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

131–140 of 204 posts

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

#131

Post by ionised »

pas wrote: post #102
sacado2 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a user, GDPR is great for me. As a user, article 13 is bad for me.

> As a user, article 13 is bad for me. Why?

Copyright law is already hideously draconian (in the US especially). Every fucking time the copyright cartels push for more power, more control, more leeway, they get it. It's been going on for a century or more, which is why we end up with ridiculous copyright terms like Life of Author + 70 years.

The last thing I want is to give even more power to these obsolete middlemen to act as gatekeepers of information and culture.

I'm not totally against copyright as an idea, but I'm certainly against the form of it we have now.

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

#132

Post by bryanrasmussen »

VonGallifrey wrote: post #69
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well since you can't make sharing of personal data a prerequisite for using a service unless it can be shown that data is actually necessary for the operation of the service it could be argued that this follows.

The question was if there is a source on the claim that most people would prefer intrusive ads to paying for a service.

Sorry, I had assumed the question was for a source on "The GDPR specifically forbids that option.", I didn't give the source, but an argument why it follows from the rules of the GDPR.

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

#133

Post by bryanrasmussen »

beobab wrote: post #88
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well since you can't make sharing of personal data a prerequisite for using a service unless it can be shown that data is actually necessary for the operation of the service it could be argued that this follows.

That's not quite accurate. The law allows you to legitimately ask for permission to share the data for advertising purposes, but you have to be transparent with the details, and the advertiser has to have the same safeguards on the data as your company (they aren't allowed to re-sell it without the original company's knowledge, for example).

I used the word prerequisite for a reason - you can ask for permission, but you can't try to force permission by withholding the service.

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

#134

Post by kruczek »

_nalply wrote: post #59
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'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. Do you have a source for that?

Article 7 and Recital 43 of GDPR.

Permission must be freely given in order to be valid. It is not freely given, if access to a service requires the permission and that permission is not strictly necessary for the service.

However I believe it is good that such option is forbidden, after all the years of abuse of user data at the hands of Google, Facebook and other advertisement companies. Note that ads can still be shown without all the creepy targeting, and ads could still be used to pay for the service, without stealing user data (yes, I call it stealing, because these companies go to great lengths to trick the user into giving the permission). It remains to be shown if ads without tracking could be sustainable to keep services free.

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

#135

Post by TuringTest »

koonsolo wrote: post #89
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…

So who is benefiting from this article 13? The copyright holders. Not the people, not the startups, not the EU companies. There are things to be said about GDPR and climate, but not so much about article 13. It's just retarded and insane. These people have totally no clue. "Artificial intelligence can recognize faces today, filter out preferences and even park independently. It should be easy to distinguish between o…

"You can talk at a distance instantly today, it should be easy to transport people instantly."

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

#136

Post by LoSboccacc »

krageon wrote: post #54
LoSboccacc wrote: post #47

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. 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 r…

VAT and a vast majority of the laws surrounding commerce at least are simple and have been abstracted away by various platforms ages ago. I invite you to read up on the subject and revise your stance (your premise may or may not be true, I will not claim to know either way) based on something that is actually true.

wrong and with an attitude, what a combo.

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

#137

Post by LoSboccacc »

sisu2019 wrote: post #109
LoSboccacc wrote: post #47

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. 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 r…

why is this grey, it's absolutely on point and true.

it's the poisonous Brexit climate, any criticism to the EU is now shot on sight around liberal circles.

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

#138

Post by StreamBright »

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…

> 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

They would chose not to have Google and Facebook. The basic principals of capitalism that products are something people want or need. Surveillance capitalism gets around this by exploiting the fact that an average citizen does know nothing about data collection and its scale and the implications for their privacy. GDPR is trying to fix this and also the fuck all attitude to security that most companies have.

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

#139

Post by TuringTest »

rutthenut wrote: post #125
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 far from a dinosaur. It may be disliked by freeloaders but that doesn't make it wrong. I know of numerous photographers who find their work ripped-off; without copyright protection they would have no comeback on that.

In a world where everyone has a copying machine in their pocket more powerful than anything built by mankind ever before, the economic value of a copy is zero.

Copyright is a power grab around that fact. It wouldn't matter as much if they didn't extend it to a duration of two lifetimes.

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

#140

Post by honzzz »

testuser2131 wrote: post #93
honzzz wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I believe that people should be responsible for what they do, not for what other people do. That is the key difference between the traditional media and platforms - traditional newspapers are under your control, written by your employees, you are able to read all the articles before you publish them etc. A platform is something you create for other people to use it. If we accept that platforms should be responsible for what their users do, where do we draw the line? If I slander you over the phone, should phone company be responsible for it? Using your argument, they made money on that slanderous call so they should be, is that right?
Post reply on HN