Article 13, droit d’auteur et filtrage


We need to talk about section 13 of the
new directive Copyright. – Art. 13, you mean this dangerous
plot to destroy the Internets by imposing a generalized filtering contrary
to the most fundamental human right: the right to Lolcat?
– Uh well… – Art. 13, you of course want to talk
of this heroic European initiative that aims to save small creators in
tearing them from the clutches of the evil Web giants? – Well, let’s say that … – Ah, so you’re against copyright
? – You’re from the rightholders’ lobby,
is that it ? Stop !! As you will see, I have many issues with this text but I also think we must strive to understand the opposite side to try, for once, to have
a respectful and rational debate on a copyright reform.
Does Article 13 impose or not a widespread filtering on the Web? Will it allow
to better fund creators ? And arethe guarantees and safeguards added to the text enough to make it a balanced compromise? To answer all these questions, we will discuss copyright on Youtube, without the help of Happy Tree Friends or Glove & Boots, But don’t worry, there will plenty of silly memes and absurd videos … First, I propose that we calm down with
this “war of the lobbies” thing. Presenting things this way is
the best way to immediately create a manichean cleavage in the debate, where each side spends its
time seeking to disqualify the opponent. See for example this video of the French Youtubers of the channel “Le Tatou” “- One wonders why the Youtubers have that kind of speech : “- There’s a Sonic there, there’s a mushroom from Mario there I do not have the rights technically
to broadcast that, so: video blocked! ” “Well, that’s what’s called lobbying !
And this one is done by Youtube, directly. ” Except that the problem of this kind of criticism,
it can easily turn against you … : We are also a member of SCAM, one of the copyright societies in France,
very much in favor of Article 13. We are even went to defend last June the copyright with them in the European Parliament. Wait, so making a youtube video against
Article 13 is lobbying, but going at the European Parliament to defend copyright with SCAM (French collecting society) … that is *not* lobbying? In this debate we have too often equated
Internet users, Youtubers, etc to undercover lobbyists for the Web giants.
But having opinions that join those of companies like Google, Twitter
etc., being a member of SCAM should not be a disqualifying criterion
to participate in this debate, as long as we are not displaying bad faith. And as far as I’m concerned I do not run for any lobby, since I am a researcher at
the University of Louvain in Belgium, where I defended a thesis and published a lot
articles on the reform of exceptions to copyright.
But of course you should not take my word for it this is not an argument by authority. In short, let’s try to understand this Article 13 (now 17) of the draft Digital Single Market Directive, from three points of view: On the one hand, the cultural sector, which requires
fair sharing of income online On the other hand the Web platforms, which require
to preserve a protective legislation for innovation on the Web
And finally users and small creators, that require a little more freedom for online derived creation “My creations are prohibited. ” “My creations are prohibited. ” First, the cultural sector:
In recent years, the cultural sector is driven by a claim: put an
end to the “value gap”. What is it ? This is how the SNEP (French National Union of Phonographic Edition) explains it An anomaly hampers the development of the music market and artists’ compensation. In 2015, 68 million subscribers, generated $ 2 billion in paid audio streaming (e.g. Spotify) While 900 million service users like Youtube, only made for $ 634 million This considerable difference is what is called the “value gap” The most popular platforms are, paradoxically, the ones that pay the least to artists and music producers Because these platforms do not normally negotiate the rights of music by taking refuge behind the status of “mere hosts”, whereas obviously they are much more than that. Of course, this is all very vague. But basically, the idea is that some actors (and all eyes are intensely directed
towards Youtube) make a profit through protected works but without paying artists their fair share. What about this argument?
First, that the comparison is misleading, because Spotify only broadcasts protected music, while on Youtube there is also this: In addition, there is also plenty of completely original creation, and especially a whole bunch of educational channels or popular science as :
“The statistic explained to my cat” “Mr. Phi”, of course “Politikon” Or “Tout va bien” In short, there is more on Youtube than piracy or mashup from Japanese anime. And the problem of the logic of
“value gap” is that it tends to neglect the huge amount of original content created on Youtube But in any case, it is quite possible that
Youtube does not pay the rightholders enough and in this case it would be fair that it makes a better revenue sharing.
Only one problem is that we do not know anything about it. We do not know how much are
the rights holders on Youtube, because the rates of remuneration provided for in the
agreements signed by the management companies such as SACEM or German GEMA with Youtube
are confidential! – We’ll be here in a few hours, sir
