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

971–980 of 1001 posts

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

#971

Post by cyphar »

rascul wrote: post #581
cyphar wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does 92% usage make something a monopoly? 95%? 99%? 100%? I think that the percentage argument is not the only important thing to consider, there are other anti-competitive practices which (when practiced at a large enough scale) become a monopoly even if "only" 50% of people use the product (friendly reminder that 50% of internet users is more than a billion people -- much larger than the population of most countrie…

> Does 92% usage make something a monopoly? 95%? 99%? 100%? 100% certainly would. > I'm arguing that it is a monopoly in the ordinary meaning of the word, in that effectively everyone uses Google and Google exerts a massive amount of power over their users. What do you mean by "the ordinary meaning of the word" here? It's also not clear to me that "effectively everyone uses Google".

91% of internet users is about 3 billion people. They control a platform that affects more people than any single nation state (2-3x larger than the largest nation state and larger than the top 3 countries combined). For instance, changes in PageRank (which is an unaccountable and unauditable algorithm) affect every user of their site in terms of what links they see, what articles they read, and by extension what they think.

You might argue it's the fault of users for not being informed, but I think that if a company has a significant impact on the lives of 3 billion people (which again, is a larger influence than any single government on this planet -- and nation states have constitutions and laws specifically to ensure that they serve the people and are accountable) then it has reached the point where it either needs to be broken up or be regulated. I don't care which, I just think that this cowboy mentality (that software is somehow special and lives in a world where regulation is always an unreasonable viewpoint to have) has to stop at some point.

Regarding the term monopoly, there are different views on what precisely the term means. Google does have anti-competitive practices which you might argue make them act as a monopoly. You can argue they have a monopoly on internet searches because whenever they change PageRank in a way that negatively impacts some users (or when they make changes to GMail's spam filter so that it starts blocking valid emails) there isn't a rush to a different service because there is no way to co-ordinate such a rush. Instead you have other secondary industries like SEO which exist purely to try to keep websites reachable from Google. The fact they have the power to manipulate how the majority of sites operate clearly means they have significant (and in my view monopolistic) control over the market.

They also have a market share that is actually incomprehensible. Microsoft was indicted under anti-trust laws because of Internet Explorer being bundled with Windows. I think Google acts as much more of a monopoly than Microsoft did in the 90s, and "good guy Google" really is an outdated mental model for a company with that much influence over people's lives.

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

#972

Post by cyphar »

candiodari wrote: post #213
cyphar wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google being a monopoly that applies biases to the results it shows (in a way that has no public accountability) is a significant problem -- as well as the fact they implement features which effectively take away revenue from websites by showing their content without giving them page views. That is (ostensibly) the justification for these kinds of laws. I think that they are flawed because they focus on further copyr…

Yep, Google is causing harm by filtering what people see, and dammit, the EU commission wanted to do that harm themselves . Sarcastic joke perhaps, but very true.

I don't agree with the legislation in question (the upload filter is an awful idea, and the link tax is a really bad way of attempting to solve a real problem because it clearly exists to make sure German publishing houses get even more money).

But I don't see why this is relevant to my point that there is actually a real issue here, and ignoring it is going to cause even more laws like these to be passed because the narrative from publishers (that they are losing business because of internet companies that have a cavalier attitude about the people they are cutting off) is not entirely fictitious. When's the last time you saw Google telling large websites about changes in PageRank that will negatively impact them?

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

#973

Post by lovich »

nkassis wrote: post #967
lovich wrote: post #935

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah the old, let's imply your racist/afraid so you let american companies do as they please argument. It's easy to be trite, but it doesn't change the fact that foreign companies and governments were taking advantage of the EU while simultaneously having a different set of rules at home for EU companies. I think the EU overreacted her, hut it's hardly surprising that they had some sort of response

The whole thread should be about the EU response and how negative it will be for most EU citizens but have less of an impact on the intended targets, aka large corporations who can afford to be compliant. I think arguing over who has the most censored internet or the worst corporations is probably starting to veer off topic.

I agree. I don't even think that this is a good response by the EU. I was mostly commenting on how you shouldn't be surprised that they had _a_ response when other powers are locking down their internet and foreign companies we're running rough shod over EU laws and directives.

I think its all stemming from the same response as a portion of people who voted for Trump, or why the GPDR was enacted. The status quo was being abused by the major players and now they are going to do _something_ to shake up the system. Whether their approach is the right thing to do is up for debate

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

#974

Post by int_19h »

laumars wrote: post #859
int_19h wrote: post #846

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, it's quite enforceable. That's the whole point of this legislation - it goes after those entities that it can be enforced against (businesses), forcing them to turn around and enforce it against the smaller fish in their domain.

