Wikimedia warns EU copyright reform threatens the ‘vibrant free web’ • Hacker News Board

Re: Wikimedia warns EU copyright reform threatens the ‘vibrant free web’

#91

Post by doh » Wed, Sep 05, 2018, 5:32 AM UTC

rahimnathwani wrote: post #84

matheusmoreira wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You disagree with the notion, that people that produce content should be paid for it? Nobody disagrees with that. The fact is copyright exists to create artificial scarcity. "Content", once produced, is not scarce in any way; that's why the scarcity is artificial. These laws exist to force everybody to pretend that isn't how things work. It's fundamentally dishonest. It is trivial to copy and distribute "content".…

"> You disagree with the notion, that people that produce content should be paid for it? Nobody disagrees with that." From your post above and your clarification below, it seems like you believe: 1. People that produce content should be paid for it. 2. The burden is on content producers to find a way to get paid and, if they don't find one, then so be it. Those are both reasonable positions, but I don't understand ho…

I say A). It's the same why we have labor law, property law, ... It's vital for the society to have creative people to produce entertainment for masses (or for a few). It makes a whole.

Re: Wikimedia warns EU copyright reform threatens the ‘vibrant free web’

#92

Post by matheusmoreira » Wed, Sep 05, 2018, 5:33 AM UTC

FooBarWidget wrote: post #85

matheusmoreira wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You disagree with the notion, that people that produce content should be paid for it? Nobody disagrees with that. The fact is copyright exists to create artificial scarcity. "Content", once produced, is not scarce in any way; that's why the scarcity is artificial. These laws exist to force everybody to pretend that isn't how things work. It's fundamentally dishonest. It is trivial to copy and distribute "content".…

What is wrong with artificial rights? Aren’t a lot of rights already artificial? You can also argue that property rights are artificial: if someone points a tank at you then you will have to give up all your property, so property right pretends like that isn’t reality and is dishonest. But I’d say it is a good thing that people aren’t allowed to point a tank at me.

I don't believe in those rights either. They're just as artificial as copyright to me. Criminals and even the government itself violate property rights on a daily basis.

The low level concept that enables society's rules is violence and the threat of it.

Re: Wikimedia warns EU copyright reform threatens the ‘vibrant free web’

#93

Post by doh » Wed, Sep 05, 2018, 5:35 AM UTC

balp wrote: post #87

doh wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry but I don't think I follow. You disagree with the notion, that people that produce content should be paid for it? I do believe that correct attribution and fair compensation is vital to get quality content. These proposals are not the answer though.

Amanda Palmer, does ahve a big point in her reformulating of the Question. It's not how do we make people pay for it, how do we let people pay for it. People want to pay for content, the current systems don't let people pay for it.

I agree. That's why we have to change the status quo. However the proposal from the EU commission is step in a very wrong direction.

Re: Wikimedia warns EU copyright reform threatens the ‘vibrant free web’

#94

Post by matheusmoreira » Wed, Sep 05, 2018, 6:03 AM UTC

rahimnathwani wrote: post #84

matheusmoreira wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You disagree with the notion, that people that produce content should be paid for it? Nobody disagrees with that. The fact is copyright exists to create artificial scarcity. "Content", once produced, is not scarce in any way; that's why the scarcity is artificial. These laws exist to force everybody to pretend that isn't how things work. It's fundamentally dishonest. It is trivial to copy and distribute "content".…

"> You disagree with the notion, that people that produce content should be paid for it? Nobody disagrees with that." From your post above and your clarification below, it seems like you believe: 1. People that produce content should be paid for it. 2. The burden is on content producers to find a way to get paid and, if they don't find one, then so be it. Those are both reasonable positions, but I don't understand ho…

I mostly agree with A. I don't agree with the "if it doesn't happen on its own" part. If they can't make it work on their own, is it really meant to be? Should we keep making laws to support business models that worked before but don't work anymore?

