361–370 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would any of that happen? I don't think the internet copyright proposal will affect things in a way you describe...
Why not? AFAIK about a 1/3 of the arXiv articles are later published in journals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So you can blame UKIP for lots of things Such as what? I hear UKIP demonised a lot, but I genuinely don't know of anything they've done that is bad that wasn't simply political disagreement (wanting to leave the EU) or talking about contentious issues in a clumsy and ham-fisted way (immigration).
You're getting downvoted because you have a different political view than more liberal-minded HN posters. It's just the way hive-minds work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because there are other websites on the internet does not mean that Google doesn't have a monopoly. They have 91% search engine market share.
Stats seem to vary, it's not clear that 91% is correct. Even if it was 91%, that doesn't necessarily make it a monopoly. http://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share https://www.statista.com/statistics/267161/market-share-of-s... https://www.netmarketshare.com/search-engine-market-share.as...
I think that the percentage argument is not the only important thing to consider, there are other anti-competitive practices which (when practiced at a large enough scale) become a monopoly even if "only" 50% of people use the product (friendly reminder that 50% of internet users is more than a billion people -- much larger than the population of most countries).
My point is not that Google is doing something illegal (and thus arguing over the legal definition of a monopoly is not helpful -- just like arguing over the legal meaning of the US 1st Amendment is not helpful in discussions over the concept of free speech). I'm arguing that it is a monopoly in the ordinary meaning of the word, in that effectively everyone uses Google and Google exerts a massive amount of power over their users.
But for a pseudo-legal argument: Google participates in a form of product tying[1] by requiring you to create a Google account in order to access Google Groups (which are publicly-run mailing lists and an unrelated product to their account service). Now since you don't pay for Google accounts this isn't a strict violation of anti-trust laws, but it is very close in concept to the sort of thing anti-trust laws protect against.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the newspapers forgot that Google doesn’t need them .
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"If you are in the EU, you are not allowed to use this website." Pretty much the same solution for kids under 13 years of age (which is to say, they of course still do use these sites, they simply lie about it which shifts the burden...)
Yeah, but wouldn't cutting 500 million of the wealthiest customers from your solution have a pretty significant business impact?
It seems likely that large internet businesses will probably pay to comply with GDPR.
Many small businesses, whose customers are often mostly regional anyhow, may decide that it's just not worth the cost of compliance.
> Any action taken by platforms to check that uploads do not breach copyright rules must be designed in such a way as to avoid catching “non-infringing works”.
Utterly hilarious and scary that they think that's possible.
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.
This is great for the FAANG providers who already have automated content control tools and massive help centres to act on anything 24/7. It is a death-knell to any upstart startup who would challenge Youtube or Facebook however.
How can I find who voted for it?
A comment from someone who has actually read the article: https://np.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/9ely8y/why_the_w... For example: ...the EFF argue that the idea of what constitutes a link is not fully defined. I'm not sure what they're talking about. Recitals 31-36 set out the concepts in article 11, fairly clearly. They make it clear that what is being protected is substantial or harmful copying of significant…
The entire point of art. 11 is to transfer money from Google News (and other aggregators, like Facebook) to publishers. This also covers search.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>[..] a monopoly is not defined by the lack of competitors.[..]It is defined by it's marketshare. No, I can't agree. I don't even consider Microsoft a monopoly, even though their product comes pre-installed on every PC you can buy in shops. If you can't get any alternative ISP (to e.g. AT&T) where you live, by any means, now that is a monopoly.
Surely you can just move house to get a different ISP and so in line with your other reasoning it can't be a monopoly?
It should be obvious that it's perfectly possible to define something as a monopoly in a certain area. If a monopoly could only be defined as a monopoly if it were global, there wouldn't be many.