29 ms·

>However, those backing these provisions say the arguments above are the result of scaremongering by big US tech companies, eager to keep control of the web’s b

>However, those backing these provisions say the arguments above are the result of scaremongering by big US tech companies, eager to keep control of the web’s biggest platforms. This is the most hilarious quote in the article. The only thing this will do is entrench massive players like Google and Facebook who already have these systems in place. I honestly cannot comprehend how anyone could support this law while having any understanding of how the internet works. Do these politicians really not understand the awful implications of these filtering systems for free speech and fair use? Just look at the abuses that already happen with the existing systems and now we have to spread this across the entire web, absolutely insane. A truly sad day for the future of a free internet in Europe.

sieabah 8y ago
It's simple, the EU wants it's own internet like China. No more filthy US internet with talk about free speech and fair use.
- lovich 8y ago
  I see part of your argument, but the internet in the US is by no means full of free speech and fair use. The government has their hands on every major service provider and ISP and has used their power to compel companies to give information or censor data. What's happening here is the EU is seeing every other major power lock down their internet, so why would they leave theirs open which would also allow foreign meddling? Additionally the tech megacorps are trying to claim that they are open platforms and so shouldn't be responsible for user posted data while censoring and removing user posted data when it suits their economic means. I'm a proponent of free speech, but the internet stopped being a bastion of free speech year ago. It's crazy to think that the EU was going to sit their and let companies do what they please, when those same companies we're already preventing users/EU citizens from doing so
  - int_19h 8y ago
    US has a huge surveillance (both govt and private) problem, but censorship? Can you give some examples?
    - groestl 8y ago
      Maybe "Napalm Girl" v Facebook, as an example how chilling effects and cultural differences can lead to an outcome which is perceived as censorship in Europe?
    - alfredallan 8y ago
      1. Reddit on the topic of Donald Trump is an example. 2. Forcing social media firms to delete specific kinds of content is another (albeit controversial) example. 3. Redacting all info about Saudi involvement in the 9-11 reports is a great example of censorship under the pretext of national security. 4. The SESTA/FOSTA bills are a recent (but again somewhat controversial) example. 5. Plenty of movies have been censored. One can easily google examples of this. 6. Many works of music too. Just ask the rappers. 7. Forbidding swear words in public/recorded speech is/was a great example. Although it is also an example of self-censorship among Americans.
      - int_19h 8y ago
        Classifying government documents is not censorship, since it's not government suppressing anyone's speech. It's strictly a transparency issue. All of your other examples involve private censorship (which can be rephrased as "people and companies exercising their property rights and freedom of association"), not government censorship.
        CaptainZapp 8y ago
        What? "4. The SESTA/FOSTA bills are a recent (but again somewhat controversial) example." Where exactly is that private censorship?
        nickpsecurity 8y ago
        If you know about it, it's a felony to talk about it. That particular one was a huge omission that might have shifted national debate in a different direction, esp who U.S. would target in a war or sanction. I still remember the advertisements on the radio talking about how great Saudi Arabia is and how good buddies we are. Be a different picture if U.S. media said they were a huge sponsor of violent religion and terrorism with that part of 9/11 report highlighted for all to see. Definitely an example of mandated censorship, corruption, and maybe some kind of conspiracy. Maybe protecting politicians' and Saudi's interests at everyone else's expense. Even if it kills a bunch of us. If that's how they use the power, they don't deserve to have it.
  - aldoushuxley001 8y ago
    Ah yes, the ol "but China is building a digital dystopia so we should too" argument. A classic.
    - lovich 8y ago
      Ah the old, let's imply your racist/afraid so you let american companies do as they please argument. It's easy to be trite, but it doesn't change the fact that foreign companies and governments were taking advantage of the EU while simultaneously having a different set of rules at home for EU companies. I think the EU overreacted her, hut it's hardly surprising that they had some sort of response
      - nkassis 8y ago
        The whole thread should be about the EU response and how negative it will be for most EU citizens but have less of an impact on the intended targets, aka large corporations who can afford to be compliant. I think arguing over who has the most censored internet or the worst corporations is probably starting to veer off topic.