Scrooge! – Remember: this trip must remain
absolutely confidential, nobody should know where we are going
– Oh, I understand. Let’s take a look at the Web platforms’ point of view, like Youtube: on the one hand, they have not obviously no desire to go to the cashier
to fill a possible “value gap”, and they think they pay well enough (Google
prides itself on having paid 1.8 billion dollars to the music industry in
2018). On the other hand, they are particularly worried because art. 13 comes upset
the situation that had existed since 20 years, where these platforms benefited
a regime of limited liability in copyright infringement by the
users. What is it about ? To encourage
Web development, the e-commerce directive
adopted in the year 2000, provides that certain intermediaries, because they act like
simple passive conduits, should not be held responsible for illegal content
distributed by their users. Just as your telephone company is not
responsible if you use his services to organize a bank robbery, a web hosting provider is not responsible if you use its services to disseminate pirated works.
Otherwise, it would be tantamount to requiring it to actively and continuously monitor
content uploaded by its customers to make sure that nothing illegal is uploaded.
The only obligation of these intermediaries, is to remove illegal content
which have been notified to them, for example by a rightful claimant. If it has been
made aware, and still does not act promptly to delete block these illegal content,
then he can be held legally accountable for infringement of copyright. It is
what is called the “notice and takedown” procedure Article 13 upsets all that,
in a rather twisted way, in order to respond to the famous claim to fill the
“Value gap”. Basically, article 13 begins by saying:
“content sharing platforms”, whose main objective is to propose
content uploaded by users, and who use algorithms to promote
or select content, play an active role and not passive, and therefore do not benefit anymore from the status of “web hosting services” concerning copyright: And so, if a user illegally uploads a protected work, it’s not just the user anymore who infringes copyright: Youtube is in the same boat. Parenthesis: Article 13 does not apply
to commercial platforms, and provides explicitly for certain exceptions for projects like Wikipedia etc. We will come back to it. So, these content sharing platforms
have the obligation to negotiate a license with ALL rights holders of protected works
that their users are likely to upload. And then, two hypotheses: Either the platform manages to enter into an agreement for profit sharing with certain rights holders And then it’s great, users can freely
upload content from these rights holders, as far as it is for a non-commercial purpose (or almost). But what happens if the platform could not negotiate a license
with certain rights holders? This is the key of the problem: to encourage platforms
to conclude these agreements, it is necessary that the alternative be less attractive: in other words, we
need a stick. And this stick, are the filtering measures. So the filter is not at all an end in
itself: it is a threat used to push platforms to conclude licencing agreements. “It’s a very nice suit, Mr Tagaki. It would be a shame to ruin it … ” So, concretely, does Article 13, impose a filter or not? Unfortunately, there is a lot of misinformation on this subject. Initially, the text of the directive explicitly referred to “content recognition technologies” so things were clear. But this expression has been deleted since. And since then, the rapporteur of the directive
European Parliament (Axel Voss) strives to support argue that Article 13 does not impose a filter, as in this Twitter post. Or in this video released by the European Parliament. I will not go into the details of the analysis
legal here, I put you a link to my commentary on the text of the directive in
the description. Here are the two key passages of the article 13: If no authorization is granted, content sharing platforms are
responsible for copyright infringement unless they demonstrate: “Art.13 §4 (b) that they have made, in accordance with high industry standards of professional diligence, best efforts to ensure the unavailability of specific works and other subject
matter for which the rightholders have provided the service providers with the relevant and necessary information » How do we ensure the unavailability
of works in accordance with high industry standards without imposing any filtering measures? And if the rights holders provide information on all the “specific” works that make up their catalog, it seems that this paragraph 4b is tantamount to quasi-generalized filtering at the time of upload. Let’s see §4 c) now.
There are two elements. Again, platforms are responsible, unless: “§4c) acted expeditiously, upon receiving a sufficiently substantiated notice from rightsholders, to disable access to, or to remove from, their websites the notified works or other subject matter »
So this is more or less the same thing as the existing “notice and takedown” procedure and then the paragraph continues: ” and made best efforts to prevent their
future uploads in accordance with point (b). ”
That’s new, it’s a procedure of “notice and staydown”: if a work has
already been blocked, it can not be uploaded again. So this is another filtering
