211–220 of 407 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hate them as most people in the UK do (I've never voted for them and wouldn't either), UKIP already resolved this (in a far more permanent way than the greens) by ensuring EU law does not apply to the UK in future.
What are you going to do next time the UK parliament passes a law you don't like? Dissolve the United Kingdom?
I'd be in favour of dissolving it back to counties with a senate.
The south never does anything for us up North.
As a EU citizen I have always been (and still am) a strong advocate for the European Union. I think the founding of the European Union was one of the greatest things that could ever happen to European citizens. I full heartedly believe this institution played a major role in retaining the piece after World War 2. The concept of open borders in (most of) Europe is something I would never want to miss. But seeing the l…
A lot of the people who voted for this also want to end EU. Make of this what you will.
For democracy as an ideology to work well, there might be a modicum of honesty necessary from it's actors, in that they try to enact only policy they actually believe in, and not aim to simply cause destruction and dissent. This is clearly nothing that is entirely unique to one ideology, as the past few years has clearly shown.
It's unfortunate that the very stability that many seek seems to be the very thing that cause them, or others to cause instability. Maybe we as a species thrive on danger, and whenever it seems to disappear we invent some new imaginary spectre to take the place of those we erased. Like how vaccinations that have prevented untold amounts of suffering, now far to many people seem to consider it the cause of any ailments short of broken legs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The law was basically made at the publisher’s behest to get Google to pay them. So far, it has spectularly backfired. In Germany, Google started to delist news sites from their index. After traffic dropped, the publishers gave Google a license to link freely. Law defeated. In Spain, they went a bit further and wrote into the law that Google had to list news sites in their index. So Google News shut down in Spain. Law…
>>> In Germany, Google started to delist news sites from their index. After traffic dropped, the publishers gave Google a license to link freely. Law defeated. I don't know the detail but the way you put it seems very fair to me. Law protect publishers against Google, so they can say to Google "no", except that their interest is to say "yes". So they say "yes". Looks to me that even if the end result is the same, the…
What I haven't heard mentioned yet is, that for the big companies like Google and Facebook, there won't actually be much change in regards to upload filters, because they already do this. The DMCA has led to quite a similar problem for them, so that for example youtube provides big license holders with backend to decide themselves which videos to block for reasons of copyright infringement. So in the end, they wont e…
My company [0] built business around Content ID-like technology, so we should be celebrating, but we don't. We are going to announce, that our services will be provided to all impacted platforms free of charge. We are hoping to facilitate licensing deal between rights holders and the platforms, preferably on pay-per-play basis, instead of completely blocking content from being uploaded to the platforms.
It still is not a great outcome, but at least it will not put smaller platforms out of business, and hopefully not completely stiff the innovation.
[0] https://pex.com
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that Article 11 will backfire. What if Google decides to remove all publishers from search results to avoid having to pay a fee? Their traffic will tank.
If Google doesn't link to anything anymore, its own traffic may hurt a bit as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the one hand I can see how stupid these laws are in view of how the Web currently works and how successful it is. On the other hand, I think companies like Google and Facebook are FAR too large and powerful and I think the only way to deal with that is by making the Web less good at what it does.
Those laws have been tried in several European countries, and the strategy is always the same: - Google had to exclude the plaintiffs or shut down the service because they were not allowed to operate it without a license, and could not get a license in time; - Deprived of Google traffic, the News site audience suddenly dropped and they granted Google a free license, as an emergency process to keep the lights on; - Go…
No idea how it'll work out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So Google gets licenses to link to new sites for free, but smaller companies and private people's website cannot link to news sites?
I thought the newest reincarnation prevents such licences (i.e. it makes it impossible to waive the right to linking fee)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> All the comments quoting content would be taxable, though. Like this one.
> Like this one Not quite. My previous comment linked to another comment. I don't believe that would be covered by this copyright proposal. What would be covered would be a HN user posting a link to an EU publication, my reading it, and then quoting from a portion of it. The simplest fix appears to be banning linking to EU publications.
What counts as a EU publication? The author residing in the EU? Someone with a special “publisher” license? The author possessing EU citizenship? EU readership? .eu domain name? The domain registrar? The physical servers of the web hosting service? The backup service? What about those that use cloud services who have their physical infrastructure spread out wherever? And various combinations of the above…
Lastly, how would checking any of these be implemented by the software that’s supposed to be scanning for content that could possibly be in violation?
So in the case of this link does that mean that HN would have to pay the BBC or filter the link out?
Only for EU IP addresses. Seems like a good way to keep their people ignorant akin to China or NK firewalls. But in a way that appears less authoritarian and "to protect EU business interests". Lets face it - power structures are terrified of the open communication available today and how everyone is able to organize and see through their BS.