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

781–790 of 1001 posts

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

#781

Post by lionsdan »

nostrademons wrote: post #738
ivanhoe wrote: post #682

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, radio stations don't earn a lot either, but still have to pay licence fees for the music they play. Perhaps some sort of flat fee paid based on some statistics how much content has been shared from which source would make sense. It will not be a huge money, but it's still better than no money at all. Aggregators/ search engines need the content produced at the volume, otherwise they'll be out of business too at…

80% of radio stations in the U.S. are owned by one company (iHeartMedia, formerly ClearChannel), and despite this monopoly negotiating power, the company is still operating out of Chapter 11 bankruptcy with a $20B debt load.

> 80% of radio stations in the U.S. are owned by one company(iHeartMedia, formerly ClearChannel)

They own the most, but it's not 80% (perhaps they cover 80% of listening markets). They own about 850 stations[1] out of roughly 10,000 commercial stations[2]. However, your point does stand as the second largest owner, Cumulus Media at 455 stations also filed for bankruptcy[3].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IHeartMedia [2] https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-352168A1.pdf [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/15/business/media/iheartmedi...

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

#782

Post by bcheung »

0x5f3759df-i wrote: post #711

>However, those backing these provisions say the arguments above are the result of scaremongering by big US tech companies, eager to keep control of the web’s biggest platforms. This is the most hilarious quote in the article. The only thing this will do is entrench massive players like Google and Facebook who already have these systems in place. I honestly cannot comprehend how anyone could support this law while ha…

> Do these politicians really not understand the awful implications of these filtering systems for free speech and fair use?

Some do, some don't. But in some ways that's not the motivation behind these laws.

There's a growing power struggle between Silicon Valley tech companies and government. Governments are losing control and they are lashing out. We're going to see a lot more of it in the future as governments lose more and more control.

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

#783

Post by camjohnson26 »

CiaranMcNulty wrote: post #667
overkalix wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is insane. I see the same argument in every thread about GDPR and I just can't wrap my mind around it. I can't imagine how well represented or identified by nation-state politics these people must be that they are willing to concede such degrees of discretionality to a government.

There's a huge cultural difference where people generally assume regulators are going to be fair and even-handed. FWIW it mostly works out.

Why even have laws then, just let the regulators decide who gets punished for everything.

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

#784

Post by anigbrowl »

jules wrote: post #729
0x5f3759df-i wrote: post #711

>However, those backing these provisions say the arguments above are the result of scaremongering by big US tech companies, eager to keep control of the web’s biggest platforms. This is the most hilarious quote in the article. The only thing this will do is entrench massive players like Google and Facebook who already have these systems in place. I honestly cannot comprehend how anyone could support this law while ha…

> I honestly cannot comprehend how anyone could support this law while having any understanding of how the internet works. These are the same politicians that brought us the law that forces every website to ask EU visitors permission to store cookies with a big fat modal dialog, so I don't think you need to worry that people who any understanding of how the internet works supported this law. Imagine all the time wast…

Imagine all the time wasted on those modal dialogs and add up the total cost in human lives.

GMAFB, nobody is dying because they're being asked to consent or refuse cookie tracking. If you are worried about that then why haven't I see you complaining about the modal dialogs and umpteen other other impositions inflicted upon users by marketing departments?

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

#786

Post by anigbrowl »

adrianratnapala wrote: post #760
untog wrote: post #739

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the EU have a problem with wealthy donors? I've heard this criticism levelled against US politicians and it's justified, but in this case I think it might just be sheer ignorance on the part of the EU legislators.

Everywhere has this phenomenon in some guise, it's only the US that's self absorbed enough to think it is unique.

That's essentially a religious argument. Please provide evidence for your claim.

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

#787

Post by AnssiH »

gutnor wrote: post #219
Shaddox wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may be naive in saying this, but I believe the law is made with good intentions in mind. The real problem lies in the laws it relies on, namely the extremely stringent copyright laws and the weird fair use. > Much of YouTube content is (perfectly legal) remixes, responses, or criticisms of other YouTube content that embeds part of the referenced video in their own video. As weird as it sounds, you are wrong. In a s…

> The real problem lies in the laws it relies on, namely the extremely stringent copyright laws and the weird fair use. Real problem is the negative incentive to be correct. The rule penalise you harshly if you serve copyrighted content, but there is nothing if you decide to not serve non-copyrighted content and there is so much content on the internet, that "market pressure" simply isn't going to work. If you are a…

> you may as well have a blanket no-question ask removal policy

The directive (Article 13(2b)) requires the service providers to provide an "effective and expeditious" complaint mechanism for unjustified removals with human review, though.

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

#788

Post by bcheung »

oihoaihsfoiahsf wrote: post #336
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…

I read the articles as well, and this commenter is right that, on their face, they don't seem like they would apply to a site like Google News. That said, everyone, including Google, seems to think they do. And as far as I am aware, nobody at the EC has said anything to the contrary, even though it would be easy to do so. So it seems most likely to me that the naive reading of the text is incorrect, and that both thi…

The problem is it is highly subjective.

"Parliament’s text also strengthens the negotiating rights of authors and performers, by enabling them to “claim” additional remuneration from the party exploiting their rights when the remuneration originally agreed is “disproportionately” low compared to the benefits derived."

"The text adds that these benefits should include “indirect revenues”. It would also empower authors and performers to revoke or terminate the exclusivity of an exploitation licence for their work if the party holding the exploitation rights is deemed not to be exercising this right."

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

#789

Post by anigbrowl »

dmix wrote: post #558
zaarn wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

> No it doesn't > No judge will put up a fine for that. You're contradicting yourself...you have to go to court to get charges dropped by a judge.

I think you're overestimating your legal analysis skills a bit here.

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

#790

Post by steamer25 »

anigbrowl wrote: post #784
jules wrote: post #729

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I honestly cannot comprehend how anyone could support this law while having any understanding of how the internet works. These are the same politicians that brought us the law that forces every website to ask EU visitors permission to store cookies with a big fat modal dialog, so I don't think you need to worry that people who any understanding of how the internet works supported this law. Imagine all the time wast…

Imagine all the time wasted on those modal dialogs and add up the total cost in human lives. GMAFB, nobody is dying because they're being asked to consent or refuse cookie tracking. If you are worried about that then why haven't I see you complaining about the modal dialogs and umpteen other other impositions inflicted upon users by marketing departments?

I think jules means to consider how many millions of dollars and euros and hours and hours were spent developing the modals for thousands of different websites and how that money might have been better spent.
Post reply on HN