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

211–220 of 1001 posts

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

#211

Post by iamnothere »

patrickmcnamara wrote: post #144
bnastic wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ask Brits who their MEPs are, see if they know (or have even heard of MEPs... modulo Farage for his infamy)

It's the public's fault if they are uninformed about MEPs who they themselves vote in.

Isn't this the same attitude as "it's the user's fault if they click OK" on shrink-wrap legalese, repetitive security prompts, and the like?

People are constantly overwhelmed with choices, and eventually they start to economize on their decision-making to focus on immediate needs. Certain systems (particularly those designed by marketers and politicians) are set up to take advantage of this trait.

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

#212

Post by black_puppydog »

So no comments containing "decentralization" yet. These days, I'm really not sure any longer if decentralizing all the web to the point where this kind of legislation becomes completetly futile is harder or easier than fixing the politics... :|

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

#213

Post by candiodari »

cyphar wrote: post #58
ihatethem wrote: post #30

I don't understand why any of this was necessary in the first place, the only reason I can think of is this being on the wishlist of a powerful lobbying bloc. There is something suspect about the EU's cavalier attitude in churning out internet regulations, they generally favor old industries and incumbents.

Google being a monopoly that applies biases to the results it shows (in a way that has no public accountability) is a significant problem -- as well as the fact they implement features which effectively take away revenue from websites by showing their content without giving them page views. That is (ostensibly) the justification for these kinds of laws. I think that they are flawed because they focus on further copyr…

Yep, Google is causing harm by filtering what people see, and dammit, the EU commission wanted to do that harm themselves.

Sarcastic joke perhaps, but very true.

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

#214

Post by pjc50 »

ericdykstra wrote: post #177
lorenzobr wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a starter, "wanting to leave the EU" without having a clue of how to do it or proposing practical solutions is not the finest thing to do. And also the entire immigration discussion was some bs considered the non-EU migration is been higher than EU one for decades https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/

I disagree, I think it's perfectly fine to want to leave the EU on principle. For example, the principle of not wanted to be ruled by unelected oligarchs who can pass laws like Article 13 which affect UK citizens.

Unelected oligarchs like the House of Lords? The UK has absolutely zero legs to stand on with regards to "unelected" or "undemocratic" arguments.

(For years I tried to be a "sensible Eurosceptic", but recent events have highlighted that the EU is a bastion of sanity compared to our current local politics)

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

#216

Post by bloak »

Keyframe wrote: post #64
yasp wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish the EU would, so that it stops damaging things for the rest of the planet. Eventually the costs of complying with the EU's decrees will get high enough where it will make more sense for companies to block European traffic than comply.

It's already happening. chicagotribune.com leads to http://www.tronc.com/gdpr/chicagotribune.com/ for example. Not sure what to think about that.

Nor me, but I would guess that blocking EU traffic is neither necessary nor sufficient for avoiding compliance with EU law. Not doing any business in the EU would seem to be a more obvious general solution.

For example, you may block EU traffic, but if you have a bank account in the EU, and if an EU citizen discovers somehow, perhaps while travelling abroad, that you are misusing their personal data...

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

#217

Post by interhero »

heavenlyhash wrote: post #116

So since the majority of the voices here on HN seem to be pretty negative towards this, I think it's worth noting there are some creative voices who are in favor of some copyright law. For example, here's one fellow on the twitter machine who's a composer and seems pleased: https://twitter.com/Howard_Goodall/status/103983376226213478... Simultaneously, I'm not campaigning in favor of the "link tax" component, here. I…

Those "artists" believe that if their music disappears from pirate sites, they'll start to make money. They don't take into account the fact that likely nobody is downloading their stuff.

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

#218

Post by TotempaaltJ »

jaimex2 wrote: post #38

Is there any reason now why Google shouldn't shutdown all their EU web services and remove its divisions like it did in China? If they did so they can conveniently also ignore that $5B anti-trust fine.

A lot of money. More than they'd lose by complying, probably.

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

#219

Post by gutnor »

Shaddox wrote: post #82
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…

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…

> The real problem lies in the laws it relies on, namely the extremely stringent copyright laws and the weird fair use.

Real problem is the negative incentive to be correct.

The rule penalise you harshly if you serve copyrighted content, but there is nothing if you decide to not serve non-copyrighted content and there is so much content on the internet, that "market pressure" simply isn't going to work. If you are a small publisher of free content, there is a huge risk for content platform to serve your content and no reward if they do.

And that's the best case scenario, where all actors have good intentions. But in the real world we know that large copyright holder are very often bulk claiming bulk content. There is no penalty, so that would be crazy for them no to do it.

The laws is also talking about terrorist content and the need to remove it within 1 hour or risk up to 4% turnover fine ! There is not going to be any manual check done within 1 hour, and anyway the risk is so great you may as well have a blanket no-question ask removal policy.

I fail to see the "good intentions in mind" you mention. MEP are some of the most successful politicians, they would be Olympic level is it was a sport. Their field of expertise is the people and public relation. I can believe they are naive with technology (like encryption or monitoring actual capabilities) but I can't accept they are candid about businesses or individual motivations. Any negative consequence of this law is there on purpose.

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

#220

Post by paulie_a »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #186
ericdykstra wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

Honestly the lack of balance with copyright law is why I simply ignore copyrights. They have become irrelevant to me.
Post reply on HN