On 21 December 2016 at 02:53, Newyorkbrad <newyorkb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think it might be useful to focus on how any of the proposed changes
> to the law would affect Wikipedia/Wikimedia specifically, apart from
> the broader philosophical discussion.  Is there a good link for
> exactly what changes to the safe harbor laws are being considered, as
> opposed to the more general statement that there's a discussion of
> scaling them back?



To further answer your question, this morning I saw these (access
while you can):

http://www.completemusicupdate.com/trendpdfs/gh890/cmutrends-1116-streamingmarket.pdf

"The real problem with YouTube, from a music industry perspective, is
that it won't pay the aforementioned minimum guarantees. Therefore
from a revenue perspective, the continued boom in people streaming
music on YouTube is irrelevant, what matters is the site’s ad sales,
which have been pretty flat of late. If the music industry gets
copyright law re-written, YouTube could possibly be forced into paying
minimum guarantees, which would force it to sell more ads, or limit
the amount of music users both upload and play."

- that is, they literally want guaranteed free money.

http://www.completemusicupdate.com/trendpdfs/kjh5r/cmutrends-0916-copyrightdirective.pdf

"The music industry doesn’t have a problem with the basic principle of
the safe harbour, just with the kinds of companies which now claim
protection. In particular, it argues that user-upload websites should
not be covered by the safe harbour. And while there are lots of sites
of that kind, the real concern is YouTube."

- and one of those sites is Wikimedia; their aim directly targets us.

http://www.completemusicupdate.com/trendpdfs/hbnms/cmutrends-0616-youtube.pdf

"This would be frustrating in itself but there’s a bigger problem, the
music rights sector argues. The existence of YouTube is stopping
people from signing up to the subscription music services."

Though even they note: "Yes, there may be support, but what does
reform actually look like? What words can legislators use to force
YouTube’s hand, without causing collateral damage? Which is to say,
could you achieve the music industry’s objectives without making every
social network liable for every ‘borrowed’ photo that is shared on the
net?"

The problem comes down to the music industry trying for free money:
"Though in Content-ID, YouTube already operates an industry-leading
takedown system. And it already pays the majority of its ad income to
the rights owners. The problem isn’t so much how the value is shared,
as it is the lack of value to start with."

So basically, Wikimedia needs to make sure it's representing itself to
the EU as well. In whatever form.


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to