121–130 of 407 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is very easy to block VPN, Tor and other technologies. These can be in fact criminalised the same way drugs are. Possession of a VPN on your device could give you a criminal record.
This will in turn make encrypted devices, plausible deniability setups and steganography more pervasive. The US lost the crypto wars, EU lost the piracy wars once, and they will lose again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So then obviously CNN should never write an article again and isn't a profitable business... That is complete and utter nonsense. Linking itself adds value - see the uproar with Facebook getting rid of news in the feed. If the publishers genuinely felt as you do, they would simply prevent content being linked to by Google News/etc. Instead they want to demand payment for it, and force the behavior instead of letting…
That's why we have so much clickbait.
So corruption prevailed?
Here's the final document: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL... Searching for "article 11" (the link one) and "article 13" (the filter one) will help you find the relevant paragraphs. They're both very short and fairly easy to understand.
Article 11 reiterates articles from directive 2001/29/EC which gives copyright holders sole discretion over reproduction in whole or part... but nothing that says a link is a reproduction. What am I missing? Maybe this forbids news aggregators from posting snippets of the articles, but hardly the titles.
Article 13 certainly requires content providers to do something. But only provides an example of what that might be: "Those measures, such as the use of effective content recognition technologies, shall be appropriate and proportionate." It definitely doesn't say automatic, and given YouTube's propensity to generate harmful false positives without recourse, there might be an argument that manual content recognition is more effective. In any case the article just seems to require that content providers do something beyond waiting for takedown notices, which seems reasonable.
I am not a lawyer, so obviously I could be missing something subtle, but when I go read articles crying foul, they don't exactly help me understand what I am missing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely they don't hand over cash, I didn't mean that, but they give benefits by different means.
The main benefit they give is to explain technical concepts in terms the politicians understand. Sometimes that's a "benefit", but that's when calling them yourself helps the most.
Here's the final document: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL... Searching for "article 11" (the link one) and "article 13" (the filter one) will help you find the relevant paragraphs. They're both very short and fairly easy to understand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This will in turn make encrypted devices, plausible deniability setups and steganography more pervasive. The US lost the crypto wars, EU lost the piracy wars once, and they will lose again.
In some countries you can do time for not disclosing passwords. In the UK it is 5 years.
Of course the EU can go full police state, but at that point I hope the regular citizens pushes back.
The goal is to raise the cost of enforcement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If this law has already been paid for, what you would get from your MEP is a template response in the spirit of "I share your concerns blah blah, but copyrights are important blah blah". I don't think you can do much about it at this point.
I'm in the UK. Conservative MEP did as you said, Labour one sent a bit of a boilerplate that they are considering it, UKIP are of course against it but thats par for the course with them, the green one sent a detailed response and is voting against both art 11 and 13 (the ones I raised issue with).
A Couple of things: Mainstream news outlets on this side of the atlantic didn't do much reporting on this vote which might signal tacit support on their part (at least for the link payment portion of this thing which is frankly the sillies part) and that should shape everyone's understanding of their coverage of tech companies in general. Second, it's hard not to notice that much of what the EU does is trying to hurt…
> Second it's hard not to notice that much of what the EU does is try to hurt US tech companies These are European laws designed to regulate industry inside the EU. If an American company decides to do business in the EU they're subject to the same rules as any business already operating inside the EU. So claiming this is designed to hurt US tech companies is quite a reach. If you feel American tech companies are bei…
A Couple of things: Mainstream news outlets on this side of the atlantic didn't do much reporting on this vote which might signal tacit support on their part (at least for the link payment portion of this thing which is frankly the sillies part) and that should shape everyone's understanding of their coverage of tech companies in general. Second, it's hard not to notice that much of what the EU does is trying to hurt…
> Second it's hard not to notice that much of what the EU does is try to hurt US tech companies I totally understand what you are saying, but on the other hand: maybe a lot of US tech companies do unethical/bad things? Antitrust cases must be based on something, so it's not just tariff on tech company products, it's more like a fine for bad behaviour.