The Reform of Publishers Afraid of the Web
Obligatory premise: this article addresses the issues on the reform of Article 11-13 from one point of view different from the one proposed on the Youtube platform and by other influencers. Before discussing every aspect of the clumsy reform it is necessary to clarify which are the pivotal points around which the matter revolves.
The very first point to clarify is that we are talking about Policy.
This is why political analyzes are indispensable, we are not talking about mere technology.
The second point is that according to the idea of the writer, all this media chaos revolves around Ads, advertisements and their flourishing and prevailing market.
The protection of intellectual property has nothing to do with the reform of Article 13
A few days ago it exploded on Youtube controversy regarding the amendments to articles 11 and 13 of the European copyright law. After having passed somewhat softly, both on social media and in the old-fashioned mass media, here is the youtubica platform is mobilized. Spam his cry of alarm before each video. Launch the hashtag #saveyourinternet and mobilize European youtubers (in their opinion the most influential ones but oh well).
What is happening to disturb the global video giant to such an extent?
And above all, how can the videogame audience?
The modification was born with the intent of give uniformity to the European copyright landscape and thus ensure copyright protection on the Internet. In fact, it seems that in the sights of legislators there are the earnings of large social companies such as Google, Facebook and Youtube. According to MEPs, obliging these giants to pay compensation for the links and content used will help emerging publishing. But how are things, and why are we talking about them?
To protect creatives?
In these terms it seems a reform to be supported, for the protection of artists' work, of those who work with the intellect. It seems that everything is aimed at safeguarding the intangible product which in its virtual rendering risks being robbed (piracy). Therefore a use without recognizing the economic compensation to the author.
The "seems" is due, as it represents the facade of very different intentions. We don't want to get into the debate on how copyright works. These are examples of how ingenious work is respected and supported, just to give the youngest a taste.
It should be remembered that the Reformation he never goes into the merits. Individual elements and related measures are not identified. In short: it does not go into the detail of the matter. It limits itself to prescribing in general terms what are the truly vast areas that can lead to a violation of copyright. Up to now the regulation has been very clear. Suffice it to say that when you illegally download an audio, video, book, yes commits an offense because it is not possible to do justice to the work done. Even worse when using the work of others without mentioning it (the famous Source).
How often do you share ingenious content on your virtual message boards?
Music, songs, movie clips, memes, gameplay etc.
The dynamics of the web (a huge virtual square) have peculiarities such as to require a very different paradigm from how the old creators of public opinion were used to. The old system is based on: you read me, you listen to me, you look at me and then you pay me (by buying the newspaper, the record, the ticket).
What happens on the web? The publishers themselves benefit from their presence on social networks.
Have positive effects from mere visibility and less from advertising earnings (keep in mind that this is the key piece) that they accumulate from visits to their sites. In addition to the purchase of the cultural product itself.
Many online and print newspapers manage to keep themselves alive only with advertising that host. For these small but very useful media outlets (think of the many local inline newspapers in your country or city) it would be impossible stay profitable by selling subscriptions. this is the main difference between large publishing groups and small and innovative newspapers. It is undeniable that if these greats chose to exist on the web at the time they had smelled a possible gain, but in the end they may have changed their minds.
There are systems to attract users that have made the big publishers, the promoters of the reform, turn up their noses.
Lately you have certainly noticed that, under the name and an unsolicited comment, there is a miniature that sometimes bears the body of the article. That miniature exhibits the copyrighted work of the news organization. Being displayed as an image, it does not require further study on the site and therefore the advertisements of the newspaper domain would not be activated. With the current reform, the birth of a new law is foreseen, which allows the newspaper to be paid even if it is not visited.
All from the hosting platform of the shared article.
Illegally publishing a movie, a song on Youtube (for example) and making money from Ads (advertising) is already regulated and sanctioned by the law (the alleged gain is directed to the copyright holder and not to whoever posted). We add that it is a theft with no ifs and buts, but here we are talking about something else, precisely the birth of a new right. With the random changes proposed, nothing more will be done impose a link tax (it's the princess named Zelda! Ah no, we were talking about something else) and a imaginative and unachievable upload filter. This filter should allow you to scan every virtual product uploaded to the network, so as to evaluate its respect for copyright. Maybe in 2118.
