Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the newspapers forgot that Google doesn’t need them .
The issue is that we as a society need diverse and independent newspapers.
So, when are we getting that then?
EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’
311–320 of 1001 posts
Re: EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’
#312Earlier quoted context omitted.
About 10 years ago, newspapers got together to try and get Google to give them some money, for the content Google was indexing to populate their news search results. Google's response was to give them better ways of de-indexing content. IE, a way to opt out. Take it or leave it. Naturally, few newspaper took leave it, preferring to get readers & no revenue than no readers and no revenue. Since then, efforts have focu…
I think the newspapers forgot that Google doesn’t need them .
I think newspapers tend to forget we don't need them either as there are many choices for news that are legit. They have for far too long used to captive audiences and that obviously is not the case. however like most industries which had captive audiences they fall back on regulations to protect their bottom line rather than improve their offerings.
Re: EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’
#313As an American, I can gladly say fuck the EU. Their laws do not and never shall be imposed on me or the work I do ever. I'm glad not to do business within the EU.
Re: EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’
#314UKIP 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…
>> If you want a quick example of why this is bad take a look at fair use and YouTube. Article 13 would make YouTube liable for copyrighted content on its service. What exactly is wrong with that? Seriously.
You're making the paper producer liable for what someone writes on it.
Re: EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’
#315As 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.
Unfortunately, the actual text isn't available yet, and now I can't seem to find the list of amendments I was reading earlier, but if I recall correctly, in both the original and proposed amendments, scholarly publications were considered not to be press publications and were not covered at all by the press publication protections. The EU Parliament press release is also claiming that a number of non-commercial and "…
Thank you. Anybody who has any influence in the discussion, please help to make this clear. It is important for the researchers, I think. In this particular case arXiv is by no means "small" (has 1.4 million articles) but is non-commercial, What about Figshare which may classify as commercial? Other platforms?
Re: EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’
#316Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do you have any statements or signaling you can link to from either of these companies to suggest they are in favor of this law? No, but I have to correct myself. I don't assume they are actively "in favor" but that they will passively benefit in a post-law time.
I think it may be true that they may suffer the law better than their competitors. But I think if it was likely that they would benefit absolutely, they'd be in favor of the law, or at least ambivalent, rather than strongly opposed. Don't you?
I personally believe (without any evidence) that they are ambivalent, maybe slightly opposed. However, they needed to oppose in public, otherwise, this would have been a PR disaster:
Publishers: "You steal our content and are unwilling to pay, so we need a law!"
Google: "You're right, please do the law, because it would harm our competitors!"
Re: EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’
#317> They say that the campaign against the directive has been funded by US tech giants eager to retain their control over the web’s platforms. While I am not a particular fan of the dominance of Google and Facebook, I like it better how they handle the web than what we have seen from the 'creative' companies. It took years until they found a way to monetize their content properly (e.g. Spotify, Netflix) and even now af…
I very much prefer DRM over having everything I do on the internet to be monitored.
Re: EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’
#318Earlier quoted context omitted.
You aren't? This lae was handcrafted by big publishers. And it is obvious to see. Very obvious...
Any thoughts on how that relates to Axel Voss and his friends? We know about Ajit Pai's dodgy dealings, but is Voss in someone's pocket? He seems too young to be this dumb about tech.
He's not young, and Axel Springer has been cited as a potential "sponsor" of this (I assume companies behind GEMA as well, which I could only describe with adjectives not allowed here)
Re: EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’
#319So 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…
The crucial issue that I miss both in this directive and the current practice is that companies are encouraged to use automatic filters while actual copyright holder have almost no way of appealing against false copyright claims.
I'd be fine with automatic content tagging if at the same time false copyright claims by someone who does not actually hold the copyright would lead to a hefty fine and/or be considered a crime.
Right now, large corporations seem to spam the systems with automated take-down messages without any control and any incentive not to do so, to the effect that actual content producers have almost no way to defend themselves against false claims. Every youtube channel owner can sing you a song about that.
That's a problem for both the US and EU copyright system, but it's also not clear to me if and how the forthcoming EU directive would fix that problem. For all it's worth, it seems to make things worse.
Re: EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’
#320yet another stupid decision by the EU lawmakers who are obsessed with regulating anything they see as a grey area.