The document discusses the challenges and implications of copyright protection online, focusing on the potential effects on freedom of expression and the burdens on small companies. It highlights issues related to content recognition technology, legal uncertainties, and the complexities of implementing automatic filters, emphasizing the need for transparency and a better appeals process. The overall recommendation is to reassess current proposals due to the intricacies involved in monetizing content while meeting the needs of users accustomed to free access.

1. Alternative for
copyright
protection
online
Bozhidar Bozhanov

2. Key aspects
● Effects on freedom of expression
● Cost for small companies
○ Ambiguous interpretations and legal uncertainty
● Distribution of content by rightholders
● Efficiency of content recognition technology
● Actual protection and monetization of copyright

3. Issues with proposed filters
● Legal uncertainty and increased cost for small companies
● Uncertainty how will content databases for filters be provided
● The content recognition technology is far from perfect
○ False positives
○ Context
○ Exceptions and limitations (or fair use)
● => automatic filtering is a risk for freedom of speech
● Filtering IS NOT monetization
● We risk creating a ContentID-as-a-Service monopoly

4. Proposal
Getting content recognition sytems outside
of service providers

6. Obligations for service providers
● APIs
○ Notification for new published content
○ Pulling the newly published content
○ Request for blocking or monetization
● Appeals procedure
● Transparency
○ Number of blocked works
○ Number of monetized works
○ Number of appeals
○ Results from appeals

8. ● Easier for applying specific rules
○ “Block for a certain period (Х days after premier), monetize after that”
● Will it scale?
○ 300 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute
○ Will require consolidation of rightholders
● Different rules:
○ For service providers in dominant market position - an obligation to implement filters internally
● Protection of repositories of copyrighted works
● Annotating all works with metadata, including rights for reuse, exceptions of
copyright, etc.
● Right of uploaders to claim exceptions
● “Verified uploader” - eID (anonymous credentials)
The devil is in the details

9. ● The choice is not binary - there’s more than just “with” or “without” filters
● The appeals process is key
○ Filtering with delay
● We need more information in order to take decisions
○ More transparency from service providers and rightholders
● Can we solve the fundamental problem - users are used to free content
○ YouTube, Spotify, SoundCloud are barely break-even or even losing money
○ Rightholders claim that they don’t get enough money
○ The advertising industry (that is the main source of money) will be affected by GDPR and the
ePrivacy Regulation
○ Where will the money come from?
There is no simple solution

10. My recommendation:
back to the drawing board

11. Thank you