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

EU Countries Back Copyright Reforms Aimed at Google, Facebook

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 183 posts

Re: EU Countries Back Copyright Reforms Aimed at Google, Facebook

#171

Post by AsyncAwait »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #164
AsyncAwait wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who's Who is Google and organizations Google is a part of or funding. I would argue I have a vested interest in having this passed: I want an Internet which isn't predominantly controlled by one corporation which steals content from everyone else and passes it off as their own. I have no employer or funding source based on this, I don't work for anyone in the movie, music, news, or tech industry, I just want a bett…

This is a common refrain of big tech: That regulation and consumer protection designed to reign in their abuses won't be a problem for them, and will hurt the little guy. It's interesting how loud they plead that they won't be hurt by regulation aimed at them. (Or that they're still opposed to it, if it will actually eliminate the competition.) The answer is that that line of argument is bull---- and always has been.…

> That regulation and consumer protection designed to reign in their abuses won't be a problem for them, and will hurt the little guy. It's interesting how loud they plead that they won't be hurt by regulation aimed at them.

If this is really aimed so squarely at them, it could be worded more precisely to just target say "multinational corporations with monopolies in on-demand media distribution", but it's not. This is because the aim is to yes, extract as much money from Google etc. as possible, but also to make sure there's nothing that could ever replace YT because it would be handicapped from the get go.

> The answer is that that line of argument is bull---- and always has been. Small outfits using reasonable moderation practices will never have a problem with any sort of copyright regulation.

Again, it could have been made very explicit that that's the case, in fact amendments in that direction have been proposed and rejected.

> Because a real, human person must be handling appeals, rather than the little automatic deny that Google currently does. It will cost YouTube a massive amount of money to adopt this on it's scale

As problematic as YT is, I highly doubt this is an attempt to promote the adoption of PeerTube etc. Rather, it is likely to be an attempt to crush an outlet where almost anyone can become big without a publisher.

> but will cost small websites or platforms nothing: They already have humans that read their email.

Email? Huh? I don't think "John's Portfolio Website" is the concern here. The concern is a small business that is a platform, say a new Reddit, or even a YouTube alternative. Say this does displace YouTube. How is an alternative with 5 employees going to deal with this?

Also, you didn't address the privacy question. What about platforms that perhaps want to offer zero-knowledge file storage/upload? Are we fine with this being just dead now, or what?

P.S. Also, it's not always the case that because something may inconvenience a monopoly, (Google), that it is automatically beneficial to everyone else. Article 13 is specifically NOT worded to target JUST Google-size businesses.

Re: EU Countries Back Copyright Reforms Aimed at Google, Facebook

#172

Post by ben_w »

ben_w wrote: post #168
makomk wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Spent 18 months trying to negotiate a withdrawal agreement, where the “Irish backstop” was their own solution to the RoI/NI border The Irish backstop was the EU's solution, not the UK's. The talking point you're probably thinking of is that the UK-wide backstop was the UK's doing, which is technically true because the EU wanted the backstop to apply only to Northern Ireland - the UK negotiators objected because thi…

It’s complicated. The border options are “none”, “NI/RoI border customs checks etc”, and “Irish Sea custons checks etc” (given nobody even suggested “customs checks etc on Sinn Fein/DUP constituency borders” AFAIK). “None” was ruled out by making it a red line to leave the customs union and single market even though that was originally something quite of leave campaigners thought was a silly idea. And it was ruled in…

Oh, I forgot to add this before and now it’s too late to edit:

One “solution” I’ve seen leavers suggest is for RoI to re-join the UK. The is generally met with derision by RoI commentators.

Re: EU Countries Back Copyright Reforms Aimed at Google, Facebook

#173

Post by isostatic »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #124
isostatic wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

6 of the 8 MEPs representing me have consented to it. Are you in favour of direct democracy on every single vote of every single law at every single level of government?

The place where direct democracy works is as a veto. If the legislature passes a law and you collect X number of signatures against it, it goes up for popular vote. If the people don't approve, it doesn't pass. Then you mitigate populism creating ill-conceived laws, because the legislature has to introduce and pass them first, but then the legislature can't as easily pass corrupt laws because they can be challenged a…

We have unpopular laws that populism would like to see repealed - in the UK, the human rights act for example.

Re: EU Countries Back Copyright Reforms Aimed at Google, Facebook

#174

Post by r_smart »

raverbashing wrote: post #158
r_smart wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's not conflate fundamental rights with programming languages. |And sometimes speaking your mind has a cost. Wait, you think this was acceptable? The fine for speaking is outrageous, and it will only get worse if it turns out it's not enough of a deterrent.

