401–410 of 450 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that what you believe? The EU bankrupted Greece then asset stripped them..
Asset stripping is generally what happens to those who are in default on their debts. The EU reduced that asset stripping from what the creditors could’ve demanded — but did not eliminate it entirely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it wouldn't. Large companies can pay for a lot of things that small companies can't. What is insane is putting in regulation in areas like this instead of just punishing people for mis-conduct.
You can’t punish companies for misconduct if you don’t have laws against that misconduct.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only that, the comments section alone on HN is pretty straightforwardly “organis(ing) and promot(ing) [...] copyright-protected works uploaded by (its) users”, and so whether or not it falls under the scope of this section (1) hinges only on the regulators’ and courts’ opinions of what a “large amount” is. (1) In a hypothetical world where this law has unbounded jurisdiction
Even if we take this doomsday hypo at face value (HN promotes comments? Really?), so what? What's the scary remedy for a copyright holder if they already provided a license to publish the published content? User posts don't make every forum into pornhub. Calm down.
The core problem this law is trying to address is that website users are, en masse, contributing content to websites when they don’t have a license to do so. This behavior is against pretty much all websites’ terms of service.
As there are many users with no money all putting illegitimate content onto a few websites with a lot of money, this law seeks to shift the burden of liability onto the websites. As a policy, it’s not completely unreasonable, but makes the mass content-farm websites like YouTube unfeasable.
The lawmakers fear for their jobs if YouTube shuts down because of their new law, so they carve out a bunch of exceptions to let key sectors of the internet continue operating (with some work to comply).
The broadest of these, implementing automated content filters, is expensive and unreliable. Operators of smaller websites, such as a typical Internet forum, have their own exception. The problem is that the boundaries here are vague and (potentially) poorly drawn, leaving sites like HN (if it were in EU jurisdiction) with a bad set of options:
* Hope nobody notices
* Accept the liability and vigorously police the site manually, probably buying insurance against a judgment
* Rely on judges allowing them the small-volume or non-profit-seeking exemptions
* Implement content filters that are expensive and a terrible user experienceEarlier quoted context omitted.
Fair Use is cold comfort, if we’ve learned anything from the abuse of DMCA.
Fair use is annoying vaguely defined in the law. This means media companies will tell you that's it is so limited as to be almost useless, while the EFF and the courts may disagree. You may hear stuff about "10 second clips are the max allowed by law", but the law doesn't draw any clear likes like that and in fact is usually much more generous. Typically quotes like that come from a single precedent where someone was…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
have you ever been to rural Germany, Italy, France or heard of gilets jaunes? Any idea why they might exist? I live in a very poor EU country (out of choice) and most young people fuck off to Germany or France because their home states have no jobs for them. They don't come back either which causes a massive brain drain on these places. Ask the so called middle class in Croatia, Slovakia, Italy what they think of the…
That's not really the EU failing, that's just poor countries being poor. A smart businessman will export his goods for the highest price to make more money if he can. That will lead to shittier products sold in poor countries, but it also brings food to the table of the farmers. It's not as if Poland and Hungary would have been booming economic superpowers if it hadn't been for the EU. The people fleeing their countr…
do you know why they do this? They can see how easy it is to milk the EU for money in ways that benefit these mafia states. The major of Zagreb is connected to the Bosnian Mafia, he just spent some time in hospital (the mafia put him there but you won't read this in the news). The top lawyer of Zagreb is an asset for the mob. If you want to kill somebody here it's possible to make that happen for very little money. Have you been to Albania, or Macedonia? You should seriously go there before assuming that absorbing them in the EU is a good idea. I'm all for bringing in the people of these countries but before that can be done the organized crime there needs to be cleaned up. The result otherwise is that you'll enrich those that don't deserve it.
