6 ms·

What is happening here to the internet is what as happened to any other sector that was innovative at the time. Bureaucrats who have a complete disconnect with

by vfc1 8y ago

What is happening here to the internet is what as happened to any other sector that was innovative at the time. Bureaucrats who have a complete disconnect with what they are legislating but that somehow need to keep justifying their own job existence, will go ahead and vote regulations one after another even if they are unnecessary or harmful. Bureaucracies will keep themselves alive by inventing new rules constantly and the EU is no different. GDPR was not that bad though, it was about making sure that our personal information is not being sold to third parties like HR companies that provide services like telling companies your sexual orientation and other things of that nature. GDPR was about telling the consumer what is being done with their data and about transparency, so at least it was for the people. But this link tax is beyond absurd, and the content upload copyright infringement is only enforceable by the biggest companies. In practice, Amazon S3 and Google Cloud will implement this on their cloud services and probably charge for it directly or indirectly to SaaS companies, and there will be a couple of years of a grey zone period where the law will not be actively enforced.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> Bureaucracies will keep themselves alive by inventing new rules constantly and the EU is no different The flaw in the EU's design appears to be how easy it is for the EU to enact new legislation versus the public's ability to stall that process through hearings or a court.
scoom 8y ago
> GDPR was about telling the consumer what is being done with their data and about transparency, so at least it was for the people. If you say so. Seems to be more about threatening small players with risks well beyond anything reasonable. Their intention doesn't mesh well with the law as created. I'd say the biggest outcome is the number of services the EU has lost from the GDPR.
- laumars 8y ago
  The GDPR hasn't been used to threaten any smaller players. Many small players got paranoid because the GDPR allowed for large financial penalties in severe cases and against major players; but that's not the same as proactively threatening small players. The biggest problem with the GDPR is the FUD that surrounded it. How often is it that people are charged to the maximum effect of the law? Yet for some bizarre reason that's exactly what people thought would happen against every small operation once GDPR came into effect.
  - em3rgent0rdr 8y ago
    > "hasn't been used" The smaller players are rightfully too afraid to do anything that the big players that can get away with. You may not see GDPR fining small players, but what you also won't see is small players innovating as much out of fear.
    - laumars 8y ago
      If "innovation" means selling my details without my concent or hosting my details on insecure infrastructure, then I welcome their inability to innovate. Thankfully though, it doesn't and they still can innovate.
      - laumars 8y ago
        A few people disagree with me it seems. Which is fair enough, we're all entitled to our own opinion. However the last two businesses I've worked for have all managed to innovate easily enough whilest still remaining inside the GDPR. Which is why I really don't see GDPR as a massive deal breaker.
  - Silhouette 8y ago
    The GDPR hasn't been used much against anyone yet. It is far too early to draw any meaningful conclusions about what sort of real threat it does or doesn't pose and to whom. That ambiguity is itself a big part of the problem, because if you don't know how far you have to go to be compliant or what the real risks are if you get things wrong, you can't make informed decisions about anything you might need to do. If you don't do enough, you face the prospect of severe penalties. The GDPR's defenders can claim that enforcement will be reasonable and proportionate, but the fact is that the maximum potential penalties are written in law, and it's not as if national authorities have never been excessive with their EU-derived powers before. On the other hand, if you do too much, that's wasted time and money, possibly it's limited useful data processing more than you were actually required to, and now you're at a competitive disadvantage. The issues about filtering user-supplied content that arise because of the proposed copyright changes are directly analogous. There are vague suggestions about proportionality, but no-one really knows how this would play out, and the potential harm to anyone hosting other people's content if the new laws were interpreted in a different way could be severe.
pjc50 8y ago
This is not happening in a vacuum, it's driven by lobbying from the publishing industry. Just as previous rounds of problems were caused by the EU copyright directive demanded by the music and video industries.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >Just as previous rounds of problems were caused by the EU copyright directive demanded by the music and video industries. Or previous "rounds of solutions", if you were a music or video or print rights holder / publisher.
pif 8y ago
> ...is what as happened to any other sector that was innovative at the time. s/innovative/"innovative and illegal" While everybody has got used to "freely" enjoy copyrighted content on internet, IP protection is still a pillar for the low of most (if not all) countries in the world. Let's stop being hypocrite: either we push IP into oblivion or we enforce it consistently. Pretending that IP laws matter only when it concerns our own content doesn't help innovation.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > either we push IP into oblivion or we enforce it consistently False dilemma. I can quote a sentence from the New York Times in a Hacker News comment without incurring, for myself nor Y Combinator, any financial obligation. "Fair use" has admittedly been over-narrowed in the U.S. But it still exists.
- pjc50 8y ago
  On the contrary, we've come to rely on extremely intermittent enforcement, because both the "total enforcement" and "no enforcement" outcomes are bad.
- DanBC 8y ago
  > or we enforce it consistently Why do you think it isn't enforced consistently? The vast majority of copyright infringement isn't a criminal offence, but a civil matter, which means the rights-holders are the correct people to take action if they wish.
- AllegedAlec 8y ago
  > innovative and illegal Why do IP laws apply to the internet, exactly?
  - pif 8y ago
    Why shouldn't they, exactly?
    - AllegedAlec 8y ago
nisa 8y ago
That's not what happening. The current attacks on the Internet are sponsered by Axel Springer (largest newspaper buisness in Europe) and the result of massive lobbying. They even used openly pressure and the supporters in the EU are fed bullshit stories. There is a useless lex Google in Germany called Leistungsschutzrecht, the link-tax is the attempt to a weaponized version through the EU - sponsered by the CDU and conservative and right-wing politicans. Their hope is to somehow rescue their broken revenue model and make everyone pay for their content. Upload filters are likely the lobbying result of the content companies.

