European parliament committee approves vote on ‘disastrous’ copyright bill • Hacker News Board

Re: European parliament committee approves vote on ‘disastrous’ copyright bill

#221

Post by delecti » Wed, Jun 20, 2018, 2:54 PM UTC

wiz21c wrote: post #200

hesk wrote: post #34

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…

The fundamental mechanics of the internet are such that there's no sensible justification around having to ask. It inherently makes no sense to have to ask to link to something online, especially for a news site. If they don't want someone linking to them then there are ways to avoid being linked to (requiring accounts, one-time links, requiring specific referral metadata), but by putting something on the internet you are implicitly enabling and encouraging links.

Re: European parliament committee approves vote on ‘disastrous’ copyright bill

#222

Post by pas » Wed, Jun 20, 2018, 2:54 PM UTC

Filligree wrote: post #106

pas wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any lawsuit in progress with regards to that?

It's not illegal, so that would require a law change. Which is what this article is about.

It sounds very much like discrimination - if no other aggregator / news site gets the same treatment.

Re: European parliament committee approves vote on ‘disastrous’ copyright bill

#223

Post by DanBC » Wed, Jun 20, 2018, 2:55 PM UTC

ghunbb wrote: post #188

Accacin wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that's completely false. We'll still be abiding by EU laws long after we leave. By 'most people', I'm assuming you mean the 30% who actually voted to leave?

> We'll still be abiding by EU laws long after we leave. That's a rather ignorant comment. The 'Great Repeal' bill as it was called was/is - I lose track of where it is in the law process at the moment - effectively did/will do a 'mv' of all EU regulation that the UK was beholden to over its own UK laws and when this has to be done before the UK leaves and will probably be done sooner. Then the parliament will cherry…

> of all EU regulation that the UK was beholden to over its own UK laws

There are very few of those. One of the problems people kept banging on about is that the UK "copper bottoms" any EU regulation, making it more onerous than it could be, when they add it to UK law.

Re: European parliament committee approves vote on ‘disastrous’ copyright bill

#224

Post by DanBC » Wed, Jun 20, 2018, 2:56 PM UTC

josteink wrote: post #10

This is what happens when those in control don't understand, know or care about the things they regulate. So I guess this is bad. --goes and reads article-- > Article 11, requiring online platforms to pay publishers a fee if they link to their news content, was also approved. What the fucking FUCK? Pay to send companies actual traffic? Pay to be allowed to use the basic building-block of the world wide web on the wor…

Probably best to actually read article 11 before commenting.

Re: European parliament committee approves vote on ‘disastrous’ copyright bill

#225

Post by bertil » Wed, Jun 20, 2018, 2:57 PM UTC

DmenshunlAnlsis wrote: post #141

nickik wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Antitrust cases must be based on something A study of the history of Antitrust would abuse of of that naive thinking.

I’m truly not overly familiar with the history of such cases. I’d appreciate some direction on how to undertake such a study. Any good places to start reading about this?

I would strongly recommend Tim Wu’s _Master Switch_, because it is well-written, and focused on how those conversation influence today controls.

The overall trend in anti-trust is that most of the issue is not that people have done demonstrably bad things: Rockefeller typically would over-pay for the distributors and wells that he purchased–and he was the only buyer. The issue was more that prior to the negotiation, he used often unconventional but legal tactics (like showing his books) to make clear that he could conduct a price war, and would ruin the company that he was offering to purchase. The price he did pay typically was low without that in mind, but every other potential buyer knew as much and stepped away.

The whole debate wasn’t focusing on measurable harm, but the ability to threaten, hence a focus on market share. Since, it has gone up, to catch less blatant, but not unjustified potential to harm the market: the key measure went from market share to Lerner index which measure the ability to raise your own price without loosing share. Apple typically has a small market share of smartphones worldwide, but seem to be able to raise their prices without loosing much sales; that allows them to corner supplies by over-bidding and retain feature exclusivity. It’s less morally obvious that this would hurt the market, but some executives at Samsung are probably adamant that this is a major concern, let alone smaller player.

There are still some hard evidence, but the bar has become surprisingly low: three cellphone providers in France were fined one Billion Euros (with a B) for price-fixing, based on the testimony of a taxi driver and a penciled-in and rubbered-off “Ok on Yalta” on someone’s notebook (and significant econometric proof that prices stopped going down). The discretionary ability of the Competition Authority becomes key, i.e. they ability to enforce a loosely defined norm of market preservation.

