71–80 of 130 posts
Can we just agree to silo off the EU? Why should foreign companies have to comply with these policies anyway? GDPR compliance has already had a negative impact on web UX.
As but one (or, actually: thousands) of data points in evidence: If your idea was workable, there'd be some among the tech companies both large and small would have implemented it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should there be “balancing”? The entire premise of copiright is just wrong to begin with. Here we have this perfectly anti-rival public good produced. But of course anti-rival just doesn’t work that well with free market economics, you know with the externalities and all. And since we just can’t imagine any other form of work allocation schemes than the free market, what to do?! Naturally the most obvious thing,…
I'm sorry but I don't think I follow. You disagree with the notion, that people that produce content should be paid for it? I do believe that correct attribution and fair compensation is vital to get quality content. These proposals are not the answer though.
Is that really that value that governments should be optimizing for? What about people who's content isn't all that good? Should they be ensuring payments for anyone who creates a new viral meme?
I'd propose a different value: "How do we best incentivize people to produce content?" (or perhaps "quality content")
Trying to make sure people can get paid is one strategy to incentivize the creation of quality content. But when you rethink of the problem in terms of optimizing for the production of quality content you can think up other strategies as well.
For example, Facebook and Twitter have done a great job of encouraging people to produce content (with questionable levels of quality), without attaching any monetary rewards to it.
Reframing the question in different ways will help us arrive at larger variety of solutions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which part of the ip is hard to decode? If you don't like how a country's laws are shaped, then stop selling there. You can't have your pie and eat it too. Either you obey the market laws and sell or you don't. If someone is using a VPN to get around your geo ban, then I think that's the user's implicit choice.
IP addresses aren't country codes, in the same way that phone numbers aren't permanent unique identifiers. If you block IP ranges, you'll let some European users through, and block some non-European users. Is "at least we tried"-style blocking good enough?
Yea exactly. In absence of a mechanism to block users the discussion of who gets to police who is worthwhile. But if a company chooses not to comply with GDPR and at the same time doesn't utilize any available mechanism to block EU users then there is definitely intentional ignorance on their part.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sorry but I don't think I follow. You disagree with the notion, that people that produce content should be paid for it? I do believe that correct attribution and fair compensation is vital to get quality content. These proposals are not the answer though.
"You disagree with the notion, that people that produce content should be paid for it?" Is that really that value that governments should be optimizing for? What about people who's content isn't all that good? Should they be ensuring payments for anyone who creates a new viral meme? I'd propose a different value: "How do we best incentivize people to produce content?" (or perhaps "quality content") Trying to make sur…
"Is that really that value that governments should be optimizing for? What about people who's content isn't all that good? Should they be ensuring payments for anyone who creates a new viral meme?"
That's exactly what government should do. Let the market to decide what content it perceives as good or not. The viral on its own means that the content is desired by some in the population. You or I may question its quality, but that doesn't discount its value to the ones who enjoy it.
I think that's where it should stop. Government shouldn't censure content (up until is outright harmful to the society [there are mechanisms in place already to deal with this]).
The curation should come from the platforms. Platform can compete for the eyeballs by picking the content they want to distribute. However creators, whoever they are, should be fairly compensated for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should there be “balancing”? The entire premise of copiright is just wrong to begin with. Here we have this perfectly anti-rival public good produced. But of course anti-rival just doesn’t work that well with free market economics, you know with the externalities and all. And since we just can’t imagine any other form of work allocation schemes than the free market, what to do?! Naturally the most obvious thing,…
I'm sorry but I don't think I follow. You disagree with the notion, that people that produce content should be paid for it? I do believe that correct attribution and fair compensation is vital to get quality content. These proposals are not the answer though.
Nobody disagrees with that.
The fact is copyright exists to create artificial scarcity. "Content", once produced, is not scarce in any way; that's why the scarcity is artificial. These laws exist to force everybody to pretend that isn't how things work. It's fundamentally dishonest. It is trivial to copy and distribute "content". People have been doing it since computers were a thing and ironically they do it better than the copyright owners themselves.
It's up to the industry to find some other way to pay people. I don't really care how they're going to do it, and frankly it's nobody else's problem but their own. Instead of concentrating on a new business model, they keep embarrassing themselves with endless anti-piracy measures that do nothing but make the DRM-free copy look better than the original.