        lovich 8y ago
        I agree. I don't even think that this is a good response by the EU. I was mostly commenting on how you shouldn't be surprised that they had _a_ response when other powers are locking down their internet and foreign companies we're running rough shod over EU laws and directives. I think its all stemming from the same response as a portion of people who voted for Trump, or why the GPDR was enacted. The status quo was being abused by the major players and now they are going to do _something_ to shake up the system. Whether their approach is the right thing to do is up for debate
        SZJX 8y ago
        I think the point here is to understand why such a response occurred. So it's very much on topic. Nobody is denying that this is generally a bad thing for the commoners. But when you put it into perspective, what the US and China have been doing are also very bad. So this is nothing out of the ordinary really.
- mverwijs 8y ago
  I'd upvote you, but my Verizon Ultra G5 Package does not allow for upvoting.
linuxftw 8y ago
> Do these politicians really not understand the awful implications of these filtering systems for free speech and fair use? They believe what their wealthy donors tell them to believe. It won't affect the well connected politicians in any measurable way, they'll still be wealthy. Meanwhile, independent organizations will suffer while the big players get all the sweet licensing deals. Regulations are ALWAYS about punishing the smaller firms to make the barrier to market entry prohibitively expensive.
- untog 8y ago
  Does the EU have a problem with wealthy donors? I've heard this criticism levelled against US politicians and it's justified, but in this case I think it might just be sheer ignorance on the part of the EU legislators.
  - fetbaffe 8y ago
    Don’t know how common it is, but it has happened https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_cash_for_influence_scandal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_cash_for_influence_scan...
    - int_19h 8y ago
      That's outright bribery. Lobbying usually implies that it's legal.
  - adrianratnapala 8y ago
    Everywhere has this phenomenon in some guise, it's only the US that's self absorbed enough to think it is unique.
    - anigbrowl 8y ago
      That's essentially a religious argument. Please provide evidence for your claim.
jules 8y ago
> I honestly cannot comprehend how anyone could support this law while having any understanding of how the internet works. These are the same politicians that brought us the law that forces every website to ask EU visitors permission to store cookies with a big fat modal dialog, so I don't think you need to worry that people who any understanding of how the internet works supported this law. Imagine all the time wasted on those modal dialogs and add up the total cost in human lives. I bet none of them have any clue that the functionality to block cookies is built right into your web browser. The funny part is that they're doing this copyright law out of jealousy of Silicon valley and they don't realise that these types of regulations and attitudes are the very reason why Silicon valley is not located in the EU, and why the next Silicon valley won't be either, and that this law will make it harder for new companies to compete with Youtube and Facebook.
- isostatic 8y ago
  > These are the same politicians that brought us the law that forces every website to ask EU visitors permission to store cookies with a big fat modal dialog No it doesn't. For example https://news.ycombinator.com/ https://news.ycombinator.com/ Does not have any such dialog
  - nothrabannosir 8y ago
    And to preempt the pointless but inevitable thread to follow: it also wouldn't need the dialog if it were based in the EU. How do I know? I don't. Maybe it does track users. But the website was used as a counter example to "forces every website", and a hypothetical news.ycombinator.eu which doesn't track users or keep any PII on them (conceivable by any reasonable person) is acceptable as a counter argument. The point stands. GDPR doesn't force anything. It just prevents you from tracking people silently.
    - majewsky 8y ago
      > And to preempt the pointless but inevitable thread to follow: it also wouldn't need the dialog if it were based in the EU. Exactly. The only thing that every EU-based website should have is a data protection statement. The one on my blog is short and stout: > No system under my control records any personal data of users of this website. I also have an imprint because German law requires it. The regulation is clearly aimed at businesses, for private websites it just makes doxxing easy since I'm required to put my post address on there. (I considered getting a PO box, but going to the post office to empty it is pretty tedious.)
08-15 8y ago
> Do these politicians really not understand the awful implications of these filtering systems for free speech and fair use? They do, and free speech and fair use are important issues to them.
