7 ms·

Technically, a law like this is prone to be abused for censorship purposes. Whether this “dual use” is intended or not by parliamentarian voters, is obviously u

by sebst 8y ago

Technically, a law like this is prone to be abused for censorship purposes. Whether this “dual use” is intended or not by parliamentarian voters, is obviously unclear. To make it even worse, such laws don’t “outlaw” some behaviour, but put a high risk on it through civil law. So, it helps multinationals (and a possible malevolent regime) and hurts small companies as well as citizens. To me, it’s hard to believe this is not intended (like so many other (mostly) EU laws. However, always bear in mind Ayn Rand: > “Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against… We’re after power and we mean it… There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”

hartator 8y ago
Don’t forget compliance with GDPR probably means it’s not possible to comply with this new copyright laws. Fun times for EU startups. P.S.: Taking some risks quoting Ayn Rand on HN. :)
- sebst 8y ago
  > Don’t forget compliance with GDPR probably means it’s not possible to comply with this new copyright laws. Fun times for EU startups. GDPR is a good example of another law which is potentially dangerous. However, I do see that it's hard to comply with both, but I don't see how they interact with other. > P.S.: Taking some risks quoting Ayn Rand on HN. :) Why?
  - hartator 8y ago
    > GDPR is a good example of another law which is potentially dangerous. However, I do see that it's hard to comply with both, but I don't see how they interact with other. The copyright law requires you to store metadata about the user who publish content forever while GDPR forbids you to do so. > Why? I would say most of HN leans left not libertarian.
    - detaro 8y ago
      > The copyright law requires you to store metadata about the user who publish content forever Then GDPR does not forbid you to do so, Article 6.1 c) > 1. Processing shall be lawful only if and to the extent that at least one of the following applies: > [...] > c) processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the controller is subject;
    - sebst 8y ago
      > The copyright law requires you to store metadata about the user who publish content forever while GDPR forbids you to do so. GDPR allows you to do so, if there is a requirement. Complying with another law is certainly a reasonable requirement. That's also why you're "allowed" to keep your invoices for ten years, because you're "required" to do so. > I would say most of HN leans left not libertarian. This might be true, might be false. A good discussion should incorporate different views. And back to topic: I firmly believe this law to be dangerous by itself and not because there is a (more or less) applicable quote by a controversial writer.
      - hartator 8y ago
        > GDPR allows you to do so, if there is a requirement. Complying with another law is certainly a reasonable requirement. That's also why you're "allowed" to keep your invoices for ten years, because you're "required" to do so. True. Your quote from Ayn Rand was actually a reaction from 2 characters discussing how one law make it not possible to respect another. GDPR does make it more complex, and one can argue copyright is not a subject that should infringe privacy. It’s up to debate. Debate that US based startups won’t need to have if they don’t want to. And it was more a Kudos to quoting Ayn Rand and an upvote!
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
TaylorAlexander 8y ago
I want to say, I heard all this talk of Ayn Rand as some kind of evil bogeyman, and then I listened to her speak on YouTube. She grew up in a horrible communist dictatorship, and then found refuge in the US. She spoke about how unfair governments can be, and spoke out against forced control of the people. I found her to be super reasonable! She only represents one persons view and I feel that libertarians often fail to appreciate the benefits of collectivization, but I think a lot of normal people that criticize Ayn Rand are actually mad about the jerks who use her name in political conversations to justify being self centered. Especially in this age of overbearing governments, I encourage everyone to look her up on YouTube and listen to her own words.
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  She was surely broken in several fundamental ways. But as a product of her time and history, she has plenty to say. And it can resonate even today. As with anything, some balance is required. Monopolies exist (and seem inevitable these days) and must be dealt with. But person-to-person, her views and the individual are evergreen.
- ngold 8y ago
  Being that her friend and apprentice was Alan Greenspan you can see where people get a little weird about rand. Also the rand think tank that spews serious amounts of fascist policy.
  - ngngngng 8y ago
    > the rand think tank that spews serious amounts of fascist policy. Like so many ideologies, the fan club is what most people dislike. If you are capable of taking Rands philosophies with a grain of salt, there are many brilliant concepts to glean.
    - michaelmrose 8y ago
      "If you are capable of taking Rands philosophies with a grain of salt, there are many brilliant concepts to glean." Such as? Minitel:It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. --Adam Smith Except in practice societies require self interest and benevolence and structures designed to promote the latter in order that we can all enjoy the fruits of our respective labor in a functional society.
espadrine 8y ago
Unsurprisingly, this law was most pushed by anti-EU right-wing politicians that somehow got elected as MEP, such as Marie-Christine Boutonnet[0] and Gilles Lebreton[1]. All French MEPs of the European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs but one are right-wing eurosceptics, and for this law[2]. (Aside, the right-wing extremists MEPs were easily recognized during the Zuckerberg hearing, as their questions focused exclusively on the worry that Facebook restricts —“censors”, in their words— hate speech[3].) [0]: https://twitter.com/MCBoutonnetFN/status/1009429390151901185 https://twitter.com/MCBoutonnetFN/status/1009429390151901185 [1]: https://twitter.com/Gilles_Lebreton/status/1009389504787107840 https://twitter.com/Gilles_Lebreton/status/10093895047871078... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_Committee_on_Legal_Affairs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_Committee_... [3]: https://twitter.com/NicolasBay_/status/998979333011197952 https://twitter.com/NicolasBay_/status/998979333011197952
- Camillo 8y ago
  That's not really borne out by the vote: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/149721/juri-committee-result-roll-call-votes-20062018.pdf http://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/149721/juri-committee-... It seems that 3 eurosceptics voted yes, one voted no, and two abstained. The bill was actually introduced and mostly voted for by the EPP, which is a centre-right and strongly pro-EU group (Angela Merkel's CDU is part of it).
- HumanDrivenDev 8y ago
  Restricting so-called "hate speech" is censorship. Perhaps it's censorship you agree with, but then at least have the integrity to forthrightly say you agree with censorship.
  - espadrine 8y ago
    The definition of censorship only applies to government decisions. A non-governmental entity can only, by definition, censor something if mandated by the government.
    - 8y ago