Let's just say there are worse ways of paying it and that speech in this website is limited as well > Let's not conflate fundamental rights with programming languages If you r_smart you should have noticed the jest in this statement

|If you r_smart you should have noticed the jest in this statement

It's my name. I make no claims about my intellect :)

It didn't read like a joke to me, and rereading it as a joke, it seems like, at best, a quip. I stand by my previous sanctimonious tone.

edit: Oh, and lastly, a small curtailment on free speech is the first step to a large one. Why wait until it's illegal to complain?

Re: EU Countries Back Copyright Reforms Aimed at Google, Facebook

#175

Post by _ph_ »

isostatic wrote: post #163
_ph_ wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law will effectively eliminate any content uploading. Whether it is 100% originally created by the uploader or containing copyrightes material, covered by fair use or not. As the platform owner carries the whole risk for damages, only a few large industrial platforms like youtube might survive. But only with extremely stringend upload filters which mean the end of any content containg possibly copyrighted materia…

Will I be able to, with this law 1) Go to linode and buy a VPS 2) Upload my own reviews of a movie (including scenes from the movie as appropiate) which are allowed under existing copyright law 3) Make those reviews available to everyone? My understanding is yes Will I be able to, with this law 1) Go to linode and buy a VPS 2) Allow others to upload their own reviews of a movie (including scenes from the movie as app…

Your ability to self-host is not affected at all. But self-hosting is getting more and more rare as few people have the resources (both financial and time-wise) to set up their own site and administrate it. Also, it is much more difficult to be discovered when not on a site with large user count. So the first szenario is absolutely possible.

The second szenario puts you at a huge risk. You would have to review every single submission to your site for copyrighted material. This means you can accept like 1 submission per day? And still you would have to make sure (and bear the whole financial risk if wrong), that the submission is completely legal.

This might work in a very few specific szenarios, but you could not run a site like a photography forum. If users have the ability to upload content, starting with their writing but even more so when uploading photographs. There is simply no way for the site administrator to find out whether the uploader holds the copyrights to the uploaded photograph. If the uploader does not, you are liable for the copyright violation.

In the end, even hacker news probably becomes unavailable in Europe. If a user would paste a newspaper article into a comment, hacker news could be sued for this copyright violation.

Re: EU Countries Back Copyright Reforms Aimed at Google, Facebook

#176

Post by isostatic »

_ph_ wrote: post #175
isostatic wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will I be able to, with this law 1) Go to linode and buy a VPS 2) Upload my own reviews of a movie (including scenes from the movie as appropiate) which are allowed under existing copyright law 3) Make those reviews available to everyone? My understanding is yes Will I be able to, with this law 1) Go to linode and buy a VPS 2) Allow others to upload their own reviews of a movie (including scenes from the movie as app…

Your ability to self-host is not affected at all. But self-hosting is getting more and more rare as few people have the resources (both financial and time-wise) to set up their own site and administrate it. Also, it is much more difficult to be discovered when not on a site with large user count. So the first szenario is absolutely possible. The second szenario puts you at a huge risk. You would have to review every…

> Your ability to self-host is not affected at all.

Phew, I thought I'd misread it

So the law doesn't "make it illegal to use clips of a movie in critiquing it".

> In the end, even hacker news probably becomes unavailable in Europe. If a user would paste a newspaper article into a comment, hacker news could be sued for this copyright violation.

It's already illegal for HN to host copyright material.

Re: EU Countries Back Copyright Reforms Aimed at Google, Facebook

#177

Post by _ph_ »

isostatic wrote: post #176
_ph_ wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your ability to self-host is not affected at all. But self-hosting is getting more and more rare as few people have the resources (both financial and time-wise) to set up their own site and administrate it. Also, it is much more difficult to be discovered when not on a site with large user count. So the first szenario is absolutely possible. The second szenario puts you at a huge risk. You would have to review every…

> Your ability to self-host is not affected at all. Phew, I thought I'd misread it So the law doesn't "make it illegal to use clips of a movie in critiquing it". > In the end, even hacker news probably becomes unavailable in Europe. If a user would paste a newspaper article into a comment, hacker news could be sued for this copyright violation. It's already illegal for HN to host copyright material.

> > Your ability to self-host is not affected at all.

> Phew, I thought I'd misread it

> So the law doesn't "make it illegal to use clips of a movie in critiquing it".

