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

351–360 of 407 posts

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

#351

Post by realusername »

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…

> Without the law, Google takes whatever it wants without asking

No it does not, you need a lot of steps to make your website available on Google News, it does not work by default.

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

#352

Post by AnimalMuppet »

manfredo wrote: post #313
srah763 wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes this happens to not be one of those cases, espousing the virtues of selfishness isn’t up for debate anymore. It’s wrong, and has been shown to be so time and time again. To have to rehash such foolishness is pointless.

Proclaiming that something is not up for debate and refusing to engage meaningfully is an extremely easy way to lose the debate.

It's a way to try to win the debate on the cheap. Whether it works or not depends on the other party in the debate.

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

#353

Post by Frondo »

blackrose wrote: post #300
SequoiaHope wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to say, I heard all this talk of Ayn Rand as some kind of evil bogeyman, and then I listened to her speak on YouTube. She grew up in a horrible communist dictatorship, and then found refuge in the US. She spoke about how unfair governments can be, and spoke out against forced control of the people. I found her to be super reasonable! She only represents one persons view and I feel that libertarians often fail…

It's not that she's evil, just that her "philosophy" is what you said: one person's view (i.e. opinion). She couldn't reconcile many critiques of Objectivism and didn't do much self-analysis on it. So despite how good many of her individual ideas sound, together they're thin and don't really make up a coherent theory that many people can take seriously. Unless you're a jerk using her name to justify being self-center…

I have heard several working philosophers describe her work as "incoherent" in a philosophical sense -- inconsistent in ways that are unreconcilable.

These are people with no particular horse in any race; there isn't a lot of money in rejecting one 20th century pop philosopher.

I haven't read enough of her stuff to develop my own opinions, so I'm happy to defer to them on the philosophy. I have read enough of her stuff to say that I find it turgid to the point of unreadability; a very dated style. Reminds me of L Ron Hubbard's stuff, which is also just about unreadable (dianetics or otherwise).

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

#354

Post by blackrose »

Frondo wrote: post #353
blackrose wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that she's evil, just that her "philosophy" is what you said: one person's view (i.e. opinion). She couldn't reconcile many critiques of Objectivism and didn't do much self-analysis on it. So despite how good many of her individual ideas sound, together they're thin and don't really make up a coherent theory that many people can take seriously. Unless you're a jerk using her name to justify being self-center…

I have heard several working philosophers describe her work as "incoherent" in a philosophical sense -- inconsistent in ways that are unreconcilable. These are people with no particular horse in any race; there isn't a lot of money in rejecting one 20th century pop philosopher. I haven't read enough of her stuff to develop my own opinions, so I'm happy to defer to them on the philosophy. I have read enough of her stu…

Right, and it's echoed in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [0] and elsewhere.

[0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ayn-rand/#Intr

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

#355

Post by noir_lord »

aninhumer wrote: post #296
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

London economy subsidises rest of UK, ONS figures show https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/23/uk-budget-d...

It's not really surprising that the only part of the UK that gets significant investment is the only part that's able to make any money.

Or that the parts of the UK that traditionally relied on industries that went away but without any real attempt (Northern Powerhouse excepted off course...cough) to replace them.

Shrugs, Brexit is going to be interesting if the impact on the financial and legal services is as large as predicted.

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

#356

Post by AnimalMuppet »

Scarblac wrote: post #216
bertil wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those laws have been tried in several European countries, and the strategy is always the same: - Google had to exclude the plaintiffs or shut down the service because they were not allowed to operate it without a license, and could not get a license in time; - Deprived of Google traffic, the News site audience suddenly dropped and they granted Google a free license, as an emergency process to keep the lights on; - Go…

Yes. It was impossible because it was always single sites doing it, and that doesn't work. To prevent that scenario, this law is for all news sites and doesn't allow free licenses. No idea how it'll work out.

Either Google will pay... or they won't. If they won't, nobody can find European news articles, and news traffic drops, and news sites get financially hurt (just like it's played out several times in the past). Then they'll get the idea that the law was a stupid idea, and work to get it quickly changed.

If I understand correctly, which way this goes is completely at Google's discretion. And Google hasn't shown inclination to cooperate with such schemes in the past...

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

#357

Post by bendbro »

srah763 wrote: post #306
rocketraman wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is profoundly ignorant. You're dismissing her philosophy because of two descriptive words (and not even the best two, which would probably be "rational selfishness"), which you have decided are the "opposite of good" simply because history says they are? That's just an appeal to tradition: plenty of people have been wrong about plenty of things throughout history, especially in the areas of morality and…

Yes this happens to not be one of those cases, espousing the virtues of selfishness isn’t up for debate anymore. It’s wrong, and has been shown to be so time and time again. To have to rehash such foolishness is pointless.

> Yes this happens to not be one of those cases, espousing the virtues of selfishness isn’t up for debate anymore

In your selflessness, perhaps you'll consider espousing my view instead of yours? In return, I promise to dutifully, comprehensively, and correctly represent your view, as you can see I've done here now.

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

#358

Post by AnimalMuppet »

cityhomesteader wrote: post #340
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…

> This is what happens when those in control don't understand, know or care about the things they regulate. It's very naive to think that highly intelligent people don't know or care about what they regulate. I think it is the exact opposite. They care and understand deeply. > Pay to send companies actual traffic? Pay to be allowed to use the basic building-block of the world wide web on the world wide web? Amazing i…

> It's very naive to think that highly intelligent people don't know or care about what they regulate.

These may be highly intelligent people, but what they are highly skilled at is the art of obtaining and keeping political office. That does not necessarily say anything about their knowledge of the industries they regulate, or their ability to write regulations that are free from disastrous side effects.

> Think about who this benefits. You are just viewing it from one side. Who stands to benefit from all this?

Maybe you could actually say something, instead of just hinting?

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

#359

Post by gameswithgo »

trisiak wrote: post #291
hartator wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> GDPR is a good example of another law which is potentially dangerous. However, I do see that it's hard to comply with both, but I don't see how they interact with other. The copyright law requires you to store metadata about the user who publish content forever while GDPR forbids you to do so. > Why? I would say most of HN leans left not libertarian.

Libertarianism is orthogonal to left-right split. https://www.politicalcompass.org/

libertarianism is whatever it needs to be to win the argument at hand.

it means about as much as "scripting language" or "strongly typed"

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

#360

Post by minitel »

michaelmrose wrote: post #346
ngngngng wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the rand think tank that spews serious amounts of fascist policy. Like so many ideologies, the fan club is what most people dislike. If you are capable of taking Rands philosophies with a grain of salt, there are many brilliant concepts to glean.

"If you are capable of taking Rands philosophies with a grain of salt, there are many brilliant concepts to glean." Such as? Minitel:It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. --Adam Smith Except in practice societies require self interest and benevolence and structures designed to promote the latter in order that we…

The idea that attempting to help others out of a sense of moral duty often ends up harming everyone. (See the way local economies have been destroyed via foreign aid.)

The idea that self-interest can form the basis for cooperation and lead to mutually beneficial outcomes. This seems obvious, but our society demonizes "selfishness" so it can be a real epiphany for some people to see it spelled out.

That equality often leads to misery, since it's easier to grind everyone down to the same low level than it is to raise everyone up.

Post reply on HN