4 ms·

>"internet platforms that organise and promote large amounts of copyright-protected works uploaded by their users in order to make a profit" HN does not organi

by ABCLAW 8y ago

>"internet platforms that organise and promote large amounts of copyright-protected works uploaded by their users in order to make a profit" HN does not organize large amounts of copyright-protected works, nor are the links to articles an 'upload'. If HN organized PDFs of the linked articles so you could just skip heading to a third party site then we'd be talking. 'meant' is not a dangerous word. All laws require interpretation, which is why most countries have specific interpretation guidelines for legislation and even then sometimes it takes a few cracks at the can to get it right. That's not something 'dangerous', although it can and does go wrong from time to time. But it's a standard risk of rulemaking as it's the standard process for courts interfacing with legislation or other rule-making texts.

kd5bjo 8y ago
Many of the comments on HN are substantive enough to be covered by copyright, and modern copyright law protects everything protectable whether there’s a copyright notice or not.
- ABCLAW 8y ago
  ...So what? Comment content is governable in the site ToS, where copyright assignment or other methods of defining the respective user/site rights can be dealt with. Even if it wasn't, your performance in posting implies consent to provide at the very least a limited license to publish content you posted. So where's the beef here?
  - kd5bjo 8y ago
    Only that, the comments section alone on HN is pretty straightforwardly “organis(ing) and promot(ing) [...] copyright-protected works uploaded by (its) users”, and so whether or not it falls under the scope of this section(1) hinges only on the regulators’ and courts’ opinions of what a “large amount” is. (1) In a hypothetical world where this law has unbounded jurisdiction
    - ABCLAW 8y ago
      Even if we take this doomsday hypo at face value (HN promotes comments? Really?), so what? What's the scary remedy for a copyright holder if they already provided a license to publish the published content? User posts don't make every forum into pornhub. Calm down.
      - kd5bjo 8y ago
        > What's the scary remedy for a copyright holder if they already provided a license to publish the published content? The core problem this law is trying to address is that website users are, en masse, contributing content to websites when they don’t have a license to do so. This behavior is against pretty much all websites’ terms of service. As there are many users with no money all putting illegitimate content onto a few websites with a lot of money, this law seeks to shift the burden of liability onto the websites. As a policy, it’s not completely unreasonable, but makes the mass content-farm websites like YouTube unfeasable. The lawmakers fear for their jobs if YouTube shuts down because of their new law, so they carve out a bunch of exceptions to let key sectors of the internet continue operating (with some work to comply). The broadest of these, implementing automated content filters, is expensive and unreliable. Operators of smaller websites, such as a typical Internet forum, have their own exception. The problem is that the boundaries here are vague and (potentially) poorly drawn, leaving sites like HN (if it were in EU jurisdiction) with a bad set of options: * Hope nobody notices * Accept the liability and vigorously police the site manually, probably buying insurance against a judgment * Rely on judges allowing them the small-volume or non-profit-seeking exemptions * Implement content filters that are expensive and a terrible user experience
        ABCLAW 8y ago
        "As a policy, it’s not completely unreasonable, but makes the mass content-farm websites like YouTube unfeasable." ...? Where are you getting this? Have you read the current copy of the draft proposal? I did. None of the restrictions are going to kill sites like Youtube (let alone HN). The proportionality element alone makes the 'we need to invest 200% of our revenue into content blocking' myth absurd. Will some margin need to be shunted into mitigating unauthorized distribution of works that profit the platform? Yes. But that's already the law. It's literally unjust enrichment 101.
  - toast0 8y ago
    Comments are copyrighted works uploaded by the users of HN. HN organizes and promotes comments. There are certainly a large amount of these comments. Profit motive of HN is uncertain, but it may receive payment for jobs ads? And it certainly operates as part of a for-profit organization.
  - diffeomorphism 8y ago
    > Comment content is governable in the site ToS, Which is probably non-binding or invalid in most non-US jurisdictions and does not address the problem. > Even if it wasn't, your performance in posting implies consent to provide at the very least a limited license to publish content you posted. That is like claiming a random user uploading Star Wars movies on youtube is no problem because that user gave them a limited license. That "license" is obviously invalid and Disney can claim copyright infringement. The proposed law now discusses whether "random user" or youtube or both are liable for this.

by ABCLAW 8y ago

kd5bjo 8y ago

Many of the comments on HN are substantive enough to be covered by copyright, and modern copyright law protects everything protectable whether there’s a copyright notice or not.

