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

411–420 of 450 posts

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

#411

Post by ABCLAW »

kd5bjo wrote: post #406
ABCLAW wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if we take this doomsday hypo at face value (HN promotes comments? Really?), so what? What's the scary remedy for a copyright holder if they already provided a license to publish the published content? User posts don't make every forum into pornhub. Calm down.

> doomsday hyp(e), ... Calm down. As an aside, my original reply to you was simply trying to correct your statement “HN does not organize large amounts of copyright-protected works” by means of a counter-example. I think you may be reading things between my lines that aren’t there. I am, and always have been, calm on this matter. I don’t find the situation scary in any way. I simply enjoy exploring the logical conseq…

I'm not upset. Sorry if I'm coming off that way.

It's just that there's a big disconnect between what people have read out of the article regarding it's applicability and what remedies actually flow out of it.

Hence the ...so what?

Large sites will have a tool like photoDNA or ContentID to be able to flag works so you can't do something like repeatedly upload something like Aquaman an hour after release. That's reasonable. With respect to a site like HN, it's highly probable the entire article literally has zero impact, unless people take to posting book chapters in comments constantly (and if that happened, you'd expect they should take action in some way).

The proportionality requirement alone alleviates almost EVERY concern people are bringing up. I don't think the legislation is perfect, but it's pretty good, fairly clear, and very easily suited to judicial interpretation to create fair results in unanticipated situations.

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

#412

Post by rapind »

Kiro wrote: post #382
rapind wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I assume then that Bing will be responsible for this then (or if they won't then they'll need to find a new engine)

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

#413

Post by forty »

pavpanchekha wrote: post #360
sokoloff wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would movie quotes not be copyright-protected? They are almost certainly copyright protected, with copyright law provisions granted for certain fair use purposes.

Keep in mind that "fair use" is an American doctrine, not built into international copyright treaties and often defined administratively (not legislatively) in other countries. And we are discussing copyright law in Europe. Europe uses several itemized exceptions to copyright; a movie quote could fall under 5.3i "incidental inclusion" or 5.3k "pastiche", or in some contexts 5.3d "criticism and review", but there's no…

According to Wikipedia, fair use is mentioned in the Berne convention https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention

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

#414

Post by wahern »

sokoloff wrote: post #398
pavpanchekha wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep in mind that "fair use" is an American doctrine, not built into international copyright treaties and often defined administratively (not legislatively) in other countries. And we are discussing copyright law in Europe. Europe uses several itemized exceptions to copyright; a movie quote could fall under 5.3i "incidental inclusion" or 5.3k "pastiche", or in some contexts 5.3d "criticism and review", but there's no…

That outcome sounds a lot like the outcome of US system.

Except in the U.S. judges can organically evolve the system as new questions arise and better resolutions are found. The continental legal system is much more bureaucratic. This matters because it's easier to push boundaries when the rules aren't written in stone, permitting more rapid and responsive evolution of the law.

Interestingly, the U.S. is slowly moving toward a more continental-style legal system while the E.U. is actually moving toward a more judge-made law system. That's because fragmented jurisdictional power in the E.U. has forced European judges (at both the national and EU level) to embrace de facto law making powers, and increasingly embracing doctrines that look exactly like stare decisis. (French-style civil law is a relatively recent development, anyhow; Europe isn't adopting the English system so much as reaching back into their own legal traditions to find a similar model of jurisprudence.)

By contrast, the bitterly partisan, winner take all politics in the U.S. has seen both the Democrats and Republicans attempt to centralize more power, both at the state and federal level. And judges, especially at the Federal level, increasingly eschew their law making role (albeit inconsistently). This is, arguably, why many common law copyright doctrines long relied upon by the open source community have begun falling to the wayside; judges increasingly prefer sticking to the strict letter of the statutes, effectively discarding the old doctrines that channeled and constrained their application.

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

#415

Post by diffeomorphism »

SilasX wrote: post #343
TeMPOraL wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can buy arguments that extra compliance efforts make some businesses not cost-effective in Europe, but this particular argument is nonsense. It's like a factory that dumped toxic waste into a river complaining that, because of a ban on dumping toxic waste into rivers, they now "have to" dump them to nearby meadows instead, and that makes local customers unhappy. "Detrimental effect on user experience" is an intende…

No, it's more like prop 47: "Hey, you have to warn people if there are carcinogens inside. No penalty for false warnings." Every business: "Stuff in here causes cancer." Every customer: "Okay." GPDR: Every business: "Hey, we use cookies to provide a better experience. That okay?" Every customer: "OK."