priori, since each upload will require the platform to check if the content does not match
with content that has already been blocked previously. But other than that, no filters, eh … ? Finally, we come to the point of view of the users and small creators. It’s been a little more than 10 years, that the creators, researchers and activists denounce the rise of of automatic content filtering systems, and the abuses and collateral damage they create for derivative creation
and freedom of expression. And for more of 10 years, they have faced general indifference. So, not only is the exceptions framework
copyright particularly narrow and fragmented (some European states do not even know the parody exception, or impose particular strict restrictions on the quotation exception etc.), “In France, the exception for quotation applies (almost) only to literary works. ” So that’s stupid, huh? But in addition we see that platforms
have a systematic tendency to not care about such exceptions.
Indeed, when a platform is facing a questionable takedown, the
platforms must choose between vexing a user, or facing the armies of lawyers of
major record companies or management companies. What do you think they will choose? In practice, we see that web platforms
have chosen their side, and they have systematically tended to be overzealous in the fight against copyright infringement. In addition, for more than 10 years, we observed an increasingly frequent use of filtering
algorithmic to suppress copyright infringement. Youtube and its “Content ID” is a good example: each uploaded video is scanned and compared to a database
supplied by the rightholders. And one must not look very far to find examples of collateral damage and abuse caused by this kind of filters. Like the example of this video dancing baby on “Let’s Go Crazy” by Prince, filtered by Content ID and whose deletion was
confirmed by Universal. The mother of the baby finally won after 10 years of litigation before the American justice (with the support of EFF) Or the podcast of a conference of the American law professor Lawrence Lessig, blocked by Content ID for quoting a few seconds of the song “Lisztomania” by Phoenix … in a presentation on Derivative creation and musical mashups! Or the video of this other teacher’s course
American William Fisher, because of a few examples given in a session on the theme
“Musical works: subject matter of copyright protection” Or even more absurd: the recording by a pianist his interpretation of
Johann Sebastian Bach… claimed by Sony Music. Or ten hours of white noise that received 5
requests for infringement of copyright. Or French comedian Gad Elmaleh who uses copyright takedown to censor videos from the channel “Copycomic”, revealing a scandal of
plagiarism among French humorists. Same problem with filters targeting
sexual content: E.g., the example of Youtube videos of players
Pokemon Go removed for … child pornography. Or this photo of potato censored by Instagram following its new rules on nudity. In 2017, many LGBT
reported that they were blocked for minors, considered by the filter
as not “family-friendly”. And then after all that, comes up the proposal for copyright directive comes up. But rather than tackling the fundamental imbalances
of these filtering systems and protecting the freedom to remix, Article 13 of the draft Directive
does the opposite: it would amount to extending this kind of filtering system, making them mandatory for the vast majority of platforms, opening the door to even more abuses. So yes, a lot of people are a little upset,
especially when the European institutions portrays them as a “mob”, or
suggest that petitions are stuffed with fake signatures made by bots. “- Wir sind keine bots! ” “- We are not bots! ” But the text provides a lot of guarantees
for the rights of users! Couldn’t we say that will all this the text is finally balanced? (See my annotated version of the directive in the description) Jurists are familiar with this kind of
verbose legal language, more concerned about its political effect than its legal effectivity. Experience
shows us that these guarantees, which exist already in some form in Europe or in the US, will be ineffective practice. As Web platform have more to fear from the lawsuits from rightholders than from the frustration of their users, they will inevitably tend to lean to be overzealous in taking down content rather than to make a delicate examination of each particular case. But still, paragraph 2 of the article
13 provides that license agreements will authorize user generated content! Two interpretations about this: * Glass half full*: it’s a legalization of certain forms of derivative non-commercial creation, at least for works that are the subject of a licensing agreement * Glass half empty *: on Youtube, it does not very much improve the position of users compared to the status quo of existing license agreements between collective management companies and Youtube (which provide for the demonetization of claimed videos
instead of withdrawal). In addition, no new right is created: it’s not like
the directive create a new exception for the remix. And all that is at the price of the imposition of mandatory filtering measures for all works not covered by an agreement of
Licence ! And these works will necessarily be numerous, given the impossibility of concluding an agreement with all