- wolfgke 8y ago
  > They do, and free speech and fair use are important issues to them. The German law that is related to what US citizens call "copyright law" (Urheberrechtsgesetz) (note that I use this careful formulation, since Urheberrecht and copyright are based on different ideas) has no concept of "fair use". Also, traditionally, in Germany, there is culturally a different understanding of what US citizens call "free speech" (freie Meinungsäußerung). "Freie Meinungsäußerung", for example, does not include defamation criticism or libel. So free speech in the US sense is no important issue for these politicians, because this concept is simply not ingrained in German culture. To all the US free speech advocates: why is posting a copyrighted file in the internet not considered free speech and thus copyright law is to be abolished?
  - 08-15 8y ago
    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. > So free speech in the US sense is no important issue for these politicians The Eurocrats do not want free speech to establish itself in the EU. That's very important to them.
    - hef19898 8y ago
      We do have free speech in the EU, claming otherwise would indicate that the European countries are no democracies. While the extent of free speech might vary from country to country, denying it is there goes way to far. Sure, there are limitations to it, e.g. denying the Holocaust or using Nazi symbols in Germany, and with regards to defamation. But otherwise just about any opinion can be voiced freely. Thid doesn't mean that thios particular EU law is any good, it just screams big media corporation lobbyism all over it. And yes, this implies some future potential limitations to free speech,l either by technically limiting the reech of smaller players (regardless of what the law states) and by giving governmants a tool to keep things of the internet. Especially the last part is troubling.
abraham_lincoln 8y ago
So maybe Google and Facebook were lobbying the EU politicians?
bcheung 8y ago
The stronger they push ridiculous laws like this the more it will force perfectly legitimate business to go underground. We will end up with all the problems of prohibition all over again. > is intended to give publishers and papers a way to make money when companies like Google link to their stories So Google should pay you when they send you more traffic? More traffic = more money. Most companies would be overjoyed if someone sends them free business. Google and countless others even provide tools like Adwords so you can monetize your site if you can't figure out how to do it yourself. I wonder how long until companies outside of Europe decide it's easier just to block all traffic from Europe in protest. This is a weakening of safe harbor provisions. This law makes it extremely difficult to have a platform with any kind of user generated content. As long as a company is taking reasonable measures to combat piracy, hate speech, etc, they need to be granted indemnity from the actions of rogue users.
- imbur 8y ago
  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.
  - visarga 8y ago
    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. What I think will happen instead is that many websites would not want this kind of situation, so we will add a new clause to the robots.txt permitting linking and small snippets, and most websites would enable it rather than lose the link and search traffic. Then we'd be back where we started. By the way, what happens when an European newspaper is hosted in US? What laws apply?
    - JAlexoid 8y ago
cynoclast 8y ago
>I honestly cannot comprehend how anyone could support this law while having any understanding of how the internet works. Who do you think has their arm up the politicians' ass and making them talk?
anigbrowl 8y ago
Maybe it's time technologists stopped assuming they're the cleverest persons in the room and rectified their ignorance of law and economics before assuming they're in the right about everything. I'm not a fan of onerous copyright legislation but simply asserting that 'information wants to be free' is stating an opinion, not some scientific law. Hackers and developers are just as subject to the Dunning-Kreuger effect as anyone else.
- wokwokwok 8y ago
  My my, its certainly easy to tell people off isn't it? ...but perhaps if instead you offered a compelling argument to the counter? The EFF has laid out a lot of reasons this is problematic, and they are very familiar with the situation.
  - anigbrowl 8y ago
    I have offered many such arguments if you would like to peruse my comment history. I've been debating these issued for about 25 years now, and have several friends who work at the EFF.
- godshatter 8y ago
  When someone cites the Dunning-Krueger effect, I always wonder if they are a professional psychologist.
bcheung 8y ago
> Do these politicians really not understand the awful implications of these filtering systems for free speech and fair use? Some do, some don't. But in some ways that's not the motivation behind these laws. There's a growing power struggle between Silicon Valley tech companies and government. Governments are losing control and they are lashing out. We're going to see a lot more of it in the future as governments lose more and more control.
