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

Post by piokoch » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 9:04 AM UTC

Too wrote: post #855

tomelders wrote: post #792

As bonkers as this may seem, I suspect it will fall flat on it's face the second it's put before a court. For example, someone defends their right to use the title or quote from an article from some other news gathering organisation. Someone will need to convince a judge that it's OK for The Sunday Times, or Der Spiegel to do that, but it's not OK for Reddit or Hacker News to do that. And eventually, someone will nee…

> And eventually, someone will need to convince a court I think this is exactly what they want. They don't want to automatically tax every teenage kid making memes. They just want to create a legal minefield so whenever they decide a link is not ok they will have a law that backs them up. In a way it's good because most fair use most likely will fly under the radar just as it does today, but on the other hand it's al…

Post by sputr » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 9:19 AM UTC

Eridrus wrote: post #449

simias wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that this is probably going to backfire spectacularly but if we give the proponents the benefit of the doubt it could be argued that while the big G might not care about Google News, users may. If these news aggregator shutdown they will look for alternatives which might create an opportunity for people to develop news aggregator that share the revenue more fairly with the newspapers. I doubt this is going to…

Has this happened in Spain? They've already done this experiment on a smaller scale.

Post by zaarn » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 9:31 AM UTC

astura wrote: post #898

zaarn wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the other party will be found guilty of disrupting your business by having you get into court for complaints without legal grounds.

Because the other party magically knows your sleep schedule? What if you're abroad or work third shift?

Post by janoc » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 9:47 AM UTC

lossolo wrote: post #818

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…

> The only thing this will do is entrench massive players like Google and Facebook who already have these systems in place. Not exactly. Small and micro platforms are excluded from directive’s scope. From legislation: In particular, small and micro enterprises as defined in Title I of the Annex to Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC, should be expected to be subject to less burdensome obligations than larger servic…

Post by swebs » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 9:56 AM UTC

6ue7nNMEEbHcM wrote: post #862

bcheung wrote: post #773

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The stronger they push ridiculous laws like this the more it will force perfectly legitimate business to go underground. We will end up with all the problems of prohibition all over again. > is intended to give publishers and papers a way to make money when companies like Google link to their stories So Google should pay you when they send you more traffic? More traffic = more money. Most companies would be overjoyed…

> I wonder how long until companies outside of Europe decide it's easier just to block all traffic from Europe in protest. Exactly this. I already hit error 451 when trying to read some local news in US when browsing from Europe (I don't remember name of the page now). This happened after GPDR came into effect. I can totally relate with companies who don't want to deal with legal mess related with GPDR and other nons…