rysiek ✅ is a user on mastodon.social. You can follow them or interact with them if you have an account anywhere in the fediverse. If you don't, you can sign up here.
rysiek ✅ @rysiek

This is very important:
juliareda.eu/2018/06/saveyouri

"Article 13 of the Copyright Directive will force internet platforms (social networks, video sites, image hosts, etc.) to install upload filters to monitor all user uploads for copyrighted content, including in images – and thus block most memes, which are usually based on copyrighted images.

(...)

It will come down to every single vote. (...) The NGO EDRi has made a list of key swing votes: edri.org/files/Copyright_JURI_

This will affect .

rysiek ✅ @rysiek

I have sent e-mails to the MEPs. Have you?
juliareda.eu/2018/06/saveyouri

Every e-mail counts. I know this, because years ago I was an activist fighting similar odds on the ground: rys.io/en/70

So send your e-mails, call your MEPs. Block Article 11 and Article 13 of the Copyright Directive.

rysiek ✅ @rysiek

Article 13 requires online platforms to filter content upon upload.

This is ridiculous - whether or not particular use of copyrighted content is legal tends to be a complicated matter, with years of court proceedings to establish that.

Expecing an algorithm to make a decision like this in a split second is asking for trouble.

rysiek ✅ @rysiek

So, here's a couple of decisions made by algorithms already used by YouTube for a very similar purpose.

You tell me if this makes sense.

1. NASA's Official Mars Landing Video Got Taken Off YouTube Over Bogus Copyright Claims
gizmodo.com/5932089/nasas-offi

"The Curiosity Rover may have landed safely on the surface of Mars, but like all good things, it's not invulnerable to completely bogus takedown requests.

(...)[T]he video was rendered unavailable due to a copyright claim by Scripps Local News."

· Web · 19 · 14
rysiek ✅ @rysiek

2. YouTube Identifies Birdsong As Copyrighted Music
yro.slashdot.org/story/12/02/2

"I make nature videos for my YouTube channel, generally in remote wilderness away from any possible source of music. And I purposely avoid using a soundtrack in my videos because of all the horror stories I hear about Rumblefish filing claims against public domain music. But when uploading my latest video, YouTube informed me that I was using Rumblefish's copyrighted content"

rysiek ✅ @rysiek

3. YouTube Content ID is flawed for Classical Musicians
linkedin.com/pulse/20141109004

"Content ID (...) often mismatches commercial classical recordings with original performances of the same classical music which are in the public domain. So when classical musicians post their original performances on YouTube, there will often be advertisements to monetize that video. The uploader is not the one who profits, but rather it's the record label that owns the rights to the commercial recording."

Alexandra Soroca 🎹 @SeventhMagpie@mastodon.art

@rysiek Exactly this happened to Valentina Lisitsa. YouTube algorithm confused part of her performance with the recording of Glenn Gould. And guess what they did. They just removed 1.5 minutes of music right out of her performance.

wqxr.org/story/valentina-lisit

This is not just "flawed'. This is outrageous.

Sully @sullybiker@sully.site
@rysiek Good god, man. You're on social media, stop providing evidence of your arguments, you make the rest of us look bad
rysiek ✅ @rysiek

@sullybiker

rysiek ✅ @rysiek

.@sullybiker fun fact #2: this uploaded Spiderman meme would get blocked under Article 13.

Call your MEP!
juliareda.eu/2018/06/saveyouri

mastodon.social powered by Mastodon