Arcom is investigating the means implemented to protect online creation


The effective application of copyright on the Internet is not self-evident. Rights holders and platforms that distribute protected content must be particularly vigilant and put in place very concrete measures to identify illegal sharing of works.

In its supervisory role, the Regulatory Authority for Audiovisual and Digital Communication (Arcom) wants to go a step above in terms of the protection of online content. Through two questionnaires distributed respectively to platforms and rights holders, Arcom wishes to refine its knowledge of technical identification measures (TIM) backed by digital works.

This survey aims to determine which technological solutions are already in place by providers of online content sharing services, and identify any shortcomings. Arcom also wants to take stock of the agreements concluded to date between the platforms and the rights holders, and to see to what extent the rights holders are satisfied with the tools so far made available to them.

Protect the smallest rights holders

“The sending of questionnaires is completely new. This is the first time that MTIs have been evaluated,” says Laurence Pécaut-Rivolier, member of the Arcom college and co-president of the “Protection and dissemination of creation and sports content on the Internet” working group. at ZDNet.

Since last year, following the transposition into French law of article 17 of the 2019 directive on the protection of copyright and related rights, Arcom has been responsible for assessing the level of effectiveness of measures to protect works online. Based on the information collected through these questionnaires, Arcom is called upon to formulate recommendations in the future on the effectiveness of protective measures. The three criteria looked at closely are “robustness, practicality and finesse”, summarizes Raphaël Berger, creative director of Arcom.

“We know that each service provider has their technique. For us, what matters is that lesser rights holders can have access to the same protection as the “big ones”” insists Laurence Pécaut-Rivolier.

A multiplicity of technologies

The largest audiovisual and musical content distribution platforms did not wait for the law to equip themselves with effective identification tools, starting with YouTube and its Content ID fingerprint system, which receives millions of withdrawal requests. content every year related to copyright, or even Facebook and its Rights Manager tool.

If fingerprinting techniques (known as “fingerprinting”) are the most widespread, their installation requires “a certain mass” to be able to supply a sufficient reference base, notes Laurence Pécaut-Rivolier.

Pauline Blassel, Deputy Director General of Arcom, recalls that certain creative sectors fall less within the scope of these identification systems. “We observe that for images and photographs, there is no fingerprint recognition technology, but rather markings or metadata are used. However, the metadata pose several problems, in particular because they are not attached to all the images posted online, not to mention that some platforms erase them at the time of uploading,” she indicates.

Beyond fingerprinting and metadata, other technologies also exist such as watermarking (a kind of digital “tattoo”) or hashing. Faced with this multiplicity of technologies, it is therefore a real work of excavation that awaits the Arcom. Especially since its spectrum of analysis is wide: “A certain number of platforms, of which we think less usually, are concerned by article 17”, underlines Laure Pécaut-Rivolier. Starting with TikTok and Telegram, among others, also targeted by this questionnaire.

Questionnaires that will lead to recommendations

If Arcom is therefore only at the beginning of its supervisory action, the authority is not starting from a blank page: pre-assessment work has already been started by the former Hadopi and the Council Superior of Literary and Artistic Property (CSPLA) jointly. Following its review, Arcom will make recommendations to improve the devices. “The law does not provide for the power of sanction for the regulator; our role is to take stock of what has been put in place and to make recommendations if the level of effectiveness of the measures is not satisfactory. It is a considerable project and the stakes are high says Laurence Pécaut-Rivolier.

However, Laurence Pécaut-Rivolier admits that the law allows a certain flexibility in the interpretation of the level of responsibility of each other. “The responsibility of suppliers is to ensure that there is no counterfeiting. As for the rights holders, they must set up tools so that their rights are respected, hence the importance of agreements, especially when each supplier asks for different things” she notes.

Ultimately, the solution might be “to adapt the level of requirements imposed on the platforms according to their means” she adds.





Source link -97