ddingus 8y ago
Maybe they do understand. People communicating very freely has presented many challenges to those same politicians. Forcing liability makes a choke point, and better control. At least China is completely overt about these things. That is not a statement of support, quite the opposite. It is a statement as to how weasely politicians are about these things. They want a lot more control, and people want a greater check on authority. I can't help but notice strong self interest factors in play here.
stcredzero 8y ago
Do these politicians really not understand the awful implications of these filtering systems for free speech and fair use? I was doing a web development gig in a southern US state back in 1998, and the manager was completely of the mindset that you had to ask permission to link somewhere. For some people who don't get it, this is their natural mindset. For other people, the whole point is to work against free speech and fair use, in order to control the public.
HIPisTheAnswer 8y ago
> The only thing this will do is entrench massive players like Google and Facebook Incorrect. It will also speed up development of a new web which is impossible to regulate. So I rejoice. When they block entire services for days, I cry in joy. A 10 days blackout is what we need...
- godzillabrennus 8y ago
  Pied Piper.
- adamhepner 8y ago
  or a tiny js file that anyone can add to header, that upon document loaded replaces ALL images, videos, text in quotes and anchors with black stripes with red "451 unavailable for legal reasons" spans. Upon clicking this should open in a new tab a website with information on what is this about and what can be done about it.
- hexane360 8y ago
  This idea is called accelerationism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism
lossolo 8y ago
> The only thing this will do is entrench massive players like Google and Facebook who already have these systems in place. Not exactly. Small and micro platforms are excluded from directive’s scope. From legislation: In particular, small and micro enterprises as defined in Title I of the Annex to Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC, should be expected to be subject to less burdensome obligations than larger service providers. Therefore, taking into account the state of the art and the availability of technologies and their costs, in specific cases it may not be proportionate to expect small and micro enterprises to apply preventive measures and that therefore in such cases these enterprises should only be expected to expeditiously remove specific unauthorised works and other subject matter upon notification by rightholders As to what small is, Annex to Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC Article 2.2 states: Within the SME category, a small enterprise is defined as an enterprise which employs fewer than 50 persons and whose annual turnover and/or annual balance sheet total does not exceed EUR 10 million
- janoc 8y ago
  And how is an SME with 10 million annual turnover (that's not profit, that's revenue before all the expenses are taken out) ever going to build a competing platform to e.g. Google or Facebook? All this does is to put a token nod in place that we don't want to kill the SMEs outright but once they grow enough to be "dangerous", they better start paying or else. And if they can't, tough luck ...
  - lossolo 8y ago
    > All this does is to put a token nod in place that we don't want to kill the SMEs outright but once they grow enough to be "dangerous", they better start paying or else. And if they can't, tough luck ... No, this means that when you get over 10 mil euro, then you have enough money to pay for third party solution to content filtering. This costs couple of thousands a month and you are covered. You don't need to create your own ContentID platform to comply with the law.
sharemywin 8y ago
Does the link tax only apply to the interenet? what about scientific papers? are you required to pay when you reference other material?
- consp 8y ago
  In the summary of the original draft I read it was exempt. Haven't read the amended version but I suspect it still is in there somewhere.
kulahan 8y ago
I'm so tired of the narrative that these highly-educated people vote on matters that they have no understanding of. They know exactly what they're voting for, and say whatever is necessary to convince everyone that they're working to protect their constituents. At least in the US, the vast majority of our politicians have graduated from prestigious law schools and passed the notoriously difficult BAR exam. Unless politicians on the other side of the pond are somehow primarily composed of MUCH dumber people, they're probably similarly intelligent. They know what they're voting for, and they pretend to be totally ignorant to the "scary new world" of tech so they get a free pass on voting in dumb shit laws like this.

