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

Four Wikipedias to ‘Black Out’ over EU Copyright Directive

wikimediafoundation.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 204 posts

Re: Four Wikipedias to ‘Black Out’ over EU Copyright Directive

#41

Post by cf498 »

austincheney wrote: post #16

tldr; Subcommunities have the flexibility to take independent action regarding policy position. No so interesting. I was hoping to get a deeper dive into why they disagree with the upcoming law.

Why they disagree with censorship? Its a great firewall with the enforcement being pushed to every last person running a website. Its a totalitarian grasp for the control of the internet as a whole. The protection fee for publishing houses is just an added bonus for a few corrupt institutions on their deathbed.

Re: Four Wikipedias to ‘Black Out’ over EU Copyright Directive

#42

Post by okr »

dleslie wrote: post #23
gerdesj wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GDPR and Article 13 (in The Directive on Copyright) are totally different and unrelated things. I happen to be a small business owner in the EU and I have many customers who are the same. We all have registered with the ICO (UK) for something like £60 pa and filled in a short questionnaire. We have read the clear guidance on what records to keep and what to not keep - it's not rocket science. That is GDPR for most sm…

> In the end, are you really sure you want the world to block us? Yes. Let's end the cycle of pretending that we can prevent information from being free. Copyright is a dinosaur of an idea that belongs in the annals of history and out of the present.

Unless someone has some work of their own, that other people start to use and make money off it. Then that one wants copyright. Then its no longer information flying free for everyone.

Re: Four Wikipedias to ‘Black Out’ over EU Copyright Directive

#43

Post by KineticLensman »

BurningFrog wrote: post #38
eikxyz wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GDPR was never intended to be "good for startups". Just like pro-climate policies are never intended to be good for the economy. GDPR was intended to be good for peoples privacy. Pro-climate policies are meant to be good for the climate. Somethings gotta give. People are generally more important than startups. Climate is generally more important than economy. Because without people, there are no startups. And without…

You're contradicting yourself. > pro-climate policies are never intended to be good for the economy > without climate, there is no economy, people, or startups

I think eikxyz means that pro-climate policies are not designed to allow quick profits; they will actually constrain some actors in the economy. They also may help to ensure the survival of the economy itself, so that at least some economic actors can still function.

Re: Four Wikipedias to ‘Black Out’ over EU Copyright Directive

#44

Post by [deleted] »

BurningFrog wrote: post #38
eikxyz wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GDPR was never intended to be "good for startups". Just like pro-climate policies are never intended to be good for the economy. GDPR was intended to be good for peoples privacy. Pro-climate policies are meant to be good for the climate. Somethings gotta give. People are generally more important than startups. Climate is generally more important than economy. Because without people, there are no startups. And without…

You're contradicting yourself. > pro-climate policies are never intended to be good for the economy > without climate, there is no economy, people, or startups

[deleted]

Re: Four Wikipedias to ‘Black Out’ over EU Copyright Directive

#45

Post by dingaling »

dleslie wrote: post #23
gerdesj wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GDPR and Article 13 (in The Directive on Copyright) are totally different and unrelated things. I happen to be a small business owner in the EU and I have many customers who are the same. We all have registered with the ICO (UK) for something like £60 pa and filled in a short questionnaire. We have read the clear guidance on what records to keep and what to not keep - it's not rocket science. That is GDPR for most sm…

> In the end, are you really sure you want the world to block us? Yes. Let's end the cycle of pretending that we can prevent information from being free. Copyright is a dinosaur of an idea that belongs in the annals of history and out of the present.

> Copyright is a dinosaur of an idea that belongs in the annals of history and out of the present.

Then don't copyright the content you make, just release it out into the public domain. Be the change you want to see.

But let's be honest, the people most vocal against Article 13 are those who want to leech other people's creations for free. Not those people actually creating the content.

Re: Four Wikipedias to ‘Black Out’ over EU Copyright Directive

#46

Post by confounded »

orangecat wrote: post #33
confounded wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Article 13 is terrible not because it’s terrible for start-ups, it’s terrible because it’s terrible for people. I’m pretty close to the rough-end of GDPR in my current job, but it represents real benefits for millions of people. If you asked them what’s a reasonable way to treat their data, I believe the GDPR is close-ish to what a lot of Europeans would want. Or, at least a shift in the right direction. Article 13 o…

If you asked them what’s a reasonable way to treat their data, I believe the GDPR is close-ish to what a lot of Europeans would want. I'm pretty sure that if you asked people whether they would prefer to pay for Facebook and Google with cash or by sharing data for ad targeting, most would choose the latter. The GDPR specifically forbids that option. Article 13 on the other hand is what you get if you ask rights-holde…

> ... pay for Facebook and Google... by sharing data for ad targeting... The GDPR specifically forbids that option.