by sebst 8y ago

hartator 8y ago

Don’t forget compliance with GDPR probably means it’s not possible to comply with this new copyright laws. Fun times for EU startups. P.S.: Taking some risks quoting Ayn Rand on HN. :)

sebst 8y ago
> Don’t forget compliance with GDPR probably means it’s not possible to comply with this new copyright laws. Fun times for EU startups. GDPR is a good example of another law which is potentially dangerous. However, I do see that it's hard to comply with both, but I don't see how they interact with other. > P.S.: Taking some risks quoting Ayn Rand on HN. :) Why?
- hartator 8y ago
  > GDPR is a good example of another law which is potentially dangerous. However, I do see that it's hard to comply with both, but I don't see how they interact with other. The copyright law requires you to store metadata about the user who publish content forever while GDPR forbids you to do so. > Why? I would say most of HN leans left not libertarian.
  - detaro 8y ago
    > The copyright law requires you to store metadata about the user who publish content forever Then GDPR does not forbid you to do so, Article 6.1 c) > 1. Processing shall be lawful only if and to the extent that at least one of the following applies: > [...] > c) processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the controller is subject;
  - sebst 8y ago
    > The copyright law requires you to store metadata about the user who publish content forever while GDPR forbids you to do so. GDPR allows you to do so, if there is a requirement. Complying with another law is certainly a reasonable requirement. That's also why you're "allowed" to keep your invoices for ten years, because you're "required" to do so. > I would say most of HN leans left not libertarian. This might be true, might be false. A good discussion should incorporate different views. And back to topic: I firmly believe this law to be dangerous by itself and not because there is a (more or less) applicable quote by a controversial writer.
    - hartator 8y ago
      > GDPR allows you to do so, if there is a requirement. Complying with another law is certainly a reasonable requirement. That's also why you're "allowed" to keep your invoices for ten years, because you're "required" to do so. True. Your quote from Ayn Rand was actually a reaction from 2 characters discussing how one law make it not possible to respect another. GDPR does make it more complex, and one can argue copyright is not a subject that should infringe privacy. It’s up to debate. Debate that US based startups won’t need to have if they don’t want to. And it was more a Kudos to quoting Ayn Rand and an upvote!
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