sieabah 8y ago

It's simple, the EU wants it's own internet like China. No more filthy US internet with talk about free speech and fair use.

lovich 8y ago
I see part of your argument, but the internet in the US is by no means full of free speech and fair use. The government has their hands on every major service provider and ISP and has used their power to compel companies to give information or censor data. What's happening here is the EU is seeing every other major power lock down their internet, so why would they leave theirs open which would also allow foreign meddling? Additionally the tech megacorps are trying to claim that they are open platforms and so shouldn't be responsible for user posted data while censoring and removing user posted data when it suits their economic means. I'm a proponent of free speech, but the internet stopped being a bastion of free speech year ago. It's crazy to think that the EU was going to sit their and let companies do what they please, when those same companies we're already preventing users/EU citizens from doing so
- int_19h 8y ago
  US has a huge surveillance (both govt and private) problem, but censorship? Can you give some examples?
  - groestl 8y ago
    Maybe "Napalm Girl" v Facebook, as an example how chilling effects and cultural differences can lead to an outcome which is perceived as censorship in Europe?
  - alfredallan 8y ago
    1. Reddit on the topic of Donald Trump is an example. 2. Forcing social media firms to delete specific kinds of content is another (albeit controversial) example. 3. Redacting all info about Saudi involvement in the 9-11 reports is a great example of censorship under the pretext of national security. 4. The SESTA/FOSTA bills are a recent (but again somewhat controversial) example. 5. Plenty of movies have been censored. One can easily google examples of this. 6. Many works of music too. Just ask the rappers. 7. Forbidding swear words in public/recorded speech is/was a great example. Although it is also an example of self-censorship among Americans.
    - int_19h 8y ago
      Classifying government documents is not censorship, since it's not government suppressing anyone's speech. It's strictly a transparency issue. All of your other examples involve private censorship (which can be rephrased as "people and companies exercising their property rights and freedom of association"), not government censorship.
      - CaptainZapp 8y ago
        What? "4. The SESTA/FOSTA bills are a recent (but again somewhat controversial) example." Where exactly is that private censorship?
      - nickpsecurity 8y ago
        If you know about it, it's a felony to talk about it. That particular one was a huge omission that might have shifted national debate in a different direction, esp who U.S. would target in a war or sanction. I still remember the advertisements on the radio talking about how great Saudi Arabia is and how good buddies we are. Be a different picture if U.S. media said they were a huge sponsor of violent religion and terrorism with that part of 9/11 report highlighted for all to see. Definitely an example of mandated censorship, corruption, and maybe some kind of conspiracy. Maybe protecting politicians' and Saudi's interests at everyone else's expense. Even if it kills a bunch of us. If that's how they use the power, they don't deserve to have it.
- aldoushuxley001 8y ago
  Ah yes, the ol "but China is building a digital dystopia so we should too" argument. A classic.
  - lovich 8y ago
    Ah the old, let's imply your racist/afraid so you let american companies do as they please argument. It's easy to be trite, but it doesn't change the fact that foreign companies and governments were taking advantage of the EU while simultaneously having a different set of rules at home for EU companies. I think the EU overreacted her, hut it's hardly surprising that they had some sort of response
    - nkassis 8y ago
      The whole thread should be about the EU response and how negative it will be for most EU citizens but have less of an impact on the intended targets, aka large corporations who can afford to be compliant. I think arguing over who has the most censored internet or the worst corporations is probably starting to veer off topic.
      - lovich 8y ago
        I agree. I don't even think that this is a good response by the EU. I was mostly commenting on how you shouldn't be surprised that they had _a_ response when other powers are locking down their internet and foreign companies we're running rough shod over EU laws and directives. I think its all stemming from the same response as a portion of people who voted for Trump, or why the GPDR was enacted. The status quo was being abused by the major players and now they are going to do _something_ to shake up the system. Whether their approach is the right thing to do is up for debate
      - SZJX 8y ago
        I think the point here is to understand why such a response occurred. So it's very much on topic. Nobody is denying that this is generally a bad thing for the commoners. But when you put it into perspective, what the US and China have been doing are also very bad. So this is nothing out of the ordinary really.
mverwijs 8y ago
I'd upvote you, but my Verizon Ultra G5 Package does not allow for upvoting.

