YouTube “Very Concerned” About Article 13, Mulls Copyright Claim Tweaks

[The AchieVer]

YouTube “Very Concerned” About Article 13, Mulls Copyright Claim Tweaks

Following the historic passing of the new EU Copyright Directive, YouTube is now looking to the future. While expressing concern surrounding unintended consequences, the company is urging supporters not to give up the fight. Meanwhile, YouTube says it's also looking into the small and incidental use of copyrighted content that can trigger annoying manual claims from copyright holders.

On March 26, the EU Parliament voted to pass the new Copyright Directive, including the controversial Article 13 (Article 17 in the final text).

 

The final step took place mid-April, when the Council of Ministers approved the legislation, despite opposition from Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Finland, and Sweden.

 

YouTube was and remains one of the primary targets of the legislation. Copyright holders, those from the music industry in particular, want to prevent the platform from utilizing content without paying a fair market rate.

 

Whether that will be the actual real-world outcome remains unclear but in a new post on its Creator Blog, YouTube says that it still has deep reservations surrounding the legislation.

 

“[W]e are also still very concerned about Article 13 (now renamed Article 17) — a part of the Copyright Directive that recently passed in the E.U,” writes YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki.

 

“While we support the rights of copyright holders—YouTube has deals with almost all the music companies and TV broadcasters today—we are concerned about the vague, untested requirements of the new directive.”

 

While it hardly needs repeating, the tacit requirement for some Internet platforms to install upload filters to prevent infringement in the absence of content licensing deals remains a big concern for many companies. While YouTube already has such systems in place, strict upload filters are a potential threat, Wojcicki suggests.

 

“[Article 17] could create serious limitations for what YouTube creators can upload. This risks lowering the revenue to traditional media and music companies from YouTube and potentially devastating the many European creators who have built their businesses on YouTube,” the company’s CEO adds.

 

Although Article 17 has passed on the EU level, member states will still have to write its provisions into local law, a process that’s likely to prove both complex and controversial. Wojcicki would like to see YouTube supporters, many of whom are Article 17 opponents, continue the fight, to ensure the best possible outcome.

 

“While the Directive has passed, there is still time to affect the final implementation to avoid some of the worst unintended consequences. Each E.U. member state now has two years to introduce national laws that are in line with the new rules, which means that the powerful collective voice of creators can still make a major impact,” she writes.

 

“We must continue to stand up and speak out for open creativity. Your actions have already led to the most popular Change.org petition in history and encouraged people to reach across borders. This is not the end of our movement but only the beginning.”

 

Finally, Wojcicki says that the company has been listening to key YouTube content creators who have expressed frustration over what they feel is an abuse of the copyright claims process on the platform.

 

Some users are receiving copyright claims following the use of small excerpts of copyrighted content lasting ten seconds or shorter, sometimes in an inadvertent context. It appears that the platform may be prepared to tackle this issue in the future.

 

“We also heard firsthand that our Manual Claiming system was increasingly being used to claim very short (in some cases one second) content or incidental content like when a creator walks past a store playing a few seconds of music,” Wojcicki notes.

 

“We were already looking into this issue but hearing this directly from creators was vital. We are exploring improvements in striking the right balance between copyright owners and creators.”

 

These types of claims, that are often filed without considering fair use implications, are decried by creators as a major irritant when attempting to review and critique third-party content, or film in public places. How YouTube will tackle this problem remains unclear but addressing it effectively could be a real boost to those who use copyrighted content within the confines of the law.

 

 

 

Source

[steven36]

YouTube  is a legal streaming   platform  ,  it's roots had to do with piracy  but so did  Spotify  but they no more involved with  it,  i never went to YouTube  to pirate,   any other pirate site  is  a million times better! Google and YouTube  because they don't want pay a music tax is not a pirates fight  because they a legit service , they the ones who signed up to be such , When i go to a pirate site they was not legal to begin with and  never plain  on paying the artist one red cent  and  that's the difference  in Fileshareing  and topics about YouTube's greed posted in the wrong sub forum.

[DKT27]

On 5/2/2019 at 11:12 AM, steven36 said:

YouTube  is a legal streaming   platform  ,  it's roots had to do with piracy  but so did  Spotify  but they no more involved with  it,  i never went to YouTube  to pirate,   any other pirate site  is  a million times better! Google and YouTube  because they don't want pay a music tax is not a pirates fight  because they a legit service , they the ones who signed up to be such , When i go to a pirate site they was not legal to begin with and  never plain  on paying the artist one red cent  and  that's the difference  in Fileshareing  and topics about YouTube's greed posted in the wrong sub forum.

