5 ms·

So since the majority of the voices here on HN seem to be pretty negative towards this, I think it's worth noting there are some creative voices who are in favo

So since the majority of the voices here on HN seem to be pretty negative towards this, I think it's worth noting there are some creative voices who are in favor of some copyright law. For example, here's one fellow on the twitter machine who's a composer and seems pleased: https://twitter.com/Howard_Goodall/status/1039833762262134784 https://twitter.com/Howard_Goodall/status/103983376226213478... Simultaneously, I'm not campaigning in favor of the "link tax" component, here. I think it's widely agreed upon that that part of this proposal is pretty dire bunkum. But let's not be eager to discard the baby and bathwater together. The idea of some EU copyright policy consensus is not inherently evil. If HN wants to rally about the "link tax" issue, do so. Don't jump directly to "boo, the EU is undemocratic because they didn't do what I want". That's just bizarre and we should be above that.

raverbashing 8y ago
I don't buy it that they understand exactly what it entail, they just think "nobody will pirate my work so good, right?" Until of course the filters take his legitimate content and claim it as somebody elses
interhero 8y ago
Those "artists" believe that if their music disappears from pirate sites, they'll start to make money. They don't take into account the fact that likely nobody is downloading their stuff.
zaarn 8y ago
I generally agree, living in a democracy means that sometimes you have things happen you don't agree with because a majority either doesn't agree with you or doesn't care enough to bother. In a few years the EU could be on it's way to undo the linktax again, who knows? Meanwhile there are other EU proposals on the way that are also interesting for tech people, not only the linktax and "delete terror in 1 hour or else"... And non-tech proposals too! I do believe that it'll be possible to work with the filters and link tax considering some edits during the initial phases did disarm the worst of the first proposal (it's still not a very nice one). Disclaimer: I operate a platform for user generated content in the EU as well as working for a platform for user generated content, HQ'd in the EU, my views may be biased.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  >because a majority either doesn't agree with you or doesn't care enough to bother. // That's why we've not moved on from representative democracy. The problem is the representatives are supposed to represent the people - and the people think they do (or try) - but in practice the representatives often don't. In the UK we very rarely get chance to influence decisions, instead we get to choose the people who will decide, and they almost? always lie about how they will make decisions and what will influence them. PR would make it better, but reduce the power of those who need to decide to give us PR.
  - zaarn 8y ago
    I think the easily solution (for the EU) would be the better advertise the fact they have MEPs and that you vote for them. EU elections have a rather disappointingly low participation, it's no wonder that things get lobbied into existence. Representative democracy is IMO the most effective form of democracy for large scale hierarchies of authority, at least if you want something democratic. (There is always the option of a benevolent, immortal god-princess but we lack candidates with qualities in the categories benevolent, immortal and god-, not for a lack of belief or trying)
    - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
      I think I agree per representative democracy, it's the best of the options that we practically have. But, it relies on honest, forthright representatives and the people who covertly back most of those representatives are getting better at lying and presenting a fake reality. This breaks democracy. We need laws like they have for financial adverts on the radio, so when the drugs minister speaks about illegal drugs she has to say "my husband owns the largest cannabis producing company in the UK, and I personally profit from sale of cannabis products due to their health uses; but despite this cannabis growing will remain illegal here, I benefit financially from that". That's not an isolated example, all the Tories appear to have other interests above their constituents. PM May's husband profits from companies seeking to avoid UK tax, he also presumably has insider information; the chances of May making a decision that negatively impacts her husband's interest in a reportedly £1.4 Trillion are probably infinitesimal -- regardless of whether that benefits the country and/or her constituents. Before every party political broadcast they need a list of the manifesto promises they made for the last election, and whether they met them. Remind us to look most carefully at who we choose to represent our interests.
