English subtitles for clip: File:Max Andersson and Julia Reda talking about copyright.webm

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.