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

Article 13 is almost finished and will change the internet as we know it

juliareda.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 450 posts

Re: Article 13 is almost finished and will change the internet as we know it

#441

Post by stonescarecrow »

tomcam wrote: post #440
wahern wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except in the U.S. judges can organically evolve the system as new questions arise and better resolutions are found. The continental legal system is much more bureaucratic. This matters because it's easier to push boundaries when the rules aren't written in stone, permitting more rapid and responsive evolution of the law. Interestingly, the U.S. is slowly moving toward a more continental-style legal system while the…

Judges at the federal level do not have a law making role. Their job is to interpret the Constitution.

This isn't true, even from a textualist or originalist point of view.

"Judicial Conservatives" in the US disagree with "Judicial Activists" on whether (or to what extent) it is OK to creatively interpret laws (including the Constitution) to get preferred outcomes.

But all common law systems take for granted that judges fill in the inevitable gaps in the law by setting precedents. They can't just interpret it ab initio each time (which in principle is what they are supposed to do on the Continent, though I don't know about practice).

So for example, suppose a city bans anti-abortion pamphleteers from operating on the street outside an abortion clinic. Does that violate the 1st Amendment? Does it matter whether the pamphleteers are quiet or noisy? Does it matter if the exclusion zone is 10 feet vs. 1000 feet?

The text of the constitution is too compressed to answer those edge questions directly. Instead judges have come up with finer-grained rules to satisfy the general requirement of the text, and try (or claim to try) to apply them consistently. Developing these rules is lawmaking.

Re: Article 13 is almost finished and will change the internet as we know it

#442

Post by tomcam »

stonescarecrow wrote: post #441
tomcam wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Judges at the federal level do not have a law making role. Their job is to interpret the Constitution.

This isn't true, even from a textualist or originalist point of view. "Judicial Conservatives" in the US disagree with "Judicial Activists" on whether (or to what extent) it is OK to creatively interpret laws (including the Constitution) to get preferred outcomes. But all common law systems take for granted that judges fill in the inevitable gaps in the law by setting precedents. They can't just interpret it ab initi…

Thank you very much. Great points. I concede.

Re: Article 13 is almost finished and will change the internet as we know it

#443

Post by brokenmachine »

jakeogh wrote: post #395
nicoburns wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GDPR has a very worthy purpose though: companies were taking far too many liberties with people's personal data. I don't see analogous problems with copyrighted material (there is some infringement, but it doesn't really seem problematic to society).

That's not what it's for. The GDPR legslates what events one can remember (using incrementalisim). It's ultimately an attack on general purpose computing.

> It's ultimately an attack on general purpose computing.

I don't get it. How is GDPR an attack on general purpose computing?

Re: Article 13 is almost finished and will change the internet as we know it

#444

Post by ThomPete »

jsjolen wrote: post #430
ThomPete wrote: post #351

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.

GDPR has extended what misconduct entails. If your company acts ethically regarding the privacy of your users you'll be fine.

You are assuming that there is no room to game that. There is and the problem is now you have given those who want to cheat the system a better base to do it on now that the customers have actually given their consent.

So in theory yes, in reality I am doubtful.

Re: Article 13 is almost finished and will change the internet as we know it

#445

Post by meh2frdf »

Zak wrote: post #435
meh2frdf wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because google owns the index, if they don’t allow google to index they get no traffic. Google is a monopoly, there is no choice here, no market driving competition.

The sources I could find with a quick Google (yes, possibly ironic) search suggest news sites get most of their traffic from direct visits, but Google contributes a substantial amount[0]. It seems to me that the news sites want Google to provide them traffic and simultaneously pay for the privilege of doing so. The behavior of publishers in countries where they won this battle is telling: a when laws were passed in B…

They don’t want google or any other monopoly that is in competition with them to ‘give’ them traffic. They do want their services available and indexed on the internet. If the internet search market was evenly distributed among 5 search engines the I suspect this conversation wouldn’t exist.

Re: Article 13 is almost finished and will change the internet as we know it

#446

Post by PurpleBoxDragon »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #336
PurpleBoxDragon wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They are not blocked. Self blocking in response to a law to avoid the penalties under the law is being blocked by the law.

Self-blocking instead of making one's business model compliant with the law is a choice . An alternative would be to update the business model. That's all there is to it. GDPR isn't banning news sites, or other companies; it's banning a very particular set of antisocial business practices.

So if a law gives you a choice in how you choose to censor a work of literature, would it be the artist's self censoring and not an act of government censorship? Assuming we applied the same logic.

Re: Article 13 is almost finished and will change the internet as we know it

#447

Post by raxxorrax »

GuB-42 wrote: post #160

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…

THis law has no real function and was brought forward by publishers that want to cash in Google-Money. To hell with it.

Re: Article 13 is almost finished and will change the internet as we know it

#448

Post by jakeogh »

brokenmachine wrote: post #443
jakeogh wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what it's for. The GDPR legslates what events one can remember (using incrementalisim). It's ultimately an attack on general purpose computing.

> It's ultimately an attack on general purpose computing. I don't get it. How is GDPR an attack on general purpose computing?

Does your GPC comply with the GPDR?

Re: Article 13 is almost finished and will change the internet as we know it

#449

Post by brokenmachine »

jakeogh wrote: post #448
brokenmachine wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's ultimately an attack on general purpose computing. I don't get it. How is GDPR an attack on general purpose computing?

Does your GPC comply with the GPDR?

But people can store data on themselves on their own PC of course. I don't see how GPDR affects that. I don't want a GPC that sends personal data back to the mothership anyway.

Re: Article 13 is almost finished and will change the internet as we know it

#450

Post by jakeogh »

brokenmachine wrote: post #449
jakeogh wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does your GPC comply with the GPDR?

But people can store data on themselves on their own PC of course. I don't see how GPDR affects that. I don't want a GPC that sends personal data back to the mothership anyway.

It's incremental. The companies covered by the EU's GDPR are untimately comprised of people too. It's easiest to start with a subset, and the GDPR is no exception to that rule.

Ya lost me on the reporting to the mothership thing, that is definately what many power centers would like, for example, non-DRM 3D printers that can cheaply print metal objects will be reserved for criminals in countries controlled by repressive regimes because they can make effective life saving tools.

Post reply on HN