421–430 of 450 posts
In a weird way, this might be EU's strategy to finally deal significant damage to Google and Facebook, as this law will encourage development of alternatives on decentralized peer-to-peer technologies. However, I'm not sure if EU politicians are that smart...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the version told to high schoolers in "How the EU works" lessons. In actual EU, decisions are made by informal bodies like the Eurogroup, meeting under close quarters and with no documentation, with economic and diplomatic pressure from top dog countries, with satellite states vote how their sugar daddy states ask them, and a whole lot more besides.
"Eurogroup", which (like the Economic and Financial Affairs Council) would be meetings between the democratically elected finance ministers of the countries in the EU?
Representative democracy, with it's paltry accountability except every 4 years, gerrymandering-schemes (not a US-only problem), typically revoked election promises, backroom talks, corruption, and private interests paying politicians is already undemocratic enough as it stands.
And suddenly removing the voters even further (as in the EU Commission), or adding "bodies" with no officially defined role and protocol, and closed discussions, like the Eurogroup, is "democratic" because those involved were "democratically elected finance ministers" under unrelated to the EU national elections.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would movie quotes not be copyright-protected? They are almost certainly copyright protected, with copyright law provisions granted for certain fair use purposes.
How can you prove that it came from a movie? You can not copyright words else no one would be able to say anything. That's what trademarks are for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Eurogroup", which (like the Economic and Financial Affairs Council) would be meetings between the democratically elected finance ministers of the countries in the EU?
That's funny. Representative democracy, with it's paltry accountability except every 4 years, gerrymandering-schemes (not a US-only problem), typically revoked election promises, backroom talks, corruption, and private interests paying politicians is already undemocratic enough as it stands. And suddenly removing the voters even further (as in the EU Commission), or adding "bodies" with no officially defined role and…
> Legal content should not be blocked. I don't think this will happen, but if this is actually made into a liability then this would create a rather interesting situation where a platform could be sued for blocking fair use content and miss-identified content.
It looks surprisingly reasonable. "internet platforms that organise and promote large amounts of copyright-protected works uploaded by their users in order to make a profit" That's actually a lot of limitation. From my understanding: "organise and promote" means it is not simple hosting, and "in order to make a profit" excludes organizations like Wikimedia Commons and "large amounts" most likely excludes smaller webs…
That's not how you should write laws.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's meant to allow EU news publishers to bill Google and the social networks for distributing snippets/link previews of their content. I see this as an unreasonable reduction of previously established fair use. The fact that most of the companies linking to news articles using snippets are American, like Google and Facebook, while many news publishers involved are EU-based hints at a geopolitical motivation rather…
You are absolutely right: The mere fact that these publishers don't block Google using robots.txt and that they in fact spend a lot of effort optimizing their metadata so that link previews show up just the way they want them to proves that it's at least mutually beneficial, and not an abuse of their intellectual property.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For your info: Hacker News being responsible for the data its users provide is not a problem for the users, it is a problem for Hacker News and similar platforms who leech off content from the general public for their own profit. Further for your info: Hacker News does not "need a filter lest you quote a sentence from some movie", it only needs to take responsibility of you commit copyright infringement by doing so.…
PILATE: Hoo hoo hoo ho. The little wascal has spiwit. CENTURION: Has what, sir? PILATE: Spiwit. CENTURION: Yes. He did, sir. PILATE: No, no. Spiwit, siw. Um, bwavado. A touch of dewwing-do. CENTURION: Oh. Ahh, about eleven, sir. PILATE: So, you dare to waid us. BRIAN: To what, sir? PILATE: Stwike him, Centuwion, vewy woughly! slap
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's more like prop 47: "Hey, you have to warn people if there are carcinogens inside. No penalty for false warnings." Every business: "Stuff in here causes cancer." Every customer: "Okay." GPDR: Every business: "Hey, we use cookies to provide a better experience. That okay?" Every customer: "OK."
> Every business: "Hey, we use cookies to provide a better experience. That okay?" They're not required to unless they're using cookies for something other than providing better experience. Also, that's cookie laws, not GDPR. It's more like: GDPR: "We see you doing X, Y and Z which are pretty abusive. We want you to not do X, Y and Z, but if you absolutely must, you can only do that to volunteers and you can't deny s…
GDPR is a massive win for the individual.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be insane to implement privacy and data regulations differently for smaller companies. You would end up with startups having free reign to abuse peoples privacy in order to gain market dominance against their larger competitors who don't have this advantage, and you'd have larger companies near the threshold arguing about and doing everything in their power to stay under their threshold so they can avoid doi…
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.