linuxftw 8y ago

> Do these politicians really not understand the awful implications of these filtering systems for free speech and fair use? They believe what their wealthy donors tell them to believe. It won't affect the well connected politicians in any measurable way, they'll still be wealthy. Meanwhile, independent organizations will suffer while the big players get all the sweet licensing deals. Regulations are ALWAYS about punishing the smaller firms to make the barrier to market entry prohibitively expensive.

untog 8y ago
Does the EU have a problem with wealthy donors? I've heard this criticism levelled against US politicians and it's justified, but in this case I think it might just be sheer ignorance on the part of the EU legislators.
- fetbaffe 8y ago
  Don’t know how common it is, but it has happened https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_cash_for_influence_scandal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_cash_for_influence_scan...
  - int_19h 8y ago
    That's outright bribery. Lobbying usually implies that it's legal.
- adrianratnapala 8y ago
  Everywhere has this phenomenon in some guise, it's only the US that's self absorbed enough to think it is unique.
  - anigbrowl 8y ago
    That's essentially a religious argument. Please provide evidence for your claim.

jules 8y ago

> I honestly cannot comprehend how anyone could support this law while having any understanding of how the internet works. These are the same politicians that brought us the law that forces every website to ask EU visitors permission to store cookies with a big fat modal dialog, so I don't think you need to worry that people who any understanding of how the internet works supported this law. Imagine all the time wasted on those modal dialogs and add up the total cost in human lives. I bet none of them have any clue that the functionality to block cookies is built right into your web browser. The funny part is that they're doing this copyright law out of jealousy of Silicon valley and they don't realise that these types of regulations and attitudes are the very reason why Silicon valley is not located in the EU, and why the next Silicon valley won't be either, and that this law will make it harder for new companies to compete with Youtube and Facebook.

isostatic 8y ago
> These are the same politicians that brought us the law that forces every website to ask EU visitors permission to store cookies with a big fat modal dialog No it doesn't. For example https://news.ycombinator.com/ https://news.ycombinator.com/ Does not have any such dialog
- nothrabannosir 8y ago
  And to preempt the pointless but inevitable thread to follow: it also wouldn't need the dialog if it were based in the EU. How do I know? I don't. Maybe it does track users. But the website was used as a counter example to "forces every website", and a hypothetical news.ycombinator.eu which doesn't track users or keep any PII on them (conceivable by any reasonable person) is acceptable as a counter argument. The point stands. GDPR doesn't force anything. It just prevents you from tracking people silently.
  - majewsky 8y ago
    > And to preempt the pointless but inevitable thread to follow: it also wouldn't need the dialog if it were based in the EU. Exactly. The only thing that every EU-based website should have is a data protection statement. The one on my blog is short and stout: > No system under my control records any personal data of users of this website. I also have an imprint because German law requires it. The regulation is clearly aimed at businesses, for private websites it just makes doxxing easy since I'm required to put my post address on there. (I considered getting a PO box, but going to the post office to empty it is pretty tedious.)

