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

431–440 of 1001 posts

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

#431

Post by nemoniac »

virmundi wrote: post #407
phkahler wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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.

This can have a chilling affect on content creation, and thus the dissemination of ideas. YouTube will have to create a filter that covers their liability. They might be able to automate, but it depends on the jurisdiction. For example, the US has fair use laws. A person may copy a segment of a copyrighted work to comment on it. There are territories in the EU where they can't. How does YouTube filter this? If the ne…

> This can have a chilling affect on content creation

It in no way prevents anyone from creating content and publishing it on their own website.

You make it sound like the youtubes of this world are necessary for content creation.

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

#432

Post by kodablah »

It is an unpopular opinion, but they were given the mandate by all those cheering the internet restrictions in the GDPR. Whether you still like that law or not is unrelated to the mandate given. You should have drawn your battle lines there instead of being so dismissive of those warning about government intervention.

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

#433

Post by isthatart »

pluma wrote: post #361
isthatart wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? AFAIK about a 1/3 of the arXiv articles are later published in journals.

So? They're not published there illegally, arXiv (AFAICT) is non-commercial and publishing similar content elsewhere does not retroactively make the existing content illegal.

Sure, they are not published illegally. IANAL but as I understand the process, is like this: the author submits to arXiv and either (a) gives arXiv a perpetual NON-EXCLUSIVE licence to distribute (which does not change the fact that the copyright is with the author) or (b) the author chooses a CC-BY licence. The author submits the article to Journal and after acceptance, may transfer the copyright to Journal. Is perfectly legal and it works like this for a significant part of the arXiv articles. See also here in the comments for cases when a revised version of the article from Journal is posted on arXiv. But now, with the new EU Copyright Directive, how will this delicate process interact with the dumb one-size-fits-all automatic filters which may detect (wrongly) that the article on arXiv infringes the copyright of the Journal. What if arXiv will receive a bombardment of requests from various Journals? What will they do? They are admirable but they don't have the surface to fight this ddossing from journals. Or maybe my concerns are void, I'd be very happy if this is the case.

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

#434

Post by draw_down »

pwned1 wrote: post #196
ahakki wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I’m not allowed to use your service you won’t get any of my money though. Unlike kids under the age of 13 I have disposable income.

It's looking more and more like your money isn't worth the compliance cost to companies to obtain your money.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17968398

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

#435

Post by rmrfrmrf »

arendtio wrote: post #152
Grumbledour wrote: post #78

As terrible as this is, I am actually even more shocked by this proposal: https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/12/europe-to-push-for-one-hou... Having one hour to remove offending content, draconian fines and no, absolutely no exceptions for small content providers would, I think, end the internet as we know it in Europe. I see no way to host any kind of content under such jurisdiction and surely all non European content p…

Sounds like the web without user content... Web 1.0? So much for free speech.

glances at Facebook timeline well... maybe that won't be so bad afterall.

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

#436

Post by cyphar »

Tor3 wrote: post #370
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Move house? To where? In areas with only a single ISP, and that ISP 'owns' the poles/whatever, you can move as much as you want. Nothing changes. Or did you mean moving to another city? Another part of the country? Really? 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.

For the record, I do agree that ISPs are monopolies (or oligopolies) in many parts of the US and other countries as well. However they are not the only form of monopoly, and I don't understand why you seem to be saying that the statement "Google is a monopoly" is implicitly saying "ISPs are not a monopoly". They're both monopolies, just different kinds -- the geographic argument doesn't make sense for websites for instance (outside of countries that massively censor the internet).

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

#437

Post by chrisper »

paganel wrote: post #92

This decision is one of the many reasons why Europe will never reach the likes of Silicon Valley, no matter how much money will they sink down the "technology" hole (not that the US doesn't have its fair share of dumb legislators, because it has). This continent is a mess in terms of IT, with a few exceptions (London, Berlin, Dublin, some spots in Eastern Europe).

You left out Lausanne and Zurich...

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

#438

Post by isthatart »

kgwgk wrote: post #351
isthatart wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two more examples examples for arXiv and one for Figshare. (1) Article in journal has a flaw. For some reason the journal is slow or unhelpful concerning a correct version, so the author posts on arXiv a revised and perhaps much bigger version. Filters (will these be on arXiv?) detect a copyright infringement. (2) I translate an Euler article and post it on arXiv (with all attributions). Or an English translation of…

If something was a copyright violation yesterday, it will still be a copyright violation tomorrow. And vice versa. If you fear that arXiv will implement filters that will recognize that what you are uploading is a translation of an obscure Prussian research paper and block the upload, I don't think that's going to happen. (But I will be really impressed if it happens!)

But what if it is not a copyright violation but it looks like one to some dumb filter? For say 0.5 million articles from arXiv?

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

#439

Post by dominotw »

nordsieck wrote: post #365
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?

> 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.

> may decide that it's just not worth the cost of compliance.

You cannot not comply with it though.

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

#440

Post by kgwgk »

isthatart wrote: post #433
pluma wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So? They're not published there illegally, arXiv (AFAICT) is non-commercial and publishing similar content elsewhere does not retroactively make the existing content illegal.

Sure, they are not published illegally. IANAL but as I understand the process, is like this: the author submits to arXiv and either (a) gives arXiv a perpetual NON-EXCLUSIVE licence to distribute (which does not change the fact that the copyright is with the author) or (b) the author chooses a CC-BY licence. The author submits the article to Journal and after acceptance, may transfer the copyright to Journal. Is perf…

> What if arXiv will receive a bombardment of requests from various Journals?

Why are journals not sending a bombardment of requests already? Why would they start now?

Post reply on HN