3 ms·

Could someone clarify the impact of this legislation on decentralized platforms? It seems to me that all of the problems here stem from the fact that there's a

Could someone clarify the impact of this legislation on decentralized platforms? It seems to me that all of the problems here stem from the fact that there's a centralized entity that is profiting from the re-use of links. If you have a peer-to-peer protocol with no-one to "go after" so to speak, what happens then? On the face of it this legislation looks bad, but could it be seen as a good thing if it sows the seeds for decentralized platforms to outcompete centralized ones (because they have a competitive advantage due to lower cost)? The users themselves don't seem to be committing any crime by posting the links - it seems like the website, owned by a company or individual, ends up being chased after. So what if they don't exist?

barney54 8y ago
Are you saying “so what if Reddit does not exist?” Is that your argument?
jstanley 8y ago
I don't think it's "a good thing" that they're making it harder to run online services. I agree that the likely outcome is that decentralised systems get better, and I agree that that outcome would be a good thing. I still don't think the end justifies the means, and would rather see politicians just leave the internet alone: https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence
- esotericn 8y ago
  I agree. Perhaps I'm just jaded; it seems obvious to me that the political view on copyright is radically out of touch with constituents, and copyright law is morphing from something that's a bit weird, to probably OTT, to evil, and eventually into complete absurdity as a result. The entire system benefits a tiny number of elite players whilst the man on the street ignores copyright completely - unless their choice is restricted (e.g. DRM) they won't even think about violating it, it's "not a thing" to them. If I thought that the legal system accurately represented the desires of the population, centralized entities wouldn't be anywhere near as much of a problem. It blatantly obviously doesn't, though.
- criddell 8y ago
  We don't really know what the outcome will be yet. I think it's worth trying to see what happens and if it's bad, lets update the legislation and try again. I don't know a whole lot about it, but from what I have read so far it doesn't seem that bad. It doesn't help that it's Reddit complaining. It's hard to feel any sympathy for them.
- kodablah 8y ago
  > would rather see politicians just leave the internet alone Unfortunately this can't happen because too many can't take the bad with the good. As a global platform, those who prefer their governments take control will affect everyone, often killing liberty with thunderous applause. GDPR wasn't enough, people gave givernments a mandate, implicitly promoted anti-web news blitzes, and generally helped build an enemy out of the internet as a projection of disagreements with elections and society in general.
k__ 8y ago
On Wikipedia I read: "The proposal makes explicit that this does not include private cloud storage services, non-profit encyclopedias (such as Wikipedia), non-profit educational or scientific repositories, nor a variety of other cases." The directive says: "The definition of an online content sharing service provider under this Directive targets only online services which play an important role on the online content market by competing with other online content services, such as online audio and video streaming services, for the same audiences. The services covered by this intervention are those the main or one of the main purposes of which is to provide access to a large amount of copyright -protected content uploaded by their users with the purpose of obtaining profit therefrom, either directly or indirectly, by organising it and promoting it in order to attract more audiences. Organising and promoting content involves for example indexing the content, presenting it in a certain manner and categorising it, as well as using targeted promotion on it. The definition does not include services whose main purpose is not to provide access to copyright protected content with the purpose of obtaining profit from this activity. These include, for instance, electronic communication services within the meaning of Regulation 2015/2120/EU, including internet access providers, as well as providers of cloud services which allow users, to upload content for their own use, such as cyberlockers, or online marketplaces whose main activity is online retail and not giving access to copyright protected content. Nor does this definition cover websites which store and provide access to content for non-for-profit purposes, such as online encyclopaedias, scientific or educational repositories or open source software developing platforms which do not store and give access to content for profit making purposes. In order to ensure the high level of copyright protection and to avoid the possible application of the liability exemption mechanism provided for in this Directive, this Directive should not apply to services the main purpose of which is to engage in or to facilitate copyright piracy."
kauffj 8y ago
I'm the CEO of a company (LBRY) that deals directly with these issues. I'm approaching six figures in legal bills and have spent hundreds of hours on this issue. Here's the truth: no one knows. Not a single person. No one knows how even existing laws like the DMCA and CDA in the US apply to decentralized platforms. E.g. The DMCA and CDA both Utilize the term "service provider" - who is a service provider in a decentralized network? Under existing law, a service provider is supposed to at least be running a server. This doesn't cover the European issues, but here's a ten page memo on this topic prepared pro bono by Cardozo Law on how the CDA/DMCA apply to my company: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2oudj04lCTJOFZ5V1g5dG9tR2NrWGlYWU1ldVFpZ3EyZlNj/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2oudj04lCTJOFZ5V1g5dG9tR2N... It is substantially similar to memos I've spent far more money on.
- redsymbol 8y ago
  Thanks so much for publicly sharing this.
tcd 8y ago
I think they ought to tread very carefully and very lightly. Imagine if there was an internet where you can't just remove something. Sure, you can see the IP address of the people hosting/distributing the material, but there are numerous ways to disguise that. Suddenly, via P2P everyone becomes their own client _and_ server, and the _only_ way to remove content is to ensure everyone in the pool no longer has it. Good luck with that.
- danShumway 8y ago
  > Imagine if there was an internet where you can't just remove something. Isn't that exactly the point of distributed services? There's no difference between the horror scenario you're describing and the ideal that other people are striving for. If you removed your opening and closing sentence, I'd have no way to tell whether this was an advertisement or a criticism. Distributed services really are an area where one person's meat is another person's poison.
- esotericn 8y ago
  What of it? That's already how the world works (it's not limited to the Internet). Public information is public. Someone has already saved it.
buboard 8y ago
Decentralized will then be the target of the next regulation. They are too small to matter atm.