by vfc1 8y ago

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> Bureaucracies will keep themselves alive by inventing new rules constantly and the EU is no different The flaw in the EU's design appears to be how easy it is for the EU to enact new legislation versus the public's ability to stall that process through hearings or a court.

scoom 8y ago

> GDPR was about telling the consumer what is being done with their data and about transparency, so at least it was for the people. If you say so. Seems to be more about threatening small players with risks well beyond anything reasonable. Their intention doesn't mesh well with the law as created. I'd say the biggest outcome is the number of services the EU has lost from the GDPR.

laumars 8y ago
The GDPR hasn't been used to threaten any smaller players. Many small players got paranoid because the GDPR allowed for large financial penalties in severe cases and against major players; but that's not the same as proactively threatening small players. The biggest problem with the GDPR is the FUD that surrounded it. How often is it that people are charged to the maximum effect of the law? Yet for some bizarre reason that's exactly what people thought would happen against every small operation once GDPR came into effect.
- em3rgent0rdr 8y ago
  > "hasn't been used" The smaller players are rightfully too afraid to do anything that the big players that can get away with. You may not see GDPR fining small players, but what you also won't see is small players innovating as much out of fear.
  - laumars 8y ago
    If "innovation" means selling my details without my concent or hosting my details on insecure infrastructure, then I welcome their inability to innovate. Thankfully though, it doesn't and they still can innovate.
    - laumars 8y ago
      A few people disagree with me it seems. Which is fair enough, we're all entitled to our own opinion. However the last two businesses I've worked for have all managed to innovate easily enough whilest still remaining inside the GDPR. Which is why I really don't see GDPR as a massive deal breaker.
- Silhouette 8y ago
  The GDPR hasn't been used much against anyone yet. It is far too early to draw any meaningful conclusions about what sort of real threat it does or doesn't pose and to whom. That ambiguity is itself a big part of the problem, because if you don't know how far you have to go to be compliant or what the real risks are if you get things wrong, you can't make informed decisions about anything you might need to do. If you don't do enough, you face the prospect of severe penalties. The GDPR's defenders can claim that enforcement will be reasonable and proportionate, but the fact is that the maximum potential penalties are written in law, and it's not as if national authorities have never been excessive with their EU-derived powers before. On the other hand, if you do too much, that's wasted time and money, possibly it's limited useful data processing more than you were actually required to, and now you're at a competitive disadvantage. The issues about filtering user-supplied content that arise because of the proposed copyright changes are directly analogous. There are vague suggestions about proportionality, but no-one really knows how this would play out, and the potential harm to anyone hosting other people's content if the new laws were interpreted in a different way could be severe.

pjc50 8y ago

This is not happening in a vacuum, it's driven by lobbying from the publishing industry. Just as previous rounds of problems were caused by the EU copyright directive demanded by the music and video industries.

coldtea 8y ago
>Just as previous rounds of problems were caused by the EU copyright directive demanded by the music and video industries. Or previous "rounds of solutions", if you were a music or video or print rights holder / publisher.

pif 8y ago

> ...is what as happened to any other sector that was innovative at the time. s/innovative/"innovative and illegal" While everybody has got used to "freely" enjoy copyrighted content on internet, IP protection is still a pillar for the low of most (if not all) countries in the world. Let's stop being hypocrite: either we push IP into oblivion or we enforce it consistently. Pretending that IP laws matter only when it concerns our own content doesn't help innovation.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> either we push IP into oblivion or we enforce it consistently False dilemma. I can quote a sentence from the New York Times in a Hacker News comment without incurring, for myself nor Y Combinator, any financial obligation. "Fair use" has admittedly been over-narrowed in the U.S. But it still exists.
pjc50 8y ago
On the contrary, we've come to rely on extremely intermittent enforcement, because both the "total enforcement" and "no enforcement" outcomes are bad.
DanBC 8y ago
> or we enforce it consistently Why do you think it isn't enforced consistently? The vast majority of copyright infringement isn't a criminal offence, but a civil matter, which means the rights-holders are the correct people to take action if they wish.
AllegedAlec 8y ago
> innovative and illegal Why do IP laws apply to the internet, exactly?
- pif 8y ago
  Why shouldn't they, exactly?
  - AllegedAlec 8y ago

nisa 8y ago

That's not what happening. The current attacks on the Internet are sponsered by Axel Springer (largest newspaper buisness in Europe) and the result of massive lobbying. They even used openly pressure and the supporters in the EU are fed bullshit stories. There is a useless lex Google in Germany called Leistungsschutzrecht, the link-tax is the attempt to a weaponized version through the EU - sponsered by the CDU and conservative and right-wing politicans. Their hope is to somehow rescue their broken revenue model and make everyone pay for their content. Upload filters are likely the lobbying result of the content companies.