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

981–990 of 1001 posts

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

#981

Post by JAlexoid »

incompatible wrote: post #889
joering2 wrote: post #882

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly I think the point they are trying to make is that they don’t need US-based behemots to control internet in Europe. Take Russia for example - they have vkontakte (if i spell it correctly) and politicians are all fine watching grandkids there; some probably dont even know what “facebook” is, as even POR doesnt speak English and constantly uses translators. Whats happening in real i think is that EU realized it…

Won't these “made in European Union” social networks have exactly the same problems as the Americans in complying with the regulations? In Russia and China, I believe they just openly discriminate against foreign companies.

You are aware that it's pretty much only American companies that are bitching about GPDR, right?

EU laws already cover EU companies as a matter of domicile. GPDR only applies the rules of service delivery already present in EU. EU service delivery rules say that a service is delivery point is considered the place where the service consumer is, not where the provider is domiciled.

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

#982

Post by JAlexoid »

visarga wrote: post #860
imbur wrote: post #856

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should Google be able to profit off of others content without compensating them? Compulsory licenses are standard in the music industry, and in theory the same could work well for journalism. But the devil is in the details.

By that logic, should the phonebook have to pay people to include them? Should the travel pamphlet pay the restaurants it sends people to? Using snippets of the content to send people to the source is essential for online dialogue, not just for Google. Should we all have to pay for referring to an article in a forum? Mark my words: if this were enforced, people and most companies would simply stop linking these sites…

Your name is a matter of fact, thus not subject to copyright. It seems that you can't grasp the concept of copyrightable content.

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

#983

Post by JAlexoid »

wolfgke wrote: post #897
08-15 wrote: post #808

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as this may annoy Angela Merkel, Germany and the EU are not the same thing. We're talking about EU legislation, and translating and relating that to German, French, British, Italian, Romanian, etc. law will always result in awkward translations that are not quite spot on. We are not lawyers, this isn't a court, and we can afford a bit of imprecision to get the point across with finitely many words, can't we?…

> Germany has "Urheberrecht" and "Verwertungsrecht", neither of which is exactly copyright, even though that's the most practical translation of either. German law may not have fair use, but it does have §51 UrHG "Zitate", which serves the same purpose, at least in the context of reporting on news articles. There is indeed an exception for quotes (Zitate) and parodies (for the latter cf. https://www.ferner-alsdorf.de…

Fair use isn't strictly defined in US Code as well... It's mostly through precedent.

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

#984

Post by JAlexoid »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #536
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.

> if you get dragged to court because you got the email at 1AM and you were asleep, then you're not guilty of anything Getting dragged to court is disruptive, unsettling and expensive.

You'd think, right? But it's really not a big issue with a properly structured court and justice system.

Most of EU has judges that are interested in a just resolution, not just being "an independent arbiter" of two researchers.

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

#985

Post by JAlexoid »

raxxorrax wrote: post #735
closeparen wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pro-GDPR "good riddance" argument applies just as well here: obliterating operations which are too fly-by-night to obey the law is, in fact, the socially desired outcome. The law is the law. We shouldn't exempt small players from internet regulation any more than we should exempt small factories from pollution controls or small automakers from safety rules. European institutions do no wrong [0]. If a website's co…

This is not the motivation of players pushing for this law. They don't care about small players and instead want to push revenue for their content. There is no other elaborate explanation about a "modern copyright". The law is specifically for big media publishers with huge legal support to increase bycatch IP enforcement in a broad manner. It will improve absolutely nothing and is in general a bad law that has a hug…

>seriously hurt innovative content creators

Any "innovative content creator" that uses large chunks of other people's content, is by definition not innovative and not a creator.

As far as it goes... EU laws typically follow the rules that require express permission with the right to take away that permission.

If you want Google to index you, you are free to put up an explicit permission.

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

#986

Post by JAlexoid »

dannyobrien wrote: post #458
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…

(Disclosure -- I work on this for EFF) You can read the recitals this commenter is describing here, including the latest amendments that were voted in the Parliamentary plenary. As you'd imagine, I disagree with his interpretation. https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Copyright_Se... Firstly, these are just recitals. They're not a binding part of the Directive, they just lay out the justifications for the…

> I work on this for EFF > Firstly, these are just recitals. They're not a binding part of the Directive, they just lay out the justifications for the law.

Have you ever been in a courtroom in EU? Explanations for the laws are guides to judges to rule on the laws. Judges cannot go against the explanation and apply just the technical bit, their decisions will be overturned 100%.

Sure... This directive is hardly perfect, but it's also only the first step in the process.

When it comes to can vs should, you should know that both are optional. And copyright groups do try to limit the multiple exemptions from copyright every single day.

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

#987

Post by JAlexoid »

caf wrote: post #802
tormeh wrote: post #747

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They won't laugh at the lack of revenue from European advertisers. No one cares what people use for free. This is about money.

This is ends up being effectively a tariff, though - if fewer advertising platforms can take European customers, then that allows those platforms to raise their prices for those customers, essentially meaning that European businesses end up paying more for advertising than their competitors from elsewhere.

Nothing will happen. You know that Google does second price auctions on AdWords, right? Google literally doesn't control the price of ads

Even if you pay Google €0.01 per click, you still can get an impression under certain conditions.

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

#988

Post by JAlexoid »

tomelders wrote: post #913
whizzkid wrote: post #884

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, if this law is upheld in court, then I think we can consider the EU a failed experiment What an unexpected conclusion you are jumping into. I think EU is the only capable authority in the world so far who is not afraid to challenge big corporations in favour of people. (mobile charges, customer rights, Google, Intel, Telefonica, etc..) I completely agree that there are big problems around EU when it comes…

Any country that legislates against free speech ans freedom of expression with such a brutal and blunt law such as this should be considered a failed experiment.

What? Taking my copyrighted work and publishing it is somehow a matter of freedom of speech and expression?

Do you also consider vandalism a form of freedom of expression?

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

#989

Post by JAlexoid »

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…

> 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.

Newswires aren't free and come with a copyright agreement.

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

#990

Post by DanBC »

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…

Just checking, but have you read article 11?
Post reply on HN