When physical records were created, an industry naturally formed around them. The objective was to record good content, make copies and sell them. These copies were actually scarce. They had to be manufactured. Copying content wasn't trivial; you'd actually need to run a counterfeiting enterprise in order to do it. In that context, I'd even say copyright law sounded reasonable. It allowed the law to target and punish those counterfeiters.

Computers changed that. Now nearly everyone can suddenly become a criminal for downloading some music from sites as big as YouTube. What if 82% of a country's population engages in copyright infringement? I think it's a sign that these laws are out of touch with reality.

Instead of forcing everyone to pretend copies are still scarce, let the industry die instead. Let them go bankrupt. They should be forced to adapt by figuring out how to make money despite all the copying. If that means they'll make less money than before, then so be it.

Re: Wikimedia warns EU copyright reform threatens the ‘vibrant free web’

#95

Post by lovich » Wed, Sep 05, 2018, 6:15 AM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #9

Article 13 is the key one, mandating upload filtering. This has all sorts of side effects - suddenly you can't make a Dropbox style file sharing site without implementing pre-emptive filtering. You can't rely on notify-and-takedown. Article 11 potentially has huge implications for social media sites; suddenly a user posting a news article link with a quote becomes a copyright liability. All the worry that was focused…

I think copyright reform has come about the same way GPDR has. Large tech corporations have been ignoring the concerns of governments, steamrolling those governments citizens, and then when given a few choices on how to act the companies argue out of both sides of their mouth.

In this case corporations like Facebook, Google, et al have stated that they are platforms and can't be responsible for what people post on their systems. At the same time they are selectively removing content based on their beliefs or economic concerns, and not solely under court order.

There are two options. One is to be a dumb platform serving anything someone wants to out up, and thus free from any copyright claims. The other option it to be an arbiter of the content, which means they are responsible for said content and so they are responsible for the endemic amount of copyright violation on their systems.

The companies didn't want to pick their role, so governments are picking for them

Re: Wikimedia warns EU copyright reform threatens the ‘vibrant free web’

#96

Post by lovich » Wed, Sep 05, 2018, 6:22 AM UTC

nnash wrote: post #42

Can we just agree to silo off the EU? Why should foreign companies have to comply with these policies anyway? GDPR compliance has already had a negative impact on web UX.

Welcome to what the rest of the world has been experiencing under the US hegemony for the past 3 decades. Since we are not all operating under the same authority, and so we don't have anyone to appeal to for a final answer when we disagree, relations between nation's and their companies have been a matter of practicality rather than ethics. If you can silo off the EU feel free, but most companies won't voluntarily give up access to the largest economy in the known universe if they can find any way at all you can mitigate the local regulations

Re: Wikimedia warns EU copyright reform threatens the ‘vibrant free web’

#97

Post by tincholio » Wed, Sep 05, 2018, 6:32 AM UTC

intended wrote: post #89

doh wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a bit harsh, don't you think? Just because something is easy to copy doesn't mean it doesn't have value. Creators should be paid for their work no matter how simple is to copy. If they are the first one who created it and someone else benefits, then they deserve to be compensated. My best solution would be something along these lines https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17913535

It’s not harsh. Although I disagree with his solution- we need copy right, but copy-rights have been terrible for us. However - Have people (on HN) forgotten how the content companies enforce copy right ? The RiAa/MPAA? Copy rights were to help creators earn return on their creation. Today copy rights extend far beyond the natural life of the creator and are constantly being extended to favor corporations/owners, at…

> Packet sniffing was created for the AAs

I'm pretty sure tcpdump predates Napster and any involvement of the AAs in the workings of the Internet...

Re: Wikimedia warns EU copyright reform threatens the ‘vibrant free web’

#98

Post by CuriousSkeptic » Wed, Sep 05, 2018, 6:39 AM UTC

doh wrote: post #77

matheusmoreira wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You disagree with the notion, that people that produce content should be paid for it? Nobody disagrees with that. The fact is copyright exists to create artificial scarcity. "Content", once produced, is not scarce in any way; that's why the scarcity is artificial. These laws exist to force everybody to pretend that isn't how things work. It's fundamentally dishonest. It is trivial to copy and distribute "content".…

That's a bit harsh, don't you think? Just because something is easy to copy doesn't mean it doesn't have value. Creators should be paid for their work no matter how simple is to copy. If they are the first one who created it and someone else benefits, then they deserve to be compensated. My best solution would be something along these lines https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17913535

Pay doesn’t come from value. In fact markets work very hard to destroy any surplus value above costs. It’s kind of their main feature, find a cheaper way to provide the same value and _lower the price_.