DINKDINK 8y ago
An upload filter is censorship by another name. Have you written a text critical of the government and haven't copyrighted it? Congratulations, the state now has and issued a "copyright filter" on your manifesto.
jonathanstrange 8y ago
The crucial issue that I miss both in this directive and the current practice is that companies are encouraged to use automatic filters while actual copyright holder have almost no way of appealing against false copyright claims. I'd be fine with automatic content tagging if at the same time false copyright claims by someone who does not actually hold the copyright would lead to a hefty fine and/or be considered a crime. Right now, large corporations seem to spam the systems with automated take-down messages without any control and any incentive not to do so, to the effect that actual content producers have almost no way to defend themselves against false claims. Every youtube channel owner can sing you a song about that. That's a problem for both the US and EU copyright system, but it's also not clear to me if and how the forthcoming EU directive would fix that problem. For all it's worth, it seems to make things worse.
- arnvald 8y ago
  This is a good point. False copyright claims should be penalized, enforcing companies to improve the accuracy of their claims.
  - dexen 8y ago
    The american DMCA includes provision to penalize false takedowns, but from what I've seen the provision isn't used too often.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- AnssiH 8y ago
  > For all it's worth, it seems to make things worse. Actually, adopted amendment 160 reads: > Members States shall ensure that online content sharing service providers referred to in paragraph 1 put in place effective and expeditious complaints and redress mechanisms that are available to users in case the cooperation referred to in paragraph 2a leads to unjustified removals of their content. Any complaint filed under such mechanisms shall be processed without undue delay and be subject to human review. Right holders shall reasonably justify their decisions to avoid arbitrary dismissal of complaints. Moreover, in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC, Directive 200/58/EC and the General Data Protection Regulation, the cooperation shall not lead to any identification of individual users nor the processing of their personal data. Member States shall also ensure that users have access to an independent body for the resolution of disputes as well as to a court or another relevant judicial authority to assert the use of an exception or limitation to copyright rules. List of amendments (adopted and non-adopted): http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/report-details.html?reference=A8-0245-2018 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/report-details.html... Vote result of each amendment: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2fEP%2f%2fNONSGML%2bPV%2b20180912%2bRES-VOT%2bDOC%2bPDF%2bV0%2f%2fFR&language=EN http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2f... Edit: PDF of all amendments adopted today (includes the full amended text of articles 11 and 13): http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+TA+P8-TA-2018-0337+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//...
rocqua 8y ago
> Simultaneously, I'm not campaigning in favor of the "link tax" component, here. I think it's widely agreed upon that that part of this proposal is pretty dire bunkum. I actually believe the ``link tax'' is less bad than the content filtering. Because it only governs Google publishing snippets of articles. That is pretty close to Google 'stealing' the article from websites. (Similar to google's AMP cache)
nocigar 8y ago
There have always been bleeding-heart-starving-artist types who do not understand the digital world's realities and feel that producing content should result in money magically being funneled into their bank account. In this case, they are merely the useful idiots, because even if they got all the revenue from the use of their work over the entire internet, it would amount to pennies. The EU is undemocratic because there is no clear way to hold representatives accountable. Simple as that. Every time something like this happens, we have to pull out all the stops just to maintain the fragile status quo we have and avoid sliding backwards into an authoritarian state that wields bureaucracy in slow motion. These MEPs are paid ridiculous amounts of money to sell out the public interest. I'm in my 30s and cannot recall once in my lifetime that these dunning krugers have ever demonstrated sufficient understanding for what they are trying to do. They have a reverse Midas touch when it comes to 21st century issues. Still waiting for them to prove me wrong.