 

I researched so many apps. All of them had some sort of rights management for their downloads. As in, you can only play them from within the apps itself and you cannot copy your downloads elsewhere. I am ready to pay for the fees for it, but no, they refuse, no copying of the downloaded files, even if completely legal. Guess what option I have left for it.

[steven36]

13 hours ago, DKT27 said:

 

I researched so many apps. All of them had some sort of rights management for their downloads. As in, you can only play them from within the apps itself and you cannot copy your downloads elsewhere. I am ready to pay for the fees for it, but no, they refuse, no copying of the downloaded files, even if completely legal. Guess what option I have left for it.

Most YouTube apps   is limited  unless you use your own api key  in them  unless  you use freetube  witch uses Invidious API

 

Quote

FreeTube uses the Invidious API to grab and serve videos. Invidious scrapes the YouTube site which prevents the need for any official YouTube API. While YouTube can still see your video requests, it can no longer track you using cookies or JavaScript. Your subscriptions, history, and saved videos are stored locally on your computer and never sent out. Using a VPN or Tor is recommended to hide your IP while using FreeTube.

 

While it's true it easy to download anything not drm protected  on YouTube  noting they have is very good. You can use TV downloader  or something and download from a bunch  more video sites,. But really as it is now the scene  and p2p know how to  download drm protected  videos so there no need to pay just download  them  or stream them .It just it's a secret because if they made it public it will be patched .  It don't matter witch site Netflix , Hulu  , Amazon , YouTube Red  etc, Is all released  .

[DKT27]

8 hours ago, steven36 said:

Most YouTube apps   is limited  unless you use your own api key  in them  unless  you use freetube  witch uses Invidious API

 

 

While it's true it easy to download anything not drm protected  on YouTube  noting they have is very good. You can use TV downloader  or something and download from a bunch  more video sites,. But really as it is now the scene  and p2p know how to  download drm protected  videos so there no need to pay just download  them  or stream them .It just it's a secret because if they made it public it will be patched .  It don't matter witch site Netflix , Hulu  , Amazon , YouTube Red  etc, Is all released  .

 

Sorry for not being specific, I meant audio, not video. That too, the ones posted by famous services themselves, which ensure good quality. I actually did a lot of research and turns out the audio codec the world's most famous video sharing site uses for it's high quality videos is quite a good one.

 

For me, individual files matter more than whole thing, so torrenting is not always the option for it.

[steven36]

56 minutes ago, DKT27 said:

 

Sorry for not being specific, I meant audio, not video. That too, the ones posted by famous services themselves, which ensure good quality. I actually did a lot of research and turns out the audio codec the world's most famous video sharing site uses for it's high quality videos is quite a good one.

 

For me, individual files matter more than whole thing, so torrenting is not always the option for it.

Opus is only good for  very low bitrate , but  it not good for higher quality Music  or Audio . The problem with Opus it's not  widely  used audio  format  so many audio players  not support it  , YouTube also has streams in AAC  witch is  a widely used codec . MP3 320 k or Flac  is still going sound better than a low bitrate  Opus stream .  What  Opus does is let you compress files  with a lower bitrate   without as much quality lost as you would have  with AAC or MP3  at the same bitrate . But the masses convert the  Opus  stream  over to mp3  and lose what little bit of sound quality  it preserved . You can't turn high  quality  audio  back into quality  audio  after it been stepped on  you  can only preserve  it were it want lose as much quality with odd ball  codecs  like   Opus  but still it loses quality  just not as much . No one sells Opus like they do AAC m4a  , mp3 and Flac  so  it not very widely supported  with audio players and other Audio utilities software ,  No one hardly uses  it . no one i know has a Opus music collection.  

 

From  what research  i done on Opus it has  a certain sweet spot  and  if you go any higher with the bitrate  it will sound bad  . It don't sound  good at high bitrate as other well known codecs

 

Quote

 

Jason

 

The explanation given for the bitrate boost on simple tonal sounds says that Opus has low frequency resolution and thus needs more bitrate.

I find that the bitrate roughly corresponds with my hearing. With simple sounds it is possible to hear the smoothness of the noise floor, robotic breath, fluttering consonants. That is usually not possible with "complex" rock music, where the noise floor is masked and where I find most simple codecs (adpcm) to sound good. Perhaps a highly accurate pair of speakers is needed to hear flaws in the stereo image in rock.

