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

81–90 of 1001 posts

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

#81

Post by gaius »

pjc50 wrote: post #67
docdeek wrote: post #23

"Article 11 is intended to give publishers and newspapers a way to make money when companies like Google link to their stories…” Is there anything stopping a search engine like Google choosing not to link to a newspaper? Surely they can’t be required to link to a newspaper AND then pay that newspaper to do so? The trade-off if Google chose not to link to the newspaper would be a (slightly) less useful search engine,…

Google should resolve this by conspicuously refusing to link to newspapers. There should be a banner saying "results from certain news sites are not available in your country", like the existing chillingeffects one. (This dealt with an earlier local version of this in some European countries)

Google’s end goal is that the only way to monetise content is by one of their ads. That’s not a world good for either democracy or journalism or any artistic work.

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

#82

Post by Shaddox »

ericdykstra wrote: post #6

UKIP and the Green Party joined forces to prevent Article 13 from getting rammed through without a public discussion. It was a good first step, but here we are, 2 months hence, and it was passed with virtually no amendments to the original text. This is an abhorrent decision by people who have no idea how the internet works. Markus Meechum (aka Count Dankula) was at the hearings, and reported that MEPs voting on the…

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 short summary:

1. Fair use is a very small exception to some very broad rights.

2. Fair use almost definitely does not apply to most youtube content : if you use content other people made (video games or music immediately come to mind) you are infringing copyright holder rights.

3. If you rely on fair use rights, then you might find yourself in trouble.

What's even worse is that right holders can pick and choose who to bust, and they don't need to be consistent about it. So even if they rarely go after small groups, they can still shut down bigger ones.

I have a childhood friend who is now a copyright lawyer and I sometimes jokingly ask him whether something is copyright infringing. Other than yes, the most frequent answer I get is "I don't know, it depends. Both sides have arguments so ultimately it's down to the judge." It's just bad law. The only difference between then and now is that now we have the technology to actually enforce it.

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

#83

Post by faag36 »

yostrovs wrote: post #27
hackandtrip wrote: post #5

I'm European but as many don't have a clear idea of how this will work. At my understanding, there will be discussions about the amendments and another vote, like the one we had two months ago. Is it right? There is still time to act, right? Also, is there a place to see who voted what? Elections are close and those choices could impact the vote of many. I knew Votewatch but I don't know if it still doing it, saw som…

I'm getting the impression that many Europeans don't seem to have a grasp on how their laws are passed. Is my impression correct? I'm baffled by the commission, Parliament, individual states, and how they interact to make laws. Is this topic teachable to 3rd graders in Europe?

I believe most Europeans don't know much or anything about the EU, because our states retain a lot of power, so we already have enough to deal with.

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

#84

Post by village-idiot »

dalbasal wrote: post #66
docdeek wrote: post #23

"Article 11 is intended to give publishers and newspapers a way to make money when companies like Google link to their stories…” Is there anything stopping a search engine like Google choosing not to link to a newspaper? Surely they can’t be required to link to a newspaper AND then pay that newspaper to do so? The trade-off if Google chose not to link to the newspaper would be a (slightly) less useful search engine,…

About 10 years ago, newspapers got together to try and get Google to give them some money, for the content Google was indexing to populate their news search results. Google's response was to give them better ways of de-indexing content. IE, a way to opt out. Take it or leave it. Naturally, few newspaper took leave it, preferring to get readers & no revenue than no readers and no revenue. Since then, efforts have focu…

I think the newspapers forgot that Google doesn’t need them.

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

#85

Post by baxtr »

The whole thing really makes me furious beyond words. I shouldn't be that aggravated, but unfortunately I am. I feel like this is really the opposite of progressive and will leave the EU even further behind the US and China. Meanwhile, people who don't understand how the internet works are deliberately breaking it to save their out-dated business models instead of embracing the new.

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

#86

Post by AllegedAlec »

raverbashing wrote: post #45
AllegedAlec wrote: post #11

So how long will it take people to find a way around this? I mean, I cannot imagine that, for example, the Chans will take this kindly.

> I cannot imagine that, for example, the Chans will take this kindly. That will be funny

Just imagine how easy it's going to be to screw over other websites, just by making an account, uploading material that could in some way be construed as violating copyright but passes the filter because it cannot be perfect, and then reporting the site to one of the bodies responsible for upholding this directive.

Hell, just by doing that you could probably end any potential upholding of this system really fast.

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

#87

Post by erk__ »

yostrovs wrote: post #27
hackandtrip wrote: post #5

I'm European but as many don't have a clear idea of how this will work. At my understanding, there will be discussions about the amendments and another vote, like the one we had two months ago. Is it right? There is still time to act, right? Also, is there a place to see who voted what? Elections are close and those choices could impact the vote of many. I knew Votewatch but I don't know if it still doing it, saw som…

I'm getting the impression that many Europeans don't seem to have a grasp on how their laws are passed. Is my impression correct? I'm baffled by the commission, Parliament, individual states, and how they interact to make laws. Is this topic teachable to 3rd graders in Europe?

It is taught in schools all over the EU, but the EU is a "new" thing.

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

#88

Post by mygo »

cyphar wrote: post #52
docdeek wrote: post #23

"Article 11 is intended to give publishers and newspapers a way to make money when companies like Google link to their stories…” Is there anything stopping a search engine like Google choosing not to link to a newspaper? Surely they can’t be required to link to a newspaper AND then pay that newspaper to do so? The trade-off if Google chose not to link to the newspaper would be a (slightly) less useful search engine,…

The problem is that Google is without question a monopoly, and so I think that there is a valid argument that it needs to be regulated and be forced to be impartial in the results shown. The fact that they show people's content without giving them page views (in a world where page views are how you get significant amounts of money, not to mention subscription opportunities) is a conscious decision to implement a feat…

> The fact that they show people's content without giving them page views

Are you talking about AMP?

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

#89

Post by mrunkel »

cyphar wrote: post #52
docdeek wrote: post #23

"Article 11 is intended to give publishers and newspapers a way to make money when companies like Google link to their stories…” Is there anything stopping a search engine like Google choosing not to link to a newspaper? Surely they can’t be required to link to a newspaper AND then pay that newspaper to do so? The trade-off if Google chose not to link to the newspaper would be a (slightly) less useful search engine,…

The problem is that Google is without question a monopoly, and so I think that there is a valid argument that it needs to be regulated and be forced to be impartial in the results shown. The fact that they show people's content without giving them page views (in a world where page views are how you get significant amounts of money, not to mention subscription opportunities) is a conscious decision to implement a feat…

> The problem is that Google is without question a monopoly

This is just false. bing.com exists. news.ycombinator.com exists. reddit.com exists....

> The fact that they show people's content without giving them page views..

This is just false. Google shows at most an excerpt (that is defined by the publisher) or a headline (on news.google.com). Unless you're talking about AMP, but that's a decision made by the publisher too.

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

#90

Post by servs »

ericdykstra wrote: post #6

UKIP and the Green Party joined forces to prevent Article 13 from getting rammed through without a public discussion. It was a good first step, but here we are, 2 months hence, and it was passed with virtually no amendments to the original text. This is an abhorrent decision by people who have no idea how the internet works. Markus Meechum (aka Count Dankula) was at the hearings, and reported that MEPs voting on the…

> 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.

That actually isn't legal in many countries and is e.g. why regional wikipedia sites don't show movie posters.

Post reply on HN