I'm talking to a machine

The Horrors of Copyright Laws - Blog By Matt

Context:

Before, this was written for the purpose of becoming a video, but decided to just make it a blog post. I wanted to shine a light on general internet freedom and Article 13 that recently passed.

History:

Alexander III of Macedon commonly referred to as Alexander The Great, was a ruler of ancient Greece. In 331 BC, he founded Alexandria in Egypt where The Library of Alexandria was built. Estimations show that 40,000 to 400,000 books, scrolls, and other documents were contained, with a staff of over 100 scholars at its height. It was once the centerpiece of all works of fiction, non-fiction, Christian, Pagan, and scientific knowledge. The library accepted all works of both religion and science. With something such as the great Pyramids still standing today, it's easy to wonder why such an important and historical place is nowhere to be found. Most believe it destroyed by burning from unsupportive heretics (religious extremists who might've believed it was ungodly to spread science). It's important to note that it was also allegedly accidentally burned by Julius Caesar in the midst of an ongoing civil war during the time, which may have been the only reason it burned, but most would beg to differ. Some very few documents from the library were actually collected and distributed across the world over time, and those documents dictated how technologically advanced we are today. Imagine if it was never burnt down, let that thought sink in. It's really interesting to think about how advanced human civilization could've been. All of the now-coined science or sci-fi may have been something already discovered and invented 1,000 years ago. 

Why do I mention this ancient legend? Well assuming it was indeed destroyed mainly by heretics, it shares an important lesson to not let the knowledge get in the wrong hands. Dogma, the ideas and rules that are created by controlling and manipulative authorities, is the most likely culprit judging by the repeating history of man where a king, royal family or set group of people restrict freedom of thought, persecuting anyone for having opposing opinions. We saw it during the Middle Ages with the Templars, and we're seeing it again in the modern era on the Internet. Without dogma, knowledge flows free like a stream of water that travels from land to land, providing the nourishment of learning and free-thinking. But alas, like a dam of that stream, dogma stops us from advancing as a species.

And here we are...

Today's metaphor of the destruction of the library is corporations and governments of the world restricting society's role in having fair access to tools that enable us the ability to learn and project what we've learned onto those who wish to learn as well. In 2012, the internet faced a colossal censorship threat. It was a bill advocated from Hollywood in the US Congress called SOPA, an acronym for Stop Online Piracy Act. If passed, it would’ve literally criminalized piracy and using copyrighted content. Meaning it would’ve destroyed many websites, careers, and lives. The maximum penalty for sharing copyrighted content would have been 5 years in prison. Imagine being forced by the Government into an orange jumpsuit because you shared unbought music on your Youtube account. Not only would content creators be at risk, but we’d also all be in a predicament because everyone’s favorite Youtube channel would be taken down. The bill never passed thanks to huge online campaigns that stopped it from happening. The sad thing is, it’s going down again with Article 13 being passed as a law in the European Union. Businesses working with the Government are much more relentless when it comes to passing these bills, more so than we are trying to stop them, and that has to change now. While copyright laws protect the works of artists, they also result in restriction of internet freedom of expression for many professions such as movie critic, game reviews, and people who do music covers. Most Youtube content creators rely on using copyrighted content to build their own niche up by using clips, sound pieces and images with credit given to convey or explain a point. The resolution is to not punish content creators who use copyrighted content as long as credit is given. We should instead allow websites to plugin an option prior to the upload of an artist’s work that allows them to type in and select credit is given to a certain copyright holder they used content from, eliminating the process of blocking content that contains copyrighted content and giving a percentage of the creator's revenue to that holder, but also allowing the creator to add in their own way of making revenue like convenient merchandise plugins, donation buttons, and subscription programs.

Consequences:

In consequence of Article 13 passing, Youtube will be included in the collection of countless sites forced to implement upload filters of content that may or may not be infringing rights of an original owner. Meaning European musician YouTubers who make covers that sound like an original song or European movie critics who use footage from the movie they’re analyzing will automatically have their videos stopped from uploading with some message popping up saying something along the lines of “Your upload has been rejected as our algorithm determined your video does not meet our copyright guidelines”. This results in these content creators having to redo their entire video, editing and checking it perfectly to make sure they are absolutely no chances that the upload will be rejected and even then the algorithm probably won’t function properly and will falsely detect their STILL is copyrighted content in it, once again resulting in the removal of the video you may have spent weeks putting together. This reminds me of some of my own videos that have been demonetized automatically for allegedly having dubstep music in it when it’s an Amnesia video with only Mikko Tarmia’s soundtracks from the game in the video. Youtubers shouldn't have to have their channel's revenue at stake because a robot can't function properly. Add onto the fact viewers in the EU who want to watch an American Youtube video that breaks Article 13’s rule will be unavailable in their country, leading to millions of Youtube channel fanbases dying off because most channels used copyrighted content before they knew this law would be passed, and this would result in the loss of millions of online careers, entertainment and the opportunities alike.

Going Against The Agenda:

While it’s a good practice to treat your work like a business, in some aspects, amateur content creators like myself shouldn’t get carried into the impossible requirements a real business has like buying countless licenses and not being able to have an individual opinion or needing to be ‘politically correct’. If individual artists and indie groups avoid anything potentially copyrighted or controversial, it will be an easier decision for laws to be passed that dispose of channels that do have copyrighted content (even if credit is given). And this subject can easily be applied to anything relating to the conflict of people’s freedom, corporations, and governments. That makes the whole censorship thing seem more like a small step into eventually controlling entirely what society sees because people aren’t vocal enough to catch attention, consequently brainwashing the rest of the people into believing absolutely anything a business or government desires them to believe. Article 13 is the tip of the iceberg of a bunch of censorship problems we’ll face in the near future. It’s going to get much worse if we don’t start showing that we will never stop expressing free thought and freedom to use copyrighted content with credit being given fairly, without giving in to control from organizations. Too much professionalism is also a problem on Youtube seen from a lot of Youtube celebrity channels that intentionally act and react just like mindless corporations would act to consumers. Clickbait, misleading headings, being overly dramatic, and emotional manipulation for money are Youtube's version of scandalous corporate strategies. As a result, this will taint free-speech, individualism, opinions, shock value and creativity with a business-minded agenda which focuses purely on grabbing your attention and emotionally manipulating the audience into giving them money and views somehow. Not only does it endanger freedom of expression, but it also waters down the good aspects of the classic Youtube we know and love into a grayer environment where natural, relatable content that easily entertains us becomes tasteless, talentless content that lures the audience into misleading content designed for revenue. The problem is that there is constantly new laws being passed such as Article 13 in Europe that has made it impossible for content creators to get noticed or even be allowed to build their own niche because it may not be ‘appropriate’ in their country. Advertisers who cherry pick the most family-friendly videos also make it hard for content creators who want to do their own thing, because their certain type of content may not make any money as they rely on revenue-focused corporations who won’t touch anything remotely controversial with a 10-foot pole.

The Next Chance:

It’s all a battle between old people who don’t understand the cost and the younger generation who understand that these laws harm internet freedom greatly. If it weren’t for Article 13, Google could just to turn Youtube into a platform that highly encourages individualism and intellectual, detailed, creative, and even shocking content, but they can’t now and wouldn’t anyway. And will Google ever get to do that now? We could only hope that it would even work, ads make Youtube billions each year so it might be too late to switch gears regardless of set laws. Ultimately, it's up to the people to be vocal about this very slippery slope of an issue. It’s up to us in the future to elect the right people before laws like these get passed.