So this is one of those talking head videos.

Feel free to minimize it.

Um, really, even meet it if you want to guess.

But that's besides the point.

We're gonna talk about that president that's been set, how dangerous is is and what the future holds.

Potentially what the future could look like because of Article 13 or more commonly known as Article 13.

It's actually European Union directive on copyright.

Yeah, you could tell that was written by old people.

Video is brought to You by Nord VPN service I've been using for a long time, and it's becoming more relevant than ever, as we will talk about in today's video, obviously with the passing of the European Union.

A directive on copyright and specifically Article 13 will be talking about that in today's video.

So we're probably gonna see a huge rise in VPN traffic here in the near future because of net neutrality and now Article 13.

But fortunately, nor VPN has you covered with thousands of servers and more than 61 countries, including you guessed it Europe, in fact, nor VPN even has a campaign going right now to bring awareness to this ongoing issue with a fight.

The Mima Ban with memes competition taking place.

In fact, you guys can find a link down description below.

It's designed to make people aware of what is happening and what we're talking about in today's video.

But not only all of this.

It's just good practice to protect an encrypt your data when you connected Internet with military grade encryption, you can bet that the I S, P s and the governments and all these other entities will not be spying on your data.

In fact, new users you sign it for, nor VPN using my offer code.

Jay's two cents at checkout can save 75% off a three year membership.

That is a very small price to pay to maintain the open freedom of your Internet experience.

So you guys waiting for a start taking things serious and shove it toe Article 13 by signing up for, Nor dpmne using my link in the description below.

All right, so here's the thing.

Net neutrality was a big, bad scary thing because it basically gave the eye.

Is peace freedom to lock down the Internet?

If that makes it just such an oxymoron right there because an oxymoron written by morons that being edgy pie net neutrality was good with the battle of Net.

Neutrality was lost because of corporations paying billions and millions and but jillions of dollars toe people like you.

But you know what, though?

That kind of pales in comparison to what Article 13 can can do to the future.

Because the biggest issue with net neutrality or the lack of net neutrality is the fact that Ice Piece could charge you.

They could charge you to connect to YouTube.

They could charge you connect the Netflix, or they could throw you in it, which they currently do.

They can slow down your Internet connection to these sites because they are banned with hugs.

Or if you want to get full speed, you pay for it.

And thats that's the spirit of non neutrality.

But this isn't a discussion about net neutrality.

It's much, much worse.

And that being eyes, I already mentioned the European directive on copyright.

But European Union directive on copyright.

Now what that basically has is a is a It's a big loss, a big legislative piece of a bunch of old baby boomers that sit around in some Parliament and you're somewhere and to say this is the way it should be done.

Can someone help me log in my ol account?

Just listen to some of the legislators in law.

Passers talk about lawmakers, passers, whatever just listen to it's like listening to them talk about the Internet is like listening to me talk about law.

These lawmakers that pass article 13 still use a trackball.

Someone out there watching us right now is like I still use the trackball if you use the trackball f Article 13 the way thing, okay, To understand what's changed, you have to understand the way things currently work.

Now, right now on YouTube, I'm going to use the United States State, the United States.

I'm hungry.

Try have a serious conversation, guys, the United States of a one, but understand the potential of how this could all work in the future yet understand how it currently works today, at least yesterday or the day before before it actually went into effect here in the United States.

That's the only laws I know and can go by so I could tell you the way it currently works, at least with YouTube.

YouTube does have to follow the local laws of the areas that they're being viewed.

So if you're viewing YouTube in Europe or your viewing it in China, I think you can view in China maybe on a VPN for your viewing in Korea view in Taiwan or South Africa.

There are local laws have to be a applied to where you're currently watching things, because although the Internet is all encompassing and it can actually entire world, you're still bound by your local loss.

So I am in the United States and those of the laws I know and understand, so that's gonna be referencing.

But it could affect us here because it sets a precedent.

And other governments like to follow suit with those that pioneer and do laws and things first.

And so this could be making its way here.

And the problem is, I see Article 13 and the European Union directive on copyright.

But the old people here in the United States going that sounds like a really good idea.

The way currently works right now is that I upload a video, or Kyle uploads a video that uses any other material.

I created Jace to cents.

I upload these videos.

This is this is content that I own because it's intellectual property.

I'm making this.

I am creating it.

And if someone takes it uploads that I can legally claimed that content under copyright.

Kyle did that very soon with the Verge PC build, and you all know how that turned out.

He was hit with a couple right strike because someone in the team was like, We don't like what he's saying.

We're gonna copyright it, But he's protected under laws known as fair use here in the United States.

So although Kyle used that piece of content from the verge for a parody that was under fair use in accordance of fair use, which is an actual law here that states that you could do that, you could make parodies you can use bits as long as it's used in a new creative format, and not just a re upload or copyright, you know, just obviously using copyrighted material for the sake of re uploading it in its entirety.

Now, fortunately, the editor in Chief of the Verge agreed that it was an erroneous use of DMC A, which is a digital millennial copyright act similar to Article 13 here in the United States, been abused many, many times.

UM, it was up to the verge to first initiate the copyright strike, and then it was also to the verge to remove it.

Article 13 basically states that it would be up to YouTube now to identify and make sure that cooperated material does not make it on the platform.

Because YouTube does benefit from every single upload that hasn't add on YouTube, they take 40% of the revenue, and as such, if they get 40% of illegal copyright uploaded material, then that makes them basically implicated in the violation as well.

So Article 13 specifically in Europe states that the platform has to be responsible for the copyright, make sure making sure that they're in compliance and not uploading and benefiting from copyrighted material.

So here's a few problems with that one.