Not more or less than before. But you won't be able to find a platform for doing so, unless you self-host.

> > In the end, even hacker news probably becomes unavailable in Europe. If a user would paste a newspaper article into a comment, hacker news could be sued for this copyright violation.

> It's already illegal for HN to host copyright material.

Yes, but so far, they only had to remove it, when they got a complaint. Now they bear the full liability for the copyright violation. So it is the same game as with file sharing: value of the material times the number of downloads, so we are easily talking about claims in the range of millions.

Re: EU Countries Back Copyright Reforms Aimed at Google, Facebook

#178

Post by isostatic »

_ph_ wrote: post #177
isostatic wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your ability to self-host is not affected at all. Phew, I thought I'd misread it So the law doesn't "make it illegal to use clips of a movie in critiquing it". > In the end, even hacker news probably becomes unavailable in Europe. If a user would paste a newspaper article into a comment, hacker news could be sued for this copyright violation. It's already illegal for HN to host copyright material.

> > Your ability to self-host is not affected at all. > Phew, I thought I'd misread it > So the law doesn't "make it illegal to use clips of a movie in critiquing it". Not more or less than before. But you won't be able to find a platform for doing so, unless you self-host. > > In the end, even hacker news probably becomes unavailable in Europe. If a user would paste a newspaper article into a comment, hacker news co…

> Not more or less than before. But you won't be able to find a platform for doing so, unless you self-host.

Sounds like a gap in the market then.

> Yes, but so far, they only had to remove it, when they got a complaint.

Kim Dot Com hosted infringing material and had far more serious impact than "had to remove it"

Re: EU Countries Back Copyright Reforms Aimed at Google, Facebook

#179

Post by AnthonyMouse »

isostatic wrote: post #173
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The place where direct democracy works is as a veto. If the legislature passes a law and you collect X number of signatures against it, it goes up for popular vote. If the people don't approve, it doesn't pass. Then you mitigate populism creating ill-conceived laws, because the legislature has to introduce and pass them first, but then the legislature can't as easily pass corrupt laws because they can be challenged a…

We have unpopular laws that populism would like to see repealed - in the UK, the human rights act for example.

That is what constitutions are for. You can have things that require a supermajority to enact and therefore a supermajority to repeal.

Re: EU Countries Back Copyright Reforms Aimed at Google, Facebook

#180

Post by AnthonyMouse »

dragonwriter wrote: post #170
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That protects established injustices as much as it protects established freedoms. Perhaps more, since the fundamental structure incorporates a number of injustices. Not really. The legislature had to pass a law creating slavery, the executive had to sign it, the courts had to uphold it. Any of them could have said no. The same was true of laws prohibiting women from working, or Jim Crow laws, or laws excluding same…

> Not really. The legislature had to pass a law creating slavery, the executive had to sign it, the courts had to uphold it Um, no. They didn't have to do that under the system established by the US Constitution . Because slavery predated that system, and was protected by it. What would have taken positive action under the Constitution was abolishing slavery. But not only were there explicit protections for slavery i…

> Um, no. They didn't have to do that under the system established by the US Constitution. Because slavery predated that system, and was protected by it.

Predating the constitution doesn't preclude violating it. Lese majeste laws predate the constitution but have been clearly unconstitutional since at least the Bill of Rights, arguably even before (since enacting them was not an enumerated power of the government). Moreover, it still only takes one branch to knock it out. The courts can refuse to uphold it, the executive can refuse to enforce it, and a sufficient majority in the legislature can repeal it even over a veto.

> No, he didn't

He did, most famously in this way:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation

The executive branch can also do so by not enforcing the law, as was often the case with the Fugitive Slave Act. The governments commonly spent no resources looking for runaway slaves in Northern states.

But what one executive branch administration does the next can undo. What the 13th Amendment did was to make it stick.

> And the abolition of slavery didn't abolish all of the structural injustices put in place to protect it.

Because now you're talking about racism rather than slavery, which isn't a single problem, it's many separate ones. But we've been chipping away at them for more than a century now, making progress, and mostly as a result of individual branches -- Brown v. Board of Education in the courts, the Civil Rights Act in Congress, the ouster of mayors and governors who turned firehouses on protestors in favor of those who now don't, etc.

And the remainder of your objections are not about gridlock or checks and balances but about apportionment of representation. Those are reasonable complaints, but you could still have three branches of government and plenty of gridlock even if the President was elected by popular vote and each Senator's vote was in proportion to the number of constituents represented.

Post reply on HN