barney54 8y ago

Are you saying “so what if Reddit does not exist?” Is that your argument?

jstanley 8y ago

I don't think it's "a good thing" that they're making it harder to run online services. I agree that the likely outcome is that decentralised systems get better, and I agree that that outcome would be a good thing. I still don't think the end justifies the means, and would rather see politicians just leave the internet alone: https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence

esotericn 8y ago
I agree. Perhaps I'm just jaded; it seems obvious to me that the political view on copyright is radically out of touch with constituents, and copyright law is morphing from something that's a bit weird, to probably OTT, to evil, and eventually into complete absurdity as a result. The entire system benefits a tiny number of elite players whilst the man on the street ignores copyright completely - unless their choice is restricted (e.g. DRM) they won't even think about violating it, it's "not a thing" to them. If I thought that the legal system accurately represented the desires of the population, centralized entities wouldn't be anywhere near as much of a problem. It blatantly obviously doesn't, though.
criddell 8y ago
We don't really know what the outcome will be yet. I think it's worth trying to see what happens and if it's bad, lets update the legislation and try again. I don't know a whole lot about it, but from what I have read so far it doesn't seem that bad. It doesn't help that it's Reddit complaining. It's hard to feel any sympathy for them.
kodablah 8y ago
> would rather see politicians just leave the internet alone Unfortunately this can't happen because too many can't take the bad with the good. As a global platform, those who prefer their governments take control will affect everyone, often killing liberty with thunderous applause. GDPR wasn't enough, people gave givernments a mandate, implicitly promoted anti-web news blitzes, and generally helped build an enemy out of the internet as a projection of disagreements with elections and society in general.

k__ 8y ago

On Wikipedia I read: "The proposal makes explicit that this does not include private cloud storage services, non-profit encyclopedias (such as Wikipedia), non-profit educational or scientific repositories, nor a variety of other cases." The directive says: "The definition of an online content sharing service provider under this Directive targets only online services which play an important role on the online content market by competing with other online content services, such as online audio and video streaming services, for the same audiences. The services covered by this intervention are those the main or one of the main purposes of which is to provide access to a large amount of copyright -protected content uploaded by their users with the purpose of obtaining profit therefrom, either directly or indirectly, by organising it and promoting it in order to attract more audiences. Organising and promoting content involves for example indexing the content, presenting it in a certain manner and categorising it, as well as using targeted promotion on it. The definition does not include services whose main purpose is not to provide access to copyright protected content with the purpose of obtaining profit from this activity. These include, for instance, electronic communication services within the meaning of Regulation 2015/2120/EU, including internet access providers, as well as providers of cloud services which allow users, to upload content for their own use, such as cyberlockers, or online marketplaces whose main activity is online retail and not giving access to copyright protected content. Nor does this definition cover websites which store and provide access to content for non-for-profit purposes, such as online encyclopaedias, scientific or educational repositories or open source software developing platforms which do not store and give access to content for profit making purposes. In order to ensure the high level of copyright protection and to avoid the possible application of the liability exemption mechanism provided for in this Directive, this Directive should not apply to services the main purpose of which is to engage in or to facilitate copyright piracy."

kauffj 8y ago

I'm the CEO of a company (LBRY) that deals directly with these issues. I'm approaching six figures in legal bills and have spent hundreds of hours on this issue. Here's the truth: no one knows. Not a single person. No one knows how even existing laws like the DMCA and CDA in the US apply to decentralized platforms. E.g. The DMCA and CDA both Utilize the term "service provider" - who is a service provider in a decentralized network? Under existing law, a service provider is supposed to at least be running a server. This doesn't cover the European issues, but here's a ten page memo on this topic prepared pro bono by Cardozo Law on how the CDA/DMCA apply to my company: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2oudj04lCTJOFZ5V1g5dG9tR2NrWGlYWU1ldVFpZ3EyZlNj/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2oudj04lCTJOFZ5V1g5dG9tR2N... It is substantially similar to memos I've spent far more money on.

redsymbol 8y ago
Thanks so much for publicly sharing this.

tcd 8y ago

I think they ought to tread very carefully and very lightly. Imagine if there was an internet where you can't just remove something. Sure, you can see the IP address of the people hosting/distributing the material, but there are numerous ways to disguise that. Suddenly, via P2P everyone becomes their own client _and_ server, and the _only_ way to remove content is to ensure everyone in the pool no longer has it. Good luck with that.

danShumway 8y ago
> Imagine if there was an internet where you can't just remove something. Isn't that exactly the point of distributed services? There's no difference between the horror scenario you're describing and the ideal that other people are striving for. If you removed your opening and closing sentence, I'd have no way to tell whether this was an advertisement or a criticism. Distributed services really are an area where one person's meat is another person's poison.
esotericn 8y ago
What of it? That's already how the world works (it's not limited to the Internet). Public information is public. Someone has already saved it.

buboard 8y ago

Decentralized will then be the target of the next regulation. They are too small to matter atm.