assigns. So in conclusion, what about this article?
13? As you can imagine, I’m going to be pretty critical, even though the directive may otherwise provide some interesting measures. What are the main criticisms
can do vis-à-vis this directive? – First of all, some critics regarding the role of Internet intermediaries: – Some intermediaries are now becoming
legally responsible for the content uploaded on their platform. We break the
principle of the limited liability of intermediaries, which has been essential to encouraging innovation and development of the Internet these last 20 years. – In addition, making the filters mandatory
equates to giving a considerable advantage to established platforms (like Youtube,
Instagram, etc.) who already have their own algorithmic filtering solution. So the result is that small European alternatives to big platforms like Youtube, Facebook, Instagram, etc. will have to fund algorithmic filtering solutions, generally developed by American companies And therefore Article 13 constitutes a
gold gift to big established platforms, like Youtube. Admittedly, art. 13 provides for exceptions: First, an exception for small
platforms: If your global turnover is below 10 million euros Or if you have less than 5 million unique visitors Then, you’re “a little bit” exempted from this article 13 Uh, but only “a little bit” exempted then, because the exception expires after 3 years.
So if after 3 years your commercial platform hasn’t managed to take off yet, you will be have to either negotiate licensing agreements with everyone, or paying
Google or Audible Magic for a filtering solution that is often prohibitively expensive. – In addition, art. 13 provides a series
ad hoc exceptions for collaborative encyclopedias (e.g. Wikipedia), open source development platforms (Github), scientific or educational repositories and online marketplaces (EBay) The problem is that this is unlikely to stand the test of time: don’t you think that in the future, we are poised to invent something else than online encyclopedias, marketplaces or open source development platforms? And then, more fundamentally, the article
13 presents very serious issues for freedom of expression An objection that we often hear: -But filters already exist on some
platforms! What difference between Content ID and Article 13’s filtering measures? It makes a big difference if filters are set up voluntarily by
platforms or if they are required by law. If it acts voluntarily, Youtube
remains free to re-calibrate Content ID so as to to make it less strict, without running too much
of risks. If the filters are made mandatory, and it must make its”best efforts”
according to the “high industry standards of professional diligence” reducing the filter’s severity would amount to risking to face years of trial costing millions of euros. In addition, the worst part of all this is that
another solution was available to solve this revenue sharing problem without
requiring any filtering measure. Indeed, it has been at least 20 years since
some have proposed the idea of ​​a “global blanket license” or “creative contribution”, which would
consist in a general authorization of sharing cultural works online, in exchange of a
fair remuneration for creators, imposed by law. This idea was particularly supported
by Philippe Aigrain, who has written many books on the subject, or by SPEDIDAM or
ADAMI, and has been the subject of several law proposals before the French and Belgian parliaments. And this solution is even less stupid that this is exactly the one that was adopted for radio broadcasting, for example. Since it would be too much to require radios to ask the authorization of each rightholders, the law imposes a general authorization to broadcast musical works (a legal license) against a fair remuneration (set by law).
And if it’s too complicated to apply that solution to all the works, we could very well have have limited it initially to musical works for example, as the claims
on the value gap generally come of the music industry. Of course, it’s a bit more restrictive for the rightholders. However, the very existence of such an alternative path shows that the Frankenstein’s monster that Article 13 has become, should probably never have been written. Indeed, ex ante censorship measures are supposed to be the most extreme measures restricting free speech. Measures that should only be used as a last resort (if at all). And so, by trivializing these filtering measures while they are not absolutely
necessary, what will be able to say when the legislator will demand platforms
(as in the draft Anti-terrorism EU Regulation) that they censure this or that form of expression considered as objectionable or dangerous? We did it for copyright, so we can do it when security is at stake no? So even if this article 13 is not going to “destroy the Internet” overnight, as some people have said In terms of principles, the difference is gigantic. And the simple fact that this article 13 is instrumentalizing these filtering measures for the sole purpose of serving as leverage in negotiations between rights holders and platforms, while an alternative solution was quite possible, well this shows that the European legislator cares less about the fundamental principles like freedom of expression than about the economic interests of rightholders.

