Tuesday, February 04, 2020

Youtube social media lawyer warns that EU Copyright Directive and Article 17 may soon be exported to the US, UK, Canada, Australia, etc. by corporate lobbying

Ian Corzine has a brief but critical video “The Copyright Ticking Time Bomb”.

He discusses the existence of an underground international cabal of media companies to export the provisions of the EU’s Copyright Directive to the United States, to UK (after Brexit), and the various countries in the British Commonwealth.

You will recall that Alex Voss, in Germany, had at some point made comments to the fact that independent speakers are not legitimate and commercial news and other content publications (giving people jobs and benefits) should not have to compete with amateurs who don’t do it for a living, or who simply spread sensationalism for a living.  Yup, Article 17 is pure legacy job protectionism.  David Pakman, in particular, has mentioned the constant bogus DMCA takedowns he gets from CNN/Warner Brothers, NBC and others during livestreams, which get reversed but not before David's show has lost most of its opportunity for revenue.  "It's not personal, it's just business". 
Some of the countries in the EU, especially Germany, have passed their Articles 13 and 17, but Susan Wojcicki had written that there is an out for plaforms if they make their best efforts to filter out copyrighted and unlicensed  material.  But it sounds as like the US idea of “Fair Use” is not allowed. 
Corzine mentions Section 230, although that doesn’t involve copyright, but rather the other torts.  He says Trump and Biden have both said they want to end Section 230, and I have documented Biden’s comments to the New York Times here recently (Jan 20), and Elizabeth Warren's (Jan. 30).  The downstream liability protection for copyright in the US resides with the DMCA Safe Harbor provision. 
 I would also add that the CASE Act, once it passes the now distracted Senate (and that impeachment situation should end tomorrow) could expose content creators like myself with a large past inventory of images, a practical risk of action from copyright trolls (like Righthaven in the past) if the Copyright Office does not handle this new responsibility and power in a small claims court very carefully and get a lot of public comments before it adapts its rules. 

No comments: