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

European Parliament approves copyright reform

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

561–570 of 840 posts

Re: European Parliament approves copyright reform

#561

Post by pessimizer »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #313
nkkollaw wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Need a citation on this being “common.” Would also need some proof of this happening in Paris. Otherwise, we’re going into conspiracy theory land. I'm not familiar with the French secret service, but since I've seen proof of this technique being regularly deployed in other countries it would just seem common sense to me to think that the French would do the same. Cossiga's "confession" is even on Wikipedia ( https:…

> I've seen proof of this technique being regularly deployed in other countries it would just seem common sense to me to think that the French would do the same Italy has well-known corruption and mafia problems. Its press is less free than [1] and political system quite different from France’s. Even then, its frequency of violent protests is much higher than that of false flag operations. Globally, there are more ex…

> Globally, there are more examples of peaceful protests becoming violent than of false flag operations.

Not saying anything about France, but what was your prior that led into determining this? Your prior shouldn't be just as questionable as the problem you're using it for.

Re: European Parliament approves copyright reform

#562

Post by koonsolo »

ABCLAW wrote: post #474
koonsolo wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because politicians are stupid. If you look at the pros and cons of this law, Europe has nothing to gain. Not for the people, not for the companies. This is a law that works to mainly serve the big copyright holders, and in a second degree, impacts the big tech multinationals (=read US companies) less than the smaller ones. It makes no sense at all. Especially since all member states will have their own law. "Does ou…

This isn't a law that serves multinationals; quite the opposite. The proportionality requirement in the text of Art. 13 is more onerous to larger corporations. If you're a tiny blog with a banner ad or two, you're not getting slapped off the internet for having a comments field, because it isn't proportional to require cost and complexity increases of multiple orders of magnitude to police your comments section. Unle…

> If you're a tiny blog with a banner ad or two

I'm sure everyone is dreaming of having a "tiny blog"

Meanwhile in the real world, the European streamers and content creators, who make a living from their content, are looking on how to escape the EU so their content doesn't get filtered out.

Re: European Parliament approves copyright reform

#563

Post by repolfx »

cbg0 wrote: post #18

A bunch of people are about to lose their seats in the upcoming European Parliament elections in May.

I doubt it.

Parties and people who run for the European Parliament don't really have concrete policies or manifestos. In particular they can't run on a platform of repealing bad laws, because unlike in a real Parliament, they aren't allowed to do that. All they could do is politely ask the Commission to let them repeal the law, they'd be told no, that'd be the end of it.

So in practice EP politics are wafer thin and the only major differences between parties and politicians are to extent to which they are pro or anti EU. That's why the "Parliament" is stuffed with protest candidates from parties like UKIP. They can't actually do anything, they just make speeches and flame the rest of the MPs, but those MPs can't do anything either except egg on the Commission. So people tune out and don't care about European elections anymore.

There is some fear amongst the establishment now that the next EP elections will be different and people will send anti-EU candidates on a much larger scale than before. But not much fear, because the only thing these candidates can do is slow things down, and realistically even that won't happen because the EU frequently re-interprets its existing laws and treaties to give the Commission new powers on the fly. They'll just do more of that.

Re: European Parliament approves copyright reform

#564

Post by toyg »

friedman23 wrote: post #555
toyg wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> after the UK leaves, not a single native English speaking country in there Oi! Ireland and Malta would have a word with you, mate. > I can just block that region (not the biggest one anyway Not the biggest, but the richest.

Europe is not that valuable a market for advertising platforms. There is a reason why companies choose to monetize the US first before even attempting to monetize internationally and that is because US advertising revenue per impression is almost 3x what you can get in Europe.

I'm not arguing with that (I would also add that language fragmentation is still a problem). But it does not justifies incorrect blanket statements like above.

Re: European Parliament approves copyright reform

#565

Post by philpem »

fock wrote: post #446
EpicEng wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it matter when the average person has little to no recourse in the matter? Does it matter when e.g. YT will _punish_ you if you decide to contest it and lose per their arbitrary process?

Just have a look at what was passed today: > Article 17/9: Where rightholders request to have access to their specific works or other subject matter disabled or those works or other subject matter removed, they shall duly justify the reasons for their requests. Complaints submitted under the mechanism provided for in the first subparagraph shall be processed without undue delay, and decisions to disable access to or…

The problem is the balance of power in this equation.

You call your lawyer and ask them to sue (as an example) Google.

I expect the response would be something to the effect of "are you mad, rich or both? Because this is going to take a long time and be very expensive."

