use
24-karat magic is essentially made up of that drum
plus a number of synthesizers that play the role of guitar, bass, and horn sections
from Browns music
and of course we wouldn't have memes if it weren't for fair use
ladies and gentlemen we got em'
here's the problem, this law only applies to the United States and since a
lot of these websites where users can upload whatever content they want are
sort of global, such as Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat
These websites have to abide by the rules of these countries
Countries in the European Union unfortunately have different rules
According to film Theory they explained it as
instead of fair use, it's called permitted use. I also looked something up
and I saw something called fair dealing. I mean I don't know what it's called
really to tell you the truth, but the gist of it is, the European Union and the
US do not have the same rules. So there's a problem because the European Union
wants to pass this directive article 13
it's often referred to as the upload filter
and it would make most internet platforms that hosts large amounts of
user uploaded content directly liable for copyright infringement by their user
explosion
it's ultimate goal is to protect copyright holders and of course that is a rightful goal
you shouldn't be using material that isn't yours unless of course it were criticism, commentary,
educational purpose or review. They take
videos and pictures from all around the internet and centralize them on their page
Centralized in this case is a nice word first stealing. But this article
wants to have YouTube to have more responsibility in the consequences so
right now what happens is that when someone uploads a video that isn't
theirs, there's something called Content ID. So the rightful owner gets some sort
of notification that someone has uploaded a duplicate copy of their video
now this person has the choice of
block the video that matched that content
they can monetize the video
or they can track viewer data to get detailed analytics
such as countries where their content is popular
now this whole system isn't perfect. Some people abuse Content ID and strike people that
do commentary, criticism, or research
Why is everyone lying about Bohemian Rhapsody? I talk about the issue
I don't play even a f- microsecond of the song. Not at all. Boom!
What do I wake up to today? oh this claim was manually claimed. Not even the automatic detection
Some MF. F- You! went in and manually claimed this video
but it's the only feasible option that works for now. So YouTube gives the
owners of the video tools to potentially take down videos that violate their copyright rights
ooo ok. Did not say that right
So if someone steals your content, you cannot sue YouTube
you can sue the individual that stole your content
but you can't sue YouTube because YouTube is just responsible for giving
you the tools to take that person down. Article 13 and wants it so YouTube has
to be responsible for violations of copyright. they can be sued too.
This is very impossible there is no system that can differentiate between commentary
criticism, research, and just a straight-up duplicate of an upload
the only way that could really work is if there's some sort of human intervention
and that's not possible with the amount of hours that are uploaded to YouTube every single minute
because of this article it would be better for YouTube to not allow regular people to upload content
because they just don't have a system that can again
classify between those two types of content. So in Europe
the only people that could probably upload are corporations because YouTube
knows that they own the licenses to whatever they upload. This is heavily
backed by music lobbyists. Sir Paul McCartney, man I love the Beatles but
this is what he says: Dear members of the European Parliament, I write to urge
your support for the mandate on copyright in the upcoming plenary vote
this week. Music and culture matter. They are our heart and soul, but they don't just
happen. They demand the hard work of so many people. Importantly, music also
creates jobs and economic growth and digital innovation across Europe
Unfortunately the value gap jeopardizes the music ecosystem. We need an internet
that is fair and sustainable for all, but today some user uploaded content
platforms refuse to compensate artists and all music creators fairly for their
work while they exploit for their own profit the value gap is that gulf
between the value these platforms derive from music and the value they pay
creators. The proposed copyright directive and its article 13 would
address the value gap and help assure a sustainable future for the music
ecosystem and its creators, fans, and digital music services alike. Please vote
to uphold the mandate on copyright and article 13. You hold in your hands the
future of music here in Europe. Thank you for your consideration
Sincerely Sir Paul McCartney
Explosion
so essentially what that open letter is saying is, they want more money. YouTube
does pay them but they need more of that cut from YouTube. This article would do
that because it will penalize YouTube every time some copyright violation is
made. It will no longer penalize the individual person that uploaded that
content. They will penalize YouTube and yes YouTube has said that they support
this goal. People shouldn't be uploading content that isn't theirs but this
article isn't the right way to do it. It's just impossible with a platform
that's designed where everyone can upload whatever they want. No algorithm
can detect between what's criticism and what's a straight duplicate uploaded
video. And if this article passes I'm gonna be losing a big chunk of my
audience. They will not be able to see my videos, but this doesn't only just affect
me. Like I said before it's gonna affect creators that create content that uses
copyrighted material that live in the European Union. You're not gonna see
creators like PewDiePie who lives in the UK and apparently even though Brexit
happened he's still affected by this rule. I know what you're thinking if
you're someone that doesn't live in Europe, it's not gonna affect you but it
does. Not only are you going to lose some of those good creators that live in
Europe, but these rules may also someday be applied to everyone, across the board
You already see YouTube moving in a corporate direction. Don't let it move
any further. There have been some great creators that have blossomed on the site
without any corporate interference and that's an amazing thing because you're
able to upload whatever you want and with this article passing, that's not
gonna happen anymore. So what can you do to stop this? If you are someone that
lives in the European Union you can sign the petition that I have left down in
the description below. If you are someone that doesn't live in the European Union
bring awareness to this by tweeting about it, sharing on Facebook, or making a
video about it. It's a really important topic
Normally I don't ask you to share anything because I don't know I feel
kind of weird about it, but I think this is a very important topic and I think
that I explained it fairly well. hopefully. Retweet the original tweet
that I made on Twitter and I'll give you a shout out in next video
I will see you guys next time.
Some of you
Stay psyched