This is because the chaotic and very general modification could also affect the simple sharing of a content.
So sharing on your Facebook wall the last video of our favorite singer (who makes Trap would therefore be exempted) would entail the right to retaliate against poor Zuckerberg by the record company. So it will no longer be the user in fault to answer for the non-observance of the copyright but the platform (that's why Youtube is activated, otherwise it demonetizes and sti c @ ## i).
The decision to give a single body to the defense of copyright in Europe has thus become action against social media earnings and in the relative redistribution to the old platforms, ie publishing, discography and cinema. Any work of redistribution of wealth has never produced the desired results. It is a vital step to understand that the crisis of the old mass media it is only indirectly connected with the dissemination of links or their pirated content.
Choosing to show your product on a site involves a gain, even if only in terms of visibility.
Even when I share a gameplay, the software house indirectly benefits.
I can show dubious users sides of the game that hadn't surfaced in a few minutes of trailers.
But what is wrong with this reasoning?
An attempt to keep it status quo
Advertisers no longer find it convenient to stay on print newspaper sites because they prefer more innovative platforms, social, with more traffic and views. So the big publishing groups instead of giving an example to young people and accepting the challenges of the future: they censor. The same for record companies, film companies. They do it to the giants of the web, the emerging giants who collect more and more adverts and leave the crumbs. So the reform and the reformists' subsidiaries, instead of acting on a modification of the advertising structure, intervene on the diffusion of their content.
Obviously, the modification of the advertising market would be absolutely unthinkable and not very liberal.
Act indirectly therefore it seems the only solution, for large publishing groups. Considering also that with the Google News tool the site of the newspaper is no longer accessed, the picture becomes more complicated. Restrict the Google tool? Censor?
What can all this bring?
We have the example of Google News in Spain.
In Iberian land the firm to the diffusion of the articles through the doodle News (because according to the detractors, according to News, advertising compensation on proprietary sites is not activated).
By blocking Google's service in Spain, they saw a substantial decrease in traffic on their articles. For Google, closing the News sector in Europe would not result in a serious loss, while for the so-called news aggregator there will be damage to users (less informed) and to small online newspapers that live off advertising and not subscriptions.
In fact, the nascent new market that knows no intermediaries is called to answer for old pachyderms who cannot keep up.
The store loses ground with e-commerce and the print newspaper loses its role as a vehicle for news. Small publishers and sales sites are multiplying.
We react with the psycho-reform of copyright.
Then the hosting platforms are asked to monitor every post, every comment, every quote.
Not to mention the gameplay. In the past, many software houses preferred that extracts of their video games were not published.
Could psycho-reform written with too much generality lead to a European information vacuum?
Technically, as has been pointed out by many experts in the field, the internet always finds loopholes, new ways to interact.
From the point of view of substance?
From the point of view of sharing facts, events, news aggragation?
The example of Spain speaks for itself. We are not faced with a grip on freedom of expression, of thought.
In Europe we have had many examples of censorship by multiple dictatorships but in one way or another the news was able to circulate. Obviously not for everyone but for those interested in learning more.
We are talking about a psycho-reform that brings to the user's attention its manifest, clearly visible and noble content, while hiding in the dark inner world the atavistic fear of seeing the privileges of large publishing groups that have always enjoyed support vanish. Public (I am referring to funding from the state) and who now find themselves running with those who are financed by thousands of small individuals who click.
Le sore notes are multiple and the connivance between Publisher and Politician comes unmasked.
Ask for a control impossible equivalent to ask not to work
Asking for an impossible check it is equivalent to asking not to work. Creating the right to earn, always and in any case, is equivalent to breaking the market mechanism. Legislating without being clear about the effects of one's words is serious. It means that there are old interests to be protected that are more important than technological evolution, information.
It is a veiled one slap in the face to all those guys who have started a small online cultural activity (they have created a job, like it or not like it) and now they see themselves overshadowed by the old privileged.
The Internet will be able to find loopholes, we hope that the reform will undergo some changes on the merits but there is one last point that I am concerned about.
If our generation does not activate we will declare our political failure.