TaylorAlexander 8y ago

I want to say, I heard all this talk of Ayn Rand as some kind of evil bogeyman, and then I listened to her speak on YouTube. She grew up in a horrible communist dictatorship, and then found refuge in the US. She spoke about how unfair governments can be, and spoke out against forced control of the people. I found her to be super reasonable! She only represents one persons view and I feel that libertarians often fail to appreciate the benefits of collectivization, but I think a lot of normal people that criticize Ayn Rand are actually mad about the jerks who use her name in political conversations to justify being self centered. Especially in this age of overbearing governments, I encourage everyone to look her up on YouTube and listen to her own words.

JoeAltmaier 8y ago
She was surely broken in several fundamental ways. But as a product of her time and history, she has plenty to say. And it can resonate even today. As with anything, some balance is required. Monopolies exist (and seem inevitable these days) and must be dealt with. But person-to-person, her views and the individual are evergreen.
ngold 8y ago
Being that her friend and apprentice was Alan Greenspan you can see where people get a little weird about rand. Also the rand think tank that spews serious amounts of fascist policy.
- ngngngng 8y ago
  > the rand think tank that spews serious amounts of fascist policy. Like so many ideologies, the fan club is what most people dislike. If you are capable of taking Rands philosophies with a grain of salt, there are many brilliant concepts to glean.
  - michaelmrose 8y ago
    "If you are capable of taking Rands philosophies with a grain of salt, there are many brilliant concepts to glean." Such as? Minitel:It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. --Adam Smith Except in practice societies require self interest and benevolence and structures designed to promote the latter in order that we can all enjoy the fruits of our respective labor in a functional society.

espadrine 8y ago

Unsurprisingly, this law was most pushed by anti-EU right-wing politicians that somehow got elected as MEP, such as Marie-Christine Boutonnet[0] and Gilles Lebreton[1]. All French MEPs of the European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs but one are right-wing eurosceptics, and for this law[2]. (Aside, the right-wing extremists MEPs were easily recognized during the Zuckerberg hearing, as their questions focused exclusively on the worry that Facebook restricts —“censors”, in their words— hate speech[3].) [0]: https://twitter.com/MCBoutonnetFN/status/1009429390151901185 https://twitter.com/MCBoutonnetFN/status/1009429390151901185 [1]: https://twitter.com/Gilles_Lebreton/status/1009389504787107840 https://twitter.com/Gilles_Lebreton/status/10093895047871078... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_Committee_on_Legal_Affairs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_Committee_... [3]: https://twitter.com/NicolasBay_/status/998979333011197952 https://twitter.com/NicolasBay_/status/998979333011197952

Camillo 8y ago
That's not really borne out by the vote: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/149721/juri-committee-result-roll-call-votes-20062018.pdf http://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/149721/juri-committee-... It seems that 3 eurosceptics voted yes, one voted no, and two abstained. The bill was actually introduced and mostly voted for by the EPP, which is a centre-right and strongly pro-EU group (Angela Merkel's CDU is part of it).
HumanDrivenDev 8y ago
Restricting so-called "hate speech" is censorship. Perhaps it's censorship you agree with, but then at least have the integrity to forthrightly say you agree with censorship.
- espadrine 8y ago
  The definition of censorship only applies to government decisions. A non-governmental entity can only, by definition, censor something if mandated by the government.
  - 8y ago