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

91–100 of 204 posts

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

#91

Post by DanBC »

austincheney wrote: post #61
cf498 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is enforcing copyright censorship? I am not being antagonistic as I have actually no idea what is in this new law.

Copy right law normally have exemptions for things like fair use or fair dealing or for research.

Article 13 includes those exemptions.

Publishers like YouTube can't cope with those exemptions and have implemented a baffling system where copyright material is either:

- freely available and monetised to the uploader not the rights holder

- freely available and monetised to the person claiming to be the rights holder (they may not be the rights holder)

-available with restrictions ("not available in this country")

- blocked completely, with copyright strikes against the uploader, even if the upload carefully obeys copyright laws.

This is mostly a problem with lazy publishers, but complex and inconsistent international laws don't make it easy.

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

#92

Post by koonsolo »

krageon wrote: post #58
onli wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You don't and can't know this and it is obvious because you are speculating about a future fact. It would help all of us if you couched it as such so that no reader can be deluded into thinking you have based your arguments on the kind of certainty that they seem to be based on.

I'm building a platform that allows anyone to make games, and share them on the web.

Do you think I will stay in Europe with my company if this bill passes? You must be crazy.

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

#93

Post by testuser2131 »

honzzz wrote: post #85
testuser2131 wrote: post #81

Making content providers liable about the content they publish seems to me essential to have an healthy internet: I don't understand all the problem about censorship; Am I missing something?

Consider the difference "making content providers liable for the content they publish" vs "making platforms liable for the content others publish".

Yes, but currently content providers are making money (not in case of wikipedia, I know) over content that could be against the law (it could be hate speech, harassment, copyright infringement or whatever). For example how are online content providers any difference from traditional newspapers, where the director is accountable for all content published in the newspaper?

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

#94

Post by tyfon »

dageshi wrote: post #87
tyfon wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had absolutely no issue getting my family members to pay for an account at diasp.eu when google+ shut down. They were rather happy to do so since one of its selling points is that they do not track users for advertising. Do not underestimate the general publics tracking/advertising fatigue.

Forgive me but doesn't that mean they were actually using google+ in the first place? Which seems.... unlikely? Or at least incredible outliers. You won't get the majority of people on Facebook to pay for the service after you've been giving it to them for "free" for 10 years, you'd maybe convert 10% if that, at which point what use is facebook with most of the users gone?

We were all using google+ to share images. Some of them are on facebook (my mother and sister in particular), but the rest of my extended family is not there. But we were all on G+, I told them if they wanted to see baby pictures you have to sign up.

I couldn't care less about anyone outside my family, if they want to contact me they can email or call me by phone.

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

#95

Post by sacado2 »

dageshi wrote: post #87
tyfon wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had absolutely no issue getting my family members to pay for an account at diasp.eu when google+ shut down. They were rather happy to do so since one of its selling points is that they do not track users for advertising. Do not underestimate the general publics tracking/advertising fatigue.

Forgive me but doesn't that mean they were actually using google+ in the first place? Which seems.... unlikely? Or at least incredible outliers. You won't get the majority of people on Facebook to pay for the service after you've been giving it to them for "free" for 10 years, you'd maybe convert 10% if that, at which point what use is facebook with most of the users gone?

It's difficult to ask for users to pay for a service that was always free, indeed, furthermore facebook is not growing its user base anymore.

But a competitor can emerge by providing an alternative service, for a fee, marketing it as "the service that doesn't spy on you".

Now, sure, that will be a niche service, and social networks can't be niche services. The protonmail of facebook or twitter will probably never emerge.

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

#96

Post by neeeee »

bArray wrote: post #25

"Fixing" the page (return to normal): 1. In the style sheet, remove: color: #111 !important; background: #111 !important; border: 1px #111 solid !important; 2. In the HTML, remove: background:#000;color:#000 That's all I could find on a few page visits.

Or just use a script as a bookmark: javascript:(function(){ document.getElementById("centralNotice").outerHTML = ""; document.getElementsByClassName("mw-parser-output")[0].className = "";})();

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

#97

Post by sacado2 »

tyfon wrote: post #79
orangecat wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I had absolutely no issue getting my family members to pay for an account at diasp.eu when google+ shut down. They were rather happy to do so since one of its selling points is that they do not track users for advertising. Do not underestimate the general publics tracking/advertising fatigue.

For semi-private file sharing (ie family-wide, not worldwide), paying services are great. If you want as big of a circle of "friends" as possible, you are in a "winner-takes-all" situation, and being free helps to be the winner.

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

#98

Post by koonsolo »

testuser2131 wrote: post #81

Making content providers liable about the content they publish seems to me essential to have an healthy internet: I don't understand all the problem about censorship; Am I missing something?

You are missing the "user content" part.

If I anonymously upload copyrighted material to YouTube, I can sue YouTube. Same with Reddit, Facebook, Steam, Kongregate, Pinterest, Imgur, Instagram, ... .

I'm building a platform where anyone can make a game and share it. If someone names his game "Zelda" or "Tetris", I can get sued. If my competitor uploads his own material to my site, they can sue me.

Theses platforms should have "automated filters that detect copyrighted material, and make a distinction between original and parody". If you know of such system, please tell me.

Staying in Europe with a user content platform makes no sense.

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

#99

Post by piker »

TomMarius wrote: post #78
colechristensen wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is well taken that doing such things should be rare and done very carefully.

You feel this isn't one of the cases when it's necessary?

The parent's implication being that this is one of the cases where people could reasonably believe it isn't necessary.
Post reply on HN