36 thoughts on “Article 13, droit d’auteur et filtrage

  1. encore une excellente vidéo! je me pose juste quelque question sur le fonctionnement d'une telle licence globale qui décide comment la redistribution est effectuée et les ayants droit sont-ils obligés d'y adhérer sous peine de ne plus être protégé par le droit d'auteur ?

  2. est-ce que http://uptobox.com et http://1fichier.com pourraient etre impactés par l'article 13 est-ce qu'ils organisant et promeuvent les contenus en recourant à des méthodes de catégorisation et promotion ciblée ?

  3. Excellente vidéo.
    Tu as bien réussi à résumé un point de vue claire et surtout pas cliché sur le texte, en laissant ton expérience du métier parler.

    Pour le fait que les manifestants soient considérer comme des bots, t'est gentil car ils ont dis bien pire depuis comme :
    – Manifestant payer par Google
    – terroriste pour les fermetures de 24H de plusieurs wikipédia

    On verse limite dans les théories du complot chez les lobbies des ayant droit, comme debunquer par un Youtuber Allemand.

    Il y a moins de 24H, Julia Reda as partagé une conférence de presse durant laquelle Axel Voss a dis que ça lui gênait pas que de grands médias de presse (non cité mais probablement des géants Allemand et l'AFP, gros lobbies de l'article 11) menace de mauvaise couverture médiatique pour les européennes les MEP opposé à la Directive.
    Elle est belle la "liberté de la presse" des pro Article 11.

    Pour conclure tu peux pas parler de tout, mais t'as su bien expliquer le texte sans être méchant envers les lobbies de l'industrie culturelle qui a probablement fait plus de désinformation durant ce débat que RT en une année 😉

  4. Vraiment très intéressant !
    C'est incroyable qu'ils en soient arrivé à un tel article. Ca fait pas rêver en tout cas.

  5. Merci pour ta vidéo informative!Je me permet de faire une annonce:
    Manifestation contre la directive du droit d'auteur demain à Paris,place de la république, entre 14-16h https://www.facebook.com/events/295212054480457/

    Dites non aux filtres a téléchargements,à la censure et aux article 11,12 et 13!

    Plus de manifs ici: https://www.stopacta2.org/en/stopacta2-events/

    Plus d'infos sur la directive du droit d'auteur et ses dangers pour Internet la: https://www.stopacta2.org/fr/stop-acta2-france/

  6. Et pour archive.org? Quel impact? Ce site offre gratuitement des oeuvres et des articles sur lesquels ne pèsent plus de droits d'auteur: par exemple les oeuvres de Shakespeare, de Victor Hugo, ou bien des livres scientifiques publiés il y a des décennies. Il y a aussi Gutenberg.org qui fait le même genre de chose. En France, il y a aussi numdam.org pour les maths. Ces sites devront-ils faire la preuve à priori que leur catalogue ne comporte aucun ouvrage sous droits d'auteur?