raverbashing 8y ago

I don't buy it that they understand exactly what it entail, they just think "nobody will pirate my work so good, right?" Until of course the filters take his legitimate content and claim it as somebody elses

interhero 8y ago

Those "artists" believe that if their music disappears from pirate sites, they'll start to make money. They don't take into account the fact that likely nobody is downloading their stuff.

zaarn 8y ago

I generally agree, living in a democracy means that sometimes you have things happen you don't agree with because a majority either doesn't agree with you or doesn't care enough to bother. In a few years the EU could be on it's way to undo the linktax again, who knows? Meanwhile there are other EU proposals on the way that are also interesting for tech people, not only the linktax and "delete terror in 1 hour or else"... And non-tech proposals too! I do believe that it'll be possible to work with the filters and link tax considering some edits during the initial phases did disarm the worst of the first proposal (it's still not a very nice one). Disclaimer: I operate a platform for user generated content in the EU as well as working for a platform for user generated content, HQ'd in the EU, my views may be biased.

pbhjpbhj 8y ago
>because a majority either doesn't agree with you or doesn't care enough to bother. // That's why we've not moved on from representative democracy. The problem is the representatives are supposed to represent the people - and the people think they do (or try) - but in practice the representatives often don't. In the UK we very rarely get chance to influence decisions, instead we get to choose the people who will decide, and they almost? always lie about how they will make decisions and what will influence them. PR would make it better, but reduce the power of those who need to decide to give us PR.
- zaarn 8y ago
  I think the easily solution (for the EU) would be the better advertise the fact they have MEPs and that you vote for them. EU elections have a rather disappointingly low participation, it's no wonder that things get lobbied into existence. Representative democracy is IMO the most effective form of democracy for large scale hierarchies of authority, at least if you want something democratic. (There is always the option of a benevolent, immortal god-princess but we lack candidates with qualities in the categories benevolent, immortal and god-, not for a lack of belief or trying)
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    I think I agree per representative democracy, it's the best of the options that we practically have. But, it relies on honest, forthright representatives and the people who covertly back most of those representatives are getting better at lying and presenting a fake reality. This breaks democracy. We need laws like they have for financial adverts on the radio, so when the drugs minister speaks about illegal drugs she has to say "my husband owns the largest cannabis producing company in the UK, and I personally profit from sale of cannabis products due to their health uses; but despite this cannabis growing will remain illegal here, I benefit financially from that". That's not an isolated example, all the Tories appear to have other interests above their constituents. PM May's husband profits from companies seeking to avoid UK tax, he also presumably has insider information; the chances of May making a decision that negatively impacts her husband's interest in a reportedly £1.4 Trillion are probably infinitesimal -- regardless of whether that benefits the country and/or her constituents. Before every party political broadcast they need a list of the manifesto promises they made for the last election, and whether they met them. Remind us to look most carefully at who we choose to represent our interests.

DINKDINK 8y ago

An upload filter is censorship by another name. Have you written a text critical of the government and haven't copyrighted it? Congratulations, the state now has and issued a "copyright filter" on your manifesto.

jonathanstrange 8y ago

The crucial issue that I miss both in this directive and the current practice is that companies are encouraged to use automatic filters while actual copyright holder have almost no way of appealing against false copyright claims. I'd be fine with automatic content tagging if at the same time false copyright claims by someone who does not actually hold the copyright would lead to a hefty fine and/or be considered a crime. Right now, large corporations seem to spam the systems with automated take-down messages without any control and any incentive not to do so, to the effect that actual content producers have almost no way to defend themselves against false claims. Every youtube channel owner can sing you a song about that. That's a problem for both the US and EU copyright system, but it's also not clear to me if and how the forthcoming EU directive would fix that problem. For all it's worth, it seems to make things worse.

arnvald 8y ago
This is a good point. False copyright claims should be penalized, enforcing companies to improve the accuracy of their claims.
- dexen 8y ago
  The american DMCA includes provision to penalize false takedowns, but from what I've seen the provision isn't used too often.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
AnssiH 8y ago
> For all it's worth, it seems to make things worse. Actually, adopted amendment 160 reads: > Members States shall ensure that online content sharing service providers referred to in paragraph 1 put in place effective and expeditious complaints and redress mechanisms that are available to users in case the cooperation referred to in paragraph 2a leads to unjustified removals of their content. Any complaint filed under such mechanisms shall be processed without undue delay and be subject to human review. Right holders shall reasonably justify their decisions to avoid arbitrary dismissal of complaints. Moreover, in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC, Directive 200/58/EC and the General Data Protection Regulation, the cooperation shall not lead to any identification of individual users nor the processing of their personal data. Member States shall also ensure that users have access to an independent body for the resolution of disputes as well as to a court or another relevant judicial authority to assert the use of an exception or limitation to copyright rules. List of amendments (adopted and non-adopted): http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/report-details.html?reference=A8-0245-2018 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/report-details.html... Vote result of each amendment: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2fEP%2f%2fNONSGML%2bPV%2b20180912%2bRES-VOT%2bDOC%2bPDF%2bV0%2f%2fFR&language=EN http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2f... Edit: PDF of all amendments adopted today (includes the full amended text of articles 11 and 13): http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+TA+P8-TA-2018-0337+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//...

rocqua 8y ago

> Simultaneously, I'm not campaigning in favor of the "link tax" component, here. I think it's widely agreed upon that that part of this proposal is pretty dire bunkum. I actually believe the ``link tax'' is less bad than the content filtering. Because it only governs Google publishing snippets of articles. That is pretty close to Google 'stealing' the article from websites. (Similar to google's AMP cache)

nocigar 8y ago

There have always been bleeding-heart-starving-artist types who do not understand the digital world's realities and feel that producing content should result in money magically being funneled into their bank account. In this case, they are merely the useful idiots, because even if they got all the revenue from the use of their work over the entire internet, it would amount to pennies. The EU is undemocratic because there is no clear way to hold representatives accountable. Simple as that. Every time something like this happens, we have to pull out all the stops just to maintain the fragile status quo we have and avoid sliding backwards into an authoritarian state that wields bureaucracy in slow motion. These MEPs are paid ridiculous amounts of money to sell out the public interest. I'm in my 30s and cannot recall once in my lifetime that these dunning krugers have ever demonstrated sufficient understanding for what they are trying to do. They have a reverse Midas touch when it comes to 21st century issues. Still waiting for them to prove me wrong.