Article 13 is almost finished and will change the internet as we know it • Hacker News Board

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

#431

Post by pas » Sat, Jan 12, 2019, 12:27 PM UTC

y4mi wrote: post #294

pas wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no it doesn't. facebook was always pretty good at asking for permission. it showed you that so and so app will have access to this and that. and people blindly clicked it, because they wanted the maffia wars, the mob wars, the farmville, the latest zinga shitclick time waster to one up their friends in imaginary internet point games. (I tried them too, then luckily the fad wore off.) FB has to show who they sell data…

But that is the thing. The regulation is still in effect, even after they gave the permission. The identifiable information still has to be encrypted. They still need to specify exactly where the information will go and why. And if a new company wants to access the data or even wants to use the provided Information for something new, Facebook has to ask permission again. Once again telling the user why that company n…

FB will have to do the aggregation themselves, and then the sell the aggregated data. no PII. and they are doing that, allowing targeting and stopped the messaging legacy APIs, now if an app wants to read your messages it has to ask for permission. (I don't even know if there is such a permission anymore.)

That said, I hope the EU courts will look at them the first time they fuck up. (And that might be right now. But so far I'm not aware of any recent FB data/privacy abuse.)

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

#432

Post by pas » Sat, Jan 12, 2019, 12:31 PM UTC

nmeofthestate wrote: post #176

pas wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

now you should be free and bold to click the disagree / refuse / no-cookies button and get the experience you expect. because if the tracking/ad/shit/any cookies are not fundamentally required for the page to show, then denying you the usage of the site is a violation of your privacy (because you can't give selective consent to specific data uses) sure, a lot of sites throw up the ugly banner, but now you can click f…

>now you should be free and bold to click the disagree / refuse / no-cookies button and get the experience you expect. This button doesn't exist in 90% of cases. Websites tend to dump you into a complex, deliberately tedious to edit options UI rather than providing a "No" button.

yeah, then those sites are not compliant at all. just yesterday on a news site there was just an accept button. it was sort of cute, that it was very stark colored floating on the bottom of the page, so it allowed the reader to view the article, but there was no refuse option. (at least for my browsing sample these are becoming a rarity.)

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

#433

Post by DanBC » Sat, Jan 12, 2019, 1:28 PM UTC

LoSboccacc wrote: post #110

DanBC wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your startup idea was to host large amounts of copyrighted material for profit, without checking who had the rights to distribute that material? In some parts of the EU that's already illegal. Not just a civil tort for which you can be sued, but an actual criminal offence for which you can be prosecuted. Which would you prefer?

> Your startup idea was to host large amounts of copyrighted material for profit, without checking who had the rights to distribute that material? of course not don't be silly. but so far liability was on the uploader, when the police comes knocking you gave out user data and that was it. see, for example, the jsfiddle constant issue with illegal content: https://remysharp.com/2015/09/18/jsbin-toxic-part-5 people mis…

Can you post a link to the bits of article 13 (from the EU source) that you think make your idea unworkable?

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

#434

Post by beezischillin » Sat, Jan 12, 2019, 2:54 PM UTC

hyperman1 wrote: post #409

beezischillin wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you have any details? What did the mom and pop operation sell? How did they go afoul the GDPR with this? AFAIK, no independent lawyer can sue you for violating the GDPR. Only the German regulatory body could sue them.

They received a letter threatening a lawsuit due to the fact that they had a newsletter sign up form without double opt-in feature on their site and some explicit legal documentation missing. Other than that it was a really simple presentational site made in Wordpress. Our business relationship ended years ago but I received a mail from them years ago asking for help in putting those things in because they were afraid of having to deal with legal stuff over such small bs. I obviously did.

Now I don't know German law, as I'm not German, but it felt like they were really afraid that it could happen.

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

#435

Post by Zak » Sat, Jan 12, 2019, 4:17 PM UTC

meh2frdf wrote: post #427

c3o wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are absolutely right: The mere fact that these publishers don't block Google using robots.txt and that they in fact spend a lot of effort optimizing their metadata so that link previews show up just the way they want them to proves that it's at least mutually beneficial, and not an abuse of their intellectual property.

Because google owns the index, if they don’t allow google to index they get no traffic. Google is a monopoly, there is no choice here, no market driving competition.

The sources I could find with a quick Google (yes, possibly ironic) search suggest news sites get most of their traffic from direct visits, but Google contributes a substantial amount[0]. It seems to me that the news sites want Google to provide them traffic and simultaneously pay for the privilege of doing so.

The behavior of publishers in countries where they won this battle is telling: a when laws were passed in Belgium and Spain requiring aggregators to license even small excerpts, Google stopped, and the publishers didn't take very long to offer free licenses.

[0] Here's one slightly dated example: https://www.sistrix.com/blog/new-data-is-google-or-facebook-...

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

#436

Post by pergadad » Sat, Jan 12, 2019, 5:40 PM UTC

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…

The law has an exception for quotations.

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

#437

Post by stolsvik » Sun, Jan 13, 2019, 7:53 AM UTC

hpcjoe wrote: post #325

yostrovs wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not clear what's going on with GDPR, good test cases are only now starting to be tested. But the fact that many American newspapers, for example, are blocked in Europe is certainly something to worry about.

[humor] Given the "quality" of reporting in most of the publications here, we should be thanked for that outcome [/humor] More seriously, GDPR should not extend beyond its jurisdiction. It does though, and there are consequences. Blocking european IPs cost (loss of revenue) must be balanced against compliance costs. Claims that "they've had N years to prepare" are specicious, if for no other reason than they aren't b…

Have you ever heard about the financial law Fatca? Please read up. What about sanctions of Iran that the US forces the rest of the world to go along with?

The US is probably the biggest "exporter" of laws that are forced down the throaths of all other countries.

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

#438

Post by stevenicr » Sun, Jan 13, 2019, 10:19 AM UTC

codezero wrote: post #255

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 thought most clips on Pornhub were uploaded by the content owners, basically as advertisement for their sites. They are not full length clips usually, or am I way off?

A few.. I'd say percentage are this way (and more today than there were some years ago as Phub climbed to fame).

Certainly the popularity of the site is due to the large amount of full scenes that have been available. Debates about who has been uploading the full scenes have been raging for years.

The debate about who is profiting from it and who has lost sales I think is pretty easy to figure out.

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

#439

Post by stevenicr » Sun, Jan 13, 2019, 10:24 AM UTC

kijin wrote: post #187

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…

Yeah, the "in order to make a profit" part caught my eyes, too, and I immediately thought of Wikipedia. If this law somehow ends up hurting multinational commercial platforms and opening up a larger space for personal blogs, hobby sites, and nonprofits, I might even consider it a good law on consequentialist grounds. I don't even care about the impact on startups if all they're trying to do is to become the next YouT…

Are you suggesting there are no more forums online not run bi the big 5? I have not searched for 'powered by phpbb' in some time, but certainly there are many forums / phpfox / buddypress / similar sites out there that are not big companies funded like reddit.

Anything with song lyrics or a giphy post would be in danger of additional censorship with this no?

Any kind of web site that allowed user sign ups would be in danger with this pretty much(?)

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

#440

Post by tomcam » Sun, Jan 13, 2019, 12:15 PM UTC

wahern wrote: post #414

sokoloff wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Judges at the federal level do not have a law making role. Their job is to interpret the Constitution.