  7. Très bonne vidéo ! Ca change des Youtubers qui y connaissent rien et qui font que relater les propos des différents partis en disant "au final on sait pas qui a raison" mdr. Bisous à ces Youtubers quand même. Et ça serait bien si ils en faisaient la vidéo de référence pour quand des abonnés leur pose des questions sur l'art. 13.

  8. De la part d'un autre doctorant en propriété intellectuelle voisin : Congrats. C'est très bien fait 😉

  9. Voilà, la directive a été adoptée dans son entièreté, sans même considérer les amendements visant à supprimer/reformuler les articles 11 et 13.
    Le vote pour débattre de la directive article par article (et donc potentiellement rejeter l'article 13) a été battu à 4 voix près. Prochaine étape : vote par le Conseil de l'UE début avril (ça devrait passer sans trop de problème sauf surprise du côté du gouvernement allemand, assez tendu sur le sujet), puis 2 ans pour transposer la directive dans les différents Etats-membres. Et l'enjeu sera énorme d'essayer d'obtenir la meilleure transposition possible, notamment en rendant effectives les nombreuses clauses de sauvegardes qui sont pour le moment des formules vagues et non sanctionnées.
    C'est loin d'être fini !

  10. Très bonne vidéo mais en ce qui concerne la sacem et les droits d'auteurs ils ne sont pas confidentiels…je suis membre de la Sacem et je sais combien vaut une diffusion youtube.

  11. Cette loi est elle rétroactive?? Les videos déjà mises en ligne avant l'adoption de la loi n'ont rien à craindre?

  12. Une autre question. YouTube a déjà content id. Dc ils font déjà les meilleurs efforts je pense. Non? Si on met en ligne une vidéo NON MONETISEE avec une musique copyright, que se passe t- il?

  13. Je me disais une vidéo d'un telle qualité ça ne pouvait pas être une réaction au vote d'hier

    mais franchement chapeau ca du prendre un temps collosal pour réaliser cette vidéo.

    Bonne continuation 🙂

  14. Merci d'avoir vullgariser ce sujet, ca fait du bien d'enfin tomber sur quelqu'un qui en parle en connaissant le sujet. Si je pouvais, je te mettrais un pouce !

  15. Bon… Je crois que je peux dire adieu à ma chaîne.😥Elle a déjà été démonétisé à cause de la "Reused content policy" de YouTube. Faut savoir qu'ils ont pris les devants. Il suffit de taper Reused content sur twitter pour se rendre compte du massacre.
    Sinon, merci pour ta vidéo elle est très bien expliquée sans tomber dans le drama fin internet.

  16. Un type posé, qui raisonne de manière construite, sans hurler, en s'appuyant sur des faits, et en utilisant un vocabulaire précis. Subscribed!

  17. Bonjour @Maxime Lambrecht! Je viens de trouver ta chaine après moulte recherches pour avoir une explication détaillée et neutre du sujet. (Et par ailleurs je t'en félicite c'est très réussi)

    Cependant il me vient plusieurs questions à laquelle tu n'as pas répondu sur la transposition.
    Je suis français et comme tu as du le lire le gouvernement français est celui qui est le plus favorable à cet article 13; il a par ailleurs annoncé vouloir avoir une transposition rapide. (en mai pour l'article 11 devenu 15 et cet été pour l'article 13 devenu 17)

    Une transposition aussi rapide ne signifie t'il pas qu'elle avait été préparée et étudiée bien avant le passage de la directive? Cela n'amène t'il donc pas à une loi qui sera de ce fait très stricte et très peu conciliante pour les créateurs? (ytb, streamer etc..)
    Ainsi nous pourrions être dans les premiers dotés de loi suivant cette directive qui en plus serait l'une des plus restrictive et stricte en matière de création de contenu?
    Une si grande précipitation pour la transposition m'inquiète beaucoup quant à l'avenir de la création et de la liberté des créateurs.
    Cordialement,

