Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 1001 posts

Re: EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’

#411

Post by chillidoor »

AllegedAlec wrote: post #345
chillidoor wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chans allow anonymous users to upload images and historically this leads into a lot of illegal content, especially stuff like child porn, to be uploaded unless you have strict moderation.

> Chans allow anonymous users to upload images and historically this leads into a lot of illegal content Moderation over the last years has been strict though. I haven't seen any illegal content on there in ages.

That's 4chan. The other big site is 8chan, where users can create their own boards and there are less rules, which makes it much harder to moderate. Then you also have all of the smaller chans which tend to get spammed by bots posting illegal stuff like child porn.

Re: EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’

#413

Post by pimmen »

briandear wrote: post #357
yummybear wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but wouldn't cutting 500 million of the wealthiest customers from your solution have a pretty significant business impact?

Google left China; a far bigger market than Europe.

But it's also far riskier, at leats this time they were assaulted by a law in the EU parliament. In China, the party could just decide they don't like you and get rid of your business.

Re: EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’

#415

Post by zzzcpan »

mcintyre1994 wrote: post #273
zzzcpan wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lack of users is stopping Google's customers from using those alternatives. Users themselves (or people) are not the customers.

That's obviously correct, but it seems weird to use a different metric for market share and lock-in. If you define Google's customers as ad buyers, then they're very much not a monopoly, have way less than 91% market share, and their competitiors don't have a lack of users. If they have a monopoly on search because of their share of searches, then surely the relevant lock-in would be how easily users of search can mo…

Think about it this way: there are plenty of products and services that you can't advertise anywhere else but on google search, so Google has a monopoly on that. This monopoly exists because of Google's abusive practices to prevent competition from entering the market it wants to own.

Re: EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’

#416

Post by HunOL »

sebst wrote: post #168

This is a decision that will end up benefitting the big players on both sides, i.e. regulatory capture. Google, Facebook and the like already employ filtering and copyright techniques and they can afford it. So, this law lifts the barrier to entry for smaller internet companies. On the other side, it's also beneficial almost exclusively for the larger publications or copyright holders as the collected amount of licen…

I have the feeling that EU is intentionally doing it. Sooner or later only big tech will be able to comply with all regulations.

Re: EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’

#417

Post by jonathanp88 »

beaconstudios wrote: post #346
dane-pgp wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. You start by saying that you can't affect the EU democratically (even though you have much more democratic control over your MEP than you do over the House of Lords or your monarch), but then correctly point out that one of the important factors is how localised the decision making is. It's true that your MEP has a wider constituency than your MP, for example, but as I see it,…

> You start by saying that you can't affect the EU democratically (even though you have much more democratic control over your MEP than you do over the House of Lords or your monarch) This is true, but the Queen's job to sign new laws is purely ceremonial at this point, and while I can't democratically affect the House of Lords, I can affect the House of Commons and the Cabinet. The House of Lords is a bit of a relic…

>> It is the remit of the British people to hold our government to account, not an even higher, more abstracted government that is even less accountable to the people.

Why does it stop exactly there in the multiple layers of goverment we have? Because you say so? Why is the remit of a citizen of say, Ipswich, to hold the Ipswich City council to account, the Suffolk County Council to account, the British government to account, all elected with ever larger constituencies, each more abstract and less accountable than the last, but not the EU government?

Re: EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’

#418

Post by rocqua »

heavenlyhash wrote: post #116

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…

> Simultaneously, I'm not campaigning in favor of the "link tax" component, here. I think it's widely agreed upon that that part of this proposal is pretty dire bunkum.

I actually believe the ``link tax'' is less bad than the content filtering. Because it only governs Google publishing snippets of articles. That is pretty close to Google 'stealing' the article from websites. (Similar to google's AMP cache)

Re: EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’

#419

Post by sputr »

IdiocyInAction wrote: post #399
sputr wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The commenter you are quoting has not realized there are two problematic articles (11. and 13.) and that the "memes" story is for article 13 not 11. The entire point of art. 11 is to transfer money from Google News (and other aggregators, like Facebook) to publishers. This also covers search.

Why whould Google not just delist problematic sites like they did in Germany, as they tried to implement something similar there AFAIK?

We've been asking the proponents that for months.

Google got a free license in Germany while Yahoo did not. Even if they ban the free license (which is a whole nother set of even bigger problems) Google can just not list them at all. It's not like they care about Google News all that much.

Re: EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’

#420

Post by 1024core »

dalbasal wrote: post #135
dawnerd wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m under the assumption you have to setup your site and apply for Google News before they start indexing your articles. Of the Big publications opt out it just leaves space for smaller outlets to grow.

If I'm not mistaken, it's still an option out basis. Google crawl, index and search everything by default and allow content owners some controls, either via site manager or via flags in your html.

Haven't they heard of robots.txt ?
Post reply on HN