OK, so I logged on to You Tube just now and got the declaration to sign. Being a legally minded person I downloaded the agreement and read it (I'm not recommending that you do but these things can be fascinating). This does indeed deal with the implications of Article 13 but much else besides, which is very interesting. You Tube are taking the opportunity to do a few other things. So, my precise — own basic terms.
Firstly, You Tube require you to create an account to upload and work with content. In essence they need to know who you are. I find no problem with that. And then, of course, you need to be clear that you have the permissions or control over the material you upload. If you don't then YouTube can take action (remove it). Again seems reasonable to me.
As many of you are aware there are now many YouTube channels (across many genres) that are now businesses. A few years ago I was involved in some serious research as to how much income somebody could make from these and I was quite surprised (if anyone wants to now about this I will share my experiences). On the whole these people — and podcasters and small broadcasting companies — use royalty free music and 'bumpers'. If you have an Apple product and use Logic or Garage Band you will have access to a number of those pieces — and you do hear them gain and again all over the place. In order to become more professional many Pro YouTubers have created their own themes or songs, precisely for ownership purposes. This is because many States in the US are worried about the same things the EU was. These YouTubers are doing this to be clear about ownership. They are all doing this for business reasons. If you receive income from YouTube (a fascinating topic itself) and use a commercial piece of music on your channel — up to now — and if you are caught, YouTube will simply donate the advertising income form that video to the rights holders (well thats this simple way of explaining it). There are some music production sites who will test hardware and software against well known mixes of commercial material. But they will speed up or distort the sound to disguise it precisely because they will loose income.
My simple point is that people are moving in this direction to avoid localised legislation or to protect their income. Nothing to do the EU is these cases though the issues are the same.
But there is another load of stuff in this agreement which is interesting.
YouTube have firmed up their rules more generally for 'commercialised' use of their channel. So, for example, if your video cross promotes a webpage you own which in itself generates commercial income (for you) that cn fall fowl of the YouTube regulations. Why? Because YouTube — I suggest — are trying to create a monopoly of income on their eco system or anything that interacts with it! this is hardly anything to do with internet freedom but about cementing commercial monopoly.
There is more besides. About fifty percent of this agreement does not relate to article 50.
What is heartening — for me at least – is this is part of a slow and creeping acceptance by Google that they are indeed publishers and promoters of content and that they have a responsibility for material tat they publish. Amen!
One final word on content.
The best way to protect your material is to use the Creative Commons system. This will cost you nothing.
creativecommons.org This is the real deal in terms of sharing and collaborating and protecting your material. YOU decide how your material can be used. It is the case that with a Creative Commons License the creator of the content has greater rights than somebody using a You Tube license.
Creative Commons has now been consolidated in Many national copywrite laws — including here in the UK. This system is far more effective that YouTube licenses and effectively gives you a protectable position under law.
Creative Commons have been critical of EU changes but this is because of the intention to create taxation links for income and profits, something of course the US doesn't understand. (And remember Google gave evidence to the UK select committees on why they don't like paying tax). Creative Commons — as YouTube — argues that this inhibits creative freedom. I disagree with this as well in the sense that i I was lucky enough to earn significant amounts of income from YouTube I would expect to pay tax on it. (And as I said above some people are generating large amounts of income form YouTube).
So, what it means to me.
I remain happy to continue to post my videos and audio demos — complete with sniffling and heavy breathing — without worrying about copywrite or reuse. However, if I produce something that is very good and a finished product I won't be relying on a YouTube License to protect me. And if I happen to earn a fortune from something (seems unlikely) I'll happily conform to the tax regimes of the nations where that income is generated.
Finally (I apologies for the length again) we must recognise that youTube is becoming, every day, a mainstream broadcaster in a conventional sense. they are protecting their eco system and in doing that using these Terms and Conditions to ring fence income generating options. Hardly something group of internet hippies would do!