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

EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 1001 posts

Re: EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’

#181

Post by antpls »

For the anecdote, Nils Torvalds, the father of Linus, is one of the many authors of this text law.

I'm from EU, I had the time to look at the recent amendments about this law, in which they added precisions about the fair use of data, for non-profit and public research.

They also precised that this law and the technical implementations should not go against already in-place freedom of speech rights.

Hopefully, people will be able to easily defend themselves versus the big corporations in case of abusing take-down requests. The recent example of Twitch streamer Lirik being unrightfully suspended on a simple request from UEFA shows there will be an adjustment period for everyone involved. His case was quickly resolved and he was unsuspended in less than 24 hours after the take down request. However, he is one of the most famous streamer from the Twitch platform, he can easily use his social network to acquire visibility. For smaller and not well-known streamers, it may be more difficult to obtain justice...

Re: EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’

#182

Post by sbradford26 »

"Exactly how the legislation will be interpreted will be up to individual nations, but the shift in the balance of power is clear: the web’s biggest tech companies are losing their grip on the internet."

I feel like this is actually forcing the biggest tech companies to increase their grip on the internet.

Re: EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’

#183

Post by zzzcpan »

dghf wrote: post #114
cyphar wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that Google is without question a monopoly, and so I think that there is a valid argument that it needs to be regulated and be forced to be impartial in the results shown. The fact that they show people's content without giving them page views (in a world where page views are how you get significant amounts of money, not to mention subscription opportunities) is a conscious decision to implement a feat…

> The problem is that Google is without question a monopoly Is it? I mean, sure, far more people use Google than, say, Bing or DuckDuckGo. But there's nothing actually stopping them from using those alternatives, other than the fact that they're not as good.

Lack of users is stopping Google's customers from using those alternatives. Users themselves (or people) are not the customers.

Re: EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’

#184

Post by pwned1 »

pluma wrote: post #127
scoom wrote: post #22

If GDPR didn't make you block the EU, this will.

I have no idea how you think those two are even remotely related or in the same category. Oh, and by the way, as long as you show something to EU visitors (even an error page telling them to GTFO), you need a privacy policy.

Bureaucracy, compliance cost, uncertainty of enforcement... The category doesn't need to be the same, just the pile upon pile of anti-(small)business regulation.

Re: EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’

#185

Post by ahakki »

vorpalhex wrote: post #149
yummybear wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why wouldn't Silicon Valley be affected by this? Most companies have european customers.

"If you are in the EU, you are not allowed to use this website." Pretty much the same solution for kids under 13 years of age (which is to say, they of course still do use these sites, they simply lie about it which shifts the burden...)

If I’m not allowed to use your service you won’t get any of my money though. Unlike kids under the age of 13 I have disposable income.

Re: EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’

#186

Post by pbhjpbhj »

ericdykstra wrote: post #128
Shaddox wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may be naive in saying this, but I believe the law is made with good intentions in mind. The real problem lies in the laws it relies on, namely the extremely stringent copyright laws and the weird fair use. > Much of YouTube content is (perfectly legal) remixes, responses, or criticisms of other YouTube content that embeds part of the referenced video in their own video. As weird as it sounds, you are wrong. In a s…

I don't believe this is true. Every legitimate YouTube fair use case that I've seen go to court has gone in favor of the fair user. The biggest name one so far is the H3H3 trial.[1] One that looks to be settled soon is Akilah Hughes suing Carl Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad), where all that Benjamin does is edit together two of Hughes videos with the only original addition being a new title. This is almost certainly going…

Combining two videos in this way would be unlawful in the UK, where we have the very restricted "Fair Dealing" concessions, because downloading the videos in the first place is a tort[0].

Combining them is another, sharing them is another.

We basically have no concept of personal use in our copyright.

[0] if they were broadcast you can record but only for time-shifting, you can only watch once (alone!) and then are obliged to destroy the copy; you aren't allowed to format shift.

The lack of any remaining semblance of balance in copyright between the rights of the demos and media interests shows how badly distorted our Western democracies have become from representing the rights of people in general above the rights of the rich.

Re: EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’

#187

Post by isthatart »

zaarn wrote: post #169
isthatart wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Example: article in arXiv gets later published in a journal. Will the arXiv article version be still available for anybody? Only for non-EU people? Will be removed from arXiv? None of these?

Why would any of that happen? I don't think the internet copyright proposal will affect things in a way you describe...

I'd like to see a discussion around these aspects. I see only cries re big platforms and news outlets.I'm neither of these.

Re: EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’

#188

Post by the6threplicant »

A comment from someone who has actually read the article: https://np.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/9ely8y/why_the_w...

For example:

...the EFF argue that the idea of what constitutes a link is not fully defined. I'm not sure what they're talking about. Recitals 31-36 set out the concepts in article 11, fairly clearly. They make it clear that what is being protected is substantial or harmful copying of significant portions of the text. They also make it clear what organisations this will affect - press organisations - with a fairly clear description of what a press organisation might constitute. (FWIW, memes are not covered, and anyone you hear talking about "banning memes" is getting their news from very poor sources.)

Re: EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’

#189

Post by Scarblac »

graphenus wrote: post #163
akerro wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>After this goes through I will become a single-issue voter, to leave the EU. This law will be introduced in Switzerland, Norway and UK. Most probably UK will have to keep it after Brexit.

Why would Switzerland and Norway introduce this law?

They are bound by treaties to implement EU directives like this. Part of the single market.

Re: EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’

#190

Post by ericdykstra »

pjc50 wrote: post #161
ericdykstra wrote: post #6

UKIP and the Green Party joined forces to prevent Article 13 from getting rammed through without a public discussion. It was a good first step, but here we are, 2 months hence, and it was passed with virtually no amendments to the original text. This is an abhorrent decision by people who have no idea how the internet works. Markus Meechum (aka Count Dankula) was at the hearings, and reported that MEPs voting on the…

> Markus Meechum (aka Count Dankula) Do we really not have anyone better as a source than the Nazi dog guy? http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/8/1962/PF-v-Mark-Meecha... (Perhaps someone from Open Rights Group or EDRI?)

He was the first one to report the decision on Twitter, and was literally livestreaming in that link I provided before the news was reported anywhere. I'm sorry that he's not on your approved list of people to report on this event.
Post reply on HN