> Hey, we use cookies to provide a better experience.

Cookies are a separate law and entirely unrelated to GDPR.

Also the annoying "this is what we are doing, you have to agree to this to proceed" is explicitly forbidden for the GDPR. So your criticism does not apply.

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

#416

Post by diffeomorphism »

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?

> Comment content is governable in the site ToS,

Which is probably non-binding or invalid in most non-US jurisdictions and does not address the problem.

> 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.

That is like claiming a random user uploading Star Wars movies on youtube is no problem because that user gave them a limited license. That "license" is obviously invalid and Disney can claim copyright infringement. The proposed law now discusses whether "random user" or youtube or both are liable for this.

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

#418

Post by kd5bjo »

ABCLAW wrote: post #408
kd5bjo wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's the scary remedy for a copyright holder if they already provided a license to publish the published content? The core problem this law is trying to address is that website users are, en masse, contributing content to websites when they don’t have a license to do so. This behavior is against pretty much all websites’ terms of service. As there are many users with no money all putting illegitimate content onto…

"As a policy, it’s not completely unreasonable, but makes the mass content-farm websites like YouTube unfeasable." ...? Where are you getting this? Have you read the current copy of the draft proposal? I did. None of the restrictions are going to kill sites like Youtube (let alone HN). The proportionality element alone makes the 'we need to invest 200% of our revenue into content blocking' myth absurd. Will some marg…

> Where are you getting this?

My imagination, mostly. Note the policy being referred to in that sentence is meant to be a hypothetical one that was never actually proposed, which shifts liability without any of the safeguards. The second clause is the justification for the various limitations and exemptions bolted onto the basic concept.

> Have you read the current copy?

Not the current copy, no. Last time this came up I tried, but I had a hard time slogging through the European legalese to get to the meat, which I’m not used to reading. That’s why I’ve tried to keep my analysis here in the small, only considering the particular clause that started this discussion thread.

Given how hard it is to read, and the general unhelpfulness of the community (1), it’s probably a good assumption that effectively no one has read the actual text, and instead is relying on the reporting, which feels extremely biased to me on this one.

> The proportionality element alone makes the 'we need to invest 200% of our revenue into content blocking' myth absurd.

You should consider making this the lede instead of burying it three replies deep. This shows that the entire discussion about the other clause is moot, as there won’t be a problem in our scenario regardless of the result of that analysis.

(1) When I did ask for some help getting through the citations last time, the only substantive advice was “just skip that stuff, it doesn’t matter.” If I have learned anything, it’s that everything written into legislation matters.

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

#419

Post by dasil003 »

erik_seaberg wrote: post #396
dasil003 wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the risk is created by abusing customer data. If the cost was less than revenue then it’d be a toothless law.

GDPR is the size of a novel and attorneys can't even agree yet on what counts as PII. It's nowhere near a crisp law that only prohibits bad things you'd know not to do.

Yes, that's right, it's messy when you are tackling legislation to play catch up with technology. We've seen how wrong it can go with stuff like the last generation of cookie laws that were too tightly coupled to implementation details. GDPR is actually a nice step forward into resolving these huge gray areas that the web and smart phones have enabled as they become mainstream.

The status quo where corporations make vast profits peddling ever finer-grained user data unbeknownst to the consumer with no oversight is not good. A cultural shift is necessary. I'm glad to see the EU has the stones to tackle the issue because there is zero political will stateside for any political action other than driving corporate profits masked by populist appeals to xenophobia and whatever other irrelevant distractions they can cook up.

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

#420

Post by marak830 »

vixen99 wrote: post #66
marak830 wrote: post #7

Bloody hell that's rather terrifying. After GDPR I was thinking Europe would be the bastion of the internet, now it looks like it's time to decentralise the internet completely. Which is going to surely have it's own issues I'm sure.

its own issues

Yeah phone autocorrect.
Post reply on HN