08-15 8y ago

> Do these politicians really not understand the awful implications of these filtering systems for free speech and fair use? They do, and free speech and fair use are important issues to them.

wolfgke 8y ago
> They do, and free speech and fair use are important issues to them. The German law that is related to what US citizens call "copyright law" (Urheberrechtsgesetz) (note that I use this careful formulation, since Urheberrecht and copyright are based on different ideas) has no concept of "fair use". Also, traditionally, in Germany, there is culturally a different understanding of what US citizens call "free speech" (freie Meinungsäußerung). "Freie Meinungsäußerung", for example, does not include defamation criticism or libel. So free speech in the US sense is no important issue for these politicians, because this concept is simply not ingrained in German culture. To all the US free speech advocates: why is posting a copyrighted file in the internet not considered free speech and thus copyright law is to be abolished?
- 08-15 8y ago
  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. > So free speech in the US sense is no important issue for these politicians The Eurocrats do not want free speech to establish itself in the EU. That's very important to them.
  - hef19898 8y ago
    We do have free speech in the EU, claming otherwise would indicate that the European countries are no democracies. While the extent of free speech might vary from country to country, denying it is there goes way to far. Sure, there are limitations to it, e.g. denying the Holocaust or using Nazi symbols in Germany, and with regards to defamation. But otherwise just about any opinion can be voiced freely. Thid doesn't mean that thios particular EU law is any good, it just screams big media corporation lobbyism all over it. And yes, this implies some future potential limitations to free speech,l either by technically limiting the reech of smaller players (regardless of what the law states) and by giving governmants a tool to keep things of the internet. Especially the last part is troubling.

abraham_lincoln 8y ago

So maybe Google and Facebook were lobbying the EU politicians?

bcheung 8y ago

The stronger they push ridiculous laws like this the more it will force perfectly legitimate business to go underground. We will end up with all the problems of prohibition all over again. > is intended to give publishers and papers a way to make money when companies like Google link to their stories So Google should pay you when they send you more traffic? More traffic = more money. Most companies would be overjoyed if someone sends them free business. Google and countless others even provide tools like Adwords so you can monetize your site if you can't figure out how to do it yourself. I wonder how long until companies outside of Europe decide it's easier just to block all traffic from Europe in protest. This is a weakening of safe harbor provisions. This law makes it extremely difficult to have a platform with any kind of user generated content. As long as a company is taking reasonable measures to combat piracy, hate speech, etc, they need to be granted indemnity from the actions of rogue users.

imbur 8y ago
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.
- visarga 8y ago
  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. What I think will happen instead is that many websites would not want this kind of situation, so we will add a new clause to the robots.txt permitting linking and small snippets, and most websites would enable it rather than lose the link and search traffic. Then we'd be back where we started. By the way, what happens when an European newspaper is hosted in US? What laws apply?
  - JAlexoid 8y ago

cynoclast 8y ago

>I honestly cannot comprehend how anyone could support this law while having any understanding of how the internet works. Who do you think has their arm up the politicians' ass and making them talk?

anigbrowl 8y ago

Maybe it's time technologists stopped assuming they're the cleverest persons in the room and rectified their ignorance of law and economics before assuming they're in the right about everything. I'm not a fan of onerous copyright legislation but simply asserting that 'information wants to be free' is stating an opinion, not some scientific law. Hackers and developers are just as subject to the Dunning-Kreuger effect as anyone else.

wokwokwok 8y ago
My my, its certainly easy to tell people off isn't it? ...but perhaps if instead you offered a compelling argument to the counter? The EFF has laid out a lot of reasons this is problematic, and they are very familiar with the situation.
- anigbrowl 8y ago
  I have offered many such arguments if you would like to peruse my comment history. I've been debating these issued for about 25 years now, and have several friends who work at the EFF.
godshatter 8y ago
When someone cites the Dunning-Krueger effect, I always wonder if they are a professional psychologist.

