Hasn't stopped big companies from making false claims before. After all they are the ones responding (and likely rejecting) the appeal of the uploader. See: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/09/sorry-sony-music...
> And we know that detecting that certain recording via music matching does not work, only checking the strong hash of it would work. Which would be trivial to circumvent by a single bit-flip.
So you're saying that even Google hasn't made upload filters work reliably? Who can if not the company behind Youtube?
They would need to match all EU copyrighted work. There's not even a database of EU copyrighted work. Because our copyright law works differently than in the US. There's no exact OCR or proper fuzzy matching of video or audio possible. Maybe with success rates of 60%. This is too risky for a big content provider. Esp. dealing with an entity who has no idea what they are talking about (the EU parliament).
Yes it's true XYZ Music Corp would only own that performance (as it's Beethoven and the piece is long out of copyright). The problem is, the automatic filter is a fuzzy matcher: it compares the upload against every other performance of Beethoven's 5th it's been programmed to recognise.
Let's say our uploader has been learning from one of those performances. Their performance will sound very similar to another pianist's -- at least to the fuzzy-matcher.
And therein lies the problem: the uploader's piece is clearly copyright to them, but the magic upload filter can't tell the difference.
It's like uploading a silent theatre production (let's say some kind of homage to silent films) and the upload being flagged for violating the copyright in 4'33".
> Article 17/9: Where rightholders request to have access to their specific works or other subject matter disabled or those works or other subject matter removed, they shall duly justify the reasons for their requests. Complaints submitted under the mechanism provided for in the first subparagraph shall be processed without undue delay, and decisions to disable access to or remove uploaded content shall be subject to human review. Member States shall also ensure that out-of-court redress mechanisms are available for the settlement of disputes. Such mechanisms shall enable disputes to be settled impartially and shall not deprive the user of the legal protection afforded by national law, without prejudice to the rights of users to have recourse to efficient judicial remedies. In particular, Member States shall ensure that users have access to a court or another relevant judicial authority to assert the use of an exception or limitation to copyright and related rights.
So this also encourages to appeal in court against the current very opaque content upload policies. Certainly this is not strictly better than the current situation (where you can be arbitrarily banned), but definitely progress compared to the situation today, where platforms just act like they see fit.
> Article 17/7: The cooperation between online content-sharing service providers and rightholders shall not result in the prevention of the availability of works or other subject matter uploaded by users, which do not infringe copyright and related rights, including where such works or other subject matter are covered by an exception or limitation.
So overblocking will be costly as well, if enough suitable laws are signed into effect and people start complaining. And this really puts large scale commercial (remember non-profits are exempt) sites in a though spot: they either share revenue with content-creators/their organisations (which are mostly s*, but could be changed...) or they employ even more moderators (remember the small paragraph, where banning is to be done by humans ;)) – which all severly limits the current exploitation of the internet as a big chunk of empty space, where the strongest strongman is going to grab the biggest slice and employs an army of user-slaves.
> Article 17/10: For the purpose of the stakeholder dialogues, users' organisations shall have access to adequate information from online content-sharing service providers on the functioning of their practices with regard to paragraph 4.
I guess already today a lot of people would like to know, how Content-ID blocks their content, but Google can't and won't say (because it will show their dirty secrets...).
=> IMO: all in all, for the average person, the internet might develop back to where it was 20 years ago with select content-providers and quite a large proportion of actual people hosting fun stuff (and moderating their own boards...). If people are as IT-literate as they claim to be (although I doubt that for the large percentage of fortnite-playing #saveyourinternet-people) we might as well enter a real golden age of the internet.
You call your lawyer and ask them to sue (as an example) Google.
I expect the response would be something to the effect of "are you mad, rich or both? Because this is going to take a long time and be very expensive."
Just because you could doesn't mean it's feasible from a financial point of view.
A real problem would be the usually long wait.
However, taking into account several more circumstances, either side might not be keen on a court case, and thus provide to avoid it. That hinges on morals and technical details.
The problem with copyright's blurry edges around the originality threshold hasn't changed at least. The Olympics organisation is famous for suing, and loosing often enough, over its trademarks, for example.
> take on a major media company in court
In court or outside? And why the media companies? Laws can be repealed by supreme courts on constitutional grounds. That's an even bigger judicial hurdle to consider. If lobbying or legislative orders are involved, it would be a superset of the problem, as the court is to an extend bound by the lawgivers interpretation of the law, disregarding any side effects that are implementation specific. That's the undefined behaviour of the law. The service nulled all your bits after you passed ownership? The content wasn't registered initially and you assumed it was licensed to null? Ohohoho, none of those side-effects were mandated.
So yes, its still an invalid flag, but if you want your video up again, you have to sue somebody who is probably in another country