This week, both our winners on the insightful side come in response to our post about Zoe Keating’s detailed look at the problems with last year’s Music Modernization Act and its impact on independent musicians. In first place, it’s Rico R. highlighting how little many musicians even knew about what was happening:
I’m an independent musician, and this is the first time I’m hearing about this comment period on the Music Modernization Act, and it’s almost over! I say this with the utmost respect, but if Techdirt, a non-major small-time news operation, is the first time I hear about a potentially troubling implementation of updated copyright law in a way that directly affects me, there’s a major disconnect between legacy gatekeepers and actual creators. I have to wonder if legacy players are hoping that smaller independent artists (like myself) just don’t do anything so they can make money off of works they don’t own or represent. And they say that copyright law is designed to protect small creators like me? Yeah, right!!
In second place, it’s Mason Wheeler with an opinion about word choice when describing how the new copyright process is designed to “help divert money to the big music publishers and away from independent artists”:
As important as it is to call out publishing interests on their continuous abuse of the word “steal” WRT copyright infringement, it’s equally important to apply it appropriately instead of using euphemisms. So let’s call a spade a spade here: the process is rigged to allow big music publishers to steal money from independent artists. The NMPA has designed a system in which they get to take money that rightfully belongs to independent artists, and stuff their own pockets with it instead. That’s legitimate theft.
For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we’ve got a pair of comments about the idea that YouTube could moderate all its content. First up, it’s Bamboo Harvester with a point about a key obstacle we didn’t mention:
…a big one. He’s assuming all the video is in English.
You’re not going to get multi-lingual reviewers for minimum wage.
This clown needs to see the team involved in a “live” (ten to thirty second transmission delay) TV broadcast.
It goes even further than that. Not only is the language an issue, but the content as well. Is this medical video okay, or is it endorsing snake oil? Is this engineering video okay, or is it con artists trying to sell a perpetual motion machine? Is this biography okay, or it is libelous/slanderous/defamation?
It goes on and on and on… you’ll need at least as many experts on EVERY subject to sort and vet each video.
Over on the funny side, our first place winner is an anonymous response to a regular critic, regarding claims about leaving the comment section:
No, really, I’m seriously leaving this time.
Did you hear me? I’m leaving!
Just checking in. I wasn’t sure if maybe the internet was out and you didn’t see that I was leaving.
Guys, it’s really difficult to feel self-important when you ignore how significant it is that I’m leaving.
You’re all stupid poopyheads and I’m taking my ball and going home! Maybe.
Finally someone has thought about the kids.
For editor’s choice on the funny side, we start out with Bobvious, who responded to the proposal that the Right To Be Forgotten’s alternative name could be the Right To Erasure:
Nominative Antonym: Right to be Streisanded.
(To be honest I’m not 100% sure what a nominative antonym is, and Googling just gets me lists of antonyms for the word “nominative”, but right to be Streisanded is apt!)
Before we leap into a huge endeavor like mods reviewing every upload, maybe we should trial the “Review Process” on a more reasonable scale.
I suggest having politicians read and understand every law, before they vote on it.
That’s all for this week, folks!