    (PS: Tu as gagné un nouvel abonné)

  18. Je crois que nos petits pays ont besoin d'un cours sur la liberté d'expression, dois-je rappeler qu'en 2016 on s'est fait explosé la gueule en France pour des questions de liberté d'expression ? Que des gens sont morts récemment pour la protéger ? (2016 c'est récent). Pour moi ces espèces de tarés ne valent pas mieux que les terroristes qui ont buté les auteurs de Charlie Hebdo, tout ça pour une question de fric ? Comme s'ils n'en avaient pas assez. Mais est-ce qu'on a vu des manifestations françaises ? Évidement que non, qui s'informe ici ? Au lieu de s'occuper de la mauvaise partie d'Internet qui couvre des trafics de drogue/d'humains et autres trucs dégueulasses nos gouvernements préfère venir nous censurer la gueule sur une plateforme où la majorité c'est pas des malades mentaux ?
    Pourquoi ça se passe pas aux States ? Parce que chez eux ça bouge toujours quand il s'agit de leurs droits. Ici on est qu'un gros tas de moutons déjà morts.
    Si on me dit "Ah ouais mais toi t'as rien fait non plus" je répondrai que ouais je suis pas descendu dans la rue parce que je suis encore trop jeune d'après mes parents et que comme je vis à leur dépend bah je préfère pas me faire virer de chez moi, mais en attendant j'ai mille fois partagé toutes ces conneries de pétitions qui nous font passer pour des bots tellement on a voté ! J'ai essayé d'éduquer mon entourage sur le sujet, vous savez comment ils ont réagit ? "Ça crie au loup quand y en a pas."
    On nous lègue le réchauffement climatique, un brexit bancale, des massacres de communautés avec du terrorisme et des guerres, tout comme on nous lègue des droits à revendiquer. L'article 13 vous censure.
    Mais tout ce qui fait bouger le peuple c'est le fric qu'on vous émiette sur la gueule avec vos gilets jaunes. Des pigeons, c'est ça qu'on est.

  19. Bonjour,

    J'ai une question a vous poser. Si j'ai bien compris, un youtuber quelconque a le droit d'utiliser un contenu protégé par le droit d'auteur, si la plateforme est parvenue à conclure un accord de licence avec l'ayant droit concerné et si le youtuber n'utilise pas ce contenu à des fins commerciales ou si son "activité ne génère pas de revenus significatifs" (art. 17, § 2). Je suppose donc qu'un youtuber utilisant ce contenu, ne serait-ce que partiellement, ne pourra pas monétiser sa vidéo. Mais est-ce que cela concerne également les alternatives à la démonétisation, comme le placement de produit et le financement participatif (Teepee, Patreon) ?

  20. This analysis could as well be a metaphor for why the UK voted to move away from an inflexible relationship with the EU.

  21. Bravo pour cette vidéo instruite et réfléchie. Je m'abonne à ta chaîne que je ne connaissais pas. C'est une petite chaîne pour le moment mais je ne doute pas que si tu continues comme ça, elle ne fera que grossir.

  22. Bonjour, j'ai à mon tour une question : les ayants-droit avec lesquels la directive préconise de conclure des accords sont-ils exclusivement des artistes basés dans l'Union européenne? Ou cela concerne-t-il tous les artistes du monde dont le contenu est accessible depuis l'Union?

  23. Bonjour Maxime,

    Merci pour cette vidéo extrêmement intéressante !
    Simple question, n'avez-vous pas eu de difficultés à uploader cette vidéo qui elle-même contient des extraits de contenus censurés ?

    Je vous remercie !

  24. Super vidéo, celle là et les autres d'ailleurs. Merci à M Phi de t'avoir cité 🙂 Comme tu fais des vidéos de texte j'ai tendance à les écouter sans regarder. Du coup les rares fois où tu cites un contenu écrit ça serait cool d'avoir la lecture du texte.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *