6 ms·
What we see is the logical extension of what's required for continuation of the copyright system: a highly regulated Internet where nothing can be published unl
by incompatible 8y ago
What we see is the logical extension of what's required for continuation of the copyright system: a highly regulated Internet where nothing can be published unless its copyright status has been accurately identified. Only authorized people can be relied on to produce new content, otherwise there's no way to tell if they just copied it from someone else.
The next step would be to shut down proxies, systems such as Tor, and connections to sites in rogue states that don't sufficiently enforce copyright.
- ekianjo 8y agoand the shutdown of basically any kind of public forum on a small site since it is going to be nearly impossible for small entities to comply with regulations.
- olliej 8y agoBut they say that you don’t need to filter all content! Like if you know no one will ever upload copyrighted content there’s nothing to worry about. And that not all content will be covered (although they appear to have accidentally forgotten to include that bit in what they published).
- swsieber 8y ago"if you know no one will ever upload copyrighted content" How in the world could I know that as a website master? How am I supposed to know the range of actions for any future users.
- draugadrotten 8y agoLegally, perhaps it could be sufficient to include a check box saying "I certify that I am the copyright holder to everything I upload". Compare with the way EU handles the cookie law and GDPR consent click-yes.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- olliej 8y agoI was being sarcastic (I thought the tone and content made that obvious :) )
- krotton 8y agoYou're joking here, but a politician in Poland, when asked about how shall a popular link sharing platform (wykop.pl) deal with submissions, of which there are 100k / hour in peak times, actually suggested that "users should know not to upload illegal materials".
- swsieber 8y agoThe last sentence threw me off (about certain content not being covered). If it was just your first paragraph, I would have thought it was sarcasm. And I was tired.
- fjsolwmv 8y agoPlease don't use sarcasm on HN. It is low quality discourse that only causes confusion, and sarcasm doesn't have a detectable "tone" in text.
- techrich 8y agoThe elites finally have the internet they want to take back control.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- giancarlostoro 8y agoFunny many years back I had a friend who worked at a company that builds a widely successful proprietary OS that tried to lock down the OS from any unauthorized software, aka solving the issues with copyright / piracy forever so to speak. They figured it's not their battle to fight and scrapped the project. It's just not a battle worth fighting. Look at Steam... Sure people still crack Steam games... but many more so buy Steam games.
- tmikaeld 8y agoI think they would need to shut down encryption too, because one logical outcome to avoiding copyright checks is encrypting the content on the client so the provider don't know what has been uploaded.
- incompatible 8y agoThe provider could still be held liable if the decryption keys became public. The argument would just be that they "should have known better" than to "publish" data that they couldn't examine.
- tmikaeld 8y agoI guess you're right, if this law is enforced there's no excuse and longer.