The TV series McMafia was set in Croatia (even the non-fiction book and the TV show plays out in a global theater). There are good reasons why that country was chosen for the series. You want to meet some dangerous people? I can introduce you to the guy who shot the Minister of Tourism here not so long ago - he is my age and now runs a drug ring in Austria. This is common knowledge here and as normally talked about as the weather.
Ah yes the guy who now runs Rimac (the super-car company that competes against Tesla) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rimac_Concept_One his father is also connected.
My GF's sister was recently alerted by the owner of the building that the mob has asked them to isse them with keys to their flat because they refused to sell it. The person refused to hand it over and alerted her. The poor girl now lives in fear every day.
The Balkan is the wild fucking west. I live in one of the most civilized parts of the region and love it here, because it's also easy to stay away from this all. If you think for one second that the state would want to ( or even could) protect you, you'd be wrong because they're all part of it. If you're rich you don't pay any fines, if you're poor you get fucked. It's always been this way and thanks to globalization it's getting worse (more ruthless competition from foreign mobs fighting over territory).
I can go on and on ... but Misha Glenny's "McMafia" really explains it all rather well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only that, the comments section alone on HN is pretty straightforwardly “organis(ing) and promot(ing) [...] copyright-protected works uploaded by (its) users”, and so whether or not it falls under the scope of this section (1) hinges only on the regulators’ and courts’ opinions of what a “large amount” is. (1) In a hypothetical world where this law has unbounded jurisdiction
Even if we take this doomsday hypo at face value (HN promotes comments? Really?), so what? What's the scary remedy for a copyright holder if they already provided a license to publish the published content? User posts don't make every forum into pornhub. Calm down.
As an aside, my original reply to you was simply trying to correct your statement “HN does not organize large amounts of copyright-protected works” by means of a counter-example. I think you may be reading things between my lines that aren’t there.
I am, and always have been, calm on this matter. I don’t find the situation scary in any way. I simply enjoy exploring the logical consequences of various lines of thought through the medium of writing, even to the point of playing the devil’s advocate for the purpose of a more thorough exploration of the various issues.
I’m really not sure where my opinions lie on this one, so I’ve been free-wheeling a bit more than usual. I’d like to apologize if my mental wandering caused you any distress. It was not intended.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's just politics. It would be exactly the same at the national level.
That doesn't make it better. As far as I am aware the US does have rules that distinguish like that. Implementing regulations for every company as if they are the same is what is absurd here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if we take this doomsday hypo at face value (HN promotes comments? Really?), so what? What's the scary remedy for a copyright holder if they already provided a license to publish the published content? User posts don't make every forum into pornhub. Calm down.
> What's the scary remedy for a copyright holder if they already provided a license to publish the published content? The core problem this law is trying to address is that website users are, en masse, contributing content to websites when they don’t have a license to do so. This behavior is against pretty much all websites’ terms of service. As there are many users with no money all putting illegitimate content onto…
...? Where are you getting this?
Have you read the current copy of the draft proposal? I did.
None of the restrictions are going to kill sites like Youtube (let alone HN). The proportionality element alone makes the 'we need to invest 200% of our revenue into content blocking' myth absurd.
Will some margin need to be shunted into mitigating unauthorized distribution of works that profit the platform? Yes. But that's already the law. It's literally unjust enrichment 101.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like we had this exact same argument over GDPR, but no horror stories have descended about Mom and Pop operations run out of business but the evil Brusselcrats.
An old client of mine, an actual mom and pop operation in Germany was harassed and was almost ran out of business by a law-firm who went around, the moment GDPR dropped, trying to find targets to sue.
AFAIK, no independent lawyer can sue you for violating the GDPR. Only the German regulatory body could sue them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't make it better. As far as I am aware the US does have rules that distinguish like that. Implementing regulations for every company as if they are the same is what is absurd here.
The US are many things, but certainly not a model on the subject of personal-data protection.
There is a difference between making a law that punishes wrongful use of information and then forcing companies to do things a certain way. That's the point here which seems to be missed on most.