Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

European parliament committee approves vote on ‘disastrous’ copyright bill

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 407 posts

Re: European parliament committee approves vote on ‘disastrous’ copyright bill

#201

Post by bertil »

vixen99 wrote: post #165
leifg wrote: post #107

As a EU citizen I have always been (and still am) a strong advocate for the European Union. I think the founding of the European Union was one of the greatest things that could ever happen to European citizens. I full heartedly believe this institution played a major role in retaining the piece after World War 2. The concept of open borders in (most of) Europe is something I would never want to miss. But seeing the l…

You're right. It does indeed make it harder. Why add an unpleasant general assertion ('most') about EU critics? Can you say what proportion of the 17.5 million EU critics who voted for their country to leave the EU, are 'straight up racists'? And how are you so sure?

Yes, extensive polling on what motivated their vote was done, as well as interviews. The fact that Pakistan and Nigeria were not in the EU clearly seemed to have escaped the vast majority of respondents.

You can be as defensive as you want, it won’t justify all the whistling during that campaign.

Re: European parliament committee approves vote on ‘disastrous’ copyright bill

#203

Post by phicoh »

jerf wrote: post #181
phicoh wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note the text 'and an inalienable right to obtain an fair and proportionate remuneration for such uses' The idea is to make it impossible to give Google a free license. The best outcome would be if Google would refuse to link to any content of European publishers.

"The best outcome would be if Google would refuse to link to any content of European publishers." Not so much sure that's the "best" outcome as the only possible one. As rich as Google looks, when you start dividing their income by multiple multiplicative factors it doesn't last long; the log of Google's income isn't all that large. On the other hand, Google definitely has a lot of cash to weather what to them will b…

There are quite a few similar rights. One example is that radio stations don't have enter agreements with individual rights owners to license songs. There is blanket fee. Similar payments are for playing music in bars, restaurants and other public spaces, for copying machines, blank CDs (and video and cassette tape), etc. All of those fees are set to collect money, not to kill of that use.

The difference this time, is that contracts with individual rights owners are specifically excluded.

So the fee is likely going to be an amount that Google can afford. But for the good of the Internet, it would be best if Google refuses and shows EU citizens that copyright has gone way beyond reasonable.

Re: European parliament committee approves vote on ‘disastrous’ copyright bill

#204

Post by rpenm »

josteink wrote: post #10

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…

The draft explicitly excludes hyperlinks from copyright protection.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...

Re: European parliament committee approves vote on ‘disastrous’ copyright bill

#206

Post by ajross »

oldcynic wrote: post #180
sampo wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So Google gets licenses to link to new sites for free, but smaller companies and private people's website cannot link to news sites?

Simple really: "BigMedia" want me to pay to link to this, so here's the same topic on SmallMediaSite. or I wanted to link this, but "BigMedia" want me to pay, so now I'm not even mentioning their title of the topic.

> Simple really: "BigMedia" want me to pay to link to this, so here's the same topic on SmallMediaSite.

It's actually more damaging than that from the perspective of EU regulators: "I can't link to that Le Monde article, so here's a WaPo piece about the same subject".

Internet content delivery spans borders, by design. All this does is disadvantage the local producers and force their customer's eyeballs offshore.

Re: European parliament committee approves vote on ‘disastrous’ copyright bill

#208

Post by krapp »

dalbasal wrote: post #174
krapp wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Honestly, I think it might be better if these old news companies die off, and clear space for a newer generation that understands the internet better. We have 20 years years of anecdata now. The internet isn't some hip new technology only the young people understand. You act as if old media companies must still use rotary phones and manual typewriters, but these companies have changed with the decades and have adapt…

I'm claiming that many/most news companies that formed their culture in the pre-internet days have failed to find stable business models, and they are looking to legislation for a fix.

But most companies on the internet have failed to find a stable business model - including companies which presumably do "understand the internet better." Even Google has trouble making money on Youtube, which is about as new media as new media gets. That problem isn't unique to pre-web companies or their cultures, it's a result of the nature of the web itself.

Re: European parliament committee approves vote on ‘disastrous’ copyright bill

#209

Post by tscs37 »

josteink wrote: post #10

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…

Notably, the pure act of linking is not what is being require d a licensing fee for. Rather if you take exerpts of the content (like for example Twitter link previews)

Re: European parliament committee approves vote on ‘disastrous’ copyright bill

#210

Post by izzydata »

wiz21c wrote: post #200
hesk wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law was basically made at the publisher’s behest to get Google to pay them. So far, it has spectularly backfired. 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…

>>> 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. I don't know the detail but the way you put it seems very fair to me. Law protect publishers against Google, so they can say to Google "no", except that their interest is to say "yes". So they say "yes". Looks to me that even if the end result is the same, the…

I agree. Even though the end result is back where they started.
Post reply on HN