ABCLAW 8y ago
...So what? Comment content is governable in the site ToS, where copyright assignment or other methods of defining the respective user/site rights can be dealt with. Even if it wasn't, your performance in posting implies consent to provide at the very least a limited license to publish content you posted. So where's the beef here?
- kd5bjo 8y ago
  Only that, the comments section alone on HN is pretty straightforwardly “organis(ing) and promot(ing) [...] copyright-protected works uploaded by (its) users”, and so whether or not it falls under the scope of this section(1) hinges only on the regulators’ and courts’ opinions of what a “large amount” is. (1) In a hypothetical world where this law has unbounded jurisdiction
  - ABCLAW 8y ago
    Even if we take this doomsday hypo at face value (HN promotes comments? Really?), so what? What's the scary remedy for a copyright holder if they already provided a license to publish the published content? User posts don't make every forum into pornhub. Calm down.
    - kd5bjo 8y ago
      > What's the scary remedy for a copyright holder if they already provided a license to publish the published content? The core problem this law is trying to address is that website users are, en masse, contributing content to websites when they don’t have a license to do so. This behavior is against pretty much all websites’ terms of service. As there are many users with no money all putting illegitimate content onto a few websites with a lot of money, this law seeks to shift the burden of liability onto the websites. As a policy, it’s not completely unreasonable, but makes the mass content-farm websites like YouTube unfeasable. The lawmakers fear for their jobs if YouTube shuts down because of their new law, so they carve out a bunch of exceptions to let key sectors of the internet continue operating (with some work to comply). The broadest of these, implementing automated content filters, is expensive and unreliable. Operators of smaller websites, such as a typical Internet forum, have their own exception. The problem is that the boundaries here are vague and (potentially) poorly drawn, leaving sites like HN (if it were in EU jurisdiction) with a bad set of options: * Hope nobody notices * Accept the liability and vigorously police the site manually, probably buying insurance against a judgment * Rely on judges allowing them the small-volume or non-profit-seeking exemptions * Implement content filters that are expensive and a terrible user experience
      - ABCLAW 8y ago
        "As a policy, it’s not completely unreasonable, but makes the mass content-farm websites like YouTube unfeasable." ...? Where are you getting this? Have you read the current copy of the draft proposal? I did. None of the restrictions are going to kill sites like Youtube (let alone HN). The proportionality element alone makes the 'we need to invest 200% of our revenue into content blocking' myth absurd. Will some margin need to be shunted into mitigating unauthorized distribution of works that profit the platform? Yes. But that's already the law. It's literally unjust enrichment 101.
- toast0 8y ago
  Comments are copyrighted works uploaded by the users of HN. HN organizes and promotes comments. There are certainly a large amount of these comments. Profit motive of HN is uncertain, but it may receive payment for jobs ads? And it certainly operates as part of a for-profit organization.
- diffeomorphism 8y ago
  > Comment content is governable in the site ToS, Which is probably non-binding or invalid in most non-US jurisdictions and does not address the problem. > Even if it wasn't, your performance in posting implies consent to provide at the very least a limited license to publish content you posted. That is like claiming a random user uploading Star Wars movies on youtube is no problem because that user gave them a limited license. That "license" is obviously invalid and Disney can claim copyright infringement. The proposed law now discusses whether "random user" or youtube or both are liable for this.