English subtitles for clip: File:Max Andersson and Julia Reda talking about copyright.webm
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
1 00:00:00,570 --> 00:00:06,830 In the European Parliament we work a lot on internet policy and there are some really 2 00:00:06,830 --> 00:00:12,669 bad proposals being discussed right now that could threaten the internet as we know it. 3 00:00:12,669 --> 00:00:17,779 I am here with Julia Reda who is leading the fight against these bad proposals. 4 00:00:17,779 --> 00:00:18,779 Hi. 5 00:00:18,779 --> 00:00:19,779 Hello. 6 00:00:19,779 --> 00:00:25,570 Julia I am hearing a lot about the need to save the link. 7 00:00:25,570 --> 00:00:29,390 And you are one of the leaders on Save the link campaign. 8 00:00:29,390 --> 00:00:31,050 Why are links under threat? 9 00:00:31,050 --> 00:00:34,160 What is the problem and why does the link have to be saved? 10 00:00:34,160 --> 00:00:40,610 So the European commission has proposed that publishers should get a new right to forbid or 11 00:00:40,610 --> 00:00:42,550 allow people from linking to their articles. 12 00:00:42,550 --> 00:00:48,600 and we are talking here about articles that the publishers have voluntarily put online themselves 13 00:00:48,600 --> 00:00:50,160 for everyone to see. 14 00:00:50,160 --> 00:00:53,629 So this is really an attack on the way that the internet works. 15 00:00:53,629 --> 00:01:00,320 Because if I want to learn about the world from many different news sources I use social media, 16 00:01:00,320 --> 00:01:06,210 I use news aggregators and I want to be able to see what my friends might be sharing and 17 00:01:06,210 --> 00:01:07,840 what they find interesting. 18 00:01:07,840 --> 00:01:12,979 So if they need permission or need to pay in order to link to news articles that means 19 00:01:12,979 --> 00:01:15,220 that nobody will do it anymore. 20 00:01:15,220 --> 00:01:21,580 So this is a proposal coming mostly from the biggest publishers, German publishers who 21 00:01:21,580 --> 00:01:26,880 want people to go directly to their homepage and not read news from different sources anymore. 22 00:01:26,880 --> 00:01:31,850 But I think for media pluralism, for the freedom of the internet this is a terrible idea. 23 00:01:31,850 --> 00:01:38,899 You're from Germany so you already know what this thing work like in practice. 24 00:01:38,899 --> 00:01:45,310 Yeah so in Germany the publishers successfully lobbied for this link tax in 2013, it's law 25 00:01:45,310 --> 00:01:51,270 since then and they promised that this way there would be a lot of new money for the 26 00:01:51,270 --> 00:01:54,370 news industry and there would be quality journalism. 27 00:01:54,370 --> 00:01:55,370 Great! 28 00:01:55,370 --> 00:02:03,369 What actually happened is that they are creating revenues of roughly 5000 euros per year on 29 00:02:03,369 --> 00:02:08,580 the income side but on the spending side they are spending millions and millions on court 30 00:02:08,580 --> 00:02:15,050 cases about how exactly many words from an article you're allowed to use in a link and these 31 00:02:15,050 --> 00:02:19,140 court cases have been going on for years and there is no solution. 32 00:02:19,140 --> 00:02:24,700 So basically the publishers who lobbied for this law have been loosing money as a consequence 33 00:02:24,700 --> 00:02:29,330 of it and at the same time small start-ups were sued by other businesses. 34 00:02:29,330 --> 00:02:36,190 That does not sound great at all.No all the experts in Germany are saying this was a mistake 35 00:02:36,190 --> 00:02:41,080 so I think it would be absurd to now extend it to a European level. 36 00:02:41,080 --> 00:02:42,970 Let's try to stop this. 37 00:02:42,970 --> 00:02:44,190 Definitely. 38 00:02:44,190 --> 00:02:53,260 Another thing I hear a lot worrying is bad is upload filters. 39 00:02:53,260 --> 00:02:54,580 You're against that too. 40 00:02:54,580 --> 00:03:01,310 Yes, the upload filter filter proposal is also part of this commission proposal on copyright 41 00:03:01,310 --> 00:03:09,780 and originally the reason for it was to make sure that Youtube pays the music industry. 42 00:03:09,780 --> 00:03:15,130 But nobody has been able to explain to me how an obligation to use automatic filters 43 00:03:15,130 --> 00:03:19,980 to prevent copyright infringement would somehow lead to more payment to authors. 44 00:03:19,980 --> 00:03:25,270 I mean most of the authors, yes they want to paid, but they also want their content 45 00:03:25,270 --> 00:03:26,670 to be visible online. 46 00:03:26,670 --> 00:03:32,160 And wherever we see these filters in practice they don't work and they end up deleting a 47 00:03:32,160 --> 00:03:37,520 lot of legal content because they are just not able to make the very difficult decisions 48 00:03:37,530 --> 00:03:43,050 about what is a copyright infringement and what is maybe a legal quotation or a parody. 