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

Article 13 is almost finished and will change the internet as we know it

juliareda.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 450 posts

Re: Article 13 is almost finished and will change the internet as we know it

#361

Post by isostatic »

coldtea wrote: post #253
isostatic wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The EU is co-ruled by an opaque system of non elected bodies The EU council (comprising of democratically elected heads of government from the 28 member countries) The EU parliament (comprising of directly elected MEPs from the 28 member countries) The EU commission president, nominated by the council, approved by the parliament, and standing on a ticket to be EU Commission president during the parliamentary electi…

That's the version told to high schoolers in "How the EU works" lessons. In actual EU, decisions are made by informal bodies like the Eurogroup, meeting under close quarters and with no documentation, with economic and diplomatic pressure from top dog countries, with satellite states vote how their sugar daddy states ask them, and a whole lot more besides.

"Eurogroup", which (like the Economic and Financial Affairs Council) would be meetings between the democratically elected finance ministers of the countries in the EU?

Re: Article 13 is almost finished and will change the internet as we know it

#362

Post by kd5bjo »

ABCLAW wrote: post #330
kd5bjo wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many of the comments on HN are substantive enough to be covered by copyright, and modern copyright law protects everything protectable whether there’s a copyright notice or not.

...So what? Comment content is governable in the site ToS, where copyright assignment or other methods of defining the respective user/site rights can be dealt with. Even if it wasn't, your performance in posting implies consent to provide at the very least a limited license to publish content you posted. So where's the beef here?

Only that, the comments section alone on HN is pretty straightforwardly “organis(ing) and promot(ing) [...] copyright-protected works uploaded by (its) users”, and so whether or not it falls under the scope of this section(1) hinges only on the regulators’ and courts’ opinions of what a “large amount” is.

(1) In a hypothetical world where this law has unbounded jurisdiction

Re: Article 13 is almost finished and will change the internet as we know it

#363

Post by [deleted] »

presscast wrote: post #223
hyperman1 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For your info: Hacker news is: - an Internet platform - that organizes and promotes large amounts of posts - which are copyright-protected works uploaded by their users - in order to make a profit as it is an advertisement for y combinator. So hacker news needs a filter lest you quote a sentence from some movie. What is 'meant' is irrelevant. Important is the letter of the law. Besides, 'meant' is a very dangerous wo…

>What is 'meant' is irrelevant. Important is the letter of the law. Hold on, that's not true. The intent of law matters and is codified in various ways, including stating the intent of the law directly in its text. This in turn informs judges (including appellate judges!) of how to evaluate a specific case. In jurisprudential systems, this in turn becomes case-law which further cements the intent of the law as a bind…

[deleted]

Re: Article 13 is almost finished and will change the internet as we know it

#364

Post by Nasrudith »

nokcha wrote: post #359
Nasrudith wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or they are exceedingly cynical about the arbiters and paranoid about abuses - not a bad tradition when defending rights. Intents may be pretenses which are cheap and mean nothing. The USSR was "for the people" and killed record ammounts of them. Even if ungrounded in displayed maliciousness a "how will this be abused" mindset is its own tradition and I argue a good thing when considering and writing laws. Since writ…

>you are clinically paranoid if you think your compiler will try to twist your code in its favor C compilers have been known to "optimize" code with undefined behavior in such a way as to introduce a security vulnerability that would not exist in the most direct translation of the C code to machine code.

Yeah it is incompetence not malice. Although it probably feels malicious to anybody working with it.

Re: Article 13 is almost finished and will change the internet as we know it

#365

Post by JumpCrisscross »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #357
rdlecler1 wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re muddying the waters. Just because someone doesn’t want to take on the compliance burden does not mean they have an antisocial business practice. What you’re saying does not logically follow.

It does, you just made an illogical connection. I didn't say that companies who self-block must necessarily have antisocial business practices. I only said that GDPR is banning those practices. I also said that companies have a choice between removing themselves from European market or adjusting their business model to be compliant.

> companies have a choice between removing themselves from European market or adjusting their business model to be compliant

The problem isn't only adjusting business models. It's proving you've adjusted your business model to twenty-eight EU regulators. If one of them misbehaves, you now have to wage a legal fight in a foreign jurisdiction. Against those costs and risks is a minimum required revenue. If that revenue doesn't exist, it doesn't make sense to serve that market. Regardless of your business model.

Re: Article 13 is almost finished and will change the internet as we know it

#368

Post by ThomPete »

kodablah wrote: post #307
ThomPete wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly the ongoing problem with the EU they don't distinguish between large corporations and small businesses which really illustrate how clueless the EU is when it comes to the market and the businesses that are governed.

> This is exactly the ongoing problem with the EU they don't distinguish between large corporations and small businesses Personally, I don't think laws should discriminate like this, and if a law is not good for business overall, it should be shuttered, not targeted. There are exceptions of course, but I don't think there should be on the internet (or information in general).

Laws are discriminating by their very nature when they apply the same price on something for a small company vs. a larger one.

Keep in mind that mostly we are ADDING regulation not removing with which means that existing companies get the benefit of not having had to deal with the same when they were small.

This is the real problem.

Re: Article 13 is almost finished and will change the internet as we know it

#369

Post by toast0 »

ABCLAW wrote: post #330
kd5bjo wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many of the comments on HN are substantive enough to be covered by copyright, and modern copyright law protects everything protectable whether there’s a copyright notice or not.

...So what? Comment content is governable in the site ToS, where copyright assignment or other methods of defining the respective user/site rights can be dealt with. Even if it wasn't, your performance in posting implies consent to provide at the very least a limited license to publish content you posted. So where's the beef here?

Comments are copyrighted works uploaded by the users of HN. HN organizes and promotes comments. There are certainly a large amount of these comments. Profit motive of HN is uncertain, but it may receive payment for jobs ads? And it certainly operates as part of a for-profit organization.

Re: Article 13 is almost finished and will change the internet as we know it

#370

Post by presscast »

Nasrudith wrote: post #248
presscast wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What is 'meant' is irrelevant. Important is the letter of the law. Hold on, that's not true. The intent of law matters and is codified in various ways, including stating the intent of the law directly in its text. This in turn informs judges (including appellate judges!) of how to evaluate a specific case. In jurisprudential systems, this in turn becomes case-law which further cements the intent of the law as a bind…

Or they are exceedingly cynical about the arbiters and paranoid about abuses - not a bad tradition when defending rights. Intents may be pretenses which are cheap and mean nothing. The USSR was "for the people" and killed record ammounts of them. Even if ungrounded in displayed maliciousness a "how will this be abused" mindset is its own tradition and I argue a good thing when considering and writing laws. Since writ…

>Or they are exceedingly cynical about the arbiters and paranoid about abuses - not a bad tradition when defending rights.

I agree, but that's a matter of opinion. What's factual is that the parent post builds an argument on a false premise.

Post reply on HN