It's very open to interpretation.

In fact, they very clearly state that it's open to interpretation and it's up to the individual countries within the union that being obviously, the European Union, too implement a system that stops the copyright material from being re uploaded.

So one.

How do you do that?

It's not like YouTube or Twitter or Facebook or Google or whatever hosting platform we'll talk more about that is there are guidelines in here or requirements in here is, too.

Who doesn't have have to have a filter system who does, etcetera, etcetera.

It's not like they receive a list of this is copyrighted.

It's not like they receive a database that says, Here is the image match or the sound match or the sound file or whatever that states.

Oh, this is copyright when it's uploaded.

So how is the platform supposed to know One Because the platform now could be potentially find and held responsible for copyrighted material.

My fear is that the platform's been gonna become extremely sensitive.

So if you thought there were a lot of false positive before, I think this is just the beginning now, in terms of uploading, though, like I said, it's not like I have a database, so there's no way for them to know what is or isn't copyright material.

Many people don't know this.

It is up to the copyright holder to go into the YouTube system to give its samples to say, This is our material.

Look for it.

Remove it when you find it or you have the manual claims like you saw against Kyle.

So the issue there is YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and all the other major platforms are not going to have a mechanism in terms of knowing everything that has copyright compliance.

It's a copyright material.

It's gonna be up to the copyright holder to still feed that data.

Now this is coming directly from wired dot ceo dot UK, so I'll put a link to this article down below.

It says the final wording of article 13 cents out exactly which platforms will need upload filters in which ones will now currently on YouTube.

When I upload something, if I had just and if I'm just erroneous and I say I'm gonna upload this entire fight scene from Avengers Infinity War, it will get captured.

It will get immediately removed.

You have a choice as the copyright holder.

Do you want to monetize the material and just redirect the funds to yourself?

Do you want to give them a strike, which is the most damaging to the content up Loader and then, or do you want to just remove it entirely?

But if I uploaded something that strip owned by, like Universal or DreamWorks or whatever it will get caught, it will get caught during the upload process because that's a very cut and dry copyright.

Those have the manpower and the money to go in and feed the aye aye to feed the filters to let them know this is copyrighted material.

It's a lot easier to identify as well.

I own this video right now.

I'm creating it.

I own it.

It's my I P.

It's on YouTube.

They get a piece of the money, but this is mine.

If someone else uploads it, I have the same options as universal DreamWorks would or Marvel or Disney from any other piece of copyrighted material.

The only way a site that hosts user generated content can avoid putting in a place or in place.

That upload filter is if it fulfills all three of the following criteria is it has been available for fewer than three years, not many platforms that we consume content on these days or fewer than three years old.

It has an annual turnover below 10 million euro.

That's not a lot of money.

If you're hosting platform, it has fewer than five million unique monthly visitors.

So basically, it's as you can probably guess.

This means a huge number of sites, from fishing forums to neech social networks.

We'll need to install filters.

Let's just use, for example, like over clock dot net, one of the oldest still running and operating comm PC websites with a forum, a forum that allows you to upload pictures directly to its own hosting database as like a zoo registered user.

And if over clock dot net meets doesn't meet all three of those, remember, it could meet 1 to 1 or two.

But if it doesn't meet all three, they have to have some sort of mechanism in place to filter out dick operated material.

It's one of the issues with something like over clock dot Net is the fact that, sure, they may not have five million unique visitors a month anymore, but they are definitely older than three years, and I don't even know how Ah, site like over clock dot net or any form would be able to afford any sort of filtering system that doesn't exist, you know, YouTube wrote its own Aye, aye, to do it.

You know, Facebook has its own Aye, aye, to do it.

These small companies don't have any way of complying with these type of over.

Are these these copyright laws?

I believe there's even an over clockers dot UK or something like that as well.

There's There's a ton of European sites that it's just there's no way for them to stay in compliance with this.

So what I see kind of being the obvious answer to that is they just remove up loading entirely.

There's even clauses and other language inside of here that I haven't even gotten into yet that also refers to linking and hot linking to copyrighted materials.

So how do you then control your users from being able to provide a link that then brings up a hosted image somewhere else of copyrighted material that's on your platform?

And they want the platform to still be responsible for that.

So I don't understand how this is something that's going to be able to be enforced.

I have zero idea.

It's it's just this.

They just threw this whole blanket over the problem but the blanket has a bunch of holes in.

It doesn't make any sense.

So I can't see how sites like that are going to be able to be to enforce this.

I don't even see how there's gonna be enforcement over this at all.

If you want to know the truth.

I mean, outside of the meat, like the major sites like YouTube, for example, they're big enough to be on the radar, and governments and lot light law enforcement will go after stuff like that.

But the small guys, I mean, I kind of feel like you could slide under the radar.

But do you want to take that risk?

So is another article in here written plea that was like Article 12 A.

Basically states that if you go to a sporting event, you can not take out your phone and recorded and uploaded to Facebook and share with your friends without potentially also being caught under copyright.

Facebook could also put a filter in place and say we have identified this is copyrighted material.

You cannot share it.

So what does this mean?

If your European based content creator, it means that the platform is going to start getting a lot more stringent.

Fair use is one of those things that's like probably out the window now, because how you gonna determine what's being used in fair use if it's a voiceover on a clip that's being shown in its entirety?

But it's still considered fair use, or just something that looks very similar to something that has been used in the past and has the copyrighted material.

Fortunately, there are some ways around this right now, and I don't know how well it's gonna work in the future.

But right now there are ways around it.

You saw the ad earlier in this video that would be that of a VPN virtual private network where you're tricking your I S P and the platform connected to you and everything to look like you're connecting from somewhere else.