Article 13 is the key one, mandating upload filtering. This has all sorts of side effects - suddenly you can't make a Dropbox style file sharing site without implementing pre-emptive filtering. You can't rely on notify-and-takedown. Article 11 potentially has huge implications for social media sites; suddenly a user posting a news article link with a quote becomes a copyright liability. All the worry that was focused…
I feel like there isn't enough focus on this point - mandating extra elements (filters) inside an otherwise direct line of communication is always a bad idea. The best case scenario you get is the telephone game...
This development was inevitable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sorry but I don't think I follow. You disagree with the notion, that people that produce content should be paid for it? I do believe that correct attribution and fair compensation is vital to get quality content. These proposals are not the answer though.
> You disagree with the notion, that people that produce content should be paid for it? Nobody disagrees with that. The fact is copyright exists to create artificial scarcity. "Content", once produced, is not scarce in any way; that's why the scarcity is artificial. These laws exist to force everybody to pretend that isn't how things work. It's fundamentally dishonest. It is trivial to copy and distribute "content".…
My best solution would be something along these lines https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17913535
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"You disagree with the notion, that people that produce content should be paid for it?" Is that really that value that governments should be optimizing for? What about people who's content isn't all that good? Should they be ensuring payments for anyone who creates a new viral meme? I'd propose a different value: "How do we best incentivize people to produce content?" (or perhaps "quality content") Trying to make sur…
Deciding quality is a slippery slope. Who is going to decide the quality? Me? You? A committee? Government? Which one? "Is that really that value that governments should be optimizing for? What about people who's content isn't all that good? Should they be ensuring payments for anyone who creates a new viral meme?" That's exactly what government should do. Let the market to decide what content it perceives as good or…
My point was that ensuring people get paid is not what our end goal is. We should identify what our end goal should be and try to see if a different tactic might accomplish that goal better (with less collateral damage).
For example, people who create memes (the actual memes, not the images that later become memes) are motivated by social acknowledgement. Same goes for many Facebook posts.
Mandating payment systems is unlikely to motivate those types of content creation, and may in fact suppress many other types.
However, creating content based on social rewards (like most social media sites currently do) does help the creation of popular content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Deciding quality is a slippery slope. Who is going to decide the quality? Me? You? A committee? Government? Which one? "Is that really that value that governments should be optimizing for? What about people who's content isn't all that good? Should they be ensuring payments for anyone who creates a new viral meme?" That's exactly what government should do. Let the market to decide what content it perceives as good or…
I agree. Quality is a subjective word, hence the parenthesis around it. I'm sure we can think up of a better goal. My point was that ensuring people get paid is not what our end goal is. We should identify what our end goal should be and try to see if a different tactic might accomplish that goal better (with less collateral damage). For example, people who create memes (the actual memes, not the images that later be…
The case you described is already covered (at least in US) by the Fair Use doctrine [0] and works, well, works ok. I don't think the government should consider the use case of copyrighted work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good reputation for what? Government interference in the free web? GDPR was just the first step. Open your eyes.
Honestly curious what definition of "free" you're using here? Are you saying that anything moving away from uncontrolled anarchy is cutting away freedom and we therefore shouldn't do that? The government forbids you to make a company spying in people bathrooms and sell the pictures, would you say that's interference in your free life as well?
>what definition of "free" you're using here
Free as in relatively unencumbered by government regulation. I think it's fair to say based off his "GDPR was just the first step" comment that he views increased government control of the internet as the axis along which the freedom he is referring to is measured.
>Are you saying that anything moving away from uncontrolled anarchy is cutting away freedom..
I take that as a given. Anarchy is the state in which people are unconstrained, and are thus maximally free. Anything short of anarchy implies that there is something limiting people's choices.
>...and we therefore shouldn't do that?
Isn't this basically the entire issue with governments? We give up freedoms in exchange for other benefits. Entire political philosophies devote their energy to the question of how much freedom we should exchange.
>The government forbids you to make a company spying in people bathrooms and sell the pictures, would you say that's interference in your free life as well?
Do you really think that openbasic is taking this EU move as a chance to advocate for total anarchy? Or is it more likely that they disagree with this freedom/benefits trade-off and you are strawmanning?