Re: European Parliament approves copyright reform

#566

Post by dijit »

repolfx wrote: post #547
dijit wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true at all; they are: A) Elected (though, indirectly, through the elected officials that you elect to be MEPs) and B) A body of law drafters and implementors with no powers to ascend anything to law by themselves. The EC requires the EU parliament to vote on laws that it drafts, the EU parliament can require that laws be redrafted or amended. But the EU parliament is the only place a proposal can become l…

Commissioners are not elected, that stretches the meaning of the word past breaking point. By that definition literally any government employee right down to sewage workers are 'elected'. Realistically the Commission are in charge. Because the so-called Parliament can't do anything except (at most) slow down the EU project a little bit, most people who run for election are just EU fanboys/girls who want to be close t…

This is so thoroughly untrue that I'm concerned that you're intentionally misrepresenting things.

In good faith I'll argue the following:

Just because you do not directly elect the commissioners does not mean that they are "unelected". You can make the case that a garbage worker is "elected", but that would be by civil servants (by way of interview) but that is a stretch beyond the pale and a straw man (in all but the most charitable perspectives).

You're right about the dwindling EU election turnout but this is largely fuelled by a lack of campaigning; most people don't even bother with EU politics because they're more concerned with their countries politics. The EU itself suffers from being uncharismatic and so open that it's a sea of information (which ends up seeming opaque because there's just /so/ much information). I suspect this will largely change with brexit as people are waking up to what the EU actually is. Largely in the UK for example everything that was a political failure was blamed on the EU and those lies are the foundation of what caused brexit.

The EU has many, many flaws, but characterising it as undemocratic is flatly incorrect.

> although the word Parliament means "the body of government that makes law"

Technically parliament is an ancient french word that means "speaking", (akin to parley) but that's a digression. What I largely meant was that while the parliament itself cannot draft law, however it is the only body that can give ascent to a draft-legislature to make it law.

That is not undemocratic, that is the definition of democracy with a sprinkling of civil service.

Re: European Parliament approves copyright reform

#567

Post by philpem »

thecatspaw wrote: post #397
rurban wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would be an invalid flag. BMG-EMI-XYZ Music Corp does not own this work, they could only own a certain recording of a certain orchestra playing this piece. And we know that detecting that certain recording via music matching does not work, only checking the strong hash of it would work. Which would be trivial to circumvent by a single bit-flip.

At which point you mark this as a false flag on youtube and youtube tells you to go to court over it.

How many small-time Patreon-funded content creators have the time and money to take on a major media company in court?

Just because you could doesn't mean it's feasible from a financial point of view.

Re: European Parliament approves copyright reform

#568

Post by toyg »

dvdkhlng wrote: post #195
paule89 wrote: post #20

Are we able to see, who voted how? I would like to have a website showing you which persons not to vote, in your location for the upcoming eu votes in may.

This list of votes was just linked from blog.fefe.de: https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/copyrightvot...

Better save that, elections coming up...

Re: European Parliament approves copyright reform

#569

Post by nicc »

varjag wrote: post #270
nkkollaw wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doubt it. It's very easy to implement GDPR compliance, and A LOT of websites opted for blocking their content in Europe instead of working to make their services compliant. The requirements for being compliant with these directives are so difficult, than only major companies will have the resource to do it, and many will definitely not think it's worth the effort.

Businesses historically catered to a lot more expensive to implement laws. Personal data territorial hosting, years worth of logging for law enforcement, content filtering compliance, and it was barely on anyone's radar. Reddit and other social networks rally users against this law however as it's contrarian to their bottom line and growth curves. It is important to pause and consider if the law (certainly promoted b…

Sure, I guess... What size businesses are you talking about? There are a lot of small websites that will go bankrupt (or, just close down) if this is passed, where there's a solo developer that has no time nor money to implement AI-powered filter to figure out if his users upload copyrighted content. If you're talking about Apple and Google, then sure--but the internet is mostly made up of extremely small, understaffed projects.

If companies catered to a lot more expensive to implement laws it's baffling to me why many, many websites don't work in Europe after they passed GDPR laws, then. I guess the fact that they can't use people's data however they please anymore doesn't make it worth it to serve webpages here..?

Re: European Parliament approves copyright reform

#570

Post by philpem »

simiones wrote: post #541
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The creative elements of Cage's work are that it's performed as a piece by an orchestra, and presented as a work (eg a specific length, sold as other works are). Your any-[other]-length-of-silence doesn't infringe. If it did then Cage's piece would lack the artistic distinctiveness needed to make it a work for copyright purposes. Just having a urinal doesn't infringe on Duchamp's "Fountain", not even if it's the same…

You know that, the lawyers know that, but how do you expect the content filtering mechanism to know that??? True, for 4'33'' there is a simple rule that they probably follow - ignore silence :). But for Fountain (if it ever came up) it's hard to imagine that the difference between a protected copy and a non-protected similar image could really be automatically discovered.

This is it. A human being can identify the context. Taking Fountain as an example -- a photo of a urinal on a building merchant's website is an illustration of the product they're selling, not an infringement.

But the filter doesn't know about context, it just correlates two images... and you get "Comparison with copyrighted work 'Fountain', 75% match".

75% > 0%, so the filter says "non".

Post reply on HN