Economics only focuses on balancing limited resources between competing interests and has generally nothing useful to say wrt actual value.

Re: Wikimedia warns EU copyright reform threatens the ‘vibrant free web’

#99

Post by ben_w » Wed, Sep 05, 2018, 7:16 AM UTC

blackbrokkoli wrote: post #51

jotm wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who think like this should really chill the fuck out. Ownership of thoughts and ideas is pathetic at best, if you don't want it shared, keep it to yourself. But nooo, "I want everyone to hear me and I want them to know it was me who said it. Me me me. I'm important, I want to feel like it". Get the fuck over it. And if you want to make money off of it, there are plenty of much better ways besides braindead ads…

You realise GDPR is basically the right of keeping things you don't want to be shared to yourself? And sources are not for the carebears. I mean, too, but they wouldn't be enforced if that would be the only point. It is so that you and I can know where to go to verify or falsify a claim. What would be your alternative proposal? Ok, let's just give every piece of published source a numeric code or something so we can…

In the UK, what you’re describing — The right to be identified as the creator of work — would be called a “moral right” rather than a “copyright”.

I literally only know this because my first job contract, my university industrial year, signed that right away for the work I did there.

Re: Wikimedia warns EU copyright reform threatens the ‘vibrant free web’

#100

Post by repolfx » Wed, Sep 05, 2018, 7:30 AM UTC

lovich wrote: post #95

pjc50 wrote: post #9

Article 13 is the key one, mandating upload filtering. This has all sorts of side effects - suddenly you can't make a Dropbox style file sharing site without implementing pre-emptive filtering. You can't rely on notify-and-takedown. Article 11 potentially has huge implications for social media sites; suddenly a user posting a news article link with a quote becomes a copyright liability. All the worry that was focused…

I think copyright reform has come about the same way GPDR has. Large tech corporations have been ignoring the concerns of governments, steamrolling those governments citizens, and then when given a few choices on how to act the companies argue out of both sides of their mouth. In this case corporations like Facebook, Google, et al have stated that they are platforms and can't be responsible for what people post on th…

Whilst I agree internet firms are trying to have their cake and eat it with respect to content filtering, I don't believe this has anything to do with the EU's actions here.

This sort of thing is just an extension of a very long running feud that goes back a decade or more, driven primarily by the newspaper industries in the EU "core" states. The German and Spanish "Google taxes" were also attempts to change how copyright works on the internet, targeted at Google News entirely to the benefit of newspaper owners, but they failed because Google just either cut deals or in Spain shut down Google News entirely.

So now the newspapers are trying to do the same thing at the EU level, working on the theory that if all EU countries act in concert then Google and Facebook will have to cut the newspapers a big cheque. Early attempts to just change copyright so the act of linking or snippetting requires a license have now warped into this wider attempt to extract money from internet companies via copyright.

There is some political background here too - newspapers can't do this by lobbying national governments directly, because the finances of newspapers is far, far, far down the list of things citizens care about and national governments are all focused on other things. Luckily for them (!) the EU doesn't care what citizen's priorities are and doesn't need to!

Moreover the EU is heavily incentivised to please the newspaper owners because it benefits from unusually positive coverage for governments in the old European media (not so much in the UK or eastern European states). Journalists have largely bought into the narrative that the EU is a glorious positive peace-filled future and as such newspapers in Germany or France heavily weight their scrutiny towards the "legacy" national governments instead. The piper is now demanding to be paid. The Commission is probably worried that if it loses the support of the press then things will get a lot harder for it in future.