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

531–540 of 1001 posts

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

#531

Post by krn »

sputr wrote: post #369
the6threplicant wrote: post #188

A comment from someone who has actually read the article: https://np.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/9ely8y/why_the_w... For example: ...the EFF argue that the idea of what constitutes a link is not fully defined. I'm not sure what they're talking about. Recitals 31-36 set out the concepts in article 11, fairly clearly. They make it clear that what is being protected is substantial or harmful copying of significant…

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.

> The entire point of art. 11 is to transfer money from Google News (and other aggregators, like Facebook) to publishers.

The latest version of Google News has already solved this: it only shows the title and the image, not a single sentence from the article itself, – which was the main concern in Spain and Germany when the relevant laws were introduced.

Facebook and Twitter shouldn't face any issues as well, because they only display the value of the og:description meta tag, set by the publishers themselves.

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

#532

Post by anticensor »

megous wrote: post #246
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Combining two videos in this way would be unlawful in the UK, where we have the very restricted "Fair Dealing" concessions, because downloading the videos in the first place is a tort[0]. Combining them is another, sharing them is another. We basically have no concept of personal use in our copyright. [0] if they were broadcast you can record but only for time-shifting, you can only watch once (alone!) and then are o…

Compare that to my country, where it's perfectly legal to download whatever music or movies you like from the internet for personal use, pirate websites or not. Also a western democracy. So it's not so bad everywhere. Though a price for this is that we pay a special tax on every storage device we purchase.

Turkey? We pay TRT license for all audiovisual capable equipment which is able to receive TRT content.

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

#533

Post by mrep »

ihatethem wrote: post #30

I don't understand why any of this was necessary in the first place, the only reason I can think of is this being on the wishlist of a powerful lobbying bloc. There is something suspect about the EU's cavalier attitude in churning out internet regulations, they generally favor old industries and incumbents.

The one case where I can see it being useful is when 1 news site has some exclusive content that they post, and then every other news site copies the story by linking to the original and paraphrasing the whole thing. I see this happen a lot and I can totally see how it disincentives creating original content when every other news story just copies the story and users only read the first article they see about it.

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

#534

Post by [deleted] »

headmelted wrote: post #519

So bad is this legislation that it's almost enough to make me change my views on Brexit. It's ludicrous to me that the same body that approved something so user-centric as GDPR could come up with legislation so incredibly hostile to small players as to effectively abolish the open internet by financial attrition. Once this comes in, we'll collectively need to finally start work on that peer-to-peer, onion-layered, en…

[deleted]

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

#535

Post by nickpp »

And this, together with the idiotic cookie and GDPR laws ensure the future Internet startups will have no home and no audience in Europe.

Like always here, death by regulation. The way governments grant monopolies to established players and kill competition.

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

#536

Post by JumpCrisscross »

zaarn wrote: post #523
dmix wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> German courts at least agree that for such things This implies that you are going to have to go to court because you got an email at 1am and didn't reply right away...in order to fight off potentially serious fines. Whether it's accurate or not it's still very expensive to prove it's inaccuracy (in time alone, not including financially and stress). This has very serious consequences for small and even medium busine…

>This implies that you are going to have to go to court No it doesn't, it means that if you get dragged to court because you got the email at 1AM and you were asleep, then you're not guilty of anything. No judge will put up a fine for that.

> if you get dragged to court because you got the email at 1AM and you were asleep, then you're not guilty of anything

Getting dragged to court is disruptive, unsettling and expensive.

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

#537

Post by rrcaptain »

gnulinux wrote: post #530
vkou wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is the little guy, and why are we optimizing for him, instead of making the world better for everyone? I mean, I think the link tax is backwards, but a vague emotional appeal to the health of... a mom and pop internet news site...(?) is not the argument I'd use.

Internet is supposed to be THE free platform a mom and pop internet news site can prosper. You are, at this very moment, here in HN, in a mom and pop internet news site.

Are you joking? HN is owned by YCombinator, one of the most powerful companies in the Valley. If it's Mom and Pop, than so is Mitt Romney's hedgefund.

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

#538

Post by JumpCrisscross »

bad_user wrote: post #381
pwned1 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not that I agree with this copyright directive, it's horrible and I intend to find out which of my representatives supported it such that I can do something about it. But the EU, as a whole, is the world's biggest market and it is a common market in spite of legal and cultural differences between countries. So that's pretty naive. And if companies think the "compliance cost" is too big, that's fine, it means they are…

> the EU, as a whole, is the world's biggest market

Except it isn't really a single market. Each country has a unique language, culture and body of law. The cost of taking a German product to France is much higher than expanding from California to Texas and New York. (California, Texas and New York having a higher combined GDP than France and Germany [1].)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_U.S._states...

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

#539

Post by madspindel »

nickpp wrote: post #535

And this, together with the idiotic cookie and GDPR laws ensure the future Internet startups will have no home and no audience in Europe. Like always here, death by regulation. The way governments grant monopolies to established players and kill competition.

Maybe it's a good thing? The real world of atoms is heavy regulated. I prefer flying german cars instead of 140 characters.

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

#540

Post by merb »

paulddraper wrote: post #514
merb wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it sounded like they would explicitly forbid this sort of arrangement between publishers and aggregators and than, should they force google to pay instead of cutting these publishers off? in no way would that be legal. you can't force somebody to pay something, by forcing them to obey.

Yes, you'd like to think it's a free market.

well google in the end can just shutdown google news.
Post reply on HN