"French Male Speech", for which Opus boosts the bitrate by 30%, is the sample where artifact are the easiest to detect without training or reference. Also Bass "Matona mia cara" is easy. I can also hear the guitar part from "Castanets" get rounded and wobbly, but I can't usually hear a problem with the percussion itself.

I believe that speech, apart from joint stereo gain when it is actually mono, is a difficult signal, and sounds ugly in audio book bitrates.

I've not been very impressed with Opus on Sound Expert so far. I can hear it failing on "Harpsichord" at 290 kbit post SARTAMP. And it also fails with a low frequency pop/discontinuities even if other artifacts aren't present. I have my doubts about the validity of the artifact amplification process. The "Df" is shown to be rather low, about -14 dB. However, I don't think I will encode high bitrate Opus to be on the safe side.

 

 

[DKT27]

1 hour ago, steven36 said:

Opus is only good for  very low bitrate , but  it not good for higher quality Music  or Audio . The problem with Opus it's not  widely  used audio  format  so many audio players  not support it  , YouTube also has streams in AAC  witch is  a widely used codec . MP3 320 k or Flac  is still going sound better than a low bitrate  Opus stream .  What  Opus does is let you compress files  with a lower bitrate   without as much quality lost as you would have  with AAC or MP3  at the same bitrate . But the masses convert the  Opus  stream  over to mp3  and lose what little bit of sound quality  it preserved . You can't turn high  quality  audio  back into quality  audio  after it been stepped on  you  can only preserve  it were it want lose as much quality with odd ball  codecs  like   Opus  but still it loses quality  just not as much . No one sells Opus like they do AAC m4a  , mp3 and Flac  so  it not very widely supported  with audio players and other Audio utilities software ,  No one hardly uses  it . no one i know has a Opus music collection.  

 

From  what research  i done on Opus it has  a certain sweet spot  and  if you go any higher with the bitrate  it will sound bad  . It don't sound  good at high bitrate as other well known codecs

 

I know. Converting is certainly an option that I am using. It is quite possible that converting to a full bitrate might, I repeat, might be able to preserve the quality as much as possible. I ran some tests and found that the other codec offered by them did not stand good enough against it.

 

Thanks for the information about it sounding bad after certain quality though, which I am sure Google knows about that is why it only keeps at about 160kbps I think.

 

Nothing is decided right now for me, I am looking at alternatives, but I am only looking at legal alternatives. As I said, I am ready to pay for it, but I want to download and copy files anywhere I want here.

 

Even this does not allow doing so the last time I checked it.

[steven36]

1 hour ago, DKT27 said:

 

I know. Converting is certainly an option that I am using. It is quite possible that converting to a full bitrate might, I repeat, might be able to preserve the quality as much as possible. I ran some tests and found that the other codec offered by them did not stand good enough against it.

 

Thanks for the information about it sounding bad after certain quality though, which I am sure Google knows about that is why it only keeps at about 160kbps I think.

 

Nothing is decided right now for me, I am looking at alternatives, but I am only looking at legal alternatives. As I said, I am ready to pay for it, but I want to download and copy files anywhere I want here.

Opus  is  around 123 kb/s at YouTube    Tip: you can go  download  them  from  

https://invidio.us  that scrape YouTube   WEBM Opus or AAC Mp4  audio only right from  invidious website   .  No need for 3 party programs  to download non converted streams

 

If you don't like Opus  WEBM container  you  can mux them with mkvtoolnix   to  mka  music  container with no quality lost ,   on linux  i ether have to use vlc  , mpv  or smplayer  to play them back my default audio player  for my music collection  don't work for this codec .

 

Some newer stuff  that have 4k video  will have  135 kb/s  but that's nothing for 4k  video  Netflix and    Amazon will 640  kb/s Ac3 .

[DKT27]

3 hours ago, steven36 said:

Opus  is  around 123 kb/s at YouTube    Tip: you can go  download  them  from  

https://invidio.us  that scrape YouTube   WEBM Opus or AAC Mp4  audio only right from  invidious website   .  No need for 3 party programs  to download non converted streams

 

If you don't like Opus  WEBM container  you  can mux them with mkvtoolnix   to  mka  music  container with no quality lost ,   on linux  i ether have to use vlc  , mpv  or smplayer  to play them back my default audio player  for my music collection  don't work for this codec .

 

Some newer stuff  that have 4k video  will have  135 kb/s  but that's nothing for 4k  video  Netflix and    Amazon will 640  kb/s Ac3 .

 

Well, I use this. It's easy to get the file this way, but somehow downloads are really slow. Thanks, I will look into it.

 

Again, I am open for alternatives, but all legal audio services are rights protected, so do not know where to look at here.