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

151–160 of 204 posts

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

#151

Post by bemmu »

porsager wrote: post #105

For anyone in Denmark, here are contact details for the MEPs: - Margrete Auken - +4561625450 - margrete.auken@europarl.europa.eu - https://twitter.com/MargreteAuken - Bendt Bendtsen - bb@bendt.dk - https://twitter.com/BendtEU - Ole Christensen - +4522200830 - ole.christensen@europarl.europa.eu - https://twitter.com/oleeu - Jørn Dohrmann - +4561623349 - jorn.dohrmann@europarl.europa.eu - https://twitter.com/mepdohrman…

What specifically should one ask them to vote against? I'm sure they have a lot on their plate, so what's a good way to make it easy for them to understand which vote this is about?

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

#152

Post by koonsolo »

avar wrote: post #147
koonsolo wrote: post #104

Here are part of the lyrics of "Enter Sandman" of Metallica: Exit light Enter night Take my hand We're off to Never—, Neverland Now I lay me down to sleep Pray the Lord my soul to keep If I die before I wake Pray the Lord my soul to take YCombinator is now in violation of article 13. Some filter should have prevented me from posting this. That is what article 13 is about.

Article 13 is bad enough without needing to make up absurd interpretations of it. EU law is enforced on the basis of proportionality, and the wording of the proposed directive already covers that. There's never going to be some legal obligation to remove something like the quote you just posted. Furthermore, since it's a directive each member state will need to implement it in a way that's compatible with both the di…

I could copy an entire blog post here, taking credit myself, instead of referring to it with a link. Would that be "fair use" too, and in which countries?

If that would happen, and the blog owner would sue, to which extend would the proportionality relate to real money? $50, $500, $50000?

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

#153

Post by craigsmansion »

TomMarius wrote: post #75
est31 wrote: post #6

The big websites participating in the blackout like Wikipedia or some porn sites do have vast access to eyeballs across europe, and would be affected directly and adversely by the new rules. As the lobbying fight has already been mostly won by the local publisher industry, they use their access to those eyeballs to fuel democratic protests of the rule. I hope they win and that Article 11 and 13 will be removed. I thi…

I don't think it's democratic at all. In case of my small country, almost literally no one wants this law - but that doesn't matter, we're a small country. The whole thing feels terribly wrong - 10 million people, the 100% majority of this rather big geographical location that is even separated by mountains on all sides, are just overruled, while they don't even understand the language these politicians are talking i…

> Why couldn't we have our own rules regarding copyright, like up until now?

You didn't actually have that up until now either.

> now the Germans and the French rule our country

Citation very much needed, unless you mean nominally German and French companies delegating factories and subsidiaries to your country, in which case, that's the point.

> and you people praise the EU for that while my grandfathers died for us to be sovereign

I think if you'd ask them, they died for their children to have a better life, and not having to fight any more wars. Also, a lot of (great)-grandfathers died in countries that are pretty happy to be in the EU; your appeal to nationalism is pretty offensive here.

> BTW yes, most people here would rather be poor and sovereign than the EU alternative.

Your country can just decide to leave. If the burden of delegating some super-national matters to a larger voluntary body becomes too much, you can just opt-out.

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

#154

Post by koonsolo »

TuringTest wrote: post #135
koonsolo wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

"They can modify human DNA today, so curing cancer should be easy"

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

#155

Post by gpvos »

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…

I think eikxyz was only arguing in favour of the GDPR, not article 13, which is indeed obviously retarded and insane.

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

#156

Post by beobab »

kruczek wrote: post #118
beobab wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

That's not fully accurate either. All that you wrote is true, but user's permission must be freely given - this means access to the service cannot be restricted if user refuses to give permission (as long as that permission isn't strictly required to provide the service itself, but then probably permission is not the right basis for processing data).

Agreed.

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

#157

Post by rurban »

koonsolo wrote: post #98
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 sho…

> 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.

That's the whole point in this useless proposed jurisdiction. Such automated filters cannot exist and will never exist. We don't have strong AI which is trained to detect copyright violations, and there never will be one. Such a system would first to know what a protectable work is (in all possible formats). Then it would have to detect violations (in all possible formats). And then it needs to be available to all internet platforms which allows user content, such as e. g. Wikipedia, hackernews or reddit. This is even impossible to implement for Facebook or Google. So why changing a perfectly fine copyright law to something not implementable?

Everybody needs to geoblock EU clients, even every little block with a comments section.

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

#158

Post by [deleted] »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #133
beobab wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#159

Post by TomMarius »

hnra wrote: post #106
TomMarius wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's democratic at all. In case of my small country, almost literally no one wants this law - but that doesn't matter, we're a small country. The whole thing feels terribly wrong - 10 million people, the 100% majority of this rather big geographical location that is even separated by mountains on all sides, are just overruled, while they don't even understand the language these politicians are talking i…

Obviously a political and economic union will impose laws on its member states. Your country, holding 2% of the votes, being able to overrule the entire union wouldn't be very democratic either. It sounds like you want to have the cake and eat it too. Get the benefits of the union but be able to refuse the laws it imposes. If the EU decides on a law, that the majority of the union agrees on but your country doesn't,…

I absolutely don't think an economic union (our citizens did not vote in a referendum to join a political union, that was forced on us) needs to impose such laws (environment, human rights) not regarding international trade between member states and third state policies. It should impose treaties regarding export and import between member states, and maybe provide a civil court.

Whatever the EU is, it's not an "economic union" for at least a decade. We don't want any of that cake, as you say - you forced that upon us, I was talking about that in my previous comment.

And no, our country doesn't have an option to leave. Germans bought key state corporations from the corrupt post-revolution government and they won't let us (the people) do it, on top of that it has been proved that the EU will try to take revenge by all means and not wanting to be in the EU means they will destroy you. So much for the "friendship among nations" goal - paid friendship is not friendship.

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

#160

Post by fs2 »

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?

The flaw in your reasoning is in "user generated content". Newspapers are not user generated, while lots of websites (like this one) are. That's why safe harbor conditions exist, allowing sites like these to have free and meaningful discussion, without the threat of massive fines or lawsuits because a single user may do something irresponsible.
Post reply on HN