Current trend is closer to consider dynamic considerations, the ability of currently non-existent firms to enter the market: has Facebook’s ability to purchase Instagram and challenge Snap discouraged entrepreneurs? Facebook did nothing illegal buying one or offering feature that they users enjoyed on the other; however, that behaviour, couple with the ability to invest a lot of developers, can seem threatening and discourage entrepreneurs. Who do you ask if that was significant? Investors who said they wouldn’t invest on that basis? Young CS graduates?

Disclaimer: I was personally involved in most of the cases that I mention, either working for the company being looked into, or serving as an expert for regulators. I’m happy to provide context, but none of this should be considered testimony.

Re: European parliament committee approves vote on ‘disastrous’ copyright bill

#226

Post by mattnewton » Wed, Jun 20, 2018, 2:58 PM UTC

tomp wrote: post #92

sampo wrote: post #56

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)?

For Spain that just got local news delisted with no legal recourse.

Re: European parliament committee approves vote on ‘disastrous’ copyright bill

#227

Post by benjaminl » Wed, Jun 20, 2018, 2:59 PM UTC

wiz21c wrote: post #200

hesk wrote: post #34

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…

Google actually does ask, it is called robots.txt [0]. Robots.txt is the technical equivalent of asking nicely. If the publishers don't want Google using snippets of their articles or otherwise indexing their articles all publishers need to do is tell Google not to using robots.txt, no law needed [1].

This law won't hurt Google, they have the necessary lawyers and resources to deal with the ramifications. What this will hurt are the smaller search engines that don't have the same resources as Google. This law, if enacted, will end up giving more power to Google not less. For example, with the German law, Google was given a free license [2], but was DuckDuckGo given a license? As far as I can tell no. So all that changed is that Google has a license and its competitors don't. I can't see how this is a good thing for anybody but Google. It hurts consumers, reduces market choice and will end up hurting publishers.

[0] - http://www.robotstxt.org/orig.html

[1] - https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/6062608

[2] - https://the-digital-reader.com/2014/10/22/german-publishers-...

Re: European parliament committee approves vote on ‘disastrous’ copyright bill

#228

Post by drchaos » Wed, Jun 20, 2018, 2:59 PM UTC

wiz21c wrote: post #200

hesk wrote: post #34

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…

> Without the law, Google takes whatever it wants without asking

Google News does not automatically take your content. You have to apply explicitely to get it included.

For regular search, there's always robots.txt. Claiming that there are any media/content producers who get included into the index against their will is absurd propaganda. Of course they want to be listed. They just want money, and Google has money, so they "convince" local politicians to make Google pay them their "share". Just like the Mafia.

Re: European parliament committee approves vote on ‘disastrous’ copyright bill

#229

Post by vageli » Wed, Jun 20, 2018, 3:00 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #206

oldcynic wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simple really: "BigMedia" want me to pay to link to this, so here's the same topic on SmallMediaSite. or I wanted to link this, but "BigMedia" want me to pay, so now I'm not even mentioning their title of the topic.

> Simple really: "BigMedia" want me to pay to link to this, so here's the same topic on SmallMediaSite. It's actually more damaging than that from the perspective of EU regulators: "I can't link to that Le Monde article, so here's a WaPo piece about the same subject". Internet content delivery spans borders, by design. All this does is disadvantage the local producers and force their customer's eyeballs offshore.

> Internet content delivery spans borders, by design. All this does is disadvantage the local producers and force their customer's eyeballs offshore.

Coupled with GDPR and many websites around the world shutting down or closing their doors to European users, there won't be many places to go.

The overarching trend of artificial borders on the internet is terrifying.

Re: European parliament committee approves vote on ‘disastrous’ copyright bill

#230

Post by ghein » Wed, Jun 20, 2018, 3:00 PM UTC

sandworm101 wrote: post #195

Silhouette wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So yes, there is still plenty of room and time to discuss this rather unfortunate policy. But not that much time. The main European Parliament vote is due in July. For those of you in the EU, now is probably a good time to be writing to your MEPs.

>>> ...now is probably a good time to be writing to your MEPs. Don't "write". Modern politicians don't open paper letters and they delete emails even more quickly. Tweet. Scream on Facebook. Most importantly: get the support of social media celebs. Between elections, any photogenic teenager with a thousand twitter followers has more political power than a thousand grandmothers writing letters. If you can, get some Ho…

In the US politicians take calls and written letters most seriously.

It's far, far too easy to tweet or facebook something. A passing emotion with no commitment. If someone writes a letter they have put a lot of effort in and are seriously involved in the issue. They might even do something as outdated as vote or talk to their neighbors.

That's the kind of behavior that is dangerous to a politician and gets noticed. So written letters and phone calls are the best way to get a politician's attention.