You're missing the point being made. We are not saying "it cannot be enforced, period". What we are saying "you cannot police every single website on the internet." Thus what will happen is this law will be used as a weapon to target sites that publish reviews that paint a particular product in a bad light, or user contribution sites that compete with big social networks. Or even, in the worst case scenario, forums w…

You don't need to police every comment. You just need to randomly poke at things, and make an example of anyone who lets something slip thru. Then individual businesses are going to be scared into policing their specific turfs. And when it's decentralized like that, it's quite possible to police every single website on the Internet (or at least on your section of it).

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

#975

Post by will4274 »

zaarn wrote: post #870
will4274 wrote: post #819

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the other party will be found guilty of disrupting your business by having you get into court for complaints without legal grounds. Dubious. The other lawyer will claim they believed you had read the complaint and therefore that they were acting in good faith, and will see no punishment at all.

On what grounds would they be able to believe that I have read that complaint? Such things need proof in court.

Burden of proof goes the other way here. This is why (one of the reasons) bogus DMCA complaints are never prosecuted. You need to prove that they believed you hadn't read the complaint and knowingly went after you anyway. We only persecute people for using the legal system maliciously, not accidentally incorrectly.

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

#976

Post by candiodari »

ionised wrote: post #453
candiodari wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's funny. In a minute you'll be saying that one will be enforced in Europe. I mean perhaps they're racist enough to enforce it against Google , but they won't prevent monopolies. (Europe, where near everything is mono/oligopolized and the behavior of those companies is abhorrent. From beer in Belgium (they own the cafes or loan them money and force out competing beers from the menu), to cheese in France (import a…

Google is not a race.

Basing a decision on nationality is. Does it really make that much difference that it's a company rather than a person ? I mean, it does, but ... on the other hand companies are nothing but groups of people.

It's far less than actual racism, but it's still not right.

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

#977

Post by thirdsun »

pbadenski wrote: post #894
thirdsun wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Equality really wasn’t what the german publishers had in mind. They wanted Google to pay for being able to show a snippet of their content in News. A ridiculous idea, that was countered by the only sensible answer: Google asked publishers if they wanted to continue to have their content listed in Google News for free or if their content should be removed. Needless to say that almost all of the proponents, including t…

Tells you something about Google. They seem to think they're just another company doing business. They're not - they are a monstrous monopoly, quoted response is clearly bullying and should be treated as such.

I disagree. The publishers line of thought is absurd.

How can anyone reason that publishers should be paid for the major share of visitors Google forwards to their content? Of course publishers have every right to de-index their content from news, search or both and the tools to do so have always been available. However apparently they had to be reminded explicitely.

Google, or similar services like Apple News, certainly can't be forced to pay for content they don't want or need.

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

#978

Post by pbackx »

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…

To understand article 11, I think you should look at the reason it was created: Journalists (and newspapers) are looking for a way to get paid for their articles beyond luring people to their sites with clickbait titles and tons of ads.

They want their own "article version" of Spotify, where they get a set amount for every article read. Obviously that's difficult to implement given the current way of the Internet (= Facebook sharing) and this is their attempt at getting their dream.

Is this a good idea? You could say it may improve news reporting if it was well implemented. Or it could be completely abused. Anyway, looking at it like this, explains some of the legalese in article 11.

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

#979

Post by kulahan »

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'm so tired of the narrative that these highly-educated people vote on matters that they have no understanding of.

They know exactly what they're voting for, and say whatever is necessary to convince everyone that they're working to protect their constituents.

At least in the US, the vast majority of our politicians have graduated from prestigious law schools and passed the notoriously difficult BAR exam. Unless politicians on the other side of the pond are somehow primarily composed of MUCH dumber people, they're probably similarly intelligent.

They know what they're voting for, and they pretend to be totally ignorant to the "scary new world" of tech so they get a free pass on voting in dumb shit laws like this.

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

#980

Post by camgunz »

anigbrowl wrote: post #829
camgunz wrote: post #821

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My main objection to it is that it doesn't at all solve the problem. Everyone clicks "accept", people still don't know what cookies (etc.) are, it was yet another silly regulation that harms small players and entrenches megacorps, and overall makes the internet less fun and more corporate junk. Real regulations about this stuff require real technical expertise, and it's going to be at least a generation before that e…

Sorry, that argument begs the question. I am well aware of what cookies are and think about the content of what I'm agreeing to, and often decline invitations from sites I don't trust. You're assuming that's what is convenient for one party in the transaction must be optimal for all parties, which is irrational.

In fairness, you're a Hacker News reader. I don't think we should be making regulations and defending them with "sure only experts really know what these things are, but that's fine". Regulations shouldn't rely on people being experts, they should keep people secure even when they're not experts. Regulations more in this vein are things like building regulations, electrical standards, hospital regulations, etc. I know basically nothing about this stuff, and if I get shocked because of bad wiring no electrician anywhere will say, "well you should've been an expert electrician, your fault buddy". But that's exactly what happens in the non-security dev community right now. "Well you should've been an expert in public key cryptography, your fault buddy". It's just not realistic.
Post reply on HN