49 00:03:43,050 --> 00:03:44,950 So when in doubt they just delete everything. 50 00:03:44,950 --> 00:03:50,390 So you mean that artificial intelligence isn't really up to the task of finding out what is a legal quotation 51 00:03:50,420 --> 00:03:53,140 and what is parody? 52 00:03:53,140 --> 00:03:58,540 Yeah it is really bizzare that on the one hand we say, you know, big platforms like Youtube 53 00:03:58,540 --> 00:04:06,140 and Facebook they have too much power using the algorithms to control our societies 54 00:04:06,150 --> 00:04:07,580 instead of the law. 55 00:04:07,580 --> 00:04:12,760 And then the solution that is presented is that the algorithms should decide what can 56 00:04:12,760 --> 00:04:16,200 be put online and what can't instead of the law. 57 00:04:16,200 --> 00:04:17,850 And this is completely absurd. 58 00:04:17,850 --> 00:04:25,840 Yesterday a journalist asked me the artists are saying they want upload filtering because 59 00:04:25,840 --> 00:04:30,550 Youtube isn't paying them enough so everyone should use upload filtering. 60 00:04:30,550 --> 00:04:32,820 What would you answer that? 61 00:04:32,820 --> 00:04:38,790 Well first of all a lot of artist use Youtube in particular have become victims of upload 62 00:04:38,790 --> 00:04:39,790 filters. 63 00:04:39,790 --> 00:04:45,220 Youtube already have a filter for music, called Content ID, and very often it deletes the 64 00:04:45,220 --> 00:04:47,620 original work of independent artists. 65 00:04:47,620 --> 00:04:53,070 For example, there was a feminist collective that made a music video in Germany, they presented 66 00:04:53,070 --> 00:04:59,330 it on television and afterwards the television channel had their show registered with Content 67 00:04:59,330 --> 00:05:03,590 ID and the original was deleted and it was a big blow to the campaign. 68 00:05:03,590 --> 00:05:04,970 This happens quite a lot. 69 00:05:04,970 --> 00:05:10,650 I understand perfectly that people want to be paid for their creations but the filters 70 00:05:10,650 --> 00:05:12,800 don't actually lead to more payment. 71 00:05:12,800 --> 00:05:17,800 So what we should be talking about is how do we make sure that Youtube makes fair agreements 72 00:05:17,800 --> 00:05:19,620 with the music industry. 73 00:05:19,620 --> 00:05:24,640 But these filtering proposals don't just apply to Youtube, they also apply to platforms that 74 00:05:24,640 --> 00:05:31,080 don't exploit creators in any way, for example Wikipedia where people upload Creative Commons 75 00:05:31,080 --> 00:05:36,670 licensed content or even things like GitHub that software developers use every day 76 00:05:36,670 --> 00:05:38,330 as part of their professional activity. 77 00:05:38,330 --> 00:05:44,670 So the commission is proposing things that could really harm small platforms and the 78 00:05:44,670 --> 00:05:48,860 internet community and development of new progress. 79 00:05:48,860 --> 00:05:51,140 That's right. Why are they doing this? 80 00:05:51,140 --> 00:05:56,389 I think to a large extent they have never even thought about these platforms when they 81 00:05:56,389 --> 00:05:57,400 made the proposal. 82 00:05:57,400 --> 00:06:01,389 They were lobbied very heavily by the music industry. 83 00:06:01,389 --> 00:06:05,150 On the one hand you have Youtube lobbying, you know, they don't want to pay but they have 84 00:06:05,150 --> 00:06:08,150 no problem with the filtering obligation. 85 00:06:08,150 --> 00:06:14,500 So basically the big platforms are saying filters maybe but please don't make us pay. 86 00:06:14,500 --> 00:06:19,480 And so we end up with the worst of both worlds were the authors are not getting anything 87 00:06:19,480 --> 00:06:21,860 the largest platforms get a new business model 88 00:06:21,920 --> 00:06:23,320 they will be able to sell their 89 00:06:23,320 --> 00:06:28,860 filters to the small platforms in the future and the only ones losing out is innovation and 90 00:06:28,860 --> 00:06:33,560 the users of the internet who want to have also small platforms, non-commercial platforms to 91 00:06:33,560 --> 00:06:35,560 be able to succeed. 92 00:06:35,560 --> 00:06:39,590 Right, what can people who watches this video do to stop it? 93 00:06:39,590 --> 00:06:44,139 We are going to vote on this in the European Parliament committee that is responsible on 94 00:06:44,139 --> 00:06:50,330 the 21 June and until then you have time to contact your representatives especially the 95 00:06:50,330 --> 00:06:54,840 members of the legal affairs committee but also any member of the European Parliament 96 00:06:54,840 --> 00:06:58,139 that is responsible for your region, for your country. 97 00:06:58,139 --> 00:07:02,450 Let them know that you don't want the link tax and you don't want upload filters and 98 00:07:02,450 --> 00:07:04,960 that it's their responsibility to stop it. 99 00:07:04,960 --> 00:07:06,240 Let's do this. 100 00:07:09,540 --> 00:07:10,040 Alright.