261–270 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would Switzerland and Norway introduce this law?
They are bound by treaties to implement EU directives like this. Part of the single market.
And the link tax has excemptions for plain hyperlinks and the like, which prevents most distopian uses of such a provision.
If google acts on this it will be because they know this was written with them in mind and if nothing happens stricter laws will follow. But for everyone else it will be a non-issue.
Upload filters on the other hand are a much bigger problem, mostly because copyright law is way to strict to make them reasonable.
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…
Why force the platform to enforce? Shouldn’t the copyright owner be required to protect their own rights rather than having others do it for them?
And now we are stuck with upload filters.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly and tbh Google could just buy a newspaper and not give a shit about it. Many newspapers are rubbish and publish rubbish content anyway so that's the problem, not the copyright.
On the other hand, newspapers were a lot less rubbish two decades ago when they could still afford to employ many journalists. That is what they're trying to get back to with legislation like this.
Anyone in the EU who wants to create a new Internet?
The problem with all of these projects is content. Because there is low usage and a technical barrier to entry, nobody is bothering to put up interesting content that would attract users. (Except for some, ahem, "fringe" interests.) It's a chicken-and-egg problem. I keep hoping that one of these regulations will rekindle interest in distributed hosting, but it hasn't happened yet.
If some advocates would be willing to convince (and possibly help) some major OSS-related resources to establish a beachhead, it might help draw in some of that crowd at least. Adoption there would probably improve the systems, gradually bringing in people from the outside like with the original Internet.
"Article 11 is intended to give publishers and newspapers a way to make money when companies like Google link to their stories…” Is there anything stopping a search engine like Google choosing not to link to a newspaper? Surely they can’t be required to link to a newspaper AND then pay that newspaper to do so? The trade-off if Google chose not to link to the newspaper would be a (slightly) less useful search engine,…
Google probably has the cash lying around to make its own news empire if needed. More likely? They drop anyone who doesn't give them a free or very generous rate.
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 road to hell is paved with good intentions...
As a EU researcher, reader and author, I ask: does this reform affect my use of arXiv or say figshare? Until now I don't have a clear answer.
apparently, arxiv will have to implement a filter that stops you from posting figures or excerpts from elsevier's journals for example ?
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…
The likes of YouTube will be affected the least. They already have aggressive copyright enforcement measures in place, and they can afford to do that. Smaller, more independent platforms will not be able to afford to implement compliance with these new regulations, and will potentially be driven out of business.
I'm curious how this is supposed to work.