31–40 of 407 posts
I'm excited about this. This will boost VPN, Tor and other technologies that protect users from inane regulations. https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/cryp...
Unless you're expecting the whole internet to go all rebel pirate underground, which seems... implausible.
Mainstream news outlets on this side of the atlantic didn't do much reporting on this vote which might signal tacit support on their part (at least for the link payment portion of this thing which is frankly the sillies part) and that should shape everyone's understanding of their coverage of tech companies in general.
Second, it's hard not to notice that much of what the EU does is trying to hurt US tech companies be that: copyright, GDPR, antitrust, taxes, and many other initiatives the goals of which are to control and "punish" these companies. It's easy to complaint about silly steel tariffs while they keep enacting these trade barriers on US industry, the fact the the news media isn't making that connection brings it back to the first point.
This is what happens when those in control don't understand, know or care about the things they regulate. So I guess this is bad. --goes and reads article-- > Article 11, requiring online platforms to pay publishers a fee if they link to their news content, was also approved. What the fucking FUCK? Pay to send companies actual traffic? Pay to be allowed to use the basic building-block of the world wide web on the wor…
In Germany, Google started to delist news sites from their index. After traffic dropped, the publishers gave Google a license to link freely. Law defeated.
In Spain, they went a bit further and wrote into the law that Google had to list news sites in their index. So Google News shut down in Spain. Law defeated.
I guess, third time’s the charm?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not too worried about this one. This will just mean platforms will not link to publishers. EVER It already failed in Spain and Germany, they will just shoot themselves in the foot again.
So does this mean *this HN post is illegal because it links to a news article?
In this special case, it might not be a violation as it links to a public service broadcast site.
(IANAL)
It was approved on in a committee of the European parliament (for legal matters), which means that now they will enter negotiations with the European Council and then after some time and processes laid out in Art. 293ff TFEU, it will be debated in the European Parliament at some point. So yes, there is still plenty of room and time to discuss this rather unfortunate policy. EDIT: For more info: http://www.europarl.eu…
So yes, there is still plenty of room and time to discuss this rather unfortunate policy. But not that much time. The main European Parliament vote is due in July. For those of you in the EU, now is probably a good time to be writing to your MEPs.
If I may play the devil's advocate for a moment here, isn't this a boon for decentralizing media? If third-party publishers like YouTube are crippled, perhaps there's more room for self-hosting your content, enabling you to build your brand on your own terms rather than YouTube's? Perhaps it's time to stop outsourcing the publication of our content to third-parties and host it ourselves, especially now that granularl…
This would likely hit small companies and individual users hardest and could be a boon to various governments who want to silence a particular view.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So does this mean *this HN post is illegal because it links to a news article?
No. According to the so called link-tax article, it is not linking but putting content that makes a platform liable. So this HN post would not be illegal because of the link, but maybe because of the title that was "stolen" from the publisher. The aim is at news.google.com and other search engines and news aggregators that include a blurb coming from the article along the link. To be honest, it is not yet clear if th…
All the comments quoting content would be taxable, though.
It was approved on in a committee of the European parliament (for legal matters), which means that now they will enter negotiations with the European Council and then after some time and processes laid out in Art. 293ff TFEU, it will be debated in the European Parliament at some point. So yes, there is still plenty of room and time to discuss this rather unfortunate policy. EDIT: For more info: http://www.europarl.eu…
So yes, there is still plenty of room and time to discuss this rather unfortunate policy. But not that much time. The main European Parliament vote is due in July. For those of you in the EU, now is probably a good time to be writing to your MEPs.
Whatever the negotiate out will then by voted on by the MEPs. The negotiation is likely to take a few months, and I kind of expect a fight about the speed: those against the proposal will want to stall to get the vote as close as possible to the elections in May 2019, whereas those in support likely want to get it out the door as quickly as possible. I've seen some people suggest December as a likely time for the final vote.