All I can say is that this is not my lived experience of Google and Facebook in the EU. This is also not those companies’ interpretation of that law (nor a common one).

There are real arguments against the burden the GDPR puts on companies who hold/process significant PII (which I am sympathetic to), but this is not one of them.

> ... powerful bureaucracy that does only the things that you want.

The same could be said of any democracy. My point is that there is no democratic basis for Article 13. It’s only getting support because IP law is too boring and abstract for most people to get worked up about.

Re: Four Wikipedias to ‘Black Out’ over EU Copyright Directive

#47

Post by LoSboccacc »

confounded wrote: post #11
IdiocyInAction wrote: post #7

As an EU citizen, I hope large portions of the internet will just block us. A couple of days without YouTube, Wikipedia and other services would create sufficient outrage to put pressure on the EU for introducing these idiotic laws. I mean, GDPR is bad enough for start ups, but Article 13?

Article 13 is terrible not because it’s terrible for start-ups, it’s terrible because it’s terrible for people. I’m pretty close to the rough-end of GDPR in my current job, but it represents real benefits for millions of people. If you asked them what’s a reasonable way to treat their data, I believe the GDPR is close-ish to what a lot of Europeans would want. Or, at least a shift in the right direction. Article 13 o…

> Article 13 is terrible not because it’s terrible for start-ups, it’s terrible because it’s terrible for people.

the two aren't mutually exclusive and Europe is right now in a deep growth slump also caused by middle class not moving into entrepreneurship due all the red tape and inefficiencies around having to deal with the particularities of every European state, with the EU aggregating without unifying a mess of regional particularities (i.e. vatmoss)

we desperately need the EU to cater both to the individual and the small business interests working out the kinks of the common market.

Re: Four Wikipedias to ‘Black Out’ over EU Copyright Directive

#48

Post by onli »

gerdesj wrote: post #22
IdiocyInAction wrote: post #7

As an EU citizen, I hope large portions of the internet will just block us. A couple of days without YouTube, Wikipedia and other services would create sufficient outrage to put pressure on the EU for introducing these idiotic laws. I mean, GDPR is bad enough for start ups, but Article 13?

GDPR and Article 13 (in The Directive on Copyright) are totally different and unrelated things. I happen to be a small business owner in the EU and I have many customers who are the same. We all have registered with the ICO (UK) for something like £60 pa and filled in a short questionnaire. We have read the clear guidance on what records to keep and what to not keep - it's not rocket science. That is GDPR for most sm…

> I understand that A13 looks a bit like an anti-meme effort but it isn't because that is generally covered by parody or reasonable use regulations.

That's exactly the problem. Stuff of that is protected, and with good reason. But upload filter that would be mandated by article 13 can't detect that fair use. By enforcing them for all platforms like Youtube all of this will vanish from the european internet.

Re: Four Wikipedias to ‘Black Out’ over EU Copyright Directive

#49

Post by furi »

dingaling wrote: post #45
dleslie wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the end, are you really sure you want the world to block us? Yes. Let's end the cycle of pretending that we can prevent information from being free. Copyright is a dinosaur of an idea that belongs in the annals of history and out of the present.

> Copyright is a dinosaur of an idea that belongs in the annals of history and out of the present. Then don't copyright the content you make, just release it out into the public domain. Be the change you want to see. But let's be honest, the people most vocal against Article 13 are those who want to leech other people's creations for free. Not those people actually creating the content.

> the people most vocal against Article 13 are those who want to leech other people's creations for free.

Why would such people be at all concerned about Article 13? Torrent sites and swarms have been in flagrant disregard of the law since forever, one more law isn't going to change much. Likewise the other popular pirate mechanism, the old "upload an archive with the content to Mega or similar" technique, already frequently uses encrypted archives to make sure only people coming through the right channel (often an ad laden website + several even more ad laden URL shorteners) get access to the content, making a filter requirement ineffectual there as well.

Re: Four Wikipedias to ‘Black Out’ over EU Copyright Directive

#50

Post by LoSboccacc »

kpcyrd wrote: post #19
IdiocyInAction wrote: post #7

As an EU citizen, I hope large portions of the internet will just block us. A couple of days without YouTube, Wikipedia and other services would create sufficient outrage to put pressure on the EU for introducing these idiotic laws. I mean, GDPR is bad enough for start ups, but Article 13?

GDPR regulates companies processing personal identifiable information, if your startup can't comply with that it shouldn't exist for the same reasons that a food startup that can't comply with food safety regulations shouldn't exist. Article 13 is straight up impossible to implement.

> if your startup can't comply with that

most startups can and will. but it basically adds up the requirement of lawyering up to every startup that wants to operate here de facto annihilating the possibility for single man operations to bootstrap an idea cashless.

Post reply on HN