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

381–390 of 450 posts

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

#381

Post by theonemind »

sunir wrote: post #275
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…

In the US the letter of the law matters because of how jurisprudence evolved there. EU has a different jurisprudence system based on guidelines and interpretation. There is a wide range of options philosophically. Confucian courts are even farther from what you might recognize.

I have a pretty limited understanding, but at first, I would think you would have this the other way around? The US uses a case law system where precedential judicial proceedings modify how the law works in practice relative to how they got written. Besides the UK, most of the EU has a statutory law system, where the law gets applied as written with less regard for previous judicial decisions.

So, the short version of the question, in regard to your original comment, how so..?

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

#382

Post by Kiro »

rapind wrote: post #280
ddxxdd wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same can be said for every other EU law. Net neutrality regulations include vague language that allows "reasonable network management", which is a multi-million dollar legal hassle that stresses small ISP owners. And I shudder to think how Duck Duck Go's programmers will manage to comply with the EU's "right to be forgotten [from a search engine's results]". I hope the politicians in Washington, D.C. recognize th…

I would imagine you'd be able to simply submit a domain to DDG, they would ask for a txt record or file to be present within the site, similar to a DNS verification tool. Then it would be queued up in a crawler for removal upon verification. Is there something I'm missing? If it's individual pages, then probably just a meta-tag? I think robots.txt could be leveraged for this though maybe.

> Is there something I'm missing?

Yes, they don't have their own crawler for regular websites. They get their organic search results from Bing and Oath.

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

#383

Post by devwastaken »

GuB-42 wrote: post #160

It looks surprisingly reasonable. "internet platforms that organise and promote large amounts of copyright-protected works uploaded by their users in order to make a profit" That's actually a lot of limitation. From my understanding: "organise and promote" means it is not simple hosting, and "in order to make a profit" excludes organizations like Wikimedia Commons and "large amounts" most likely excludes smaller webs…

I have no doubt the 'for profit' part will be taken out sooner than later. Never rely upon a law where it's seemingly justified by a few extra rules.

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

#384

Post by beezischillin »

drewbuschhorn wrote: post #195
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…

I feel like we had this exact same argument over GDPR, but no horror stories have descended about Mom and Pop operations run out of business but the evil Brusselcrats.

An old client of mine, an actual mom and pop operation in Germany was harassed and was almost ran out of business by a law-firm who went around, the moment GDPR dropped, trying to find targets to sue.

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

#385

Post by beezischillin »

gregknicholson wrote: post #270
yostrovs wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You must understand the economics. Newspapers have zero cash on hand these days, so their choice was to fire staff to allocate money for GDPR or not. Seeing how staff is at a minimum, that was the practical option. Result is equivalent to censorship. I'm surprised you don't find this a terrible outcome.

> Result is equivalent to censorship. I don't agree that if a business chooses not to operate in a country, because it's unwilling to spend the money required to comply with the country's laws, that that is equivalent to censorship. Another person's personal information is not protected speech.

I personally don't think that it is any government's business to regulate a company that is not inside its jurisdiction, I also don't think think it should be their prerogative to stop me from engaging and communicating with one just because they rightfully say that it's not their job to bend the knee to them. As an adult the EU is neither my parent nor my guardian.

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

#386

Post by jandrese »

banku_brougham wrote: post #247
m-i-l wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most film quotes on HN would be covered by "fair use"[0]. If someone pasted an entire script in a comment that would be something different entirely, and likely to be picked up by the existing flagging or moderation system. Also, I'm not entirely sure how HN itself can be said to be profit-making, e.g. there are no subscription fees to use it and it doesn't appear to have any advertisements from any advertising platf…

Fair Use is cold comfort, if we’ve learned anything from the abuse of DMCA.

Fair use is annoying vaguely defined in the law. This means media companies will tell you that's it is so limited as to be almost useless, while the EFF and the courts may disagree. You may hear stuff about "10 second clips are the max allowed by law", but the law doesn't draw any clear likes like that and in fact is usually much more generous. Typically quotes like that come from a single precedent where someone was acting outrageously in many other ways and not relevant precedent for what you're doing.

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

#388

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

porlune wrote: post #140

This seems like it will benefit the whales more than the fish, as they can absorb copyright infringement costs into their already expansive legal departments, whereas a smaller company will likely go belly up or be chummed.

>This seems like it will benefit the whales more than the fish,

Well, who do you think wrote it? Not the fish.

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

#389

Post by alacombe »

hyperman1 wrote: post #185
GuB-42 wrote: post #160

It looks surprisingly reasonable. "internet platforms that organise and promote large amounts of copyright-protected works uploaded by their users in order to make a profit" That's actually a lot of limitation. From my understanding: "organise and promote" means it is not simple hosting, and "in order to make a profit" excludes organizations like Wikimedia Commons and "large amounts" most likely excludes smaller webs…

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…

> So hacker news needs a filter lest you quote a sentence from some movie.

"Yipee-yi-yea...mother-fucker." ! -- Die Hard

Done :-)

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

#390

Post by candiodari »

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…

There's very good reason for that : this law is yet another example of the EU's new favorite tactic: laws without the justice system.

The ONLY person that can use this law is the EU executive (commission). They get to sue, essentially any site they want on the internet. You, EU citizen or not, do not get to sue anyone else, no matter how much copyright infringement, how much damage. You can politely ask the (no doubt up to 10 person) EU agency that the commission puts in charge of this law, but that's it.

The EU commission is not just the only party that can use the law, they are also arbiter of this law. They never have to build a case before court, and of course in practice this means you're declared guilty and punished before your first chance to see a court.

In other words: they can prevent any site they like from getting sued at all and they can sue any site and convict. Then you can fight that decision in court (after, of course, penalties are extracted). In court, you start from an extremely disadvantaged position: you have been tried and found guilty. Effectively, in court you only get an appeal option.

I mean I know the EU is a dictatorship (because the both the positive and negative legislative power is in exclusive hands of the executive alone, the EU commission and council: they can enact any law they like with or without parliament approval and they can prevent any law from becoming law, no matter how much parliament wants it. Or they can change it at will, or ...

But this is even worse than that. This law does not just give them dictatorial power, but essentially makes them an international public prosecutor for internet sites, who does NOT report to any elected government (only reports to the commission which is not elected).

Post reply on HN