bcheung 8y ago

> Do these politicians really not understand the awful implications of these filtering systems for free speech and fair use? Some do, some don't. But in some ways that's not the motivation behind these laws. There's a growing power struggle between Silicon Valley tech companies and government. Governments are losing control and they are lashing out. We're going to see a lot more of it in the future as governments lose more and more control.

ddingus 8y ago

Maybe they do understand. People communicating very freely has presented many challenges to those same politicians. Forcing liability makes a choke point, and better control. At least China is completely overt about these things. That is not a statement of support, quite the opposite. It is a statement as to how weasely politicians are about these things. They want a lot more control, and people want a greater check on authority. I can't help but notice strong self interest factors in play here.

stcredzero 8y ago

Do these politicians really not understand the awful implications of these filtering systems for free speech and fair use? I was doing a web development gig in a southern US state back in 1998, and the manager was completely of the mindset that you had to ask permission to link somewhere. For some people who don't get it, this is their natural mindset. For other people, the whole point is to work against free speech and fair use, in order to control the public.

HIPisTheAnswer 8y ago

> The only thing this will do is entrench massive players like Google and Facebook Incorrect. It will also speed up development of a new web which is impossible to regulate. So I rejoice. When they block entire services for days, I cry in joy. A 10 days blackout is what we need...

godzillabrennus 8y ago
Pied Piper.
adamhepner 8y ago
or a tiny js file that anyone can add to header, that upon document loaded replaces ALL images, videos, text in quotes and anchors with black stripes with red "451 unavailable for legal reasons" spans. Upon clicking this should open in a new tab a website with information on what is this about and what can be done about it.
hexane360 8y ago
This idea is called accelerationism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism

lossolo 8y ago

> The only thing this will do is entrench massive players like Google and Facebook who already have these systems in place. Not exactly. Small and micro platforms are excluded from directive’s scope. From legislation: In particular, small and micro enterprises as defined in Title I of the Annex to Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC, should be expected to be subject to less burdensome obligations than larger service providers. Therefore, taking into account the state of the art and the availability of technologies and their costs, in specific cases it may not be proportionate to expect small and micro enterprises to apply preventive measures and that therefore in such cases these enterprises should only be expected to expeditiously remove specific unauthorised works and other subject matter upon notification by rightholders As to what small is, Annex to Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC Article 2.2 states: Within the SME category, a small enterprise is defined as an enterprise which employs fewer than 50 persons and whose annual turnover and/or annual balance sheet total does not exceed EUR 10 million

janoc 8y ago
And how is an SME with 10 million annual turnover (that's not profit, that's revenue before all the expenses are taken out) ever going to build a competing platform to e.g. Google or Facebook? All this does is to put a token nod in place that we don't want to kill the SMEs outright but once they grow enough to be "dangerous", they better start paying or else. And if they can't, tough luck ...
- lossolo 8y ago
  > All this does is to put a token nod in place that we don't want to kill the SMEs outright but once they grow enough to be "dangerous", they better start paying or else. And if they can't, tough luck ... No, this means that when you get over 10 mil euro, then you have enough money to pay for third party solution to content filtering. This costs couple of thousands a month and you are covered. You don't need to create your own ContentID platform to comply with the law.

sharemywin 8y ago

Does the link tax only apply to the interenet? what about scientific papers? are you required to pay when you reference other material?

consp 8y ago
In the summary of the original draft I read it was exempt. Haven't read the amended version but I suspect it still is in there somewhere.

kulahan 8y ago

I'm so tired of the narrative that these highly-educated people vote on matters that they have no understanding of. They know exactly what they're voting for, and say whatever is necessary to convince everyone that they're working to protect their constituents. At least in the US, the vast majority of our politicians have graduated from prestigious law schools and passed the notoriously difficult BAR exam. Unless politicians on the other side of the pond are somehow primarily composed of MUCH dumber people, they're probably similarly intelligent. They know what they're voting for, and they pretend to be totally ignorant to the "scary new world" of tech so they get a free pass on voting in dumb shit laws like this.